Islam - the religion of peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

It's a film well worth watching...

---

I'm a little embarrassed you went out an viewed the movie - I probably wouldn't give it a high recommendation to anyone who wasn't really interested in learning more about George. So I'm also relieved that it wasn't a bust and you enjoyed the experience and count it as worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odelay

It doesn't read to me that J. Sacco is taking credit of the cartoon. He seems to be posting it, and most likely on behalf of Crumb. I too saw Crumb the documentary years ago. Quite interesting and funny.

---

Perhaps you're right, but the cartoon seems to be signed vertically on the lower right hand side by J. Sacco. Possibiities: Pseudonym, or posting on behalf of Crumb, or someone influenced by Crumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

...He's a genius in what he does...but in watching this I realize, in combination with some experience with mental illness in my own family, what a tenuous grasp we sometimes have in keeping enough of just the right mental balance to be able to exist in society...or the 'outside world'...

---

(I'm sorry to hear you have dealt with mental illness in your own family.)
So it is I think with religious belief (and perhaps other ideologies): the balance between reality and devotion to sacredly held beliefs can be a difficult one to maintain. Surely the fundamentalist murderers that unleashed their madness in Paris last weekend lost that balance.

lmao...you guys gotta stop with cartoon mystery...It's titled "On Satire" by Joe Sacco...he draws himself in most of the panels...(It doesn't look at all like Robert Crumb except they both wear glasses)...the inking style is different...and last, but not least, Joe Sacco is established in his own right...(not that I knew that...I looked it up...duh...lol).

here's R. Crumb's cartoon:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/animation...akshi-20150109

EEK! That's some ass! Thanks for research, Fred.

Yeah , thanks for the research Fred.
Looks like I struck a resonant chord with my casual reference to R. Crumb.
Guess we need a R. Crumb thread.
Joe Sacco is certainly venerable cartoonist and journalist in his own right. The style just reminded me of the whole alternative comix movement from the 60's through the 80's and continuing, of which he is a part.

Muslim Man Saw Potential Hostages In Jewish Shop And Did This:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmcCTRCV_0

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plankton

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.

---

People like yourself make it very hard for others to offer any sort of constructive criticism about extremism within Islam. It's not just the strident language but also the failure to note any variety in the practices of the religion.

But just saying that the Muslim religion should be eradicated...it's entirely unhelpful, I can guarantee it's upsetting to any moderate Muslim who would read the comment, and it makes those of us who really do want to point out some of the dangers of extremism in Islam feel tainted by our association to your comments (this last one is a selfish motive).

BTW I am also concerned about capital punishment in Muslim countries. In my recollection not all of them punish homosexual acts this way...I haven't done a survey but I think there are one or two where it's not criminalized but it's obviously an important issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plankton

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. ...

---

You don't have to read much of this forum to discern I'm not a big fan of religion. Personally, I would rather live in a world without religion. But the suggestion that religion should be "eradicated" and more specifically that "The Muslim religion should be eradicated" is abhorrent and stupid (there are 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the surface of Earth––23% of the world’s population). Should we engage religionists intellectually? Yes. Should we engage religionists morally? Yes. Confront them with satire? Yes. As we should be engaged and confronted by them? As an atheist (intellectually) and a Christian (by upbringing) I am embarrassed, ashamed and offended by calls of violence against billions people who, like us, are simply trying to figure out our human place in this awesome universe.

Did you know one of the police officers killed in Paris was a Muslim?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-ahmed-merabet

Did you know a brave Muslim man at the Kosher market saved thirteen Jewish shoppers by hiding them from the terrorists?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...stay-warm.html

Mustafa Akyol's latest opinion piece: Islam's Problem with Blasphemy->

http://nyti.ms/1C4x6jn

Here's a line from the article

Before all that politically motivated expansion and toughening of Shariah, though, the Quran told early Muslims, who routinely faced the mockery of their faith by pagans: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.

Hundreds of copies of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo 'survivors' magazine are expected to be brought to the UK when it is published on Wednesday despite claims by radical preacher Anjem Choudary it is "an act of war".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ct-of-war.html

An act of war? what a wonderful religion of peace.

1. All is forgiven
2. "where are the 70 virgins? they are with the killed journalists
3. terrorists : a 25 seconds job - a job for lazy persons.

Women in Charlie Hebdo Demonstration Whisked Mysteriously Away. Has Angela Merkle Been Abducted By Aliens?

No, life on Earth is even stranger than you think.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ie-hebdo-rally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plankton

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.

---

There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. It is unfortunate that a very small minority of them shape the image for those 1.6 billion people. The most visible extremists cannot even make up 1% of the entire population of Muslims, that would be over 1.6 million people.

By the way, there is no such thing as the "Muslim religion".

I do have to say - I tend to agree with this article though: http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/hate-is-still-speech/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I do have to say - I tend to agree with this article though: http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/hate-is-still-speech/

---

I agree. While I think on the hierarchy of things that are offensive to reasonable people, racial vilification should be above blasphemy, neither should be criminal. Such laws make the people who tend to violate them feel their views are suppressed because they're right rather than because they have said things that are indecent and threatening to minorities.

The punishments don't act as a deterrent and the serial violators of these laws end up feeling empowered by the court judgments against them that are at most a nuisance (if the punishments were more severe they would be out of proportion to the offense committed). In the end the laws accomplish nothing and violate the spirit of free discourse even though they attempt to only censor the most vulgar and least valuable form of it.

That includes Holocaust denial which is illegal in several countries. While I understand why these laws may have seemed useful a short time after the Holocaust, and that they tend to only ensnare rank bigots, I think they should be repealed.

I did not know: "But under French law, insulting people based on their religion is a crime punishable by a fine of 22,500 euros and six months in jail" which is reported in Fred's link above. As the article speculates, this should certainly have a chilling effect on free speech in France and although it doesn't justify the murder of offenders, it does endorse the idea that people have a right not to be offended by speech––which is anathema to the concept of free speech as we understand it here in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I did not know: "But under French law, insulting people based on their religion is a crime punishable by a fine of 22,500 euros and six months in jail" which is reported in Fred's link above.

---

I completely agree that it would chill free speech. I wonder how this has been interpreted. I suppose that insulting a person based on their religion, is not the same thing as saying things about that religion that an adherent would find insulting. For instance, maybe you could insult Judaism or Islam (both the doctrine and the practices), but not insult the Jew or Muslim for practicing Judaism or Islam. When you have to make these micro-distinctions in real time, it chills speech.

I wondered exactly the same thing; the distinction just seems to fine to applicable.

France Arrests a Comedian For His Facebook Comments, Showing the Sham of the West’s “Free Speech” Celebration:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...book-comments/

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

What is also interesting is that Greenwald is excoriating the people who engaged in free speech rallies when ostensibly he should be condemning the French government for arresting Dieudonne. No doubt he is condemning the arrest of Dieudonne but in the context of arguing that the free speech arguments in favor of Charlie Hebdo are a sham.

The position he should be taking is that hate speech laws should be abolished and that nobody should be threatened for speech (by private citizens or the government) no matter how despicable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

---

I think we kind of agree -- :)
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

I think we kind of agree -- :)
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???

---

Left wing I think when it comes to the use of the national security apparatus and civil rights. I don't know that Greenwald is left-wing on other issues such as income inequality, social programs, immigration policy etc.

What I don't think he emphasizes is that many people who participated in the Free Speech rally would not, if given the choice, personally favor hate speech laws. He can't seem to figure out whether he wants to insult the people who support the rights of Charlie Hebdo as bigots, or to support broader free speech protections (ie. consistency in their position).

And he says without any support at all that if Dieudonne were murdered merely for causing offense, that nobody would stand up for his right to say horrendous things openly? What does he base that on? He does not know (but asserts nonetheless) that people were supporting the content of the cartoons rather than the right of the cartoonists to to publish them without threat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

I think we kind of agree -- :)

---

I bet we do agree. I think he has a knack for saying things that are mostly correct in an unappealing way.

Here's what I agree with him on: It is somewhat anathema to free speech to make any distinctions among types of speech...it's one of the reasons in this country regulations of speech are scrutinized more closely if they are not "content-neutral". The government should not be in the business of deciding what is true or not or what is more abhorrent or offensive than something else.

Here's what I disagree with him on: that the people who re-published Charlie Hebdo cartoons were MOSTLY hypocrites who only rallied in support of the murdered cartoonists because of an anti-muslim agenda. I bet you the murdered cartoonists themselves would have been the first to advocate for the abandonment of France's hate speech laws.

I wish there was a way to have a fairy tale ending or at least a way to peacefully co- exist like they do in the movies also. But unfortunately I live in the real word . And life is not a movie with a some Miraculous solution that solves everything. But i do realize that like some movies some cultures/ religion ect are good and some suck. The southern slave culture for instance was bad and sucked. Anything that forces other beings to behave or think in a certain way or face punishment when they don't and they are doing them no harm cannot be defended if one has any sense of humanity or peaceful intentions. But hey it's your choice what to believe. For now anyway.

No, there is no fairy tale ending where we all live together peacefully and happily ever after. Not even 246 Republicans can be expected to get along with each other and play nice. I have no expectation that we will ever live in a world without terrorism, violent crime, or even large scale, economy-collapsing, Wall Street banking scams. Quite obviously the world would be better off without terrorists, violent criminals and white collar con-artists. Con-artists are a problem–not bankers and stock brokers. Violent criminals are a problem–not African/Americans. Terrorists are a problem–not Buddhists ( http://www.internationalpolicydigest...dhism-myanmar/ ), nor Muslims, nor Christians ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html ), nor Jews, Hindi, Rastafarians nor any other religion. There’s a saying about a baby and bath water that seems to apply here.

Only someone living in a Grimm nightmare, not the real world, would suggest we eradicate an entire religion to which 23% of the world’s population subscribes. The way toward making the world a happier place is to listen to one another's stories with empathy and patience, argument and gentle persuasion. In this way we modify each other and diminish intransigence. There is a role for government too: it’s not to wage eternal war on opposing world-views, but rather 1) domestically- to legislate fair, even-handed laws and regulations, enforce them without malice, and 2) internationally- to maintain diplomatic channels, encourage communication, travel, trade and cultural exchange.

France Assaults Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuumQ4VVcKY

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plankton

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.

---

Yes, people who have been exploited, disrupted, invaded and provoked tend to react badly––relatively speaking. We live in a grim world; but only someone living in a Grimm fairy tale world would suggest we could and should eradicate 1.6 billion people. Wake up! You're dreaming!!

Religion of peace? Okay.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.



Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."



Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.



Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"



Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).



Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

(eye for eye the whole world would be blind - ghandi was onto something)

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"



Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.



Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."



Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."



Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."



Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."



Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."



Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."



Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.



Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.



Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.



Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"



Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.



Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).


Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.



Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."


Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?



Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."



Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).



Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)



Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"



Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.



Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.



Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.



Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"



Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.



Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16.



Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.



Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.



Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

On point with peace wouldn't you say?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/qu...3-violence.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Autho...en_reasons.htm

Religion is a weapon. "Radical" Murderous Christians and Muslims are simply following the true teachings of their weaponized literature.

I can't quite get a grip on you crazy Christians.
Shouldn't you be forgiving them, or something?

put together on the situation we are facing worldwide.

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy!!!!

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=yosi;1579107]

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
-Tell that to the Tamils of Sri Lanka-does anyone know how many Hindus were murdered by Buddhists in Sri Lanka during their civil war? And wasn't the first wave of suicide bombings after Japan's Kamikaze pilots of the Second World War perpetrated by Tamil Tiger recruits?

Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
-except in India, where Christians have been the targets of militant Hindu violence, as documented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ch...lence_in_India
or here
http://www.wrmea.org/1999-march/hind...hristians.html

Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
-Perhaps you are not aware that it was the Shinto version of Buddhism that was the 'state religion' when Japan decided to create an Asian Empire, one consequence of which in the 20th century was the invasion of China which resulted in the numerous massacres of Confucian Chinese which still has ramifications today in the complaint by the Chinese that the Japanese refuse to accept the events that happened in Nanking between 1937-38.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...nalism_1.shtml
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...state-religion

Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
-"Perhaps the most telling passage in Shlomo Sand’s new book – “How I Stopped Being a Jew” comes about halfway through, when he mentions the famous meeting in 1952 between Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (known by his followers as the Hazon Ish), at the time one of the most influential ultra-Orthodox rabbis. According to one version of what happened at that meeting, Rabbi Karelitz lectured Ben-Gurion that, in collisions between religion and state, the rabbis must prevail. To back this up, he cited the talmudic case of two carts blocking each other on a narrow road. The ruling is that the empty cart must give way to the full one. The inferred analogy – that secular Jews are the empty cart, devoid of heritage and learning, while only the Orthodox have any authentic Jewish culture, has been an enduring insult ever since to many Israelis".
quoted from this article:
http://www.haaretz.com/life/books/.premium-1.626312

Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
-As with the siege and massacre at the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984, the movement for an independent 'Kalistan', the assassination of Indira Gandhi later that year?


And so on, and so forth.
No mention of the concentration camps set up by the British military in South Africa during the 'Boer War'- Christians against Christians;
no mention of the revolting violence carried out by the US military in the Philippines in 1901 -Christians against Christians,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kiIVsl8DBC...verTen.png.jpg


And all this before one even counts the Arabs murdered by the British, the French and the Americans since 1914...

probably best not to cut and paste from a website congenial to your political taste, but to do your own research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdaBlackXXX

Religion of peace? Okay.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

On point with peace wouldn't you say?

Religion is a weapon. "Radical" Murderous Christians and Muslims are simply following the true teachings of their weaponized literature.

---

Your impressive scholarship in Islam nevertheless left out these excerpts from the Quran:

"..I ask you only to love your kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. Allah is forgiving and bountiful in his rewards"-42:23.

"That which you have been given is but the fleeting comfort of this life. Better and more enduring is Allah's reward to those who believe and put their trust in him; who avoid gross sins and indecencies and, when angered, are willing to forgive; who obey their Lord, attend to their prayers, and conduct their affairs by mutual consent; who bestow in alms a part of that which we have given them and, when oppressed, seek to redress their wrongs".-42:36

"If two parties of believers take up arms the one against the other, make peace between them. If either of them commits aggression against the other, fight against the aggressors until they submit to Allah's judgement. When they submit make peace between them in equity and justice; Allah loves those who act in justice" -49:9.

I am not sure the scripture is as important as the interpretation. Leviticus also says many things that could be used to justify violence. Yet I think as an empirical claim extremist Muslims have committed the large majority of the religious motivated attacks in the west, far from zones of conflict (and in countries with stable political systems).

Yesterday there was an attack on a free speech discussion, killing one man. The gunman then went to a synagogue and killed the guard in front of the synagogue who was guarding it while there was a Bar Mitzvah going on inside. This seems to be a repeating pattern where Muslim extremists are targeting cartoonists and their supporters for blasphemy and then Jews. While unhinged, the motive behind the attacks on the cartoonists appears to be revenge. The motive for attacks against Jewish people seems to be bigotry.

We often hear that the attacks are motivated by the actions of Israel, yet I have never in my life heard a person suggest an attack on Muslims could be motivated by the actions of any other group of Muslims (at least not in polite society). The attacks themselves, if they persist, will eventually drive Jews out of Europe to Israel, which is what many anti-Zionists claim they do not want since they argue they oppose Israel but have no problem with Jews.

I am not at all suggesting that Muslims are at the root of all political problems between Muslim majority states and the West. There are many factors other than religion to consider. But this particular brand of Islam, where blasphemy is used as justification for murder, and where anti-semitism and hatred of the other (along with homophobia and rampant misogyny) are prominent, is a major problem.

It was once said of the terror during the French Revolution -ten men can make ten thousand tremble. The IRA and its dissenting successor, the Provisional IRA were small micro-armies that nevertheless succeeded in hobbling the British state for the best part of 30 years, tying down its armed forces in a small province, fundamentally altering the security profile of the rest of the UK, mounting two nearly successful attempts to blow up the British government; assassinating, bombing and murdering more people across the UK than any Muslim terrorist has achieved so far. In the background of this conflict lay the sectarian education system of Northern Ireland, a product of the division of Ireland that followed the treaty in 1921 in which the Roman Catholic Church insisted on maintaining its right to separate education, one that was endorsed by the Protestants in the North. One side grew up believing the other to be godless atheists in league with the devil while the other saw a community in thrall to men in fancy dress who placed the authority of the Pope ahead of the British monarch. Probably both sides believed the others had tails and swallowed hot coals at Christmas. Yet the conflict was never presented as a Christian conflict because the political objectives were so clear -a United Ireland, on the one hand; the preservation of Ulster on the other hand. The same kind of political objectives which see militants condemn the failed states of the Middle East -as seen by militants whose own version of the state is just as tyrannical- are wrapped up in a distorted version of Islam which most Muslims do not recognise, but which has its origins in the one-dimensional version concocted by Abdul Wahab in the Nejd in the 18th century and which has been promoted by Saudi Arabia through its funding of madrasas across the world. Jews are a soft target in Europe, an example of just how weak the militants are, but also a denial of the relationship between Judaism and Islam -the two religions share almost identical dietary rules- just as the attempt, relatively successful- by the Saudi government to erase all trace of the Jewish and Christian, and indeed, Pagan communities of Arabia implies a need to pretend that these communities never existed, just as there is a proposal in Saudi Arabia to demolish Muhammad's tomb in Medina, disinter his body from the grave and re-inter it in an unmarked grave somewhere outside the city. The political problems in the Middle East are not going to be resolved in the near future, though IS is suffering from strategic over-reach even as it tries to expand its presence in other countries.

As is evident from Yosi's cut and paste nonsense, this will fuel the same kind of hatred of Muslims that afflicted, and continues to afflict the Jews in Europe, as the only difference separating Yosi's historically inaccurate and offensive list from Nazi propaganda is a theory of race. Just today, the Independent reports the organisation of an anti-Jewish rally in one of the most (Orthodox) Jewish parts of London -not by extreme Muslims, but an old-fashioned, if 22-year old British Nazi.
Other than a theory of race, I can't see the difference between the demonisation of Islam by Yosi and the Nazi demonisation of the Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10047746.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Other than a theory of race, I can't see the difference between the demonisation of Islam by Yosi and the Nazi demonisation of the Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10047746.html

---

Yes, I didn't like Yosi's post as it attempts to blame all the world's problems on Muslims. The fact that there have been a number of "let's eradicate the Muslims" type posts prior to that makes your point well. I'm not oblivious to that.

I had already read about the neo-nazi rally in Britain; something about a rally to dejewify London (perhaps fewer bagel stores). But facts are facts; when a synagogue is vandalized or attacked and Jewish graveyards are desecrated, the most likely suspects are in this particular order:
1. Muslim extremists
2. Neo-Nazis

*This is an empirical claim. If I'm wrong and I saw any evidence that most of these attacks are carried out by neo-nazis, I would be more concerned about them.

If a mosque is attacked in France or Muslims are attacked in the United States, I don't think Jewish people would be very high on the list of suspects. I could be wrong. Everybody likes to pretend that there is parity...God knows that in the West Bank the Jewish settlers are horrible to Palestinians and I don't doubt that some Jewish people are Islamophobic. But there is a pattern of animosity in countries that are not in politically contentious zones, where Jews are primarily attacked by angry Muslim youths. That's happening. A Swedish journalist recently did a Kippah walk to live a day in the life of a Jew in Malmo and nearly got his ass kicked three times.

But I am perfectly happy to oppose anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Your impressive scholarship in Islam nevertheless left out these excerpts from the Quran:

"..I ask you only to love your kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. Allah is forgiving and bountiful in his rewards"-42:23.

"That which you have been given is but the fleeting comfort of this life. Better and more enduring is Allah's reward to those who believe and put their trust in him; who avoid gross sins and indecencies and, when angered, are willing to forgive; who obey their Lord, attend to their prayers, and conduct their affairs by mutual consent; who bestow in alms a part of that which we have given them and, when oppressed, seek to redress their wrongs".-42:36

"If two parties of believers take up arms the one against the other, make peace between them. If either of them commits aggression against the other, fight against the aggressors until they submit to Allah's judgement. When they submit make peace between them in equity and justice; Allah loves those who act in justice" -49:9.

---

One thing I want to mention about reading conflicting Koran passages, when it comes to violence, it's important to note that the Chapter numbers are not in chronological order. Chapter 10 was not necessarily written just after Chapter 9 and just before Chapter 11.

The order of chapters are arranged roughly from the longest to the shortest. So, it makes it difficult to tell what the final ruling on any particular subject is.

If one wants to read the Koran oneself, one should get a looseleaf version of it and rearrange it in chronological order. Be careful though, that is probably some type of insult to the book, etc. punishable by lashes, amputations or death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It was once said of the terror during the French Revolution -ten men can make ten thousand tremble. The IRA and its dissenting successor, the Provisional IRA were small micro-armies that nevertheless succeeded in hobbling the British state for the best part of 30 years...

---

I think a subset of Afrikaaners during the Boer War(s) might also fit this definition, though I in no way claim to be very knowledgeable about the combatants of that war.

I do sit amazed by the success of the people behind the IS. They seem to be hated by every modern Middle Eastern state that surrounds them, and yet they thrive. These are big states with advanced militaries.

I'm trying to piece together what an analogous situation would look like in North America. Hypothetically, let's say Canada, USA and Mexico all shared a border, all being nominally Christian, albeit with a Catholic flavor in Mexico, a Northern European protestant flavor in Canada, and an Evangelical Christian bent here in the USA. Now imagine a splitoff faction of militarized zealots who reject all 3 "normal" flavors of Christianity, brutally overtakes an overlapping area of all 3 countries and not only survives but steadily increases their territory as the 3 large states flounder around helplessly, engaging them in battle sometimes but not really having any real effect to destroy this new menace.

It seems preposterous. It doesn't seem like CanMexUSA would need any International outside help to squash such a movement like a bug.

That's why despite my more militaristic side thinking the World should get together and wipe these radicals out, I can't help to side with those who believe this is a native problem for the surrounding Arab/Muslim states to resolve.