I guarantee you that every "violent" verse is take

Post Reply New Topic

what's your point? why is everything an islamicist extremist notion where muslims are extremists who live in caves. i'm simply defending islam from verbal attacks, and you should learn to be polite when debating with others, insults can get you reported. geez, talk about brainwashed. get the image out of your mind, not every muslim is exactly like the extremists you see on the news, have you ever actually got to know muslims, or is your perception based solely on the tvs propaganda.

If the WTC attack on 911 were the only one, you'd have a point.

You have to give him some credit. At least he doesn't deny they were Muslims.

Should we get into Islamic charities' activities? How about he various royal families and tycoons of the middle east? How many Muslims have joined jihadist causes, and how many people aided them in their involvement, families, "charities", and royal families alike?

There's plenty of other possible reasons for this. For example:

1. Media bias. Someone would have to be screaming Bible verses while strangling babies or something to be a "Christian terrorist" instead of just someone who happened to be Christian, while the media blames Islam for anybody with an Arabic name looking at someone funny.

2. We clearly do have to concede that most countries with a Muslim majority are pretty backwards at this time, whether this is an accurate representation of Islam is a whole other matter, but if you leave that aside, it could easily be leftovers of other cultures that are influencing people toward violence.

3. No one's going to stop being human no matter what they're taught or what they decide, and I'm pretty sure every religion or philosophy is easier to make excuses for going against it in different ways, that doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue.

not every militant Islamic cause is "terrorism". targeting innocent women and children is terroism. targeting a tyrrannical dictatorship is freedom and revolution i.e. those fighting against the dictator in syria. learn to differentiate. if that's terrorism, then the revolutionists were triple the terrorists. why must every muslim be called a terrorist just because he holds a gun, if terrorism means anybody who uses a weapon to fight, despite the cause, then every revolutionist, freedom fighter, and veteran is a terrorist. after all, terrorism is the act of fighting, regardless of the cause. right???

a muslim who targets innocent civilians=terrorist
a muslim freedom fighter fighting for his land or fighting against a dictator=freedom fighter and hero

Why do you expect the Muslims to remain as docile lambs who must remain silent and calm when their lands are literally being bombed to pieces? this is hypocrisy on your part. freedom to bear arms in self defense is a right every human being is guaranteed. beforee you give me an ignorant reply, ask yourself: if you were in the oppressed muslim countries being occupied, what would you do? if you have a solution, please share. if you want to know the true terrorists, then here, ill name them to you.

bashar al assad
ghaddafi
hosni mubarak
bashar's father, hafez al assad.

and the list goes on. there are terrorists in the middle east, but not every muslim with a weapon is automatically a terrorist. a muslim who goes into stores shooting civilians is a terrorist. but on the news very muslim who fights is called a terrorist. if a muslim is being attacked and he fights, he's called a terrorist. the people who did 9/11 are without a doubt terrorists. why? because they attacked innocent people. but are the freedom fighters fighting against the terrorist dictator bashar terrorists? no, because they're not fighting innocent people, they're fighting people who literally bomb babies (bashar just months ago INTENTIONALLY dropped a bomb on a house full of babies, look it up), people who turn hosapitals into torture centers, people who aim at innocent protestors. these are the true terrorists. i condemn all terrorism. im not a hypocrite who condemns only one terrorism, i condemn all terrorism. terrorism isnt a people killing innocent people, ANYONE who kills innocent people is a terrorist. why dont i hear people call bashar and hosni terrorists?? ghaddafi anybody?

It should be of note that I view every religion in a fair and unbiased manner (I do not view Islam as being "of the Devil," nor do I view Christianity as being all rainbows and fluffy kittens). The Ayat al-Sayf (Verse of the Sword) states:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty."

Of course, this is a hotly contested verse. Critics of Islam claim it is a call-to-arms to slay anyone who isn't a Muslim on the basis that they are unbelievers and as such, must be cleansed from the face of earth. Islamic scholars claim that the verse is meant to encourage Muslim warriors to have no inhibitions when it comes to slaying enemy combatants. Furthermore, the verse is referencing the Mushriks (pagans) living in Makkah, who broke a peace treaty with the Muslims. The pagans were given an ultimatum; make amends for breaking the treaty or prepare for war.
It is true that many fundamentalists have expanded the definition of "pagan" to include anyone who doesn't practice Islam (and even those Muslims who aren't "fundamental enough" to suit the radicals).

Saying that Islam has never supported the slaying of others is akin to claiming that Christianity never advocated the slaying of witches (not suffering a witch to live - Exodus 22:18 ). The simple fact is that the major global religions became predominant by the use of force.

I have never met a terrorist (to my knowledge),but I am not going to judge a whole group of people on the actions of some.
That's like saying all the mentally ill are dangerous,anyone ethnic is a gangbanger,etc...
Fundamentalists of any religion are the real trouble makers.

'Fundamentalists of any religion are troublemakers,' agreed wholeheatedly. However, the texts of some religions make those fundamentalists more dangerous than others. Fundamentalist Jains wear veils to avoid inhaling insects and only walk on stone to avoid crushing grass, and at their most extreme they starve themselves to death to avoid causing death to grains by eating them. Fundamentalist mormons have multiple wives, tend to not educate their girl children and to eject many of their sons from the group on the flimsiest of pretexts in order to maintain plenty of barely-pubescent virgin girls to marry off to the old men - but they also tend to live in rural compounds and to leave others alone (that might change if they somehow gained political power, but they're not inclined to use violence to do so). Fundamentalist Jews spit on women and murder political leaders, and are violent towards other groups in the specific context of their 'holy land' but pretty much nowhere else.

So, yeah. All fundamentalists are troublesome, but not all are equally so.

.^^^^Agreed,anytime people take their religion too seriously there's trouble.Live and let live.

In an idealistic world where there are no tyrants and oppressors, where people aren't evil and strive to eliminate good, then peace is required and preferred. Sadly such a world is an illusion, and if Muslims didn't use the sword they would have been wiped off the map. The Muslims even after immigrating to Madinah were targeted by Quraysh in Makkah, that is the level of staunch antagonism the Non Muslims have had towards Islam. Islam started out peaceful. And do you know how that turned out?? Ask Bilal ibn Rabah, the slave who was literally dragged across the street and wipped to near death only for saying "God is one". or how about you ask Sumaya, the old woman who was tied and stretched out for weeks in the desert and then stabbed only because she didn't worship idols. Why not you ask them how being peaceful worked out. It didn't. In a world where the truth will be targeted by those who want to extinguish it at all costs, being peaceful is fools play. Every incident where the Muslims resorted to violence, it was after peace failed. The Prophet was the target of many assassination attempts by the Jews in Madinah. Only after they broke their treaties and tried to assassinate him did he resort to disciplining them. The penalty for treason in most countries is death, and they broke numerous treaties, not one, many treaties. They were never afraid to show hostility towards the Muslims, if you were the leader of nation and there was a hostile nation who displayed numerous acts of aggression against your nation, what would you do? You need to realize being nice won't work on everybody. You can't be naive and say "turn the other cheek" with everybody.

Today, no. But if we look at history the comparison becomes more fuzzy. Look at the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Christian Reformation, which swept through Europe (in some cases one woman left alive in a village after a witch hunt). Islam is a younger religion than Christianity by about 600 years. When Christianity was the age Islam is now, there was a lot of Christian-backed killing going on.

It's not just religious violence either that I wonder about. I wonder why there are so many serial killers in the US, (most of them not Muslim, though that's irrelevant). Do we breed more serial killers? I sometimes wonder.

Humans can be violent at times, for questionable reasons. That much is true, pretty much across the board.

this

Yup. Do you remember the case of Beit Shemesh (just outside Jerusalem), where violent Jewish fundamentalist scumbags attacked and spat on young girls, ripped up posters with women on them and generally acted like a massive nuisance? They had their arses handed to them by the local people, who accused some of them of acting like paedophiles. Beit Shemesh is also where the ultra-ultra-ultra-Orthodox niqab cult is from too.

Jewish fundamentalists I believe are a nuisance in Israel, but are generally less of a direct threat than in other Arab countries and, of course, aren't as violent.



I agree. Some fundamentalist whackos are just nutters but can generally be safely ignored. In Britain, most Christian nutjobs fall into this category.

Would you not worry, though, if a sizeable minority of a particular religion actually supported or sympathised with the terrorists and not with the forces of law and order? That's the situation in the UK.

^^^^^^I'm more worried about Tweakers with pipe bombs where I live.
But it's true I have no idea about what is happening in the U.K.