Everyone blaming Islam

Again you are completely misinterpreting it. "Because they opposed Allah and his messenger" was because they actively wanted to destroy Islam through persecution of the Muslims.

i suppose you are missing the fact thees a difference between 'muslims' and 'islam' - we can comment how theres a problem witht he rise of islamic fundamentalism without blaming all muslims. i know plenty of muslims who are intelligent and decent people - they dont dont spout islamic doctrine at anyone else, dont support IS ( dont even beleive in the validity of caliphate) and certianaly are against islamists

Islam is the religion and the people who follow it are muslims, thats it. Of course, you can highlight that there is an interpretation of Islam that is dangerous out there. However, this is not the way most of your (this general thread) comments are presented. We are now seeing this kind of judgement to be less and less popular and the criticism of Islam on a whole is becoming growing. If people were able to understand that faith is very subjective and there are some muslims are distorting the faith to justify their psychotic delusions. I could pick up a bible right now and find a verse, kill a dozen people and point to the verse as justification. Does that mean christianity is evil or am I evil?

But precisely, Salafi want to live like Mohamed in his time, this verse is still perfectly valid nowadays by their logic. The fact that it wasn't issued as a prescription is not relevant for them, as everything that Mohamed did is a timeless prescription.

The fact that some people choose to disregard the violent parts doesn't mean that we should ignore those who do not. The book is generally peaceful, but has some violent verses that negate the general tone.

You cannot generalise all Muslims on that point.

Here is the problem, not all Muslim scholars are "mainstream".

Islam isn't just the problem. The problem is multiculturalism forced upon White nations.


Europe should be made White again. Does this offend you? Lets see racially destroying a continent and it's many ethnic groups is diversity, a positive thing. Reversing this, is genocide and hatred... hmm.

The salafis want to practise Islam as the first few generations of Muslims practised it in terms of piety, methods of worship, legislation, etc. But no, not everything Muhammad did is a timeless prescription. Muslims are generally required to follow Muhammad's sunnah, but they also recognise that some commands were specifically for Muhammad. For example, Muhammad offered 2 rakat before the fajr prayer, and after the asr prayer. Nevertheless he forbade this practise for his followers. Another example is Muhammad marrying more than 4 women, which is forbidden for the average Muslim male. Going back to the verse you posted, Muhammad was commanded to wipe out ("strike from them every fingertip" a subset of non-Muslims not merely for their disbelief, but because (according to the traditional narrative) Muhammad and his followers were constantly persecuted by them; total annihilation of an enemy is sound military policy when one's facing an existential threat. The terrorists' cannot possibly cherry-pick and apply this verse to every single non-Muslim/disbeliever they come across today; that would require them to a) not be able to distinguish the retelling of past events from prescriptive rules, b) ignore explicit commands elsewhere in the Qur'an, and c) disregard the consensus of mainstream ulema.



I'll reiterate: people being gullible enough to not read around the so-called violent verses is not an argument for the removal of said verses, nor is it appropriate to blame the scripture itself. Blame and expose the preachers of hate for distorting the text all you want.



I've yet to hear sincere Muslims claim the Qur'an is timeless insofar as they don't recognise the historical context of the verses, and extrapolate the teachings in situations without scriptural justification.



Muslims are required to listen to the majority of the scholars who've studied Islam holistically instead of fringe scholars who cherry-pick.
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

i think the crux of all that is the problem of trying to live like an 8th century desert caravan tradesmen in the 21st century

@Karosan
The verse you are alluding to came at a time when Muhammad(pbuh) and the Muslims were in a specific battle. "Those who have disbelieved" was not referring to all non Muslims but those who were persecuting the Muslims and who were in a war with them.
On top of that how can you say "you can't put that into context". Can you not accept that people have lives to live and have better things to do than argue with you and respond to quotes you have completely taken out of context. Not every single Muslim can put these quotes into context because not every single Muslim has studied quranic sciences and interpretations. Your previous quote was answered yet all you seem to be able to do is take more quotes out of context. Don't you understand that after a while people can no longer be bothered to answer to you.

99.9% of Muslims may not actually kill anyone, but that does not detract from the fact that Islam was founded by an extremist with a violent book who encouraged his followers over the succeeding 1300+ years to engage in perpetual war and acts of terror against the unbelievers until there was only worship for his god, and that most Muslims (if not all, by a strict definition) consider that violent warlord to be leading messenger of their god, and implicitly if not explicitly approve of the views of that book even if they don't go round killing the non-believers and committing acts of terror: because what is a Muslim if they do not accept Allah as their god, and Muhammad as the Messenger of that god?

I could pick up a bible right now and find a verse, kill a dozen people and point to the verse as justification.

People here are being intolerant towards a quarter of the world who call themselves Muslims, instead of the minority of extremists.

The same people are making it out as if we are at threat of extinction. The tolerant are not close to being destroyed. It is such a weak position to take to give in now and sacrifice the autonomous right of 99.9% of Muslims who are peaceful.

How can you possibly claim the moral high ground and claim that you are being tolerant?!

99.9% of Muslims may not actually kill anyone, but that does not detract from the fact that Islam was founded by an extremist with a violent book who encouraged his followers over the succeeding 1300+ years to engage in perpetual war and acts of terror against the unbelievers until there was only worship for his god, and that most Muslims (if not all, by a strict definition) consider that violent warlord to be leading messenger of their god, and implicitly if not explicitly approve of the views of that book even if they don't go round killing the non-believers and committing acts of terror: because what is a Muslim if they do not accept Allah as their god, and Muhammad as the Messenger of that god?

But the very nature of being a Muslim, as defined by Muhammad and the early Muslims, requires that you force your views on others. Muslims are expected to conquer and kill until there is worship only for their god, and heretics, pagans, polytheists, atheists, those deemed social miscreants etc. automatically forfeit their lives (according to the qur'an).

Murder is forbidden in the Bible. Punishment may be imposed only by court.

Murder is forbidden in the Bible. Punishment may be imposed only by court.

The Old Testament says anything but that.

And you can pick numerous verses in the Qu'ran that say similar

Exodus 20: You shall not murder.

Show me such general command in Quran.

The Qu'ran doesn't do a 'general command' so you're just showing a lack of foresight trying to manipulate your point. And the Old Testament contradicts Exodus 20 umpteen times.

Regardless, to mention two bits out of many more in the Quran:

Quran 6:151 “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.”

Quran 5:53, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

Read the Old Testament and look at how many times people are killed for no good reason. Two such examples include ethnic cleansing in Numbers or innocent kids being killed 2 Kings 2.

Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason."

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

You can pick and choose what to believe in no matter what the religion. Books are irrelevant. What people do is what matters, and religion isn't the be all and end of all of that. Cultures, socio-economic and historical development have much more to account for the current trend. What's more, hate fuels hate... so you can't genuinely want peace if you target all Muslims. Human nature is that we tend to fight back once someone targets your own.

So explain why Indonesia has very few attacks despite being the highest Muslim pop in the world

My answer - radicalisation derives from political instability and conflict, not lotalty to Islam