Muslims "in the crosshairs of bigotry"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by MMM1997

Where are we trying to implement their culture? Their culture is also incompatible with Muslims who are born British or Muslims who are English.
Trust me if you went back to the original Islam you would realise culture has had a very bad effect on religion. It's not called being an Islam apologist. Rather its looking at history and the true religion which in itself shows that this isn't acceptable. There is a verse in the Quran which basically says that if one kills an innocent( one who hasnt attacked him) it is as if he has killed all of mankind

And there is another verse telling people to kill apostates.

The problem with your verse is what is the characteristics of "attacked"?

Reply 221

MMM1997

Posted from TSR Mobile
Which verse number is that?

Reply 222

MMM1997

Original post by inhuman

And there is another verse telling people to kill apostates.

The problem with your verse is what is the characteristics of "attacked"?

If you were defending. If they attacked you first. It's in fighting because that is the only time there is a possibility for someone to die

Reply 223

Seelowe

I would say the Western people murdered at the hands of extremists are in the crosshairs of bigotry.

Muslims are a privileged group, in the sense that any perceived slight can be interpreted as "hate speech". Despite the fact that this group holds a number of bigoted and ignorant beliefs disproportionately.

Reply 224

Seelowe

Original post by irfan98

Wrong. Islam is considered worse in the West because the effects of the savagery and brutality also generated by Christianity and Judaism are rarely witnessed here. If you were a child in Gaza living under Israeli bombs, or a girl in Uganda sold into sexual slavery by the Lord's Resistance Army, or an Iraqi whose country has been destroyed by an illegal occupation, you might think differently. And when you say "Christianity and Judaism as ideologies", what exactly do you mean? There is no one Christianity or Judaism, just as there is no one Islam. Religions are not set in stone, they are different for each follower; everyone has their own personal interpretation of faith. So no, Christianity and Judaism are not bad, and neither is Islam; they're all neutral. They can be used to justify evil, just as they can be used to justify good. There are some Jews occupying the West Bank, just as there are many Jews who abhor the crimes of Israel. Likewise, there are some Muslims beheading people, just as there are many Muslims going about their lives who want nothing to do with what ISIS is doing. There is no one correct interpretation of religion.

Is the assault on Gaza done in the name of Yahweh? No, it isn't. Like it or not, Islam has a long and storied history of violence from the moment of its inception. Even today, the most stable Islamic countries are repressive and cruel, disregarding human rights.

Also, Islamic attacks happen so regularly compared to other terror attacks. To compare the two is disingenuous and doesn't tackle the real problem.

Oh, and by the way, the invasion of Iraq only failed in the way it did because of Iranians funding and supplying violent militias.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 225

QE2

Original post by MMM1997

Their culture is reflective of their county not their religion. Just because a country is Muslim doesn't mean their culture will be islamic.

So, if believing in the ultimate truth of Islam and the perfection of the Quran and example of Muhammad makes no difference to the morality and behaviour of those following it...what is the point of it? It is clearly not what it claims to be.

Reply 226

MMM1997

Original post by QE2

It does make a difference. Just because some people don't follow the rules doesn't mean the majority don't.

Reply 227

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by MMM1997

If you were defending. If they attacked you first. It's in fighting because that is the only time there is a possibility for someone to die

You haven't read the Quran, have you? Why don't we take a look at 9:5?

"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush..."

No talk of defence there at all. It is attack plain and simple.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 228

QE2

Original post by MMM1997

Posted from TSR Mobile
Which verse number is that?

Ah, the usual disingenuity of the apologist. Either
1. That's not in the Quran, it's just a hadith, or
2. You can't look at the Quran in isolation, you need the hadith as well...
...depending on which one serves their agenda best.

That may have worked in the past, but there are too many sceptics and critics who are familiar with both now, not to mention the classical tafsir (Yes, yes. I know. You can't understand the Quran and hadith unless you are a Muslim who has studied under an approved scholar for 20 years - that is why I always defer to the opinions and interpretations of renowned classical scholars like Ibn Kathir)

So, to answer your question, the prescription for killing apostates is contained in several sahih hadith from Bukhari and Muslim. So unless you are a Quranist or a Shia, it is an essential part of Islam.

Hope this helped.

Reply 229

alevelstresss

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Oh dear, I wondered when someone would bring up verse 5:32. Firstly, that command is specifically directed towards the Children of Israel, not Muslims. Secondly, if you read the VERY NEXT VERSE, 5:33, you will see the barbaric and disgusting punishments and execution methods that are outlined for anyone who wages war against Allah and his messenger.

You haven't read the Quran, have you? Why don't we take a look at 9:5?

"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush..."

No talk of defence there at all. It is attack plain and simple.

Just wondering, are all of the Muslims who haven't followed the Quran when it says "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush" not true Muslims or something?

Reply 230

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by alevelstresss

I don't want to get into the "true Muslim" discussion because it is extremely nuanced and I don't think there is an actual answer to it, given everyone's stance on the issue is just an interpretation. It would only be cleared up definitively by Allah himself descending and saying which sect, if any, is the true one.

Reply 231

BaconandSauce

Original post by MMM1997

It does make a difference. Just because some people don't follow the rules doesn't mean the majority don't.

are you a Quranist or a Shia?

Reply 232

inhuman

Original post by MMM1997

If you were defending. If they attacked you first. It's in fighting because that is the only time there is a possibility for someone to die

I could shout at you and scare you and give you a heart attack. Dead.

I am no expert, but I can guarantee you that "it's in fighting" is the wrong answer.

Reply 233

inhuman

Original post by alevelstresss

The 1.6bn Muslims argument strikes again. A crowd favorite :woohoo:

Reply 234

BaconandSauce

Original post by alevelstresss

'Better Muslims 'would be a apt choice of words rather then 'not true'

But tell me would you consider someone who doesn't follow part of their faith a 'true' follower?

Reply 235

QE2

Original post by MMM1997

here is a verse in the Quran which basically says that if one kills an innocent( one who hasnt attacked him) it is as if he has killed all of mankind

Ah, good old 5:32. The most misquoted and out-of-context verse used by Muslim apologists.

It actually says...
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people:
So first, it is directed at "the Children of Israel", a term used elsewhere to refer to Jews.
Second, the crime of "spreading mischief" (fasad in the original Arabic) is a vague term and according to classical scholar like Ibn Kathir and As Suddi, covers such trivial offences as "disobeying god's law" as well as more obvious offences like brigandry and sedition.
Finally, the next verse (5:33) explicitly states that the punishment for fasad and 'waging war against Allah and Muhammad' includes death, crucifixion and dismemberment. Ibn Kathir explains that 'wage war' includes "opposition, contradiction and disbelief" and is general in application.

So, when we take the full wording of the verse, in context, and with the benefit of explanation by the most widely-used and authoritative classical Islamic scholar - we see that rather than forbidding violence (as many apologists attempt to claim), it actually permits the killing of anyone who opposes Islam.

Note: all such verses in the Quran and hadith come with the proviso that life and property is spared if the potential victim submits to Islam.

Sorry to go on, but I think that these issues are worth clearing up.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 236

QE2

Original post by MMM1997

If you were defending. If they attacked you first. It's in fighting because that is the only time there is a possibility for someone to die

OK. What about 9:5?
It says "After a waiting period, hunt down and kill the polytheists wherever you find them. Besiege them and ambush them." (paraphrasing)

Two points here.
1. "Hunting down, finding, ambushing, besieging" etc are not defensive actions. They are purely aggressive.
2. If you are defending an attack, you cannot determine when the attack happens. An defender cannot force an attacker to wait four months. Only the attacker can do that.

Ibn kathir confirms that 9:5 refers to aggressive, proactive military action. "This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam". Clearly not the statement of someone only defending an attack.

Reply 237

Tongeyyy

Islam is NOT a religion of peace

Reply 238

alevelstresss

Original post by Tongeyyy

Islam is NOT a religion of peace

maybe it isn't, but 1.6 billion of its followers are peaceful

Reply 239

MMM1997

Original post by QE2

9:5 was in defence because it was against the polytheists who had broken the treaty. The treaty stated that if any side broke the treaty they would be at war so the ones who broke it i.e. the polytheists took the Muslims to war.. The defender can wait four months to allow them a chance to correct their wrong which is explained in the next verse. The conditions were that they had four months to leave because they had declared war. Or they could seek asylum which had to be granted. If any remained they were to be killed. These people were classed as traitors, and the practice for centuries in many countries including England was to kill traitors.