Muslims are not terrorists!

So your excuse for him being a pedophile is that it happened 1400 years ago? He is still a pedophile, God wouldn't choose the "last messenger" to be a violent pedophile warlord.

I find it funny how when religious people are shown the disgusting verses in their holy book their first response is to say it's being taken out of context. In what context could talking about striking fear into the hearts of non believers be seen as acceptable?


Posted from TSR Mobile

You contradict yourself: you say that fundamentalist take the meaning of their sacred texts too literally, and then imply that they are not upholding their Islamic values. I would conversely say that fundamentalists uphold their religious values more accurately than those who water them down to fit in the society they are living in.

ISIS are the true Muslims imo.

I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃

That verse was actually refering to an incident that happend during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃

No, when I said that they take the meanings too literally, the operative word is 'too'. Fundamentalists are extremists that claim and abuse their 'power'. They're radicalists.

Yes, thats the list of crimes punishable by death by Islam, but if it is under the law of the land you live. If a terrorist from syria is going to america or france to kill someone who is not muslim, they're not under the law of their own land. This would go back to the ruling of follow the law of your land. If they went to another country to attack people, they'd be under the ruling of another land therefore the idea of apostasy would not suffice? So where would the justification be? " Islamic law says I can kill a non believer if they are in this land, so let me go to another country which is not under islamic law and do it" This is not their reasoning. I repeat, ISIS do not have any islamic backing in their attacks.

We really need to stop identifying a persons actions by their religion/race and rather by the people themselves. Those who say the Quran is corrupt need to also look to the Bible and the Torah. All of these Abrahimic religions are extremely similar in their teachings and I promise you there are some very very corrupt bible stories, yet we all seem to turn a blind eye if they are mentioned. Don't give me the whole 'yeah because there are no christian terrorists'. Yes there are and there certainly were in the past, the IRA, the KKK, and they may not exist to that extent but these people are still causing a great influence today, like the KKK still has an influence in America. At the end of the day, there is such thing as Muslim terrorists, and there is such thing as non-muslim terrorists, but the backlash for muslim's now is far more severe for then than when the IRA or KKK were in large numbers. a whole majority was not blamed for what a minority caused. I wonder why that is?

I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃

Still not sure why that makes it any better...



There also wasn't wrong anything wrong with the Atlantic Slave Trade in two hundred and fifty years ago but that doesn't mean we give those people a pass.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Muhammad is still considered as a perfect role model for Muslims. Don't you see the problem of him marrying and having sex with a child?

muslims dont regard him just as a normal man- they regard him as a prophet and the best example of men- so their best example would be a warlord that waged war with his neighbours over 40 conflicts, captured slaves, allowed the seizing of sex slaves and indeed married a child.

this would not be an issue is the idea of being a muslim was to be progressive and forward looking - unfortunatlely as you well know it is not - its belief is enshrined in the 8th century arabic traditions that mohammed himself followed.

In reference to the quote from the Quran- it was referring to a specific incident as mentioned. Muslims are not taught to incite hatred for non-muslims. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (Muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]
The quran also says: 'Unto your religion and unto me my religion'
Also says: 'There is no compulsion in religion'
In another hadith: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu dawud)

In reference to the quote from the Quran- it was referring to a specific incident as mentioned.

Muslims are not taught to incite hatred for non-muslims. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (Muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]
The quran also says: 'Unto your religion and unto me my religion'
Also says: 'There is no compulsion in religion'
In another hadith: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu dawud)

I don't understand this. Regardless of whether it's meant generally or in relation to one incident why is it okay to strike fear into people who have different beliefs to you?



1. Surely someone could easily argue you're taking those out of context?
2. For every quote like that you can show me I'm sure I could find an equal number of violent quotes which I'm sure you would tell me have been taken out of context, I'm not sure under what context the below quote is justifiable but the Quran doesn't have a monopoly on violent diatribe which is what a lot of westerners seem to ignore.

"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."



Posted from TSR Mobile

@asiangcse

Could you quote the reference for the quote?

Yes, you're correct, you can say that i'm 'taking it out of context', thats why it is important to look at the story and meaning behind all the quranic verses/hadiths, instead of cherry picking quotes without looking at the meaning of it.

I'm not really on how to reference the Quran but it's in Sura Al-Anfal, verse 69. Quotes such as the one I gave you are horrendous, I can't imagine any context could make something like that acceptable


Posted from TSR Mobile