Do you believe the Muslim community is dangerous?
No I do not think it is dangerous, however in some european countries it is harder to control the few dangerous ones that ruin the community reputation.
First lets understand that the Qu'ran is subject to, "Abrogation" which is, "Naskh"; to "obliterate", as in, -(Nasakhat al'rih athar al-masby)-, "The wind obliterated the footprint", so previous verses of the Qu'ran are subject to obliteration by latter verses, also, "Naskh", can infer a transcrption or transfer, as in,(al-naql wa al-tahwil)- "Something from one state to another." Abbrogation can also be, general, specific, a suspension or replacement, and it's application to some verses may be general, specific, tempoprary (suspension), or permanent (replacement), in the case of the "Verse of the sword", it is permanent in that it pertains to applying Naskh to all the concilliatory verses of the Qu'ran, untill the final judgement, which will not come till the carrying out of said verse to fulfill the obligations and requirements that, -all if not most of the Jews and Christians must be dead before the coming of the Mahdi and the day of judgement-
"The Prophet said… The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him…"
And the the Islamic Christ, "Isa -which is more a dirivative of the root of "Esau" than "Yashua"-, will be the one who slaughters the remaining Jews and Christians, and abolish all other religions, on the last day, as in....
"The Prophet said: There is no prophet between me, Mahdi, and him, Isa-Christ-, that is, Jesus. He will descent (sic) (to the earth)… He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam."
-Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 37, Number 4310, Narrated by Abu Hurayrah: see also Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656-
The fact is Islamic judment day cannot come till they have destroyed the Jews and ranthem so far down that they are not a threat and are unwelcome in the world.
The, "Verse Of The Sword", abbrogates ALL conciliatory verses to all non-believer and Jews. Below is a very well penned explaination as regards this matter, with islamic source links, Hadith, Qu'ran, Sunnah, and many Sholars and Jurists from throughout Islam's violent history.
Enjoy.
THE VERSE OF THE SWORD: SURA 9:5 AND JIHAD
by Silas
INTRODUCTION
One of the most frequently quoted Quranic verses is chapter 9 verse 5. This verse is known as "The Verse of the Sword." Muslim terrorists cite it to justify their violent jihad. Correspondingly, critics of Islam claim that it commands Muslims to act with offensive aggression towards the non-Muslims of that period, and contributes to Islam’s final theological doctrine of aggression towards all non-Muslims of all times. Apologists for Islam claim that 9:5 is purely defensive. Which side is right?
As the Islamic source materials are examined it will become evident that verse 9:5 is part of the theology of jihad and is meant to be both offensive and defensive. It is directed against Pagans living both near to and far away from Muhammad.
Understanding 9:5 in context requires an examination of the passage in which it is found. This passage consists of 29 to 41 verses or so (depending on which scholar’s view you hold). Because of time and space constraints however, I will only review the first 8 or so verses. I believe that they set the passage’s tone and belay its directives.
Islam’s final theological position regarding the use of violence to further its domain does not rest upon one verse or passage. Rather the entire Quran, other Islamic source materials, and Muhammad’s actions and lifestyle (Sunnah) must be examined and evaluated. We’ll do that with a view toward Sura 9:5.
I have attempted to keep this article focused on 9:5 within the broad theology of jihad. 9:5 is a foundational stone in the building of jihad and general aspects of jihad must be discussed. There is also the related topic of abrogation, but that has been dealt with elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4.
________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 9’s CHRONOLOGICAL AND TEXTUAL BACKGROUND
Yusuf Ali’s5 Quran commentary, page 435, states that verses 1 – 29 were revealed during the 10th month (Shawwal), of the year A.H. 9 (630/631 A.D.). It was proclaimed by Muhammad’s cousin, Ali, to the various Muslim and non-Muslim pilgrims in Mecca to give Muhammad’s new policy a wide hearing. He also states that the rest of the Sura (30 – 129) was spoken by Muhammad months earlier, prior to the first 29 verses, and they sum up the lessons of Muhammad’s earlier expedition to Tabuk. (Most scholars I’ve read say that the passage concerning the Tabuk raid was spoken following the raid). This means that the chapter’s first passage (1-29) is chronologically the last passage spoken by Muhammad. Other scholars present slightly differing opinions on its passages, chronology, and themes. However, all Islamic scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that I’ve read, agree that the first 29 verses or so were some of the last Quranic verses spoken by Muhammad.
The introduction to chapter 9 in Mawdudi’s Commentary6 states that by the time chapter 9 was spoken one third of the entire Arabian Peninsula had bent the knee to Islam:
Now let us consider the historical background of the Sura. The series of events that have been discussed in this Sura took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful well organized and civilized Islamic State.
The chapter’s tone is martial: there are many verses related to violence.
________________________________________________________________
THE QURAN 9:1-8
Chapter (sura) 9 has a couple of different names (and transliterations). Usually it is called "Repentance", in Arabic (Al-Tawbah), or "The Ultimatum" or "Release" (Bara’ah). Below is Chapter 9, verses 1-8, from Dawood’s7 English translation of the Quran. For a Quran comparison, I’ll list these verses in a couple of different translations in appendix 1.
9:1 A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements:
9:2 For four months you shall go unmolested in the land. But know that you shall not escape God’s judgement, and that God will humble the unbelievers.
9:3 A proclamation to the people from God and His apostle on the day of the greater pilgrimage:
God and His apostle are under no obligation to the idolaters. If you repent, it shall be well with you; but if you give no heed, know that you shall not be immune from God’s judgement.
Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers,
9:4 except to those idolaters who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous.
9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
9:6 If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to safety. For the idolaters are ignorant men.
9:7 God and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.
9:8 How can you trust them? If they prevail against you they will respect neither agreements nor ties of kindred. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts reject you. Most of them are evil doers.
NOTES: Scholars believe that the passage references two different sets of "four months":
A sequential period of four months (verse 2).
The "four sacred months" (verse 5). These four sacred months mentioned in the Quran are not sequential in the Islamic calendar, rather they are spread throughout the year. Thus some scholars believe that Muhammad gave some of the various pagan groups about one year until he was to make war upon them. Other pagan groups were to experience his aggression earlier, after 4 sequential months. More on this later. The Islamic calendar is presented in appendix 2.
A "truce" in Muhammad’s time did not mean that there was now a state peace or that the opponents had become friends. It meant that there was a cessation of fighting. Both sides could continue to hate each other, re-arm, and plan the next war, or try to build upon the treaty towards real peace.
REFERENCES
Because the Quran lacks internal contextual references we need non-quranic, but related and authoritive references, to understand its meaning accurately. Some people create theological positions based upon a "Quran only" type of reasoning and they make the Quran dance: it says what they want it to say when they want it said. That doesn’t cut it. We must have more than opinion and conjecture. We must use the Quran and contextual references to build a logical, rational, and substantial basis for understanding 9:5. If each person is allowed to "interpret" the Quran as he sees fit, while ignoring the historical and theological references, we would have a meaningless pile of opinions built upon a foundation of cute, but trite, imaginations.
There are five Islamic source groups I’ll draw from to build this understanding:
First, we have other classes of Islamic source materials that are related to the chapter 9 passage. These are the "authentic traditions" (sahih hadiths) and biographical stories (sira). These sources provide additional details concerning the passage. The majority of Islamic scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, recognize them as having some degree of validity.
Second, Actions. "Actions speak louder than words". Muslim historians such as Tabari and Ibn Sa’d recorded Muhammad’s actions and the actions of his followers both before and after he spoke the 9:5 passage. I will focus primarily on the actions of the Caliph Abu Bakr. He ruled the Islamic empire after Muhammad died and arguably knew Muhammad and his teachings best. He loved and obeyed Muhammad. He believed in him, served him, fought for him, and would have died for him. Logically, this dedicated, battle hardened veteran soldier, would continue to put Muhammad’s commands into practice. His actions involving non-Muslims display the true meaning of 9:5, i.e., was violence limited to only defense or were Muslims to expand by force?
Third, we have the commentary (tafsir) of the great Islamic scholars. I’m not talking about some eloquent Muslim living in the West, doing a snow job on a naive and lazy Western audience like Hamza Yusuf, or trying to innovate and re-invent Islam into a more benign religion like Ali Eteraz or Stephen Schwartz. I’m talking about scholars like Ibn Kathir who devoted much of their lives to the study of Islam and had no need to fool an audience and present Islam as something it wasn’t in order to gain its acceptance.
Fourth, we have Islamic tomes and theological encyclopedias, such as the "Reliance of the Traveller" and "Encyclopedia of Islam". These may not focus upon specific verses like 9:5, rather they focus on specific subjects, such as jihad and how the 9:5 theme ties into that subject.
Fifth, there is the Quran itself. We should look to other verses in the chapter to see if they parallel 9:5 and attempt to understand what the Quran as a whole, in context, teaches. Because of size limitations I will only look at 2 other verses from chapter 9. But, the references I cite from group 4 above, list many other verses that support a violent jihad.
We can compile enough evidence from these Islamic sources to reach a sound conclusion about 9:5’s meaning. What I’ll do is present the materials I’ve collected for each group and comment upon them. At the end I’ll present a summary and conclusion.
________________________________________________________________
1. SUPPORTING ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS
1.1 Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah.
The most complete background for the passage I’ve found is in "The Life of Muhammad"8, by A. Guillaume, pages 617-19. Guillaume’s work is a reconstitution of Ibn Ishaq’s (born about 75 years after Muhammad died) biography of Muhammad, the "Sirat Rasul Allah", (The Life of the Apostle of God), which is the oldest extant biography of Muhammad. Ishaq’s description of the event in question is long and detailed and I have skipped a few sentences that don’t pertain to the subject. Ibn Ishaq’s text below is in blue color, while the Quran’s verses are in green color & bold, and my comments are in black. The verses and commentary run together in the text, but in order to make it easier to define Quranic from non-Quranic, I have taken the liberty to separate them.
A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists that none should be kept back from the temple when he came to it, and that none need fear during the sacred month. That there was a general agreement between him and the polytheists; meanwhile there were particular agreements between the apostle and the Arab tribes for specified terms. And there came down about it and about the disaffected who held back from him in the raid on Tabuk, and about what they said (revelations) in which God uncovered the secret thoughts of people who were dissembling. We know the names of some of them, of others we do not. He said[1]
1) "A discharge from God and His apostle towards those polytheists with whom you made a treaty,"
i.e. those polytheists with whom you made a general agreement.
2) "So travel through the land for four months and know that you cannot escape God and that God will put the unbelievers to shame. 3) And a proclamation from God and His apostle to men on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His apostle are free from obligation to the polytheists,"
i.e., after this pilgrimage.
So if you repent it will be better for you; and if you turn back know that you cannot escape God. Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment 4) except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty,"
i.e. the special treaty for a specified term,
"Since they have not come short in anything in regard to you and have not helped anyone against you. So fulfill your treaty with them to their allotted time. God loves the pious. 5) And when the sacred months are passed",
He means the four which he fixed as their time,
"then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and perform prayer and pay the poor-tax, then let them go their way. God is forgiving, merciful. 6) If one of the polytheists",
i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,
"asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."
Then He said:
7) "How can there be for the polytheists"
with whom you had a general agreement that they should not put you in fear and that you would not put them in fear neither in the holy places nor in the holy months
"a treaty with God and His apostle except for those with whom you made a treaty at the sacred mosque?" …
They were the tribes of B. Bakr who had entered into an agreement with Quraysh on the day of al-Hudaybiya up to the tie agreed between the apostle and Quraysh. It was only this clan of Quraysh who had broken it. They were al-Dil of B. Bakr b. Wa’il who had entered into the agreement of Quraysh. So he was ordered to fulfill the agreement with those of B. Bakr who had not broken it up to their allotted time.
"So long as they are true to you, be true to them. God loves the pious."
Then He said:
8) "And how, if when they have the upper hand of you," i.e. the polytheists who have no agreement up to a time under the general agreement with the polytheists "they regard no pact or compact in regard to you" (869).
9) They satisfy you with their lips while their hearts refuse. Most of them are wrongdoers. They have sold the revelations of God for a low price and debarred (men) from His way. Evil is that which they are wont to do.
10) They observe neither pact nor compact with a believer. Those are the transgressors,"
i.e. they have transgressed against you.
"But if they repent and perform prayer and pay the poor tax, then they are your brothers in religion. We make clear the revelations for a people who have knowledge."
Continuing a few sentences later on page 619:
No unbeliever shall enter Paradise, and no polytheist shall make pilgrimage after this year, and no naked person shall circumambulate the temple. He who has an agreement with the apostle has it for his appointed time (only).
Continuing a few sentences later on page 619:
After that year no polytheist went on pilgrimage or circumambulated the temple naked. Then the two of them returned to the apostle. This was the Discharge in regard to the polytheists who had a general agreement, and those who had a respite for the specified time.
Then the apostle gave orders to fight the polytheists who had broken the special agreement as well as those who had a general agreement after the four months which had been given them as a fixed time, save that if any one of them showed hostility he should be killed for it….
Note [1] says: Sura 9. This chapter is a commentary on it.
SUPPORTING ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS
1.2 Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir.
Ibn Sa’d was another great early Muslim scholar and he wrote the Book of the Major Classes, (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir)9, which is a 17 volume work dedicated to Muhammad’s life and the lives of those that followed him, i.e. his "companions". In volume 2, pages 208-9 there is only a small section related to the event of 9:5. As before, his text will be in blue and the Quran will be in green.
Then (occurred) the Pilgrimage of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq with the people in Dhu al-Hijjah of the ninth year from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah.
They (narrators) said: The Apostle of Allah appointed Abu Bakr al-Siddiq to be in charge of the hajj. He set out with three hundred persons from al-Madinah. The Apostle of Allah sent with him, twenty sacrificial animals, whom he had adorned with necklaces, and whose humps he had pierced with his own hands. Najiyah Ibn Jundab al-Aslami was in charge (of the sacrificial animals). Abu Bakr carried five sacrificial animals with him. When he reached al-‘Arj, Ali Ibn Abi Talib joined him and he was riding al-Qaswa the she-camel of the Apostle of Allah. Thereupon Abu Bakr said to him: Has the Apostle of Allah given you charge of the pilgrimage? He said: No, But he has sent me to read to the people "Freedom from obligation"[1] and the dissolution agreements of all parties. Then Abu Bakr proceeded and performed Hajj with the people. Ali Ibn Abi Talib read to the people: "Freedom from obligations," on the day of sacrifice, near al-Jamrah, and revoked the covenant of every party; and he said: After this year no polytheists will make a pilgrimage nor a naked person will circumambulate (the Ka’bah).
SUPPORTING ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS
1.3 Wakidi’s and other’s biographical information.
Wakidi was an early Muslim scholar and he wrote a history of Muhammad’s battles. Sir William Muir was a Christian and was one of the finest Islamic scholars of his day (19th century). He based his detailed four-volume biography of Muhammad, "Life of Muhammad"10 upon the works of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Wackidi, Tabari, and the collections of Sahih Hadith. Starting on page 208 of volume 3:
Towards the close of the pilgrimage, on the great day of sacrifice, at the place of casting stones near Mina, Ali read aloud to the multitudes who crowded round him in the narrow pass, the heavenly command as follows:
Muir writes out 9:1-7, then continues on pages 210-11:
Having finished the recitation of this passage, Ali continued; - "I have been commanded to declare unto you that no unbeliever shall enter Paradise. No idolater shall after this year perform the pilgrimage; and no one shall make the circuit of the holy house naked. Whosoever hath a treaty with the Prophet, it shall be respected till its termination. Four months are permitted to every tribe to return to their territories in security. After that the obligation of the Prophet ceaseth."
The vast concourse of pilgrims listened peaceably till Ali ended. Then they broke up and departed every man to his home, publishing to all the tribes throughout the Peninsula, the inexorable ordinance which they had heard from the lips of Ali.
The passage just quoted completed the system of Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were concerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was declared against them all. No trace of idolatry was to survive within the expanding circle of the influence of Islam. And as Islam was the universal faith intended for all mankind, so its mission was now plainly set forth to be the absolute annihilation of idolatry throughout the world.
SUPPORTING ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS
1.4 The Hadith collection of Bukhari
I’ve not found any comprehensive description in the authentic (sahih) hadith equivalent to Ibn Ishaq’s description. All that I looked at were similar and added little of value to the review so I am only presenting this one reference from Bukhari’s11 collection, volume 1, number 365.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba."
COMMENTS ON THE QURAN AND SUPPORTING ISLAMIC SOURCE MATERIALS.
At the time Muhammad spoke the passage he had enough power to dominate and crush the remaining Pagan tribes within the Hijaz, so he used it. He changed the rules and regulations that involved the Pagans. The Pagans did nothing to precipitate this change; they continued to do as they had done for the last year under Muhammad’s rule. But Muhammad used his ever growing power and placed his rough noose of Islam around their necks. Pagans were forced to join Islam or die. This is not self defense.
Some observations:
Muhammad was the aggressor (9:2, 3, 5), this passage is an edict for war. Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked, but to also go out and attack all Pagans once the sacred months were completed.
Muhammad was a truce breaker. The Pagans did not break all the truces. Muhammad claimed that God gave him a "revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in 9:1: "A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements", and described as "A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists". The materials state that it was Muhammad who broke all truces except those few he had with specific tribes or individuals for a limited time. When the sacred months were ended, those truces would also end. Muhammad would now be at war with all polytheistic tribes including those who had been peaceful. Had the Pagans broken the truces there would be no need for Muhammad to get a revelation to break them for they would already have been broken. Further, the Pagans were weak and demoralized and they were not about to start a war with the mighty Muhammad. Also note that Muhammad did not make an effort to renew the truce with the peaceful tribes, rather he initiated a state of war.
Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam:
9:5, "…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.". The verse describes conversion to Islam. The Pagans were going to be murdered if they did not convert. People tend to define religious conversion at the point of the sword as "compulsion."
Muhammad commanded murder and terrorism for Islam, 9:5,
6, "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them", described as "one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,"…. Once the sacred months ended it was open season on the Pagans. They were going to be attacked, hounded, ambushed, captured, terrorized, and murdered by the Muslims. Muslim terrorists today do what this verse commands.
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/F … _mahdi.htm
And lets all get this straight, the "Verse Of The Sword" was one of the last two verses Mohhamud gave, some say on his death bed he issued this verse, verses 9 and 5 respectively. So consider the wieght that carries in the minds of Muslims. And remember all Islam, is Al'Fiqh, and is LAW, as it is the word of their god and as such is LAW!
And any Muslim who tells you differnt is practicing Taqiyya and kithman, "deception and deciet", and I can produce Islamic documentation to show it as such.They need to serve any sentences in Norway, their own countries will not consider their actions as criminal, and they would not be prosecuted. Islamic law states any women not in a viel is a whore.... period! As per allah and momo in the qu'ran.
Well I Believe some Christian communities are dangerous and hey look at the catholic communities with all of their child molesting .... I would say they are dangerous ... So what if there are muslum communities in the US people need to quit being so damned hypocritical - thats what actyually tends to make many Christians dangerous being a hypocrit... and thats that
That would depend what country you were in and if you were a woman or not.
In the west, not so much. I wouldn't fancy being a woman in the middle east though."Muslims never want to hurt anyone, but they always get hurt by their enemies"
If you think that makes any sense as appilied to Islam, and that that statement is true as applied to Islam... then you need a lot of help.Why don't ask this question too:
Do you believe the Christian/ Hindu/ Bhudism/ Taoism..etc community is dangerous?
They are not dangerous until you make them dangerous. It 's very simple: Never trespass so they don't trespass...We have already answered that question way back, Shame.
Why not read the thread?
And yes, Dd. You are to be slaughtered under qu'ranic injuction, per-allah and momo, you are Kufr, non-believer, and as such if you will not submit, you die. Period! Christians, Jews, and Magians (if you can find any today?), the "people of the book", get the option of the Jizya- a head tax to spare their life, conversion, or death. We are their tax base... so you cannot kill us all, it is economically un-feasible. And who would do the heavy lifting without the Slaves?
So I am wrong because I am a Pagan? Wow, I shall get myself to a church right away, not!!
Muslims as a whole are seen as dangerous because of a small group of religious fanatics. It is the same as how Christians are often seen as "Bible-thumpers" because of religious fanatics.
Okay here are some hard facts. It wasn't the Israelis that attacked Palestine. It was the Arabs that did. People from Palestine sold their land to Jewish settler and then wanted it back free of cost. Now Muslims are not dangerous. It is their belief that is dangerous. Couple this with the fact that every so-called religious leader they have has an interpretation of the Quaran for himself and his followers. Therefore, what the head priest of the mosque in Mecca has to say does not really have to be sacred to all muslims. The term Jihad is one of the worst interpreted phrases in the world. The quaran never said one could wage war because it suited the person giving a call for jihad. On the contrary it was only supposed to be an act of self defense. The problem is, the Quaran does not define self defense in any manner. Therefor, if a woman is being raped, she cannot wage Jihad but will have to contact 5 people to stand as witnesses and watch her being raped, after which she can have the rapist punished. A religion written by an ordinary human who promoted himself as the SOLE messenger of god. They are right when they say Allah-hu-Akbar because they only mean God is Great. The problem starts when they say "and Mohammed is his only messenger" after the initial praise. This is the falsehood which makes muslims dangerous or fanatics. Islam has certainly banned intoxicants, adultery and a whole lot of things. Here are some facts
Liquor is sent in container loads from Ajman, UAE to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The so called holy land of the muslims
The highest number of rape and murders take place in Saudi Arabia with a majority of the victims being sodomized. All by Saudi's
Pork is banned by Islam but is imported from Cyprus and available n stores across the UAE
All religions call for peace and the Quaran is the only one which propogates war
The Quaran makes it legal for themselves to share the pillages of war which includes rape, slavery, burglary and taking minors for wives
Muslims are not dangerous, it's just followers of Quaran who are. Make your own decision now. I can provide more details if requiredHey brother! you happy to tell yet another lie about me to support the other lie you told about me. Nice!
I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusions other than by "getting a grip"
I know you hate Catholics from the many times you have abused them, but yet again you don't let the facts get in the way of your indoctrination.......never was a Catholic, never once said I was.- Binaya.Ghimireposted 11 years ago
0No, strictly no. Couple of rotten apples spoil the entire apples in the box. Islamic Militancy is growing because most of the Muslims are ignorant, poor and impoverish. Well educated sometimes become suicide bomber, like the terrorists in 9/11, because there is something wrong with their brains.
I rent a room in a Muslim household, and they are the kindest, most welcoming family that you could ever wish to meet. There is also a Hindu lodger in the house, and we all get along by respecting each others traditions and beliefs.
The vast majority of the Muslim community over here in the UK are just as outraged and disgusted by acts of terrorism and violence as everyone else, and just as quick to condemn extremism of any kind.
Saying that all Muslims are dangerous, is like saying all Catholics are members of the IRA or that all Basques are part of ETA - ridiculous.
All cultures and religions seem to have their fringe nutters unfortunately - just look at how balanced some of the right wing fundamentalist Christians are?You make some good points.
I do not smile at or talk to women in full burka unless she speaks or smiles first, which at least in my city they sometimes do, but often Muslim women are very private in public places. In the company of their husbands they are just fellow Australians and are more able to communicate confident in the knowledge that there husband is there in a public place to protect her from strange men.
Some of my Muslim mates here are very involved in their religion, but no larger percentage than other groups who prescribe to religion as far as I can see.
The Muslim home in Australia from the few I have visited, (usually for kid's birthday parties) are inclusive and hospitable and the parents marvellous hosts, who do not impose their beliefs on others, and are more interested in assuring their kids grow up with plenty of Australian culture.
I think religion is silly, but I worked with an Anglican church
for years when my atheist son was a chorister and we had 4 Muslims who helped feed the needy and look after the homeless working alongside Anglicans and atheists.
We had a common purpose
Most people I meet are good, regardless of whether they believe in a stupid myth or not.
"Do you believe the _______________ community is dangerous?"
Insert whatever you want.
It's not the community, it's individuals of any race, color, creed... and their beliefs.Exactly... that is why the Muslim community is dangerous.
It (beliefs) is why certain radical, extreme individuals, or groups of people may be dangerous. To say the Muslim community is dangerous is generalizing an entire group of people. I know a number of Muslims that live in a community nearby, they are peaceful, hard working people.
Any true believer of Islam follows the qu'ran and Hadis and they are not peacful doctrines, Bekkah.
Those "Radicals", "Extremists", terrorists, are the true followers of Islam as brought by Mohhammud from allah.
You may call them extremists... but they are in fact faithful and accurate in thier living of Islam.You seem to have taken one small part out of context, and you're trying to make a specific situation the ruling for the general situation. It's not like that.
What you fail to mention is how often the Qur'an mentions to try and avoid conflict, and to only engage in it when it's forced upon you!
Why don't you watch this unbiased explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yaDlZfqrc
The part you'll be interested in is 5:50 onwards. EnjoyWrong.
You need to take into account the acts of abrogation which occur in the qu'ran, depending on which scholar you believe, anywhere from 150 to 500 times.
All concilliatory verses, early mid and late Meccan, have been abrogated by the more violent verses from the mid and late Medinian eras. When Islam was weak, they were told to be nice, when Islam gained in strength, they were told to conquer the world for allah.
Allah changes what he want in the qu'ran and states it plainly in the qu'ran that he does.
And if you are not aware of the abbrogation, or which verses or commands are abrogatted, then you will never have any clue what the final dictates of allah and momo were/are.
So try again.
Producing abrogatted verses to try and show that Islam is a peaceful religion is a joke. Once a verse is abrogatted it is null and void... (in most cases), and is used by Muslims for nothing more that tiqiyya and kithman.
And a liberal American Islamic apologist... is not an un-biased opinion.
But I will watch it anyways for you... I'll be back.
Oh what a nice dodge... only God knows the true meaning... yeah right. Tell that to the numorous Islamic scholars who are sure they know exactly what it means.
And again... abrogation decimates all those qualifiers she seems to rely on so much. There are qualifiers as to the killing of other Muslims and the people of the book... there are no hindering qualifiers for the slaughter of the un-believers. (all others)
Pretty simple... but you and your apologist continue on with the dissemination of BS, no sense letting the facts get in the way.
I would suggest first you learn the correct chronological order of the qu'ran...
The Qu'ran is devided into the first period in Mecca,... 96, 74, 111, 106, 108, 104, 107, 102,105, 92, 90, 94, 93, 97, 86, 91, 80, 68, 87, 95 103, 85, 73, 101, 99, 82, 81, 53, 84, 100, 79, 77, 78, 88, 89, 75, 83, 69, 51, 52,56,70, 55, 112, 109, 113, 114, 1.
The Middle Period In Mecca,... 54, 37, 71, 76, 44, 50, 20, 26, 15, 19, 8, 36, 43, 72, 67, 23, 21, 25, 17, 27, 18.
The Late Period in Mecca,... 32, 41, 45, 16, 30, 11, 14, 12, 40, 28, 39, 29, 31, 42, 10, 34, 35, 7, 46, 6, 13.
And in Al'Madina2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33, 63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 68, 60, 110, 49, 9, 5.
Now go look at your qu'ran and tell me which peaceful verses are still in effect. And do not forget that abrogation is specific and general, permanent and temporary... depending on the situation... so get out your copies of the A'Hadis... and have a good time learning.
Note that verses 9 and 5 were the last of the dictates of allah by momo and as such hold the wieght of abrogattion against many of the previous verses of conciliation...
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
That verse alone condemns allah's folowers to jihad for the remainder of the worlds existence or till all say allah is god and momo his prophet.
Even verse 5 which many claim prohibits the killing of non-muslims is not properly understood to do anything of the such...
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/gues … peace.html
The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:
"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."
The loopholes in this prohobition makes it in-effectual, and all Muslims know this.... just the mere act of being an American taxpayer can be seen, and is seen, as material support for warfare against muslims.
Nice trick eh? lol
So... try again.
Oh... and she is right about paradise being a garden with streams... the reward for jihad and dying in the jihad is 72 virgins, and sweet lil boys for their amusement...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Th … sages.html
Next...My gosh... I think the truth seems quite clear to me. You've rejected the intellectual reasoning of someone who has no bias for Islam, but took the time to read the Qur'an properly, for essentially an opinion that feeds your own preconceived ideas.
*No* credible scholar knows exactly what any ayat in the Qur'an clearly means because they transcend time for one. And furthermore, the Prophet (saw) made a prayer for Ibn Abbas to have the best understanding of it, and even his understanding was temporal. We have a scope of meaning which we can use for interpretation, but the fundamental premise you've made is completely false.
There's no trickery involved, and I'm certainly not an apologist. I believe Islam to be the truth, I can prove it better than you can prove I even exist, and I have nothing to apologise for.
In fact, I just looked up your last link for giggles, to see what random rubbish you're quoting. It certainly lists as a lot of ayat in the Qur'an, so I looked at the very first one which it quotes as saying "retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain". Oh, how sinister, you're allowed to retaliate?
Let's look at a translation of the complete verse: "O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment."
http://quran.com/2/178
Sounds to me Allah (swt) is saying if that if someone is murdered illegally, you can do likewise (i.e. they deserve the death-penalty). There's nothing unusual about this, the death-penalty still exists in the USA to this day.
Furthermore, the link you posted makes *absolutely NO reference* to the fact the *very same verse* says it's better to overlook, as a Mercy! In other words, the "eye-for-an-eye" rule isn't an order, it's an option.
But of course, to mention the entire thing, in context, would destroy your point, so you selectively misquote... and that's just the first one. Who's performing trickery now?
I leave you to your denials. You're certainly angry with the world in some way, and I think you're beyond help that I can provide until you're sincere in your quest for the truth. And those who are, like Lesley Hazleton (who is *not* Muslim), you might find you've been had!Yes, you would need to apologize for not using intellectual reasoning if you claim you can prove the contents of a holy book over your own existence.
Why does that warrant an apology? I do use intellectual reasoning, that's how I can prove it (in a loose sense of the word prove, technically speaking, scientists can't even prove we're real, we take it for granted with some fundamental assumptions about our universe - we call it "common sense", except it's not that common unfortunately)
You're digging yourself a deeper hole.
If you say scientists can't prove we exist, even through intellectual reasoning, how can you say you can prove a holy book with intellectual reasoning? That isn't common sense.Since when does common sense bear any weight in religious and inner thinking?
I would agree, especially when people use the term when they are attempting to prove their deities existence over their own.
Science is not the same as intellectual reasoning. Scientists cannot prove this world is real, and that you are just a brain in some jar on someone's desk. But we take it for granted that's not the case. The term 'proof' is misused by many.
If you go with the natural common sense assumptions of the world, proving Islam isn't an issue.
Again, I still fail to understand the need to be apologetic about that.Yes, and you have successfully misused that term well beyond the point I would have imagined, hence the need for an apology.
I don't see how. I think you should apologise to me for making the accusation. You've not demonstrated where and how the term has been misused, you've just made a general claim without basis... which I suppose is much like orientalist thinking anyway so I suppose you can be forgiven. It's good for Muslims to forgive... so I forgive you
Right there. You said you can prove Islam to be the truth better than you can prove you exist. That would be misusing the term.
I can't reply to your last post, but to answer your question, you've not asked me to prove it, so how you can judge what you've not seen yet is beyond me. I really hope this isn't the level of intellectual prowess I have to cater for if I were to prove it? It'd go beyond you I'm afraid. Sorry
You can't prove a holy book to be truth, no one can.
The only proof is Allah, and without Allah, your holy book is little more than a book of fables.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Just to demonstrate (this isn't the proof, btw, but I'm showing you a flaw in your logic), if you assume that messengers did come with miracles, there should be an eternal everlasting one for us now that revelation has stopped. And we can demonstrate the Qur'an is that.
Try this for size. I encourage you to read it thoroughly and sincerely before even attempting to debunk it: http://www.theinimitablequran.com/No, I don't assume messengers came with miracles. The Qur'an is not a miracle from a messenger and you can only state from a standpoint of blind faith it is a miracle. Now what?
Thanks for the link, but the author is extremely biased and is lying.
how do u know if they are the real follower of ISLAM tell me ? they dont even know the ISLAM are u saying that KABBA the holiest places of the muslim society where billions of muslims go every year is a FARCE because i got news for u boy they consider him liable to be killed simply because he is not with them U know how many the Taliban and al Qaeda are combined 3 thousand . and ho many muslims at least 2.5 billoin muslims are u saying that 2.5 billion muslims are shit hole who dont know what there religion is
The Muslim community is no more dangerous than the Christian community. The vast majority of domestic terrorists and psychos(KKK, IRA, Breivik, Phillip Garrido, etc.) and other nut cases claim to be Christian. The Bible seems to give these these clowns the green light to be prejudice or to perform screwed up acts of extreme violence, rape, etc. From the end of the Civil War up to 9/11 it was "fear the black man". After that, it was "fear the Muslim". What happened to "fear the Christian?" which started back in the 3rd Century?
Fear seems to be the operative word for religion.
These gods are always threatening someone, just like it's followers.
No, cos it's always the minority that spoil certain cultures and those are Terrorists! Mind you having said this, one Country could try to band together and open up loads of takeaways and corner shops in every other Country to gain a foothold and ....Boom! But that's the Conspiracy theorist inside me that thinks that!
I am a Christian and refuses to believe that Muslims are like that. I am a staunch believer in the goodness of man, and whoever thinks otherwise, is expressing hatred for mankind and that is not being kind to humankind.
"There's no trickery involved, and I'm certainly not an apologist. I believe Islam to be the truth, I can prove it better than you can prove I even exist, and I have nothing to apologise for."
of course your an apologist... you are a muslim.
And that is exactly why you won't admit the truth.
And there is much trikery involved in Islam, that is a fact of the religion itself.
You what? Deny abrogation exists within the qu'ran?
If you do not deny it, then there is no way around the points I have made.
And if you do deny it exists, then you have no clue. The qu'ran without abrogation is full of contradictions.
So one or the other.
Islam is nothing more than a confabullated perversion of the Judao Christian doctrines blended with pre-Islamic paganism.
So as I said... continue on with the Tiqiyya and kithman, the BS.
And I have rejected your liberal American apologist wholly and without reservation... yes I have. I reject her and you and all the BS, for the writings and words of Islam's own scholars and the words of allah and momo.
Yes I have.*sigh*
I'm not an apologist. I am a Muslim. The two are *not* synonymous.
You know nothing about Islam, you only *think* you know, but you've been fed lies and falsehood, and you were gullible enough to swallow it up. You cannot explain why Islam remains the fastest growing religion... it's because people research it and learn the truth of it.
And I didn't deny abrogation exists, but I don't agree that it exists in the same manner as you suggest. Please try to upgrade your arguments. Your position is not the only option. And I have more of a clue than you think about the Qur'an, I'll bet you cannot even read and understand it in it's original Arabic... you have to rely on others to tell you what it says. So really, YOU have no clue.
Also, if Islam was based on Judao-Christian sources, you've yet to answer why the Quranic version of the stories are superior (i.e. without fault or contradiction), and how the stories came to be when the Arabs didn't know these stories and Prophet Muhammed (saw) didn't know either... and people knew he didn't know, and the Qur'an mentions as such yet no-one claimed it was lying, not even his worst enemies.
Tiqiyya and kithman are performed by Shia, which I am not!
And you reject Lesley because she speaks the truth and destroys everything you stand for... and you can't stand it. You've not pointed out any flaw with her other than your own opinion, yet you cannot even state why your opinion should be regarded as stronger.
You, sir, are a sorry little man, full of anger and hate, and no-where to direct it. You haven't a clue of reality, and want to pass through life assuming the "other" are to blame for you problems.
Poor poor little man.Out of control birthrates in third world countries with predominant Muslim societies and the emigration of those countries with dictatorships and regimes.
The Arabic language can be successfully translated into other languages keeping intact any cultural or symbolic characteristics.
That would be a biased opinion.
No.
The overwhelming majority are 'just folks.'
Fanatics, absolutists of all stripes, zealots, close-minded bigots--those are the ones you really have to watch out for.
There's not much to choose from among Anders Beirik--I think I'm spelling that wrong but can't bring myself to check it--Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Zarqawi or Bin Laden--or among so many other deluded but dangerous fools, Muslim, Christian, Fascist, God-knows-what. It isn't the details of their twisted faith that matters.
It's their willingness to sacrifice living human beings to their delusions.i do not believe the muslim community is dangerous. The sad part is that people assume that the Muslim community is dangerous because of what the U.S. and some international media portrays the muslim community to be. Remember in the late 1930's Adolf Hiltler became chacellor of germany and began his proproganda against the jewish by using the newspapers and radio broadcast to spread his message of hatred across. The same thing is happening to muslims now with the incidents that happened after 9/11 and with the recient attacks in Norway. The alleged bomber and killer, Anders Behring Breivik copied and pasted a manifesto bashing Muslim and justified his reasoning for murdering 76 people. There are new Hitler's taking the torch and spreading ignorance about the Muslim community, like Pamela Geller. I have come to understand that relgion is not a terrorist organizaion. It is some people who either abuse their religion to cause fear among others or who fear religion so badly that they use it to rationalize being a terrorist. In either case, any religous community, Muslim or non muslim, pays the price for another's ignorance and ruthlessness.
I do not believe that the muslim community is dangerous, I believe that there are extremists who are dangerous - and they exist in every religion, and every walk of life. To answer your question ISLAM means peace.
exactly +calpol. we can't blame everyone for some troops of extremists.
Thank you Taleb80 and atauldilse I just think that it is ridiculous to blame a whole community for the actions of misguided idiots.
I certainly agree Terrorism has no religion only hatred and bigotry where love, kindness and understanding should be...NOT all are dangerous there are good and there are bad just like in AMERICA. I recently went to Morocco and married a Moroccan man..HE IS AMAZING! Now working on the Spousal Visa but I just missed the income requirements they ask So now Im in DESPERATE need of a CO-SPONSOR..and suggestions? Only reason they want a co sponsor is so he doesnt become a state burden. If your interested let me know. All the info you read about it online can be very confusing and misleading So if your interested or have any questions please email me brahimswife@yahoo.com
Related Discussions
- 63
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?
by Amanda Littlejohn 8 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me say that without taking offense. But most religions per se enshrine some deeply...
- 14
Do you believe in religious freedom?
by Daniel J. Neumann 11 years ago
Do you believe in religious freedom?Yes, this does relate to that pesky Mosque built near Ground Zero. Will you abandon the 1st amendment?
- 45
Why are those you believe in a god so aggressive?
by cjhunsinger 8 years ago
Why are those you believe in a god so aggressive?It seems to be fairly common for one who believes in the existence of a supernatural deity to verbally attack, threaten with damnation and even demean anyone who does not subscribe to such a belief. Are such beliefs built on such intimidation and is...
- 196
Labelling Muslims as Terrorists
by Rishad I Habib 12 years ago
"Muslims are Terrorists!" - its a line that I often find visible in a vivid way now a days. Many Hubbers here use these two words interchangeably so often that even being an atheist I have started to feel empathy for those Muslims who has nothing to do with terrorism. Theres approximately...
- 130
Do you agree with this take on the president?
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
Fromm CNN and Maureen Dowd:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/17/ … tml?hpt=C2
- 26
Should freedom of religion include freedom to hate?
by Tony Lawrence 11 years ago
I am not in favor of restricting freedom of religion, but it bothers me greatly that some extremely religious groups actively teach hatred.I suppose we have to put up with it, but why is there so much fear to show outrage at least? When someone says that homosexuals or atheists or Catholics...