Islam will be the dominate religion of the western nations

[Andylusion]

I think the dominant religion will be none at all as that is the trend

Nah. It's not. Soviets dominated their people, and indoctrinated them with atheism for decades on end. Entire generation of people that never had any faith in any belief system.

When the Soviet Union fell... there was a dramatic, and massive reversal of the trend, still going even to this day.

People that had for decades on decades, told there was no G-d, no deity, nothing but darwin and chance.... all dramatically turned towards faith and belief in the super natural.

The Bible, by the way, says as much... that humans have an internal belief that cannot be eliminated from the soul of man. You can suppress it, and you can deny it, but you can never eliminate it.

Same this is true in China, where communists enforced atheism on the public for decades, and then the moment the harsh control of all religious action was relaxed, faith is growing extremely fast.



So the idea that all religion is going to die out... never. Not in the western world, or any other. Atheism is a joke. It is not a real threat to religious people like me. You can deny G-d all you want, and yes religion may decline for years on end, but at the end, that trend will reverse, and people will find their way back to G-d, even if it isn't until 1, 2 or even 3 generations later.

There's a reason that even in the Bible, it says at the end times, not that there will be no religion, but rather the opposite, that there will be a one world religion embraced universally by all people's.

 

[pismoe]

I think that you are correct in your post . One question though . I agree , little that I know about the One World Religion . But isn't that One World Religion seen as being a BAD thing by many in the Christian religion 'AndyL ??

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nah. It's not. Soviets dominated their people, and indoctrinated them with atheism for decades on end.

They only pushed out other religions, because they didnt like the competition. The USSR was a pretty religious state, vaunting its leaders to godlike status.

Look at north korea....that's the most religious state in the world.

 

[alang1216]

Do you know the religion obligates Muslims to advance Islam? Terror is only part of an attack on every plane of our existence to make things Sharia compliant. Look at Europe, no assimilation, also ordered in the Koran. Look at the huge presence in our educational system Islam suddenly has. So your tiny fraction has the same goal in mind and there is a huge support for both.

They're doing a terrible job of advancing Islam in my neighborhood, the only people who come to convert me are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. As for assimilation, my grandparents barely learned English and spent all their time reading and talking in their native language. Assimilation takes 3 generations.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you know the religion obligates Muslims to advance Islam? Terror is only part of an attack on every plane of our existence to make things Sharia compliant. Look at Europe, no assimilation, also ordered in the Koran. Look at the huge presence in our educational system Islam suddenly has. So your tiny fraction has the same goal in mind and there is a huge support for both.

They're doing a terrible job of advancing Islam in my neighborhood, the only people who come to convert me are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. As for assimilation, my grandparents barely learned English and spent all their time reading and talking in their native language. Assimilation takes 3 generations.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

 

[alang1216]

They're doing a terrible job of advancing Islam in my neighborhood, the only people who come to convert me are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. As for assimilation, my grandparents barely learned English and spent all their time reading and talking in their native language. Assimilation takes 3 generations.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

 

[pismoe]

Russia --- 'soviet' religion has / had been Orthodox Christian Catholic , Greek Christian Orthodox since the 1100s [about] I think . A Russian Czar [ivan the terrible] decreed that to be so . Anyway the Russian people remained the same even under the 'soviets' . Though the RUSSIAN People had to hide their religion under the 'soviets' . ----------------- from the little that I know or GUESS BBoom . And I post with very little hard facts , the stuff I post is stuff that I halfway remember BBoom .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim.

And they were only civilized to the extent to which they did not follow the letter of the islamic holy books.

That's an important point.

I judge islam by what is in Islam. And it is a motherlode of horrible ideas.

Now, as a separate point, I feel compelled to discuss this because of the problem we have with fundamental islamic fanatics on this planet today.

It's important to acknowledge this. By the same token, I am not so compelled to discuss the mountain of bad ideas that was, for instance, the greek mythological paradigm. But, should 100s of millions of its adherents start causing major problems in the world,I would be so compelled.

 

[pismoe]

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

-------------------------------------------------------- 'islam' hadn't been invented . There were NO muslims until 'islam' was invented in about 600 - 700 hundred AD . When were the Greeks running around Alang ??

 

[alang1216]

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

-------------------------------------------------------- 'islam' hadn't been invented . There were NO muslims until 'islam' was invented in about 600 - 700 hundred AD . When were the Greeks running around Alang ??

Study your history. Much of what we know of the ancient Greeks comes to us through the Muslim world.

 

[alang1216]

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim.

And they were only civilized to the extent to which they did not follow the letter of the islamic holy books.

That's an important point.

I judge islam by what is in Islam. And it is a motherlode of horrible ideas.

Now, as a seperate point, I feel compelled to discuss this because of the problem we have with fundamental islamic fanatics on this planet today.

It's important to acknowledge this. By the same token, I am not so compelled to discuss the mountain of bad ideas that was, for instance, the greek mythological paradigm. But, should 100s of millions of its adherents start causing major problems in the world,I would be so compelled.

All holy books are Rorschach tests of the culture that revere them. Christians believe the OT is the word of God yet we don't generally stone adulterers, in fact some revere adulterers and elect them to high office.

 

[pismoe]

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

-------------------------------------------------------- 'islam' hadn't been invented . There were NO muslims until 'islam' was invented in about 600 - 700 hundred AD . When were the Greeks running around Alang ??

-------------------------------------------- as I said , there were no muslims running around prior to 600 - 700 AD . When were the Greeks running around Alang ??

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim.

And they were only civilized to the extent to which they did not follow the letter of the islamic holy books.

That's an important point.

I judge islam by what is in Islam. And it is a motherlode of horrible ideas.

Now, as a seperate point, I feel compelled to discuss this because of the problem we have with fundamental islamic fanatics on this planet today.

It's important to acknowledge this. By the same token, I am not so compelled to discuss the mountain of bad ideas that was, for instance, the greek mythological paradigm. But, should 100s of millions of its adherents start causing major problems in the world,I would be so compelled.

All holy books are Rorschach tests of the culture that revere them. Christians believe the OT is the word of God yet we don't generally stone adulterers, in fact some revere adulterers and elect them to high office.

Lets put the whataboutism to bed:

I would say similar things about the mountain of bad ideas in Christianity. But 1) this thread is about Islam,and 2) we have a much bigger problem with Islam in the world today than not just christianity, but pretty much every religion. And we need to be able to speak frankly about it without a bunch of people throwing themselves in front of it like misguided human shields.

By saying christians don't stone people for adultery, you make my points for me. They used to do so. Now they dont. So, their morality in that respect has improved precisely to the extent that they eschew their holy texts.

At some point, we had to point at that and say, "that's a bad idea", and then get christians to agree.

Now, we need fundie islamic freaks to do the same. And misguided liberals shielding them from being told this doesn't help this cause or the muslims. Surely you agree.

 

[the other mike]

The west's rejection of religion is leaving a spiritual vacuum and the religion of Islam will eventually fill that void. ....

Televised beheadings will be a popular TV show I bet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Islam will be the dominate religion of the western nations"

Actually not.

As likely has already been correctly noted, Islam will join the other Abrahamic religions in a collective minority with the majority of citizens in the West no longer participating in organized religion or otherwise free from religion altogether – particularly in Europe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Televised beheadings will be a popular TV show I bet.

Do they need a host?

Signed,

Soon to be ex president deadbeat donnie

 

[the other mike]

Televised beheadings will be a popular TV show I bet.

Do they need a host?

Signed,

Soon to be ex president deadbeat donnie

Epstein would have been the new president, but they picked his cousin Shleppstein.

Is this a clean debate ? The way the woman in black is looking at him says it all.

We know a lot of religions have the pedophilia tendencies....just sayin.

 

[Lastamender]

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

Actually, Islam caused the Dark Ages
.Universal Human Rights Alpha and Omega: Islam caused the Dark Ages

 

[Lastamender]

Nothing about killing to get that done. Try again.

You're correct, there is nothing in the Quran that instructs believers to kill to spread the faith. They may kill to defend themselves or in special circumstances but there is no blanket command to kill. There are verses in the Quran that have been taken out of context by some on the right who profit by demonizing Muslims.

The Quran is much like the OT and NT, it contains so many passages that it is easy to cherry pick a few to support any point of view. Taken as a hole, the Quran is no worse than the Bible and, like the Bible, terrible things are sometimes done in its name.

Muslims Only Supposed to Kill in Self-Defense?
The Truth:
This game involves finding a verse from the Quran that authorizes fighting in self-defense, and then ignoring the others. It is sometimes bolstered by disingenuously slipping in the word "only" to make it appear as if fighting for Allah is limited by this condition.

The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only circumstance under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places "until all religion is for Allah". The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule until they are subjugated.

The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproven from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The first true battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it set in motion a long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed through the heart of America on 9/11. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in earlier episodes. It is true that Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger in their new home at Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value than the very lives of unbelievers. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims who follow Islam.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of this was during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.

In addition to the Quran's instruction of violence against unbelievers and non-practicing Muslims (Sura 9), Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. How does killing a blasphemer, an adulterer or someone who leaves Islam qualify as self defense?

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the east as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved even the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

This is how your linked website describes itself: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.
What do you want to bet I could easily find a web site with the exact opposite agenda.

Well, to be fair, Islam, indeed, poses an ideological threat to dignity and freedom.

To be fair, some of the most civilized nations in history have been Muslim. It was the Muslim world that kept the ancient Greeks' knowledge alive to spur the Renaissance in Christian Europe.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents you should judge Christianity the same way. The results may be more even than you think.

If you judge Islam by its worst adherents

One more time, what you call the worst the Koran calls the best. Why can't you understand that?

 

[Lastamender]

Montana: Muslim migrant wanted to wage jihad for the Islamic State and attack non-Muslims

That is a good Muslim, according to the Koran there is no greater deed than jihad.