Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

lol no 1 is preaching here. I am not a preacher nor am I forcing anyone to convert to Islam. and the same goes for catalyst. All we are doing here is protecting our religion and telling ppl what they might not know. nothing wrong with that, considering how Islam and Quran have a huge effect on Muslims. If you are a muslim you would understand that

2ndly yes there are suicide bombings going on around the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine & even Pakistan.

I do not support suicide bombings but if you have to defend your home and your family from UAVs, tanks and armed personal what would you do? Defend yourself right? and thats what the Quran says. If attacked or forced out of your homes, you should defend yourself. This is common sense, muslim or non-muslim.

Also are these ppl who carry out these bombings muslims? I have said it and will say it again. Just because your name is Muhammad doesnt mean that you are automatically a Muslim. Yes BB you are right, that many muslims are born as muslims. They have muslim names and you would think that they are muslims. But to be a muslim there is more then just to having a muslim name.

now please lets stick to the topic and i hope rats does come back with his or her translation

if someone wants to discuss about anything related to Islam suggest you start your own thread .

human muslims by trait and NOT just by name, muslim is a time function and not a state function ..

freefromrats wrote:On another thread, 'rudeboy' alleged I took a number of the violent and militant passages in the Koran, the ones which say to attack unbelievers and unbelief, out of context.

So, skipping the introduction, I'll go straight to the violent/militant Quranic passages (with chapter and verse numbers) and try to see what surrounding passages I must have missed that supposedly places the violent/militant passages in their proper 'context'.

Verse 61.009 of the Koran, says that Muhammad's religion will one day conquer other religions:

PICKTHAL: He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

Surah 61 is a short chapter - only 14 verses, so let's start with that one and go from there.

I cannot see which verse in that chapter places the ninth verse into its proper context (whatever that means) other than to come to the conclusion from its straight forward meaning that Muslims are to conquer other religions.

Once rudeboy points out these mystery verses, then I can move onto the next violent verse in the Koran.

"61.9": He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.

my friend , you wont find it in any religion that human should kill each other, Islam is a believe, it overcoming other religions simply means that one day the majority of humans will be Muslims, it mean Islam will dominate other religions, in another meaning many ppl will believe in it compared to other believes. so how did you did take Islam as a feeling that will dominate other religion into a Muslim killing others ?

rudeboy wrote:lol no 1 is preaching here. I am not a preacher nor am I forcing anyone to convert to Islam. and the same goes for catalyst. All we are doing here is protecting our religion and telling ppl what they might not know. nothing wrong with that, considering how Islam and Quran have a huge effect on Muslims. If you are a muslim you would understand that

2ndly yes there are suicide bombings going on around the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine & even Pakistan.

I do not support suicide bombings but if you have to defend your home and your family from UAVs, tanks and armed personal what would you do? Defend yourself right? and thats what the Quran says. If attacked or forced out of your homes, you should defend yourself. This is common sense, muslim or non-muslim.

Also are these ppl who carry out these bombings muslims? I have said it and will say it again. Just because your name is Muhammad doesnt mean that you are automatically a Muslim. Yes BB you are right, that many muslims are born as muslims. They have muslim names and you would think that they are muslims. But to be a muslim there is more then just to having a muslim name.

now please lets stick to the topic and i hope rats does come back with his or her translation

if someone wants to discuss about anything related to Islam suggest you start your own thread .

Its all related boy. I don't recall any weapons being deployed or bombers and tanks on the roof of the Trade Center on 9/11 pointed at Muslim countries, unless of course, you know something the rest of the world doesn't. You really make no sense when you open your mouth.

No you are not preaching or looking to convert, but at the same time you are doing a real injustice to Islam with your interpretation. Because of the mysteries that religion holds, you would have to spend every day of your life to understand them. Don't think that people have to accept your interpretation as truth or fact. You and Catalyst don't support your arguments (opinions/interpretations) very well as there are too many holes in them. I am no expert on Islam, and you two are far from being experts as well.

I think if people want to know more about Islam, there are by far many other and better resources to learn from than you two. What you two think know could fit in a thimble.

Bora Bora wrote:

rudeboy wrote:lol no 1 is preaching here. I am not a preacher nor am I forcing anyone to convert to Islam. and the same goes for catalyst. All we are doing here is protecting our religion and telling ppl what they might not know. nothing wrong with that, considering how Islam and Quran have a huge effect on Muslims. If you are a muslim you would understand that

2ndly yes there are suicide bombings going on around the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine & even Pakistan.

I do not support suicide bombings but if you have to defend your home and your family from UAVs, tanks and armed personal what would you do? Defend yourself right? and thats what the Quran says. If attacked or forced out of your homes, you should defend yourself. This is common sense, muslim or non-muslim.

Also are these ppl who carry out these bombings muslims? I have said it and will say it again. Just because your name is Muhammad doesnt mean that you are automatically a Muslim. Yes BB you are right, that many muslims are born as muslims. They have muslim names and you would think that they are muslims. But to be a muslim there is more then just to having a muslim name.

now please lets stick to the topic and i hope rats does come back with his or her translation

if someone wants to discuss about anything related to Islam suggest you start your own thread .

Its all related boy. I don't recall any weapons being deployed or bombers and tanks on the roof of the Trade Center on 9/11 pointed at Muslim countries, unless of course, you know something the rest of the world doesn't. You really make no sense when you open your mouth.

No you are not preaching or looking to convert, but at the same time you are doing a real injustice to Islam with your interpretation. Because of the mysteries that religion holds, you would have to spend every day of your life to understand them. Don't think that people have to accept your interpretation as truth or fact. You and Catalyst don't support your arguments (opinions/interpretations) very well as there are too many holes in them. I am no expert on Islam, and you two are far from being experts as well.

I think if people want to know more about Islam, there are by far many other and better resources to learn from than you two. What you two think know could fit in a thimble.

you are entitled to your opinions but Islam is a simple religion to believe in and you are right THEY DONT NEED ME OR CATALYST TO listen to. But when a person comes online and starts accusing your religion of this and that you as a muslim should do your best to defend your religion. ANd thats what I am doing puddycat. nothing wrong with that puddycat is there? Jihad is not done with weapons, it is done with words too .

and if i dont make sense when I open my mouth, I suggest you should do your best not to start or continue conversations with moi

uaekid wrote:

freefromrats wrote:On another thread, 'rudeboy' alleged I took a number of the violent and militant passages in the Koran, the ones which say to attack unbelievers and unbelief, out of context.

So, skipping the introduction, I'll go straight to the violent/militant Quranic passages (with chapter and verse numbers) and try to see what surrounding passages I must have missed that supposedly places the violent/militant passages in their proper 'context'.

Verse 61.009 of the Koran, says that Muhammad's religion will one day conquer other religions:

PICKTHAL: He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

Surah 61 is a short chapter - only 14 verses, so let's start with that one and go from there.

I cannot see which verse in that chapter places the ninth verse into its proper context (whatever that means) other than to come to the conclusion from its straight forward meaning that Muslims are to conquer other religions.

Once rudeboy points out these mystery verses, then I can move onto the next violent verse in the Koran.

"61.9": He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.

my friend , you wont find it in any religion that human should kill each other, Islam is a believe, it overcoming other religions simply means that one day the majority of humans will be Muslims, it mean Islam will dominate other religions, in another meaning many ppl will believe in it compared to other believes. so how did you did take Islam as a feeling that will dominate other religion into a Muslim killing others ?

Yes kid is right.

and rats I suggest you have a look at
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=61 and its translation.

rudeboy wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

rudeboy wrote:lol no 1 is preaching here. I am not a preacher nor am I forcing anyone to convert to Islam. and the same goes for catalyst. All we are doing here is protecting our religion and telling ppl what they might not know. nothing wrong with that, considering how Islam and Quran have a huge effect on Muslims. If you are a muslim you would understand that

2ndly yes there are suicide bombings going on around the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine & even Pakistan.

I do not support suicide bombings but if you have to defend your home and your family from UAVs, tanks and armed personal what would you do? Defend yourself right? and thats what the Quran says. If attacked or forced out of your homes, you should defend yourself. This is common sense, muslim or non-muslim.

Also are these ppl who carry out these bombings muslims? I have said it and will say it again. Just because your name is Muhammad doesnt mean that you are automatically a Muslim. Yes BB you are right, that many muslims are born as muslims. They have muslim names and you would think that they are muslims. But to be a muslim there is more then just to having a muslim name.

now please lets stick to the topic and i hope rats does come back with his or her translation

if someone wants to discuss about anything related to Islam suggest you start your own thread .

Its all related boy. I don't recall any weapons being deployed or bombers and tanks on the roof of the Trade Center on 9/11 pointed at Muslim countries, unless of course, you know something the rest of the world doesn't. You really make no sense when you open your mouth.

No you are not preaching or looking to convert, but at the same time you are doing a real injustice to Islam with your interpretation. Because of the mysteries that religion holds, you would have to spend every day of your life to understand them. Don't think that people have to accept your interpretation as truth or fact. You and Catalyst don't support your arguments (opinions/interpretations) very well as there are too many holes in them. I am no expert on Islam, and you two are far from being experts as well.

I think if people want to know more about Islam, there are by far many other and better resources to learn from than you two. What you two think know could fit in a thimble.

you are entitled to your opinions but Islam is a simple religion to believe in and you are right THEY DONT NEED ME OR CATALYST TO listen to. But when a person comes online and starts accusing your religion of this and that you as a muslim should do your best to defend your religion. ANd thats what I am doing puddycat. nothing wrong with that puddycat is there? Jihad is not done with weapons, it is done with words too .

and if i dont make sense when I open my mouth, I suggest you should do your best not to start or continue conversations with moi

Defending Islam would be necessary if someone is showing disrespect. No accusations are being made, nor disrespect. It is about interpretation. One view as opposed by another view. Because someone doesn't see it the way you think they should see it, doesn't make it wrong. Everyone is entitled to his own interpretation. Accept that.

For the most part I have watched you spread your ignorance on DF, without commenting. I generally stay out of religious issues of debate because no good ever comes from it. I interjected here because you cannot accept someone elses interpretation of Islam. One person renders his interpretation, you render what you think is the absolute word. If you believe in something strongly, no one can hurt that belief.

Bora Bora wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

rudeboy wrote:lol no 1 is preaching here. I am not a preacher nor am I forcing anyone to convert to Islam. and the same goes for catalyst. All we are doing here is protecting our religion and telling ppl what they might not know. nothing wrong with that, considering how Islam and Quran have a huge effect on Muslims. If you are a muslim you would understand that

2ndly yes there are suicide bombings going on around the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine & even Pakistan.

I do not support suicide bombings but if you have to defend your home and your family from UAVs, tanks and armed personal what would you do? Defend yourself right? and thats what the Quran says. If attacked or forced out of your homes, you should defend yourself. This is common sense, muslim or non-muslim.

Also are these ppl who carry out these bombings muslims? I have said it and will say it again. Just because your name is Muhammad doesnt mean that you are automatically a Muslim. Yes BB you are right, that many muslims are born as muslims. They have muslim names and you would think that they are muslims. But to be a muslim there is more then just to having a muslim name.

now please lets stick to the topic and i hope rats does come back with his or her translation

if someone wants to discuss about anything related to Islam suggest you start your own thread .

Its all related boy. I don't recall any weapons being deployed or bombers and tanks on the roof of the Trade Center on 9/11 pointed at Muslim countries, unless of course, you know something the rest of the world doesn't. You really make no sense when you open your mouth.

No you are not preaching or looking to convert, but at the same time you are doing a real injustice to Islam with your interpretation. Because of the mysteries that religion holds, you would have to spend every day of your life to understand them. Don't think that people have to accept your interpretation as truth or fact. You and Catalyst don't support your arguments (opinions/interpretations) very well as there are too many holes in them. I am no expert on Islam, and you two are far from being experts as well.

I think if people want to know more about Islam, there are by far many other and better resources to learn from than you two. What you two think know could fit in a thimble.

you are entitled to your opinions but Islam is a simple religion to believe in and you are right THEY DONT NEED ME OR CATALYST TO listen to. But when a person comes online and starts accusing your religion of this and that you as a muslim should do your best to defend your religion. ANd thats what I am doing puddycat. nothing wrong with that puddycat is there? Jihad is not done with weapons, it is done with words too .

and if i dont make sense when I open my mouth, I suggest you should do your best not to start or continue conversations with moi

Defending Islam would be necessary if someone is showing disrespect. No accusations are being made, nor disrespect. It is about interpretation. One view as opposed by another view. Because someone doesn't see it the way you think they should see it, doesn't make it wrong. Everyone is entitled to his own interpretation. Accept that.

For the most part I have watched you spread your ignorance on DF, without commenting. I generally stay out of religious issues of debate because no good ever comes from it. I interjected here because you cannot accept someone elses interpretation of Islam. One person renders his interpretation, you render what you think is the absolute word. If you believe in something strongly, no one can hurt that belief.

i agree with you. EVeryone is intitled to their own interpretation of Islam. I have just pointed out to RATS that there are many interpretations of Islam especially on the net. you will find true interpretations and false interpretations by anti-islam websites which have their own agendas.

RATS quoted from anti-islam websites and nor was it his/her interpretations of islam. I requested RATS to read the Quran so that he can have his own views of Islam and the Quran. If he does that thats great. If he doesnt do that, the world wont come to an end.

Guiding someone to the correct path is not a sin

and lets stick to the topic

rudeboy wrote:I requested RATS to read the Quran so that he can have his own views of Islam and the Quran. If he does that thats great. If he doesnt do that, the world wont come to an end.

Guiding someone to the correct path is not a sin

Excuse me, Sir. Each time I went past a bookshelf with Quran in Carefour I read following warning (sorry I didn't learn it by heart):

"Dear non-Muslim exparts, we humbly ask you not to touch Holy Quran by your dirty paws!"

So even if I wanted to read the book I could not do that. What a pity!

Narrated 'Aisha (Radi-Allahu 'anha):

When the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) became ill, some of his
wives talked about a church which they had seen in Ethiopia and it was
called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of
them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The
Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) raised his head and said, "Those are
the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of
worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the
worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."

Bukhari Vol. 2 : No. 425


Learn Quran online with www.learningquranonline.com its a great way to learn quran with tajweed, learn the Quran recitation online

For learning quran online you can contact us at
001 201 793 8133 or go directly on our web site http://www.learningquranonline.com

If Islam was all about Jihad then dont you think christians minorities would have been wiped out from countries such as lebanon, jordan, syria, kuwait, Iraq etc?

Good point rudeboy. If Islam was all about jihad, then you would expect that the countries/territories you mentioned would have had been conquered and Islamic law established by force - as it commands Muslims to do in the Quran.

Like I said read the Quran and read its true translations.

Interesting perspective. I had never known prior to this thread that Muhammad Pickthall, a Muslim scholar, is known for his 'false' translations of the Koran.

Rats here is the translation of surah 61:9

You mean that is one translation of that verse.

(61:9) He it is Who has sent forth the Messenger with the Guidance and the True Religion that He may make it prevail over all religion, however those that associate aught with Allah in His Divinity might dislike this.

So, basically, the huge difference between the translations is that one translator uses the word 'conquer' to unequivocally provide the plain meaning to the verse - that Islam will militarily conquer all other religions and the translation you provided where the translator uses the term 'make it prevail over all religion'.

Hmm, I assume that you have not realized that making a religion prevail against other means conquering other religions, right?

Given the fact that one Muslim translator uses the word conquer and all the other translations talk of taking over all other religions, it would seem obvious to me that the Arabic is speaking of dominating other religions in a militant context.

RATS quoted from anti-islam websites

The only websites I've quoted from were the MSA (Muslim student association) website and a Muslim tafseer website.

But, you are more than entitled to believe in your delusions.

you will find true interpretations and false interpretations by anti-islam websites which have their own agendas.

I'm more than happy to read your explanation on how exactly Pickthall's translation is a 'false' interpretation.

freefromrats there is a huge difference between conquer and prevail. Your first impression of conquer would be a army take over by force.

have you read http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=61 which explains about surah 61:9? In short before Islam there were many religions as there are today. God said Islam will take over these religions because there was corruption, greed and wrong doings in all other religions such as ppl worshiping stone statues as their god. killing their daugthers or believeing that ppl like Jesus (pbuh) and all the other messengers before Muhammad (pbuh) were actually God. God didnt want this and He said Islam will take over these "bad" religions.

2ndly where does surah 61:9 say that you have to kill all other non-muslims in order to take over their religions? All it does say is take over other religions. does it say anywhere in the quran that you should kill non-muslims in order to spread Islam???

Like I said there are non-muslims living in muslim countries and they would have been wiped out if Islam was a killing machine religion. Instead its not, its a peaceful religion. Same goes for Millions of muslims living in USA and Europe. Those guys are there for the last 100 years and have you seen any Islamic uprisings in USA or parts of Europe so that they can spread Islam. Instead it is spreading slowly and peacefully. And this is what Surah 69:1 mean.

Red Chief wrote:

rudeboy wrote:I requested RATS to read the Quran so that he can have his own views of Islam and the Quran. If he does that thats great. If he doesnt do that, the world wont come to an end.

Guiding someone to the correct path is not a sin

Excuse me, Sir. Each time I went past a bookshelf with Quran in Carefour I read following warning (sorry I didn't learn it by heart):

"Dear non-Muslim exparts, we humbly ask you not to touch Holy Quran by your dirty paws!"

So even if I wanted to read the book I could not do that. What a pity!

There are reasons behind to it why you cant touch the Holy Quran by your dirty paws .

But if you want to learn about the Quran you could always find a online quran website or download the Quran software

freefromrats wrote:

RATS quoted from anti-islam websites

The only websites I've quoted from were the MSA (Muslim student association) website and a Muslim tafseer website.

But, you are more than entitled to believe in your delusions.

you will find true interpretations and false interpretations by anti-islam websites which have their own agendas.

I'm more than happy to read your explanation on how exactly Pickthall's translation is a 'false' interpretation.

In order for us to criticize something we need to fully understand it. Apparently, you, Rudeboy and Catalyst have the least knowledge about what you guys are discussing. If you’re interested in Islam as a religion, you have a variety of channels to learn about it, but not through a forum full of a bunch of bored people. On the other hand, if you hate Islam and think it’s a hostile religion, your hatred won’t harm it in any way.

Read books and talk to scholars so that you can have a clear picture about Islam, if not convinced, religion is a choice after all.

Here's an idea. Take this thread to the Religion Forum where you can find other people who would love to join in, and you would have a great mix.

I ask this because we have seen this subject raised numerous times and it is getting tedious to have to see it over and over.

Thanks guys.

good idea ..

Metaphor79 wrote:Read books and talk to scholars so that you can have a clear picture about Islam

I agree. Muslims understand Islam based off of the rulings of scholars and the consensus of the ulema, as opposed to reading the Koran for oneself (as I'm doing) and learning the true teachings of Islam.

rudeboy wrote:freefromrats there is a huge difference between conquer and prevail.

Of course you're referring to the English translation of Koran here, but the verse says to *make* one religion prevail over others, i.e., conquer.

have you read which explains about surah 61:9?

No, I believe that the Koran can be understood without having to resort to using outside sources. In any event, that commentary does not discuss the matter at hand, only the scholar's twisted and limited knowledge of first century Christianity.

In short before Islam there were many

You mean there were religions that existed before Islam? I have to say, most (all?) anthropologists would agree with you.

God said Islam will take over these religions because there was corruption, greed and wrong doings in all other religions such as ppl worshiping stone statues as their god.

Unfortunately, Jews do not worship stones, statues or other gods and yet the passage says to make Islam prevail/conquer *all* religions - including Judaism.

God didnt want this and He said Islam will take over these "bad" religions.

Agreed. The Koran says that Muslims are to 'take over' other religions. No argument there.

2ndly where does surah 61:9 say that you have to kill all other non-muslims in order to take over their religions?

Typically, people tend to die from wars of aggression and perpetual holy war.

Didn't you say in another thread that innocent civilians will always be harmed in war? That type of thing is to be expected when launching jihads all across the world and all.

All it does say is take over other religions. does it say anywhere in the quran that you should kill non-muslims in order to spread Islam???

The Koran says, multiple times, to wage war to spread Islam. If war can be waged without killing or Islam can be spread without war, then that would be all the better.

Those guys are there for the last 100 years and have you seen any Islamic uprisings in USA or parts of Europe so that they can spread Islam.

What can I say? I'm thankful that Muslims do not follow the teachings of the Koran.

oh man ,what are you ? a new version of the Bangladesh guy ? be what you wana be and let others, even if there religion is asking them to eat them selves. the world does ot need religious extremists like you guys from all sides. now be gone and let the world to be in peace.

And yes please take it to the religious forum..

This thread does seem to be in the wrong section.

I do agree with FreefromRats that it is a great idea to learn about a religion from original sources and commend him for reading the Quran and giving us the benefit of his views.

It is interesting, though, to contrast his conclusions with another independent thinker who has even taken the trouble to write a long book on Islam, it's teachings, history and even his views on its future.

Here's an extract from an article about what this scholar says:

Professor Kung also set out what the three religions have in common, such as injunctions against murder and respect for life. “They do not recognise themselves in our picture of Islam, because they want to be loyal citizens of the Islamic religion.

"Those who make Islam responsible for kidnappings, suicide attacks, car bombs and beheadings carried out by a few blind extremists ought at the same time to condemn Christianity or Judaism for the barbarous maltreatment of prisoners, the air strikes and tank attacks carried out by the US Army - 10,000 civilians have been murdered in Iraq alone - and the terrorism of the Israeli army in Palestine.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 150391.ece

The article argues that Islam is stuck in its Middle Ages - a premise that I have made myself in the past (independent of Prof Kung).

I'm quite tolerant of other people's views of the world - for example there are those who sincerely believe the world is flat, Elvis is still alive or Jacko was an alien.

In this case, we must choose whose view we want to lend more weight - Prof Kung or Monsieur Le Rat?



Cheers,
Shafique

"In short Islam is the religion of peace. In the Middle East, Christians, Hindus, Etc live Peacefully amongst Muslims. If Islam was all about Jihad then dont you think christians minorities would have been wiped out from countries such as lebanon, jordan, syria, kuwait, Iraq etc? "

Well-said


To freeformats

Such an accusation doesn't stand a ground when its baseless and has been proved otherwise. I see such an accusation as mere propaganda and Islam-phobic rhetoric. I've been travelling throughout the Middle East for the last three months, and I've came across with so many of what you called non-believers, and guess what, they are living and working freely, not to mention there are large Arabs who are Christian, Jew etc.

To your disappointment, Islam is one of the fastest growing religion in the world, whether you like it or not. You, and like-minded have failed to sway peoples' opinion about this fascinating and peaceful religion. This due to the fact that people around the world ain't stupid, they are smart enough to distinguish between a politically motivated group, whom main anger have been driven by what has been happening in the Middle East (Israel - Palestine and American's one-sided support to the Israeli, and the support to some of those stupid Arabic leaders etc). People also have come to realized that Afganistan has never been in a peace since its creation . Its been a chaotic country, and as a result, the majority of its people have developed a war-minded attitudes and mistrust, patriarchal rule etc- it has nothing to do with Islam.

Lighting up buddy. And try to embrace your fellow humans regardless of their spirituality.

However, it's fair to say this, I do think the Middle East region is in a desperate need for a proper education, and emphasis on the need to abolish the patriarchal lifestyle, and embrace the equality between men and women. Which as we know, was some centuries ago used to be the norm and practice in almost every societies throughout the world. Example, Victorian Era etc. Sadly this practice is relatively still in practice in the Middle East. Again, it's a cultural rather than anything else.

shafique wrote:Here's an extract from an article about what this scholar says:

I definitely agree with Hans Kung, who has written a long book on Islam (that I haven't read), when he says that Islam is incapable of adapting to the values of the twenty and twenty-first century:

He questioned whether Islam is even capable of adapting to a post-modern world in the way that Christianity and Judaism have done.

I gotta say, I agree with him there, don't you?

In this case, we must choose whose view we want to lend more weight - Prof Kung or Monsieur Le Rat?

We should definitely take into consideration the conclusions drawn from scholars and historians but, what does that have to do with this thread?

Humbleman wrote:"In short Islam is the religion of peace. In the Middle East, Christians, Hindus, Etc live Peacefully amongst Muslims. If Islam was all about Jihad then dont you think christians minorities would have been wiped out from countries such as lebanon, jordan, syria, kuwait, Iraq etc? "

Well-said


To freeformats

Such an accusation doesn't stand a ground when its baseless and has been proved otherwise. I see such an accusation as mere propaganda and Islam-phobic rhetoric. I've been travelling throughout the Middle East for the last three months, and I've came across with so many of what you called non-believers, and guess what, they are living and working freely, not to mention there are large Arabs who are Christian, Jew etc.

To your disappointment, Islam is one of the fastest growing religion in the world, whether you like it or not. You, and like-minded have failed to sway peoples' opinion about this fascinating and peaceful religion. This due to the fact that people around the world ain't stupid, they are smart enough to distinguish between a politically motivated group, whom main anger have been driven by what has been happening in the Middle East (Israel - Palestine and American's one-sided support to the Israeli, and the support to some of those stupid Arabic leaders etc). People also have come to realized that Afganistan has never been in a peace since its creation . Its been a chaotic country, and as a result, the majority of its people have developed a war-minded attitudes and mistrust, patriarchal rule etc- it has nothing to do with Islam.

Lighting up buddy. And try to embrace your fellow humans regardless of their spirituality.

However, it's fair to say this, I do think the Middle East region is in a desperate need for a proper education, and emphasis on the need to abolish the patriarchal lifestyle, and embrace the equality between men and women. Which as we know, was some centuries ago used to be the norm and practice in almost every societies throughout the world. Example, Victorian Era etc. Sadly this practice is relatively still in practice in the Middle East. Again, it's a cultural rather than anything else.

What does this long post have to with this thread again?

Humbleman wrote:"In short Islam is the religion of peace. In the Middle East, Christians, Hindus, Etc live Peacefully amongst Muslims. If Islam was all about Jihad then dont you think christians minorities would have been wiped out from countries such as lebanon, jordan, syria, kuwait, Iraq etc? "

Well-said


To freeformats

Such an accusation doesn't stand a ground when its baseless and has been proved otherwise. I see such an accusation as mere propaganda and Islam-phobic rhetoric. I've been travelling throughout the Middle East for the last three months, and I've came across with so many of what you called non-believers, and guess what, they are living and working freely, not to mention there are large Arabs who are Christian, Jew etc.

To your disappointment, Islam is one of the fastest growing religion in the world, whether you like it or not. You, and like-minded have failed to sway peoples' opinion about this fascinating and peaceful religion. This due to the fact that people around the world ain't stupid, they are smart enough to distinguish between a politically motivated group, whom main anger have been driven by what has been happening in the Middle East (Israel - Palestine and American's one-sided support to the Israeli, and the support to some of those stupid Arabic leaders etc). People also have come to realized that Afganistan has never been in a peace since its creation . Its been a chaotic country, and as a result, the majority of its people have developed a war-minded attitudes and mistrust, patriarchal rule etc- it has nothing to do with Islam.

Lighting up buddy. And try to embrace your fellow humans regardless of their spirituality.

However, it's fair to say this, I do think the Middle East region is in a desperate need for a proper education, and emphasis on the need to abolish the patriarchal lifestyle, and embrace the equality between men and women. Which as we know, was some centuries ago used to be the norm and practice in almost every societies throughout the world. Example, Victorian Era etc. Sadly this practice is relatively still in practice in the Middle East. Again, it's a cultural rather than anything else.

well said Humbleman

freefromrats wrote:
I definitely agree with Hans Kung, who has written a long book on Islam (that I haven't read), when he says that Islam is incapable of adapting to the values of the twenty and twenty-first century:

I also agree with Kung with many of his points - the medieval-minded Mullahs are indeed stuck in the past.

He also argues that Muhammad, pbuh, is a prophet of God and in the quote I gave above (pointedly ignored by you in your post, I note) - he is making the point that Islam does not teach violence.

I presume you've read the reviews of Kung's book to conclude what you state above. What Amazon's review from 'Publisher's weekly' says of his book says though is:

...
He sees each faith as having had major paradigm shifts that have moved it forward, and, in fact, praises Islam for advancing the Arab people quite rapidly, in some cases much faster than similar periods for Christianity. Nevertheless, he claims the Muslim world has neglected to move to its next paradigm due to various failures: arrogant ulama (religious scholars), greed among the wealthy, and the lack of health care and education. Equally critical of Christianity and Judaism, Küng is a lone, profound voice searching for greater understanding through asking difficult questions. He is intuitively confident that Muslims are ready to revitalize their religion, hungry for such rethinking through new Qur'anic interpretations that are already underway.

Note the 'already underway' and key word 'next' in 'next paradigm'..

freefromrats wrote:

He questioned whether Islam is even capable of adapting to a post-modern world in the way that Christianity and Judaism have done.

I gotta say, I agree with him there, don't you?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The practicing Muslims of the world today (not least those converting to Islam) can be examined to see whether their choice of religion is at odds with the 'post-modern world' or not. Happy to examine any specific aspects of Islam that you consider to be anachronistic - but let's do that in the religion section.

freefromrats wrote:

In this case, we must choose whose view we want to lend more weight - Prof Kung or Monsieur Le Rat?

We should definitely take into consideration the conclusions drawn from scholars and historians but, what does that have to do with this thread?

My point was that I was commending you on taking the initiative and reading the Quran directly to get a view of what Islam teaches, but I pointed out that your conclusion about what Islam teaches about warfare/treatment of non-Muslims etc is at odds with the scholar I quoted (the quote was about attributing violence to Islam).

I was contrasting your apparent view and Kung's conclusions.

If my point is still unclear - let me know and I'll be happy to clarify.

Cheers,
Shafique

but I pointed out that your conclusion about what Islam teaches about warfare/treatment of non-Muslims etc is at odds with the scholar I quoted

Unfortunately, the quote was not what Islam teaches about violence - since the Koran teaches Muslims to attack unbelievers.

The quote simply said that Islam cannot be blamed for suicide bombings, beheadings (although beheading is a punishment in the Koran and hadiths), car bombings, etc.

I did not see Hans Kung explain the violent passages in the Koran which order Muslims to carry out militant strikes against unbelievers. It is possible that he tackles this issue in his long book but, I have not yet had a chance to even read it. Perhaps you were referring to that instead of the article you linked to?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The practicing Muslims of the world today (not least those converting to Islam)

I'm not sure if that is proof at all or simply that Muslims (thankfully) do not follow the teachings in the Koran. I am more than happy to compare the number of terrorist attacks (thwarted ones included) of Muslim converts with the number of terror attacks (thwarted ones included) by converts to other faiths and then draw any conclusions from these numbers.

Just recently, as in the last two weeks, there were two terror cells in Australia and one in the United States of Muslim terrorists who were rounded up for plotting attacks against Australia and the US respectively. I believe two of those cells included converts who become subscribers to a violent ideology *after* their conversion of Islam.

Makes one wonder if Islam loosens ones inhibitions towards violence that are normally kept in check.

freefromrats wrote:Unfortunately, the quote was not what Islam teaches about violence - since the Koran teaches Muslims to attack unbelievers.

I know you want to believe this is the case - however, the quote I gave showed Kung agrees with all of us who disagree with you.

You appear to agree with him though that Islam does not condone terrorism. Which, I guess, is progress.

freefromrats wrote: It is possible that he tackles this issue in his long book but, I have not yet had a chance to even read it. Perhaps you were referring to that instead of the article you linked to?

I was citing his conclusion from the article as it related to whether Islam condones violence. I quoted a review from his book to address your point about Kung's views about Islam being relevant in post-modern times.

freefromrats wrote:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The practicing Muslims of the world today (not least those converting to Islam)

I'm not sure if that is proof at all or simply that Muslims (thankfully) do not follow the teachings in the Koran.

They thankfully don't follow what I call the 'orientalist' view of Islam, but rather the actual teachings of the religion - a conclusion you should also reach should you get round to reading Prof Kung's books - or indeed if you read all the verses of the Quran relating to relations with non-Muslims, justice and even the ones on warfare.

freefromrats wrote: I am more than happy to compare the number of terrorist attacks (thwarted ones included) of Muslim converts with the number of terror attacks (thwarted ones included) by converts to other faiths and then draw any conclusions from these numbers.

Great - I'll take you up on that.

Let's count the numbers of civilians killed violently by either explosions or weapons, for reasons other than robbery/crimes etc.

I'll let you choose what period you want to look up - either the past year, 5 year, 10 years or so? Will you look at this on a global basis, or choose one continent at a time?

We can keep a running total of those killed or maimed by terrorist attacks carried out by those calling themselves Muslims and those killed/maimed by say US or UK weapons (whether in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc etc).

I'd call the shooting down of an Iranian airliner to be an act of terrorism - but I'm a bit fickle that way - so you may not wish to go that back further in history

We can then compare the numbers of victims of Terrorist attacks - distinguishing the numbers killed by 'Muslim converts' with those killed/plotted by 'non-Muslims'.

It would also be instructive to list the numbers of victims by religion - and see whether your contention that Muslims should kill non-Muslims is being translated to reality, or whether it is Muslims who are the victims of terrorist killings.

freefromrats wrote:Just recently, as in the last two weeks, there were two terror cells in Australia and one in the United States of Muslim terrorists who were rounded up for plotting attacks against Australia and the US respectively. I believe two of those cells included converts who become subscribers to a violent ideology *after* their conversion of Islam.

Cool - start the count - but let me know if you are going to count 'suspects' as well as actual terrorist attacks, and let me know how you'll count the Israeli terrorist sympathisers (such as those who venerate Baruch Goldstein) etc.

And whilst we are talking about figures - we should also look at ratios. What proportion of those who become Muslim each year end up carrying out terrorist attacks - and lets say compare that with the numbers of new colonialists in occupied Palestine (aka 'settlers') who go on to carry out attacks against civilians. We have Israeli groups who count the terror attacks against Palestinian civilians and you have estimates of colonialist numbers - so dividing the two to get your ratio shouldn't be too difficult.

(We can then examine whether the violent verses of the OT should be condemned because of the religously motivated terror attacks perpetrated by the supporters of Baruch Goldstein's actions).

I look forward to your findings.

freefromrats wrote:Makes one wonder if Islam loosens ones inhibitions towards violence that are normally kept in check.

Let's keep the wondering until after we've counted the numbers of bodies, shall we?

Anyway - you wanted to count the bodies - I'm calling your bluff. Over to you (and please don't ask me to do your counting for you - I'll just check your figures and point out the bodies you're missing - just let me know over what period you want to count the civilian victims of violent deaths)

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats wrote:

Metaphor79 wrote:Read books and talk to scholars so that you can have a clear picture about Islam

I agree. Muslims understand Islam based off of the rulings of scholars and the consensus of the ulema, as opposed to reading the Koran for oneself (as I'm doing) and learning the true teachings of Islam.

rudeboy wrote:freefromrats there is a huge difference between conquer and prevail.

Of course you're referring to the English translation of Koran here, but the verse says to *make* one religion prevail over others, i.e., conquer.

have you read which explains about surah 61:9?

No, I believe that the Koran can be understood without having to resort to using outside sources. In any event, that commentary does not discuss the matter at hand, only the scholar's twisted and limited knowledge of first century Christianity.

In short before Islam there were many

You mean there were religions that existed before Islam? I have to say, most (all?) anthropologists would agree with you.

God said Islam will take over these religions because there was corruption, greed and wrong doings in all other religions such as ppl worshiping stone statues as their god.

Unfortunately, Jews do not worship stones, statues or other gods and yet the passage says to make Islam prevail/conquer *all* religions - including Judaism.

God didnt want this and He said Islam will take over these "bad" religions.

Agreed. The Koran says that Muslims are to 'take over' other religions. No argument there.

2ndly where does surah 61:9 say that you have to kill all other non-muslims in order to take over their religions?

Typically, people tend to die from wars of aggression and perpetual holy war.

Didn't you say in another thread that innocent civilians will always be harmed in war? That type of thing is to be expected when launching jihads all across the world and all.

All it does say is take over other religions. does it say anywhere in the quran that you should kill non-muslims in order to spread Islam???

The Koran says, multiple times, to wage war to spread Islam. If war can be waged without killing or Islam can be spread without war, then that would be all the better.

Those guys are there for the last 100 years and have you seen any Islamic uprisings in USA or parts of Europe so that they can spread Islam.

What can I say? I'm thankful that Muslims do not follow the teachings of the Koran.

lets just cut it short rats.

can you tell me where in the Quran does it say that Islam should take over other religions VIOLENTLY? That it must kill all other non-muslims to take over their religion. Or where does it say that a sword or a gun should be pointed to a non-muslims so that they convert to Islam. can you do that?

yeh i know you will quote from surah 61:9 where Islam must "take over" other religions. What do you understand by the words "take over"?

however, the quote I gave showed Kung agrees with all of us who disagree with you.

That's one perspective.

I was citing his conclusion from the article as it related to whether Islam condones violence.

He said that one shouldn't fault Islam for suicide bombings, etc. He didn't mention whether or not Islam calls for warfare against unbelievers and spreading Islamic law by force.

I quoted a review from his book to address your point about Kung's views about Islam being relevant in post-modern times.

I agreed with the good professor that Islam is incapable of conforming to the values and ethics of the modern world.

I guess the quote shows that Kung agrees with me and disagrees with you.

They thankfully don't follow what I call the 'orientalist' view of Islam

I can't help but detect a little bit of changing the subject on your part. This thread is about determining whether or not the verses I quoted on another thread were taken out of context.

I maintain that they were not and that the Koran has more verses talking about hell for unbelievers, fighting unprovoked battles against unbelievers and passages which speak negatively about unbelievers (calling non-Muslims 'the most vile of created beings') than the other way around.

I guess the only way to settle this, is to post all of the verses which talk about warfare against unbelievers and then post all the verses which prohibit unprovoked battles. But then again, that is not my job. I'm only pointing out the numerous violent passages in the Koran.

or indeed if you read all the verses of the Quran relating to relations with non-Muslims

Happy to look at *all* of the passages and not just the ones Muslims in the West will post in order to falsely portray Islam as a 'peaceful' religion.

Great - I'll take you up on that.

Done. We can also compare the number of unbelievers the early Christians killed with the number of unbelievers the early Muslims murdered (tens of thousands).

Perhaps you'll claim this is an unfair comparison because the early Christians did not hold any political power. Well, last I checked, Muslims these days (thankfully) do not hold that much political power themselves. But hey, why should we let consistency get in the way of a good argument?

We can keep a running total of those killed or maimed by terrorist attacks carried out by those calling themselves Muslims

You'll have to take that up with Rudeboy, who said that just because someone's name is Muhammad, that does not mean they are devout Muslims (or something to that extent).

I am careful to distinguish between the actions of secular governments, such as Turkey and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, from the actions of religious fanatics in Al Qaeda in Iraq.

It's interesting that you want to conflate the US government with a Christian theocracy. I would say that speaks of your lack of knowledge of the United States, but my guess is that you would simply have a hard time finding attacks from genuine Christian fanatic groups unlike what you would have with Islamic terror groups (who are influenced by the texts and teachings of Islam).

I'd call the shooting down of an Iranian airliner to be an act of terrorism

Unfortunately, we are talking of religious terrorism. I am impressed with your ability to shamelessly move your own goal posts.

We can then compare the numbers of victims of Terrorist attacks - distinguishing the numbers killed by 'Muslim converts' with those killed/plotted by 'non-Muslims'.

As I said, done. I am not aware of converts to other religions who have carried out terror attacks, so I'll leave the (extremely) heavy lifting for you.

Cool - start the count - but let me know if you are going to count 'suspects' as well as actual terrorist attacks

For this, I don't necessarily believe in innocent until proven guilty. When you have confessions of Muslim converts who say they wanted to kill thousands of Australian civilians, I'll take their word for it even if they have not been sentenced yet.

What proportion of those who become Muslim each year end up carrying out terrorist attacks - and lets say compare that with the numbers of new colonialists in occupied Palestine (aka 'settlers')

Impressive! You've managed to yet again move your own goal posts. Sorry, I don't think settlers are converts. But I'm happy to document attacks against unbelievers in the Philippines and Thailand (just two regions where Islamic insurgencies are fighting). We can also see if the non Muslims killed in Thailand and the Philippines by Islamist terrorists receive the same amount of media coverage as Palestinians (or Israelis) do around the world (or even this forum).