Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

[Larniavc]

I disagree with that.
I would say "spiteful people can be Christians"... my family is all christians and not one of them is in any way spiteful.

What I meant was that Christians are at the same level of spite as the general population. Not that all Christians are spiteful.

 

[Bradskii]

As is expected, you're ignoring my flagging the principle of abrogation and citing a verse from the Medina period. Though this is not the thread for getting into the ins and outs of Islamic jurisprudence.

You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.

 

[BCP1928]

.... uh .... in what way specifically am I to take the blame for the religious decline in the U.S.?

Not you, particularly. Not even the Christian nationalists--they're just reacting to it, but that they are reacting to it by fighting a culture war rather than a religious war might be a clue as to what people are walking away from.

 

[Fervent]

You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.

Quote what I said.

 

[JosephZ]

Quote what I said.

Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.

Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.

Properly understood, it absolutely does. But that takes engagement with Islamic scholarship and the Sunnah material, where it is clear that Muhammad used the threat of conversion or death against the people of Mecca when he overthrew the city. And forms that deny death for apostasy are the exception, whereas it is the prescriptive punishment by pretty much all mainline divisions(sunni, shia, sufi)

 

[Fervent]

@JosephZ Great, now can you show me where I said "Muslims will kill anyone who doesn't convert". And be careful, because there is a difference between "kill those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert" that is important in this conversation...since I made clear that Muslims allow for dhimmi status for Jews and (some) Christians...but anyone who is kafiri is toast in an Islamic state. It's rather telling that so many are completely unwilling to recognize what should be plain to anyone who isn't an Islamic apologist.

 

[Bradskii]

...there is a difference between "kill those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert"...

There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct.

Apostasy is a different matter.

 

[Fervent]

There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct.

I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.

Apostasy is a different matter.

It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence. Apostasy is a different matter, which is why I wasn't talking about apostates.

 

[Bradskii]

I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.

You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.

It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters.

From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained

'The Quran says, “Slay them wherever you find them…” which abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran and lets Muslims kill any non-Muslim they want.'

But...

'This verse commands Muslims to defend their community against idolaters who violated their peace treaty obligations and were waging a war of aggression.

The verse is applicable only to hostile armies and not to non-Muslims in general. We should look at the entire chapter and interpret the verses comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking one verse out of context.

And...

"When the sacred months have passed, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them go on their way. Verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.:

But...

Some scholars referred to this as the “verse of the sword” because it commands the Muslims to defend the community against their enemies, but this is merely the designation of some scholars and it was not labeled as such by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims. The verse allows for hostilities to cease if the idolaters repent from their transgression and become Muslims. Even if they refuse to accept Islam, the verse immediately following commands peace with any idolater who stops fighting and asks for a covenant of security.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Carnal Christians sounds menacing...like calling them meat. But I suppose such names are good for looking down the end of our noses at people.

Christians who walk in the flesh. Galatians 5.

 

[Fervent]

You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.

nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.

From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained

'The Quran says, “Slay them wherever you find them…” which abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran and lets Muslims kill any non-Muslim they want.'

But...

'This verse commands Muslims to defend their community against idolaters who violated their peace treaty obligations and were waging a war of aggression.

The verse is applicable only to hostile armies and not to non-Muslims in general. We should look at the entire chapter and interpret the verses comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking one verse out of context.

And...

"When the sacred months have passed, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them go on their way. Verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.:

But...

Some scholars referred to this as the “verse of the sword” because it commands the Muslims to defend the community against their enemies, but this is merely the designation of some scholars and it was not labeled as such by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims. The verse allows for hostilities to cease if the idolaters repent from their transgression and become Muslims. Even if they refuse to accept Islam, the verse immediately following commands peace with any idolater who stops fighting and asks for a covenant of security.

Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?

 

[Bradskii]

nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.

Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?

The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...

Oops, my bad. maybe that should be "kill anyone who doesn't convert".

 

[Fervent]

The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...

not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah." That is, of course, not adding the additional wrinkle that the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.

Oops, my bad. maybe that should be "kill anyone who doesn't convert".

Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.

 

[Bradskii]

not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."

As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.

Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.

No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.

 

[Fervent]

As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.

All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".

No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.

Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.

 

[Bradskii]

All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".

Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.

Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Fervent]

Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Do you want me to flood your PMs with it? Because I'm holding back to try to derail this thread less than it already is being derailed. So if you want the receipts, I'll gladly give them to you.