Do Not Bash Muslims

JosephZ · Jul 29, 2019

setst777 said:
in our weeks long dialogue you fought hard to show that Islam and its sacred scriptures were not the cause of Islamic terrorism. These arguments of yours is just the opposite of what Bale and my Six Witnesses stressed as the danger.

I have often made a connection between Islam and Islamic texts as a contributing factor to Islamic terrorism not just in this thread, but others as well.

April 28, 2019

JosephZ said:
Those in the highest positions of leadership of these terrorists groups have extensive knowledge of Islam. They use this knowledge to manipulate and radicalize those who are ignorant of Islam with a perverted version of the religion in order to pursue their agenda.

June 8, 2019

JosephZ said:
The Islamic extremists are using the same text from the Qur'an as mainstream Muslims, so of course their is a direct connection to Islam.

July 4, 2019

JosephZ said:
Islamic extremists... intentionally take the Qur'an and other religious texts out of textual and historical context in an effort to deceive people who are ignorant of the teachings of the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Where you believe that Islam and its sacred scriptures are the cause of Islamic terrorism, Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself a disagree with you. We all agree that Islam and Islamic texts only play a role in Islamic related terrorism.

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"This brings us to the real nub of the problem: the longer that key Western elites persist in mistakenly denying the central role played by Islamist interpretations of Islam in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks, the less likely they will be able to prevent future attacks from this quarter." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

You will notice that Dr. Bale does not say that Islam is the cause of terrorism in the above quotes.

Islam and its sacred scriptures are not the cause of Islamic terrorism, however, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that they do not play a role in Islamic terrorism. It is perfectly clear that Islamic extremists are using Islam, it's history, and it's religious texts to justify their activities.

setst777 said:
You are looking at a specific time period only. Throughout Islamic history, especially in Iraq, we see constant Islamic terrorism that did not include Wahhabism, especially by the Sunni.

Islamic terrorism has always been rare in the Middle East compared to other parts of the world. It has only been in the past decade or so that it has become such a common occurrence there.

setst777 said:
Iran is Shia and has long been a sponsor of terror as well.

There are only two Islamic terrorist organizations recognized by the the US State Department that are Shia. The vast majority of the others are Wahhabist and/or have ties to the Government of Saudi Arabia or receive funding from that country.

Here is what Yahya Cholil Staquf has to say on this:

"Iran is engaged in similar activities among Shi’ite communities around the world. However, it is the Saudi strategy of propagating Wahhabism and Salafism that has turned the world into a powder keg due to the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, not Shi’ite." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

setst777 said:
ISIS is Salafi/Wahhabi, but many Sunni of various schools and groups joined the ISIS fight because the similarities in Jihad between the four schools of Sunni and Salafi and Wahhabi.

How many is "Many"? There have also been many westerners and non-Muslims joining ISIS, how do you explain that?

setst777 said:
Once again your understanding is based on a very narrow time period (2003-2006). Before ISIS, Iraq had a long history of terrorism.

Between the time of Iraq gaining independence in 1932 until the times of US and western coalition intervention in that country terrorism was almost non-existent. It was only after US and coalition intervention in Iraq that terrorism became a problem. In fact, Iraq went from never having a recorded case of a suicide bombing in it's history prior 2003 to being a world leader. This fact alone should be enough to show that the religion of Islam isn't the primary cause of terrorism in that country.

setst777 said:
And after ISIS we still see Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorism.

Do you think that has to do primarily with religion, or other factors present in Iraq?

setst777 said:
Salafism is considered by many to be the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world.

It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.[167][168][169][170]

It may or may not be the fastest growing, but currently only around 5% of the Muslim population follow it.

setst777 said:
We will continue to see global Jihad as long as Islam and Sharia (as found in Islam’s sacred Scriptures) exist

No, it will continue to be a problem as long as the extremists sects of Islam are being legitimized not only by Islamic extremists, but also anti-Islamic propagandists.

At the present time greater than 90% of the world's Muslims and most people in the world consider these extremists and their teachings to be illegitimate. What you are trying to convince people of is that the extremists are credible and their teachings are legitimate interpretations of Islam. Your approach of warning people about the "dangers of Islam" and parroting the same misinformation that's found on anti-Islamic propaganda sites is counterproductive in the fight against violent extremism.

What Dr. Bale teaches is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts and refer to the same events in Islamic history as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches.

Islamic extremists and fundamentalist fail to recognize the significance of the textual and historical context that the Qur'an, hadiths, and other Islamic texts were written in and try to apply them in today's world. This is also the mistake you make and that I have pointed out several times in this thread.

Here is what Yahya Cholil Staquf has said on this.

"Islamic teachings must be contextualized in order to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. In other words... the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle East, and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time. … So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

What he said above is very similar to what I said in a previous thread:

"What Ali Sina is doing is following a strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an and not putting it into historical and textual context. What he and other extremist teachers are doing is ignoring the fact that the Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. As I have mentioned before, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. It can be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019."

This is why Yahya Cholil Staquf says the following:

"We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that posits the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality."

What you doing is legitimizing the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and Shari'a and recognizing them as absolutes. This is not how the vast majority of Muslims approach Islam.

setst777 said:
Since you now say that you agree with Bale and all Six Witnesses, my point has already been successfully completed in this discussion.

As you can see, I agree with Dr. Bale and Yahya Cholil Staquf, it's you that is failing to understand the message they are trying to convey.

setst777 said:
Setst RE: The Subject of the article is a warning to the West as summed up at the end

A warning to the west of what exactly?

setst777 said:
You and I are now in agreement that we do acknowledge the problem. Now we must spread the warning to others, so that the USA and all infidel countries will hopefully wake up to the danger of Islam facing the world.

No, we are not in agreement, and neither are you in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They are not warning people about the religion of Islam. They are warning against extremist interpretations of Islam and those who fail to see the connection between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam. They also warn against those who fail to make a distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam. Below is a quote from Dr. Bale:

"The “Islam bashers” that make up the so-called “counter-jihad” movement who generally (and foolishly) fail to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and sometimes even argue, preposterously, that there is no such thing as Islamism. That is the equivalent of arguing, equally absurdly, that there is no difference between Christianity in general and literalist, extremist, and theocratic interpretations of Christianity, e.g., Christian Reconstructionism." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

In the above quote he is talking about people like yourself, David Wood, Bill Warner, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel and websites like answeringIslam, Jihad Watch, the Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Project, Front Page Magazine, Creeping Sharia, and others.

You can try to claim you differentiate between Islam and Islamic extremism, but your last post and much of your content in this thread make it very clear that you don't.

setst777 said:
Thanks for the info regarding the significance of the arrow. I am fairly new to Christian forums so I was not familiar with the arrow.

You're welcome. It will be beneficial to those reading your posts in the future if you do this.

Joyousperson · Jul 29, 2019

JosephZ said:
I have often made a connection between Islam and Islamic texts as a contributing factor to Islamic terrorism not just in this thread, but others as well.

April 28, 2019

June 8, 2019

July 4, 2019

Where you believe that Islam and its sacred scriptures are the cause of Islamic terrorism, Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself a disagree with you. We all agree that Islam and Islamic texts only play a role in Islamic related terrorism.

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"This brings us to the real nub of the problem: the longer that key Western elites persist in mistakenly denying the central role played by Islamist interpretations of Islam in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks, the less likely they will be able to prevent future attacks from this quarter." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

You will notice that Dr. Bale does not say that Islam is the cause of terrorism in the above quotes.

Islam and its sacred scriptures are not the cause of Islamic terrorism, however, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that they do not play a role in Islamic terrorism. It is perfectly clear that Islamic extremists are using Islam, it's history, and it's religious texts to justify their activities.

You are contradicting yourself, i.e.

JosephZ wrote;
Islam and its sacred scriptures are not the cause of Islamic terrorism, however, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that they do not play a [key, central {Bale}] role in Islamic terrorism.

Point is, if Islam and its sacred scripture play a key and central role in Islamic terrorism, then it must be the cause of Islamic terrorism, that is very logical.

JosephZ: You will notice that Dr. Bale does not say that Islam is the cause of terrorism in the above quotes.

It is obvious from the above, Dr. Bale implied Islam [comprising Islamism] is a cause [part] of Islamic terrorism.

What Dr. Bale stated is there are many interpretations [moderate and extreme versions] as to 'What is Islam'.

The problem here is Dr. Bale is IGNORANT of 'What is Islam-proper' as intended by Allah as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran - the sole and final authority of Islam.

Being ignorant there is only ONE Islam, Dr. Bale do not has the authority to assert there are moderate forms of Islam, which is an insult to Allah.

It would be the worst sin in Islam by Yahya Cholil Staquf when he overrides the authority of Allah to change the ethos of Islam in ignoring the precedences within the Quran.

Note no reformists of 'moderate Islam' has been successful in the formal sense throughout the history of Islam. Name me one?
Mu'tazilites??
Muʿtazila - Wikipedia
The reformists will not succeed because they don't have any arguments against the central tennets and doctrines of Allah in the Quran.

Islamic terrorism has always been rare in the Middle East compared to other parts of the world. It has only been in the past decade or so that it has become such a common occurrence there.

Note again your straw man fallacy.
The main point of the OP is about the whole gamut and range of evil and violent acts committed by SOME [critical quantum] evil prone Muslims are compelled by the commands of Allah in the Quran.

Terrorism [most terrific] is merely one type of evil and violent acts within Islam. Terrorism and whole range of evil and violent acts are not rare in the Middle East but they were not reported in the News.

There are only two Islamic terrorist organizations recognized by the the US State Department that are Shia. The vast majority of the others are Wahhabist and/or have ties to the Government of Saudi Arabia or receive funding from that country.

The critical point is Shia terrorist organizations add to the total numbers of Islamic terrorist organizations.

It may or may not be the fastest growing, but currently only around 5% of the Muslim population follow it.

At the present time greater than 90% of the world's Muslims and most people in the world consider these extremists and their teachings to be illegitimate. What you are trying to convince people of is that the extremists are credible and their teachings are legitimate interpretations of Islam. Your approach of warning people about the "dangers of Islam" and parroting the same misinformation that's found on anti-Islamic propaganda sites is counterproductive in the fight against violent extremism.

What Dr. Bale teaches is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts and refer to the same events in Islamic history as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches.

Islamic extremists and fundamentalist fail to recognize the significance of the textual and historical context that the Qur'an, hadiths, and other Islamic texts were written in and try to apply them in today's world. This is also the mistake you make and that I have pointed out several times in this thread.

Here is what Yahya Cholil Staquf has said on this.

"Islamic teachings must be contextualized in order to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. In other words... the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle East, and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time. … So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

What he said above is very similar to what I said in a previous thread:

"What Ali Sina is doing is following a strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an and not putting it into historical and textual context. What he and other extremist teachers are doing is ignoring the fact that the Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. As I have mentioned before, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. It can be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019."

This is why Yahya Cholil Staquf says the following:

"We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that posits the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality."

What you doing is legitimizing the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and Shari'a and recognizing them as absolutes. This is not how the vast majority of Muslims approach Islam.

As you can see, I agree with Dr. Bale and Yahya Cholil Staquf, it's you that is failing to understand the message they are trying to convey.

A warning to the west of what exactly?

No, we are not in agreement, and neither are you in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They are not warning people about the religion of Islam. They are warning against extremist interpretations of Islam and those who fail to see the connection between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam. They also warn against those who fail to make a distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam. Below is a quote from Dr. Bale:

"The “Islam bashers” that make up the so-called “counter-jihad” movement who generally (and foolishly) fail to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and sometimes even argue, preposterously, that there is no such thing as Islamism. That is the equivalent of arguing, equally absurdly, that there is no difference between Christianity in general and literalist, extremist, and theocratic interpretations of Christianity, e.g., Christian Reconstructionism." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

That Salafism is 5%, that would be 75 million but I think the number is greater. This is not the critical issue.

What is critical is by default, the ideology of Islam has an inherent malignant potential like cancer cells as represented by 3400++ verses that are contemptuous to non-Muslims with elements of aggression, evil and violent elements.

The majority of Muslims at present are merely lay-Muslims who are ignorant of Allah's commands, terms and expectations in granting salvation in paradise with eternal life.

When the majority of lay-Muslims are made more awareness of their salvation status [are they saved] they will increase in their zeal to comply with more of Allah's commands which will then increase more terror, evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims. This trend is already increasing at present.

In the above quote he is talking about people like yourself, David Wood, Bill Warner, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel and websites like answeringIslam, Jihad Watch, the Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Project, Front Page Magazine, Creeping Sharia, and others.

Your views are that of an intellectual coward.
I have asked you to show proofs where David Wood, Bill Warner, Walid Shoebat, answeringIslam, Jihad Watch, and of the likes standard had ever been wrong in their referencing from original Islamic sources like the Quran, Ahadith and tafsirs. But you have not done so but kept repeating the above accusations.

JosephZ · Jul 29, 2019

Joyousperson said:
You are contradicting yourself, i.e.
JosephZ wrote; Islam and its sacred scriptures are not the cause of Islamic terrorism, however, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that they do not play a [key, central {Bale}] role in Islamic terrorism. Point is, if Islam and its sacred scripture play a key and central role in Islamic terrorism, then it must be the cause of Islamic terrorism, that is very logical.

Dr. Bale doesn't say that Islam and its sacred scripture play a key role in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks in those quotes, he says that Islamist ideology and Islamist interpretations of Islam play a key role. These extreme interpretations of course do come from Islam and Islamic texts.

Even with Islamic Ideology and Islamic interpretations playing a key role in Islamic terrorism, they are still not the cause of Islamic terrorism, they are only partially behind the cause. For example, a jet engine plays a key role in what makes a Boeing 747 fly, but it doesn't cause this airplane to fly. There are many other components and factors involved. This is also the case with Islamic terrorism.

Joyousperson said:
It is obvious from the above, Dr. Bale implied Islam [comprising Islamism] is a cause [part] of Islamic terrorism.

You are much closer to what Dr. Bale is saying with this statement. To rephrase it, Dr Bale implied that extremist interpretations of Islam are a key component behind what drives Islamic terrorism.

Joyousperson said:
The critical point is Shia terrorist organizations add to the total numbers of Islamic terrorist organizations.

They add only a small amount (Roughly 4% based on the number of designated Islamic terror groups recognized by the US State Department) to the total numbers of Islamic terror organizations.

Joyousperson said:
Your views are that of an intellectual coward. I have asked you to show proofs where David Wood, Bill Warner, Walid Shoebat, answeringIslam, Jihad Watch, and of the likes standard had ever been wrong in their referencing from original Islamic sources like the Quran, Ahadith and tafsirs. But you have not done so but kept repeating the above accusations.

This time it wasn't me making accusations against these individuals, I was providing a list from where Dr. Bale had mentioned these names.

"This “counter-jihad” movement admittedly includes several problematic far right organizations and even some extremists with a quasi-fascist orientation or background, such as... others with a radical right-wing religious agenda, including assorted Protestant fundamentalists (e.g., Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Action Network, Christian Concern in the UK, Lt. Gen. [Ret.] William “Jerry” Boykin, evangelical Christian ex-Muslims like Mark Gabriel, Sam Solomon, Imran Firasat, Reza Safa, and Nassim Ben Iman, including self-proclaimed ex-Muslim terrorists [Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani, Kamal Saleem])... it also consists of less radical but nonetheless very conservative or rightist individuals (e.g., Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Bat Ye’or [pseudonym for Gisèle Littman], Oskar Freysinger, Fjordman [pseudonym for Peder Jensen], Brigitte Gabriel, David Wood of Answering Muslims.com), and organizations or websites (e.g., Jihad Watch, the Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Project, Front Page Magazine, Vlad Tepes, Creeping Sharia, Islam Versus Europe), which often post interesting and important information despite their pronounced right-wing biases." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

I have countered some of the claims made by David Wood and others in this thread as well as a couple of others you have started already.

Joyousperson · Jul 29, 2019

JosephZ said:
Dr. Bale doesn't say that Islam and its sacred scripture play a key role in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks in those quotes, he says that Islamist ideology and Islamist interpretations of Islam play a key role. These extreme interpretations of course do come from Islam and Islamic texts.

We agree, Dr. Bale stated Islamist ideology and Islamist interpretations of Islam play a key role.
But I have argued the Islamist's interpretation of Islam is more Islamic [a greater compliance to Allah's words] than those of the moderates, i.e. the majority who are merely lay-Muslims.

Even with Islamic Ideology and Islamic interpretations playing a key role in Islamic terrorism, they are still not the cause of Islamic terrorism, they are only partially behind the cause. For example, a jet engine plays a key role in what makes a Boeing 747 fly, but it doesn't cause this airplane to fly. There are many other components and factors involved. This is also the case with Islamic terrorism.

Note I quoted you the link where the Magazine of IS stated, the primary reason why they kill non-Muslims is because they are disbelievers, and the foreign policies are secondary.
This point is supported by the many verses in the Quran - the final authority of Islam!

Yes, there are many components and factors underlying Islamist terrorism and the range of all other evil and violent acts by Islamist, i.e.political, tribal, social, racial, economics, etc.

But the critical factor that carry the most weight in the religious factor, i.e. the ideology of Islam. where what is at stake is a matter of eternal life in paradise or eternal death in hell which trump over all other factors.

Without the religious factor of Islamic evil and their concept of 'hijrah' i.e. immigration and jihad against the occupation of Islamic land [a fasad], there will not be that many Muslims going around the world killing innocent non-Muslims.

You are much closer to what Dr. Bale is saying with this statement. To rephrase it, Dr Bale implied that extremist interpretations of Islam are a key component behind what drives Islamic terrorism.

As stated above, the extremist interpretation of Islam is more Islamic than the lay-Muslims [indifferent] interpretation of Muslims.

They add only a small amount (Roughly 4% based on the number of designated Islamic terror groups recognized by the US State Department) to the total numbers of Islamic terror organizations.

Even one Islamic terror groups is bad enough, note it only took 18++ to do a 911 and many lone-wolf(S])had committed terrible evil and violent acts.

This time it wasn't me making accusations against these individuals, I was providing a list from where Dr. Bale had mentioned these names.

"This “counter-jihad” movement admittedly includes several problematic far right organizations and even some extremists with a quasi-fascist orientation or background, such as... others with a radical right-wing religious agenda, including assorted Protestant fundamentalists (e.g., Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Action Network, Christian Concern in the UK, Lt. Gen. [Ret.] William “Jerry” Boykin, evangelical Christian ex-Muslims like Mark Gabriel, Sam Solomon, Imran Firasat, Reza Safa, and Nassim Ben Iman, including self-proclaimed ex-Muslim terrorists [Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani, Kamal Saleem])... it also consists of less radical but nonetheless very conservative or rightist individuals (e.g., Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Bat Ye’or [pseudonym for Gisèle Littman], Oskar Freysinger, Fjordman [pseudonym for Peder Jensen], Brigitte Gabriel, David Wood of Answering Muslims.com), and organizations or websites (e.g., Jihad Watch, the Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Project, Front Page Magazine, Vlad Tepes, Creeping Sharia, Islam Versus Europe), which often post interesting and important information despite their pronounced right-wing biases." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

I have countered some of the claims made by David Wood and others in this thread as well as a couple of others you have started already.

As I had stated, from what I have read of Dr. Bale he is very ignorant of Islam-proper as from the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Re OP, I do not agree with anti-Muslims but there is nothing wrong with being anti-Islam or a anti-Islam-basher as long as the arguments put forward are soundly based on the authorized original sources of Islam.

Nobody is perfect. You have merely countered one of Bill Warner's view re Suyuti which is not critical at all in relation to all other points of his.
If 20% of their points or many the critical ones are found to be false or unsubstantiated, then I will reject the critique as unreliable.

So far your arguments has no credibility at all from the many logical fallacies that you have resorted to.
You have not relied upon verses from the Quran - the final authority of Islam, except for a few contentious verses which we have countered as ineffective to the point that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Joyousperson · Jul 30, 2019

JosephZ,

Here is an article on the 'Conservative Turn' within Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population.

The conservative turn [in Indonesia]
By 2005 it appeared that a conservative turn had taken place in mainstream Islam, and that the modernist and liberal views that had until recently found relatively broad support within Muhammadiyah and NU were increasingly rejected.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...vative_turn_of_the_early_twenty-first_century

This is to support my point the majority of lay-Muslims are turning toward the conservative interpretations of Islam which is more Islamic in relation of Allah's words [full of evil and violent elements].

This is where the Islamists are able to raise and heighten the inherent existential crisis and need for true salvation to paradise with eternal life.
Then they [subliminally] will naturally and increase greater zeal in their compliance with Allah's words [incl the evil and violent elements] to get a greater assurance of going to paradise instead of Hell.

Note every increase of 1% = 15 million Muslims turning to be more Islamic as per Allah's words.

Godistruth1 · Jul 30, 2019

Joyousperson said:
One of the greatest misunderstanding in discussing the issue of Islamic-based terror, evil and violent acts, is barking up the wrong tree, fire fighting and missing the critical root cause, thus allowing the problem to fester and grow.
In most cases [presumption all religions are peaceful], the attention is always on the terrorists themselves whom I believe are victims of an evil laden ideology.

Here is my argument;

A Muslim is a person who had entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Quran [final authority of Islam] with support from the Ahadiths.

Note the following conditions surrounding who is a Muslim, his/her obligation and actions;

1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with an existential crisis,

2. The most effective strategy to deal with the existential crisis is at of a promise of salvation to soothe the existential pains with the assurance of eternal life.

3. To be assured of the promise of salvation, believers MUST enter into a covenant with God/Allah to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms in the holy texts.

4. The covenanted terms of the ideology of Islam contain loads of evil and violent elements, (evidence available) [in contrast while that of Christianity is purely pacifist.]

5. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts. [argument available]

6. Appx 20% of all humans are born with an active evil tendency [evidence available] who will be naturally drawn towards evil and violent elements and commit them.

7. Potentially, SOME of the 20% of all Muslims [300 million!!!] will likely commit evil and violence in alignment with their obligation to gain salvation. Note the seriousness of this number when even a lone wolf can create terrible terrors.
From the above, ALL humans are 'cursed' with an embedded existential crisis naturally and thus all will seek solutions to deal with the existential crisis.

The majority take the religious or spiritual, where the Abrahamic followers [thus Muslims] has to enter into a covenant with their God to comply with the covenanted terms to gain salvation with eternal life.

It is very evident there are SOME [from a pool of 300 million!!] Muslims who had committed terrible terroristic and other forms of evil and violent acts.
Here is a crude stat but [even if reduced to 50% or 10% ] in essence is very valid to justify the above point;

However from the logical syllogism re point 1-6, it is very logical we cannot blame the Muslims who as vulnerable human beings are seeking salvation to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
Alternatively and in contrast where any one who had followed the Christianity path, they will NOT be influenced in any way to commit any evil or violent act since the overriding moral maxim of Christianity is purely pacifist in nature.

In the above case of evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims, we cannot primarily blame those Muslims.
The critical cause for the Muslims in committing terrible evil and violence is point 4, i.e. the ideology of Islam that contain loaded evil and evil elements that would compel and inspire SOME [from a pool of 300 million] to commit terrible evil and violent [in their eyes a divine duty] to secure their salvation and eternal life in paradise.

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.

Of course, those extremist Muslims and others who commit evil and violent acts must be accountable for their crimes but for humanity sake in seeking effective solutions, the primary blame should never be pointed at the extremist Muslims but the attention should be on the root cause, that is in the ideology of Islam. If we blame the extremist Muslims, then we are fire-fighting the symptoms rather than tackling the ultimate root cause.

Note there other factors in the above model which are the inherent existential crisis, the evil potential. But these are DNA based element thus difficult to control and change.

Affiliation with a religion is a serious emotional and psychological affair but it can be changed or modified for the better. There are many who have converted in and out of religions.

My point;
In any discussion of Islamic based evil and violent acts, we must differentiate the Muslims as human beings from the ideology of Islam [as ideas and beliefs].
(note the guilty Muslims must be accountable to the laws of the land)

Per the model above, we must not put the primary blame and direction attention at the Muslims and even extremist Muslims for the evil and violent acts they committed in the name of their religion.

The main attention and focus must be on the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam.

One problem is the ideology of Islam within the Quran [& supporting texts] is extremely difficult to grasp in its totality. Thus the first attention is to ensure the Quran and its essence is easily understood by all. This is a difficult task, but must be undertaken with an academic, objective and philosophical basis.

Views?

The silliest post I've ever come across(maybe among the most silly). It's funny how u write"evidence available". Care to explain the "evidence available" part

setst777 · Jul 30, 2019

JosephZ said:
I have often made a connection between Islam and Islamic texts as a contributing factor to Islamic terrorism not just in this thread, but others as well.

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

As I stated before and repeat again...

<<
The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that:

Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

This is the Islamic global Jihad against unbelievers that Bale, Yahya and all Six Witnesses warn us about.
>>

You agree. Why are you still arguing?

No secular scholar, or anyone else, has the right to judge traditional and fundamental sects of Islam as being illegitimate when these are the only sects that truly obey Allah and His Messenger as revealed in Islam's sacred Scriptures - Qur'an, the Sahih Hadith, the Sira and Islam's most renowned Tafsir. I quoted all of these sources for you.

In contrast, liberal and moderate Islam - by their own admission - supplant and replace Allah's immutable Sharia with secular laws that they submit to rather than to Allah and His Messenger.

So, which sects of Islam are really legitimate - the ones who follow Allah and His Messenger, or those their turn back on Allah and His Messenger, paying lip service, and going through the motions, but actually obey instead secular government and laws?

Yet you, and politicians, and even scholars in the West, willfully judge the traditional and fundamental sects of Islam as illegitimate while judging the secular Muslims as legitimate.

Such willful ignorance is the reason why we have already lost the war against Islamic Jihad (socially, legally, and physically) in the West. You fail recognize the problem as Yahya, and all Six witnesses so clearly stated and expressed repeatedly.

Traditional and Fundamental Islam is not going away and is seeing a revival.

Salfism - a fundamental Sunni Islam sect - is considered by many to be the fastest growing Islamic sect in the world.

It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.[167][168][169][170]
Salafi movement - Wikipedia

Any foreign country that traditional and fundamental sects of Islam has taken up residence has eventually become dominated by Sharia in stages just as history keeps revealing to this very day. This is not theory, this is an historical fact.

NOTE: The statistics show that as the Muslim population increases in a foreign land and gains more power, then Muslims will follow the exact pattern of Jihad (in stages) as detailed in Sharia.

Population: “1% to 2% they are peaceful;”
Population: “5%, heavy proselytizing to gain converts;”
Population: “5+%, Push for halal food, pressure businesses to comply.”
Population: “10%, increased lawlessness to ensure their demands;”
Population: “20%, rioting, sporadic killings, burning of Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues;
Population: “40%, Chronic terror attacks; 60%, persecution of non-Muslims, sporadic ethnic cleansing,” Sharia Law, tax upon infidels;
Population: “80%, Daily intimidation, violence, state-run ethnic cleansing, genocide with aim of 100% Islamic nation.”

The above information is a summary of a detailed analysis by country in the book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat" by Dr. Peter Hammond

While Mosques are being built all over the US and European countries to re-indoctrinate liberal Muslims to the foundations of their faith,
While our legal system, schools and universities are being influenced by terrorist suporiting Islamic organizations that exist right in our country
While our Islam is using our human rights laws against us to support Islam
While politicians are giving into threats by Islamic terrorist and their organizations to censure those who tell the truth about Islam
While you see those countries that Islam is gaining dominance suffer more resistance and boldness and threats and terrorism

You remain blind, like so many others. You see what is happening in the news. You appear to know something about the history of fundamental Islamic sects. Yet, you willfully choose to remain ignorant, playing games in your arguments about peripheral issues, while traditional and fundamental Islam continues to dig its roots into US politics, Mosques, universities, social media, etc - just like they have done to other countries they now dominate or control.

Continue to play your games, Joseph. I will no longer waste my time with someone who knows practically nothing about Islam, Sharia, or its religious sects. I am not angry with you. I feel sad for you, because the very Islam you are defending is the Islam that will destroy what you cherish - your freedom. You can thank yourself for being part of the problem.

setst777 · Jul 30, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
The silliest post I've ever come across(maybe among the most silly). It's funny how u write"evidence available". Care to explain the "evidence available" part

Hi Godistruth1,

You could start by looking under "Jihad" in the

Wikipedia
Islamic Encyclopedia

Islam's core Scriptures: Qur'an, Sahih Hadith, Sira, Sharia Figh for all schools of Sunni, and best Tafsir all explain Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the world. This is core docrine in Islamic Sunni and Shia Law.

Next - Muslims: You would think they would know...

Let us call some influential Muslims as witnesses to prove the point...

1st Witness
Indonesia’s foremost influential Islamic leader,

Yahya Cholil Staquf - who is a moderate Muslim leader, who believes secular law should replace Sharia
<<
Among Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders is Yahya Cholil Staquf, 51, advocates a modern, moderate Islam. He is general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which, with about 50 million members, is the country’s biggest Muslim organization. Yahya. This interview, notable for Yahya’s candor, was first published on Aug. 19 in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here are excerpts translated from the original Bahasa Indonesia into English.

Question:
Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

Question:
What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

Question:
A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor.

Question:
And Muslims and the state?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

Question:
So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence …
Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

Question:
How can that be accomplished?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.

Question:
Is it so elsewhere too?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.

There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.

Question:
They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

Question:
Who and what are responsible?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior … I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.

The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behavior has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behavior? What kind if impression does that make? Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.

Question:
I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

Marco Stahlhut is a Jakarta-based German academic and correspondent.
Contact us at editors@time.com.
Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar
Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar
>>

The evidence is strong so far that supports Joyousperson as speaking the truth. In my next post, we will continue to look at more witnesses...

Continued...

setst777 · Jul 30, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
The silliest post I've ever come across(maybe among the most silly). It's funny how u write"evidence available". Care to explain the "evidence available" part

Hi Godistruth1

I have a couple more witnesses for you to look at the further show that Joyousperson knows what he is talking about....

2nd Witness:
Saudi Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh:
<<
Saudi journalist:

If Muslims despise ‘infidel’ West, why are they so eager to live there?

Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

By MEMRI

In his July 8, 2018 column in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Arab and African Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West and even risk their lives to reach it, yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

He criticizes in particular the ingratitude of mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are immigrants themselves, who abuse the democracy and free speech in their host countries by inciting against the West.

In light of this, says Aal Al-Sheikh, the European right’s opposition to immigration is justifiable, for it is only natural to oppose the influx of immigrants who are “steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.”

Following are excerpts from his article:

“Immigrants cast themselves into the waters of the Mediterranean knowing full well that the chance of reaching their destination, the northern shore, is slim. They nevertheless risk [the journey], taking advantage of the instability in Libya, which has become the [immigrants’] point of departure on their way to the European paradise.

But what is strange, and perhaps even embarrassing, is that, if you ask them about the infidel West, they will spew curses and invective, call it ignorant, and [express] contempt for it. So why do they cast themselves into its bosom and risk their lives to reach it? I truly fail to understand this reasoning, which is so warped, rotten and paradoxical that it seems sickening and ridiculous at the same time.

An acute embarrassment

“The embarrassment becomes even more acute when one hears certain mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are foreigners and immigrants themselves, abusing the democracy and free speech that are granted to everyone [in those countries] by becoming expert at directing curses and invective at the infidels using [various] skillfully-phrased expressions.

“When the populist right in Europe demands to stop and fight immigration, even by means of military force, this evokes cries of outrage from the Arabs and Muslims there. They accuse those who make this demand of racism and hatred for the other, and – most ludicrously – [claim] that the West is undemocratic. Let me say this loud and clear: I do not blame [the Europeans]. In fact, if I were European, I would not hesitate for a moment to oppose this immigration and reject these people, whose culture is based on the duty to hate the non-Muslim, and examples [of this] in their heritage are numerous and varied… The Arabs, and especially the extremist Muslims among them, are steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.

Question:
Is a psycho-social investigation in order?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
“These conflicting sentiments – of hatred [for the West], but [a willingness] to risk one’s most precious possession, one’s life, in order to live among those hated societies and enjoy the comfort, security, stability and prosperity [they offer] – require a psycho-social investigation… Some people justify [this attitude], saying that [the Europeans] are racist xenophobes and are enemies of Islam and the Muslims. [But] for the sake of reason and honesty, put yourself in their place. Would any Arab country open its doors wide to Christian foreigners and [even] allow them to work in it? The answer is definitely not. So why do you demand that others treat [you] differently than you treat them?…

“All that is left to say is that the wave of populism currently sweeping the Western societies is justified, since it is [simply] a response in kind…”
https://worldisraelnews.com/saudi-journalist-if-muslims-despise-infidel-west-why-are-they-so-eager-to-live-there/
>>

I call my third Witness:
PM Benjamin Netenyahu - not a Muslim, but you think he would know being surrounded by Muslim nations...

July 18, 2019
<<
Israel Hayom asked Netanyahu how he responds to attacks claiming Israel undermines stability in the Middle East.

“Once they also said that all the problems of the Middle East are a product of the Palestinian problem,” he said.

“Today, there is no one who seriously argues that. Even our sworn enemies are embarrassed to say it, because the struggle here is between the middle ages and modernism, between the tyranny of radical Islam and the forces of freedom. This is the struggle put simply. To stand against Islamic fundamentalism that wants to take over the Middle East first and then the entire world.”
https://worldisraelnews.com/netanyahu-israel-has-become-central-power-in-world/
>>

I call my fourth witness:
Prophet Muhammad

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy, because all unbelievers are enemies of Islam. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

I call my fifth witness – and you really should listen to everything she has to say:

Ex-Muslim Woman warns America

This is one person you really should listen to:

I call my sixth witness:

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill
IPT News
October 1, 2010

Including remarks by Manda Ervin, an American Muslim who fled Iran following the 1979 revolution, to a conference of Muslim moderates on Capitol Hill.”

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

You should read this article, because moderate Muslims are warning the West about fundamental Islam infiltrating the West to destroy its culture from within.

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

JosephZ · Jul 30, 2019

setst777 said:
The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that: Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

You are not in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They do not say that Islamic's core scriptures are the major reason why global Islamic jihad is being taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups. It's extremist interpretations of these Islamic scriptures.

"Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

As you can see in the quote above, the Islamic extremist are using legitimate Islamic texts, and they even cite legitimate events and actions of Muslims in Islamic history (Not mentioned), but it's their interpretations and the resulting extremist ideologies that are the driving force in motivating their violent actions. Even then, Islamic ideology is just one factor of many that causes an individual or a group to become violent.

setst777 said:
Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

Do you believe that Christianity's core scriptures, the Bible, is the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians? These individuals and groups read the same Bible as you and I, but they use it and quote verses from it to justify their actions. So do you believe the Bible is to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do?

setst777 said:
Yet you, and politicians, and even scholars in the West, willfully judge the traditional and fundamental sects of Islam as illegitimate while judging the secular Muslims as legitimate.

You can add Dr. Bale and Yahya Cholil Staquf to that list as well.

"What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that posits the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

setst777 said:
Any foreign country that traditional and fundamental sects of Islam has taken up residence has eventually become dominated by Sharia in stages just as history keeps revealing to this very day. This is not theory, this is an historical fact.

Can you provide a list of these countries?

setst777 said:
You remain blind, like so many others. You see what is happening in the news. You appear to know something about the history of fundamental Islamic sects. Yet, you willfully choose to remain ignorant, playing games in your arguments about peripheral issues, while traditional and fundamental Islam continues to dig its roots into US politics, Mosques, universities, social media, etc - just like they have done to other countries they now dominate or control.

setst777 said:
Continue to play your games, Joseph. I will no longer waste my time with someone who knows practically nothing about Islam, Sharia, or its religious sects. I am not angry with you. I feel sad for you, because the very Islam you are defending is the Islam that will destroy what you cherish - your freedom. You can thank yourself for being part of the problem.

This is not a game to me. Do you really believe I would invest so much time taking courses in Islam, violent extremism, and terrorism and work and travel in one of the most dangerous parts of the world for westerners sharing the gospel and incorporating countering violent extremism into our ministry if this were a game?

I have also made it very clear that I'm not defending Islam, more precisely the extremist interpretations of Islam, in previous posts:

"I'm in no way defending Islam... I'm just trying to dispel the misinformation and falsehoods being spread by extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. They both thrive on conflict, and people falling for their narrative is what has led to so much division and conflict between the two faiths in recent years."

"I am a Christian, an ambassador of Christ, the Truth. I take honesty and integrity seriously. It's one of the reasons I don't hide behind an anonymous screen name and provide information about myself in my profile. I would never intentionally deceive others on a public forum or anywhere else for that matter. My purpose for sharing what I know about Islam and Muslims is primarily so my brothers and sisters in Christ will not fear this religion and those who follow it. I'm just trying to counter the false narrative the anti-Islamic propagandists are spreading. Their motivations are self serving, divisive, and fuel hatred for others. My motivations are the opposite and are motivated by love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and for all of those who do not know Him yet."

"As a Christian I believe it's [Islam] a false religion and Muhammad was a false prophet; however; I will defend Muslims and dispel the misinformation and falsehoods being spread by extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. I'm just trying to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. How can Christians share their faith with Muslims if they don't interact with them and have already prejudged them based on all of the misinformation being pushed by Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists? Ignorance of Islam by non-Muslims is at the root of many of the problems we are seeing in the world today and if more people would take the time to study the religion and reach out to Muslims, the world we live in would be a better place for everyone."

"Unlike anti-Islamic propagandists like Robert Spencer whose intent it is to create division between Muslims and non-Muslims, I encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to learn more about Islam and what Muslims believe so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. I want all Muslims to come to know Christ and this becomes increasingly more difficult when Christians avoid interacting with them out of fear and ignorance. Anti-Islamic propagandists further exploit this fear and ignorance for their own personal gain. They really don't care about you, me, or anyone else, much less the truth."

"Anti-Islamic propagandists make a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west and their ignorance of Islam. It's a business to them and they thrive on conflict and discord. They have no motivation to tell the truth about Islam because if there was no conflict and division between Muslims and non-Muslims, they would be out of business. This is also true of extremists groups and terrorists. The recent attacks in New Zealand and Sri Lanka were attempts to cause further discord between Muslims and non-Muslims and we can't allow ourselves to fall into the traps being laid by the extremist.

Like I said, I lump anti-Islamic propagandists in the same boat as extremists because they are all enemies of peace.

Once again here is how Dr. Bale, the source you provided in the OP of this thread, describes anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood, Bill Warner, and Robert Spencer who have written books on the subject of Islam; "The thrust of these books, most of which were written by ‘concerned’ conservative Christians with a theological as well as a political axe to grind, is that Islam per se is the problem, not merely Islamism... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers."

As you can see, my motivations are clear.

Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement that those who legitimize the teachings of Islamic extremists and/or peddle their extremist narrative are part of the problem in combating violent extremism. So why would you want to continue doing this? Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Joyousperson · Jul 30, 2019

Godistruth1 said:
The silliest post I've ever come across(maybe among the most silly). It's funny how u write"evidence available". Care to explain the "evidence available" part

Your post is the most 'stupid' i.e. lack of intelligence and argument to support your point.

It is too tedious to include the evidence in the OP.
"Evidence available" means it is available if you request.

I have my own evidence and data based on verses which is not published.

As a convenience here is evidence to demonstrate the concept of 'disbelievers' [Kafir, kuffar, infidels, non-Muslims] are targeted in 64% of the Quran in terms of stories [not verses] from Bill Warners site;
Center for the Study of Political Islam

1. Disbelievers [Kafir, etc.] in the Meccan Quran
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf

2. Disbelievers [Kafir, etc.] in the Medinian Quran
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf

Note the horrific!! 64% of the Quran is devoted to and directed at the 'disbelievers' in derogatory, antagonistic, dehumanizing and contemptuous mode.

Read the introduction in the PDF to note Bill Warner's analysis is based on Stories not on the verses specifically.

Example of a story or the set from Meccan verses;

1:1 In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
1:2 Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
[1:3] The Compassionate, the Merciful.
[1:4 ]King of the Judgment Day.
1:5 Only You do we worship, and to You alone do we ask for help.
[1:6] Keep us on the straight and narrow path.
[1:7] The path of those that You favor; not the path of those [disbelievers] who anger You [the Jews] nor the path of those [disbeliever] who go astray [the Christians].

Note disbelievers in this case are those who do not believe specifically in Muhammad's Quran.

setst777 · Jul 30, 2019

JosephZ said:
You are not in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They do not say that Islamic's core scriptures are the major reason why global Islamic jihad is being taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups. It's extremist interpretations of these Islamic scriptures.

setst777 said: ↑
The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that: Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
You are not in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They do not say that Islamic's core scriptures are the major reason why global Islamic jihad is being taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups. It's extremist interpretations of these Islamic scriptures.

"Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

As you can see in the quote above, the Islamic extremist are using legitimate Islamic texts, and they even cite legitimate events and actions of Muslims in Islamic history (Not mentioned), but it's their interpretations and the resulting extremist ideologies that are the driving force in motivating their violent actions. Even then, Islamic ideology is just one factor of many that causes an individual or a group to become violent.

Setst RE: Joseph, no one denies that all Muslim sects interpret their understanding from the core texts of Islam’s Scriptures. That is called Sharia Figh. They all do this. What is the point of your argument? Why single out the traditional, orthodox, and fundamental Muslims for doing so. Or didn’t you know this?

The consensus among all the Sunni Schools, and Shia agrees, is that Jihad is to continue against unbelievers until the Day of Judgment. This is the interpretation of traditional Islam in all four schools of Sunni Sharia Figh interpret jihad in this manner.

Shia agrees.

Jami-i-Abbasi [the popular Persian manual of Shi’a Law] written by al-Amili (d.1622), a distinguished theologian under Shah Abbas I: “Islamic Holy war [jihad] against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

Didn’t you know this?

Fundamental reformists (ei: Wahhabi and Salafii) agree with all four schools of Sunni on Jihad against unbelievers.

The difference is that Fundamental reformist are more strict as regards remaining pure to the sacred texts: The Qur’an, Sahih Hadith, and Sira. In this way, Fundamental reformists are against any other Muslim sects that add tradition to the core Scriptures to define their faith.

Bale may disagree that the fundamental view is the most authentic, but the concept of Jihad against unbelievers is inherent in Sunni and Shia Islam whether he feels it's the most authentic or not.

Didn’t you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
Do you believe that Christianity's core scriptures, the Bible, is the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians? These individuals and groups read the same Bible as you and I, but they use it and quote verses from it to justify their actions. So do you believe the Bible is to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do?
>>

Setst RE: Christianity’s core scriptures command total pacifism. All traditional and fundamental sects of Christianity are purely pacifist, just as their sacred Scriptures are totally pacifist. There is no mandate or command by Jesus Christ or His Apostles that Christians are to fight anyone if they do not become a Christian.

If any group or leader that claims Christianity uses violence as a means of conversion, they did not get their interpretation from the Christian Sacred Scriptures, because no such hostility against unbelievers exists, or is commanded, against unbelievers.

Didn’t you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Yet you, and politicians, and even scholars in the West, willfully judge the traditional and fundamental sects of Islam as illegitimate while judging the secular Muslims as legitimate.

Joseph responds:
<<
You can add Dr. Bale and Yahya Cholil Staquf to that list as well.

"What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that posits the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

Setst RE: Once again, you are making Yahya refute himself because you do not understand the context.

Yahya never state anywhere in the article that any fundamental view of Islam that posits the traditional norms are Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes is false, but rather that, in his country, such traditional views must be rejected as false.

Yahya believes secular law should supplant Sharia to avoid the problems that Islam’s core Scriptures (Sharia) create.

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Yahya recognizes fundamental, orthodox, and traditional sects as being Islam and admonishes the West to do the same. Read what Yahya actually stated.

Yahya recognizes that Islam’s Core Scriptures (Sharia) inherently lead to violence, and so will not work on its own in today’s culture without serious conflict. That is why Yahya states that the fundamental view of Islam must be rejected in favor of secular law.

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Yahya recognizes the validity of fundamental, traditional and orthodox understanding of their core Scriptures, but chooses to have secular laws supplant Sharia, so that conflict can be eliminated. That is all he is saying.

Yahya warns the West that if they do not recognize that fundamental, traditional and orthodox schools are also Islam then they will never solve the problem of conflict, violence and terror they are facing.

And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved. [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Didn't you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Any foreign country that traditional and fundamental sects of Islam has taken up residence has eventually become dominated by Sharia in stages just as history keeps revealing to this very day. This is not theory, this is an historical fact.

Joseph writes:
<<
Can you provide a list of these countries?
>>

Setst RE: All the countries that Islam presently controls, or has controlled, were accomplished by the religion of Islam through Jihad against unbelievers that all four Sunni schools hold to. Any countries that are gaining dominance in Muslim populations in Asia and Europe, we are seeing the same pattern of Jihad unfold in stages according to Sharia Figh.

setst777 said: ↑
You remain blind, like so many others.You see what is happening in the news. You appear to know something about the history of fundamental Islamic sects. Yet, you willfully choose to remain ignorant, playing games in your arguments about peripheral issues, while traditional and fundamental Islam continues to dig its roots into US politics, Mosques, universities, social media, etc - just like they have done to other countries they now dominate or control.

setst777 said: ↑
Continue to play your games, Joseph. I will no longer waste my time with someone who knows practically nothing about Islam, Sharia, or its religious sects. I am not angry with you. I feel sad for you, because the very Islam you are defending is the Islam that will destroy what you cherish - your freedom. You can thank yourself for being part of the problem.

Joseph responds:
<<
This is not a game to me.
>>

Setst RE: If not a game, then you are willfully blind and choose to remain that way.

Joyousperson · Jul 30, 2019

setst777 said:
setst777 said: ↑
The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that: Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
You are not in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They do not say that Islamic's core scriptures are the major reason why global Islamic jihad is being taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups. It's extremist interpretations of these Islamic scriptures.

"Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

As you can see in the quote above, the Islamic extremist are using legitimate Islamic texts, and they even cite legitimate events and actions of Muslims in Islamic history (Not mentioned), but it's their interpretations and the resulting extremist ideologies that are the driving force in motivating their violent actions. Even then, Islamic ideology is just one factor of many that causes an individual or a group to become violent.

Setst RE: Joseph, no one denies that all Muslim sects interpret their understanding from the core texts of Islam’s Scriptures. That is called Sharia Figh. They all do this. What is the point of your argument? Why single out the traditional, orthodox, and fundamental Muslims for doing so. Or didn’t you know this?

The consensus among all the Sunni Schools, and Shia agrees, is that Jihad is to continue against unbelievers until the Day of Judgment. This is the interpretation of traditional Islam in all four schools of Sunni Sharia Figh interpret jihad in this manner.

Shia agrees.

Jami-i-Abbasi [the popular Persian manual of Shi’a Law] written by al-Amili (d.1622), a distinguished theologian under Shah Abbas I: “Islamic Holy war [jihad] against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

Didn’t you know this?

Fundamental reformists (ei: Wahhabi and Salafii) agree with all four schools of Sunni on Jihad against unbelievers.

The difference is that Fundamental reformist are more strict as regards remaining pure to the sacred texts: The Qur’an, Sahih Hadith, and Sira. In this way, Fundamental reformists are against any other Muslim sects that add tradition to the core Scriptures to define their faith.

Bale may disagree that the fundamental view is the most authentic, but the concept of Jihad against unbelievers is inherent in Sunni and Shia Islam whether he feels it's the most authentic or not.

Didn’t you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
Do you believe that Christianity's core scriptures, the Bible, is the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians? These individuals and groups read the same Bible as you and I, but they use it and quote verses from it to justify their actions. So do you believe the Bible is to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do?
>>

Setst RE: Christianity’s core scriptures command total pacifism. All traditional and fundamental sects of Christianity are purely pacifist, just as their sacred Scriptures are totally pacifist. There is no mandate or command by Jesus Christ or His Apostles that Christians are to fight anyone if they do not become a Christian.

If any group or leader that claims Christianity uses violence as a means of conversion, they did not get their interpretation from the Christian Sacred Scriptures, because no such hostility against unbelievers exists, or is commanded, against unbelievers.

Didn’t you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Yet you, and politicians, and even scholars in the West, willfully judge the traditional and fundamental sects of Islam as illegitimate while judging the secular Muslims as legitimate.

Joseph responds:
<<
You can add Dr. Bale and Yahya Cholil Staquf to that list as well.

"What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

"We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that posits the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

Setst RE: Once again, you are making Yahya refute himself because you do not understand the context.

Yahya never state anywhere in the article that any fundamental view of Islam that posits the traditional norms are Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes is false, but rather that, in his country, such traditional views must be rejected as false.

Yahya believes secular law should supplant Sharia to avoid the problems that Islam’s core Scriptures (Sharia) create.

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Yahya recognizes fundamental, orthodox, and traditional sects as being Islam and admonishes the West to do the same. Read what Yahya actually stated.

Yahya recognizes that Islam’s Core Scriptures (Sharia) inherently lead to violence, and so will not work on its own in today’s culture without serious conflict. That is why Yahya states that the fundamental view of Islam must be rejected in favor of secular law.

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Yahya recognizes the validity of fundamental, traditional and orthodox understanding of their core Scriptures, but chooses to have secular laws supplant Sharia, so that conflict can be eliminated. That is all he is saying.

Yahya warns the West that if they do not recognize that fundamental, traditional and orthodox schools are also Islam then they will never solve the problem of conflict, violence and terror they are facing.

And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved. [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Didn't you know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Any foreign country that traditional and fundamental sects of Islam has taken up residence has eventually become dominated by Sharia in stages just as history keeps revealing to this very day. This is not theory, this is an historical fact.

Joseph writes:
<<
Can you provide a list of these countries?
>>

Setst RE: All the countries that Islam presently controls, or has controlled, were accomplished by the religion of Islam through Jihad against unbelievers that all four Sunni schools hold to. Any countries that are gaining dominance in Muslim populations in Asia and Europe, we are seeing the same pattern of Jihad unfold in stages according to Sharia Figh.

setst777 said: ↑
You remain blind, like so many others.You see what is happening in the news. You appear to know something about the history of fundamental Islamic sects. Yet, you willfully choose to remain ignorant, playing games in your arguments about peripheral issues, while traditional and fundamental Islam continues to dig its roots into US politics, Mosques, universities, social media, etc - just like they have done to other countries they now dominate or control.

setst777 said: ↑
Continue to play your games, Joseph. I will no longer waste my time with someone who knows practically nothing about Islam, Sharia, or its religious sects. I am not angry with you. I feel sad for you, because the very Islam you are defending is the Islam that will destroy what you cherish - your freedom. You can thank yourself for being part of the problem.

Joseph responds:
<<
This is not a game to me.
>>

Setst RE: If not a game, then you are willfully blind and choose to remain that way.

Very good response to JosephZ's ignorance of his own religion, i.e. Christianity-proper. I like this one;

Setst RE: Christianity’s core scriptures command total pacifism. All traditional and fundamental sects of Christianity are purely pacifist, just as their sacred Scriptures are totally pacifist. There is no mandate or command by Jesus Christ or His Apostles that Christians are to fight anyone if they do not become a Christian.

If any group or leader that claims Christianity uses violence as a means of conversion, they did not get their interpretation from the Christian Sacred Scriptures, because no such hostility against unbelievers exists, or is commanded, against unbelievers.

Didn’t you know this?

Christianity's proper overall overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' absolves itself from being accused of violence and hatred committed by 'Christians' on non-Christians from their own free will.
The Christian God [as per Gospel] in an overriding MAXIM, NEVER condones, exhorts Christians to go to war, kill nor hate non-Christians.
The Christian God deservedly is all-wise in raising this MAXIM after giving free will to humans.

Some Christians may go to war for the greater good [self-defense, etc.] but that is on their own free will, personal responsibility and risk with the hope that the merciful God will forgive them of such non-compliance as a sin.

On the other hand, there is no overriding prohibition for Muslims to go to war and kill non-Muslims in the Quran.
What is worst is, within 3400++ anti-disbelievers verses, there are 300++ verses in the Quran that condone, sanction, promote and exhort ALL Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague [slightest*] conditions of threats [fasadin] to Islam.
* Evidently even drawing of cartoons of Muhammad is a sanctioned basis for Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

Thus how can those who war against and kill non-Muslims upon sanctioned basis be wrong against Islam?

In fact those who war against disbelievers are more Islamic and will gain more rewards than those Muslims who do not war against disbelievers. Note this and many other similar verses;

4:95. Those [Muslims] of the believers who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives.
Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary.
Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] a great reward above the sedentary;

Note the term 'above' i.e. greater in rank and reward than those who do not go to war against disbelievers.
It is obvious from the above where Allah recognized those who warred and kill disbelievers are better Muslims than those who don't [the sedentary].

Thus in general, those who warred against and kill disbelievers are more Islamic than the majority who are moderate and lay-Muslims.

Bet you don't have a counter for the above.
Note there are many such verses in the Quran with much incentives for Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers and martyrs gains direct passage to paradise with the greatest rewards from Allah.

JosephZ · Jul 31, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Very good response to JosephZ's ignorance of his own religion, i.e. Christianity-proper.

???

How were my questions to Setst777 showing ignorance of Christianity? They were a follow up to what I had previously said in that post. Take a look again:

JosephZ said:
You are not in agreement with Dr. Bale or Yahya Cholil Staquf. They do not say that Islamic's core scriptures are the major reason why global Islamic jihad is being taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups. It's extremist interpretations of these Islamic scriptures.

JosephZ said:
Islamic extremist are using legitimate Islamic texts, and they even cite legitimate events and actions of Muslims in Islamic history (Not mentioned), but it's their interpretations and the resulting extremist ideologies that are the driving force in motivating their violent actions. Even then, Islamic ideology is just one factor of many that causes an individual or a group to become violent.

JosephZ said:
Do you believe that Christianity's core scriptures, the Bible, is the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians? These individuals and groups read the same Bible as you and I, but they use it and quote verses from it to justify their actions. So do you believe the Bible is to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do?

The point of the questions I asked was to see how Setst777 would answer. I of course anticipated his answers to be "No. Christianity's core scriptures are not the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians;" and "No. The Bible is not to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do."

Those answers would be correct because it's not the Christian scriptures that are a major reason why Christian terrorists and terrorist groups commit atrocities, it's the extremist interpretations of the Christian scriptures and the resulting extremist ideologies. This is also true when it comes to Islamic terrorism and violence. Both Christian and Islamic extremists use authentic and legitimate religious texts, but pervert them in a way that goes against the interpretations of the mainstream followers of these religions.

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement on this.

JosephZ · Jul 31, 2019

setst777 said:
setst777 said: ↑
Continue to play your games, Joseph. I will no longer waste my time with someone who knows practically nothing about Islam, Sharia, or its religious sects. I am not angry with you. I feel sad for you, because the very Islam you are defending is the Islam that will destroy what you cherish - your freedom. You can thank yourself for being part of the problem.Joseph responds: This is not a game to me. Setst RE: If not a game, then you are willfully blind and choose to remain that way.

I explained why I take the position I do in my last post, so I will follow up with the same comments and questions for you once again since you failed to address them.

Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more than 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement that those who legitimize the teachings of Islamic extremists and/or peddle their extremist narrative are part of the problem in combating violent extremism. So why would you want to continue doing this? Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?

setst777 · Jul 31, 2019

JosephZ said:
I explained why I take the position I do in my last post, so I will follow up with the same comments and questions for you once again since you failed to address them.

Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more than 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement that those who legitimize the teachings of Islamic extremists and/or peddle their extremist narrative are part of the problem in combating violent extremism. So why would you want to continue doing this? Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Joseph, when you compare Christianity's core Scriptures with Islam's core Scripture and deduce they are both pacifist, you are showing all of us that you have no idea what Islam teaches.

Christianity's Scriptures teach pacifism which is why all fundamental and traditional Christian sects teach pacifism.

In contrast, Islam's Core Scriptures teach Jihad against unbeliever until the day of judgment, until the world becomes Islam, which is why Sunni and Shia Islam teaches this.

All four schools of Sunni teach this.
Shia teaches the same.

Salafi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

This is core doctrine within Islam's sacred Scriptures:

Qur'an
Sahih Hadith
Sira / Sunnah

This is Sharia.

Sharia Figh in all four Schools of Sunni and Shia all teach the same - the Jihad against unbelievers is to be carried out until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment.

Secularized Muslims in the West do not teach this because they are obeying secular law.

Did you not know this?

Did you not know this?

JosephZ · Jul 31, 2019

setst777 said:
Christianity's Scriptures teach pacifism which is why all fundamental and traditional Christian sects teach pacifism.

This is true, yet Christian terrorists use Bible verses to justify their atrocities. Christian terrorists groups do the same and use the Bible to justify their attempts to establish Christian states.

Islam is not considered to be a pacifist religion as it teaches that fighting in self defense or against oppression is acceptable; however, Muslims, with the exception of extremists, will tell you that they are to thrive for peace, avoid conflict at all costs, and to respect others much in the same way Christianity teaches on those subjects.

It's not the religious texts of either of these religions that are to blame for the atrocities that extremists who follow them carry out, it's the extremists themselves.

setst777 said:
Islam's Core Scriptures teach Jihad against unbeliever until the day of judgment, until the world becomes Islam, which is why Sunni and Shia Islam teaches this.

This is the Islamic extremists teaching of jihad.

setst777 said:
Sharia Figh in all four Schools of Sunni and Shia all teach the same - the Jihad against unbelievers is to be carried out until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment.

setst777 said:
Salafi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

No they don't. Salifi and Wahhabism teach offensive violent jihad whereas mainstream Sunni and Shia schools of thought teach defensive jihad and the use of violence only after all avenues of a peaceful solution have been exhausted.

Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more than 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement that those who legitimize the teachings of Islamic extremists and/or peddle their extremist narrative are part of the problem in combating violent extremism. So why would you want to continue doing this? Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Joyousperson · Jul 31, 2019

JosephZ said:
???

How were my questions to Setst777 showing ignorance of Christianity? They were a follow up to what I had previously said in that post. Take a look again:

The point of the questions I asked was to see how Setst777 would answer. I of course anticipated his answers to be "No. Christianity's core scriptures are not the major reason why Christian terrorists and Christian terrorist groups commit atrocities, kill Jews, attempt to create Christian states, and forcefully convert people to become Christians;" and "No. The Bible is not to blame for their actions or their reason for doing what they do."

Those answers would be correct because it's not the Christian scriptures that are a major reason why Christian terrorists and terrorist groups commit atrocities, it's the extremist interpretations of the Christian scriptures and the resulting extremist ideologies. This is also true when it comes to Islamic terrorism and violence. Both Christian and Islamic extremists use authentic and legitimate religious texts, but pervert them in a way that goes against the interpretations of the mainstream followers of these religions.

Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement on this.

You are lost here because you keep conflating the believers with the ideology.

JosephZ wrote:
Those answers would be correct because it's not the Christian scriptures that are a major reason why Christian terrorists and terrorist groups commit atrocities, it's the extremist interpretations of the Christian scriptures and the resulting extremist ideologies.

Whatever the interpretation of Christian scriptures is the critical point in this particular case.
The critical point here is the Christian scriptures itself has an overriding pacifist maxim that do not allow Christians to hate, war against and kill non-Christians.

JosephZ wrote:
This is also true when it comes to Islamic terrorism and violence. Both Christian and Islamic extremists use authentic and legitimate religious texts, but pervert them in a way that goes against the interpretations of the mainstream followers of these religions.

It is not true with Islamic scriptures.
Allah itself in the Quran condones, sanctions and exhorts Muslims to war against, hate and kill non-Muslims under vague conditions of threats [FSD: fasad] because they are disbelievers.

As I had stated there are 3400++ verses with very contemptuous, antagonistic and hatred elements directed at disbelievers.
Within the above there are 300++ verses that exhort Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers, e.g. one

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [FSD: Fasad: mischiefs, wronged] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.
Such will be their [infidels] degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;

The critical point here is the threats [FSD: fasad] which in the context of the whole Quran can be a very loose and a wide term, e.g. even drawings of cartoons of Muhammad, insulting Islam, blasphemy are justified basis for non-Muslims to be killed. Such killings are very evident.

Here are some commands by Allah inspiring Muslims to fight non-Muslims and disbelievers;

8:65. O Prophet [Muhammad]! Exhort [HRD: ḥarriḍi; urge] the believers [Muslims] to fight. ...

9:88. But the messenger and those [Muslims] who believe with him strive [JHD: jahada] with their wealth and their lives [wa-anfusihim]. Such are they [Muslims] for whom are the good things. Such are they [better Muslims] who are the successful. [Truer Muslims]

61:11. Ye [Muslims] should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive [JHD: watujāhidūna] for the cause [Sabil; Way] of Allah with your wealth and your lives [wa-anfusikum; NFA; nafs]. That is better for you [Muslims], if ye [Muslims] did but know. [motivation for jihadists]

4:74. Let those [truer Muslims] fight in the Way [sabil] of Allah who sell the life [hayat] of this world for the other [paradise]. Whoso [Muslim] fighteth [yuqātil] in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him [true Muslim] We shall bestow a vast reward.

In the many related verses, Allah praises those who warred against and kill disbelievers as better Muslims than those Muslims who do not war against disbelievers.

4:77. [Coward Fearing Muslims Rebuked.] Hast thou not seen those [moderate, lesser Muslims] unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands, establish worship and pay the poor due [zakat], but when fighting was prescribed for them [these lesser Muslims] behold, a party of them [lesser Muslims] fear [yakhshawna] mankind even as their fear [kakhashyati] of Allah or with greater fear [khashyatan] [for infidels], and [lesser Muslims] say: Our Lord! Why hast thou ordained fighting for us [lesser Muslims]?
If only Thou wouldst give us [lesser Muslims] respite yet a while!
Say (unto them [lesser Muslims], O Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant [QLL: qalīlun]; the Hereafter will be better for him [Muslim] who wardeth off (evil) [ittaqā' god fearing]; and ye [lesser Muslims] will not be wronged the down upon a date stone.

How can you accused those Muslims who obeyed Allah and Muhammad's message as in the Quran to fight disbelievers as perverted?

Note you cannot weigh the interpretations of the majority of Islam [lay-Muslims] against Allah's words in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

I have already show you where Allah ranked those who warred and kill disbelievers as higher than those who do not war against disbelievers, i.e.

4:95. Those [Muslims] of the believers who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives.
Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary.
Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] a great reward above the sedentary;

Note the above is merely one of many such verses in the Quran.

Your insistence the views of the majority of Muslims [at most are lay-Muslims] is representative of true Islam is a Sham and toothless.
True Islam is Allah message in the Quran, not the majority's view. Note the Ad Populum Fallacy.

In any case, YOU, me or any other human cannot judge on behalf of Allah, thus ultimately there is a STALEMATE Dilemma.

JosephZ wrote:
Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Whatever the discord, it has nothing to do with non-Muslims or even Muslims.
The fact is the truth must prevail.
The truth of the matter is major part of the Ideology of Islam is inherently evil and this truth must be told before the human species is exterminated by such a potential of evil.

The truth is this evil ideology was initiated by a group of men 1400 years ago and unfortunately was disguised as a religion and accepted by millions of innocent Muslims. The truth is SOME truer Muslims has acted truer to the evil ideology and has committed terrible terror, evil and violent acts since 1400 years ago till the present and will continue to the future.

This truth is very objective and can be verified to the verses in the Quran [supported by Ahadith] as myself, Setst777 and other serious critiques of Islam have done.

JosephZ · Jul 31, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Thus how can those who war against and kill non-Muslims upon sanctioned basis be wrong against Islam?

In fact those who war against disbelievers are more Islamic and will gain more rewards than those Muslims who do not war against disbelievers. Note this and many other similar verses;

4:95. Those [Muslims] of the believers who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives.
Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary.
Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] a great reward above the sedentary;
Note the term 'above' i.e. greater in rank and reward than those who do not go to war against disbelievers.
It is obvious from the above where Allah recognized those who warred and kill disbelievers are better Muslims than those who don't [the sedentary].

Thus in general, those who warred against and kill disbelievers are more Islamic than the majority who are moderate and lay-Muslims.

Bet you don't have a counter for the above.
Note there are many such verses in the Quran with much incentives for Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers and martyrs gains direct passage to paradise with the greatest rewards from Allah.

Joyousperson said:
I have already show you where Allah ranked those who warred and kill disbelievers as higher than those who do not war against disbelievers, i.e.

4:95. Those [Muslims] of the believers who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives.
Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary.
Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive [JHD: Mujahid] a great reward above the sedentary;
Note the above is merely one of many such verses in the Quran.

That verse has nothing to do with waging war against non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims or spreading Islam through violent jihad. It is talking about fighting in defense of Islam and the Muslim community when it is under attack. Of course Islam is going to teach that there would be a greater reward for those who are willing to sacrifice their life for the cause of Islam than for those who do nothing. Sounds like common sense to me.

Joyousperson said:
What the interpretation of Christian scriptures is the critical point.
The critical point here is the Christian scriptures itself has an overriding pacifist maxim that do not allow Christians to hate, war against and kill non-Christians.

And yet Christian terrorists will quote straight from those Christian scriptures and make it sound like the Bible condones the killing of non-Christians or that they have a God given right to create a Christian state and/or forcefully convert natives to Christianity. Those same scriptures are also used by Christian extremists to justify the death penalty for homosexuals and in the past scriptures from the Christian Bible were used to justify the ownership of other human beings as personal property. Since you feel "the Christian scriptures itself has an overriding pacifist maxim that do not allow Christians to hate, war against and kill non-Christians," how is that possible?

Joyousperson · Jul 31, 2019

JosephZ said:
Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more than 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?

You should put aside the term 'extremists and terrorists' in this particular discussion.

There is only one true Islam and that is from Allah via angel Gabriel and revealed through Muhammad in 6236 verses in the Quran.
This Allah's Quran contains tons of evil and violent element that compel Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers under vague condition of threats [fasad].
Those who comply with a greater number of the doctrines within the 6236 verses thus including the warring verses are truer Muslim than those who have not. Note 4:95 above.

I don't agree it is 90% who do not follow more the verses in the Quran and thus less evil and violent. For some of the evil elements it could >50% acceptance e.g. killing of apostates.

The potential danger is more and more these moderate Muslims - when they are made aware to be more assured of salvation, -they have to please Allah more thus will have comply with more of Allah commands which inevitably include more of the evil and violent elements. Other than warring against disbelievers they cannot befriend disbelievers.

The associated primal impulse associated with salvation is very aggressive and strong where believers can do the very extreme. Note Abraham went to the extreme of his willingness to behead his son for God [a near miss].
Fortunately the wise Christian God put an overriding stopper to such an impulse with the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies'.

All other mainstream religions has such a pacifist injunction not to war and hate believers. The exception is Islam which permit believers to war and kill disbelievers under very vague conditions of threat [fasad].

Why the anti-Islam movement within humanity is so concerned is the evil and violent propensity with the ideology of Islam which is not inhibited at all.

In my course re START, I learned of the organization structure of Al Qaeda which comprised of a division dealing with Weapons of Mass Destruction [nuclear and biological].
This is the extreme with SOME evil prone Muslims will go to please Allah to ensure of passage to paradise with eternal life.
They have nothing to lose, since regardless the human species is exterminated they are assured of a place in paradise.

This is definitely a possibility given the very strong primal impulse associated with the yearning for salvation and the need to please Allah.

Do Not Bash Muslims

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads