Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

... which is a stronghold of many hard line extremists. Their teachings are rejected by almost every Muslim in that area and most who join their terrorist organizations do it for financial gain and not because of religion or what they preach.
....

I also know that most Muslims are honest, compassionate, and caring people just as most Christians are. And they, like the vast majority of people in this world regardless of their religion, just want to live quiet peaceful lives in harmony with their neighbors. I have served with Muslims in the past while in the Military, and Muslims keep me safe when I travel to places where terrorist flourish even today. I feel just as confident with a Muslim soldier by my side as I do a Christian soldier.

I have to say you are very ignorant of human nature.

Basically, all the Muslims you met or heard of who are nice people, are human beings who could be good [80%] or evil prone [20]% people.

When these Muslim are introduced Islam by birth or conversion, the majority 90% do not know the ideology of Islam thoroughly as within the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core of Islam.

With such a limited exposure to Islam, those who are good will continue to be good and the bad will be bad.
Thus who are appear to be good Muslims is not because they are obeying the full commands of Allah in the Quran [since they hardly understood the Quranic verses], but rather they are good human being based on their being good humans. Note 'mirror neurons' which drive empathy and compassion I highlighted somewhere.

The problem starts when Muslims are exposed to the more serious side of the ideology of Islam and its inherent evil and violent elements.
The central theme of the ideology of Islam is, if one need to be a better Muslim, one has to comply with the 6236 verses in the Quran which are loaded with tons of evil and violent elements.

For the Muslims who are more inclined to be naturally good [the 80%], their good nature will drive them to ignore the evil and violent verses with excuses like its historical or use only for self-defense. After a while SOME of these good people will be compelled to act out the violent acts recommended in the Quran to please Allah to ensure a more secured passage to paradise with eternal life.

For the Muslims who are naturally inclined toward evil, and when they are more familiar with the ideology [via clerics or self-study] they will feast upon the evil and violent elements as a religious duty to ensure a more assured passage to paradise with eternal life.

As you can see, the ideology of Islam is inherently evil and violent.
The change from good to evil happen within the believers in relation to their exposure to the evil and violent elements in the Quran depending on their own inherent human nature of being good or bad people.

So the point that there are so many Muslims who happened to be good in nature is not because of Islam but rather due to a lack or ignorance of the true teachings of Islam.

I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.

There are tons of verses in the Quran that support the evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who they claimed are their religious duty to do so.

For example, 2:216 5:33

2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

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

If Islamists rely on the above verses from Allah to kill non-Muslims due to fasadin* by the non-Muslims,
WHO ARE YOU, me or others, to judge and insist they are wrong?
* say drawing of cartoons of Muhammad, occupying Muslim land, practice idolatry, being disbelievers.

Provide a rational arguments to counter the above?
Btw, don't insult your own intelligence with ad populum fallacy basing on what the masses think.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joyousperson,

Great post with good solid evidence. Seeing such posts strengthens my faith and helps me to become a better witness.

You write:
<<
Yes, Islam did introduce relatively better and systematic ethics in contrast to the very primitive wide ranging feudal and tribal thoughts.
But these ethics, rules and laws are only applicable if one is a Muslim.
For non-Muslims it is a different set of rules where they are treated like trash and be killed upon any inkling of fasadin [threat to Islam].
>>

setst RE: Those different set of rules for non-Muslims (unbelievers, apostates and hypocrites) is clearly and repeatedly commanded and taught throughout the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, and the most reliable Tafsir.

And really, just look what is happening within the Muslim nations compared to non-Muslim nations, to see and learn how these Muslims treat other Muslims, and Christians and Jews.

Really! We have a whole history of Islamic conquest from Muhammad to the times of the rightly guided caliphs to see Islams intent: Within a little over 100 years 2/3 of Europe of destroyed and put under Islamic control before they were finally stopped. The whole world was the Goal of Islam.

Within Muhammad’s lifetime the whole of the Arabian Peninsula was conquered.

And, in following with Muhamad’s command to fight unbelievers where ever you find them and conquer the world for Islam, within 120 years after his death, Islam conquered lands stretching all the way to China on one end and the Atlantic Ocean on the other side.. Their conquests include. . .

Conquest of Syria: 634–641
Conquest of Egypt: 639–642
Conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia: 633–651
Conquest of Sindh (India): 711–714
Conquest of the Maghreb (NE Libya): 647–742
Conquest of Spain and Septimania: 711–721
Conquest of Transoxiana (modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and parts of Kazakhstan): 673–751

Islam was to conquer the world for Allah by the command of Muhammad in the Quran.

Qur'an 61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

The historical context of 61:9 is battle and warfare according to the Hadith. And that is how the rightly guided Caliphs understood the orders of Muhammad, which is why they were conquering the world for Islam.

Qur'an 9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Can you imagine over 270 million people slaughtered by Islam in its 1400 years of conquest (which includes all those Africans who died on Muslim slave ships).

Millions more women and children from good families in civilized societies, most of whom saw their husbands, daddies and mothers, relatives and friends slaughtered and lives torn apart, many being Christian or Jewish, turned into sex slaves to be sold on the market repeatedy, or kept as pets to be raped over and over again by the cult that tortured, killed and enslaved their family, burned their homes down, destroyed their lives and their country.

Muhammad’s mandate for war against the world until the world becomes Islam has not changed to this very day. The only force holding them back is the West.

In Islam, there can be no new law or command that supersedes what Muhammad commanded. Why? Because, according to Islam, Muhammad is the last prophet. That is why all fundamental Muslims are Jihadists bent on destroying the West. Here is how Muhammad taught Islam how to do this…

1) Enter a country proclaiming to peaceful and a religion of peace and tolerance.

2) After gaining more in number, influence using Taqyah socio-political environment to favor Muslims, create protests, demonstrations, unrest, terrorism, killings.

3) Once gaining a foothold, then they are to subdue, conquer, torture, kill and enslave the very country that gave them refuge.

4) Kill all hypocrites and apostates, take all their property, and capture their children as sex slaves and, if a male children submit to Islam then they are to be recruited into Muhammad’s army.

That is what Muhammad commanded, and that is what Islam has practiced throughout its history.

Good and very solid points in justifying why the ideology of Islam is inherently evil and violent.
Yet, JosephZ is so blind to that, for him is denial, denial, denial to what Islam really is as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

What is happening here is JosephZ is suffering from cognitive dissonance and selective attention biasness.

Here is one video demonstrating the effect, where a large gorilla walking through and most people [not informed of the test] who watch the video did not see it;

This meant by my introduction of a wider range of knowledge into the discussion, in this case, psychology backed by evidence and even one can personally experienced to confirm its truth.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

I believe these are some of the critical points which are lacking in your reading of the Quran and the courses you have taken i.e.;

Note the following verses [SOME only among the tons of it] I quoted as dehumanizing;

5:60. Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with Allah? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom Allah hath cursed, him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.

7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed!

58:20. Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] Allah and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]

98:6. Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati].

while Muslims are the best of creatures;
98:7. (And) lo! Those [proto-Muslims] who believe [AMN: amanu] and do good works [l-ṣāliḥāti] are the best [KhYR: khayru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati].

7:179. …. These [infidels] are as the cattle nay, but they [infidels] are worse! These [infidels] are the neglectful [GhFL; l-ghāfilūna; heedless].
​

Note I have put in [infidels] i.e. disbelievers and non-Muslim in parenthesis beside the pronouns, like he, they, them, him, those, who, whom, you, ye, etc. In addition, I have included in [..] the Arabic roots and concepts.

I have identified 3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses contain the element [infidels] which is more appropriately disbelievers, non-Muslims, because Jews and Christians are not listed as kafir but people of the book, but nonetheless they are non-Muslims or disbelievers of the message of Muhammad from Allah.

Btw, show me who had ever done the above strategy to understand the evil and violent elements of the ideology of Islam. Surely this is original and a novel approach. This is what i meant by doing my own and original research of Islam.

With the above which is more precise and accurate, a reader of the Quran will be able to feel the hatred and evil & violent emotions continually pounded upon the non-Muslims [disbelievers, infidels, etc] with greater and greater intensity of hatred against disbelievers, especially if the Quran is read chronologically.

Any ordinary person [all people] who read the Quran in the above precise mode, will definitely be stirred and feel the intensity of hatred for the disbelievers, i.e. the non-Muslims, what more if it is read by Muslims in general with their eternal life at stake.
But the fact is, the clerics and scholars who read it Arabic are likely to be influenced by such feeling of hatred for non-Muslims. Some may suppressed it but many don't.

The pounding of hatred on the non-Muslims is not by an ordinary human but by an all powerful Allah who is the decision maker over the Muslim's destiny of eternal life in paradise or be burnt in Hell eternally. Just imagine the terrible impact of such on the psyche and psychology of the Muslims who are the mercy of this all powerful Allah.


Besides re the Arabic language, there are some alphabets [phonetics] which are very guttural [growl like], visceral, primal and plosive. Those who read the Quran in Arabic properly and regularly will be spontaneously evoked and triggered by evil and violent emotions, especially those from the pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims.

I believe the above is something new for you which you are not aware of.
Do you have a counter for it??

 

[JosephZ]

My interest is not how Muslims believe around the world, but what Islamic doctrine actually required to be a Muslim. Why? Islamic doctrine is the foundation for what you call Islamic ‘extremism’ throughout the world.
Sure, go ahead and say it has to do with social issues, but we do not see the huge, and growing, scale of terrorism around the world by those who claim Islam by any other group on earth no matter how hateful.

Islamic terrorism like what we have seen over the past decade or so is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 2010, less than 10% of all terrorism globally was Islamic related. Fortunately there has been a decline of 60 to 70% since incidents of terrorism reached a historic high in 2014 and hopefully this trend will continue.

Once again, take a look at these two graphs below and tell me which one is the most logical as it relates to the frequency of Islamic related terrorism.

In an earlier post you mentioned how the US and other western nations were not looking for war and how their response in the Middle East was a reaction to Islamic attacks against them. Overwhelming responses from foreign powers are exactly what groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS want. They use our anger and superior military might to achieve what they aren't capable of doing. Coalition forces bombed cities and villages over a wide area destroying homes and businesses, killing civilians, displacing millions, and destroying infrastructure which will take many years if not decades to recover from. These are the conditions that allow violent extremism to thrive and prosper. It's a recruiters paradise. When Osama bin Laden organized the attacks on 9/11, he knew exactly how the US would respond. Actually he was probably surprised at how far the US and the coalition forces did go with their invasion of Iraq following the attack on Afghanistan. He couldn't have dreamed of a better outcome.

Another example is here in Mindanao when a few hundred Islamic extremist attacked Marawi a Muslim city with a population of around 250,000 people in 2017. Rather than attack a Christian city, they chose a city that was 99% Muslim. The terrorist knew they were no match for the Philippine military going into their assault, but they did know how the military would react. They also knew that if they could hold off the military long enough and inflict enough casualties on the government side that the government would respond with overwhelming force. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened. The entire core of Marawi was destroyed, more than 200,000 people were displaced, and even two years after this attack, rebuilding of the city has yet to begin with tens of thousands of people still displaced.

Prior to the attack on Marawi the extremist groups were struggling to recruit new members because many of the injustices that had plagued the Muslim community in Mindanao were starting to be addressed. A peace agreement had recently been signed between the largest Islamic rebel group which would put an end to a decades long war that had left more than 150,000 people dead, mostly Muslims, and millions more displaced over that period. Due to the expected over response by the military in Marawi, recruiters for the extremist groups now have a fertile ground for finding new recruits to join their ranks and the longer it takes the government to rebuild the city of Marawi, the stronger these groups will become in the future.

Extremist groups can't exist without discord, chaos, injustice, and conflict; and rarely if ever is religion the driving force behind most extremist groups. Religion is just a tool used to unite members and to manipulate it's members into carrying out violent acts.

So you have come across this information in your studies? You had wrote earlier that you have not once learned anything in 30 years what I am stating to you about Islam.
"Not one of these schools taught what you believe Islam teaches."

You will not find what you are saying here about Islam taught in any legitimate school that offers Islamic Studies whether it be from a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought, nor will you find Muslims who believe that way outside of the small minority which make up the extremists fringe.

What you are criticizing is not the religion of Islam that almost every Muslim in the world follows; what you are criticizing is an extremist sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. It's not the religion of Islam that Islamic terrorist follow, its an extremist interpretation of Islam.

Below are some excerpts from a Report from the Center for Religious Freedom. As you read these excerpts you will notice that it describes what you are saying about Islam in this thread to the letter.

All Saudis must be Muslim, and the Saudi government, in collaboration with the country’s religious establishment, enforces and imposes Wahhabism as the official state doctrine.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian
Wahhabi-style Islamic law.

Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab. Once a fringe sect in a remote part of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabi extremism has been given global reach through Saudi government sponsorship and money, particularly over the past quarter century as it has competed with Iran in spreading its version of the faith. With its vast oil wealth and its position as guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Saudi Arabia now claims to be the leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican.” Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.

Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist (literally translated as venerable predecessors) movements are a distinct minority.

Saudi state curriculum for many years has taught children to hate “the other” and support jihad, a malleable term that is used by terrorists to describe and justify their atrocities... Recent converts with limited experience of Islam can be particularly susceptible to the Saudi publications’ toxic message... The spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahhabism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times. Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of
hatred that can incite to violence.

Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology, and religion is an important part of Saudi education. Saudi Arabia defines itself as an Islamic state, and has established Wahhabism as the official state doctrine. Saudi Wahhabism is an extreme interpretation of Islam based on a dualistic worldview in which the true “monotheists” are obliged until judgment day to “fight” “polytheists,” and “idolators,” including Christians, Jews, Shiites and insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.

Adherents of Wahhabism constitute a small minority within world Islam [Fewer than 5%],yet, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam. Its conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 gave it control of Islam’s two holiest sites and the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. This role, along with its vast oil wealth, has been used by Saudi Arabia to lay claim to being the leading power within all of Islam and the protector of the faith, a claim emphasized in the Saudi Basic Law.

Saudi state textbooks propound a belief that Christians and Jews and other unbelievers have united in a war against Islam that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of such infidels. Like the statements of Osama bin Laden, they advance the belief that the Crusades never ended and continue today in various forms.

Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been describing, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. This perverted sect of Islam is also what the anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood and others are trying to convince their followers of as being the religion of Islam.

Do you really think the goal of evangelists and apologists who specialize in Islamic doctrine do this just to bash Islam? That is an extremely biased generalization.

Those "evangelists and apologists" like David Wood 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. They are motivated by money, not the Truth.

Just because the average Muslim you have met does not appear to follow Sharia as found in those Islamic sources does not mean isn’t true.

If 99.9% of the Muslim world isn't involved in violent jihad and the vast majority of Muslims are condemning Islamic extremism and saying it goes against the teachings of their religion, shouldn't we allow Muslims to define what Islam teaches and what they believe rather than run the risk of giving false testimony against our neighbors?

For you to say you have read and studied the Qur'an, but have not noticed that most of the Qur'an (the Medina verses) is dedicated to Islamic control and conquering of other peoples and nations for Allah is unbelievable to me.

It's important to remember 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. Just like the Bible, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. The Qur'an can't be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019. Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. What was revealed in Medina was targeted at a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and these verses are no longer applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

 

[JosephZ]

I will say this, since you mentioned David Wood… David Wood’s youtube videos alone are causing many Muslims to turn away from Islam and come to Christ. How do I know this? I like reading the comments in the blog section of his videos. Also the increasing Islamic terrorism taking place has caused many Muslims to leave Islam... See online doing a search.

I suggest you look online for videos of Muslims who have turned away from Islam, and to Christ to get a more complete picture of what it takes for a Muslim to actually be willing to leave Islam.

I don't have to look online to hear testimonies from "ex-Muslims." As a missionary I get to meet many former Muslims from different parts of the world who have become Christians. I attend forums and often meet them in the field. In fact one of my good friends here in Davao is a former Muslim from Saudi Arabia who found Christ when he was in his 30's when a Filipino foreign worker shared the gospel with him in his country and he is now a missionary to Muslims here in Mindanao. I have never personally meet a Muslim that has converted to Christianity because of the methods used by David Wood or others. Fortunately there have been many studies on what brings Muslims to Christ and as expected, it is Christ himself that draws Muslims to Him.

Below are a few samples of some of these studies.

A case study of 170 conversion narratives; mostly from Sudan; a case study of Palestinians and Bangladeshis; a paper examining the written testimonies of 173 Muslims worldwide who came to faith in Jesus Christ, and a study of 750 former Muslims, a study in Kenya of 17 urban ex-Muslims, These all confirm what all other studies have shown: the Living Christ and living Christians are the main keys to conversion.

Jean-Marie Gaudeul’s Study (1999)

Gaudeul published his findings of 170 publicly available conversion stories in a book named Called from Islam to Christ. He lists five main factors in conversion:

• “Jesus is so attractive”
• Jesus alone satisfies their “Thirst for Truth”
• Christianity satisfies their longing for community as they felt like they were “without a family”
• Christianity satifies an existential need for actual forgiveness
• “a thirst for God” by which he means a thirst to encounter God in a personal way

Anthony (Ant) Greenham’s Study (2004)

Ant Greenham conducted research on Palestinian Muslim converts and then compared that data with conversions in Bangladesh. His research shows that among both men and women, the overwhelming factor that they cited in their coming to faith in Christ was the person of Jesus. He states, that “the person of Jesus is always central.”

• The person of Jesus,
• the truth of Jesus’ message,
• God’s honor,
• the lives of believers,
• reading the Bible,
• God’s miraculous action.

Bruce L. Bronoske's Study (2005):

In 2005 Bronoske studied conversion narratives of 173 people throughout the world and compiled the data in his study entitled “A Comparative Study Of The Self-Revelation Of Jesus Found In The Canonical New Testament And The Jesus of The Qur'an, And The Effect A Muslim Seeker's Understanding Of Jesus Has Upon Their Decision To Convert To Christianity." [Northwest Graduate School Of The Ministry, D.Min]

92% of converts from Islam cited the Biblical Jesus as the focal point of their conversion.

...these Muslims gave their devotion was as Bronoske stated, “was the New Testament understanding of Jesus Christ. That is, Jesus Christ as He was revealed within the text of the canonical New Testament”. This Jesus had been introduced to them primarily through a "familiar voice" namely through a “friend, a family member, or a trusted acquaintance”

Bronoske summarized his work by citing a quote from Francis Schaeffer, namely that if he had only one hour to share the gospel with a person, he would spend the first forty-five minutes finding out what the person believed about God and the last fifteen minutes presenting Christ from that basis.

J. Dudley Woodberry, Russell G. Shubin, and G. Marks study (2007):

In 2007 an article which summarized 750 interviews with former Muslims was featured in Christianity Today under the title: “Why Muslims Follow Jesus?: The results of a recent survey of converts from Islam.” The study, done between 1991 and 2007, surveyed people from 30 countries and 50 ethnic groups. The researchers ranked the order of influences stated by their correspondents on their conversions:

• the lifestyle of Christians
• the power of God in answered prayers and healing
• dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they had experienced
• spiritual truth in the Bible
• love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus.

Reinhold Strahler's Study (2009):

In Nairobi, Kenya, Reinhold Strahler conducted extensive interviews with 17 urban former Muslims who had come to faith. Like Bronoske he found strong evidences for the “familiar voice” as being decisive in the conversion stories. Similarly the life of Christians and the Bible figures strongly in the findings.

Significant factors in all conversion processes, sorted by frequency

• personal witness by Christians
• attractive lifestyle of Christians
• love / friendship shown by Christians
• reading Bible
• dissatisfaction with practice of Islam
• evangelistic meetings
• answered prayer

In a nutshell these Muslim converts encountered the living Jesus, the living Word of God, and living Christians.

Source: Why Do Muslims Come to Christ? Five Case Studies

I know about the "ex-Muslims" on Youtube and elsewhere who make the claim that they left Islam for that reason or they left because Islam teaches hatred and violence, but just like the anti-Islamic propagandist, those "ex-Muslims" usually have a book for sale, are soliciting for donations, or are in someway connected to people like David Wood, Robert Spencer, or some other notorious anti-Islamic propagandist. Once again, it's all about the money to these people rather than the Truth.

While online arguments and debates may seem like an effective way of witnessing to Muslims, in the real world, that's not the reality. These type of debates are a good way for authors to promote their books and get people to donate money to them though.

Dr. Qureshi died last year, or the year before that, of Pancreas cancer. But he was very intelligent and an excellent communicator. He explains his Muslim faith from his own person life growing up. Note that Mr. Qureshi is one of many Muslims who left Islam because of the ministry of Dr. David Wood.

I don't trust any "ex-Muslim" that is associated with David Wood or any other anti-Islamic propagandist. Besides that, Nabeel Qureshi couldn't even share his personal testimony on how he became a Christian without contradicting himself, so it's hard for me to take anything he said as being truth.

Compare these two interviews where he is giving his testimony:

Forward this one to the 5:20 mark:

Now forward this one to the 28:55 mark and compare the differences.

Now I don't know about you, but I can remember every detail concerning my encounter with Christ and the events that surrounded me on the day that I came to know Him.

I know there is no way to hold back what is coming. One day the Islamic nations that surround Israel will actually unite and will rise up against Israel with the help of the West who, by that time, will do its bidding. Before that, Islam will continue to persecute Christians and Jews. Only Christ Jesus will be able to stop Islam at the Battle of Armageddon.

In the 1970's it was the ideology of Communism and the Communist countries that most believed would be the nations that surround Israel and rise up against Israel. There were many books written on this at that time on the subject. Today it just happens to be the ideology of Islam and Islamic countries since these are what are currently making the headlines. The fact of the matter is that every generation has interpreted the end times based on the current conditions of the world during their lifetime. A generation from now it no doubt will be another ideology that will be a threat to Israel.

 

[setst777]

I don't have to look online to hear testimonies from "ex-Muslims."

Hi Joseph,

You write:
<<
Extremist groups can't exist without discord, chaos, injustice, and conflict; and rarely if ever is religion the driving force behind most extremist groups. religion is just a tool used to unite members and to manipulate it's members into carrying out violent acts.
>>

setst RE: The average profile of a terrorist is a person from a good family and is not living in poverty.

Almost all terrorist attacks are from Islam. The following list only shows major terrorist attacks around the world, but does not include the many terrorist activities within the Muslim nations themselves.

List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia

Below link shows the startling poll results of Muslims regarding a range of topics. Muslims are not as benign as you think, even though they may not actively carry out terrorist activities.

Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, Sharia, ISIS, and welfare | CARM.org

Most Islamic terrorism takes place in Muslim majority nations – the targets are other Muslims from different sects.

Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

Why is Contemporary Religious Terrorism Predominantly Linked to Islam? Four Possible Psychosocial Factors | Wright | Perspectives on Terrorism

3.4 Assumption: Terrorism is predominantly anti-western - 5 Assumptions on Terrorism | Coursera [Leiden University]

Islamic terrorism is guided by Islamic doctrine and are purely religious in nature, even though motivated by many different possible factors in theory.

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia

According to U.S. Army Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier, "ideology", rather than any individual or group, is the "center of gravity" of al-Qaeda and related groups, and that ideology is a "collection of violent Islamic thought called Qutbism".[53] He summarizes the tenets of Qutbism as being:

• A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to "pure Islam" as originally practiced during the time of Muhammad.
• The path to "pure Islam" is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, along with implementation of Muhammad's commands.
• Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
• That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry.[53]

You are going to find that, as time goes on, more Muslim will be awakened to Islam. And Islam is founded on the commands, teachings, sayings and examples from Muhammad in the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

You can label it as Wahabism, or anything you desire, but the result remains the same…. Islam is founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. There can be no change because Muhammad was the last prophet and His commands must be followed to gain entrance to paradise.

Whether you like it or not, the later Medina verses are the violent, political, military and controlling aspect of the Qur’an which precedes the earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful all inclusive earlier verses cannot be reconciled by the later violent non-accommodating verses. That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Now that Muhammad is dead, there can be no change to Muhammad's commands because Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. Every Muslim knows this even though they my not fully understand all that is required.

You write:
<<
You will not find what you are saying here about Islam taught in any legitimate school that offers Islamic Studies whether it be from a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought, nor will you find Muslims who believe that way outside of the small minority which make up the extremists fringe.
>>

setst RE: The only schools you would recognize as “legitimate” are those that do not teach the whole truth about Islamic doctrine/Sharia

You write:
<<
What you are criticizing is not the religion of Islam that almost every Muslim in the world follows; what you are criticizing is an extremist sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. It's not the religion of Islam that Islamic terrorist follow, its an extremist interpretation of Islam.
>>

setst RE: I am not criticizing at all. I am not giving my opinion. My understanding of Islamic doctrine and sharia are from Islam’s own sources. I have quoted these sources to you and what they actually teach. You refuse to accept what Islam actually teaches in favor of how Muslims you have met live, and what your teachers have told you - at least one of whom was secretly supporting terrorism while teaching peace to you..

You list Islamic doctrine and Sharia as follows:
<<
• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
>>

setst RE: This is all literally taught and commanded in the Quran, the Hadith, and Sira. This is part of Sharia.

You write:
<<
Those "evangelists and apologists" like David Wood 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. They are motivated by money, not the Truth.
>>

setst RE: Dr. David Wood and his family are barely getting by. Dr. David Wood gave up a career as a philosophy teacher to work on the front lines to save Muslims and to help educate others of the false teachings of Islam and the dangers of Islam. Dr. Wood has no book sales or materials. He does not make money off of ads. His money comes from meager donations and from earned income doing seminars and debates at Christian schools across the country.

So, to say that all these Christians schools that happily receive David Wood to teach must be illegitimate is totally biased of you.

You write:
<<
If 99.9% of the Muslim world isn't involved in violent jihad and the vast majority of Muslims are condemning Islamic extremism and saying it goes against the teachings of their religion, shouldn't we allow Muslims to define what Islam teaches and what they believe rather than run the risk of giving false testimony against our neighbors?
>>

setst RE: I gave you links to poll statistics of Muslims across the world. There is no such thing as 99.9%. Yes, a good percentage of Muslims support Islamic terrorism and the advancing of Sharia where they live even though they are not actively carrying out jihad themselves. That is what the actual polls reveal.

setst wrote as follows:
<<
setst777 said: ↑
For you to say you have read and studied the Qur'an, but have not noticed that most of the Qur'an (the Medina verses) is dedicated to Islamic control and conquering of other peoples and nations for Allah is unbelievable to me.
>>

You respond as follows:
<<
It's important to remember 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. Just like the Bible, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. The Qur'an can't be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019. Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. What was revealed in Medina was targeted at a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and these verses are no longer applicable to Muslims living in 2019.
>>

setst RE: Muslims still dress, act, and carry out the basics of their faith just as they did in the 7th century.

Muhammad is the last prophet, so

• there can be no modification that can come to counteract what Muhammad and Allah commanded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
• No Muslim on earth has the authority to over-ride what Allah and Muhammad commanded in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira.

Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

You then go on to attempt to prove that Muslims will turn to Christ by sharing the Gospel and being friendly. That rarely works by itself, because for a Muslim to leave Islam means that his family will most likely disassociate themselves from him and he will lose his place in paradise.

A Muslim must have a compelling reason why his faith is no longer valid in order for him to apostatize from the faith of his family. That is what ministries like David Wood accomplish, and is the reason why it works so well.

You will have to do far more than just being friendly and sharing the Gospel to reach Muslims who are committed to their faith since childhood.

Acts 17:1-5 (NIV)
17 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
5 But other Jews were jealous...

Acts 18:4-6 (NIV)
4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it.From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

1 Corinthians 9:19-26 (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

If you say you have been in Muslim lands sharing the Gospel and have never received any condemnation or backlash from Muslims anywhere, I am thinking that your testimony was so weak that it posed no threat to any Muslims. You say they were all friendly to you. I am certain, if your story is true, that you were taught in the 1980's not to share the Gospel in Muslim lands because it is forbidden. I know that is what I was strictly taught when I was in the military during that time during Desert Storm. In fact, the US military was so afraid of backlash that they burned all shipments of bibles to the US soldiers when in Iraq.

Blessings

 

[JosephZ]

The average profile of a terrorist is a person from a good family and is not living in poverty.

Can you provide a source for this?

Almost all terrorist attacks are from Islam. The following list only shows major terrorist attacks around the world, but does not include the many terrorist activities within the Muslim nations themselves.

Once again, Islamic terrorism on the scale we have seen over the past decade or so is a recent phenomenon. The actual percentage of terrorism being carried out today by Islamic extremists is around 75%. But remember, as I pointed out earlier, prior to 2010, only 10% of terrorism globally was carried out by Islamic extremists.

Most Islamic terrorism takes place in Muslim majority nations – the targets are other Muslims from different sects.

Almost all Islamic terrorism occurs in Muslim Majority countries that are in a state of war or conflict. Muslim countries that are not in conflict see very little if any terrorism. Take a look at these charts below. I added a little more detail to the one I showed earlier.

Looking at the above chart, it is obvious what led to the recent increase in Islamic terrorism.

Below is a chart taking a closer look at three countries that have been in conflict since 9/11.

If Islam is the root cause of the recent increase in Islamic terrorism, why were there so few attacks prior to 2001 in the countries where most terrorism is found today? There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq prior to the US led invasion in 2003. This country went from no suicide attacks to becoming a world leader within a decade. Was Islam the cause of this, or another factor?

Studies have shown that religion is not the primary factor.

Instead of religion, what over 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980, all around the world have in common is a specific strategic goal, to compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists prize greatly.

What we've seen is that some of these terrorist organizations have become very innovative in digging deep in Islamic histories to find traditions, perhaps archaic traditions, to justify the killing of civilians, to justify Muslims killing Muslims, and to justify killing yourself, as an Islamic, you're strictly prohibited from suicide.
The Motivations of Suicide Bombers

The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause. It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers, the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism.
What Motivates the Suicide Bombers? | YaleGlobal Online

Eli Berman, Radical, Religious, and Violent 9-13, 212 (2009) (relying upon Israeli study of Muslim suicide bombers, among other evidence, to demonstrate that“religious terrorists, even suicide bombers [are] not particularly motivated by heavenly rewards”)

Study after study have come to the same conclusions and the frequency of these types of attacks have been on the decline in recent years. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/suicide-attacks-2018-fewer-attacks-victims-fewer-countries/

In fact, there has been a decline in terrorism across the board.

In 2015 total terrorist attacks decreased by 11.5 percent and total terrorism-related deaths by 12.7 percent.

In 2016, we saw a further 9.2 percent decrease in attacks and 10.2 percent decline in total terrorism-related deaths.

The downward trend continued in 2017, the most recent data available, with a 19.8 percent drop in attacks and a 24.2 percent decline in fatalities.

In Western Europe and the United States, total terrorist attacks are down sharply from the 1970s. In 2017, Western Europe accounted for only 2.7 percent of worldwide attacks and the United States for less than 1 percent of attacks.

Taken together, these 36 months have witnessed the single largest three-year decline in attacks and fatalities since the Global Terrorism Database began in 1970 – nearly a half century ago.

This trend continued into 2018:

A new study by a defense analysis company indicates there was a 33 percent drop in global terror attacks in 2018, and terrorism fatalities fell to a 10-year low. Jane's has been issuing its reports since 2009. It said the 2018 study showed the lowest fatality numbers since it began issuing the report 10 years ago.

Since 2014, there has been a 60 to 70% decline in terrorist attacks worldwide in just the past 4 years. It appears this trend is continuing into 2019.

According to U.S. Army Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier, "ideology", rather than any individual or group, is the "center of gravity" of al-Qaeda and related groups, and that ideology is a "collection of violent Islamic thought called Qutbism".

Here is the link to the article those quotes come from PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 2007

It's a good read and enforces much of what I have been saying in this thread and others about Islamic extremism.

Why is Contemporary Religious Terrorism Predominantly Linked to Islam? Four Possible Psychosocial Factors | Wright | Perspectives on Terrorism

3.4 Assumption: Terrorism is predominantly anti-western - 5 Assumptions on Terrorism | Coursera [Leiden University]
Islamic terrorism is guided by Islamic doctrine and are purely religious in nature, even though motivated by many different possible factors in theory.

I would like to suggest you enroll in that course in addition to the one I recommended earlier. I think you will be surprised in what you learn about Islamic extremism if you do. I have been studying terrorism and violent extremism for about as long as I have Islam and just by looking over the information found at the links you shared it appears to be inline with what has been taught from some of the sources I have taken courses from. Since we have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry here in Mindanao, I have taken the following courses on this subject.

Whether you like it or not, the later Medina verses are the violent, political, military and controlling aspect of the Qur’an which precedes the earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful all inclusive earlier verses cannot be reconciled by the later violent non-accommodating verses. That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.

Once again, the Qur'an was written over 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life. Some verses answered specific questions at a specific time or during a specific historical event such as a battle. Many verses have specific messages intended for specific people, while others give general guidelines to be used for future generations. So when you read the Qur’an it's important to understand what was happening at the time that resulted in a particular verse to be revealed to Muhammad.

The only schools you would recognize as “legitimate” are those that do not teach the whole truth about Islamic doctrine/Sharia

Send me a link to a school or an institution that you feel is legitimate that opposes what I have been saying in this thread and I will check it out. I consider a school to be legitimate if it is an accredited institution and/or the courses are offered by professors, experts, or instructors who have advanced degrees in Islamic Studies, Islamic History or a related discipline.

Dr. David Wood and his family are barely getting by. Dr. David Wood gave up a career as a philosophy teacher to work on the front lines to save Muslims and to help educate others of the false teachings of Islam and the dangers of Islam. Dr. Wood has no book sales or materials. He does not make money off of ads. His money comes from meager donations and from earned income doing seminars and debates at Christian schools across the country.

David Wood solicits donations via Paypal, Gofundme, Patreon, and other crowdfunding sites through is Youtube channel and some of his videos sound like infomercials. I don't know how you would know if David Wood is barely getting by, but if he's the one that made the claim, then that sounds to me like a tactic to get more people to send him donations. If he wasn't in this for the money, he wouldn't be doing it at all.

So, to say that all these Christians schools that happily receive David Wood to teach must be illegitimate is totally biased of you.

Can you provide a list of Christian schools that have invited David Wood to teach?

I gave you links to poll statistics of Muslims across the world. There is no such thing as 99.9%.

If you add up all the members of ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiya, and even the lesser known groups like Gama’a al-Islamiyya and Jaysh Rijal Al-Tariq Al-Naqshabandi from the US Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2017; there are less than 200,000 Islamic terrorists in the world. Even if you double that number to 400,000 just to be sure every single terrorist is counted like lone wolves, etc., it still doesn't add up to 1% of the Muslim population. And if you really want to make sure you got them all and say there's 4,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, which would be ridiculous, guess what, It still doesn't add up to 1% of the Muslim population.

So based on the facts above, if Islam is what you claim it to be, how is is it that more than 99% of the more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world aren't engaging in violent jihad? If Islam really taught things like that, common sense should tell us that if less than 1% of the followers of that religion are engaging in violence, then this must not be what Islam teaches. If it has taken more than 1,400 hundred years for fewer than 1% of the followers of Islam to come to the conclusion that jihad and violence are commanded by Muhammad, shouldn't that tell you something is wrong in your interpretation of Islam?

As for the polls, I couldn't find sources for hardly any of the statistics that were mentioned at the link you provided. The ones I did find were selectively chosen.

I showed you earlier in the thread where if the question was asked of Christians if God's Law should be the law of the land that a majority in many countries said yes.

When it comes to supporting terrorism, you will find that similar results can be found among people in general regardless of their religious affiliation. The following is from polling in the US.

Compared with general public, Muslims more likely to say targeting, killing civilians is never justifiable

You will find that support for violence against civilians is on the decline.

More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks and after hundreds of high profile attacks on civilians, the percentage of Muslims who say suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified has fallen in many of the countries surveyed. For instance, in 2002, 74% of Lebanese Muslims said suicide bombing was often or sometimes justified. But in the wake of well-publicized attacks, such as the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, support has fallen to just 29% today.

In Jordan, which experienced a devastating sequence of terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman in 2005, support for the tactic among Muslims has fallen from 57% before those attacks to 15% today. A similar trend is found in Pakistan, where suicide bombing was falling out of favor with Muslims even before the attack on former Benazir Bhutto which ended her life in 2007. A decade ago, 41% of Pakistani Muslims said attacks on civilians were justified, but that has fallen to just 3% today.

As recent as last year, 62% of Palestinian Muslims said that suicide bombing was at least sometimes justified, but that support has fallen 16 percentage points since 2013. This tracks with increased negative opinions toward extremist groups among Palestinians in the last year. Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the Rise in Middle East


Support for ISIS is relatively low among Muslims.

It's interesting to find that there are also Christians in some parts of the world who have a favorable opinion of ISIS.

The reason for this favorable opinion of ISIS by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike is because they are not motivated by religious sentiments, but rather by political, social, economic and other grievances.

Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that currently practice Shari'a in modern developed countries today?

You then go on to attempt to prove that Muslims will turn to Christ by sharing the Gospel and being friendly. That rarely works by itself, because for a Muslim to leave Islam means that his family will most likely disassociate themselves from him and he will lose his place in paradise. A Muslim must have a compelling reason why his faith is no longer valid in order for him to apostatize from the faith of his family. That is what ministries like David Wood accomplish, and is the reason why it works so well.

You will have to do far more than just being friendly and sharing the Gospel to reach Muslims who are committed to their faith since childhood.

You should never underestimate the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph,

You write:
<<
Extremist groups can't exist without discord, chaos, injustice, and conflict; and rarely if ever is religion the driving force behind most extremist groups. religion is just a tool used to unite members and to manipulate it's members into carrying out violent acts.
>>

setst RE: The average profile of a terrorist is a person from a good family and is not living in poverty.

Almost all terrorist attacks are from Islam. The following list only shows major terrorist attacks around the world, but does not include the many terrorist activities within the Muslim nations themselves.

List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia

Below link shows the startling poll results of Muslims regarding a range of topics. Muslims are not as benign as you think, even though they may not actively carry out terrorist activities.

Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, Sharia, ISIS, and welfare | CARM.org

Most Islamic terrorism takes place in Muslim majority nations – the targets are other Muslims from different sects.

Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

Why is Contemporary Religious Terrorism Predominantly Linked to Islam? Four Possible Psychosocial Factors | Wright | Perspectives on Terrorism

3.4 Assumption: Terrorism is predominantly anti-western - 5 Assumptions on Terrorism | Coursera [Leiden University]

Islamic terrorism is guided by Islamic doctrine and are purely religious in nature, even though motivated by many different possible factors in theory.

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia

According to U.S. Army Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier, "ideology", rather than any individual or group, is the "center of gravity" of al-Qaeda and related groups, and that ideology is a "collection of violent Islamic thought called Qutbism".[53] He summarizes the tenets of Qutbism as being:

• A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to "pure Islam" as originally practiced during the time of Muhammad.
• The path to "pure Islam" is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, along with implementation of Muhammad's commands.
• Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
• That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry.[53]

You are going to find that, as time goes on, more Muslim will be awakened to Islam. And Islam is founded on the commands, teachings, sayings and examples from Muhammad in the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

You can label it as Wahabism, or anything you desire, but the result remains the same…. Islam is founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. There can be no change because Muhammad was the last prophet and His commands must be followed to gain entrance to paradise.

Whether you like it or not, the later Medina verses are the violent, political, military and controlling aspect of the Qur’an which precedes the earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful all inclusive earlier verses cannot be reconciled by the later violent non-accommodating verses. That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Now that Muhammad is dead, there can be no change to Muhammad's commands because Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. Every Muslim knows this even though they my not fully understand all that is required.

You write:
<<
You will not find what you are saying here about Islam taught in any legitimate school that offers Islamic Studies whether it be from a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought, nor will you find Muslims who believe that way outside of the small minority which make up the extremists fringe.
>>

setst RE: The only schools you would recognize as “legitimate” are those that do not teach the whole truth about Islamic doctrine/Sharia

You write:
<<
What you are criticizing is not the religion of Islam that almost every Muslim in the world follows; what you are criticizing is an extremist sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. It's not the religion of Islam that Islamic terrorist follow, its an extremist interpretation of Islam.
>>

setst RE: I am not criticizing at all. I am not giving my opinion. My understanding of Islamic doctrine and sharia are from Islam’s own sources. I have quoted these sources to you and what they actually teach. You refuse to accept what Islam actually teaches in favor of how Muslims you have met live, and what your teachers have told you - at least one of whom was secretly supporting terrorism while teaching peace to you..

You list Islamic doctrine and Sharia as follows:
<<
• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
>>

setst RE: This is all literally taught and commanded in the Quran, the Hadith, and Sira. This is part of Sharia.

You write:
<<
Those "evangelists and apologists" like David Wood 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. They are motivated by money, not the Truth.
>>

setst RE: Dr. David Wood and his family are barely getting by. Dr. David Wood gave up a career as a philosophy teacher to work on the front lines to save Muslims and to help educate others of the false teachings of Islam and the dangers of Islam. Dr. Wood has no book sales or materials. He does not make money off of ads. His money comes from meager donations and from earned income doing seminars and debates at Christian schools across the country.

So, to say that all these Christians schools that happily receive David Wood to teach must be illegitimate is totally biased of you.

You write:
<<
If 99.9% of the Muslim world isn't involved in violent jihad and the vast majority of Muslims are condemning Islamic extremism and saying it goes against the teachings of their religion, shouldn't we allow Muslims to define what Islam teaches and what they believe rather than run the risk of giving false testimony against our neighbors?
>>

setst RE: I gave you links to poll statistics of Muslims across the world. There is no such thing as 99.9%. Yes, a good percentage of Muslims support Islamic terrorism and the advancing of Sharia where they live even though they are not actively carrying out jihad themselves. That is what the actual polls reveal.

setst wrote as follows:
<<
setst777 said: ↑
For you to say you have read and studied the Qur'an, but have not noticed that most of the Qur'an (the Medina verses) is dedicated to Islamic control and conquering of other peoples and nations for Allah is unbelievable to me.
>>

You respond as follows:
<<
It's important to remember 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. Just like the Bible, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. The Qur'an can't be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019. Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. What was revealed in Medina was targeted at a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and these verses are no longer applicable to Muslims living in 2019.
>>

setst RE: Muslims still dress, act, and carry out the basics of their faith just as they did in the 7th century.

Muhammad is the last prophet, so

• there can be no modification that can come to counteract what Muhammad and Allah commanded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
• No Muslim on earth has the authority to over-ride what Allah and Muhammad commanded in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira.

Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

You then go on to attempt to prove that Muslims will turn to Christ by sharing the Gospel and being friendly. That rarely works by itself, because for a Muslim to leave Islam means that his family will most likely disassociate themselves from him and he will lose his place in paradise.

A Muslim must have a compelling reason why his faith is no longer valid in order for him to apostatize from the faith of his family. That is what ministries like David Wood accomplish, and is the reason why it works so well.

You will have to do far more than just being friendly and sharing the Gospel to reach Muslims who are committed to their faith since childhood.

Acts 17:1-5 (NIV)
17 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
5 But other Jews were jealous...

Acts 18:4-6 (NIV)
4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it.From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

1 Corinthians 9:19-26 (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

If you say you have been in Muslim lands sharing the Gospel and have never received any condemnation or backlash from Muslims anywhere, I am thinking that your testimony was so weak that it posed no threat to any Muslims. You say they were all friendly to you. I am certain, if your story is true, that you were taught in the 1980's not to share the Gospel in Muslim lands because it is forbidden. I know that is what I was strictly taught when I was in the military during that time during Desert Storm. In fact, the US military was so afraid of backlash that they burned all shipments of bibles to the US soldiers when in Iraq.

Blessings

Very good points.

David Wood did not start his critique of Islam for the main purpose of money [obviously he needed funds to sustain his living] but his main purpose was to defend his religion against the evil and violent forces inherent in Islam.
David Wood started by contributing in AnsweringIslam and various Christian channels. It is was only recently that he got into Youtube that he got a good source of donations. I believe he was harassed by Facebook & Twitter, so he deleted his account].

As for the rest of JosephZ's points he is merely spinning wool and scratching the surface on the issue of terrorism.
JosephZ finished a course in terrorism where he got most of his stats, i.e.
Graduate Certificate (online) | START.umd.edu
He recommended the course to me and I had finished the course in 10 days. It is not free but one can apply for scholarship.

As usual I note JosephZ is pulling and spinning wool with the statistics from START without getting into the deeper points of the issues mentioned in the course.
Another problem is the course itself is limited to mostly empirical evidence which itself is limited by various constraints. As such the course materials do not dig deeper into the proximate and ultimate root cause of terrorism.
In the case of Islamic related terrorism, the proximate and ultimate root cause is related to the ethos of Islam as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

One point is do not allow JosephZ to lead and mislead you to the point that the only issue with Islam is Islamic terrorism.
Islamic terrorism is a very terrible and critical evil to the extreme that it can exterminate the human species if these Islamic terrorists get access to cheap and easily available WMDs.

The START course on terrorism is only limited to non-state actors, not including State-Actors and the potential that some Muslims-majority Islamic countries with nuclear power could turn to be rogue nations.

As you are aware, there are a gamut and wide range of terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims [ a pool of 320 million] in every aspect of human life over the 1400 years history of Islam, e.g. rapes, mass rapes, various violent acts, severe misogyny, oppression, deprivation of human rights, active blasphemy laws, wars, etc. in the name of Islam.

It is bad logic by JosephZ to argue Islamic terrorism is not serious because only 1% or less of all Muslims are engaged in active terrorism. Thus his conclusion why Islam is not a threat to humanity.

[1 ]As you had argued, it is the malignant inherent evil and violent ideology and ethos of Islam that the most critical threat.
[2 ]The potential danger is; this malignant evil and violence of the ideology of Islam is exposed to 20% [conservative] of all Muslims who are born naturally with an active evil tendency.
[3] It is the combination of the unavoidable elements of 1 and 2 above that is a potential threat to mankind and this is already proven with evidence throughout the history of Islam since 1400 years ago.

 

[Joyousperson]

Islamic terrorism like what we have seen over the past decade or so is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 2010, less than 10% of all terrorism globally was Islamic related. Fortunately there has been a decline of 60 to 70% since incidents of terrorism reached a historic high in 2014 and hopefully this trend will continue.

Your following points are very superficial and do not dig into the proximate and ultimate roots of Islamic terrorism which is the ideology of Islamic that is the critical factor that drives terrible Islamic terrorism;

Once again, take a look at these two graphs below and tell me which one is the most logical as it relates to the frequency of Islamic related terrorism.​

In an earlier post you mentioned how the US and other western nations were not looking for war and how their response in the Middle East was a reaction to Islamic attacks against them. Overwhelming responses from foreign powers are exactly what groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS want. They use our anger and superior military might to achieve what they aren't capable of doing. Coalition forces bombed cities and villages over a wide area destroying homes and businesses, killing civilians, displacing millions, and destroying infrastructure which will take many years if not decades to recover from. These are the conditions that allow violent extremism to thrive and prosper. It's a recruiters paradise. When Osama bin Laden organized the attacks on 9/11, he knew exactly how the US would respond. Actually he was probably surprised at how far the US and the coalition forces did go with their invasion of Iraq following the attack on Afghanistan. He couldn't have dreamed of a better outcome.

Another example is here in Mindanao when a few hundred Islamic extremist attacked Marawi a Muslim city with a population of around 250,000 people in 2017. Rather than attack a Christian city, they chose a city that was 99% Muslim. The terrorist knew they were no match for the Philippine military going into their assault, but they did know how the military would react. They also knew that if they could hold off the military long enough and inflict enough casualties on the government side that the government would respond with overwhelming force. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened. The entire core of Marawi was destroyed, more than 200,000 people were displaced, and even two years after this attack, rebuilding of the city has yet to begin with tens of thousands of people still displaced.

Prior to the attack on Marawi the extremist groups were struggling to recruit new members because many of the injustices that had plagued the Muslim community in Mindanao were starting to be addressed. A peace agreement had recently been signed between the largest Islamic rebel group which would put an end to a decades long war that had left more than 150,000 people dead, mostly Muslims, and millions more displaced over that period. Due to the expected over response by the military in Marawi, recruiters for the extremist groups now have a fertile ground for finding new recruits to join their ranks and the longer it takes the government to rebuild the city of Marawi, the stronger these groups will become in the future.

Extremist groups can't exist without discord, chaos, injustice, and conflict; and rarely if ever is religion the driving force behind most extremist groups. Religion is just a tool used to unite members and to manipulate it's members into carrying out violent acts.​

Note your point above,

Religion is just a tool used to unite members and to manipulate it's members into carrying out violent acts.​

This one major point, i.e. the Islam of ideology enables itself to be used as a tool [with permission] for Muslims to carry out terrible evil and violent acts.

In addition, note the note in Graph "Muslims Find Religion" i.e.

Muslims suddenly find religion and start following the teachings found in the Quran.​

This lead to an increase in terrorist attacks by Islamists inspired by the inherent evil ideology of Islam.

My point is;
The evil and violent intents is inherent within the ideology of Islam itself. The evil and violent acts manifest whenever there are opportunities and weaknesses for SOME evil prone Muslims to strikes to achieve the ultimate mission of Islam, i.e.

-the establishment of a caliphate on earth
-for all Muslims to live without hindrance from the infidels [non-Muslims, disbelievers].​

Note the ultimate mission of Al-Qaeda are as follows;

Al Qaeda two long term main goals of its vision are;

1. the expulsion of foreign forces and influences from Islamic societies and,

2. ultimately, the creation of an Islamic state ruled by sharia law.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a470199.pdf​

All Islamic terrorists has the ultimate goal of the creation of an Islamic State or Islamic World [the Ummah] ruled by Sharia Law and this in represented in the verses of the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam.

However different terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, IS and others has different strategies and tactics in various forms.
While Al-Qaeda has focused MORE on the 'Far Enemy' [USA and allies], IS focused on the 'Near Enemy' [setting base in the Middle East].

Whatever various reports and statistics regarding Islamic terrorists on the wide range of strategies and tactics, what is common is the ideology of Islam as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Thus no matter how much fire-fighting is done on the various Islamic terrorist groups, there will always be terrible evil and violent acts driven by the underlying ideology of Islam.
Therefore we need to tackle the proximate and ultimate root cause, i.e. the ideology of Islam and its inherent, intrinsic malignant evil and violent elements and ethos.

You are indirectly complicit to all the terrible evil and violent acts [terrorism and others] committed by Islamists when you defend Islam is 100% [or major] a religion of peace.

 

[setst777]

Very good points.

David Wood did not start his critique of Islam for the main purpose of money [obviously he needed funds to sustain his living] but his main purpose was to defend his religion against the evil and violent forces inherent in Islam.
David Wood started by contributing in AnsweringIslam and various Christian channels. It is was only recently that he got into Youtube that he got a good source of donations. I believe he was harassed by Facebook & Twitter, so he deleted his account].

As for the rest of JosephZ's points he is merely spinning wool and scratching the surface on the issue of terrorism.
JosephZ finished a course in terrorism where he got most of his stats, i.e.
Graduate Certificate (online) | START.umd.edu
He recommended the course to me and I had finished the course in 10 days. It is not free but one can apply for scholarship.

As usual I note JosephZ is pulling and spinning wool with the statistics from START without getting into the deeper points of the issues mentioned in the course.
Another problem is the course itself is limited to mostly empirical evidence which itself is limited by various constraints. As such the course materials do not dig deeper into the proximate and ultimate root cause of terrorism.
In the case of Islamic related terrorism, the proximate and ultimate root cause is related to the ethos of Islam as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

One point is do not allow JosephZ to lead and mislead you to the point that the only issue with Islam is Islamic terrorism.
Islamic terrorism is a very terrible and critical evil to the extreme that it can exterminate the human species if these Islamic terrorists get access to cheap and easily available WMDs.

The START course on terrorism is only limited to non-state actors, not including State-Actors and the potential that some Muslims-majority Islamic countries with nuclear power could turn to be rogue nations.

As you are aware, there are a gamut and wide range of terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims [ a pool of 320 million] in every aspect of human life over the 1400 years history of Islam, e.g. rapes, mass rapes, various violent acts, severe misogyny, oppression, deprivation of human rights, active blasphemy laws, wars, etc. in the name of Islam.

It is bad logic by JosephZ to argue Islamic terrorism is not serious because only 1% or less of all Muslims are engaged in active terrorism. Thus his conclusion why Islam is not a threat to humanity.

[1 ]As you had argued, it is the malignant inherent evil and violent ideology and ethos of Islam that the most critical threat.
[2 ]The potential danger is; this malignant evil and violence of the ideology of Islam is exposed to 20% [conservative] of all Muslims who are born naturally with an active evil tendency.
[3] It is the combination of the unavoidable elements of 1 and 2 above that is a potential threat to mankind and this is already proven with evidence throughout the history of Islam since 1400 years ago.

Hi Joyousperson,

Good insight and follow through regarding Joseph. I cannot believe how many gullible people are in the West that will swollow anything that Muslim Immams tell them. And then Governments in the West actually allow these Immams and Muslim organizations to write the framework for the Task Force on Terrorism. Unbelievable. It is like asking the enemy write a battle plan.

 

[Joyousperson]

Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

The problem is the people in Freedomhouse.org are very ignorant of what is in the 6236 verses of the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam.

Note they mentioned,

Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
​

This command is stated very specifically by Allah in the Quran;

5:55. Your friend [waliyyukumu] can be only Allah; and His messenger [Muhammad] and those [Muslims] who believe, who establish [QWM: yuqīmūna] worship [l-ṣalata] and pay the poor due [l-zakata], and bow down [RK3: rākiʿūna] (in prayer).

5:57. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Choose not for friends such of those [infidels] who received the Scripture before you [Jews and Christians], and of the disbelievers [infidels], as make a jest and sport of your religion [deenakum]. But keep your duty to Allah if ye [Muslims] are true believers.

9:23. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends [WLY; awliyāa] if they take pleasure in disbelief [l-kuf'ra; as infidels] rather than faith [AMN; l-īmāni]. Whoso of you [Muslims] taketh them [infidels] for friends [WLY: awliyāa], such [Muslims] are wrong doers [ZLM: l-ẓālimūna] [sinful].​

There are loads of verses from Allah that support all the points you listed above.

Note this very sick command from Islam, i.e. a Muslims cannot be friend to even their father, brethren, [& kins in another verse] if they are disbelievers, i.e. non-Muslims.​

How can you then claim "Wahabbism" as you described is not Islamic. In reality it is more Islamic than the so-called moderate Islam because as shown in the above, "Wahabbism" complies with more of Allah words in the Quran than the so-called moderates.

Note my point is, what is Islam is represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran.
Whether the school is 'Wahabbism' Salafism, Suadi Islam, Shia, etc. in not the critical point.
What is critical is, whatever the school/group of Islam or individual beliefs, the criteria to determine which is more Islamic is by how much they comply with the words of Allah within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

 

[setst777]

Can you provide a source for this?

setst777 said: ↑
The average profile of a terrorist is a person from a good family and is not living in poverty.

Joseph Responds:
<<
Can you provide a source for this?
>>

Setst RE:
The middle-class terrorists: More than 60pc of suspects are well educated and from comfortable backgrounds, says secret M15 file | Daily Mail Online

Islamic Terrorists not Poor and Illiterate, but Rich and Educated

Terrorism - Wikipedia [Heading: “Perpetrators”]

setst777 said: ↑
Almost all terrorist attacks are from Islam. The following list only shows major terrorist attacks around the world, but does not include the many terrorist activities within the Muslim nations themselves.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, Islamic terrorism on the scale we have seen over the past decade or so is a recent phenomenon.
>>

Setst RE: I am only concerned about where and, by who, terrorism is occurring, and if it is founded on sharia by Muslims to justify acts of terrorism to solve their issues. That is certainly the case.

Joseph writes:
<<
Studies have shown that religion is not the primary factor.
>>

Setst RE: With Islam, religion is the basis for the strategies used to deal with their issues. That is why everyone has heard of the common battle cry, “Allahu Akbar” when those acts are committed. That is why, when their cells are raided, many times quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith are found about conquering unbelievers for Islam.

Joseph, you then go into a prolonged emphasis on suicide bombings. They happen in Islam, and is only one of many methods used to carry out acts of terrorism – whether through taqyah, intimidation, threats, political warfare, social warfare, cyber crime or actual physical attacks etc. This is all in accordance with Sharia and the methods described in Sharia, which I listed for you from "Reliance of the Traveller."

setst777 said: ↑
Whether you like it or not, the later Medina verses are the violent, political, military and controlling aspect of the Qur’an which precedes the earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful all inclusive earlier verses cannot be reconciled by the later violent non-accommodating verses. That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Joseph responds:
<<
The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
>>

Setst RE: Your responses are so very gullible, bigoted and biased against Islam. Calling fundamental Muslims, and their scholars, extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists while proclaiming the hypocrites as the real Muslims is just plain evil and naive.

Here are some Meccan verses that are clearly peaceful and non-offensive

Qur’an 109:
1. Say: "Oh, you who disbelieve!
2. "I do not worship that which you worship,
3. "Nor do you worship That Which I worship.
4. "Nor will I worship that which you have been worshipping,
5. "Neither will you worship That Which I worship.
6. "To you your religion and to me mine."

Qur’an 2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion.

Qur’an 2:62 Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Qur'an 5:69 Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians - whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Qur'an 5:48 And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'an) in truth, confirming the Scripture [ma bayna yadayhi: "that which is with you," (the Taurat (Torah) and the Gospel (Injeel) and [Mohayminan: trustworthy in highness and a watcher] over it (the previous Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

Qur’an 2:190 And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihad, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36) Noble Quran]

Qur’an 5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

These are very peaceful sounding verses of the Meccan period, even including Christians and Jews as saved along with Muslims, and which we all live side by side until we meet Allah who will then tell us where we differed (Q 5:48).

Quranic exegesis state that any inclusive and peaceful verses are abrogated by the later violent verses.

Muhsin Khan, [1927 AD the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari and the Qur'an, entitled The Noble Qur'an, which he completed along with Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali], says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).
[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]

This "verse of the sword" (9:5) abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.
[Ibn Hazm, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, pp. 19, 27; Muhi al-Din Ibn al-'Arabi, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Krim (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), p. 69; Burton, The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 7, s.v. "Naskh," p. 1010; Salama, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p. 130, mentioned only 114.]

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."
[See explanations, Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Isma'il bin Kathir [1301-1373 AD, was a student under Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter]: bin Kathir, in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, expressed that jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]

According to bin Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]

Mohammed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti [Notable Sunni Muslim scholar (a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar) who was also known as "Shaykh of the Levant". Called a "prolific writer whose sermons were regularly broadcast on television," and "more familiar to Syrian TV viewers than anybody other than President Bashar al-Assad", Al-Bouti authored more than sixty books on various Islamic issues, and was considered an important scholar of the approach based on the four schools of Sunni Islam and the orthodox Ash'arite creed - the foremost theological school of Sunni Islam which established an orthodox dogmatic guideline based on clerical authority, founded by the Arab theologian Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 936 / AH 324)]. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."

Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti also wrote that defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase; that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."
[Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2001), pp. 323-4.]

Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti also wrote:
"The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ..."’
[Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, p 134, 7th edition]

See also: List of Abrogations in the Qur'an
List of Abrogations in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

Here are some of many of the violent offensive verses and Sahih Hadith that clearly abrogate the peaceful, inclusive, non-offensive Qur’anic verses per the consensus of Islamic Scholars…

Qur’an 3:85 Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."

3:85 abrogates 2:62 and 5:64, which clearly taught the faithful Christians, Sabeans and Jews were also saved along with Muslims and need not grieve.

Qur’an 9:29 [verse of the Sword]Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sahih Muslim 1:33 …the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Qur’an 9:33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to prevail it over all religion, even though the unbelievers may detest (it).

Qur'an 4:
55. Of them were (some) who believed in him (Muhammad ), and of them were (some) who averted their faces from him (Muhammad ); and enough is Hell for burning (them).

Quran 9:73 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Quran 66:9 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.

The inclusion of "hypocrites" within the above two quoted Qur'anic verses and Sahih Hadith also contradicts any defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
Sahi Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 220

NOTE that Jihad was understood as the unceasing quest to ‘make Allah's word supreme,’ as Hadiths described, through the ongoing expansion of the rule of God’s law on earth through terror, plunder, and war 'bringing those treasures in that Muhammad began to do.'

Joseph wrote:
<<
Once again, the Qur'an was written over 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life.
>>

Setst RE: Your understanding is myth – not in accordance with the best Islamic scholarship and Sahih Hadith.

setst777 said: ↑
So, to say that all these Christians schools that happily receive David Wood to teach must be illegitimate is totally biased of you.

Joseph responds
<<
Can you provide a list of Christian schools that have invited David Wood to teach?
>>

Setst RE: I will let you look them up, because this will be a good lesson for you on how to witness to Muslims. I have views at least 55 of his youtube videos giving lectures, teaching and debate at various Universities, Christian Academies, Churches and schools throughout the country. That is how Dr. Wood makes most of his income.

setst777 said: ↑
Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

Joseph responds:
<<
Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that currently practice Shari'a in modern developed countries today?
>>

Setst RE: No nation or group today implements Sharia – only parts of it. In fact, Sharia itself teaches that Muslims who are in foreign lands should only practice Sharia as much as is allowed in the country they reside.

How can you even think that Sharia can be adapted, when only Muhammad himself is allowed to make any changes???? Don’t you get it?

Muhammad was the last prophet. No one is authorized to change one word, one command, one teaching, one example of the Qur’an or Sahih Hadith.

You have a complete mind block against the truth of Islam. Nothing on earth can change Sharia, because it is founded on the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. That is why Muslims are still dressing and acting like it was still the 7th century.

Now why don’t you tell me how for so many years in Muslim lands you could share the Gospel with Muslims without any backlash – they were all friendly to you?

That is not what I am familiar with when in the Military. Sharia and Islamic Law clearly condemns any Christian attempt to evangelize or share the Gospel with Muslims – strictly forbidden.

 

[JosephZ]

As for the rest of JosephZ's points he is merely spinning wool and scratching the surface on the issue of terrorism.
JosephZ finished a course in terrorism where he got most of his stats, i.e.

Not "A" course, I have completed several courses from multible sources both online and in the classroom in addition to attending several forums on the subject of terrorism and violent extremism. I would suggest that you also take the course that Setst777 linked to earlier since it is available online. Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Comparing Theory and Practice | Coursera

 

[Joyousperson]

Not "A" course, I have completed several courses from multible sources both online and in the classroom in addition to attending several forums on the subject of terrorism and violent extremism. I would suggest that you also take the course that Setst777 linked to earlier since it is available online. Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Comparing Theory and Practice | Coursera

JosephZ,
Note this new thread re Wahhabism - your favorite toothless bullet;
Is Wahhabism an Extreme Form of Islam?

I have enough of those kind of courses for the time being.

 

[Joyousperson]

setst777 said: ↑
The average profile of a terrorist is a person from a good family and is not living in poverty.

Joseph Responds:
<<
Can you provide a source for this?
>>

Setst RE:
The middle-class terrorists: More than 60pc of suspects are well educated and from comfortable backgrounds, says secret M15 file | Daily Mail Online

Islamic Terrorists not Poor and Illiterate, but Rich and Educated

Terrorism - Wikipedia [Heading: “Perpetrators”]

setst777 said: ↑
Almost all terrorist attacks are from Islam. The following list only shows major terrorist attacks around the world, but does not include the many terrorist activities within the Muslim nations themselves.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, Islamic terrorism on the scale we have seen over the past decade or so is a recent phenomenon.
>>

Setst RE: I am only concerned about where and, by who, terrorism is occurring, and if it is founded on sharia by Muslims to justify acts of terrorism to solve their issues. That is certainly the case.

Joseph writes:
<<
Studies have shown that religion is not the primary factor.
>>

Setst RE: With Islam, religion is the basis for the strategies used to deal with their issues. That is why everyone has heard of the common battle cry, “Allahu Akbar” when those acts are committed. That is why, when their cells are raided, many times quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith are found about conquering unbelievers for Islam.

Joseph, you then go into a prolonged emphasis on suicide bombings. They happen in Islam, and is only one of many methods used to carry out acts of terrorism – whether through taqyah, intimidation, threats, political warfare, social warfare, cyber crime or actual physical attacks etc. This is all in accordance with Sharia and the methods described in Sharia, which I listed for you from "Reliance of the Traveller."

setst777 said: ↑
Whether you like it or not, the later Medina verses are the violent, political, military and controlling aspect of the Qur’an which precedes the earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful all inclusive earlier verses cannot be reconciled by the later violent non-accommodating verses. That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Joseph responds:
<<
The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
>>

Setst RE: Your responses are so very gullible, bigoted and biased against Islam. Calling fundamental Muslims, and their scholars, extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists while proclaiming the hypocrites as the real Muslims is just plain evil and naive.

Here are some Meccan verses that are clearly peaceful and non-offensive

Qur’an 109:
1. Say: "Oh, you who disbelieve!
2. "I do not worship that which you worship,
3. "Nor do you worship That Which I worship.
4. "Nor will I worship that which you have been worshipping,
5. "Neither will you worship That Which I worship.
6. "To you your religion and to me mine."

Qur’an 2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion.

Qur’an 2:62 Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Qur'an 5:69 Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians - whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Qur'an 5:48 And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'an) in truth, confirming the Scripture [ma bayna yadayhi: "that which is with you," (the Taurat (Torah) and the Gospel (Injeel) and [Mohayminan: trustworthy in highness and a watcher] over it (the previous Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

Qur’an 2:190 And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihad, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36) Noble Quran]

Qur’an 5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

These are very peaceful sounding verses of the Meccan period, even including Christians and Jews as saved along with Muslims, and which we all live side by side until we meet Allah who will then tell us where we differed (Q 5:48).

Quranic exegesis state that any inclusive and peaceful verses are abrogated by the later violent verses.

Muhsin Khan, [1927 AD the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari and the Qur'an, entitled The Noble Qur'an, which he completed along with Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali], says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).
[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]

This "verse of the sword" (9:5) abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.
[Ibn Hazm, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, pp. 19, 27; Muhi al-Din Ibn al-'Arabi, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Krim (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), p. 69; Burton, The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 7, s.v. "Naskh," p. 1010; Salama, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p. 130, mentioned only 114.]

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."
[See explanations, Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Isma'il bin Kathir [1301-1373 AD, was a student under Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter]: bin Kathir, in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, expressed that jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]

According to bin Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]

Mohammed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti [Notable Sunni Muslim scholar (a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar) who was also known as "Shaykh of the Levant". Called a "prolific writer whose sermons were regularly broadcast on television," and "more familiar to Syrian TV viewers than anybody other than President Bashar al-Assad", Al-Bouti authored more than sixty books on various Islamic issues, and was considered an important scholar of the approach based on the four schools of Sunni Islam and the orthodox Ash'arite creed - the foremost theological school of Sunni Islam which established an orthodox dogmatic guideline based on clerical authority, founded by the Arab theologian Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 936 / AH 324)]. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."

Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti also wrote that defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase; that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."
[Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2001), pp. 323-4.]

Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti also wrote:
"The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ..."’
[Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, p 134, 7th edition]

See also: List of Abrogations in the Qur'an
List of Abrogations in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

Here are some of many of the violent offensive verses and Sahih Hadith that clearly abrogate the peaceful, inclusive, non-offensive Qur’anic verses per the consensus of Islamic Scholars…

Qur’an 3:85 Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."

3:85 abrogates 2:62 and 5:64, which clearly taught the faithful Christians, Sabeans and Jews were also saved along with Muslims and need not grieve.

Qur’an 9:29 [verse of the Sword]Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sahih Muslim 1:33 …the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Qur’an 9:33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to prevail it over all religion, even though the unbelievers may detest (it).

Qur'an 4:
55. Of them were (some) who believed in him (Muhammad ), and of them were (some) who averted their faces from him (Muhammad ); and enough is Hell for burning (them).

Quran 9:73 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Quran 66:9 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.

The inclusion of "hypocrites" within the above two quoted Qur'anic verses and Sahih Hadith also contradicts any defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
Sahi Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 220

NOTE that Jihad was understood as the unceasing quest to ‘make Allah's word supreme,’ as Hadiths described, through the ongoing expansion of the rule of God’s law on earth through terror, plunder, and war 'bringing those treasures in that Muhammad began to do.'

Joseph wrote:
<<
Once again, the Qur'an was written over 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life.
>>

Setst RE: Your understanding is myth – not in accordance with the best Islamic scholarship and Sahih Hadith.

setst777 said: ↑
So, to say that all these Christians schools that happily receive David Wood to teach must be illegitimate is totally biased of you.

Joseph responds
<<
Can you provide a list of Christian schools that have invited David Wood to teach?
>>

Setst RE: I will let you look them up, because this will be a good lesson for you on how to witness to Muslims. I have views at least 55 of his youtube videos giving lectures, teaching and debate at various Universities, Christian Academies, Churches and schools throughout the country. That is how Dr. Wood makes most of his income.

setst777 said: ↑
Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

Joseph responds:
<<
Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that currently practice Shari'a in modern developed countries today?
>>

Setst RE: No nation or group today implements Sharia – only parts of it. In fact, Sharia itself teaches that Muslims who are in foreign lands should only practice Sharia as much as is allowed in the country they reside.

How can you even think that Sharia can be adapted, when only Muhammad himself is allowed to make any changes???? Don’t you get it?

Muhammad was the last prophet. No one is authorized to change one word, one command, one teaching, one example of the Qur’an or Sahih Hadith.

You have a complete mind block against the truth of Islam. Nothing on earth can change Sharia, because it is founded on the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. That is why Muslims are still dressing and acting like it was still the 7th century.

Now why don’t you tell me how for so many years in Muslim lands you could share the Gospel with Muslims without any backlash – they were all friendly to you?

That is not what I am familiar with when in the Military. Sharia and Islamic Law clearly condemns any Christian attempt to evangelize or share the Gospel with Muslims – strictly forbidden.

Wow.. good points with solid backings.

I am sure JosephZ would immaturely label and lump you in as anti-Islam propagandist like the others, David Wood, Bill Warner, Robert Spencer, etc.

What counts is [regardless of whatever label] the proper arguments and supporting evidences one's is presenting.
I have asked JosephZ to show proofs where David Wood and those serious critiques of Islam have done wrong in their critiques against Islam, but he has not produced any then have the guile to condemn them as anti-Islam propagandists.

 

[JosephZ]

Setst RE:
The middle-class terrorists: More than 60pc of suspects are well educated and from comfortable backgrounds, says secret M15 file | Daily Mail Online

Islamic Terrorists not Poor and Illiterate, but Rich and Educated

Terrorism - Wikipedia [Heading: “Perpetrators”]

Most of those studies deal with western homegrown terrorists. While it may be true that many Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia once attended school, received a higher level of education, or came from a middle class family, keep in mind that in most cases this was before war and conflict came to their homelands. A once wealthy family in those countries would no longer be wealthy if their homes and businesses were lost due to violent conflict. A perfect example would be the city of Marawi that I mentioned in my previous post. This city of more than 250,000 was one of the wealthiest in the region. Most of the young people attended and had graduated from universities and came from households with above average incomes compared to surrounding communities in the provinces that make up the Autonomous Muslim region. Two years latter these families and the young people are still displaced living with relatives or tent cities scattered throughout southern Mindanao. The only thing they own are the things they were able to carry when they fled the city. The terrorists looted their homes, banks, and financial institutions. Many Muslim families left behind vaults in their homes where their entire life's savings were kept. The schools and colleges were destroyed and most students still haven't returned to school to this day. These once successful and educated people have been reduced to the lowest class and have been living as such for more than two years now. These are the people the recruiters for the extremist groups are targeting now. These people are desperate and the recruiters are willing to pay large sums of money upfront and higher than average monthly salaries to those who join their ranks. they even offer to pay for the children's educations if they will commit a member of their family to their cause.

The above scenario has been played out in countless communities and cities in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

So while it may very well be true that many terrorists are well educated and come from comfortable backgrounds, the key word is background. What was once true in all likelihood was not the case when they decided to commit an act of terror or to join an extremist organization.

With Islam, religion is the basis for the strategies used to deal with their issues. That is why everyone has heard of the common battle cry, “Allahu Akbar” when those acts are committed. That is why, when their cells are raided, many times quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith are found about conquering unbelievers for Islam.

Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.

Your responses are so very gullible, bigoted and biased against Islam. Calling fundamental Muslims, and their scholars, extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists while proclaiming the hypocrites as the real Muslims is just plain evil and naive.

You are free to believe what you want brother, but all you are doing is legitimizing the teachings of extremist and bearing false witness against the vast majority of Muslims in the world.

See also: List of Abrogations in the Qur'an
List of Abrogations in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic propaganda site and is not a reliable source for getting information about Islam.

WikiIslam was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. Essentially, WikiIslam is an anti-Islam wiki that purports to have 2893 articles/pages about Islam as of today.

In review, most information on this wiki paints a negative picture of Islam. It also favors other non-Islamic religions over Islam. Another aspect of this Wiki that is Questionable is that anyone can edit the contents. Therefore, it may not be trustworthy for factual information. While there is some very factual and in-depth information about the Quran on this wiki, there is also many opinion pieces that are not based in fact, but rather conjecture. On the other hand, because WikiIslam can be edited by anyone there are also many pro-Islam refutations that may not be rooted in fact.

On Abrogation:

Abrogation is one of the lengthiest, most complex, and most important topics in both the science of Qur’anic exegesis [tafsir] as well as that of Legal Theory [usul al-fiqh]. Imam Suyuti mentions that a countless number of scholars authored works solely on the topic of abrogation, and that many Imams said, “No one is allowed to give explanation [tafsir] of the Book of Allah until they understand abrogation.” Our Master Ali [may Allah ennoble his face] asked a judge if he knew which verses abrogated others, to which the judge replied that he did not. Imam Ali said, “You are ruined, and you have ruined others.” [Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]

The theory of naskh [Abrogation] has been dealt with by many. The editorial remarks of Qatadah’s Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh (p.10–8) for instance, listed over seventy names of those who have written solely on naskh (both classical and contemporary), while Abu ‘Ubayd’s alNasikh wa al-Mansukh (p.59–76) on the other hand, listed some thirty-nine names. Despite the numerous writings, or perhaps because of them, naskh remains a problematic theory, if not a difficult and divisive one (Mustafa Zaud, 1963: v.1, 4).

You clearly have no understanding of the concept of abrogation and how it applies to the Qur'an. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. Of course sites like answering-Islam, wikiIslam, and anti Islamic propagandists aren't going to teach you that. This is why I suggest people learn from legitimate sources.

Your understanding is myth – not in accordance with the best Islamic scholarship and Sahih Hadith.

My understanding is shared by roughly 90% of the world's Muslims and experts/scholars in Islam and Islamic history from all backgrounds whether they be Secular, Christian, Islamic, etc. What you share here is not accepted by the vast majority of the world's Muslims and is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses on Islamic Studies or Islamic history. If you find one, please let me know. What you are describing here is taught in Saudi Arabia and in many Saudi funded schools, but what they teach is the sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam followed by 90% of the world's Muslims.

I will let you look them up, because this will be a good lesson for you on how to witness to Muslims. I have views at least 55 of his youtube videos giving lectures, teaching and debate at various Universities, Christian Academies, Churches and schools throughout the country. That is how Dr. Wood makes most of his income.

You couldn't provide just one link for me?

No nation or group today implements Sharia – only parts of it. In fact, Sharia itself teaches that Muslims who are in foreign lands should only practice Sharia as much as is allowed in the country they reside.

Your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.

You have a complete mind block against the truth of Islam. Nothing on earth can change Sharia, because it is founded on the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. That is why Muslims are still dressing and acting like it was still the 7th century.

You do realize that many Christians also dress in much the same way as Muslims don't you? Wait, I thought that was a Muslim thing?! | Commonweal Magazine Have you ever been to the Detroit metro area or an Arab country? You will find them there.

Now why don’t you tell me how for so many years in Muslim lands you could share the Gospel with Muslims without any backlash – they were all friendly to you?

It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions. Muslim extremist not so much.
I was called to share the gospel, not to criticize the Islamic religion, Muslims, or Muhammad. If I were to take an approach such as that I would not be welcome in their communities and there would be no opportunity for me to share the gospel. Our aim should never be to condemn, insult, or embarrass Muslims, but to love, respect, and accept them. A Christian is a representative of Jesus Christ and we should respect a Muslim's opinions and ways of believing even if we may disagree with them. I have had many Muslims strongly disagree with my position and my faith, but it has never had a lasting negative affect on our relationship. If you show respect to Muslims, you will receive respect in return.

Below is a picture that will give you an idea of the kind of reception I receive pretty much everywhere I travel.

The town of Maluso on the island of Basilan (Seen in the picture on the right where I'm holding the baby) is one that I regularly travel to and is the hometown of the former emir of ISIS in southeast Asia. Many of his relatives and supporters still live there today.

Who is Isnilon Hapilon? ISIS's Southeast Asia Head Killed In Philippines

Hapilon started elementary school in 1978 at the age of 10 or 12 at the Maluso Central Elementary School, and later he was enrolled at the Basilan National High School.

The STAR received text messages from relatives of Hapilon in the adjoining Maluso and Lantawan towns confirming his death. "Wafat neh Sir. Sure ne teed," a cousin said in Yakan dialect via a text message, which translates to "Hapilon is dead. The clan is sure about it."

Here are a few recent events that occurred on the island of Basilan.

A bomb was detonated in a van in the southern Philippines on Tuesday, killing 11 people at a military checkpoint in an apparent suicide attack for which Isis has claimed responsibility.The blast took place on Basilan, the island stronghold of the Abu Sayyaf group notorious for kidnapping and banditry. It was also the home of the former leader, or “emir” of Isis in southeast Asia, killed last year by Philippine troops. Basilan is a no-go area for most Filipinos and Western countries typically warn citizens to stay away because of the presence of Abu Sayyaf and fierce military offensives against its fighters.

Philippine officials say Abu Sayyaf militant gunmen have killed at least nine people and wounded 16 others in a dawn attack in a remote village in the country's restive south. Military officials say about 20 Abu Sayyaf gunmen opened fire on villagers and burned five houses and a village hall in the attack early Monday in Tubigan village in Maluso town on Basilan island.

Daesh-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorists have beheaded a retired Philippine army soldier who was abducted Monday in the southern island province of Basilan, a military official said Wednesday. Col. Juvymax Uy, commander of Joint Task Force Basilan, said in a statement the body and severed head of retired master sergeant Julio Macaraig Pasawa were found early Tuesday in his burnt house in Upper Mahayahay, Maluso town.

Armed men believed to be Abu Sayyaf members shot dead a logger on Saturday morning in Maluso town in Basilan province for being unable to say Al Fatihah, the first seven verses of the Quran.

Abu Sayyaf bandits behead 7 captives in Basilan. Gunmen believed to be Abu Sayyaf bandits killed seven people they abducted 11 days ago in Basilan, police said Monday.

IS Claims Attack on Philippine Army Position in Maluso, Basilan

Unlike the so called "No Go Zones" in Europe that anti-Islamic propagandists claim exist, Basilan is literally a no go zone.

Basilan is a no-go area for most Filipinos and Western countries typically warn citizens to stay away because of the presence of Abu Sayyaf and fierce military offensives against its fighters.

Below is the current travel advisory from the State Department on this part of the world.

Do Not Travel to: The Sulu Archipelago, including the southern Sulu Sea, due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and kidnapping.

The Sulu Archipelago and Sulu Sea – Level 4: Do Not Travel

Terrorist and armed groups continue to conduct kidnappings on land and at sea for ransom, bombings, and other attacks targeting U.S. citizens, foreigners, civilians, local government institutions, and security forces.

The U.S. government has limited ability to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in the Sulu Archipelago and Sulu Sea as U.S. government employees must obtain special authorization to travel to those areas.

Canada's travel warning sounds a bit more ominous

Western and Central Mindanao and southern Sulu Sea - Avoid all travel to Western and Central Mindanao, including the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, due to the serious threat of terrorist attacks, kidnapping, high levels of criminality, and violent clashes between the military/police and terrorist or rebel groups. There is an extreme risk to your personal safety and security. You should not travel to this country, territory or region. If you are already in the country, territory or region, you should consider leaving if it is safe to do so.

Many of the communities I work in are majority Muslim, some close to 100%, and where there's a known presence of Islamic extremists and terrorist activities. I've been working in these communities for over seven years without incident and have always felt welcome.

Which of the following examples from the US do you feel is the most effective way to witness to Muslims?

Sharia and Islamic Law clearly condemns any Christian attempt to evangelize or share the Gospel with Muslims – strictly forbidden.

Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.

 

[Joyousperson]

WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic propaganda site and is not a reliable source for getting information about Islam.

WikiIslam was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. Essentially, WikiIslam is an anti-Islam wiki that purports to have 2893 articles/pages about Islam as of today.

In review, most information on this wiki paints a negative picture of Islam. It also favors other non-Islamic religions over Islam. Another aspect of this Wiki that is Questionable is that anyone can edit the contents. Therefore, it may not be trustworthy for factual information.

Your usual flimsy excuses.

True, WikiIslam is open source, thus anyone can edit but it provide any one to correct views or counter views.
What is critical here is whether the specific article quoted from wikiIslam is false or not with respect to what Islam is.

WikiIslam [as known] is never to be taken blindly as an authority by any one with intellectual integrity but it is relied upon as a compiler, a convenience and the person who reference any specific material from WikiIslam need to verify it is agreeable to the original Islamic sources.

My understanding is shared by roughly 90% of the world's Muslims and experts/scholars in Islam and Islamic history from all backgrounds whether they be Secular, Christian, Islamic, etc. What you share here is not accepted by the vast majority of the world's Muslims and is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses on Islamic Studies or Islamic history. If you find one, please let me know. What you are describing here is taught in Saudi Arabia and in many Saudi funded schools, but what they teach is the sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam followed by 90% of the world's Muslims.

Again dishonestly relying on the ad populum fallacies re the "because the masses agree - therefore true".

Note the main point here 'what is true Islam.'
You have never defined 'what is Islam' as far as I have read your post.
So in this case what is your definition of 'what is Islam'.

Note Meno's paradox, how can you know something if you have not understood what it should be in the first place, i.e. to establish a definition.

Note my definition of
'What is Islam' and Who is a Muslim.

Islam is;
- the religion represented by the ideology within the 6,236 verses in the Quran,
- revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad via Angel Gabriel,
- within 610 to 632 CE in Mecca.
- supported by the Ahadiths.

A Muslim is;
1 - person who had entered into a covenant [divine contract] with Allah
2 - to comply with the covenanted terms within the 6236 verses of the Quran,
3 - a Muslim thus adopt Islam as his/her religion.​

The so-called majority of moderate Muslims meet criteria 1 above but not fully with 2 since they are in fact practicing their own self-determined, self-censored and self-limited sort of Islam against the true Islam as defined above.

The so-called moderate Muslims are thus practicing pseudo-Islam or cherry-picking Islam, i.e. comply only partial and ignoring a large % of the verses as commanded by Allah, e.g. they do not agree with the 3400++ verses i.e. 55% of the verses in the Quran that are contemptuous against the disbelievers.

One point is how can they expect Allah to reward them favorably on Judgement Day if they do not comply with its commands fully to the best of their abilities. Non-compliance could mean they will suffer in Hell for a long time or permanently.

Often such a reminder will trigger many Muslims to be truer-Islamic and thus comply with more of Allah's command, i.e. the hatred and killing of disbelievers to ensure they enter paradise with eternal life.

I have already demonstrated in earlier posts on how those Muslims practice pseudo Islam by ignoring verses that command them not to befriend non-Muslims. Thus they are a lesser-Muslim than those [any one not necessary must be a Wahhabist] who do not befriend non-Muslims.

Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.

Ignorance again.

Sharia Law is God's Law as in the Quran [or supported in the Ahadith] which can be practiced by a Muslims whether on his/her own or via a school of jurisprudence.

In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable DIVINE LAWS and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its human scholarly interpretations.
-wiki​

Note the above, Shariah Laws are Allah's command and Law, example not to befriend disbelievers even if they are their father, bethren or kins, i.e.

9:23. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends [WLY; awliyāa] if they take pleasure in disbelief [l-kuf'ra; as infidels] rather than faith [AMN; l-īmāni]. Whoso of you [Muslims] taketh them [infidels] for friends [WLY: awliyāa], such [Muslims] are wrong doers [ZLM: l-ẓālimūna] [sinful].​

Muslims who not comply with the above are contravening one of the Sharia Laws, i.e. Allah's Law as commanded in the Quran.
So how can you expect Sharia Law to modulate and inculcate ALL Muslims to be kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world.
Don't be that ignorant and prove to me I am wrong on the above.

 

[JosephZ]

Note it is Allah's command and Law not to befriend disbelievers even if they are their father, bethren or kins, e.g.

9:23. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends [WLY; awliyāa] if they take pleasure in disbelief [l-kuf'ra; as infidels] rather than faith [AMN; l-īmāni]. Whoso of you [Muslims] taketh them [infidels] for friends [WLY: awliyāa], such [Muslims] are wrong doers [ZLM: l-ẓālimūna] [sinful].
Muslims who not comply with the above are contravening one of the Sharia Laws, i.e. Allah's Law as commanded in the Quran.
So how can you expect Sharia Law to modulate and inculcate ALL Muslims to be kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world.
Don't be that ignorant and prove to me I am wrong on the above.

The violent verses found in the Qur'an and those that are talking about not befriending certain non-Muslims don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation.

For example when Qur'an 9 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them," or "Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief" it is dealing with specific events at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims and when certain Muslims were standing in the way of other Muslims or refusing themselves to migrate to Medina. Those verses would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since they are very specific to their intent and the point in history they were to be applied.

The following was revealed regarding those who refrained from emigrating because of their families and trade: O you who believe, do not take your fathers and brothers for your friends, if they prefer, if they have chosen, disbelief over belief; whoever of you takes them for friends, such are the evildoers. -- Jalal - Al-Jalalayn

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren) who are in Mecca from among the disbelievers (for friends) in religion (if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) if they choose disbelief instead of faith. (Whoso of you taketh them for friends) in religion, (such are wrong-doers) disbelievers like them; it is also said that this means: O ye who believe! take not your believing fathers and brothers who are in Mecca, who had prevented you from migrating to Medina, for allies, seeking their help and assistance, if they choose to remain in the abode of disbelief, i.e. Mecca, rather than migrate to the abode of Islam, i.e. Medina. Whosoever takes them for allies harms only himself. -- Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) [9:23-24]. Said al-Kalbi: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to migrate to Medina, some men went to their fathers, brothers or wives and said: 'We have been commanded to migrate to Medina'. Thus, some people liked the command and hastened to execute it, while the wives, dependents and children of others hung on to some others, saying: 'We beseech you by Allah not to leave us to no one, causing our waste and peril'. The hearts of these softened for them and, as a result, they refrained from migrating. These words of Allah, exalted is He, were then revealed to rebuke them (O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith…)”. As for those who stayed back in Mecca and did not migrate, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass…) [9:24], meaning fighting and the conquest of Mecca. -- Wahidi - Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

This really all comes down to using common sense.

 

[setst777]

Most of those studies deal with western homegrown terrorists.
Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.

Hi Joseph,

You write:
<<
Most of those studies deal with western homegrown terrorists. While it may be true that many Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia once attended school, received a higher level of education, or came from a middle class family, keep in mind that in most cases this was before war and conflict came to their homelands. . .
>>

setst RE: You are making excuses. You don't know that "in most cases this was before the war and conflict to their homelands." Palestinian terrorists were also mentioned with terrorists predominantly from better families. Then, when you consider that this same reality is true for Islamic terrorists even in Western countries, we can see that non-impoverished educated terrorists are the norm no matter where you study Islamic terrorists in the world.

As well, keep in mind that most of these terrorists are Islamic. So how they solve their issues (using terrorism) is guided by their religion which clearly teaches such tactics in Sharia military actions against unbelievers.

setst777 wrote:
With Islam, religion is the basis for the strategies used to deal with their issues. That is why everyone has heard of the common battle cry, “Allahu Akbar” when those acts are committed. That is why, when their cells are raided, many times quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith are found about conquering unbelievers for Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

setst RE: This is your opinion. They are following exactly as Sharia outlines. The indoctrination is their own religious studies: The Quran, Hadith, Sira, Tafsir. Sharia is founded in these sources. The strong motivation for carrying out terrorist acts is the promise to enter Paradise as clearly taught in the Quran and Hadith.

Joseph writes:
<<
WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic propaganda site and is not a reliable source for getting information about Islam.
>>

setst RE: Where do you think the list of abrogated verses comes from that Wikislam lists? The list of abrogated verses are very similar to the verses that most Muslim scholars also refer to. Did you look up the sources I gave you? Wikislam doesn't make this stuff up - if they did, the Islamic leaders would be all over them for slander, and they could change it the contents if they wanted to since Wikislam is open source.

Joseph writes:
<<
You clearly have no understanding of the concept of abrogation and how it applies to the Qur'an. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. Of course sites like answering-Islam, wikiIslam, and anti Islamic propagandists aren't going to teach you that. This is why I suggest people learn from legitimate sources.
>>

setst RE: Well, I see you overlooked all the quotes I gave you from the top Islamic scholars. These are not my views on abrogation.

In contrast you are giving me YOUR view of abrogation that has nothing to do with reality.

The Quran explains abrogation (verses which I quoted for you),

The Hadith explains abrogation (many which I listed for you that explain Quran verses),

The Tafsir (I quoted many sources) explains abrogation.

Top Islamic Scholars which I quoted for you.

So if one scholar says the topic of abrogation is contentious, he is right. But that does not mean abrogation is a mystery to the Islamic sources, or that it cannot be understood or identified. Most of the best Islamic scholars agree on most of verses that are abrogated.

setst wrote:
Your understanding is myth – not in accordance with the best Islamic scholarship and Sahih Hadith.

Joseph responds:
<<
My understanding is shared by roughly 90% of the world's Muslims and experts/scholars in Islam and Islamic history from all backgrounds whether they be Secular, Christian, Islamic, etc. What you share here is not accepted by the vast majority of the world's Muslims and is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses on Islamic Studies or Islamic history. If you find one, please let me know. What you are describing here is taught in Saudi Arabia and in many Saudi funded schools, but what they teach is the sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam followed by 90% of the world's Muslims.
>>

setst RE: You don't know what roughly 90% of the world's Muslims believe or understand. All you know is what 'some' friendly Muslims told you in a tiny town on a tiny island. You even believed a 'friendly' Muslim scholar’ in a “legitimate school” was teaching you – he was secretly a supporter of terrorism. You seemed so proud to be a student under him.

You are being duped Joseph. I gave you statistics from polls taken of Muslims in many parts of the world, and the results of those polls clearly show that that the average Muslims are not as benign as you have been mistakenly led to believe. YET, you keep stating the same 99% and 90% fallacies. Just because a person seems friendly doesn't mean they will not slit your throat.

Most of the scholars I have referenced and quoted are Sunni. I chose some of the most reliable and highly acclaimed and educated Islamic Scholars to quote - many of which have translated Hadith and interpret the Quran. I quoted their references as well so you could see that these are some of the very best scholars of Islam.

You keep bringing up the friendly Muslims as being the true Muslims...

Since when do ‘friendly Muslims’ you met have authority over the Quran, Hadith and Sura?

Since when do ‘friendly Muslims’ become the true Muslims, while Prophet Muhammad becomes the extremist false Muslim that is thrown out?

What is Islam founded on?... Muhammad or some friendly Muslims you met?

setst wrote:
No nation or group today implements Sharia – only parts of it. In fact, Sharia itself teaches that Muslims who are in foreign lands should only practice Sharia as much as is allowed in the country they reside.

Joseph responds:
<<
Your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

setst RE: Your statement is inaccurate. You don't know that is the case for all Muslims. You should state that Sharia is just different than what you understand. Don't make Muslims (in general) a scapegoat for your own lack of knowledge.

As Joyousperson explained, Sharia itself is the immutable Law of Allah as found in the Qur'an, Hadith and Surah.

Ever since Europe fought the advance of Islam in Europe (that for 1400 years slaughtered, pillaged, burned, enslaved and raped hundreds of millions of Europeans and Africans) and won in the early 1900's, Islam has never fully implemented Sharia or had a Caliph rule over Islam. The only thing holding back Islamic countries from fully implementing Sharia is the West.

As long as the West has the power, the Islamic nations have to be careful. That is why slavery, the sex trade, and the most inhumane laws under Sharia are not enforced today, even though Sharia is commanded to be followed per Allah (Qur'an) and Muhammad (Qur'an, Hadith and Sira).
Wikipedia has a good article on Sharia. See: Application of Islamic law by country - Wikipedia

The Islamic nations are biding their time until they have the power to destroy the West. This is not my view, this is the actual sayings of the Islamic leaders and is clearly the Law of Sharia.

setst wrote:
You have a complete mind block against the truth of Islam. Nothing on earth can change Sharia, because it is founded on the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. That is why Muslims are still dressing and acting like it was still the 7th century.

Joseph writes:
<<
You do realize that many Christians also dress in much the same way as Muslims don't you? Wait, I thought that was a Muslim thing?! | Commonweal Magazine Have you ever been to the Detroit metro area or an Arab country? You will find them there.
>>

setst RE: Many Christians? No, I am unfamiliar with them. I have never seen a Christian dress like Jesus in everyday life, as Muslims dress like Muhammad as we see in Islamic countries and even here in the West.

Islam is forever stuck in the 7th century
The fact is that Islam cannot change because Muhammad was the last prophet. No one can change Islam. No one has that authority, nor ever can or will.

setst777 wrote:
Now why don’t you tell me how for so many years in Muslim lands you could share the Gospel with Muslims without any backlash – they were all friendly to you?

You write:
<<
It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions.
>>

setst RE: Most Islamic nations in the middle east have all but obliterated Jews and Christians from their lands, and they imprison or kill Christian evangelists. And the ones that still exist in those lands are persecuted.

History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia

Joseph continues:
<<
I was called to share the gospel, not to criticize the Islamic religion, Muslims, or Muhammad.
>>

setst RE: You don't have to criticize Islam directly. Sharing the Gospel is criticizing Islam and Muhammad - sharing the Gospel is prohibited by Muhammad.

Here is what two Christian missionaries to an Islamic nation stated regarding their association with Muslims...

START OF QUOTE<<
In their years meeting and befriending Muslims, Brian and Kimberly say they’ve met many kind-hearted, hospitable Muslim families.

At the same time, if you were to read the Quran chronologically, she said, you’d find a shift in Muhammad’s teachings on non-Muslims; in later years, he taught that they should be given a chance to convert, and if they didn’t, wage war. Dying as a martyr is the only way in Islam to be sure your sins are forgiven and that you’ll go to heaven.

Here’s where Kimberly gets teary eyed.

When you hear about suicide bombers blowing themselves up, she said, “it’s not always because they hate all these other people; many times it’s because they are desperate for approval from God.”

How Can You Share the Gospel with Muslims?
>>END OF QUOTE

All in all, the article was helpful to understand your position as a missionary. Too bad you can’t communicate well your position.

However, if you are really honest, you would, just like these two missionaries, understand that the Qur'an does in fact teach a replacing of older revelations from Allah with newer ones that are violent toward Christians and Jews, and that Muslims can be assured of going to Paradise by being killed in terrorist acts. If you were honest you would admit this.

Also the article goes on to say that Christians in those countries are persecuted, and family members may even kill their own if they become Christian. This is in contrast to how you explain that Muslims you met as friendly:

"It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions."

Do Christians kill their own family members for turning away from their faith? Let’s be real.

As for Maluso, this is a very tiny area on a tiny Island. Do you have any experiences in other Islamic countries?

 

[setst777]

The violent verses found in the Qur'an and those that are talking about not befriending certain non-Muslims don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation.

For example when Qur'an 9 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them," or "Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief" it is dealing with specific events at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims and when certain Muslims were standing in the way of other Muslims or refusing themselves to migrate to Medina. Those verses would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since they are very specific to their intent and the point in history they were to be applied.

The following was revealed regarding those who refrained from emigrating because of their families and trade: O you who believe, do not take your fathers and brothers for your friends, if they prefer, if they have chosen, disbelief over belief; whoever of you takes them for friends, such are the evildoers. -- Jalal - Al-Jalalayn

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren) who are in Mecca from among the disbelievers (for friends) in religion (if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) if they choose disbelief instead of faith. (Whoso of you taketh them for friends) in religion, (such are wrong-doers) disbelievers like them; it is also said that this means: O ye who believe! take not your believing fathers and brothers who are in Mecca, who had prevented you from migrating to Medina, for allies, seeking their help and assistance, if they choose to remain in the abode of disbelief, i.e. Mecca, rather than migrate to the abode of Islam, i.e. Medina. Whosoever takes them for allies harms only himself. -- Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) [9:23-24]. Said al-Kalbi: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to migrate to Medina, some men went to their fathers, brothers or wives and said: 'We have been commanded to migrate to Medina'. Thus, some people liked the command and hastened to execute it, while the wives, dependents and children of others hung on to some others, saying: 'We beseech you by Allah not to leave us to no one, causing our waste and peril'. The hearts of these softened for them and, as a result, they refrained from migrating. These words of Allah, exalted is He, were then revealed to rebuke them (O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith…)”. As for those who stayed back in Mecca and did not migrate, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass…) [9:24], meaning fighting and the conquest of Mecca. -- Wahidi - Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

This really all comes down to using common sense.

Hi Joseph,

What is the point of your post?

"Once the sacred months have passed," that was the end of all truces with the unbelievers. The rest of Chapter 9 is a continuation of the context. The last command of Allah through Muhammad is Chapter 9 according to most Islamic scholars. Muhammad died a year later. The command of Chapter 9 is kill and subjugate the non-believers, Jews and Christians until the whole world is Muslim.

The Qur'an although written at a point in time is to be followed from that point forward - every command given. This is true unless abrogated by Allah.

Allah did not abrogate chapter 9, so the command to kill and subjugate unbeliever stands today - according to all the best scholars of Islam interpretation.

You are trying to play games with the Quran by quoting part of the context. The same scholars you quoted are the very scholars that teach that Chapter 9 is a universal command for Muslims to conquer the world for Islam.