Do Not Bash Muslims

[setst777]

Btw, you have been insisting 9:5 is confined to history as it happened to Muhammad's time and not thereafter. Thus you argued on that basis why the majority of Muslims are not committing terror, evil and violent acts.

Now you are changing your position in relation to Suyuti.



According to Suyuti as I had quoted from his book, Suyuti stated the Verse of the Sword conditioned and override [made forgotten] the peaceful verses of peace and forgiveness.
I read Suyuti's view that the "made of forget" concept is a subset of 'abrogation'.

In any case, I do not agree with Suyuti's spin and views and the "truer" Muslims would not agree with Suyuti's complex analysis, since the Quran was supposedly easy to be understood as stated by Allah.

Note the fact is, the acts of disbelievers and the actions of non-Muslims are a threat [fasadin] to Islam. Thus they Islam by its terms are always at war [Jihad] [Darul-al-hard] with non-Muslims.
Note the points re Jihad raised in the Reliance of the Traveler.


The point here is disbelievers are an eternal threat [fasadin] to Islam, thus Islam is always in a state of war [dar al-harb] with the disbelievers. Therefore 9:5 will always applies and override all related peaceful verses.

According to The New Encyclopedia of Islam, the dar al-harb (lit. the "abode of war") is:
the territories where Islam does not prevail. During colonial rule in India, the 'uluma decided that as long as the laws of Islam were not prohibited, or as long as the peculiar institution of Islam existed, the country could be considered to lie within dar al-islam ("abode of Islam"). Symbolically, the dar al-harb is the domain, even in an individual's life, where there is a struggle against or opposition to, the Will of God​

However Allah has recommended to Muslims not to go to war if they are in a weak position, just as most of the Muslims-nations are definitely weaker than the USA and its allies, the Russian and other enemies. In this case they cannot execute 9:5, thus comply more with the peaceful verses like the above listed.
Thus when Muslims are in the weaker position, they will have to rely on various deceptive schemes to attack the enemies stealthily. Note the work of the Muslim Brotherhood in penetrating the US and other government, stirr enmit among the non-Muslims so as to destroy them from within.

5:14. And ...Therefor We [Allah] have stirred up [GhRW fa-aghraynā] enmity [3DW l-ʿadāwata] and hatred [BGHD wal-baghḍāa] among them [infidels] till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them [infidels] of their handiwork.​

When Muslims are in a stronger position or in position to strike in stealth, then they will execute 9:5 like what the terrorists are doing at present, in which case there is no regard for any peaceful considerations.

In any case, the few pseudo-peaceful verses in the Quran are very conditional and are overwhelmed by the tsunami of the 3400++ contemptuous and antagonistic verses bashing the disbelievers.

One thing you cannot deny is the presence of the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam that enable the fact of a STALEMATE Dilemma where the evil prone Muslim will continue to fight and kill non-Muslims and no humans on earth can stop them on a divine basis.

Islam is the only religion that has such a predicament that has loads of evil and violent elements within its ideology that are not restraint at all, thus enabling an open passport for the evil prone Muslims to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.

Hi Joyousperson,

Great messages and excellent evidence from Islam's most reliable and sacred sources.

I doubt that all the proof in the world will be able to penetrated the inbred bias of Joseph against Islam and its sacred sources. I have even shown him poll results of what Muslims think. I have quoted Wikipedia and the Islamic Encyclopedia. None of this phases him. His excuse?

"All the quotes are out of context"

or

The Islams sacred books I quoted as sources are from extremists and are Islamic propaganda.

You can't get more bigoted then that.

Blessings

 

[JosephZ]

The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten."

Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

Suyuti agrees that all the peaceful verses are “caused to be forgotten” by the verse of the sword (9:5),

The best Islamic scholars say that 9:5 abrogates the peaceful verses. Suyuti recognizes this, but calls it “made to forget.” In reality, the majority of Islam’s scholars agree that “made to forget” is one use of abrogation.

How can a previous verse about peace or forgiveness be forgotten if it still exists in the Qur'an?

"Cause to be forgotten" in verse 2:106 is accepted as meaning that it is erased from existence and never to be remembered.

So once again, Suyuti specifically mentions Qur'an 9:5 and states this is not a case of abrogation but a case of the context in which it's found. In other words, in some situations the the verses of peace and forgiveness apply, while in other situations the verses that allow violence apply (Basically what I have been saying all along in this thread). He also teaches that no verse in the Qur'an has been completely replaced by another, but rather each has a very specific context and application. In addition, he teaches a verse for a verse, therefore, it would be impossible for verse 9:5 to replace all of the verses of peace and forgiveness. At the very most it would only replace one single verse.

By your response, you now act as if Suyuti is the final say on his simple definition of abrogation when, before, you kept harping that abrogation is complex and YOU were showing me its different uses. However, by your present response, you are showing that you really do not understand the complexity of abrogation and how it is used, and are easily swayed.

No, Suyuti isn't the final word on abrogation. In fact there is no consensus among Islamic scholars on this subject. I was just responding to you when you made the claim that he said that verse 9:5 abrogated all of the verses relating to peace and forgiveness. What Suyuti teaches on abrogation is very similar to what many other scholars teach, it's just that there is a disagreement among these scholars as to how many verses actually have been abrogated. The range goes from Zero to a few hundred depending on the scholar.

Gallop Polls (Wikipedia)
In Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states, 18% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 14% believe individual attacks on civilians justified.
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia In non-OIC states, 24% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 17% believe individual attacks on civilians justified
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Those numbers are substantially lower than those of Christians in America and American citizens in general. Why do you think that is?

Most Muslim Americans See No Justification for Violence

Views of Violence

The other polls you posted would be answered in similar ways by Christians if they were geared towards them.

Show me where I ever said that I choose to believe Wahhabist? You keep trying to say I said something that I never said. Putting words in my mouth that I never said to ‘win’ an argument, shows your lack credibility.

This whole tread and what you have been describing in your post is Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth - Jihad.

• Sharia agrees,
• best classical Islamic scholars agree,
• the Qur’an agrees,
• the Hadith agree,
• the Islamic Encyclopedia agrees,
• and Wikipedia agrees.

You don’t agree because you are playing games, and using Sufii sources to interpret Sunni/Shia doctrine.

I used that Sufi author intentionally because I knew you would point out that he is in the minority. The purpose was so I could ask you why you choose to believe the tiny minority (4%) that teach Wahhabism rather than the vast majority of Muslims who reject these teachings. And while you believe that Shari'a agrees, the best classical Islamic scholars agree, the Qur’an agree and the Hadiths agree with you, the vast majority of the world's 1.8+ billion Muslims using the exact same Islamic sources as you disagree. Not to mention every legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies.

Look at how they kill each other, and how they treat Christians and Jews in their own Islamic countries where they do dominate. Look at Islamic history when they were dominant – they conquered 2/3 of Europe, enslaving millions, looting and destroying the lands and culture,

Look at how Christians treat each other and people of other faiths in their countries and looking back at history how Christian empires conquered 2/3rds of the world (Not a small region like Europe) enslaving millions, looting and destroying the lands and culture. What you described above is not unique to Islam.

killing hundreds of millions of people within 150 years

Source?

How many of the 99.9% Christians support or approve of foreign missionaries to other lands? I would wager that most Christians do support missionary work.

Maybe in word, but not in action.

The average Christian household gives about 2 percent of their income to Christian causes. Of that 2 percent, only 5 percent leaves the country, and only 1 percent of that goes to changing the reality of those that have little or no access to the Gospel.

"We spend more money every year on Halloween costumes for our pets than we do on reaching the least of these,"

Some more stats I was able to find.

Christians make up 33% of the world's population, but receive 53% of the world's annual income and spend 98% of it on themselves. (Barrett and Johnson 2001, 656)

Christians' annual income is $12.3 trillion. $213 billion is given to Christian causes. $11.4 billion is given to foreign missions, 87% of which goes to work being done among the already Christian, 12% goes to work among the evangelized non-Christians, 1% among the unevangelized. (The Traveling Team)

The average American Christian gives only 1 penny a day to global missions. (Yohannan, Revolution in World Missions, 142)

American Christians spend 95% of offerings on home-based ministry, 4.5% on cross-cultural efforts in already reached people groups, and .5% to reach the unreached. (The Traveling Team)

Of foreign mission funding: 87% goes for work among those already Christian. 12% for work among already evangelized, but Non-Christian. 1% for work among the unevangelized and unreached people. (Baxter 2007, 12)

Only 0.1% of all Christian giving is directed toward mission efforts in the 38 most unevangelized countries in the world. (Barrett and Johnson 2001, 656)

The sad statistics above are why I post in threads like this one about Islam. I am all about reaching the dying world with the gospel and I hope by educating my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe that they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. My hope is that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities and in turn all Muslims will someday come to know Christ.

You are attacking the many Islamic sources I provided you. Calling the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia as “anti-Islamic propagandists” is slander and blasphemy against Islam and its sacred books.

The sources you are using are authentic and I have never called the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia “anti-Islamic propagandists." What would make you think that I ever have? It's the interpretation of those texts by Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists that I disagree with.

I hope no devout Muslims see your messages of attacks on their most sacred Scriptures.

I'm not attacking Islam's most sacred scriptures and I'm not afraid of Muslims, so no need to worry about me.

 

[JosephZ]

Btw, you have been insisting 9:5 is confined to history as it happened to Muhammad's time and not thereafter. Thus you argued on that basis why the majority of Muslims are not committing terror, evil and violent acts.

Now you are changing your position in relation to Suyuti.

My position hasn't changed at all.

 

[Robban]

"There is so much more........"

 

[Albion]

Those aren't teachings of Islam.

I wonder why so many Muslims think they are, then????

 

[Joyousperson]

A Note on Suyuti's intellectual integrity,

A word about the compilation of the Itqan: by today’s standards, Suyuti’s method of compiling the Itqan would, at best, be considered slipshod, and at worst, blatant plagiarism. To a culture such as ours which extols creativity and ingenuity over tradition and continuity plagiarism, or literary theft is perhaps the only contemptible infraction towards which we as academics and scholars show little sympathy. It would therefore strike us as odd, if not downright duplicitous, that someone with the academic credentials of Suyuti would build his credentials on works filled with material improperly appropriated. Page 23 Full text of "Al itqan fi ulum al quran"​

 

[Joyousperson]

"There is so much more........"

I have argued extensively in this forum, where SOME rare Muslims who have done good deeds to non-Muslims, that has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam itself which is inherently in a large part malignant with full of evil and violent elements,

It is the same with SOME rare Germans who did good deeds to save the Jews during WWW II.

These are the rare human beings who did not comply with the intrinsic evil elements of the ideology they adopted [or forced to] for various reasons, rather their acts of good deeds are impulses of higher and progressive human values and morals.

Here is a modified version of Steven Weinberg's Quote;

With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion [specifically Islam].​

 

[Joyousperson]

How can a previous verse about peace or forgiveness be forgotten if it still exists in the Qur'an?

"Cause to be forgotten" in verse 2:106 is accepted as meaning that it is erased from existence and never to be remembered.

Other than 'caused to be forgotten" there are various interpretations of the meaning of "nunsihā" i.e. neglect, put into oblivion, ignored, and the likes.

Note the 'caused to be forgotten' peaceful verses are still in the Quran.

The point is the original Quran narrated by Muhammad was kept in memory not in literal words or books. Thus "caused to be forgotten" from memory is very relevant.
The Quran is supposed to be immutable and it is not easily to erase the verses from memory of the various Hafiz.

Somehow those peaceful verses were included in the written form in the current Quran for necessary reasons, thus they are should be abrogated in the 'to be forgotten' or ignored sense.
One reason is the Hafiz would not be in a position to decide to erase which verses, so they would recall whatever is in their memory to the compilers.
It is then up to readers to rely on 9:5 and related verses to override whatever all the past peaceful verses in the appropriate context.

Therefore in the context of the Quran "nunsiha" is most appropriately meant "cause to be forgotten' in the sense of neglect, into oblivion, ignored, set aside, and the likes.
Some translators had used 'put into oblivion' 'erased from memories' [since it was memorized] and the likes.

In the context of the ethos of the ideology of Islam and the Quran, in terms of the chronological order of the Quran and the emotional and progressive aggression and violent mode therein, 9:5 [and all warring verses] effectively overrides, abrogates all peaceful verses and they are to be forgotten, ignored or put into oblivion.

So once again, Suyuti specifically mentions Qur'an 9:5 and states this is not a case of abrogation but a case of the context in which it's found. In other words, in some situations the the verses of peace and forgiveness apply, while in other situations the verses that allow violence apply (Basically what I have been saying all along in this thread). He also teaches that no verse in the Qur'an has been completely replaced by another, but rather each has a very specific context and application. In addition, he teaches a verse for a verse, therefore, it would be impossible for verse 9:5 to replace all of the verses of peace and forgiveness. At the very most it would only replace one single verse.


No, Suyuti isn't the final word on abrogation. In fact there is no consensus among Islamic scholars on this subject. I was just responding to you when you made the claim that he said that verse 9:5 abrogated all of the verses relating to peace and forgiveness. What Suyuti teaches on abrogation is very similar to what many other scholars teach, it's just that there is a disagreement among these scholars as to how many verses actually have been abrogated. The range goes from Zero to a few hundred depending on the scholar.

Yes, Suyuti cannot be the final word on abrogation or any verses in the Quran. Allah is the ultimate authority.

I bet Suyuti did not take into account the original Quran was narrated by Muhammad and memorized by his followers in their memory in the brain/head/mind.
Thus the concept 'caused to be forgotten' [nusiha] would make sense to erase those peaceful verses from what they had memorized.

The term 'abrogate' is generally referred to matters of Laws, thus abrogation would refer to certain laws that are to be replaced.

'Abrogation' would not be relevant for peaceful verses which are not law, thus the relevant 'caused to be forgotten' would be more appropriate in these non-law related verses, e.g. commands, advice, etc.

Therefore the main intent that 9:5 overrides all peaceful verses in the Quran is still relevant and applicable.

 

[setst777]

How can a previous verse about peace or forgiveness be forgotten if it still exists in the Qur'an?

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten."

setst777 said: ↑
Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

setst777 said: ↑
Suyuti agrees that all the peaceful verses are “caused to be forgotten” by the verse of the sword (9:5),

setst777 said: ↑
The best Islamic scholars say that 9:5 abrogates the peaceful verses. Suyuti recognizes this, but calls it “made to forget.” In reality, the majority of Islam’s scholars agree that “made to forget” is one use of abrogation.

Joseph responds:
<<
How can a previous verse about peace or forgiveness be forgotten if it still exists in the Qur'an?
>>

Setst RE: You have to take that up with the

• Islamic Scholars,
• Islamic Encyclopedia,
• Wikipedia,
• Reliance of the Traveller
• Qur'an
• Sahih Hadith

on the use of abrogation and Jihad – world conquest for Islam. This is Islamic Doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam.

Wikipedia sums up that the majority of Islamic Scholars agree.

I quote Wikipedia (Scriptural Basis) for abrogation as follows:

Start of Quote <<
Only Q.2:106 uses a form of the word naskh (specifically "nanskh" meaning "we abrogate"). Although there "are no less than a dozen" readings/interpretations of verse Q.2:106 (according to Khaleel Mohammed citing John Burton),[63] the "majority of exegetes" (scholars of the interpretation of the Quran),[Note 6] find 2:106 indicative of two varieties of naskh (see below):

• "supersession", i.e. the "suspension" and replacement of the old verse without its elimination (process known as naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawa, or ibdāl in arabic)"[4] or
• "suppression", i.e. the nullification/elimination of the old verse from the Mus'haf (the written Quran compiled after Muhammad's death) (process known as naskh al-hukm wa-'l-tilawa, or ibtāl in arabic).[4]

Two verses also suggest abrogation can refer to either these two meanings,

16:101. "We substitute one ayah for another"" -- suggests naskh is supersession/substitution (tabdīl, related to ibdāl).[64]

22:52. "God eradicated (azala) and nullifies (yubtil, related to ibtāl) what the Devil insinuates" -- refers "solely to eradication or nullification" according to scholar Al-Fakhr al-Razi.[65][66]
Naskh (tafsir) - Wikipedia >> End of Quote

These are the all sources I used that you called “extremist” and “Islamic propaganda.”

If you wouldn’t keep relying on Sufi books to tell you what Islam believes you would understand this.

setst777 said: ↑
Gallop Polls (Wikipedia)
In Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states, 18% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 14% believe individual attacks on civilians justified.
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia In non-OIC states, 24%believe military attacks on civilians justified and 17% believe individual attacks on civilians justified
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Joseph responds:
<<
Those numbers are substantially lower than those of Christians in America and American citizens in general. Why do you think that is? …
>>

Setst RE: According to the article and resulting poll you provided, violence (in general) is the topic of the poll – not terrorism.

My poll was based on Muslim terrorism. So naturally you are going to come to flawed conclusions because you are comparing two different polls that deal with two different topics. You are not looking at the context of those polls.

No one would disagree that general violence in poor areas is greater than in better areas, and is not much influenced by ideological indoctrination. The problem with your poll is it does not deal with acts of terrorism.

The evidence shows that terrorist are heavily influenced by an ideology and more likely come from better areas, are better educated, and have good paying jobs.

As you can see, using the right Polls makes a BIG difference.

In an earlier post I provided the evidence which shows the better background from which terrorists are most common.

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”]

General violence is the issue with the poll results you copied. General violence, and the military and civilian response to it, is what the poll results show in your poll. This has nothing to do with acts of terrorism.

Context, context, context is the key to understanding reality.

Joseph continues:
<<
The other polls you posted would be answered in similar ways by Christians if they were geared towards them.
>>

Setst RE: Similar to the bungled mess you made of providing the wrong poll for the context?

How would you know that the polls I posted would be answered in similar ways by Christians?

When you consider the poll results I gave, are you saying that Christians would answer similarly to Muslims as follows? . . .

1st poll: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with ISIS links

Question: Would, ‘Two in five Christians support the introduction of sharia law, the legal system derived from the Koran, like Muslims do?’

Question: Would 48% of British Christians not report a person "linked to terror as British Muslims responded?”’

Note: Most Muslims ‘say’ they don’t like terror, but why do half of them not want to report terrorists? Maybe because the terrorists are Muslims in the majority of cases?

2nd poll: The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

Question: Would an ‘Overwhelming percentages of Christians in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land as Muslims do?’

3rd poll: https://selectra.co.uk/sites/selectra.co.uk/files/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Question: ‘Does a smaller but sizable percentage of Christian Americans (36%) show a real concern about the potential rise of Islamic extremism in the United States as Muslims do?’
[Polls show that 79% in North America and Europe are concerned about Islamic terrorism.]

4th poll: Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Question: Is Christian support for suicide bombing in the double digits, and far higher in Muslim countries as with Muslim responses to the poll?

5th poll: https://clarionproject.org/new-poll-muslim-countries-finds-large-support-terrorists/

Question: Is their large support among Christians for terrorism in Islamic countries and the West as Muslims do?

6th poll: https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/07/...rt-for-terrorism-help-explain-recent-attacks/

This poll shows the following summary results. I quote:

“Multiple polls demonstrate that the general Middle Eastern and Western Muslim population harbors dangerous attitudes that help explain recent terrorist attacks in France, America, Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Bangladesh. Hostility towards women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals and converts to other religions is prevalent. Large percentages of Muslims also support suicide bombings and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and ISIS.”

Question: Do multiple polls show that Christians harbor similar results that explain the recent terrorist attacks in France, America, Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Bangladesh?

7th poll: Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, Sharia, ISIS, and welfare | CARM.org

Quote: “America, 58% of Muslims say criticism of Islam or Muhammad not protected under free speech”
Question: Do 58% of Christians say that criticism of Christianity or Jesus is not protected under free speech?

Quote: “62% of British Muslims deny free speech”
Question: Do 62% of British Christians deny free speech?

Quote: “Al Jazeera poll, 81% of respondents approved of ISIS”
Question: Do 81% of Christians similarly approve of ISIS according any poll?

Quote: “Pew poll: 63 mil to 287 mil ISIS supporters in just 11 countries.”
Question: Do we see similar results for ISIS support in Christian countries?

Quote: “America, 38% of American Muslims says ISIS beliefs are correct”
Question: Do 38% of American Christians say that ISIS beliefs are correct?

Quote: “Britain, about 1/2 of Muslims support ISIS”
Question: Are there about ½ of Britain Christians who support ISIS?

Quote: “51% of U.S. Muslims want choice of Sharia”
Question: Do 51% of U.S. Christians want choice of Sharia?

Quote: “19% of U.S. Muslims say violence is justified to impose sharia”
Question: Do 19% of U.S. Christians say violence is justified to impose sharia?

Quote:
"28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state."

“40% of British Muslim students want Sharia."

“62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada”

“Denmark, 46.1% of Muslims feel Danish law must be based on Sharia”

Question: Do Christians similarly want to impose Sharia?

Quote:
26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.

35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).

42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).

22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).

29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).

Question:
Do we find similar results among Christians for suicide bombings?

Do you find any Christian in the news involved in suicide bombings?

According to the poll, Muslim rape of European women is extremely high.

Do we find similar results for Christian immigrants?

Quote:
“Violence Statistics regarding percentage of population of Muslims in a society."

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

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

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

Question: Do we find similar statistics for Christian populations on Muslims when Christians are in the majority?

So, is your following quote truthful?

Joseph's quote: “The other polls you posted would be answered in similar ways by Christians if they were geared towards them.”

Is your statement not rather a biased generalization for all the poll results given?

Is your question not flawed from the “get go” because you used the wrong poll on violence, when the subject was terrorism?

 

[setst777]

I'm not attacking Islam's most sacred scriptures and I'm not afraid of Muslims, so no need to worry about me.

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
Show me where I ever said that I choose to believe Wahhabist? You keep trying to say I said something that I never said. Putting words in my mouth that I never said to ‘win’ an argument, shows your lack credibility.

Joseph Responds: This whole tread and what you have been describing in your post is Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Setst RE: I have been describing basically Sunni Islam and Shia Muslim from their sources. The reason you believe that what I am describing Wahhabism is because you have been reading Sufii Islam material to explain Sharia. Naturally you are going to get a warped understanding of what Islam is. Compared to Sufii, everything appears Wahhabist.

setst777 said: ↑
All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth - Jihad.

• Sharia agrees,
• best classical Islamic scholars agree,
• the Qur’an agrees,
• the Hadith agree,
• the Islamic Encyclopedia agrees,
• and Wikipedia agrees.

You don’t agree because you are playing games, and using Sufii sources to interpret Sunni/Shia doctrine.

Joseph responds:
<<
…while you believe that Shari'a agrees, the best classical Islamic scholars agree, the Qur’an agree and the Hadiths agree with you, the vast majority of the world's 1.8+ billion Muslims using the exact same Islamic sources as you disagree. Not to mention every legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies.
>>

Setst RE: Since all the Islamic sources and Wikipedia agree with me, and even the polls concerning Muslims about Sharia agree with me, I would say you have absolutely zero evidence from any source to stand on for your biased views.

The Polls clearly show that the a majority of 1.8 billions Muslims in the world want Sharia. A significant number of Muslims around the world agree with ISIS. What does that tell you about your friendly Muslims?

And statistics show that as the Muslim population grows in a foreign land, they follow the exact pattern of Jihad as expressed in Islam's most reliable sources.

Quote:

“Violence Statistics regarding percentage of population of Muslims in a society.

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

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

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

Here one post out of many that explains this problem with Islam population...

<<
Posted by
u/Abkabato
3 years ago

How Many Countries Has Islam Ruined So Far

Somalia 99% percent Muslim! Death is coming! It's black hawk down everyday. Yemen 99% percent Muslim will never get better 24/7 Allah akbar shouting and bombs going down. Nigeria-Half of it is ruined in the Muslim side. I said half of it the other have is doing great. That means 46% percent Muslim. The Muslim half is in chaos. Libya 97% percent I guess the chaos will never stop 2 more percent to go. Iraq-91% percent and chaos just wait for the last 9% percent to finish up. Syria 88% percent Muslim it's above 88 and slowly will reach the 99% percent mark and look at the chaos. Egypt-Majority Muslim but Egypt isn't in a chaos because it isn't 99% percent Muslim. That is good Afghanistan-Chaos everywhere because it's 99% percent Muslim

What I found 1-2 percent of Muslim population they are pretty quite. 2-5 percent they become more noticed but they are still quite. 5-10 percent well crimes go back and protest everyday and the chants of Allah Akbar and maybe yearly once bomb attacks.

Now lets go to 80-99% percent Muslim countries ruined countries totally chaos and never peace. 24/7 bullets flying and we go back to the countries I listed.

What about Indonesia? The biggest Muslim country in the world.

Yap its turning to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s. The people are still moderates but the gov especially the provincial ones are getting more fanatical and keep adding islamic laws into their regional bylaws. Keeps getting worse as they are all corrupt and the powerful clerics have influence over these dumb asshats running the place.
How Many Countries Has Islam Ruined So Far : exmuslim
>>

Turkey used to be a really great place, but they too are turning back to their Islamic roots.

All you have to stand on is your Sufii Islam evidence, which is not evidence at all.

A Muslim must submit to Islam once they know what is expected of them. They act friendly when they are a minority. Once they gain the dominance - as they are doing in France - then you will see they are not so friendly after all.

Yes, while many Muslims in the West are more liberal, that is changing with the re-indoctrination they receive through the Mosques, which are now predominantly under the influence of Saudi Arabia and Iran. This re-indoctrination is taking place all over the USA and Europe.

setst777 said: ↑
Look at how they kill each other, and how they treat Christians and Jews in their own Islamic countries where they do dominate. Look at Islamic history when they were dominant – they conquered 2/3 of Europe, enslaving millions, looting and destroying the lands and culture,

Joseph responds:
<<
Look at how Christians treat each other and people of other faiths in their countries and looking back at history how Christian empires conquered 2/3rds of the world (Not a small region like Europe) enslaving millions, looting and destroying the lands and culture. What you described above is not unique to Islam.
>>

Setst RE: Where is the evidence?

Rome (not Christians) conquered the known world. When Rome waned, Christianity grew in its place. While some Christian kingdoms, and the Roman Catholic Church, have done bad things, these things were done IN SPITE of the NT Scriptures, which teach peace, love, tolerance, and salvation.

IN CONTRAST: Islam conquered in the name of Allah, by the command of Allah through Muhammad – a world-wide Jihad to make Islam the only religion. That is what Islam has done for 1400 years. And they are still spewing hatred and Jihad against Israel and the West, conducting terrorist attacks, and using political and social Jihad to gain power over the West.

The Polls show that as Muslims gain a greater population in a foreign country, they will demand Sharia, and will censor, threaten, and harm those who oppose them.

setst777 said: ↑
killing hundreds of millions of people within 150 years

Joseph responds:
<<
Source?
>>

Setst RE: I already gave you the source.

Muslims will disagree and attempt to re-write history, just as they do regarding Israel, the Holocaust, their own history about the 'Golden Age,' and the like. However, history has recorded the truth if one desires to understand it.

As well, even some Christians will try to re-write history to defend the Muslims who slaughtered and enslaved their ancestors and who seek their destruction. Islamic nations in the Middle East have nearly wiped out all Christians and Jews, and those who remain there are persecuted.

Some Christians love supporting Islam anyway because they have naively bought into the lie that Islam is Peace and wouldn't harm anyone.

The Greatest Murder Machine in History

Islamic conquest 270 million - Video Search Results

setst777 said: ↑
How many of the 99.9% Christians support or approve of foreign missionaries to other lands? I would wager that most Christians do support missionary work.

Joseph responds:
<<
Maybe in word, but not in action.
>>

Setst RE: That is all I am referring to by support: Either support or approve of missionary work. You agree. So no need for attacks on Christians when we are discussing Muslims as the topic.

setst777 said: ↑
You are attacking the many Islamic sources I provided you. Calling the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia as “anti-Islamic propagandists” is slander and blasphemy against Islam and its sacred books.

Joseph responds:
<<The sources you are using are authentic and I have never called the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia “anti-Islamic propagandists." What would make you think that I ever have?
>>

Setst RE: Gosh, whatever made me think that? Maybe it’s because those are the sources I used????

Joseph continues:
<<
It's the interpretation of those texts by Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists that I disagree with.
>>

Setst RE: I didn’t use any. So your excuse does not excuse you for blasphemy against Islam’s Prophet, and their sacred Scriptures.

setst777 said: ↑
I hope no devout Muslims see your messages of attacks on their most sacred Scriptures.

Joseph responds:
<<
I'm not attacking Islam's most sacred scriptures and I'm not afraid of Muslims, so no need to worry about me.
>>

Setst RE: Yes, you have been attacking the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Islam’s most renowned scholars – the very sources I used to defend Islamic Doctrine. You repeatedly called them “extremists,” “Wahhabists,” and “Islamic-propagandists.”

 

[setst777]

This naive Muslim Journalist (below) brings up the point of how paradoxical it seems for Muslims to risk their lives emigrate to the West to live and have the good life the West provides; yet, all the while these same Muslims spew hate against the West and take advantage of the privileges the West offers them.

This is not paradoxical at all if you understand the purpose of this emigration to begin with that is being drilled in the heads of Muslims by their own leaders, their schools, their school books, and their own religious authoritative books.

Here is the full article by that Muslim Journalist Dated January 14, 2019 ....

WORLDISRAELNEWS.COM

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

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

 

[Robban]

I have argued extensively in this forum, where SOME rare Muslims who have done good deeds to non-Muslims, that has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam itself which is inherently in a large part malignant with full of evil and violent elements,

It is the same with SOME rare Germans who did good deeds to save the Jews during WWW II.

These are the rare human beings who did not comply with the intrinsic evil elements of the ideology they adopted [or forced to] for various reasons, rather their acts of good deeds are impulses of higher and progressive human values and morals.

Here is a modified version of Steven Weinberg's Quote;

With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion [specifically Islam].

Anything can turn into an extreme,

I cannot say either for or against Islam,
I know nothing of it, have never been intrested even.

Currently I am living in a melting pot, (think that is how it is expressed)

Reading what you have written this thread, darkens the outlook from how I see the everyday.

But I have to say, I have always tried to look past the outer of a person, what is more important is their soul.

The late Rebbe of blessed memory said the only way to change the world for the better is through deeds of goodness and kindness.

G-d does not like extremes.

Ultra sweet honey and ultra sour leaven are opposite extremes.
G.d does not like extemes.

(Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)​

 

[JosephZ]

You have to take that up with the
Islamic Scholars,
Islamic Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia,
Reliance of the Traveller
Qur'an
Sahih Hadith
on the use of abrogation and Jihad – world conquest for Islam. This is Islamic Doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam.

If this is the doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam, then why aren't they practicing the type of Islam that you are describing?

Setst RE: According to the article and resulting poll you provided, violence (in general) is the topic of the poll – not terrorism.

My poll was based on Muslim terrorism. So naturally you are going to come to flawed conclusions because you are comparing two different polls that deal with two different topics. You are not looking at the context of those polls. No one would disagree that general violence in poor areas is greater than in better areas, and is not much influenced by ideological indoctrination. The problem with your poll is it does not deal with acts of terrorism.

My poll and your poll are the same poll.

As you can see, using the right Polls makes a BIG difference.

Let's look at YOUR poll:

setst777 said:
Gallop Polls (Wikipedia)
In Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states, 18% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 14% believe individual attacks on civilians justified.
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia In non-OIC states, 24%believe military attacks on civilians justified and 17% believe individual attacks on civilians justified
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Wikipedia sources it's material, so when you look at where the above information came from, we find that it comes from the following sources.

As you can see below, your source is the same as my source and the graphics I shared came directly from your source. I was comparing apples to apples.
QUOTE="JosephZ, post: 74124400, member: 396496"]Those numbers are substantially lower than those of Christians in America and American citizens in general. Why do you think that is?
Most Muslim Americans See No Justification for Violence
Views of Violence[/QUOTE]

Your source even dispels the myth that religion is what drives support for terrorism.

No Link Between Views of Violence and Importance of Religion

In addition to those who single Islam out, some pundits, most notably the "New Atheists," have accused religion in general of encouraging violence. Though the motivations of actual terrorists are beyond the scope of this brief, the evidence regarding public support for targeting civilians challenges this notion.

An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, those who reject attacks on civilians are as likely as those who see them as sometimes justified to hold religion in high esteem. Though there appears to be a difference linking religiosity and sympathy for attacks on civilians among the residents of the U.S. and Canada, this difference is not statistically significant. In Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), those who reject military and individual attacks on civilians are more likely to say religion is an important part of their daily lives.

The above coincides with the findings of MI5 in their research:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

General violence is the issue with the poll results you copied. General violence, and the military and civilian response to it, is what the poll results show in your poll. This has nothing to do with acts of terrorism. Context, context, context is the key to understanding reality.

The polls you used were the same as the ones I used and the same questions were asked of all participants, so yes, context is everything and you seem to have trouble putting things into context as I have been pointing out to you throughout this thread. These polls are just another example of this.

Setst RE: Similar to the bungled mess you made of providing the wrong poll for the context?

Once again, Your poll and my poll are the same poll. If you are having difficulty reading poll results, how much more the complexity of Islamic texts and writers like Suyuti?

How Many Countries Has Islam Ruined So Far

Somalia 99% percent Muslim! Death is coming! It's black hawk down everyday. Yemen 99% percent Muslim will never get better 24/7 Allah akbar shouting and bombs going down. Nigeria-Half of it is ruined in the Muslim side. I said half of it the other have is doing great. That means 46% percent Muslim. The Muslim half is in chaos. Libya 97% percent I guess the chaos will never stop 2 more percent to go. Iraq-91% percent and chaos just wait for the last 9% percent to finish up. Syria 88% percent Muslim it's above 88 and slowly will reach the 99% percent mark and look at the chaos. Egypt-Majority Muslim but Egypt isn't in a chaos because it isn't 99% percent Muslim. That is good Afghanistan-Chaos everywhere because it's 99% percent Muslim

What do all of the countries listed above have in common besides majority Muslim populations?

Global Terrorism Database

In each one of those countries, terrorism and violence of all types was rare prior to 2001. Do you believe that people in those countries suddenly became religious, or that maybe something else led to the sudden and dramatic increase in violence in those countries?

All you have to stand on is your Sufii Islam evidence, which is not evidence at all.

You are starting to sound silly. I've already told you where my education on Islam comes from and my life experiences.

Over a period of over three decades I have taken courses in Islamic Studies from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and the University of Maryland; I also have taken courses from a Sunni Salafi school of thought based outside the west that targets Muslim students and even recommended you take this course from a Christian point of view The Gospel and Islam - TVSEMINARY Trinity Video Seminary. In addition to these sources, I have also attended numerous forums here in Southeast Asia where Islam is the topic of discussion and personally know many Muslims from different parts of the world both professionally and as friends.

My knowledge of Islam goes back to the 1980's while in the Military. It was at that time that I had to take courses in Islamic Studies before I was assigned to an Islamic country and when time permits I still take some courses online to continue to increase my knowledge of Islam. I'm currently a missionary, and for more than seven years I have lived in a Muslim village in Davao City on the island of Mindanao. There's not a day that goes by that I am not in the company of Muslims. I have traveled to many predominantly Muslim countries and know Muslims on four continents; many of whom I consider good friends. Even today much of my time here in Mindanao is spent traveling in the predominantly Muslim region of the Sulu Archipelago 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'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.

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.

When I took my first course in Islam while in the military in 1986 I really had no say in the matter. It was a requirement. I had no idea at the time that God was preparing me even back then for the mission he has assigned me to today. If someone would have told me back in 1986 that I would someday be a missionary to animists and Muslims serving in the conflict regions of Mindanao, I would have laughed. Oddly enough, after my first course in Islam I found it intriguing enough to continue my studies in that subject off and on for years after, never knowing that someday I would be a missionary serving in Muslim communities. Of course God knew this all along and had been preparing me for my future mission without my knowing. After all, we are "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10

I don't see what I want to see. I see what more than three decades of education, travel, and world experiences have shown me.

Not one of the schools that I have attended or taken courses online from are from a Sufi school of thought.

If you wouldn’t keep relying on Sufi books to tell you what Islam believes you would understand this.

The reason you believe that what I am describing Wahhabism is because you have been reading Sufii Islam material to explain Sharia. Naturally you are going to get a warped understanding of what Islam is. Compared to Sufii, everything appears Wahhabist.

I explained to you earlier why I shared the link to book by a Sufi author.

I used that Sufi author intentionally because I knew you would point out that he is in the minority. The purpose was so I could ask you why you choose to believe the tiny minority (4%) that teach Wahhabism rather than the vast majority of Muslims who reject these teachings.

You still claim you don't believe those promoting the Fundamentalist/Wahhabist sect of Islam, but that is exactly what you are describing in this thread. If you don't believe their teachings, then why are you trying to convince me that what you are describing here is true Islam? Why do you choose to believe the 4% of the Muslim extremists that teach this way over the overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject these teachings? After all. you rejected a Sufi writer (Without even reading his book) only because he follows a branch of Islam that makes up a tiny minority, so why don't you reject the extremists narrative since they to are a tiny minority?

Setst RE: Where is the evidence?

Rome (not Christians) conquered the known world. When Rome waned, Christianity grew in its place. While some Christian kingdoms, and the Roman Catholic Church, have done bad things, these things were done IN SPITE of the NT Scriptures, which teach peace, love, tolerance, and salvation.

If you do some research on the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny you will find the evidence you are looking for.

Setst RE: I already gave you the source.

The Greatest Murder Machine in History

Islamic conquest 270 million - Video Search Results

Those are not legitimate sources. Can you provide some evidence from real historians instead? For example 80 million of the deaths mentioned in the video you linked to came from a number quoted from the book “Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India” by K.S. Lal. In that book it states that the population of India declined by 80 million from 1000–1500 due to various causes like wars, emigration, famines and natural causes. It doesn't say 80 million were killed by Muslims. Most estimates found online put the numbers at between 6 million and 30 million deaths which is still very high, but once again that is counting all deaths, not just deaths of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims. So that one error alone subtracts at least 50 million from the 270 million in the title.

In your second link, here is what it states about the history of Islam here in the Philippines.

How many know the horrors of the conquest of Malaysia? The Buddhists of Thailand and Malaysia were slaughtered en masse.

When attacked and massacred by the Muslims, the Buddhists initially did not make any attempt to escape from their murderers. They accepted death with an air of fatalism and destiny. And hence they are not around today to tell their story. – History of Jihad.org

We may never know the numbers of dead.

After Muslims came to power in the early 15th century, animist hill peoples eventually disappeared due to their enslavement and ‘incorporation’ into the Muslim population of Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java via raids, tribute and purchase, especially of children. Java was the largest exporter of slaves around 1500. -- Islam Monitor

In the same manner, Islam arrived in the Philippines. Only the appearance of the Spanish stopped a total collapse, and confined Islam to the southern islands.

The coming of the Spanish saved the Philippines from Islam, except for the Southern tip where the population had been converted to Islam.-- History of Jihad.org

Again, the number of dead is unknown; but add them to the total.

The animist Filipinos were eager to ally with the Spanish against Islam. In fact, much of Southeast Asia welcomed the Spanish and Portuguese as preferable to Islam.

The above is in error because the Spanish were seen as invaders and both animist tribes and the Muslim tribes united in the fight against them. Also, Islam spread peacefully throughout the Philippines through the natives interaction with Muslim traders, not the way that is described in your source.

I have been describing basically Sunni Islam and Shia Muslim from their sources.

Then why aren't Sunni and Shia Muslims practicing Islam the way you have been describing it here?

Since all the Islamic sources and Wikipedia agree with me, and even the polls concerning Muslims about Sharia agree with me, I would say you have absolutely zero evidence from any source to stand on for your biased views.

I think if you will do some more research on Islam and go to the sources of the polls and wikipedia articles you are reading rather than the short quotes and snipets, you will find that they are not in as much agreement with you as you believe they are.

Setst RE: Yes, you have been attacking the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Islam’s most renowned scholars – the very sources I used to defend Islamic Doctrine. You repeatedly called them “extremists,” “Wahhabists,” and “Islamic-propagandists.”

I have never called the Islamic text or sources you have quoted as being “extremists,” “Wahhabists,” and “Islamic-propagandists.” What are you talking about?

setst777 said: ?
You are attacking the many Islamic sources I provided you. Calling the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia as “anti-Islamic propagandists” is slander and blasphemy against Islam and its sacred books.

Once again, what are you talking about? Disagreeing with you and your interpretations of these Islamic sources does not equate to attacking Islamic sources.

 

[Joyousperson]

Anything can turn into an extreme,

I cannot say either for or against Islam,
I know nothing of it, have never been intrested even.

Currently I am living in a melting pot, (think that is how it is expressed)

Reading what you have written this thread, darkens the outlook from how I see the everyday.

But I have to say, I have always tried to look past the outer of a person, what is more important is their soul.

The late Rebbe of blessed memory said the only way to change the world for the better is through deeds of goodness and kindness.

G-d does not like extremes.

Ultra sweet honey and ultra sour leaven are opposite extremes.
G.d does not like extemes.

(Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)

Robban Wrote:
Anything can turn into an extreme,
I cannot say either for or against Islam,
I know nothing of it, have never been interested even.
Currently I am living in a melting pot, (think that is how it is expressed)
Reading what you have written this thread, darkens the outlook from how I see the everyday.
But I have to say, I have always tried to look past the outer of a person, what is more important is their soul.
The late Rebbe of blessed memory said the only way to change the world for the better is through deeds of goodness and kindness.
G-d does not like extremes.
Ultra sweet honey and ultra sour leaven are opposite extremes.
G.d does not like extemes.
(Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)​

Dark as it may be, truths must prevail but it can be painful at times.
As a Jew[Judaism], you have to be interested in what Islam represent and the ideological view of Islam on the Jews and other non-Muslims.

Based on an objective analysis, the contents of the Quran is worst than that of the Mein Kampf;

There are hundreds of verses containing hatred against Jews which influenced SOME Muslims to target Jews especially and thousands of verses on other non-Muslims.
Here are a few among the hundreds.

2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
2:66. And We made it [this condemnation as Apes] an example to their [Jews'] own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God fearing. [WQY: lil'muttaqīna:]​

 

[Robban]

Robban Wrote:
Anything can turn into an extreme,
I cannot say either for or against Islam,
I know nothing of it, have never been interested even.
Currently I am living in a melting pot, (think that is how it is expressed)
Reading what you have written this thread, darkens the outlook from how I see the everyday.
But I have to say, I have always tried to look past the outer of a person, what is more important is their soul.
The late Rebbe of blessed memory said the only way to change the world for the better is through deeds of goodness and kindness.
G-d does not like extremes.
Ultra sweet honey and ultra sour leaven are opposite extremes.
G.d does not like extemes.
(Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk)​

Dark as it may be, truths must prevail but it can be painful at times.
As a Jew[Judaism], you have to be interested in what Islam represent and the ideological view of Islam on the Jews and other non-Muslims.

Based on an objective analysis, the contents of the Quran is worst than that of the Mein Kampf;

There are hundreds of verses containing hatred against Jews which influenced SOME Muslims to target Jews especially and thousands of verses on other non-Muslims.
Here are a few among the hundreds.

2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
2:66. And We made it [this condemnation as Apes] an example to their [Jews'] own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God fearing. [WQY: lil'muttaqīna:]​

I am under no obligation to learn Islam.

That does not mean I am stupid.

 

[Joyousperson]

If this is the doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam, then why aren't they practicing the type of Islam that you are describing?

Then why aren't Sunni and Shia Muslims practicing Islam the way you have been describing it here?

Your views above are too narrow and shallow.

I have defined 'what is Islam' and 'who is a Muslim' many times.

What is Islam is represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran, the core of Islam [supported by Ahadith - contentious].

A Muslim is one who has entered into a divine contract with Allah to comply with the 6236 verses in the Quran.​

As argued by me and Sets777, the 6236 verses of the Quran contain tons and loads of Allah's commands of evil and violent elements [3400++ or 55%] targeted at non-Muslims in a very contemptuous and hatred mode.
Such commands of evil and violence [in a range of degrees] are carried out by naturally born evil prone Muslims from a pool of 20% [conservatively, i.e. that is a pool of 320 million at present. This whole gamut and range of evil and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims is glaringly evident around the world.
Note 320 million is frightening when it took only 18++ to do a 911.

Why the 80% or 1.28 billion of Muslims are not engaged in evil and violent acts is because they are using common sense as good compassionate human being.
The moderate Muslims are being more human than being good Muslims as being moderated by the majority of non-Muslims who are good human beings.

The majority of Muslims are not acting violently is because of their more powerful human drive of universal human moral that detest evil and violence.
Others Muslims who are not evil and violent against non-Muslims is because they are ignorant of the evil and violent commands by Allah in the Quran or that their Islamic teachers are not highlighting those evil and violent elements in the Quran and Ahadith.

What is frightening is, with the internet and easy access to the full Quran, more and more Muslims are reading the Quran more thoroughly to understand the expectations of Allah.

When SOME [a critical number] Muslims understood that they must obey Allah and Messenger to every verse in the Quran [which contains loads of evil and violent] to gain a passport to paradise with eternal life, then they will have no choice but to fight and kill non-Muslims re 9:5 and other related verses.

3:32. Say: Obey [TW3: aṭīʿū] Allah and [obey] the messenger. But if they [as infidels] turn away, Lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers [infidels] (in His guidance).​

The above command 'obey Allah and obey the Messenger' is repeated many times in the Quran.

Note what happened re the IS where "innocent" teenage Muslims girls, many good-two-shoes and good people rushed tru Turkey to joined IS. This is the pull when they understood what Allah demands of them in the Quran and Ahadith or are educated by true Islamic scholars.

With the internet, the omen is very frightening where the majority of Muslims can get to know and understands what is in the Quran, Ahadith and Allah's expectations of them to do to gain salvation. More Muslims will understand they are under contract [divine covenant] to comply with every of Allah's command within their natural capability.

16:91. Fulfill the covenant [3HD: biʿahdi] of Allah when ye [Muslims] have covenanted [ʿāhadttum], and break not your oaths [YMN; ayman] after the asseveration [tawkīdihā: affirm positively] of them [the oaths], and after ye [Muslim] have made Allah surety [kafīlan] over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do.​

Where salvation is at stake, i.e. eternal life in heaven or eternal death in Hell, Muslims will go to lengths to do anything that God commands them to do, in this case of Islam, Muslims are exhorted to war against non-Muslims to kill them where possible.


Don't believe you can counter the above.

 

[Joyousperson]

I am under no obligation to learn Islam.

That does not mean I am stupid.

Yes, it is at your discretion.
Not necessary to learn the whole of Islam but I suggested it is advisable at least to understand the objective fact of Islam's hatred on the Jews.

 

[Robban]

Yes, it is at your discretion.
Not necessary to learn the whole of Islam but I suggested it is advisable at least to understand the objective fact of Islam's hatred on the Jews.

How can I not be aware?

How can I not be aware of the nations attempts to abrogate Torah?

 

[JosephZ]

What is frightening is, with the internet and easy access to the full Quran, more and more Muslims are reading the Quran more thoroughly to understand the expectations of Allah... When SOME [a critical number] Muslims understood that they must obey Allah and Messenger to every verse in the Quran [which contains loads of evil and violent] to gain a passport to paradise with eternal life, then they will have no choice but to fight and kill non-Muslims re 9:5 and other related verses... Where salvation is at stake, i.e. eternal life in heaven or eternal death in Hell, Muslims will go to lengths to do anything that God commands them to do, in this case of Islam, Muslims are exhorted to war against non-Muslims to kill them where possible. Don't believe you can counter the above.

My response to Setst777 countered what you posted. In fact the source he provided did.

An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, those who reject attacks on civilians are as likely as those who see them as sometimes justified to hold religion in high esteem. Though there appears to be a difference linking religiosity and sympathy for attacks on civilians among the residents of the U.S. and Canada, this difference is not statistically significant. In Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), those who reject military and individual attacks on civilians are more likely to say religion is an important part of their daily lives.

The above coincides with the findings of MI5 in their research:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In another thread you started I also linked to studies showing that the more knowledgeable Muslims are of Islam and the more religious they are, the less likely they are to hold extremist views and become involved in violent extremism.

 

[Joyousperson]

My response to Setst777 countered what you posted. In fact the source he provided did.

I have countered all your points where you provided claims that studies has shown the religion of Islam is not a factor in terrorism.
Btw, what is critical is the whole range of evil and violence committed by SOME Muslims, not just terrorism.

You did not counter my point a Muslim has entered into a contract 16:91 to comply with all the 6236 verses of the Quran which contains loads of evil and violent elements.

I hypothesize 20% of Muslim are born with an active natural tendency to commit evil and violent acts.

Btw, do you understand the principles and mechanics of the Normal Distribution.
If you put good and evil people at the extremes, you will get a % of mild, moderate, and extreme evil people.
My claim that DNA wise, 20% of ALL humans are on the moderate to extremely evil/violent scale is very conservative.

My main points are;

1. 20% of Muslims [as with all humans] has moderate to extreme levels of an active evil and violent tendency. This cannot be cured easily.

2. The core of Islam, i.e. the Quran contains tons of evil and violent verses [e.g. 9:5 and the similar] where it is obligatory by a covenant for all Muslims to comply with. The verses of the Quran are immutable.

3. The combination of 1 and 2 above has generated terrible acts of evil and violence throughout the 1400 history of Islam till the present and will continue in the future eternally.

4. Given the reality of 1, 2 and 3, therefore the ideology of Islam is a threat to humanity, i.e. inherently] is not a peaceful religion.
​

To prove me wrong, you can prove my premise 1 and 2 are false.

So far, your counter is that my premise 1 is mythical, and that is not countered by any sound arguments.

Re Premise 2, you also countered the evil and violent elements in the Quran are purely historical, thus not to be effective in the present.
But we have proven otherwise, note the Reliance of the Traveller [which you agree with], the various other scholars and the empirical evidences of evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims as a religious duty in complying with the covenanted terms.

Note you main counter to argue Islam is a religion of peace is merely to rely on 10+ verses [e.g. 60:8-9, 2:256, etc.] which are supposedly peaceful to non-Muslims. We have argued these supposedly "peaceful" are very contextual, contra-ed, abrogated [nansakh], overruled or made to be forgotten [nunsiha] by later Medinian verses based on the chronological reading of the chapters of the Quran.

At the worst, these 10+ verses which are at best contentious are like a piece of paper held up as a dam against the tsunami of 3400++ verses that contain the terrible evil and elements that are contemptuous against non-Muslims.