Islamophobia.

[smaneck]

Not so worried about terrorism in specific as Jihad in general.

Jihads in general are almost always internal to the Islamic countries themselves or struggles against foreign occupation. In any attack on Western countries will almost certainly take the form of act of terrorism.

 

[smaneck]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/01/putins-revenge-the-fight-for-the-border/

I don't see any evidence in that link that the US funded ISIS. Putin (whose word I wouldn't trust for anything) insists that all who are opposing Assad are terrorists. It is quite possible that some of the groups we funded were Islamist but they were not ISIS.

 

[Albion]

This article deserves a read--

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/u...raqis-believe-the-us-must-be-supporting-isis/

 

[ecco]

"The Prophet Muhammad said, "We, the concourse of Prophets, were commanded to address the people according to the capacity of their minds," and, likewise, "Speak to the people of that with which they are familiar. Do you wish God and His Messenger to be accused of lying?" Thus was it related by the learned judge Muhammad ibn Ahmad Rushd al-Andalusí

It sounds like some writers are trying to justify the errancy of the Koran, just as many cristian scholars try to justify the errancy of the bible.

 

[ecco]

That's a good way to put it - we're more likely to lose our heads to fear than to beheading.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to intimidate and coerce people into a certain course of action, and ISIS WANTS us to be angry and fearful of all Muslims - it supports their narrative that we're the enemy. Everyone on here that posts about how Islam or Muhammad is evil or violent is practically writing ISIS's propaganda for them.

Every time we post some vile hateful filth about how all Muslims are evil violent people, we're helping ISIS recruit new soldiers, so maybe we should knock it off and act like adults.

You must not fear. Fear is the mind killer. Fear triggers a flight or fight response in you.

There are so many dumb things in this world that are more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

• 15 private US Citizens were killed in terrorist attacks in 2010.
• You're more likely to die by falling out of your chair (218 Americans died this way in 2010).
• You're more likely to die by being tangled in your bed sheets (684 Americans died this way in 2010).
• You're more likely to die by falling out of your bed (718 Americans died this way in 2010).
• You're more likely to trip over your own two feet and die (785 Americans died this way in 2010).
• You're more likely to accidentally die of alcohol poisoning (2,014 Americans accidentally drank themselves to death in 2010).

150,000 shot and killed by our fellow Americans since 9/11.

 

[smaneck]

There are so many things you do not understand. I am not afraid of Islam. I honestly do not believe in religious extremists. I believe it is an extremest religion that some do not see in that point of view. It is in the Koran that no religion will stand before Islam, that all others will be eliminated. This isn't made up, just some refuse to see it.

As I pointed out that is not in the Qur'an. Only your bad Salafi translations says anything about elimination.

As the foremost expert on ISIS points out, scripture is not the problem:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-16/islamic-scripture-not-problem

 

[ecco]

This current conversation is about "Islamaphobia" and I do not find it irrational to be wary of Islam.

And yet you make a long rambling post (#280) defending the OT?!?

 

[smaneck]

It sounds like some writers are trying to justify the errancy of the Koran, just as many cristian scholars try to justify the errancy of the bible.

All Muslims would consider the Qur'an as infallible (as would I on some level.) The question becomes what does that infallibility mean? Does it signify being infallible in conveying God's will (as I would believe) or is it infallible in the sense of propositional inerrancy which always creates all kinds of problems. It seems to me that these ahadith endorse the former, not the latter.

 

[LostMarbels]

And yet you make a long rambling post (#280) defending the OT?!?

You may have to actually read the post and even do some research on your own.

 

[FanthatSpark]

I don't see any evidence in that link that the US funded ISIS. Putin (whose word I wouldn't trust for anything) insists that all who are opposing Assad are terrorists. It is quite possible that some of the groups we funded were Islamist but they were not ISIS.

Hhhmmmm , smaneck I did not want to believe it either . Here's a major summation of the trusting thread and this one. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/29/putin-makes-obama-an-offer-he-cant-refuse/

We have been in Syria for 5 years now correct? Here comes Putin in three short months and targets the ISIS oil, transport vehicles and major bridges that are the only export route of the cheap oil. It is not said 'Who" is buying said oil yet it points to us in the time line alone 5 years compared to 3 months, right? Come on mannn . In article above we refused negotiations with Russia (Pre-Putin invasion) and now beg for negotiations (Post-Putin invasion) because he is blowing up the money/oil. Whose oil? ISIS's oil being sold for half market value too ??? With said funding (Nations buying said oil) gives ISIS there financial means. Now lets look at it with a different lens. Assad was voted in (Democracy true) . Thus, our trying to unseat him violates international law. A lawless nation we are in our dysfunctional foreign policy.

I do not advocate Putin and it is understood he is no friend of ours. However, Putin is following international law where we do not. When we are lawless, funding for ISIS called rebels 1 year or so ago is not a major leap , agreed? 5 years for the best army this world knows and in 3 months Putin has ISIS on the defensive ? something is not adding up, correct?

 

[LostMarbels]

As I pointed out that is not in the Qur'an. Only your bad Salafi translations says anything about elimination.

As the foremost expert on ISIS points out, scripture is not the problem:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-16/islamic-scripture-not-problem

Can you give me a link to a better translation? Do Muslims have study references?

 

[smaneck]

First point: when you read this you know you are reading a recountal of the events. This event is in past tense because of the wording. "took" for example. So the reader can deduce this is a historical account, not a directive.

As was the quote you misused to suggest that the Qur'an directs Muslims to behead people notwithstanding the fact that the 'directive' was explicitly made to angels, not men, in a particular battle.

When the God of the bible commanded such things note that the place, and even the name of people were stated. You know for a fact God commanded for this event specifically to happen in that time frame, because he called it by name.

If a passage says to 'remember' something isn't it clear that that it refers to an event in a specific time frame?

Third point: God ended the commandment to kill your enemies, and even to seek retribution from those who wrong you.

I don't think I ever got the answer to my question as to whether or not you are total pacifist opposed to armies and police?

In this we see what was once allowed before the appearance of Christ is no longer permissible as a "Christian", after Christ.

So Christians are prohibited from serving in the military? Muslims will be glad to hear this!

This is what I am looking for in the Koran. Where are the verses that make the old ways void?

You'll have to go to the Baha'i Writings for that:

"The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes. Exalted is His purpose; glorified is His power; magnified is His dominion!"
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/TB/tb-8.html


Final point:

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.
And whenever a surah is revealed, there are among the hypocrites those who say, "Which of you has this increased faith?" As for those who believed, it has increased them in faith, while they are rejoicing.
But as for those in whose hearts is disease, it has [only] increased them in evil [in addition] to their evil. And they will have died while they are disbelievers.
At-Tawbah 9:123-125

That verse refers specifically to the munāfiq translated as hypocrites in this passage. Those were people in Medina who had pretended to embrace Islam but were in fact attempting to undermine it whenever they could.

This is in present tense. Fight, not fought. Find, not found. And there is nothing in this verse, or it's paragraph tying it to a past event. If someone reads this verse they are reading it in present tense as a directive.

Of course it is in the present tense. It is referring to something going on in Medina at the time.
Most Muslims are capable for reading scripture within the context in which it was revealed.

 

[smaneck]

Hhhmmmm , smaneck I did not want to believe it either . Here's a major summation of the trusting thread and this one. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/29/putin-makes-obama-an-offer-he-cant-refuse/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/29/putin-makes-obama-an-offer-he-cant-refuse/

That article says we did a lousy job containing ISIS not that we funded them.

As for the oil, we aren't the ones buying that oil.

 

[smaneck]

I honestly want to stumble across the verse that states exactly what I'm looking for. I'm not seeing it, but if she continues she might just teach me something I do not know.

Here is the problem. You are working with two different scriptures, the Tanakh and the NT. The Qur'an is just one scripture. The Baha'i Faith is to Islam what Christianity is to Judaism, but just like Jews don't accept the NT Muslims don't accept the Baha'i Writings. However, that doesn't mean Muslims can't read their scriptures in the context in which they were revealed which is something you do for the OT but refuse to do in the case Qur'an. Instead, you take verses completely out of context and want to apply them to the present. Not that there aren't any Muslims who do this, just as there are Christian Dominionists who want to apply OT laws to government.

 

[smaneck]

Can you give me a link to a better translation? Do Muslims have study references?

This website gives you access to various translations but you would need to know Arabic in order to discern which is the best translation of a particular verse:

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp

 

[LostMarbels]

Not a refusal. I do not see the delineation. This is why I am asking for the scriptures. Where in the Koran is the scripture that make the verses I posted null and void? What scripture give you the understanding ofwhat is old and what is valid today?

 

[FanthatSpark]

This article deserves a read--

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/u...raqis-believe-the-us-must-be-supporting-isis/

Interesting that . The in-line link of U.S. weoponizing ISIS makes me look like .

 

[TLK Valentine]

LOL. We discriminated against the Japanese in WW II and no one said it was wrong or against the constitution.

If nobody says it's wrong, does that make it right?

We didn't let any more in, and we locked up all those already here. We are fighting a war just as bad now,

You see an end to this war with 2 billion Muslims?

Because the ones you lock up, you're going to have to let out eventually... or do you have a more Final Solution in mind?

so we should do the same thing now, only with the Muslims.

And if anyone objects, you can lock them up too... always more room in the camps...

 

[smaneck]

Not a refusal. I do not see the delineation. This is why I am asking for the scriptures. Where in the Koran is the scripture that make the verses I posted null and void? What scripture give you the understanding ofwhat is old and what is valid today?

Why would a verse addressed to angels need to be made null and void? Because if you don't angels will keep beheading people? Why would you need a verse declaring the 'elimination' of people null and void if the Qur'an never said to eliminate them in the first place?

 

[LostMarbels]

Because if there is no direct message from your god stating that those type of events are to cease they are still in effect.

Where does Mohamed, or Allah state non-believers; Jews, Christian, and others are to be left in peace? If there is no set separation between then and now the the entire Koran is still in play.