Islam The Critical Stalemate re Violence in Islam

[JosephZ]

Which Islamic forums did I post in and what was my post that your referring to, I repeatedly asked you this question and you don’t bother proving any of your statements.

I have already responded to your request.

I'm not going to link to or promote Islamic forums an a Christian forum.

If Islam is the Anti Christ then you are condemning Islam as false, so you are contradicting yourself.

As a Christian I believe this to be a true statement and not contradictory at all to what I have been saying in this thread and others. I have said many times on this forum that I believe Islam to be a false religion and Muhammad to be a false prophet. When I talk to Muslims about my faith, they believe I'm the one following a false religion and that Paul was a false prophet. The feeling is mutual between Christians and Muslims on this issue and for the most part, this position is respected by both.

So if Dr. Bale says Islam as taught by Orthodox sources such as the Quran is violent, then how is that different to what I’m saying?

This is what Dr. Bale concludes:

"Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffrey Bale

You believe that Islamism is true Islam which is where you are in error. 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. To add a little more context to Dr. Bale's quote:

"‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]...‘ Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

At this point I don’t think you even have a clear position on the topic as your constantly contradicting yourself to the point where I’m starting to get confused.

I apologize if I am confusing you. Please point out the issues where you feel I'm being contradictory and I will try to explain my position better.

You first said Isis and extremists have nothing to do with Islam and now your suggesting they do based on what Dr. Bale says, by the way I read the whole article of his, I didn’t take it out of context because it proves my arguement.

Weren’t you also saying a while back that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam?

You will have to show me where I have said Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam. I can't remember ever saying this.

As for why the United States allies with Saudi, well Saudi keeps all the other Arab states in line for the United States and pumps oil to it, the same way someone pumps blood into a dying man. And creates and funds any extremist group the United States want to mess up the Middle East. The United States Like any other country always looks at the pros and cons of having an alliance with a certain country, in the eyes of the United States, having an alliance with Saudi benefits it as a country and economically, human rights and its relation to other US allies come second or third in this regard. Self benefit is always first.

Exactly.

Why would Mohammed commit to an alliance with a tribe that was known for being dishonorable and had a grudge with the Banu Bakr and would be an obvious threat to the treaty? Why would Mohammed enter a treaty with a tribe that was enemies with the tribe allied to the Quraysh?

You have successfully answered your own questions with your comment above.

 

[Joyousperson]

This is what Dr. Bale concludes:

"Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffrey Bale

You believe that Islamism is true Islam which is where you are in error. 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. To add a little more context to Dr. Bale's quote:

"‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]...‘ Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale

Dr. Bale agreed Islamism is a part of Islam.
This is a critical point that separates his views from all the Islamic apologists who insist Islam is a peaceful ideology and what the Islamic terrorists are doing has nothing to do with Islam.

Dr. Bale is wrong in stating that 'Islamism' is not the most authentic interpretation of Islam.
While 'Islamism' is not the most widely shared interpretation, it is OBJECTIVELY the truer Islam in accordance to the words of Allah in the Quran's 6236 verses. [note my analogy re Buddhism below]

As I had argued Islamism is objectively the truer Islam and this can be verified by how much of 'Islamism' conforms to the 6236 verses of the Quran - to core and final authority of Islam.

Dr. Bale labeled the fiercer critiques of islam as "Islam basher" which is not actually wrong nor abnormal.
Note those critiques [so called bashers] of Islam understand there are many schools of thoughts and interpretations of Islam.
What they have demonstrated is, among all the many schools of thought of Islam, those who adopted 'Islamism' are objectively the truer Islam in accordance to the words of Allah.

I wonder you understand the significance of 'objectivity' in this case??

Objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based onfacts; unbiased:
Definition of objective | Dictionary.com​

The objective standard of What is Islam is from 5:3 and thus the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core of Islam.

5:3 ... This day have I [Allah] Perfected your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan] ...
​

Therefore to determine which interpretation of Islam is the most true Islam, we should verify each Muslim or group compliance to the 6236 verses of the Quran.

I have demonstrated those involved in "Islamism"are one of the groups who comply with more of the 6236 verses than the so-called moderates. e.g. among many commands, the moderates befriend non-Muslims when Allah commanded them not to do so.

Thus the so-called 'Islamism' groups' interpretations are truer Islam than those of the moderate majority.

Note an analogy:

In the case of Buddhism-proper, the majority of Buddhists followed a compromised sort of Buddhism [can be said to be corrupted] because Buddhism-proper is too advanced for their current state of mind. What is fortunate is these corrupted practices are still overridden by an overall pacificist maxim.
Those who hold authority in Buddhism [the monks] understand the need for compromise and accept them, e.g. praying to idols, offerings in prayers, and other rituals, which are not condoned in Buddhism proper.
I believe less than 5% of Buddhists practice Buddhism proper at present, but the majority are slowly progressing toward Buddhism proper as stipulated in the Buddhist Sutras.

It is the same with the various Hindu religions and other religions around the world.

So it is a common natural trend where the majority believers of a religion do not conform and comply with the essential tenets of their religion-proper.​

Therefore, the same applies to Islam, where the majority of Muslims are not likely to comply with the essence of the ideology of Islam which contains loads of evil and violent elements.
In this case the elite minority of Muslims, who practice the truer Islam, they are the likes of those who adopt 'Islamism' and those with similar thoughts.

In the Quran there are loads of verses describing who is the best of Muslims - the highest grade, i.e.

13:19. [Compare:] Is he who knoweth that what is revealed unto thee [Muhammad] from thy Lord is the truth - like him [infidels] who is blind? But only men of understanding [l-albābi] heed [yatadhakkaru];

13:20. Such as [1] keep the pact [biʿahdi; convenant] of Allah, and break not the covenant [MThQ; Mīthāqa];
​

The "men of understanding [l-albābi]" are the highest grade of Muslims as stated by Allah in the Quran and they are to heed 8 requirements stipulated by Allah, one of them is in 13:20, i.e. to keep the pact, the covenant with Allah by complying with all the elements within the 6236 verses in the Quran [which contain the loads of evil and violent elements] to the best of their abilities.

Those who practice "Islamism" and the likes are the men of understanding [l-albābi]" and are the highest grade of Muslims since they stick and comply most to the pact and covenant they had agreed with Allah.

The above is objective and in addition, YOU, me or others do not have the authority to question their objectivity.

 

[Barney2.0]

I have already responded to your request.




As a Christian I believe this to be a true statement and not contradictory at all to what I have been saying in this thread and others. I have said many times on this forum that I believe Islam to be a false religion and Muhammad to be a false prophet. When I talk to Muslims about my faith, they believe I'm the one following a false religion and that Paul was a false prophet. The feeling is mutual between Christians and Muslims on this issue and for the most part, this position is respected by both.


This is what Dr. Bale concludes:

"Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffrey Bale

You believe that Islamism is true Islam which is where you are in error. 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. To add a little more context to Dr. Bale's quote:

"‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]...‘ Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations." -- Dr. Jeffery Bale


I apologize if I am confusing you. Please point out the issues where you feel I'm being contradictory and I will try to explain my position better.


You will have to show me where I have said Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam. I can't remember ever saying this.


Exactly.

You have successfully answered your own questions with your comment above.

Explaing forums that I was on isn’t promoting the forums unless you link the forums in the thread and if you can’t back up your claim then atleast have the decency to retract it.

Of course there are many ways to interpret Islamic text, however they would still drift away from Orthodox Islamic thought which is real Islam. Dr. Bale himself says these interpretations are Orthodox Islamic interpretations, of course the Orthodox Islamic interpretation isn’t the only interpretation, but it’s the only really Islamic one, anything else would be liberalism or reformism. Dr. Bale does contradict himself when he says that many of these interpretations are Orthodox and then says that many of these interpretations of Islam aren’t the most authentic. Of course you don’t have to interpret Islamic sources in the Orthodox authentic way, but if you do it in any other way then it’s simply not true Islam anymore.

Just as Muslims are free to attempt to refute Christianity, Christians are obliged to refute false teachings of Islam which do effect Christianity.

So your comparing Mohammed’s decision to break the treaty of Hudaibiyah and his absolute disregard for it with modern politics, then it really must reflect well on his character well. This is also supposed to be the most perfect moral example in Islam and for all Muslims do emulate, then you return and say that Islam in its core teachings doesn’t encourage violence and deceit when it’s perfect moral example clearly did so freely.

Since you keep repeating talking points I’m going to stop responding to your posts.

 

[Barney2.0]

The scribes and the Pharisees were Jews. Once again, Jesus, a Jew, was refuting Jews and the religious doctrine they shared. He was not refuting non-Jews or the teachings of another religion.


He was using their practices as a reference in order to instruct His disciples on how to better follow their own faith. He also wasn't going to non-Jews and refuting them and their religion.


Jesus taught His disciples to go only to the House of Israel. When assigning the disciples to carry out the Great Commission, He commanded them to teach others to observe all that He had commanded them. Had Apollos, who had been discipled under the teachings of Jesus, taken the gospel to anyone outside of the House of Israel, he would have been disobeying Christ.

In Acts 18 Apollos only knew that Jesus had come and fulfilled the prophecies. He didn’t know the importance of His death and resurrection, nor would he have known that the gospel was intended for both Jews and Gentiles because Jesus and the original disciples didn't teach these things. It was only after Aquila and Priscilla, who were disciples of Paul, took Apollos aside and explained these things to him that he learned of the good news of Jesus' death, burial and His resurrection to atone for the sins of all mankind and that this good news was intended for both Jews and Gentiles alike.

"When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18:26).


Paul went to the Jews first, because this was God's plan from the beginning.

“Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46)

Israel was God's people and salvation was offered to them first through the promised Messiah.

[The] Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. (Romans 9:4-5)

He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:30-31)

‘I have placed You [Jews] as a light for the Gentiles, That You may bring salvation to the end of the earth.’” (Acts 13:46-47)


This event took place during a time when the Church was going through a period of transition. Peter didn't go to Cornelius. It was Cornelius who requested that Peter come to him following a revelation from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had also visited Peter at the same time.

God used Cornelius to show Peter that salvation through Christ was not only intended for the Jews, but also the Gentiles.

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35)

After learning this, Peter began to share the gospel that was taught to him by Jesus which was “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) But, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:44-45)

Once again, Peter had learned something new during this encounter with Cornelius. For the first time it was revealed to Peter that a person can receive the Holy Spirit and salvation without the works of water baptism first.

This was a teaching moment for Peter, not an example of him evangelizing to a gentile. After these things were revealed to Peter, he shared what he had learned with the others.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

“When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:15-18)

It was then agreed that the gospel was intended not only for Jews, but Gentiles as well.

Despite this, there was still disagreement among the original apostles between what Paul was teaching and what they were. This debate can be found in Acts 15 (The Council at Jerusalem), but in the end it was agreed that the Gentiles were free from the requirements of that of the Jews for salvation. It was also decided that Paul and the others would minister to the gentiles and Peter and the apostles would continue their ministry among the Jews as they were commanded by Jesus.

“The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.’” (Acts 15:6-11)

Paul refers back to this debate in Galatians.

“On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised (gentiles), just as Peter had been to the circumcised (Jews). For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” (Galatians 2:7-9)


Once again, Apollos, a Jew, was teaching Jews.


Paul is a perfect example for us to follow when it comes to witnessing to people of other religions and from different cultures. Paul understood Greek culture and was educated in the religions that the Greeks followed and their gods. He was able to incorporate their teachings into the teaching of the gospel.

There was nothing condemning in Paul's sermon, in fact, he doesn't even tell them that their god is a false god. Rather than take that approach he uses words from Greek writers that invoke Zeus (A false god) when he says "For we are also His offspring" and follows with his own words in saying "Being then the children of God."

Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” So Paul went out of their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. (Acts 17:22-34)

When Paul had finished this sermon those who listened were not angry, hurt, or argumentative because Paul respected the beliefs of others and shared the gospel with them in a non-condemning way and without disapproval of them, their religion, or their faults.

In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Peter 3:15)


The original apostles had no concept of the gospel of grace by faith until it was explained to them by Paul. They weren't teaching the good news of Jesus' death, burial and His resurrection to atone for sin. You are discounting Paul's role and how important his teachings of the plan of salvation was to the original apostles.

Paul wasn't reminding the original apostles of anything. He was teaching them new things that had only been revealed to him by the resurrected Christ. This teaching was a whole new concept to the original apostles as they had no understanding of the plan of salvation of grace through faith alone. A gospel of salvation that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.

Paul even proclaimed that the gospel he preached was his gospel because the message he shared was different than that of the original apostles.

“On the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:16)

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,” (Romans16:25)

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,” (2 Timothy 2:8)

"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Had the original apostles not been taught by Paul, they would have continued teaching water baptism as a requirement for salvation and the remission of sins to only the Jews instead of being "baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free...” (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Even after Paul taught the original apostles the plan of salvation of grace through faith alone, they still decided that they would only go among the Jews.

"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” (Galatians 2:7-9)


I'm pretty sure it was because Jesus told them "Do not to go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans, go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matt 10:5-6) Had they ignored this command they would have been disobeying Jesus.


I don't follow the teachings of the early Church fathers as I don't always agree with what they taught or their actions. I prefer to follow the teachings found in the Bible and go by the examples found there.

Jesus was refuting false teaching he even criticized gentile worship a few times during his sermon on the mount I believe. Christians are to refute false teachings whenever it arises if you reject this then as I said your not Christian.

Those references to his disciples about Gentiles are what we call refutations.

In the great commission he said go and baptize “all nations in his name.” I’m not sure if you know what all nations means. He didn’t say to teach other Jews what he commanded he said baptize all nations and to preach the Gospel to all nations in his name, period.

Paul first preached to Jews because he being a Pharisee was zealous to proclaim the message of Christ to the Jews, he did it ou if his own desire, becuase God later told him to leave Jerusalem because the Jews would try to murder him and reject his message. The command to preach to all nations was already revealed in the great commission, it was only later that the Apostles were able to overcome their own doubts and prejudices with the reminder of Paul and Barnabas who spoke boldly and reminded the Apostles that Jesus commanded them to preach to all nations. Peter baptized Cornelius before the council of Jerusalem which shows the command to baptize Gentiles into the faith was already, the nature of what should happen to these converts and how we should preach to Gentiles being Jews was discussed.

Paul said very clearly you worship an unknown God in ignorance which is a blatant rebuking of Greek paganism. The reason for the Greeks not attacking Paul or going crazy on him for the sermon in Athens because Greeks by then were open to theological debates and critics, many Greek pagan philosophers who came way before had already criticized Greek polytheism and the gods, Paul doing it to them wouldn’t have been something new except for the unique message he was proclaiming.

Peter was already preaching the Gospel of grave in a Acts 2:24:

But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.

Pretty much the entire chapter of Acts 2 talks about how the disciple especially Peter preached Christ’s resurrection, you act as if Paul just somehow realized in Damascus and all the original disciples who knew Christ and witnessed the resurrection were in the dark. When it was they who told Paul how they witnessed his resurrection. Where does it say his Gospel is different to the one the disciples preached? Infact where does it say that anywhere? The term “my Gospel” doesn’t indicate a different Gospel. So Paul taught the original disciples, that’s the most ignorant statement you could ever come up with. Matthew 10:5-6 was before the resurrection and great commission in which Christ said to preach the Gospel to every creature, Gentiles included. As we read in Acts 2 Peter was already preaching the Gospel of Christ’s resurrection which shoots your claim that Paul taught it to the disciples in the foot.

The Early Church Fathers gave us the Bible we know today and are the most best and most Orthodox way of interpreting the Biblical text.

Anyhow side you keep posting baseless posts and repeat talking points I’m jus going to do the same thing Dzheremi did and put you on ignore and ignore your replies.

 

[JosephZ]

"There are reasons why I as a follower of Christ post in threads like this one about Islam.
The primary reason is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it.
I hope by posting in threads like this, in addition to dispelling the many myths and misconceptions many have about what Islam teaches, that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities."
That is my point;

Read some of the post in this thread and you will see my point.
Going to Meet with an Islamic Cleric Tomorrow Wish Me Luck
Based on some of the comments in that thread you would think this member was going to have dinner with the devil himself in the pits of hell rather than have dinner with his teacher in one of the safest cities in the world.

Seeing some of those comments deeply saddens me. How can Christians share the gospel with Muslims if they are afraid to interact with them? So once again, The primary reason I respond to threads like this one is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it in hopes that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities.

You are misleading and 'lying' to Christians that Islam is a peaceful religion and there is nothing to fear about Islam.

Once again, only around 1/10th of 1% of those who profess to be Muslims are actively involved in violent jihad. Less than 10% of the victims of that 1/10th of 1% are are non Muslims. Let's look at some numbers.

In 2017, there was a total of 18,700 deaths and more than 19,400 people injured by terrorist worldwide. Those numbers represent terrorist deaths from ALL perpetrators, not just Islamic extremists. But for the sake of argument let's say that all of the deaths and injuries came at the hand of Muslim extremists. Now let's be very generous again and say that 10% of the victims were non-Muslims. That would mean that around 1,870 non-Muslims were killed and roughly 1,940 were injured. Of course the actual numbers much lower.

While those numbers sound high, let's compare them to another cause of death.

Death caused by a lightning strike is an incredibly rare event, but based on the information found at this study, Internationally, an estimated 24,000 fatalities with 10 times as many [240,000] injuries occur annually as a result of lightning.

Based on the numbers above, a non-Muslim is 10 times more likely to get killed by lightening than a Muslim. Why should people fear a religion if the odds of being harmed by someone that follows it are so low? Also keep in mind that almost all terrorist attacks occur in countries that are at war or suffering from conflict. For a non-Muslim living outside of those regions, which would be most of those reading this thread, the odds of being killed by a Muslim extremists are about as close to nil as you can get.

Islam isn't teaching Muslims to kill non-Muslims. If it were, then you would see far more violence taking place in the world than what we are seeing. I'm not trying to discount the violence and deaths we see from Islamic extremism, it's no doubt a serious issue, I'm just putting things into perspective.

What you are implying is to convince say the Coptic Christians, the Christians in Iraq, Syria, elsewhere in the Middle East and around the World that Islam itself is a peaceful religion.

Most Christians living in the regions you mentioned live in a part of the world where religion is so intertwined with culture that they have no problem distinguishing between what the religion of Islam teaches and Islamic extremism.

So you are talking nonsense re Islam when you insist.
"Individual Muslims can make Islam whatever they want it to be"
That is an insult to true Islam.

Religion is subject to interpretation; it always has been. You obviously interpret Islam in the same way as extremists. Fortunately fewer than 10% of the world's Muslims interpret Islam the way you do.

A small % of Muslims which are terrorists by quantum in real numbers is very dangerous and critical. 1% is 16 million. Note it only took 18++ to do a 911. Your point above is baseless, useless and toothless to the point that overall Islam is evil and violent.

Once again, the number of Muslims actively involved in violent jihad is somewhere around 1/10th of 1%, and most of those haven't killed anyone. Your number of 16 million is way too high.

The point by Dr. Shenk is very stupid.

That wasn't a quote from Dr. Shenk, it came from a website that focuses on psychology and neuroscience.

The real fears of Islam within non-Muslims is based on glaring empirical data of evil and violent acts by SOME Muslims.

Actually, if someone takes the time to examine the data that person's fears of Islam should diminish.

On the contrary, the more familiar non-Muslims are with the evil and violent essence of Islam as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran, the more they ought and should fear the ideology of Islam.

I think most studies and polls on that subject show otherwise.

Obviously proselytizing to Muslims is a greater threat than drawing of cartoons.
The point is no Muslim has triggered a mob frenzy in your case yet but the potential is always there. I am sure, it will happen if you were to proselytize where Abu Sayaf is active.

I've been going to where they are active for almost 7 years now without incident and whenever there has been a mob triggered, all I have noticed are smiles...

The town of Maluso, seen in the picture on the right, is one that I frequently visit and is where the former emir of ISIS in southeast Asia grew up. Many of his relatives still live in that town.

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

Those stories do not make me fear the religion of Islam or the Muslims who live in the Sulu region because even in places where Islamic extremists thrive, the vast majority of the Muslims living in those places reject them and the brand of Islam they follow.

The earlier followers of Muhammad were caravan raiders, commit genocides, then imperialists, and commit a wide range of evil and violent acts.

Muhammad was a warrior as were many of his followers. Most Muslims at that time were not involved in active warfare or acts of violence.

As I had argued the treaties were made with Allah and his messenger.
If it is 100% history, then it should involved 'messenger' only and not involving 'Allah'.
That 'Allah' is embedded in verse 9:1 and elsewhere, it is obviously intended to reflect the doctrine and principle involved that is to guide ALL Muslims in similar circumstances whether it is South America, Asia, Australia, Africa or in Space.

Those commands found in Chapter 9 were to Muhammad, a warrior, and to his soldiers during a particular point in history. When Allah was commanding Muslims to "kill them wherever you find them," he was not calling all Muslims to kill non-Muslims in every part of the world, he was only commanding Muhammad and his soldiers to kill the non-Muslims that had broken their treaties. It's all about putting things into textual and historical context and it really all comes down to using common sense.

Almost all of the world's Muslims reading the Qur'an are using common sense and are interpreting it properly. We know this is true because 99.9% of Muslims aren't killing non-Muslims wherever they find them, nor have they done this at any point in history. Even in Muhammad's day and during the times of Islamic conquests, most Muslims were to busy living their own lives and dealing with their own problems. The same is true today when a country or a tribe goes to war with another. Only a tiny percentage of the population are actively involved in the fighting.

The Bible did not teach you 'Islam is a False religion'. Rather the Bible teaches the nature of a false religion.

The Bible teaches me that Jesus is the only way to the Father, therefore; the Bible teaches me that all other religions are false.

Therefore you have the onus to research thoroughly to understand the essence of Islam to confirm why it is a false religion.

There's no need for me to thoroughly research Islam to confirm why it's false. I don't even need to read the Qur'an to know this. It's common knowledge that Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, therefore, I immediately know Islam is a false religion. Of course Muslims will disagree with me on that and that's fine.

Dr. Bale is wrong in stating that 'Islamism' is not the most authentic interpretation of Islam.
While 'Islamism' is not the most widely shared interpretation, it is OBJECTIVELY the truer Islam in accordance to the words of Allah in the Quran's 6236 verses. [note my analogy re Buddhism below]

Using your criteria, only the fundamentalist in every religion are practicing their religion properly. Dr. Bale is correct, because since the inception of Islam, most Muslims haven't interpreted Islam the way the extremists do. What is being taught by extremists today has always been rejected.

 

[Barney2.0]

Read some of the post in this thread and you will see my point.
Going to Meet with an Islamic Cleric Tomorrow Wish Me Luck
Based on some of the comments in that thread you would think this member was going to have dinner with the devil himself in the pits of hell rather than have dinner with his teacher in one of the safest cities in the world.

Seeing some of those comments deeply saddens me. How can Christians share the gospel with Muslims if they are afraid to interact with them? So once again, The primary reason I respond to threads like this one is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it in hopes that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities.


Once again, only around 1/10th of 1% of those who profess to be Muslims are actively involved in violent jihad. Less than 10% of the victims of that 1/10th of 1% are are non Muslims. Let's look at some numbers.

In 2017, there was a total of 18,700 deaths and more than 19,400 people injured by terrorist worldwide. Those numbers represent terrorist deaths from ALL perpetrators, not just Islamic extremists. But for the sake of argument let's say that all of the deaths and injuries came at the hand of Muslim extremists. Now let's be very generous again and say that 10% of the victims were non-Muslims. That would mean that around 1,870 non-Muslims were killed and roughly 1,940 were injured. Of course the actual numbers much lower.

While those numbers sound high, let's compare them to another cause of death.

Death caused by a lightning strike is an incredibly rare event, but based on the information found at this study, Internationally, an estimated 24,000 fatalities with 10 times as many [240,000] injuries occur annually as a result of lightning.

Based on the numbers above, a non-Muslim is 10 times more likely to get killed by lightening than a Muslim. Why should people fear a religion if the odds of being harmed by someone that follows it are so low? Also keep in mind that almost all terrorist attacks occur in countries that are at war or suffering from conflict. For a non-Muslim living outside of those regions, which would be most of those reading this thread, the odds of being killed by a Muslim extremists are about as close to nil as you can get.

Islam isn't teaching Muslims to kill non-Muslims. If it were, then you would see far more violence taking place in the world than what we are seeing. I'm not trying to discount the violence and deaths we see from Islamic extremism, it's no doubt a serious issue, I'm just putting things into perspective.


Most Christians living in the regions you mentioned live in a part of the world where religion is so intertwined with culture that they have no problem distinguishing between what the religion of Islam teaches and Islamic extremism.


Religion is subject to interpretation; it always has been. You obviously interpret Islam in the same way as extremists. Fortunately fewer than 10% of the world's Muslims interpret Islam the way you do.


Once again, the number of Muslims actively involved in violent jihad is somewhere around 1/10th of 1%, and most of those haven't killed anyone. Your number of 16 million is way too high.


That wasn't a quote from Dr. Shenk, it came from a website that focuses on psychology and neuroscience.


Actually, if someone takes the time to examine the data that person's fears of Islam should diminish.


I think most studies and polls on that subject show otherwise.


I've been going to where they are active for almost 7 years now without incident and whenever there has been a mob triggered, all I have noticed are smiles...

View attachment 258665
The town of Maluso, seen in the picture on the right, is one that I frequently visit and is where the former emir of ISIS in southeast Asia grew up. Many of his relatives still live in that town.

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

Those stories do not make me fear the religion of Islam or the Muslims who live in the Sulu region because even in places where Islamic extremists thrive, the vast majority of the Muslims living in those places reject them and the brand of Islam they follow.


Muhammad was a warrior as were many of his followers. Most Muslims at that time were not involved in active warfare or acts of violence.


Those commands found in Chapter 9 were to Muhammad, a warrior, and to his soldiers during a particular point in history. When Allah was commanding Muslims to "kill them wherever you find them," he was not calling all Muslims to kill non-Muslims in every part of the world, he was only commanding Muhammad and his soldiers to kill the non-Muslims that had broken their treaties. It's all about putting things into textual and historical context and it really all comes down to using common sense.

Almost all of the world's Muslims reading the Qur'an are using common sense and are interpreting it properly. We know this is true because 99.9% of Muslims aren't killing non-Muslims wherever they find them, nor have they done this at any point in history. Even in Muhammad's day and during the times of Islamic conquests, most Muslims were to busy living their own lives and dealing with their own problems. The same is true today when a country or a tribe goes to war with another. Only a tiny percentage of the population are actively involved in the fighting.


The Bible teaches me that Jesus is the only way to the Father, therefore; the Bible teaches me that all other religions are false.


There's no need for me to thoroughly research Islam to confirm why it's false. I don't even need to read the Qur'an to know this. It's common knowledge that Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, therefore, I immediately know Islam is a false religion. Of course Muslims will disagree with me on that and that's fine.


Using your criteria, only the fundamentalist in every religion are practicing their religion properly. Dr. Bale is correct, because since the inception of Islam, most Muslims haven't interpreted Islam the way the extremists do. What is being taught by extremists today has always been rejected.

Just to reply to your misuse of my thread to back up your assertions, people had a right to be concerned about me, Riyadh is not a safe place for people like me, what I did was technically crossing the line, I risk a lot sometimes doing what I do and saying what I say, the comments I post on this thread are a huge risk themselves, the account I keep on these forums is itself a risk that I keep secret to everyone except myself.

 

[Joyousperson]

Read some of the post in this thread and you will see my point.
Going to Meet with an Islamic Cleric Tomorrow Wish Me Luck
Based on some of the comments in that thread you would think this member was going to have dinner with the devil himself in the pits of hell rather than have dinner with his teacher in one of the safest cities in the world.

Seeing some of those comments deeply saddens me. How can Christians share the gospel with Muslims if they are afraid to interact with them? So once again, The primary reason I respond to threads like this one is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it in hopes that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities.

I would not recommend it be done openly.
Even in secret one it taking the risk.

Once again, only around 1/10th of 1% of those who profess to be Muslims are actively involved in violent jihad. Less than 10% of the victims of that 1/10th of 1% are are non Muslims. Let's look at some numbers.

In 2017, there was a total of 18,700 deaths and more than 19,400 people injured by terrorist worldwide. Those numbers represent terrorist deaths from ALL perpetrators, not just Islamic extremists. But for the sake of argument let's say that all of the deaths and injuries came at the hand of Muslim extremists. Now let's be very generous again and say that 10% of the victims were non-Muslims. That would mean that around 1,870 non-Muslims were killed and roughly 1,940 were injured. Of course the actual numbers much lower.

While those numbers sound high, let's compare them to another cause of death.

Death caused by a lightning strike is an incredibly rare event, but based on the information found at this study, Internationally, an estimated 24,000 fatalities with 10 times as many [240,000] injuries occur annually as a result of lightning.

Based on the numbers above, a non-Muslim is 10 times more likely to get killed by lightening than a Muslim. Why should people fear a religion if the odds of being harmed by someone that follows it are so low? Also keep in mind that almost all terrorist attacks occur in countries that are at war or suffering from conflict. For a non-Muslim living outside of those regions, which would be most of those reading this thread, the odds of being killed by a Muslim extremists are about as close to nil as you can get.

Islam isn't teaching Muslims to kill non-Muslims. If it were, then you would see far more violence taking place in the world than what we are seeing. I'm not trying to discount the violence and deaths we see from Islamic extremism, it's no doubt a serious issue, I'm just putting things into perspective.

On this point, you are talking apples while I was referring to oranges.

I am referring to the ideology of Islam [a major part] that is inherently evil and violent and thus posed a potential threat to humanity when exposed to vulnerable evil prone Muslims within a pool of 320 million.
Thus the consequences is wherever there are Muslims there will be evil and violence committed by evil prone Muslims.

The reality [proofs] of the above potential is so glaring from the whole range of evil and violent acts [not just terrorist attacks] as reported in the News on a daily if not weekly basis who justified their evil and violent acts in the name of Islam and quoting verses from the Quran.

That would mean that around 1,870 non-Muslims were killed and roughly 1,940 were injured. .. lightning is 10 times ...

It is not a matter of perspective in this particular case. This reflect a very perverted mind with a very low moral sense.

You have agreed, even one killed in a violent nature must be addressed. Therefore 1,870 killed [I believe there are more] in relation to a religion is serious. Note this referred to number killed, but note the extent of other evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims in 2017 and throughout the 1400 years history of Islam.

Humanity has the onus to track every evil and violent act to its specific root causes.
As I had argued the evil and violent acts by Muslims are traceable to the ideology of Islam.

Most Christians living in the regions you mentioned live in a part of the world where religion is so intertwined with culture that they have no problem distinguishing between what the religion of Islam teaches and Islamic extremism.

Point is why the problem so regular and significant with Muslims only but not with other religions? The Copts is only one example, it is happening all over the world.
The fact is the ideology of Islam provide the ideological reasons for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion.

Religion is subject to interpretation; it always has been. You obviously interpret Islam in the same way as extremists. Fortunately fewer than 10% of the world's Muslims interpret Islam the way you do.

Yes, there are thousands of interpretations but 'what is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim' can only be asserted by Allah as in the Allah's words within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

A Muslim has to enter into a contract with Allah 16:91 to comply with the covenanted terms, i.e.

3:132. [O ye Muslims] And obey [TW3: aṭīʿū] Allah and the messenger, that ye [Muslims] may find mercy.​

Allah has asserted in many verses, Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims, .e.g.

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

The above is Allah's command which is obvious, so how can a true Muslim interpret the above verses differently other than what is stated above.
Do you have counter to the above?

Once again, the number of Muslims actively involved in violent jihad is somewhere around 1/10th of 1%, and most of those haven't killed anyone. Your number of 16 million is way too high.

The 16 million is the potential pool. Note 'potential pool' derived from sound logic and inferences.

Note this;

Psychopaths make up about 1 percent of the general population
How to Spot Psychopaths: Speech Patterns Give Them Away​

Thus we have a pool of 70 million psychopaths around the world. But only a small number of psychopaths will actually commit evil and violence.

In this case we can also estimate 1% of Muslims are psychopaths, thus a pool of 16 million potentials who are vulnerable to be inspired by the evil and violent elements within the Quran.

Get the point??

Actually, if someone takes the time to examine the data that person's fears of Islam should diminish.

I had always wanted to visit the pyramids in Egypt but these fatality could have been me if not for my knowledge and wariness of Islam and some Muslims;

[May 2019] Explosion hits tourist bus near Egypt's Giza pyramids
Officials say 17 people were wounded after an explosion hits tourist bus near Giza pyramids.

In December [2018], three Vietnamese tourists and an Egyptian guide were killed when a roadside bomb hit a tour bus less than four kilometres from the Giza landmarks.

Explosion hits tourist bus near Egypt's Giza pyramids​

These days, the above attacks can happen anywhere thus it would be stupid not to be fearful and cautious.

Btw, I took the Course in Terrorism [START] you suggested and had finished it in 5 days including the assignment, except for Quiz 5 because the link to the mandatory survey do not work.
I did my assignment on Al Qaeda. In my research I noted;

Within the organization structure of Al Qaeda, there is The WMD Sub Unit or the Nuclear Weapons Section within the MILITARY COMMITTEE, dealing in non-conventional warfare.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...'s_Organizational_Structure_and_its_Evolution​

The reality of the above potential is very possible when WMDs are easily obtainable in the black market cheaply. It is more realistic because Islam do not give much weight to this earthly life but exhorts all Muslims to get to paradise as soon as possible. Muslims has nothing to lose if our Earth is decimated and the human species is exterminated. Thus M.A.D [mutual assured destruction] do not work for these evil prone Muslims.

This very possibility of a nuclear armageddon should be a very scary fear from the ideology of Islam and humanity must take note of it.

Do you have a counter for the above?

I've been going to where they are active for almost 7 years now without incident and whenever there has been a mob triggered, all I have noticed are smiles...

View attachment 258665
The town of Maluso, seen in the picture on the right, is one that I frequently visit and is where the former emir of ISIS in southeast Asia grew up. Many of his relatives still live in that town.

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

Those stories do not make me fear the religion of Islam or the Muslims who live in the Sulu region because even in places where Islamic extremists thrive, the vast majority of the Muslims living in those places reject them and the brand of Islam they follow.

What I had stated is with reference to the very likelihood potential as supported by the ideology of Islam, i.e. proselytizing is a threat, thus Muslims are permitted to kill non-Muslims if there is a threat to Islam.

Muhammad was a warrior as were many of his followers. Most Muslims at that time were not involved in active warfare or acts of violence.

You got this wrong.
Most of the abled Muslims then were involved in active warfare.

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.​

Only a few were exempted, i.e. the disabled and some teachers.

Those commands found in Chapter 9 were to Muhammad, a warrior, and to his soldiers during a particular point in history. When Allah was commanding Muslims to "kill them wherever you find them," he was not calling all Muslims to kill non-Muslims in every part of the world, he was only commanding Muhammad and his soldiers to kill the non-Muslims that had broken their treaties. It's all about putting things into textual and historical context and it really all comes down to using common sense.

It is not meant to be historical.
What is in Chapter 9 re warfare and killings are the principles that Muslims are supposed to use a reference in similar situations they will face at any time.

Btw, most Muslims will argue those verses are meant to be used in defensive against situations of threat [fasadin].
But even drawings of cartoon is fasadin.

Almost all of the world's Muslims reading the Qur'an are using common sense and are interpreting it properly. We know this is true because 99.9% of Muslims aren't killing non-Muslims wherever they find them, nor have they done this at any point in history. Even in Muhammad's day and during the times of Islamic conquests, most Muslims were to busy living their own lives and dealing with their own problems. The same is true today when a country or a tribe goes to war with another. Only a tiny percentage of the population are actively involved in the fighting.

I know, 80% of Muslims are not evil prone. However I am talking about a pool of 20% [conservatively] evil prone Muslims and its potential.
In addition it is not only on war, but my focus is on the whole range of evil and violent acts, not just terrorist attacks.
Note my point on the possibility of these evil prone Muslims resorting to WMDs [nuclear and biological].

Using your criteria, only the fundamentalist in every religion are practicing their religion properly. Dr. Bale is correct, because since the inception of Islam, most Muslims haven't interpreted Islam the way the extremists do. What is being taught by extremists today has always been rejected.

I did not state, only the fundamentalists in every religion are practicing their religion properly. It is possible the fundamentalists may not be 100% right.

I have argued, the truer Muslims are the ones who comply with exactly with the 6236 verses as Allah intended within the covenanted terms, regardless whether they are fundamentalists or not.
This is a very objective assessment [and common sense] of what is Islam and who is the truer Muslim. This can be verified using the 6236 verses of the Quran as a checklist in reference to individual Muslims or the manifesto of various schools of Islam.

 

[Yytz6]

What is in the News are the significant evil and violent acts by IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the likes, but Dr. Bale's point is extended and applicable to all evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims and Islamic extremists anywhere and anytime which are traceable with reference to Islam.

The statement,
"Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam."
implies all the evil and violent acts has something to do with Islam.

"With reference to Islam" meant with reference to the Quran's 6236 verses [supported by the Ahadith] - the core and final authority of Islam.

Now, I have demonstrated the essence of Islamism with its evil and violent acts are with reference to Islam, i.e. the 6236 verses in the Quran,
why are you opposing my views when I have supported the point you agreed with, i.e.
"Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam."

I have also argued, the evil and violent acts committed by IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the likes, i.e. Islamism are with reference to Islam i.e. the 6236 verses in the Quran as the core of Islam per se.

Btw, other than side referencing as a convenience, my views are not from the other critiques of Islam [Dr. Bale wrongly accused as "Islam bashers"]. I have done my own original research based on the words of Allah, i.e. the 6236 verses of the Quran.

How did your original research reach its conclusion? What is its conclusion to be exact? What does it mean when you say "with reference to Islam"?

 

[Joyousperson]

How did your original research reach its conclusion? What is its conclusion to be exact? What does it mean when you say "with reference to Islam"?

I have defined "Islam" as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran and the core of Islam.
Thus 'with reference to Islam" meant with reference to these 6236 verses [as supported by the Ahadith].

I have stated before I have researched into the 6236 verses in the whole context of the Quran and Islam.

From my research I have noted 3400++ or 55% of the Quranic verses are comprised of a range of evil and violent elements that are directed contemptuously at the non-Muslims.

As stated above, the evil and violent acts committed by IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the likes, termed as "Islamism" are in accordance to the 3400++ evil and violent verses.
This is proven when these groups of islamists quote from these "evil and violent verses" to justify their attacks on non-Muslims which to them are good divine acts as their religious duty.

I have also argued these extremist groups are truer Islamic because they comply and apply the principles from more of the 6236 verses in the Quran than the so-called moderate minority.
E.g. the extremist groups will never befriend non-Muslims, they will war on non-Muslims for religious reasons [among others], etc. as dictated within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Thus the mentioned extremist groups and other evil prone Muslims are truer Islamic but being lesser humans.
The moderate majority are better human beings but lesser Islamic.

 

[Yytz6]

I have defined "Islam" as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran and the core of Islam.

You can't say the verses "represent Islam", especially if you don't understand the verses.

What is the core of Islam? The same verses interpreted by you?

Thus 'with reference to Islam" meant with reference to these 6236 verses [as supported by the Ahadith].

I have stated before I have researched into the 6236 verses in the whole context of the Quran and Islam.

What is the whole context of Islam to you?

From my research I have noted 3400++ or 55% of the Quranic verses are comprised of a range of evil and violent elements that are directed contemptuously at the non-Muslims.

Most of which are about non-Muslims who war against the Muslims.

As stated above, the evil and violent acts committed by IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the likes, termed as "Islamism" are in accordance to the 3400++ evil and violent verses.

When interpreted by you out of context. But go ahead and prove it.

This is proven when these groups of islamists quote from these "evil and violent verses" to justify their attacks on non-Muslims which to them are good divine acts as their religious duty.

This isn't proof of anything.

I have also argued these extremist groups are truer Islamic because they comply and apply the principles from more of the 6236 verses in the Quran than the so-called moderate minority.

What is truer Islamic? The principles you think are in the verses. What is a moderate minority? Do you think they neglect obeying Allah's (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) law as prescribed in the Quran?

E.g. the extremist groups will never befriend non-Muslims,

The Quran doesn't prohibit friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Whether a Muslim chooses to do so or not is their choice.

Thus the mentioned extremist groups and other evil prone Muslims are truer Islamic but being lesser humans.
The moderate majority are better human beings but lesser Islamic.

Truer Islamic again, what is it?
Earlier you said moderate minority, not it's moderate majority.

 

[Joyousperson]

You can't say the verses "represent Islam", especially if you don't understand the verses.

Wonder why you could not understand my point?

E.g. Note what is American [government] is represented the 7591 words [in statements] in the US Constitution [with Amendments]. Regardless of whether you or me understanding the statements and context is beside the point.
What is must be objective intended will be interpreted by the relevant judges.​

The Quran is the core of Islam and represented by the 6236 verses sent by Allah. Therefore these 6236 verses from Allah represent Islam regardless of whether you, me or any Muslims or others understand the verses or not.

Allah was not stupid and did not reveal gibberish garbage. As such it is not too difficult to understand the Quran if one put in some effort. Note;

44:58. And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they [Muslims] may heed.​

As such those who know Arabic should be able to understand Allah's message in the Quran quite easily, except for some grey areas.

As for the 'grey areas' no human can make any final judgment on them, only Allah can do that and unfortunately the individual will have to wait until Judgment Day.

I have relied to the English translations [>50 to time] to understand the gist of Allah's message without putting additional spin into it.

You on the other hand put in the addition historical spin as major criteria into interpreting the Quran, which is obviously wrong. Allah never mentioned the 'historical' perspective is to be applied.

What is the core of Islam? The same verses interpreted by you?

I believe my interpretations [based on a review of > 50 English translations] is more accurate than yours that twisted the interpretation with an historical spin.

For example, Allah in the Quran specifically commanded Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims, but you insist that is not the case. There are many other verses that you and moderate Muslims do not adhere to what Allah intended but twist Allah's word with the historical spin.

What is the whole context of Islam to you?

The theme and context of Islam is the theme represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran.
I have stated before, the soteriological element is represented by >30% of the verses.
If you research into the Quran thoroughly this is the main thrust of the Quran, i.e. salvation to paradise with eternal life.
There are 3400++ or 55% depicting a serious threat from non-Muslims against the Muslims's path to salvation.
From the 3400++ verses, various strategies are established to counter the threats from the non-Muslims, and this including war [300++ verses], and various evil and violent threat to eliminate if not to suppress the threats from non-Muslims merely due to their disbelieving in Islam.

Most of which are about non-Muslims who war against the Muslims.

Most the 3400++ identify who are the non-Muslims in derogatory terms.

Note Muhammad was the one who started the tit-for-tat wars when he insulted the Meccans' religion.

When interpreted by you out of context. But go ahead and prove it.

I have already given you examples as proof. Those extremist groups do not befriend non-Muslims and warred against them, killing innocent Muslims e.g. 911 and elsewhere.

This isn't proof of anything.

It is obvious the Quran provided the means for the extremist jihadist to justify their violent acts against non-Muslims as a religious duty.
Btw, note the STALEMATE DILEMMA, i.e. who are you to judge they are wrong?

What is truer Islamic? The principles you think are in the verses. What is a moderate minority? Do you think they neglect obeying Allah's (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) law as prescribed in the Quran?
The Quran doesn't prohibit friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Whether a Muslim chooses to do so or not is their choice.

Truer Islamic again, what is it?
Earlier you said moderate minority, not it's moderate majority.

[Error] moderate minority = I meant moderate majority.

I had explained in another post,
what is truer Islamic can be verified to what degree each Muslim or group conform to the 6236 verses in the Quran.

It is very explicit in many verses, Allah do not permit Muslims to befriend non-Muslims and that is against the backdrop of 3400++ derogatory verses directed at the non-Muslims contemptuously.

 

[kiwimac]

I would not recommend it be done openly.
Even in secret one it taking the risk.


On this point, you are talking apples while I was referring to oranges.

I am referring to the ideology of Islam [a major part] that is inherently evil and violent and thus posed a potential threat to humanity when exposed to vulnerable evil prone Muslims within a pool of 320 million.
Thus the consequences is wherever there are Muslims there will be evil and violence committed by evil prone Muslims.

The reality [proofs] of the above potential is so glaring from the whole range of evil and violent acts [not just terrorist attacks] as reported in the News on a daily if not weekly basis who justified their evil and violent acts in the name of Islam and quoting verses from the Quran.


It is not a matter of perspective in this particular case. This reflect a very perverted mind with a very low moral sense.

You have agreed, even one killed in a violent nature must be addressed. Therefore 1,870 killed [I believe there are more] in relation to a religion is serious. Note this referred to number killed, but note the extent of other evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims in 2017 and throughout the 1400 years history of Islam.

Humanity has the onus to track every evil and violent act to its specific root causes.
As I had argued the evil and violent acts by Muslims are traceable to the ideology of Islam.


Point is why the problem so regular and significant with Muslims only but not with other religions? The Copts is only one example, it is happening all over the world.
The fact is the ideology of Islam provide the ideological reasons for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion.


Yes, there are thousands of interpretations but 'what is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim' can only be asserted by Allah as in the Allah's words within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

A Muslim has to enter into a contract with Allah 16:91 to comply with the covenanted terms, i.e.

3:132. [O ye Muslims] And obey [TW3: aṭīʿū] Allah and the messenger, that ye [Muslims] may find mercy.​

Allah has asserted in many verses, Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims, .e.g.

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

The above is Allah's command which is obvious, so how can a true Muslim interpret the above verses differently other than what is stated above.
Do you have counter to the above?


The 16 million is the potential pool. Note 'potential pool' derived from sound logic and inferences.

Note this;

Psychopaths make up about 1 percent of the general population
How to Spot Psychopaths: Speech Patterns Give Them Away​

Thus we have a pool of 70 million psychopaths around the world. But only a small number of psychopaths will actually commit evil and violence.

In this case we can also estimate 1% of Muslims are psychopaths, thus a pool of 16 million potentials who are vulnerable to be inspired by the evil and violent elements within the Quran.

Get the point??


I had always wanted to visit the pyramids in Egypt but these fatality could have been me if not for my knowledge and wariness of Islam and some Muslims;

[May 2019] Explosion hits tourist bus near Egypt's Giza pyramids
Officials say 17 people were wounded after an explosion hits tourist bus near Giza pyramids.

In December [2018], three Vietnamese tourists and an Egyptian guide were killed when a roadside bomb hit a tour bus less than four kilometres from the Giza landmarks.

Explosion hits tourist bus near Egypt's Giza pyramids​

These days, the above attacks can happen anywhere thus it would be stupid not to be fearful and cautious.

Btw, I took the Course in Terrorism [START] you suggested and had finished it in 5 days including the assignment, except for Quiz 5 because the link to the mandatory survey do not work.
I did my assignment on Al Qaeda. In my research I noted;

Within the organization structure of Al Qaeda, there is The WMD Sub Unit or the Nuclear Weapons Section within the MILITARY COMMITTEE, dealing in non-conventional warfare.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...'s_Organizational_Structure_and_its_Evolution​

The reality of the above potential is very possible when WMDs are easily obtainable in the black market cheaply. It is more realistic because Islam do not give much weight to this earthly life but exhorts all Muslims to get to paradise as soon as possible. Muslims has nothing to lose if our Earth is decimated and the human species is exterminated. Thus M.A.D [mutual assured destruction] do not work for these evil prone Muslims.

This very possibility of a nuclear armageddon should be a very scary fear from the ideology of Islam and humanity must take note of it.

Do you have a counter for the above?


What I had stated is with reference to the very likelihood potential as supported by the ideology of Islam, i.e. proselytizing is a threat, thus Muslims are permitted to kill non-Muslims if there is a threat to Islam.


You got this wrong.
Most of the abled Muslims then were involved in active warfare.

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.​

Only a few were exempted, i.e. the disabled and some teachers.


It is not meant to be historical.
What is in Chapter 9 re warfare and killings are the principles that Muslims are supposed to use a reference in similar situations they will face at any time.

Btw, most Muslims will argue those verses are meant to be used in defensive against situations of threat [fasadin].
But even drawings of cartoon is fasadin.


I know, 80% of Muslims are not evil prone. However I am talking about a pool of 20% [conservatively] evil prone Muslims and its potential.
In addition it is not only on war, but my focus is on the whole range of evil and violent acts, not just terrorist attacks.
Note my point on the possibility of these evil prone Muslims resorting to WMDs [nuclear and biological].


I did not state, only the fundamentalists in every religion are practicing their religion properly. It is possible the fundamentalists may not be 100% right.

I have argued, the truer Muslims are the ones who comply with exactly with the 6236 verses as Allah intended within the covenanted terms, regardless whether they are fundamentalists or not.
This is a very objective assessment [and common sense] of what is Islam and who is the truer Muslim. This can be verified using the 6236 verses of the Quran as a checklist in reference to individual Muslims or the manifesto of various schools of Islam.

And still you are wrong. The fundamentalist is never the 'truer' believer.

 

[Yytz6]

Wonder why you could not understand my point?

E.g. Note what is American [government] is represented the 7591 words [in statements] in the US Constitution [with Amendments]. Regardless of whether you or me understanding the statements and context is beside the point.
What is must be objective intended will be interpreted by the relevant judges.​

This can hardly be compared to a religious scripture.

The Quran is the core of Islam and represented by the 6236 verses sent by Allah. Therefore these 6236 verses from Allah represent Islam regardless of whether you, me or any Muslims or others understand the verses or not.

That's absurd. But even if you were to do so you wouldn't get to such conclusions as, for instance, that a Muslim can't befriend a non-Muslim.​

Allah was not stupid and did not reveal gibberish garbage. As such it is not too difficult to understand the Quran if one put in some effort.

The Qur'an is both easy and difficult. It is for all mankind. So even a simple minded uneducated person will benefit from it and no one can be too educated or too wise to benefit from it.

You on the other hand put in the addition historical spin as major criteria into interpreting the Quran, which is obviously wrong. Allah never mentioned the 'historical' perspective is to be applied.

Why is it wrong to understand the history in connection to the Qu'ran? It would be an ignorant approach to think oneself so self-sufficient one doesn't need the information or understanding of those who lived before, especially of those who lived and learned with the prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).

This mentioning issue is a common excuse. "if it isn't mentioned it must be forbitten", but in Islam there is a principle that if something isn't prohibited then it is permitted. Also about the information outside the Qur'an;

3:164: "Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error."

4:65: "No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them and then do not resist what you decide and submit themselves [to you] completely."

33:21: "You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much."

I believe my interpretations [based on a review of > 50 English translations] is more accurate than yours that twisted the interpretation with an historical spin.

What makes your interpretations so convincing?

They aren't my interpretations. The prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) explained to the sahaba the meanings of the verses in the Qur'an.

For example, Allah in the Quran specifically commanded Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims, but you insist that is not the case. There are many other verses that you and moderate Muslims do not adhere to what Allah intended but twist Allah's word with the historical spin.

60:8-9: "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."

The theme and context of Islam is the theme represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran.

"Theme and context of Islam" just doesn't make any sense to me. Do you think Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) has a context?

I have stated before, the soteriological element is represented by >30% of the verses.
If you research into the Quran thoroughly this is the main thrust of the Quran, i.e. salvation to paradise with eternal life.
There are 3400++ or 55% depicting a serious threat from non-Muslims against the Muslims's path to salvation.
From the 3400++ verses, various strategies are established to counter the threats from the non-Muslims, and this including war [300++ verses], and various evil and violent threat to eliminate if not to suppress the threats from non-Muslims merely due to their disbelieving in Islam.

Supress the threats from non-Muslims merely due to their disbelieving Islam? Is that a threat from non-Muslims? Maybe you mean a threat to Muslims? Or you mean the actual threat the non-Muslims have been to Muslims from time to time?

Yes, the hereafter is a fundamental issue in Islam. The Qur'an is right to warn about it. Few people will make it to Jannah.

Most the 3400++ identify who are the non-Muslims in derogatory terms.

What are those?

Note Muhammad was the one who started the tit-for-tat wars when he insulted the Meccans' religion.

No he didn't. The Meccans began persecuting the Muslims first. They were frightened of them and their ideas. The Muslims had to fear for their safety and even their lives just for praying in public.

I have already given you examples as proof. Those extremist groups do not befriend non-Muslims and warred against them, killing innocent Muslims e.g. 911 and elsewhere.

90% of the victims of those extremists are Muslims.

It is obvious the Quran provided the means for the extremist jihadist to justify their violent acts against non-Muslims as a religious duty.

They absorbed some justifications. That doesn't mean they have the justifications nor that the justifications were offered. Violence always finds an excuse.

A number of extremists have admitted the verses they quote from the Qur'an do not mean what they present them to mean. So there is no reason to imagine all extremists (especially the ones raised in a Muslim household) truly belive in their justifications.

Btw, note the STALEMATE DILEMMA, i.e. who are you to judge they are wrong?

The islamic scholars from the last 1400 years verify they are wrong - not to mention common sense while reading the Qur'an (even if you prefer to read it without interpretation).

[Error] moderate minority = I meant moderate majority

I had explained in another post,
what is truer Islamic can be verified to what degree each Muslim or group conform to the 6236 verses in the Quran.

So you mean a better Muslim?

 

[Yytz6]

And still you are wrong. The fundamentalist is never the 'truer' believer.

Depends on what you identify as a fundamentalist.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread closed permanently due to SoP violation:
Debate Other Religions & Faiths Statement of Purpose
Only orthodox (Trinitarian) Christian members may start threads to challenge/debate members of a specific non-Christian religion or faith.
Debates are only between orthodox Christian members and members of the specific non-Christian religion or faith being challenged.
MOD HAT OFF