On Moderate Muslims

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:42 am

First topic message reminder :

Ever since the Islamic atrocity of 9/11 (some would argue even before that), it has become fashionable to run after "moderate" Muslims, to court them, to highly value their views, to appease them to the point of losing freedoms won through centuries of bloodshed and activism. And yet at some point we must ask ourselves, have we been chasing a mirage all along? Fareed Zakaria explains:

Over the past decade, the United States helped organize Iraq’s “moderates” — the Shiite-dominated government — giving them tens of billions of dollars in aid and supplying and training their army. But, it turned out, the moderates weren’t that moderate. As they became authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements grew and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS gained tacit or active support. This has been a familiar pattern throughout the region.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support “moderates.” The problem is that there are actually very few of them.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/on-moderate-Muslims.html

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:42 pm

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm not just talking about Saudi Arabia. Iran gas backward laws, Egypt does, Pakistan does, UAE does, and for all they improve on the ME so do Indonesia and Malaysia. All Islamic nations with a strong Islamic ethos at state level. That isn't cultural ignorance but statement of fact. The SE Asian Muslim nations may be better than the ME but they are still suffering painful religious retardation in law.

Without specifics, you're just pissing against the wind.

I was referring to the points raised by Victor.

by Guest Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:50 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm not just talking about Saudi Arabia. Iran gas backward laws, Egypt does, Pakistan does, UAE does, and for all they improve on the ME so do Indonesia and Malaysia. All Islamic nations with a strong Islamic ethos at state level. That isn't cultural ignorance but statement of fact. The SE Asian Muslim nations may be better than the ME but they are still suffering painful religious retardation in law.

Without specifics, you're just pissing against the wind.

I was referring to the points raised by Victor.

Homosexuality and Adultery are seen as punishable through the religious faith is it not? Which the later is in the Quran as a crime.
Now marriage is older than religion itself and has been annnexed by religons as if part of tgeir law, which really such laws on adultery go back to Hammurabi, thus plagerism by the Jews, then Christianity and Islam.
Now how many Muslim majority nations have both as crimes.
Again if many people see neither as punishable, how can we be more compassionate than what is claimed to have created us? Or more to the point do not view as a crime, as in both cases this is down to two consenting adults.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:21 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Without specifics, you're just pissing against the wind.

I was referring to the points raised by Victor.

Homosexuality and Adultery are seen as punishable through the religious faith is it not? Which the later is in the Quran as a crime.
Now marriage is older than religion itself and has been annnexed by religons as if part of tgeir law, which really such laws on adultery go back to Hammurabi, thus plagerism by the Jews, then Christianity and Islam.
Now how many Muslim majority nations have both as crimes.
Again if many people see neither as punishable, how can we be more compassionate than what is claimed to have created us? Or more to the point do not view as a crime, as in both cases this is down to two consenting adults.

Yes, adultery and the sexual act/expression of homosexuality (not being one) is punishable according to the Quran (lashes).

Yes, many countries go further than lashes and stone or behead them.

We can have another conversation of why Islam thinks homosexuality is wrong but we've been there before.

But adultery goes beyond the 2 consenting adults. At least one of them has a partner and maybe children. All of whom will be negatively scarred for ever.

by Guest Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:37 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Homosexuality and Adultery are seen as punishable through the religious faith is it not? Which the later is in the Quran as a crime.
Now marriage is older than religion itself and has been annnexed by religons as if part of tgeir law, which really such laws on adultery go back to Hammurabi, thus plagerism by the Jews, then Christianity and Islam.
Now how many Muslim majority nations have both as crimes.
Again if many people see neither as punishable, how can we be more compassionate than what is claimed to have created us? Or more to the point do not view as a crime, as in both cases this is down to two consenting adults.

Yes, adultery and the sexual act/expression of homosexuality (not being one) is punishable according to the Quran (lashes).

Yes, many countries go further than lashes and stone or behead them.

We can have another conversation of why Islam thinks homosexuality is wrong but we've been there before.

But adultery goes beyond the 2 consenting adults. At least one of them has a partner and maybe children. All of whom will be negatively scarred for ever.

It still is two consenting adults, where again where it may create grief there is no reason it is a crime, or even should be a crime.
Marriage is just a contract at the end of the day, and you can break your contract without it being a crime. hence why it should never be seen as crime.
Again there is no logic to the punishment for homosexuality, because it is not something they can control, thus then this means the deity has condemned them from birth. The reality is you cannot control who you are physicially attracted too, the same as someone homosexual, thus they have no control and thus are meant to remain sexually inactive through something they cannot control based on a absurd religious rulling, hence why it is illogical and clearly man made.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:59 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes, adultery and the sexual act/expression of homosexuality (not being one) is punishable according to the Quran (lashes).

Yes, many countries go further than lashes and stone or behead them.

We can have another conversation of why Islam thinks homosexuality is wrong but we've been there before.

But adultery goes beyond the 2 consenting adults. At least one of them has a partner and maybe children. All of whom will be negatively scarred for ever.

It still is two consenting adults, where again where it may create grief there is no reason it is a crime, or even should be a crime.
Marriage is just a contract at the end of the day, and you can break your contract without it being a crime. hence why it should never be seen as crime.
Again there is no logic to the punishment for homosexuality, because it is not something they can control, thus then this means the deity has condemned them from birth. The reality is you cannot control who you are physicially attracted too, the same as someone homosexual, thus they have no control and thus are meant to remain sexually inactive through something they cannot control based on a absurd religious rulling, hence why it is illogical and clearly man made.

Lol! Tell the cheated wife his balls shouldn't be cut off.

Unchecked sexual promiscuity leads to a degradation of society, according to religion. Go out in most town centres on a weekend night and tell me that's not true.

As for homosexuality, was is a sin is the sexual act. Not the sense of being.

Perhaps they were born that way. We all have our individual tests.

But you may recall your thread where scientists said there may be a genetic link to murder. Just because they were born with the propensity, does it make it right for them to kill? Of course not. So you're argument of 'they were born that way' is insufficient, by all measures.

by Guest Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:09 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

It still is two consenting adults, where again where it may create grief there is no reason it is a crime, or even should be a crime.
Marriage is just a contract at the end of the day, and you can break your contract without it being a crime. hence why it should never be seen as crime.
Again there is no logic to the punishment for homosexuality, because it is not something they can control, thus then this means the deity has condemned them from birth. The reality is you cannot control who you are physicially attracted too, the same as someone homosexual, thus they have no control and thus are meant to remain sexually inactive through something they cannot control based on a absurd religious rulling, hence why it is illogical and clearly man made.

Lol! Tell the cheated wife his balls shouldn't be cut off.

Unchecked sexual promiscuity leads to a degradation of society, according to religion. Go out in most town centres on a weekend night and tell me that's not true.

As for homosexuality, was is a sin is the sexual act. Not the sense of being.

Perhaps they were born that way. We all have our individual tests.

But you may recall your thread where scientists said there may be a genetic link to murder. Just because they were born with the propensity, does it make it right for them to kill? Of course not. So you're argument of 'they were born that way' is insufficient, by all measures.

First point, you can have both adults consenting to more than one partners even if married.
Again it is a contract nothing more, and contracts can be broken.

Point two, what a load babble, you are now making claims to a connection to free sex to now adultery, there is no comparison, where people are single there is no contract and people are free to choose who they want to have sex with. How many other animals are confined this way, thus naturally many animals have multiple partners.

Point 3 A test, a test that does not favour some people, where it favours others, who can express love but they are denied this because they cannot control who they are attracted too.

Point 4, Has to be the most silliest thing you have stated. Murder is denying someone their life, two adults people having consensual sex is not affecting anyone, where in fact you are affecting them by denying them to express their love with punishing them, where again how is it a crime. What you are claiming is that the majority of people can marry and have sex, but to then discriminate against those who cannot control they are physically only attracted to the same sex or to either sex .

It shows how man made your religion is, one it teaches discrimination, based off no sound logic where it punish people for expressing love between to consenting adults and yet in the same breath allows, by having no age limit on marriage and allows for girls in puberty, who are not mentally of a mature mind to decide on a partner, where even worse this is decided for them in many cases.

by Guest Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:40 pm

zack is, in principle at least, NO different to those isis bods,
as seen above he prescribes to the same ossified intellect, the same preheistoric ideas and the same rampant stupidity/arrogance as a "religiosi" to tell people how they should live ...even when they are having NO effect on him..

just some "nonsense " he beleives is happening to "society"
and some feigned "outrage" on behalf of other people

the ONLY difference is that instead of the bomb and gun zack prefers the "creeping sharia" method of doing things

by Eilzel Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:33 pm

So Zack, you seem to be justifying the brutal punishment of adulterers and gay people (who act on their love). Vic may have a point- and that is the problem with Islam as practiced in Islamic nations.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:55 pm

The problem with Islam is their founder was a brutal, warmongering, murdering, robbing, raping, megalomaniac and peadophile.....

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:01 am

Well ...

The fact is, we have second- or third-generation Muslims in America whose kids play little-league baseball and watch the Disney Channel. They get a bit older and become college fraternity d-bags:

On Moderate Muslims - Page 4 8C8966576-1000756_480704502023225_1604051284_n.blocks_desktop_medium

On Moderate Muslims - Page 4 8C8966576-1000756_480704502023225_1604051284_n.blocks_desktop_medium

The toxic teachings of religions can't be ignored, but people really are products of their environment and society. Most people grow up to be roughly similar in perspectives and attitudes to the people they grow up around, after all.

There was an interesting article on Mother Jones recently that pointed out that you can (with a few exceptions) put Saudi Arabia at the geographical center of Islamic fundamentalism ( http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/10/we-have-saudi-arabia-problem-not-islam-problem ). As Les was pointing out before, places like Turkey are really different from places like Yemen or Qatar. I'd add countries like Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, just for a few examples.

It's not just living closer to or more among secular societies, it's also living further away from the fundamentalists.

by Eilzel Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:37 am

But Morocco and Indonesia still criminalize homosexuality Ben, and have numerous other laws the west would consider the most conservative backwardness thinkable. Turkey is an exception precisely because its last 100 or so years saw a concerted effort to secularise to keep up with the west- often against the will of the people to start with. But that Turkey made efforts to move away from Koranic literalism demonstrates how even that nations leaders were acknowledging the redundancy of aspects of their holy book.

Muslims in the west are often more liberal- they are products of their society (like UK Christians vs Uganda Christians...), that really reinforces the point though.

Islam/religion is a problem.

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:44 am

Eilzel wrote:But Morocco and Indonesia still criminalize homosexuality Ben, and have numerous other laws the west would consider the most conservative backwardness thinkable. Turkey is an exception precisely because its last 100 or so years saw a concerted effort to secularise to keep up with the west- often against the will of the people to start with. But that Turkey made efforts to move away from Koranic literalism demonstrates how even that nations leaders were acknowledging the redundancy of aspects of their holy book.

Muslims in the west are often more liberal- they are products of their society (like UK Christians vs Uganda Christians...), that really reinforces the point though.

Islam/religion is a problem.

It is, but I think it should be remembered that it was only 11 years ago that anti-sodomy laws were struck down in 14 U.S. states.

by Eilzel Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:59 am

That was one example, and a large part of reason for some states being behind on that issue? I'm betting the Christian lobby had a lot to do with that?

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:11 am

Eilzel wrote:That was one example, and a large part of reason for some states being behind on that issue? I'm betting the Christian lobby had a lot to do with that?

Oh, absolutely, but I guess my point is that even the West isn't that far removed from the times when people thought that way. I just looked it up and homosexuality was punishable by the death penalty throughout the Commonwealth until the late 1800s; we're not even 150 years from the time people could be killed for being gay in England. Australia had homosexuality as a crime until 1997.

New Zealand: "The Offences Against The Person Act of 1867 changed the penalty of buggery from execution to life imprisonment for "Buggery". In 1961 in a revision of the Crimes Act, the penalty was reduced to a maximum of 7 years between consenting adult males."

Germany: "Paragraph 175, which punished "fornication between men", was eased to an age of consent of 21 in East Germany in 1957 and in West Germany in 1969."

Also ... "Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, Northern Ireland in 1982, UK Crown Dependencies Guernsey in 1983, Jersey in 1990 and Isle of Man in 1992."

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:38 am

Yeah yeah yeah ...more appeaser bullshit....

no not the "facts of the matter"

just more of the boring, irrelevant and obfusticating blether about how we used to be as bad....decades or centuries ago

well Ben I have news for you its yet another lefty failure....
all it does is inculcate into people the realisation that these people are backward savages Rolling Eyes

and that its about time they "got with it" so to speak.....

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:15 am

victorisnotamused wrote:Yeah yeah yeah ...more appeaser bullshit....

no not the "facts of the matter"

just more of the boring, irrelevant and obfusticating blether about how we used to be as bad....decades or centuries ago

well Ben I have news for you its yet another lefty failure....
all it does is inculcate into people the realisation that these people are backward savages and that its about time they "got with it" so to speak.....

Why do I have the feeling that you would have called the end of illegalizing homosexuality "another lefty failure" a decade or so ago, Vic -- at least until you got used to the idea? I agree that it's time they "got with it," but that hasn't even been what I've been arguing here.

For a civilization that only "got with it" within the past few decades, should we really be patting our own backs so hard? We were a lot more like them when you and I were younger. When our great-grandfathers were around, we were a lot more like them.

I'm assuming you're not so dumb that you don't realize that "being nothing like the West" also has a lot to do with the continued illegality of homosexuality in most Muslim lands. Jeez, all I've been arguing in this thread is that it's people, not the ideas set forth in a book, that cause this sort of tyranny. People always have the option of ignoring the ideas, or just soft-pedaling them like we tend to do in the West with Christianity's violent teachings.

(Seriously guys, all I'm asking for is thoughtful debate ...)

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:52 am

Victor is wrong about left and right in this instance as it is the more right in religious belief that is the problem, that of literal belief, but one thing you should not shy away from Ben is this exact problem one you see in your country. For example Tea Party supporters tend to be Christians, which are a dangerous prospect. The same can be said of some Muslims, who hold contradiction in beliefs with liberal views or left wing views in the west, whilst holding still beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, where they hold their faith higher than they do any laws, which is the problem. To me these are contradictive beliefs.

Nobody denies there is plenty of wonderful Muslims, there are but many tend not to be literal believers, or at least have embraced secular ideas. The fact remains though that a majority especially in Muslim majority countries still uphold beliefs that are at odds with liberal and secular ideals. When ever a person holds a literal belief in a deity, it will clash with equality, a prime example was Zack yesterday arguing that in his faith it is justified to view certain aspects as crimes, based on nothing rational but a belief system. Again he does dare to look at his own faith with the outsider test, where he would do the same with other faiths or non faiths. There can be no denying that views within the 3 Abrahamic faiths are at odds with equality, which is a problem, and the more literal believers you have, the more people will criminalize acts sanctioned by religious works. Thus has happened for centuries and we should never neglect the danger of that.

Back later

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:57 am

Maybe part of my experience is shaped by the way the U.S. framed the Soviet Union, Bras. Here, it wasn't Stalin's executions, the KGB or anything the Soviets actually did, as much as it was their official atheism -- that galvanized the U.S. public against the USSR.

It's taught me that at least with Americans, you don't get anywhere by trashing their religion. I only do that anonymously online -- if I did it here (in Texas), I've no doubt I'd be ostracized by a lot of people I love who would have nothing to do with me.

That's just one more reason to resent the hold that religions have on some people, of course, but it's my reality as well and I know how to navigate it. That's why I just keep up the mantra -- the only evil is hurting peaceful people; I don't really know how anybody can argue with that.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:57 am

The thing is Ben, my intent is to only bring about changes in perceptions, where people still are of faith but where it allows for equality, where at present literal belief in many cases does not, though the Pope is making a strong case to change this. I have no intention of castigating Muslims, though will speak criticalk of certain beliefs, as I would do for example with Tommy and his far right beliefs. Both have the rights to their beliefs, but I will be highly critical of them.

The reality is to me why religion where used to incite further problems in so wrong. Take the current situation in Jerusalem, where people are fighting off a plot of land, a wall and a building, seriously, all based around some daft notion where this has no evidence, is a held as a place of a deity. Seriously people fighting over this, where again the best thing that could happen as stated before is a massive sink hope opens up and thus ceases for there to be a problem to fight over.

I just think the left at times get it wrong in shying away from people critical to beliefs, when they are critical of other beliefs, be them political, which is a contradiction really in my book. If the concept is that being critical is hateful, then this would apply to anyone with political beliefs, being at odds with oppsoing views. To me it is wrong only when that critiscism turns to castiagtion through sterotypes, where all are bad at this, even the left castigate the right and visa versa.

The reality is yes, we should not demonise or sterotype or castigate, but should never shy away from concepts that are at odds with equality, it should not matter if is a religion, as any beliefs they have that conflict with that equality should be loudly condemned, otherwise the beliefs are not challenged and little will change.

by Eilzel Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:11 am

Who wrote the books Ben? The Koran and Bible are backward and barbaric because they are the ideas of dark age men with archaic social views. It IS the books, at least in part, that justify other unthinkable horrible thoughts in otherwise decent people.

I wouldn't say all homophobes are intrisically bad people- but their otherwise moral goodness is warped by the 'facts' they read in their spiritual guide books.

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:21 am

I guess the way I come at this is, do I want to be right, or would I rather be some small part of helping to change the way people act? I know in my mind I'm right that religion is bogus, but I also know it's wrong to try to dictate to others what they should believe.

I think the notion of living in peace would be an easier notion to sell religious fanatics on than "you're wrong and stupid." I've been studying the history of gay rights, and it moved in increments to the point where today, the majority of gay people in the U.S. -- undoubtedly the most backward of first-world countries -- can legally marry. While we may recoil at the stupidity of how long it took for society to catch up with logic, some progress is surely better than no progress, or regression (as some have shown to be their agenda). In other words, I'd rather help along the forces of "a bit better" than be stubbornly absolutist and see my efforts contribute to no progress being made.

It's the same way I feel about Obamacare -- I don't think it's the best way to take care of Americans' health at all, but I do feel it's quite a bit better than what we had before -- so I support that progress.

Les, you posted before me, so let me just address that quickly -- without naming names, we've seen how people will cite absolutely anything to justify such things as racism and homophobia. If they feel religious justification is a bit behind the times or out of fashion, they'll just cite some pseudo-scientific, or pseudo-philosophic, reason that justifies the feelings they've had all along. People who are losing an argument will grab onto anything whatsoever to try to justify their backwards views; it's no coincidence that these archaic societies have unprecedented access to what the rest of the world believes.

Again, the books contribute to the hate -- but there's no way that's all of it, because we all know very peaceful people who believe in everything from the Bible to the Quran to any other myth humanity has concocted. There is a specific thing in violent people that makes them able to go from hateful beliefs to hateful (usually violent) action, and as I've said before, we'd be better off trying to figure out what that is than trying to figure out which theory of reality "makes" people evil.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:38 am

Yes there is more to why violence happens, but there is also those who sit by and allow this violence to happen based off their beliefs Ben. In other words they will not commit violence but will also have no problem with the violence happenning based on the same beliefs where the view is some things are a crime and wrong, all based around religious belief.

Sometimes you will see Muslims in Muslim majority countries stand up and protect others from persecutions, but you see far more join in or sit by and allow it to happen, That is the difference where violence may not be enacted, but they have little problem with the violence happennning as they believe the acts being punished are crimes.

by Lone Wolf Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:16 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy, would you please either cite the quotes in which Muslims are instructed to instigate violence against believers, or if you can't, shut up about it and quit claiming otherwise?

WHENEVER it seems that Tommy M. has finally proven for once and for all just how much of a complete and clueless dumbfuck he really is at heart, he still manages to outdo himself in the utter stupidity department week after week !!!

NO MATTER how hard they try, those others competing for the title of the stupidest dolt on this forum ~ such as Puzzzled and 'DependantThoughts ~ remain forever stalled back in second place..
AT LEAST until that day that Tommy eventually suffers his inevitable brain explosion. On Moderate Muslims - Page 4 112848305

by Lone Wolf Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:32 am

Brasidas wrote:
Yes there is more to why violence happens, but there is also those who sit by and allow this violence to happen based off their beliefs Ben. In other words they will not commit violence but will also have no problem with the violence happenning based on the same beliefs where the view is some things are a crime and wrong, all based around religious belief.

Sometimes you will see Muslims in Muslim majority countries stand up and protect others from persecutions, but you see far more join in or sit by and allow it to happen, That is the difference where violence may not be enacted, but they have little problem with the violence happennning as they believe the acts being punished are crimes.

ONE can also point to significant minorities of Evangelical Christians in the Deep South of the USA, (and many other Western countries to a lesser degree, inc. Britain and Oz..); Hindus in many parts of India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; Zionists and Israel; and Buddhists in Nepal, Tibet and Thailand; who can behave in just as poorly and reprehensible a manner...

PAYING that same kind of "lip service" to their particular faiths [or politics..], while at the same time turning that proverbial "blind eye" to wrongs being carried out in the "name" of that religion ~ often excusing their lack of action or remorse by claims such as that "they (the victim..) had it coming !", or something equally facile.. On Moderate Muslims - Page 4 1177314732

I CONSIDER this to usually be more a factor of "human nature" or the "nature of the beast", rather than simply blaming any particular religious or political dogma alone for the problems.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:04 pm

Same old shit from lone woof but he still hasn't been able to show anything I've said to be wrong.

And unfortunately for him, I've already posted the bits from The Koran that instructs Muslims to attack non believers and people of other religions, force them to convert to Islam, pay extortion tax (jizya) and be persecuted or be murdered....

Koran 9:29

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

And....

"So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Or maybe this bit.....

"I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

And this explains why this is happening here....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-iraq-security-christians-idUKKBN0FN29N20140718

And here....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/egypts-Muslim-brotherhood-convert-islam-or-pay-jiz/

These Muslims are doing exactly what they are told to do in their guide book and so are ISIS as they rob, rape and murder their way across Syria and Iraq, as this is exactly how Mohammed behaved 1400 years ago.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:07 pm

oh my.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:10 pm

So Tommy if they are doing exactly what they are being told to do, tell me where it says they can kill innocent women and children, if they are both exempt from paying the Jiyza?

You do realise that these verse have been explained ot you a thousand times, where maybe you can explain why hundreds of Millions of Muslim do not take these verses as being able to slaughter innocent people?

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:59 pm

Seems Mohammed approved the killing of women and children....

Muhammad drew a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children
and implied that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting
Islam:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so
thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about
the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up
to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that
you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer
aside. (Sahih Muslim
4457)

In Yathrib (Medina), Muhammad had a number of people killed. One of
them was `Asma' bint Marwan. Her crime was that she spoke out against
Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak. In his displeasure
towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was
killed while she slept.

And from a Muslim cleric...

“I was very happy to learn about the relevant hadith. I felt overjoyed when I heard it. [Mus'ab Ibn Juthama] told the Prophet Muhammad that while the Muslims would attack the polytheists at night, women and children would be harmed.
“The Prophet Muhammad answered: “[Their offspring] constitute part of them.” They are part of them, said our beloved Muhammad. This is not merely someone’s opinion. Thus, killing their women and children is permitted.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:10 pm

Sorry that is not the Quran or even a historical claim to Muhhammd.
Did smelly tell you that?
No wonder you screwed up

Did ye omit to tell you these:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim

Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

Sunan Abu Dawood

Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.
------------------------------
Chapter : Not known.

Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi' : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant.

Maliks Muwatta

Book 021, Hadith Number 008.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'"

Book 021, Hadith Number 009.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.

Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah."

Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

"I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

So again where in the Quran does it back they can kill womena an children if they are exempt from paying the tax.
Also the verse says fight, not kill.

Again why is it millions of Muslims do not take these verese as being able to kill innocent people?

Try again

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:22 pm

After capturing Mecca, the prophet of Islam also ordered the execution of two
“singing girls” who had mocked him in verse:

“…two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs
about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed…” (Ibn
Ishaq/Hisham
819)

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:26 pm

That again is dubious, and not the Quran, where again othersw sources and the men clearly are told not to kill.

2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” – Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. ‘For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant’ (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words ‘fight with those who fight you’ clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants – children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like – had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, ‘not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.’ (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God’s law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? ‘The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was’, says a modern Christian historian, ‘so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians’ sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct’ (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368).
So again

So again where in the Quran does it back they can kill womena an children if they are exempt from paying the tax.
Also the verse says fight, not kill.

Again why is it millions of Muslims do not take these verese as being able to kill innocent people?

Try again.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:38 pm

Yeah, everything is wrong isn't it dodge....

Except the evidence of what the Muslims are doing is all to clear.... and The evidence of why they do it is written in their guide books...

And what do you expect when their leader was a murdering, robbing and raping, meglomaniac And peadophile!?

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Its simple Tommy, you would have historical evidence in your favour, this is not the case, look at Mecca when this was taken Jersualem, I can go on, all of which only some Jews were executed, only after being asked themselves what fitting punishment they should received for betrayal, which they requested to be condemned by theie own Jewish laws.

You need to read the Bible, where you would have better argument on genocide with what is called Herem, by also Prophets, called Moses and Joshua.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:47 pm

More deflection away from The evidence I have posted....

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:49 pm

It gets funnier by the minute.
If it was possible to have video evidence you will still deny it.
Again the historical evidence clearly is stacked against you.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:20 pm

It's not Didge, the evidence of Mohammed being a murdering, robbing and raping peadophile meglomaniac is clearly recorded....

THe evidence of Muslims murdering, robbing and raping, having sex with children and generally being meglomaniac is also clearly seen today in many places...

Correlation anyone...???

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:24 pm

Really, then why do again hundreds of Millions of Muslims not emulate what you claim?
Again why is it for 1400 years the vast majority of Muslims have not emulated what you claim?

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:35 pm

I'm not trying to explain why many don't, just why many do...

And The evidence is clear.

Even in The places lone woof mentioned, the aggression is normally retaliation against Muslims who are doing the same stuff there!!

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:48 pm

Well you are making claims,which make little sense.

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:51 pm

Again your argument is poor, religion allows for violence and can be interpreted to commit violence. If it clear ly as you claim directed violence, every single literal Muslim believer which would be over a billion Muslims would be killing every non_Muslim.

That just does not happen, thus your view has little to back it, again it can allow or have those interpret a view to commit violence, as the same is with the Bible.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:57 pm

It does not happen because they are greatly outnumbered and out gunned technically and militarily.

But where Muslims are in greater numbers we see their true nature.... as instructed in their guide books...

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:15 pm

So basically you have as per usual no answer to any of my questions.

by Tommy Monk Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:05 pm

As usual you are unable to deflect away from The irrefutable truth....!

lol!

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:19 pm

That some Muslims kill basing an interpretation of their book?

That is all you have shown, as if it taught them all to kill non-Muslims as you believe, then all Muslims would be doing this. That has not happened in the last 1400 years where every Muslim living would be doing this. Thus you failed to even understand. Yes the religion like all of them is wrong because it is based on "I am right and you are wrong" and "because you are wrong in the next life you will suffer". It is wrong because it places more love into a belief of faith over your own children or others, where many of us would never even place such a command unto our own children if they did not love us. It shows the compassion claimed in these works is nothing short of irrational not the thinking of something supposed to be the ultimate intelligence that it would even need to create something for the sole purpose and need of love.

Religion as has always happened has never come from something divine but the words of men, because it has sought to control people through fear, because you would not have need to believe if you did not fear. This with other poor concepts has allowed for the dislike of any different faith or non faith, based again it is wrong not to believe, where violence can be justified by these works through how they are read. The point is Tommy you are actually arguing form the view point the book is perfect and that all read it the same, which is not the case being as there is different sects that have different view points and interpretations of the text. They can allow and justify violence, they do not make people commit violence, that comes from things people feel an injustice to them or people of their faith or ethnicity or political stand point, to the point they seek revenge and even worse to empower their views onto others. This is why you have to understand and research what you are debating, so far you have not demonstrated that.

by Eilzel Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:04 am

The reason most Muslims don't kill is because they are inately human, as well as the fact the Koran clearly establishes murder as a sin.

You must remember the Koran is a product of its time and context. The Arabs then were building up and Mohammed bringing people together. The commands to kill are very much based on the birth of Islam in the heart of a warring period in the region. The violence is sadly taken out of context by todays extremists- but regardless, we cannot say the book is not open to such interpretations, it is. It is just important to recognize the are interpretations.

As for Mohammed himself. He was a murderer the same as many Old Testament leaders and historical leaders were murderers. That means nothing. And the age at which people married was even dubious by todays standards even in 15th Century Europe- while it is objectionable now, in Mohammed's time not so much.

Many Muslim thinkers including Maajid Nawaz make it clear the problem is people taking Koranic verse out of context. I'd say the problem for Islam, like any religion, is that it is retarded by the very context it was birthed in.

Certainly it is not 'perfect' as the brainwashed believers like to profess- we wouldn't have sectarian violence, medieval punishment in the ME or industrial scale terrorism, if that were the case.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:16 pm

Didge -

1. Both adults consenting to more than one partner is not adultery. That's polygamy. So don't be so fuckng stupid.

2. I'm not connecting free sex (also a sin in Islam) with adultery. Again your lack of emotional control is making you assume all sorts of things.

3. We all have individual tests. None are born equal. Some are born poor in a society that favours the rich. That's life baby. Get used to it.

As for control, you may not be able to control who you are attracted to but you can control a physical act. Or do you attempt to fuck all those you are attracted to?

4. You're diverting what I'm saying. The point was about 'choosing to act' based on your genetic propensity to behave. Just because some people are born that way, does not mean committing an act is acceptable. You say they have found a murder gene. They haven't even found a gay gene yet.

As for your last paragraph - you can only marry a female once she reached the age of responsibility. Again you spout a lot of Smelly Bandit bullshit. You do this every time one of my posts gets the better of you.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:18 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:zack is, in principle at least, NO different to those isis bods,
as seen above he prescribes to the same ossified intellect, the same preheistoric ideas and the same rampant stupidity/arrogance as a "religiosi" to tell people how they should live ...even when they are having NO effect on him..

just some "nonsense " he beleives is happening to "society"
and some feigned "outrage" on behalf of other people

the ONLY difference is that instead of the bomb and gun zack prefers the "creeping sharia" method of doing things

You such a profound idiot. Lol!

How do you sleep at night, being so scared and paranoid? I bet you're on some sort of medication.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:21 pm

Eilzel wrote:So Zack, you seem to be justifying the brutal punishment of adulterers and gay people (who act on their love). Vic may have a point- and that is the problem with Islam as practiced in Islamic nations.

You can assume what you like. I expect nothing else from someone who doesn't even have the guts to ask me the question.

And your last sentence about Vic having a point, shows how culturally isolated you are. Maybe we can assume a lot about homosexuals based on what you think, based on your pathetic logic.

I suggest you grow a spine.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:27 pm

Eilzel wrote:The reason most Muslims don't kill is because they are inately human, as well as the fact the Koran clearly establishes murder as a sin.

You must remember the Koran is a product of its time and context. The Arabs then were building up and Mohammed bringing people together. The commands to kill are very much based on the birth of Islam in the heart of a warring period in the region. The violence is sadly taken out of context by todays extremists- but regardless, we cannot say the book is not open to such interpretations, it is. It is just important to recognize the are interpretations.

As for Mohammed himself. He was a murderer the same as many Old Testament leaders and historical leaders were murderers. That means nothing. And the age at which people married was even dubious by todays standards even in 15th Century Europe- while it is objectionable now, in Mohammed's time not so much.

Many Muslim thinkers including Maajid Nawaz make it clear the problem is people taking Koranic verse out of context. I'd say the problem for Islam, like any religion, is that it is retarded by the very context it was birthed in.

Certainly it is not 'perfect' as the brainwashed believers like to profess- we wouldn't have sectarian violence, medieval punishment in the ME or industrial scale terrorism, if that were the case.

The incorrect interpretation of a book is not the fault of the book but the person.

It's rather dumb to blame a book yet you and Didge seem to think this is logical. Lol! How dumb.

by Guest Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:40 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Didge -

1. Both adults consenting to more than one partner is not adultery. That's polygamy. So don't be so fuckng stupid.
Incorrect, that is more than one spouse a state of marriage of multiple partners, not sex, this is multiple sexual partners where each consent to sex, which is still by definition adultery, thus you clearly need to understand the meaning of words
2. I'm not connecting free sex (also a sin in Islam) with adultery. Again your lack of emotional control is making you assume all sorts of things.
Again which is an absurd concept, where again I know you have no answer because you are going down the infantile approach to responses. Again there ws at one point no such thing as marriage and like most species people would just choose partners to have sex with, humans being different in the fact they can copulate for enjoyment. The bases of your argument is again silly based upon religious views not an rational view point where humans can enjoy sex without needing to be married, it is not immoral in any shape of form, as this two consenting adults both enjoying pleasure. Where do you want tio draw the line here, holding hands? You see you have no rational view point just blindly exceptiing an abusrd view within your faith.
3. We all have individual tests. None are born equal. Some are born poor in a society that favours the rich. That's life baby. Get used to it.
Again what Tests, that is your view point based on belief, where we can very easily alter a persons life by changing this. The test if we look from the view point of faith thus discrminates poorly from the start for some where they are thus denied the capability to enjoy making love because they cannot make themselves be attracted to the opposite sex.

As for control, you may not be able to control who you are attracted to but you can control a physical act. Or do you attempt to fuck all those you are attracted to?
Again absurd, this is in regards to two consenting adults all of which an absurd man made view will not allow for two people to express their love.

4. You're diverting what I'm saying. The point was about 'choosing to act' based on your genetic propensity to behave. Just because some people are born that way, does not mean committing an act is acceptable. You say they have found a murder gene. They haven't even found a gay gene yet.
Again absurd, there is a belief tha a gene may affect people who commit murder, not that it will make a person murder, the reality is murder is irrational taking someones life, who are basing a view again on religion that denies to people enjoying their love, thus discrminating against them, based off no rational view point espcially when other animals also have homosexual encounters. This again would prove that this deity creates people this way to make them suffer without being able to express their love, I find that the makings of a sick joke

As for your last paragraph - you can only marry a female once she reached the age of responsibility. Again you spout a lot of Smelly Bandit bullshit. You do this every time one of my posts gets the better of you.

Responsibility? So how do you test that?
So all you can do is reply with infantile points when challenged and I thought you had intlligence, if you do it clearly is being hindered by man made bullshit.

by Sponsored content