Is Islam the new communism?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Salam, there is no point truly. Quintium does nothing on NSG but insult Muslims. He once followed me to a different thread to harass me.

It's not like you don't enjoy it. Otherwise, you would not keep returning to these threads to talk about me.

Actually I really hate you and wish you would get bored and go torment someone else.

[Eastfield Lodge]

It's not like you don't enjoy it. Otherwise, you would not keep returning to these threads to talk about me.

Actually I really hate you and wish you would get bored and go torment someone else.

Unfortunately, as of late you're the most visible moderate Muslim on the forums. Hence why you're the "target".

[The Romulan Republic]

In the sense that its something Republicans fear monger about and use for political advantage, yes. But ideologically they're very different.

[Quintium]

Funny how you say that while Islamic historians state that one should read the Quran as a whole and that nothing should be left out, its also a good idea to put these verses into context, a thing you probably haven't done once. With other words, you can't grab a sentence and say, look how evil it is.

That's not what I'm doing, though. Even though some Muslims (not all of them, mind you) claim that the extremely violent and spiteful passages at the chronological end of the Quran are about defensive wars, the Quranic 'God' - who is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good - seems not to have specified that anywhere, which means that many Muslims do use those passages as a justification for bloodshed, slavery, rape and banditry. And if you read, say, the 'At-Tawba', then you can certainly see why those Muslims see in it a justification for aggressive war - because it is.

On the last part, have you looked what Christians did? Crusades, CAR, inquisition, American natives, Asian natives, African natives ect. Or what Atheist did? North-Korea, USSR ect. Its very, very naive and pathetic to point fingers at one and ignoring the others.

The Crusades killed, according to current estimates deemed reasonable by historians and demographers, three million, and that includes deaths inflicted by Muslim armies. Around the same time, Muslim rulers were venturing into India. The death toll there? A good twenty times that of the Crusades, according to conservative estimates. The Central African Republic? It's sectarian warfare, started after a popular Muslim army officer seized power and ordered his followers to start murdering Christians. The Inquisition? More people were executed in the name of Islam in the last six months than were killed by the Inquisition in four centuries. Native Americans? Those were not religious wars at all - if you attribute all deaths in a war to the religion of the people who inflict them, then you should really take your anger out on the Buddhists and the Confucians, because many of history's deadliest wars took place within China.

Besides, we're talking about Islam, not about Christianity or North Korea. Keep to the subject, will you?

Anyhow, i already noticed that you're a typical Islamophobe so i'm not even going to bother myself wasting time on you.

I would say that is fairly typical of the people who oppose me. They become hysterical and convince themselves - partially, I am sure, for the attention and sympathy they want to receive from other forum users, like that one Muslims who thinks I'm following him around threads - that I'm out to attack them. Meanwhile, of course, their own arguments never rise above personal insults and 'you too' fallacies.

[Busen]

You are asking humans to try to comprehend and guess what Allah is/was thinking; something that is physically impossible.

But Muslims believe that Muhamed is the last and authentical prophet who got thoose verses personally from Him. The Quran is believed to be direct words from God.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Funny how you say that while Islamic historians state that one should read the Quran as a whole and that nothing should be left out, its also a good idea to put these verses into context, a thing you probably haven't done once. With other words, you can't grab a sentence and say, look how evil it is.

That's not what I'm doing, though. Even though some Muslims (not all of them, mind you) claim that the extremely violent and spiteful passages at the chronological end of the Quran are about defensive wars, the Quranic 'God' - who is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good - seems not to have specified that anywhere, which means that many Muslims do use those passages as a justification for bloodshed, slavery, rape and banditry. And if you read, say, the 'At-Tawba', then you can certainly see why those Muslims see in it a justification for aggressive war - because it is.

On the last part, have you looked what Christians did? Crusades, CAR, inquisition, American natives, Asian natives, African natives ect. Or what Atheist did? North-Korea, USSR ect. Its very, very naive and pathetic to point fingers at one and ignoring the others.

The Crusades killed, according to current estimates deemed reasonable by historians and demographers, three million, and that includes deaths inflicted by Muslim armies. Around the same time, Muslim rulers were venturing into India. The death toll there? A good twenty times that of the Crusades, according to conservative estimates. The Central African Republic? It's sectarian warfare, started after a popular Muslim army officer seized power and ordered his followers to start murdering Christians. The Inquisition? More people were executed in the name of Islam in the last six months than were killed by the Inquisition in four centuries. Native Americans? Those were not religious wars at all - if you attribute all deaths in a war to the religion of the people who inflict them, then you should really take your anger out on the Buddhists and the Confucians, because many of history's deadliest wars took place within China.

Besides, we're talking about Islam, not about Christianity or North Korea. Keep to the subject, will you?

Anyhow, i already noticed that you're a typical Islamophobe so i'm not even going to bother myself wasting time on you.

I would say that is fairly typical of the people who oppose me. They become hysterical and convince themselves - partially, I am sure, for the attention and sympathy they want to receive from other forum users, like that one Muslims who thinks I'm following him around threads - that I'm out to attack them. Meanwhile, of course, their own arguments never rise above personal insults and 'you too' fallacies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61149uwWIRE

Just watch and learn.

[Yucelo]

If you are saying that, Islam is starting to be the Green Scare. Then I agree. American are starting to seem incapable of separate the facts and fiction.....
Yes, fiction, from conflicting stories and the fact that Red Tv, FOX news, making accept BS about the muslim population. I would not be surpised if Americans start to do that thing they did to the Japanese American back in the 1940s.... Will it be a Executive Order #9066 Part 2

[Gauthier]

If you are saying that, Islam is starting to be the Green Scare. Then I agree. American are starting to seem incapable of separate the facts and fiction.....
Yes, fiction, from conflicting stories and the fact that Red Tv, FOX news, making accept BS about the muslim population. I would not be surpised if Americans start to do that thing they did to the Japanese American back in the 1940s.... Will it be a Executive Order #9066 Part 2

It would have to be under a Republican presidency, because Obama has made it a point in the fight against the IS to not demonize Muslims and to emphasize that they are part of the community.

[Wallenburg]

In the sense that its something Republicans fear monger about and use for political advantage, yes. But ideologically they're very different.

^^^^^^^^^^^

[Quintium]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61149uwWIRE

Just watch and learn.

Watched it; learned nothing. Apologist rubbish. I have read the only book that I needed to read in order to understand Islam, and that is the Quran. It's a self-contradicting, vile piece of work. I have also read parts of Mein Kampf, and I can tell you that in terms of the simple brutality contained in both books, the Quran is the worst offender.

If you are saying that, Islam is starting to be the Green Scare. Then I agree. American are starting to seem incapable of separate the facts and fiction...

And yet Americans are much happier with Islam than Europeans.

[Unfallious]

And yet Americans are much happier with Islam than Europeans.

Hate to be that guy, but have you got a source on that?

[Dain II Ironfoot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61149uwWIRE

Just watch and learn.

Watched it; learned nothing. Apologist rubbish. I have read the only book that I needed to read in order to understand Islam, and that is the Quran. It's a self-contradicting, vile piece of work. I have also read parts of Mein Kampf, and I can tell you that in terms of the simple brutality contained in both books, the Quran is the worst offender.

In that case you only proof that you know nothing of Islam.

[Gauthier]

You are asking humans to try to comprehend and guess what Allah is/was thinking; something that is physically impossible.

But Muslims believe that Muhamed is the last and authentical prophet who got thoose verses personally from Him. The Quran is believed to be direct words from God.

While the Bible was explicitly stated to be only guidelines or suggestions. *nod*

[Herskerstad]

Watched it; learned nothing. Apologist rubbish. I have read the only book that I needed to read in order to understand Islam, and that is the Quran. It's a self-contradicting, vile piece of work. I have also read parts of Mein Kampf, and I can tell you that in terms of the simple brutality contained in both books, the Quran is the worst offender.

In that case you only proof that you know nothing of Islam.

There is plenty of evidence though to even see the sound hadiths as far more vile than the quran overall however. I would say that yes, while it does promote war with unbelievers and urge muslims to engage in warfare until there is no more disbelief, various hadiths expand on this in far more gruesome detail. Including things like sexual engagements with children, pre-sexual age actions that are too graphic to describe on NS, into details on Muhammad and how he tortured several individuals, sanctioned the murder of poets, some of them without any political power and one being a child, a trench-execution of the Jewish tribe of Quraish. Given that and the second class citizenship offered to Christians and Jews now by far a minority in the region, and the third class citizenship offered to many pagans and polytheists, ethnic cleansing of Arabia which Muhammad himself instigated, then yes, there is plenty of rationale to pick on the teachings of 'The best example of mankind' which over a billion follows. I mean if you go to 'strong' and 'weak' hadiths you get all kinds of other crazy things. Take for example when Egypt tried to get a law passed allowing intercourse with a wife within 30 minutes of her death. Who do you think inspired that?

Or one can blindly ignore all of the above and just call it a religion like any others with no care of doctrines or teachings, while one would be just as wise to say all political movements are essentially the same with only details here and there that don't really matter.

[Herskerstad]

But Muslims believe that Muhamed is the last and authentical prophet who got thoose verses personally from Him. The Quran is believed to be direct words from God.

While the Bible was explicitly stated to be only guidelines or suggestions. *nod*

Gauthier educating on the ceremonial, judicial and moral laws? This I have to see.

[Pope Joan]

Our news reporting is slanted, and this includes public broadcasting in the US, and the BBC. They all toe the line. There is dishonesty rampant in the NY (plagiarizing) Times. I only trust Reuters and Al Jazeera.

Muslim leaders in my area, in Albany NY, were arrested for allowing ("encouraging") their followers to send alms to schools and hospitals in the Mideast. Why? Some of these were associated with Hamas. At the time, Hamas WAS the government of Gaza. The evidence for this was bases upon wiretaps.

Our government also tried and failed to catch these leaders in a sting operation oriented around support for jihad. The leaders never gave any support at all, but were still arrested for conspiracy.

It makes me sick.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

In that case you only proof that you know nothing of Islam.

There is plenty of evidence though to even see the sound hadiths as far more vile than the quran overall however. I would say that yes, while it does promote war with unbelievers and urge muslims to engage in warfare until there is no more disbelief, various hadiths expand on this in far more gruesome detail. Including things like sexual engagements with children, pre-sexual age actions that are too graphic to describe on NS, into details on Muhammad and how he tortured several individuals, sanctioned the murder of poets, some of them without any political power and one being a child, a trench-execution of the Jewish tribe of Quraish. Given that and the second class citizenship offered to Christians and Jews now by far a minority in the region, and the third class citizenship offered to many pagans and polytheists, ethnic cleansing of Arabia which Muhammad himself instigated, then yes, there is plenty of rationale to pick on the teachings of 'The best example of mankind' which over a billion follows. I mean if you go to 'strong' and 'weak' hadiths you get all kinds of other crazy things. Take for example when Egypt tried to get a law passed allowing intercourse with a wife within 30 minutes of her death. Who do you think inspired that?

Or one can blindly ignore all of the above and just call it a religion like any others with no care of doctrines or teachings, while one would be just as wise to say all political movements are essentially the same with only details here and there that don't really matter.

Once more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61149uwWIRE
Watch and at least try to understand it.

Islam isn't just a religion, its far more then that, but it doesn't mean it isn't a religion aswell.

[Tahar Joblis]

Thank you very much for the sources

As far as the rest goes, i think the main issue that not only non muslims have, but muslims aswell, is that the Islam can be seen from so many points of views, If you want it to be it can be a book that calls for violence, but it can also be peace and love. The difficulty is that the Islam isn't just a belief. Jezus and other profets where kinda hobo's with followers, Muhammad had a country to run. Running a country back in those days couldn't be done peacefully and such, therefor its a very complicated matter for what i believe. Same goes for the Sharia law, some argue that it would include beheadings and stonings, others argue that it would be forbidden.

You can say that Christianity "isn't just a belief." TBQH, the "isn't just a belief" line fits a lot better with Hinduism or Judaism, which are inextricably tied up with a specific culture and that culture's practices and traditions, to the degree we can very meaningfully speak of someone being "ethnically" Jewish or "culturally" Hindu in spite of being atheist in belief.

The fact that Muhammad speaks to governance isn't a unique issue. The Torah (which Christians include as the Old Testament) includes a fairly extensive discussion of law and governance. For Judaism, this is expanded upon and clarified primarily by the Talmud (a very extensive document set of documents considerably longer than the original Torah) while Christianity views this as being updated and revised in the New Testament (a less weighty document, but still with quite a few things to say about governance).

"Back in those days" can be dismissed in the context of comparison to what other religions say about law in that Muhammad ruled his country roughly 1600 years after King Solomon ruled his,roughly a thousand years after the modern Torah appears to have been [mostly] written down, and roughly five hundred years after the New Testament was written down. The Bhagavad Gita, framed entirely as a conversation between a god (Krishna) and worldly prince ruler (Arjuna), is generally thought to date to around 800-900 years before Muhammad.

Even Chinese folk religion, not terribly organized in nature, has things to say about governance. Confucius - whose writings and attributed writings can be viewed as the foundation, or rather explicit explanation of, "Confucianism," one of the larger elements of the amalgam comprising traditional Chinese folk religion - has a great deal to say about governance.

It is perfectly ordinary for religions to speak extensively on governance, and it is not unusual for these writings on government to come (at least purportedly) from a ruler or leader being inspired by divinity. (E.g., Moses or Arjuna.)

It is also perfectly ordinary for people who aren't fundamentalists to recognize that some of these prescriptions and proscriptions are dated, and to say they weren't really intended for laws in the modern era; they were perhaps the right laws for the time, but no longer. And you can see in that survey that a fairly large percentage of British Muslims believe that Sharia law is outdated and should be updated and revised for the time - particularly older British Muslims.

If the teachings of Muhammad are less flexible than the teachings of Jesus, you could attempt to attribute that to their different personal circumstances; but while the precise historical origins of the prophetic figures may have influenced what they said, it does not in any way exempt the teachings from analysis on a comparable basis.

Sharia law is a very vague and large term.
Now i think that alot of non-Muslims are simply more confused about it becouse its so complicated, and once you try to figure it out it only gets more complex.
Its just sad that at this point alot of non-Muslims refuse to listen to the Muslims that actually make sence, and becouse of that Islam, especially in the west is getting pushed into a corner, creating an environment for extremists to recruit them without much issues.

I don't see Sharia law as being particularly complicated in comparison to, say, Talmudic law.

[Bolnoa]

More or less the case at hand.

[Herskerstad]

There is plenty of evidence though to even see the sound hadiths as far more vile than the quran overall however. I would say that yes, while it does promote war with unbelievers and urge muslims to engage in warfare until there is no more disbelief, various hadiths expand on this in far more gruesome detail. Including things like sexual engagements with children, pre-sexual age actions that are too graphic to describe on NS, into details on Muhammad and how he tortured several individuals, sanctioned the murder of poets, some of them without any political power and one being a child, a trench-execution of the Jewish tribe of Quraish. Given that and the second class citizenship offered to Christians and Jews now by far a minority in the region, and the third class citizenship offered to many pagans and polytheists, ethnic cleansing of Arabia which Muhammad himself instigated, then yes, there is plenty of rationale to pick on the teachings of 'The best example of mankind' which over a billion follows. I mean if you go to 'strong' and 'weak' hadiths you get all kinds of other crazy things. Take for example when Egypt tried to get a law passed allowing intercourse with a wife within 30 minutes of her death. Who do you think inspired that?

Or one can blindly ignore all of the above and just call it a religion like any others with no care of doctrines or teachings, while one would be just as wise to say all political movements are essentially the same with only details here and there that don't really matter.

Once more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61149uwWIRE
Watch and at least try to understand it.

Islam isn't just a religion, its far more then that, but it doesn't mean it isn't a religion aswell.

Entertain for a minute the hypothetical that it might be you who are in ignorance in the matter. I am well familiar with Yusuf Estes and even the video, and he is not even on the top 5 of people you'd want to mention Islam even though he certainly does wonders with both interpretation, context and modifications of questions. If you want someone who is skilled and actually debate, as there is a difference between a monologue and a dialogue, and if you want a true dialogue you will have cross-examinations which Yusuf Estes conveniently avoids. Try Shabir Ally who debate actual strong Christians like James White. The biggest problem Islam has is exactly to a degree what Yusuf is trying to protect it with, and that is context. It is exactly the context given in the hadiths, writings from Muhammads companions, family and significant Islamic scholars which makes it all the more horrible. Quranists Muslims 'can' by all means spiritualize every aspect of violence a lot easier, but it is clear given the historical context from the most basic understandings of Muhammad's life and conquests that it goes south on a practical level.

Now that I've entertained you, how about you entertain me and watch a thorough refutation of Yusus Estes from the likes of David Wood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQZN7Ikijo8

[Busen]

But Muslims believe that Muhamed is the last and authentical prophet who got thoose verses personally from Him. The Quran is believed to be direct words from God.

While the Bible was explicitly stated to be only guidelines or suggestions. *nod*

Actually, we know who the autors of the Bible and Christians dont believe it is the direct word of God.

[Farnhamia]

While the Bible was explicitly stated to be only guidelines or suggestions. *nod*

Actually, we know who the autors of the Bible and Christians dont believe it is the direct word of God.

The authors of the Bible? Who were they?

[Busen]

Suprisingly even the Quran sugesst that Muhamad was a fraud prophet. In verse 17:59 Muhamad was asked to preform a miracle to proove that his a prophet but refuse to do. Could the NSG liberals/left-wingers or Muslims explain this?

[Busen]

Actually, we know who the autors of the Bible and Christians dont believe it is the direct word of God.

The authors of the Bible? Who were they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... s_and_Acts

[Farnhamia]

The authors of the Bible? Who were they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... s_and_Acts

Did you read any of that? None of the Synoptic Gospels can be attributed to a member of Jesus' circle of disciples with anything approaching certainty. If you read the last bit in the beginning of the Wiki article on Mark the Evangelist, it says the gospel itself does not mention an author by name nor claim to be by an eyewitness of the events in it. Your source says of Matthew, "Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus." Likewise of Luke, "According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text."

And the three Synoptics are not the whole Bible.

Anyway, the authorship of the Bible is not the topic.