My god.....what a bunch of BS. Muslims are more likely to be terrorists.....

655995[/snapback]

Timothy Mcveigh was a muslim?

Please provide an explanation of where Islam tells its followers to be violent? Id like you to do it. Not someone else but you. Please give me specific examples in the Qur'an or of non extreme leaders. If you are basing that conclusion on the specific acts, then explain to me how that is different from the actions of anti abortion terrorists like Clayton Lee Waagner, James Charles Kopp, and others? Lets see if you can exercise some intelligence or will simply be a coward. Because right now you sound like a moron. No offense.

 

Stop jerking his chain, you know damn well its in there.

 

4.89 and 4.91 in "The Women" being the most obvious examples used to justify all sorts of violent behaviors against infidels.

 

What part of "...seize them and kill them wherever you find them..." are you finding to be not advocating violence?

657213[/snapback]

Misquotes and making things up seem to be a common practice of yours. Lets put 4.89 and 4.91:

 

"They hope that you will reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they). So do not take friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). If they become renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. (In any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks, except for those who join a group with whom you have a (peace) treaty or those who approach you with hearts calling upon them to be neutral. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah has opened no way for you (to fight them). You will find others who wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they succumb to it. If they do not withdraw from you or give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear argument against them" (4:89-91).

 

The argument is also that this text, as all texts, should be put in historical context. I know intellectual honesty is hard for you:

 

They were revealed to Prophet Muhammad at the time when the nonbelievers were attacking Makkah's Muslims and threatening those in Madinah. In contemporary jargon we may say that as the Muslims were subject to constant terrorist attacks on Madinah, Allah allowed them to defend themselves. These verses do not allow Muslims to engage in terrorism; rather, they are warnings against terrorism, but they also contain clear calls for restraint and care.

http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html

 

Now lets use your improper methodology on the Bible and reverse the course:

 

Religious texts, if not read within their proper textual and historical contexts, are easily manipulated and distorted. Let us look at the Bible and apply the standards applied above.

 

In Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Torah, Moses shares this message from God as the Israelites prepare to enter the Promised Land: "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the long-haired heads of the enemy." (Deut. 32:42)

 

"When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord, your God, delivers them before you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).

 

"When your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . you shall kill him, your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God. . . " (Deuteronomy 13: 6-10)

 

"When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you. . . Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).

 

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).

 

"I will send my terror in front of you. . . you shall utterly demolish them and break their pillars in pieces" (Exodus 23: 23-24, 27).

 

The New Testament attributes the following statements to Jesus:

 

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Mathew 10:34-35).

 

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

 

http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html

 

 

So do both the Old and New Testament advocate violence based on those quotes and their being taken out of context? Does that mean Christians by following the texts are now advocating terrorists? Because I dont think so but apprently you and he do. Please answer that for me.

Why does even thread in the bullpen end up having an endless off-topic argument?

This is not a discussion about the bible

 

Its a discussion as to whether a religion and its originating text promotes terrorism or unjustified violence. If Islam is guilty of it, then so is the Bible. Of course its easier to indict a foreign religion than to hold a more home grown one to the same standard. To hold all those who follow the bible on the same level as all those who commit terror in the name of the Bible would be a ludicrous concept. Just as foolish as doing it to Islam. Whats that old saying? Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone. I guess that Jesus guy was on to something.

This is not a discussion about the bible

 

Its a discussion as to whether a religion and its originating text promotes terrorism or unjustified violence. If Islam is guilty of it, then so is the Bible.

 

How many bible thumpers are strapping on bomb vests and sawing off heads? :plain

 

I can't recall a single incident actually. We get the occasional abortion clinic shooting, but that's about it.

 

What's your point? Are you desiring to assert some sort of moral parity between occasional abortion clinic shooting "christians" and the car bombing, bomb vest, 9/11 type crowd? Defend muslim terrorist actions as defensible?

 

I can't figure out where you're going with this, so why not just state it up front without all the hoopla? Just state your position.

 

My position is an easy one - terrorists of any stripe have no moral basis and need to be eliminated like cockroaches. See? Short and simple.

657514[/snapback]

 

 

My position is also simple. The terrorists are the wack jobs that do these acts and they should be responsible, not the religion they claim to be doing it for. They are the one who pervert the underlying religion. Those who say it is Islam that promotes terrorism are laying blame in the wrong field. Perhaps that distinction is difficult for those who are xenophobic.

ex. Nobody would have taken Jerry Falwell terribly seriously had he issued say a fatwa ordering that any "believer" with the opportunity could/should whack Gore Vidal.

 

 

Actually, I'd rather not see how it plays out if Falwell calls for his flock to go kill someone.