DMB

Originally posted by Jojo-sa:

This is rubbish. I asked you a list of specific questions. Your answer is empty. Have you read the UDHR now? It would help a lot.

Born Free

Jojo just incase you don't get round to rants raves and preaching recently, sighhswolf has posted a few questions for you, thought I'd let you know as I'm sure you'd be very kind and give it a go. Have a nice vacation.

hinduwoman

[47:4]
" So, when you meet , those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost".

It is obvious that the equation jihad = violence is valid. The disbelievers are to be killed and defeated before they are ransomed or set free. According to you, the last two actions is not out of generosity, but simply what benefits Islam. So where does compassion come in?
Bin Laden is doing exactly what the verse tells him: fighting until disbeliveers are willing to embrace Islam or be 'protected', that is pay jiziya and acknowledge Muslims as their masters. Never mind, if this happens to be their land originally! In this he is encouraged by the fact that Allah would remember him.

You have interpreted this command as another act of kindness --- to save us from hellfire: but no one asked the Muslims to save them! You are bent on doing good by force, even if the object of your charity apparently is killed off!

So your quote in full and lengthy commentary actually makes it clear why Islam breeds terrorism.

"[22:39]
39. Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbeliever), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory."

Who decides the believers have been wronged? The believers themselves! And merely to deny that Mohammed is the Seal of Prophets or that paganism is a valid path is enough for Muslims to spill blood! And what about the ferocious fighting among the Muslim sects themselves? Each sect believes it is the True Islam!

"[22:40]
40. Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah." - For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down. Verily, Allah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty."

Were they expelled for worshipping Allah, which was the name of God in pagan Arabia, or for speaking out against the gods the pagans worshipped?. Check your history. Oddly, enough Mohommad's speaking out against other gods is good, but every Islamic state has a blasphemy law!.


." i just believe if someone comes in to my house and want to kill my family i will defend myself and if i have to i will kill to protec myfamily and myself."

Glad to hear it! In that case the Hindus who resisted Islamic invasion and slaughtered as many Muslim soldiers they could were obviously doing the right thing! Even if the invaders insisted they were bringing the benefit of true religion. Similarly, modern Hindus are determined to fight tooth and nail, terrorist attempts to turn India into Dar-ul-Islam, and human rights of the terrorists be damned!

The websites to which Morgan provided links simply prove the point.

The background to chapter 9 shows that Arabia became Islamic through bloody conquest; breaking treaties with infidels is permitted when you have the upper hand. The rest is even worse if it tries to convince anyone of Islam being a religion of peace. :
Quote: "In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non-Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State" --- no peaceful persuasion there.

Quote: "The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam-they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations."
In other words freedom of evangelization belongs only to Muslims.

Quote: "The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State." --- see even faith bows to the power of filthy lucre.

Quote: "Now that there was practically no pressure upon them from outside, the Muslims were enjoined to treat them openly as disbelievers (v. 73)" --- so Muslims are to be nice to non-Muslims only when they are in a weaker position. Where they are in a minority, they will ask for human rights; where they are the majority, shariat takes precedence over human rights when dealing with their minorities. .

Finally I asked an explanation for this verse: [9.29] "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection". What is your apology for this blatant piece of hate-mongering?

Background to chapter 22: if these verses were meant only that period, then Koran is not a document meant for all eternity.

Background to chapter 8: (ah yes, Maududi; I think he was the one who explained that there are no limits to the number of slavegirls a Muslim man is permitted to enjoy.). again, same objection as preceding. Also, you might have missed it, but it glosses over the fact that spoils of war also included female captives who were distributed to soldiers.

so all that your quotes in full and lengthy commentary does is to establish why Islam breeds terrorism.

-DM-

... at the same time allowing Muslim fanatics to justify what they are doing on the basis that they are doing "Allah's work."

This is, of course, not unlike what Christians thought and did when they engaged in the Crusades, the Inquisition(s), the burning of witches, etc. in the name of their "God."

--Don--