Doesn’t Islam promote violence
love my god
Doesn’t Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the
Qur’an says that Muslims should kill the kuffar where ever they find
them?
----------------------------------------------------------
Answer:
few selected verses from the Qur’an are often misquoted to perpetuate
the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to
kill those outside the pale of Islam.
1. Verse from Surah Taubah
The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics
of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and
brutality:
"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find
them."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]
2. Con**** of verse is during battlefield
Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of con****. In order to
understand the con****, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It
says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the
Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs
of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah
to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5
of Surah Taubah says:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the
Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie
in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and
establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the
way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]
This verse is quoted during a battle.
3. Example of war between America and Vietnam
We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the
President of America or the General of the American Army told the
American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese,
kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever
you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the con****, I will
make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in con****, that he
said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to
boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.
4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle
Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the
Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the
morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim
soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the
enemies kill them.
5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7
Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He
quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The
World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to
verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has
skipped verse 6.
6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer
Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that
Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so
that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he
can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]
The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the
battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted
to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind,
peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers
go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his
soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t
just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?
This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to
promote peace in the world
Sjouke Burry
>
> Doesn�t Islam promote violence, bloodshed
OT/
Daily proof in the news.
/OT
Øyvind Røtvold
> love my god <love.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>2. Con**** of verse is during battlefield
>>Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of con****. In order to
>>understand the con****
>
> "context"? What's with the ****s?
The characters 't', 'e', 'x' and 't' when placed adjacent could
probably be interpreted a showing the likeness of the Prophet, PBUH,
and thus must be censored.
--
.. __o �yvind
.. _`\(, http://www.darkside.no/olr/
.. (_)/(_) ... biciclare necesse est ...
Default User
> "context"? What's with the ****s?
Come on. Even if the troll/spammer were to read and respond, which they
never do, do you REALLY want that sort of discussion here? Please stop
replying.
Brian
--
Day 289 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
root
You are right. Actually we need a new crusade against Islam as President
George W Bush said.
But even at home our president is a Muslem and of course there is strong
evidence that he was not born in these United States. Is it a coincidence
that Barak HUSSEIN Obama is a gun control fanatic?
/root
--
Learn more or lose your rights!
http://www.guncontrolkills.com/
http://www.gunbanobama.com/
Learn more or lose your rights!
Sjouke Burry writes:
> love my god wrote:
>>
>> Doesn’t Islam promote violence, bloodshed
Antoninus Twink
> But even at home our president is a Muslem and of course there is
> strong evidence that he was not born in these United States. Is it a
> coincidence that Barak HUSSEIN Obama is a gun control fanatic?
Did anyone ever tell you you're a wacko?
> Learn more or lose your rights!
> http://www.guncontrolkills.com/
> http://www.gunbanobama.com/
> Learn more or lose your rights!
Did anyone ever tell you you're a wacko?
Joachim Schmitz
> Sjoke
>
> You are right. Actually we need a new crusade against Islam as
> President George W Bush said.
>
> But even at home our president is a Muslem and of course there is
> strong evidence that he was not born in these United States. Is it a
> coincidence that Barak HUSSEIN Obama is a gun control fanatic?
>
> /root
You just confirmed a common European prejudice about the USAnians...
Bye, Jojo
Antoninus Twink
> You just confirmed a common European prejudice about the USAnians...
Are you claiming that Europe doesn't also have its fair share of
asshats?
Richard
God knows enough of them post here.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
Antoninus Twink
> Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> On 21 Nov 2009 at 21:49, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>> You just confirmed a common European prejudice about the USAnians...
>>
>> Are you claiming that Europe doesn't also have its fair share of
>> asshats?
>
> God knows enough of them post here.
Yes indeedy.
If you're a European in search of an example of a bible-bashing
hate-filled bigot, why cross the Atlantic to the GOP when there's a
perfect example right on your doorstep? His name - Richard Heath Field.
Joachim Schmitz
No I don't. And have't got the faintest idea how you could possible read
that into my writing.
However:
I don't know a single European who believes Barak Obama to be a muslim and
does so on the grounds of his middlename Hussein, like 'root' apparently
does. And even if he were, only few would care.
I don't know of any significant group of Europeans who believe that
everybody bears the right to carry a gun.
Bye, Jojo
Joachim Schmitz
No person of that name is know here.
Richard Heathfield
Well, there is little doubt that he means me. Historically, he has
never been able to get my name right. It seems he is also unable to
entertain the possibility that a Christian might /not/ be a
bible-bashing hate-filled bigot. I know a whole bunch of Christians,
and not a single one of them is a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
He's just thinking in broken stereotypes.
Anyway, back to C, yes?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Antoninus Twink
> It seems he is also unable to entertain the possibility that a
> Christian might /not/ be a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
Not at all - for example, look at the Episcopalians, who for the most
part don't seem to believe in anything at all.
However, you have a long history of bringing in god and the bible to
discussions in this group. There is also a nasty anti-semitic undertone
to some of your attacks on Jacob, which some would say /does/ make you a
hate-filled bigot.
> I know a whole bunch of Christians, and not a single one of them is a
> bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
I would venture to suggest that *everyone* reading this group knows at
least one Christian who is a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot, except
perhaps those living in countries full of koran-bashing hate-filled
bigots. Sounds to me like you're in denial.
Joachim Schmitz
> On 23 Nov 2009 at 4:16, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> It seems he is also unable to entertain the possibility that a
>> Christian might /not/ be a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
>
> Not at all - for example, look at the Episcopalians, who for the most
> part don't seem to believe in anything at all.
>
> However, you have a long history of bringing in god and the bible to
> discussions in this group. There is also a nasty anti-semitic
> undertone to some of your attacks on Jacob, which some would say
> /does/ make you a hate-filled bigot.
Evidence please. For both RH bringing god and bible into this group and for
anti-semitic undertones.
He's going a bit to far at times (to my taste at least) in his reactions to
Jacob, but then again Jacob goes way too far in his reaction to many here.
Both seem to have improved recently though.
>> I know a whole bunch of Christians, and not a single one of them is a
>> bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
>
> I would venture to suggest that *everyone* reading this group knows at
> least one Christian who is a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot,
I don't know any.
> except
> perhaps those living in countries full of koran-bashing hate-filled
> bigots. Sounds to me like you're in denial.
Nor do I live in such a country
Richard Heathfield
> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2009 at 4:16, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> It seems he is also unable to entertain the possibility that a
>>> Christian might /not/ be a bible-bashing hate-filled bigot.
>>
>> Not at all - for example, look at the Episcopalians, who for the
>> most part don't seem to believe in anything at all.
>>
>> However, you have a long history of bringing in god and the bible
>> to discussions in this group. There is also a nasty anti-semitic
>> undertone to some of your attacks on Jacob, which some would say
>> /does/ make you a hate-filled bigot.
>
> Evidence please. For both RH bringing god and bible into this group
He'll struggle to find any evidence at all for that. I have
occasionally responded when *other* people have brought religion into
clc discussions (although I generally prefer *not* to respond), but I
don't think I've ever introduced the subject myself, except perhaps
in easily recognisable jest.
> and for anti-semitic undertones.
He won't find *any* evidence for that. The claim is absolutely false
and utterly without foundation. I've never, ever seen any merit
whatsoever in the evil of anti-Semitism, and I have never, ever
posted any anti-Semitic material to this newsgroup or to any other,
*ever*. I don't know where he gets his information, but it certainly
isn't from the facts.
> He's going a bit to far at times (to my taste at least) in his
> reactions to Jacob, but then again Jacob goes way too far in his
> reaction to many here.
But have you noticed th...
> Both seem to have improved recently though.
Oh, so you have noticed. And yet the way I treat Jacob Navia's
articles has not changed in the slightest, so I can claim no credit
for this improvement. If we fight less, it is because Jacob is not
giving me any grounds on which to fight him - and that has to be good
for the group. What's more, recently he has posted a number of
thoughtful articles with lots of real source code into which people
can and do get their teeth. I still don't always agree with him, but
in recent... what is it, months?... the ways in which I disagree have
been relatively minor and often not worth raising.
<snip>
Antoninus Twink
> In <heg713$4lt$1...@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>> Evidence please. For both RH bringing god and bible into this group
>
> He'll struggle to find any evidence at all for that.
No struggle at all. Here is just one recent example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/0f5b25834d752845
> I've never, ever seen any merit whatsoever in the evil of
> anti-Semitism, and I have never, ever posted any anti-Semitic material
> to this newsgroup or to any other, *ever*.
I accept that in yur mind you have a picture of an anti-Semite going
around in jackboots and making straight-arm salutes, and you don't
identify yourself with that mental image.
However, your endless snide little comments about Jacob "grabbing money"
by selling his compiler (which even free software advocates would agree
he has every right to do, even if they'd prefer him not to) show a more
pernicious and deep-rooted prejudice.
> And yet the way I treat Jacob Navia's articles has not changed in the
> slightest, so I can claim no credit for this improvement. If we fight
> less, it is because Jacob is not giving me any grounds on which to
> fight him - and that has to be good for the group.
Bullshit.
It's obvious that your pathological obsession with Jacob remains as
strong as ever. You've just decided that a better way to pursue your
vendetta is by playing Mr Nice Guy.
Fact is, you got your fingers burned with your "Rosewater" sock puppet,
when the rest of your friends in the clique wouldn't go along with your
shameless attempt to ostracize Jacob. Now you've retrenched and started
regrouping - it's only a matter of time before you stick the dagger in
again.
Richard
Can your head get any bigger?
Richard
Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> Fact is, you got your fingers burned with your "Rosewater" sock puppet,
> when the rest of your friends in the clique wouldn't go along with your
> shameless attempt to ostracize Jacob. Now you've retrenched and started
> regrouping - it's only a matter of time before you stick the dagger in
> again.
>
One from his Acme collection of "The daggers of Megiddo" no doubt....
Phil Carmody
The entirety of Scandinavia, whose gun-totin' population has a
higher density than that of even Canada, thinks you're outrageously
ignorant.
Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
Øyvind Røtvold
[ ... ]
>> I don't know of any significant group of Europeans who believe that
>> everybody bears the right to carry a gun.
>
> The entirety of Scandinavia, whose gun-totin' population has a
> higher density than that of even Canada, thinks you're outrageously
> ignorant.
You are misinformed, all three Scandinavian countries have very strict
gun control laws, very few believe that we should have the right to
carry guns.
Richard Heathfield
> "Joachim Schmitz" <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
<snip>
>> I don't know of any significant group of Europeans who believe that
>> everybody bears the right to carry a gun.
>
> The entirety of Scandinavia, whose gun-totin' population has a
> higher density than that of even Canada, thinks you're outrageously
> ignorant.
Be that as it may (or indeed may not), let us not forget that the
population density of Canada, bearing arms or otherwise, is around
about 9.2 per square mile. Although the figure increases slightly if
you add in the antler-bearing population, using "even higher
population density than Canada" is not the best way to win an
argument.
Flash Gordon
> In <87638yf...@kilospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> "Joachim Schmitz" <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
<snip>
> population density than Canada" is not the best way to win an
> argument.
Let us not forget that although Canada may begin with a C, guns, the
right to carry them, and comparisons of gun laws in different countries
is just a tad off topic. You can't even argue that the original post was
topical and that the thread has drifted off topic.
--
Flash Gordon
Phil Carmody
> Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> [ ... ]
>>> I don't know of any significant group of Europeans who believe that
>>> everybody bears the right to carry a gun.
>>
>> The entirety of Scandinavia, whose gun-totin' population has a
>> higher density than that of even Canada, thinks you're outrageously
>> ignorant.
>
> You are misinformed
Bzzzt!
Look at my headers (the IP address), whois asdf.org (check the IP
address), then browse http://asdf.org/ and the 5 links that lead
therefrom.
Then attempt to say that I am misinformed without bursting out
into a childish giggle that covers the lie you know you're making.
>, all three Scandinavian countries have very strict
> gun control laws,
Which in NO FUCKING WAY (emphasis apparently necessary, as you
appear a little dense in the brain department) is in contradiction
to what I claimed.
Honestly - check.
It's impossible to be friends with as many asehullu as I am
without hearing all of the complaints about the strict gun
control laws here.
> very few believe that we should have the right to
> carry guns.
Statistics, please?
Or "put up or shut up", as they say on usenet.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> In <87638yf...@kilospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>>> "Joachim Schmitz" <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>> population density than Canada" is not the best way to win an
>> argument.
>
> Let us not forget that although Canada may begin with a C, guns, the
> right to carry them, and comparisons of gun laws in different
> countries is just a tad off topic.
So are population densities (which is what I was actually talking
about).
> You can't even argue that the
> original post was topical and that the thread has drifted off topic.
No, I can't. But arguing about (effective) arguing sure beats arguing
about the original topic!
Yeah, I know, I know... on my way...
Gordon Burditt
the Holy C Standard.
Phil Carmody
> In <87638yf...@kilospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> "Joachim Schmitz" <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> I don't know of any significant group of Europeans who believe that
>>> everybody bears the right to carry a gun.
>>
>> The entirety of Scandinavia, whose gun-totin' population has a
>> higher density than that of even Canada, thinks you're outrageously
>> ignorant.
>
> Be that as it may (or indeed may not), let us not forget that the
> population density of Canada, bearing arms or otherwise, is around
> about 9.2 per square mile. Although the figure increases slightly if
> you add in the antler-bearing population, using "even higher
> population density than Canada" is not the best way to win an
> argument.
If you're going to blindly assume that all references to
density correspond to division by the physical area of
a region, then all bets are off. When talking about most
societal traits, most densities are dimensionless or per
unit time.
Antoninus Twink
> Then attempt to say that I am misinformed without bursting out
> into a childish giggle that covers the lie you know you're making.
>
> appear a little dense in the brain department) is in contradiction
> to what I claimed.
Did anyone ever tell you you're a real little charmer?
What is it about this group that attracts so many psychos like Carmodey,
Rosanau, Mackintyre and the rest?
Antoninus Twink
> Worse, it promotes something above the Holy C Standard.
Heh heh.
Yeah the religious fervor of the devotees of the ancient goddess ISO and
her prophet C90 is almost as scary as the guys in dresses expecting to
find 79 virgins waiting for them once they've blown themselves to bits.
Antoninus Twink
> In <b4b3u6x...@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon wrote:
>> You can't even argue that the original post was topical and that the
>> thread has drifted off topic.
>
> No, I can't. But arguing about (effective) arguing sure beats arguing
> about the original topic!
Heathfield, you really are a weasel.
When fellow clique member Flash calls you on your hypocrisy in blatantly
violating the "topicality" rules you're so keen on imposing on the rest
of the group, why not just put your hands up and admit it, instead of
trying to wriggle your way out?
It's pathetic.
Kenny McCormack
But it all comes from the same basic source.
Kaz Kylheku
> Yes, Islam promotes off-topic posts. Worse, it promotes something above
> the Holy C Standard.
Of course. The Holy C standard is the scripture for the competing
``Is Lame'' religion