The new Islam megathread part 3

[flamingjimmy]

I don't think the quote says that at all. The quote is talking about respecting the rights of the Umma ie all the Hebrew religions. My interpretation of the quotation is not about apostasy but about an attempt to find terms of peace through respect for all the religions in the area at the time.

 

I might be wrong but I think it is a reference to the Constitution of Medina that Mohammed negotiated that ended centuries of religious infighting and brought an end to an eye for an eye, blood feuds that had perpetuated it.

 

I will probably get shot down for this because I haven't time to look into the particular verse too closely, but to say it clearly says what Plek has said it says is not true.

 

Neither have I to be fair, I'll leave that for Plek, but Tab1 take note, here's how to respond without making a strawman. Apparently you didn't even need to, why couldn't you have typed something like this with your superior knowledge of Islam instead of making stuff up that wasn't said?

[Bassman62]

Islam does not(in the present tense) and the inquisition did. .

The inquisition was hundreds of years ago, things are different today whereas you can still get thrown into a jail in a muslim country for calling a teddy bear Mohamed.

[Frank Sidney]

Iv'e never come across so many anally- retentive people, cut and paste..................cut and paste.........................cut and paste, he said this,and she said that.

 

Lightened up people, remember, breathe and exhale, and repeat.

 

Iv'e never come across so many anally- retentive people, cut and paste..................cut and paste.........................cut and paste, he said this,and she said that.

 

Lightened up people, remember, breathe and exhale, and repeat.

[Bassman62]

most laws, of most lands seem to boil down to the basics of the ten commandments:- "thou shalt be excellent to each other..."

 

look at the hard and fast set of rules that were in the Old Testament? stoning / "death" for wearing garments of mixed fibres ec etc. give your 10% tithes and sacrifices to the priests... etc.

Most laws have nothing to do with the ten commandments.

 

The old testament was written over two thousand years ago and has nothing but historical readings and even less about law today.

 

The koran still uses outdated terminology that few people can understand.

[Bassman62]

Not quite right. In the UK the Bishops in the House of Lords blocked free education for all for 86 years, because they wanted to keep the teaching of children under the control of the church.

When was this?

[plekhanov]

I don't think the quote says that at all. The quote is talking about respecting the rights of the Umma ie all the Hebrew religions. My interpretation of the quotation is not about apostasy but about an attempt to find terms of peace through respect for all the religions in the area at the time.

 

I might be wrong but I think it is a reference to the Constitution of Medina that Mohammed negotiated that ended centuries of religious infighting and brought an end to an eye for an eye, blood feuds that had perpetuated it.

 

I will probably get shot down for this because I haven't time to look into the particular verse too closely, but to say it clearly says what Plek has said it says is not true.

And where did I say that particular verse it was about apostasy? I cited 9.5 as an example of coercion having taken place in the history of Islam (in just the same way that Plain Talker cited the Inquisition). I then mentioned the punishments for apostasy later in the post as another example of coercion in Islam.

 

Do you really not understand that I could use two separate examples of coercion within Islam:

1. Convert to Islam or die

2. Convert from Islam and die

Without arguing that both examples are identical?

 

 

Also I find it hilarious that you are attempting to characterise an order to kill those who fail to convert as an "attempt to find terms of peace through respect for all the religions in the area at the time".

 

9.5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

Kill them unless they convert yeah that real respectful If Bush and Blair had ordered their troops to slaughter all the Afghans and Iraqis who didn't convert to Christianity I really rather doubt you'd have seen that as praiseworthy. I know many of you old Trots have totally sold out to Islam but isn't this taking your double standard a little far?

[Commoner]

Not quite right. In the UK the Bishops in the House of Lords blocked free education for all for 86 years, because they wanted to keep the teaching of children under the control of the church.

 

It was power and control, nothing more. Sorry

 

You can be as sorry as you want to be but in the 70's as a child I was asked to leave Sunday school because I couldn't reconcile the fact that Noah took two of each animals from around the world onto his boat and saved the world. Gordon Brown did too, allegedly.

 

I was being taught by the C of E at the time. At least I was kicked out unlike the religion or cult of Islam that doesn't give you a choice. Follow or.....

[Commoner]

And where did I say that particular verse it was about apostasy? I cited 9.5 as an example of coercion having taken place in the history of Islam (in just the same way that Plain Talker cited the Inquisition). I then mentioned the punishments for apostasy later in the post as another example of coercion in Islam.

 

Do you really not understand that I could use two separate examples of coercion within Islam:

1. Convert to Islam or die

2. Convert from Islam and die

Without arguing that both examples are identical?

 

 

Also I find it hilarious that you are attempting to characterise an order to kill those who fail to convert as an "attempt to find terms of peace through respect for all the religions in the area at the time".

 

9.5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

Kill them unless they convert yeah that real respectful If Bush and Blair had ordered their troops to slaughter all the Afghans and Iraqis who didn't convert to Christianity I really rather doubt you'd have seen that as praiseworthy. I know many of you old Trots have totally sold out to Islam but isn't this taking your double standard a little far?

 

Good post plekhanov, I think the trots are not going to have so much influence as they have had over the last 11yrs anymore. Socialism and bending over backwards for religions or cults are not in the spirit of the majority anymore and costs too much money, especially when the trots lie to you and fill their pockets with your money whilst painting themselves whiter than white.

 

This bunch of trots that rule us came to power on the pledge of an honest government, so another trot spewing out the same party line is certainly not to be taken any notice of or seriously especially when he hasn't even read the thread but still jumps in as an apologist.

[plekhanov]

Yes sir you are a liar. You were arguing on strength of that verse to imply that the prophet Mohammed ordered murder of non-Muslims and that order applies today, and the fact that it doesn't makes you a liar.

flammingjimmy has already dealt with your blatant dishonesty upon this point.

 

Again it shows how perturbed you are to have to resort to try and insult the prophet. No he wasn't a paedophile

Yeah that's right he wasn't a paedophile he just repeatedly had sex with a 9 year old girl

 

and you already know that but having been caught with your trousers down your only form of defence is attack well, tut tut, there is no clear order to convert or die, simply another made up lie.

What you mean no clear order apart from in verse 9.5 where he ordered his troops to kill people who didn't convert?

 

As history of Islam proves the prophet Mohammed was an honest but illiterate Arab man who would have been incapable of dictating a book of classical status as the Qur'an, but that is another subject.

Because of course only literate people can dictate I think perhaps you might be confusing dictating with taking dictation.

 

We are talking of Islam today and you have implied that order stands today so stop backtracking. Your question to PT was "What is the law on apostasy under Islam?" and the answer is simply there isn't one TODAY!! As the Islamic Caliphate state that made the law doesn't exist today.

Maybe you should go and tell this to the Islamic states today which have laws against apostasy and the Islamist vigilantes in many other countries who mete out their own punishments for apostasy according to their contemporary understandings of Islam.

 

I cited some examples of contemporary punishments for apostasy in my previous post yet strangely you seem to have deleted them from the quoted text you responded to, why?

 

Anyway here they are again in Iran and Afghanistan documented by Amnesty International.

 

The order is not valid and for you to bring it up as a stick to beat Islam with in a clear attempt to portray as a problem today is objectionable.

It's very big of you to declare an order of your prophet invalid, that aside please do explain why it's ok for Plain Talker to cite atrocities from Christianity's past but not for me to do exactly the same with Islam?

 

Yes and they do, you do live a very sheltered life indeed. Islamic society isn't just what you see in Afghanistan.

Yet another strawman, I never claimed or in any way suggested that Islamism was restricted to Afghanistan, in fact I cited a specific Amnesty documented example of coercion in a country other than Afghanistan which you conveniently ignored.

 

Your continued dishonesty aside do you really not see how your claim that not all contemporary Islamic societies are as bad as that in Afghanistan rather contradicts all your claims that all the intolerant laws in Islam are ancient history?

 

Yes, I am equating it to treason. The law was of the new Islamic state which was under attack from all sides. The conversion away from Islam was regarded by the state as a betrayal and an act of treason. What I can't understand is why you have such a mental block on appreciating that?

In understand this reasoning, I also understand that numerous contemporary clerics still use variations on this reasoning to continue to try to justify the killing of people for changing their minds. Unlike you I just happen to disagree with it.

 

The state of Islam as was the Caliphate, does no longer exist and neither do it's laws.

What you mean aside from in all the contemporary societies where variations on those laws still exist and are enforced? I gave you two specific examples of this happening in my previous post.

 

No you weren't, you were making stuff up and confusing personal law with the defunct state law and making out as though you knew what you were talking about, when clearly you were way off the mark.

If I wasn't referring to that specific claim of Plain Talker's then why did I make the comments you find so objectionable right below a quote box of that specific claim?

 

From my perspective to restrict others religion

Evidence that I have ever called for anything of the sort please.

 

and make up stuff to defame others is very much a BNP tactic. I don't really take much interest on what you views are on other topics but it seemed to me you were fighting their corner. If you are not then that is pleasing but to fill in the gaps in knowledge by making up lies to fit the argument is not good of you either.

You seem to be confusing 'making things up' with 'making documented claims that make Islam look bad.

 

You really could have done with a little less time reading the koran as a child and more reading Aesop as then you might be aware of the folly of crying wolf. In fact you are doing worse than crying wolf in the absence of a wolf you are accusing a metaphorical Sheppard of being a wolf. I’ve delivered anti-BNP, organised and DJed at Love Music Hate Racism gigs, ran a the Palestine Society at University my university… on this very board I’ve been repeatedly threatened by BNP members for opposing them in the same way I oppose Islam.

 

When you falsely accuse me and others of racism and fascism simply for opposing Islam on a liberal democratic, human rights grounds you not only make yourself look silly but you are helping to steadily eroding the power of the charges of ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’. In exactly the same way that unprincipled Zionists abuse of the term ‘anti-semite’ has robbed it of its power. Your utterly unprincipled kneejerk accusations are helping the BNP will you please stop helping the BNP.

 

There is defunct sharia law of the state of Islam and the sharia personal law, and you clever cookie are confusing the two.

Well then perhaps you should explain how sharia is merely personal to the rulers in the assorted countries which impose it upon people. Maybe you should explain that to the 37% of young British muslims who said they’d rather live under sharia than British law in a recent survey.

 

Maybe you do have the one true understanding of Islam and the hundreds of millions of muslims Islam who understand Islam to be something very different and massively more intolerant and coercive are just wrong. But so long as those hundreds of millions of muslims continue to act in coercive and intolerant ways in accordance with their understanding of your shared religion I’m afraid people are going to continue to see Islam and intolerant and coercive.

 

Anyway I really have lost interest in trying to explain to Islamophobes who only Google Islam watch and other Islam hate sites for their knowledge base. I have seen a lot of abuse from people who at the same time have complained that I abused them. So much for a cultured and a civilised society?

iirc the only site I’ve linked to in this thread is Amnesty Internationals.

 

If you don’t want people to abuse you perhaps you shouldn’t blatantly lie to and about them and falsely accuse them of being racist, fascistic BNP supporters just because they believe the evidence presented by ‘Islam hate sites’ like Amnesty International over your declarations about what Islamic states do and don’t do to people unlucky enough to be subject to them.

[tab1]

No tab, you are flat out wrong. Plek's claim, as was stated clearly was:

 

"This is a clear example of convert or die ordered by your prophet himself is it not?"

 

You don't seem to want to address this (probably because there's no way you can refute it) so you made up that Plek said something else. Why not respond to it now?

It is a bit anal as Frank said, but here is how the argument went, and how Plek reasoned that the laws applied today, which I disagreed with;

Is Islam the way forward????

There would be no choice.

It would simply be a case of convert or die.

How so? Contrary to what the Inquisitionistas thought, you cannot spread a religion by the sword.

 

The Inqisition, certainly, said "Convert or die". Well, actually, history shows that, in their case, it was more "Convert AND die!!"

 

Remember, according to Islam, "There is no compulsion in religion".

Tu quoque is a fallacy

 

Besides there is a great deal of compulsion in religion in societies where Islam is dominant, up to the total persecution of non-abrahamic religions, the extremely limited toleration of rival abrahamic religions so long as they don't actually try proselytising and the absolute prohibition upon those who were told they were muslims as children realising in adulthood that they'd prefer another religion or none. Remind us what is the punishment for apostasy under Islam again?

 

You might think the phrase "There is no compulsion in religion" magically makes all the compulsion that actually exists under Islam disappear, it doesn't.

sorry, plek, but the only thing even remotely tu quoque in my comments was saying that Islam does not compel converts, but that the inquisition did.

Really so the Koran itself doesn't tell how your prophet Mohammed himself gave conquered pagans the choice to covert or die?

 

9.5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

As you know very well your religion only allows for very limited tolerance of Jews and Christians, there is no toleration for anyone else.

 

Why are you ignoring all the other examples of compulsion under Islam that I gave? Once again what is the punishment for apostasy under Islam?

 

How can you argue that a religion which punishes those who leave as adults the religion they were told they belonged to as children doesn't compel people?

to answer your points in turn:-

the incidents in the Qur'an were referring to wars that were happening at the time of the Prophet PBUH.

 

Islam is very tolerant to other faiths, and set up non-interference laws to protect their interests.

 

We are in the UK. what is the law for apostasy here? (Christian or Muslim)

Yes and? This is a clear example of convert or die ordered by your prophet himself is it not?

 

You cited a centuries old example of Christians saying 'convert or die' why am I not allowed to point out an example of your prophet saying the same? Do muslims not regard Mohamed as living an exemplary life, 'convert or die' included?

 

 

'tolerant' by what standard? Do you deny that under Islam 'tolerance to other faiths' means restricted rights and punitive taxation or Christians and Jews and persecution up to and including 'convert or die' for other groups? That might be 'very tolerant' by the standards of 6th century arabia by the standards of 21st century Europe however it is appallingly intolerant.

He is pf course talking about the order being valid today, which is rubbish. As PT pointed out that order referred to a particular wartime situation.