Brave boys of the Taliban at it again

[Bonzo77]

Maybe so but it doesn't excuse what's happening now.

 

Never said it did. But people keep blaming it on Islam whilst defending other religions.

[anfisa]

Never said it did. But people keep blaming it on Islam whilst defending other religions.

 

The Taliban and ISIS are a product of their religious beliefs and follow those religious beliefs to the letter, without those beliefs it is very unlikely that they would be killing kids and others on such a large scale.

[Baz1]

This one.....Mafia states this is taken out of context....translated incorrectly but refuses to show the correct translation.

 

The Quran:

 

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

 

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Report Post Edit/Delete Message

 

First of all, in historical context it is referring to the war with the Meccan tribes.

 

Secondly let's examine the verse preceding this, it will give better understanding.

 

I've used 3 translations from three well known Qu'ran interpreters- namely Yusuf Ali/Pickthall and Shakir (well known across the Muslim world).

 

So the verse in question is 2:190

 

YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

 

PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

 

SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

 

See the common denominator?

 

"those who fight you" or "fight against you"

 

Now, even if you wanted to literally take this injunction and apply it NOW to ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE on Earth for ALL MUSLIMS, you still can’t get around the fact that it literally says to fight THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU

 

In addition, it advises the Muslim combats to avoid exceeding the limits (to not commit over and above any act of hostility, to kill innocents etc).

 

Under Islamic Law, there are conditions set for fighting- which were followed by Muhammad and those who adhered to his teachings- this includes not even destroying homes, trees, killing innocent people, not harming women and children (compare that to the West today )

 

This also answers and refutes the post made by Anfisa(?) trying to lay blame to the religion for the acts committed by Taliban and Isis- or whoever.

 

There are a number of verses from the Qu'ran (after all, this is what is used in these type of debates by the ignorant) that condemn harming even a single person- let alone a group of people.

 

I can glady quote but it will make this post even longer- and I am not one who needs to do this- simply read and learn from Muslims and stop running to anti Islamic sites for your 'information'.

[gimp27]

This post proves you are just a muslim hater plain and simple......

 

Hope not. Otherwise a lot of my family would be on my hit list. You spout this, yet surely must know from my previous mutterings that I too am mixed race, with many muslim relatives. I may be the black sheep with some of them for my views, but I can live with that. Its very easy to throw in the "Oh, this bigot hates Muslims" dribble, but that is not the case. However I do not accept that the Qur'an should be interpreted as "The Way", and its historical content should be kept just there. In History. Its plain and simple that its YOU who is a hater......a hater of those who do not agree with you. Well what a shame, because I for one, do not agree with you either.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 14:50 ----------

 

It's a chappati on my shoulder and not a chip!

Gimp hasn't disagreed with me he has posted something that shows what his real agenda is.

Now quit stalking me to try and score points with silly posts like the one I have quoted!

 

Somebody really is a hater, arent they?

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 14:51 ----------

 

Challenge accepted.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-pastor-steven-anderson-says-gay-people-should-be-executed-for-an-aids-free-christmas-9903543.html

 

Yep, that will have every gay person shaking in their boots, wont it? Now, if he had gone to Brighton and bombs a gay nightclub, maybe your reference would have substance.

And he didnt.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 14:53 ----------

 

Crikey Gimp, you walked into that one mate:)

 

Its like comparing the Titanic with an upturned canoe.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 14:54 ----------

 

No, let's just label anyone racist who doesn't share his viewpoint shall we?

It's a lot easier.

 

Apparently, we are one and the same person. There is some really funny stuff on SF, ha!!:hihi:

[Zamo]

First of all, in historical context it is referring to the war with the Meccan tribes.

 

Secondly let's examine the verse preceding this, it will give better understanding.

 

I've used 3 translations from three well known Qu'ran interpreters- namely Yusuf Ali/Pickthall and Shakir (well known across the Muslim world).

 

So the verse in question is 2:190

 

YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

 

PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

 

SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

 

See the common denominator?

 

"those who fight you" or "fight against you"

 

Now, even if you wanted to literally take this injunction and apply it NOW to ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE on Earth for ALL MUSLIMS, you still can’t get around the fact that it literally says to fight THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU

 

In addition, it advises the Muslim combats to avoid exceeding the limits (to not commit over and above any act of hostility, to kill innocents etc).

 

Under Islamic Law, there are conditions set for fighting- which were followed by Muhammad and those who adhered to his teachings- this includes not even destroying homes, trees, killing innocent people, not harming women and children (compare that to the West today )

 

This also answers and refutes the post made by Anfisa(?) trying to lay blame to the religion for the acts committed by Taliban and Isis- or whoever.

 

There are a number of verses from the Qu'ran (after all, this is what is used in these type of debates by the ignorant) that condemn harming even a single person- let alone a group of people.

 

I can glady quote but it will make this post even longer- and I am not one who needs to do this- simply read and learn from Muslims and stop running to anti Islamic sites for your 'information'.

 

What is indisputable is that the beliefs and actions of extremists are driven by a literal interpretation of the Koran. Whether you or anyone else agrees with their interpretation doesn't change the fact that they are the product of Islam. Muslims perpetuate the nonsense and therefore share some collective blame for the problem. They need to sort it out, give it up or find some less harmful mumbo jumbo to follow.

[gimp27]

What is indisputable is that the beliefs and actions of extremists are driven by a literal interpretation of the Koran. Whether you or anyone else agrees with their interpretation doesn't change the fact that they are the product of Islam. Muslims perpetuate the nonsense and therefore share some collective blame for the problem. They need to sort it out, give it up or find some less harmful mumbo jumbo to follow.

 

Careful Zamo. You will be branded a muslim hater. Excellent post BTW.

[Bonzo77]

The Taliban and ISIS are a product of their religious beliefs and follow those religious beliefs to the letter, without those beliefs it is very unlikely that they would be killing kids and others on such a large scale.

 

No they're not. They're a product of hatred towards the west.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 15:19 ----------

 

What is indisputable is that the beliefs and actions of extremists are driven by a literal interpretation of the Koran. Whether you or anyone else agrees with their interpretation doesn't change the fact that they are the product of Islam. Muslims perpetuate the nonsense and therefore share some collective blame for the problem. They need to sort it out, give it up or find some less harmful mumbo jumbo to follow.

 

I beg to differ. Are Christians who call for a mass culling of homosexuals a direct product of the bible, or are they just a bit f*****g stupid?

[spilldig]

Worried what you might find?

 

Spoiler Alert.... The god of the Bible is pretty nasty to say the least.

 

I think we all know what we would find, it does worry me when someone keeps focusing on it though.

[anfisa]

First of all, in historical context it is referring to the war with the Meccan tribes.

 

Secondly let's examine the verse preceding this, it will give better understanding.

 

I've used 3 translations from three well known Qu'ran interpreters- namely Yusuf Ali/Pickthall and Shakir (well known across the Muslim world).

 

So the verse in question is 2:190

 

YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

 

PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

 

SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

 

See the common denominator?

 

"those who fight you" or "fight against you"

 

Now, even if you wanted to literally take this injunction and apply it NOW to ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE on Earth for ALL MUSLIMS, you still can’t get around the fact that it literally says to fight THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU

 

In addition, it advises the Muslim combats to avoid exceeding the limits (to not commit over and above any act of hostility, to kill innocents etc).

 

Under Islamic Law, there are conditions set for fighting- which were followed by Muhammad and those who adhered to his teachings- this includes not even destroying homes, trees, killing innocent people, not harming women and children (compare that to the West today )

 

This also answers and refutes the post made by Anfisa(?) trying to lay blame to the religion for the acts committed by Taliban and Isis- or whoever.

 

There are a number of verses from the Qu'ran (after all, this is what is used in these type of debates by the ignorant) that condemn harming even a single person- let alone a group of people.

 

I can glady quote but it will make this post even longer- and I am not one who needs to do this- simply read and learn from Muslims and stop running to anti Islamic sites for your 'information'.

In which verse of the Qur'an does it explain which verses only apply for the war between Meccan tribes and which verses apply for all time?

 

You also appear to be claiming that every war and battle fought by Mohammad and his followers was started by someone else, and that no innocent people were killed or executed, and that no women were enslaved and raped and that everything he did was in self defense will no lands taken from anyone else for the purpose of expanding the Islamic empire.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 16:45 ----------

 

No they're not. They're a product of hatred towards the west.

 

Which is driven by their religious beliefs and the Quranic idea that implies they are superior to non believers.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 16:49 ----------

 

I beg to differ. Are Christians who call for a mass culling of homosexuals a direct product of the bible, or are they just a bit f*****g stupid?

 

They are a product of their religious beliefs, homophobes are not born homophobes, they are indoctrinated by their religion to believe that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal damnation.

Edited December 24, 2014 by anfisa

[SnailyBoy]

I did make a claim. That there are no extremist hate preachers in TODAYS Christian society and no Christian preachers who insist gay men or pregnant women should be murdered. There it is. Please feel free to denounce this, and show me. Go on, give it a go.

 

Challenge accepted.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-pastor-steven-anderson-says-gay-people-should-be-executed-for-an-aids-free-christmas-9903543.html

 

Yep, that will have every gay person shaking in their boots, wont it? Now, if he had gone to Brighton and bombs a gay nightclub, maybe your reference would have substance.

And he didnt.

 

So, the Christian hate preachers have to carry out their threats to be classed as a Christian hate preacher?

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2014 at 17:18 ----------

 

I think we all know what we would find, it does worry me when someone keeps focusing on it though.

 

Worries me more when someone professes the Bible to be a book of peace.

 

You, for example.