Many dead in Bastille Day lorry "attack"

[mafya]

You are of course absolutely right.

 

To try to place all of the blame at the feet of Islam is staggeringly naive. The west must take its fair share of responsibility for what is happening.

 

Many people reading this forum was no doubt desire violent revenge against invaders of this country. It doesn't surprise me that Muslims are so annoyed, I'm annoyed too!

 

The first step towards defeating extremism is to review out foreign policy and to take the radical step of stop bombing Muslims.

 

We do indeed need dialogue, a full and effective dialogue. That needs to include the contents of the Qu'ran and the role of Muhammed as a role model. It also needs to include a discussion on pan western foreign policy, the state of care for mentally ill people in supposedly developed countries and many, many other things.

 

You still haven't answered me. Should we pretend that the implicit orders to murder non believers don't occur? Should we just pretend Muhammed was a top bloke who every should aspire to be?

 

I understand your point about keeping it quiet because then the vast majority of Muslims will think that violence is unislamic, but that can't be the ultimate answer. "Let's just hope none of them actually read the Qu'ran" can't be the answer.

 

Oh and it is very nice to talk to another person whom has read both the Qu'ran and the Bible, people like us are very rare outside of theology scholary circles.

 

My bold=

Religious scriptures should be read in context, at the time of the prophet (pbuh) other religions were killing Muslims hence why the kill unbelievers passages are in the Quran.

Only idiots and extremists keep using these quotes out of context to further their own agenda.

Christian and Jewish scriptures also contain passages of a similar vein..

[tzijlstra]

We do indeed need dialogue, a full and effective dialogue. That needs to include the contents of the Qu'ran and the role of Muhammed as a role model. It also needs to include a discussion on pan western foreign policy, the state of care for mentally ill people in supposedly developed countries and many, many other things.

 

You still haven't answered me. Should we pretend that the implicit orders to murder non believers don't occur? Should we just pretend Muhammed was a top bloke who every should aspire to be?

 

I understand your point about keeping it quiet because then the vast majority of Muslims will think that violence is unislamic, but that can't be the ultimate answer. "Let's just hope none of them actually read the Qu'ran" can't be the answer.

 

Oh and it is very nice to talk to another person whom has read both the Qu'ran and the Bible, people like us are very rare outside of theology scholary circles.

 

For someone who keeps telling me I put words in his mouth, you do a good line doing just that. Regarding your 'still haven't answered' I have. Multiple times.

[runningman1]

My bold=

Religious scriptures should be read in context, at the time of the prophet (pbuh) other religions were killing Muslims hence why the kill unbelievers passages are in the Quran.

Only idiots and extremists keep using these quotes out of context to further their own agenda.

Christian and Jewish scriptures also contain passages of a similar vein..

 

Other religions weren't killing Muslims sir, Muhammed waged a war of expansionist aggression against his neighbours.

 

The context argument does frustrate me though, as it is used by many but explained by none. What context is it ever acceptable to say "kill all people of demographic x".

 

Moreover the Qu'ran is the final and unalterable word of God. Muhammed was his messenger and his example should be followed till the end of days. There is no space for revisionism in the text.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2016 at 15:08 ----------

 

For someone who keeps telling me I put words in his mouth, you do a good line doing just that. Regarding your 'still haven't answered' I have. Multiple times.

 

I apologise if you have, I must have missed it. I have seen you claim it to be unhelpful to discuss the specific parts of the Qu'ran. But I haven't seen an answer to the question about should we ignore them.

[mafya]

Other religions weren't killing Muslims sir, Muhammed waged a war of expansionist aggression against his neighbours.

 

The context argument does frustrate me though, as it is used by many but explained by none. What context is it ever acceptable to say "kill all people of demographic x".

 

Moreover the Qu'ran is the final and unalterable word of God. Muhammed was his messenger and his example should be followed till the end of days. There is no space for revisionism in the text.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2016 at 15:08 ----------

 

 

I apologise if you have, I must have missed it. I have seen you claim it to be unhelpful to discuss the specific parts of the Qu'ran. But I haven't seen an answer to the question about should we ignore them.

 

my bold=

Go back to study group and learn about the welcome Muslims received by other religions when Islam was formed= https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/early-converts-islam-and-their

Edited July 16, 2016 by mafya

[yellowperil]

My bold=

Religious scriptures should be read in context, at the time of the prophet (pbuh) other religions were killing Muslims hence why the kill unbelievers passages are in the Quran.

Only idiots and extremists keep using these quotes out of context to further their own agenda.

Christian and Jewish scriptures also contain passages of a similar vein..

 

Why not "defend yourself" then rather than "kill unbelievers"?

And why were other religions trying to kill them? Because the quoran says that islam must take over maybe?!

 

I think the "unbelievers" bit is very telling of the agenda.

And you are saying that only idiots and extremists still revere the word of mohammed at the time but still feel the need to show reverence to this man youve just said was wrong by putting (pbuh, (praise be upon him)) because youve said his name!!!

[mafya]

Why not "defend yourself" then rather than "kill unbelievers"?

And why were other religions trying to kill them? Because the quoran says that islam must take over maybe?!

 

I think the "unbelievers" bit is very telling of the agenda.

And you are saying that only idiots and extremists still revere the word of mohammed at the time but still feel the need to show reverence to this man youve just said was wrong by putting (pbuh, (praise be upon him)) because youve said his name!!!

 

My bold=

Is English your first language as I did not say that, what I said was only idiots and extremists take these verses out of context to further their own agendas.

It's the unbelievers that were out to kill them that's why it says kill the unbelievers= https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/early-converts-islam-and-their

Edited July 16, 2016 by mafya

[yellowperil]

English is my first language yes and thats exactly what you said.

 

Or have i got it wrong that you are denouncing the word of mohammed as being wrong when taken in context these days? You did say only extremists and idiots still think its ok.

[mafya]

English is my first language yes and thats exactly what you said.

 

Or have i got it wrong that you are denouncing the word of mohammed as being wrong when taken in context these days? You did say only extremists and idiots still think its ok.

 

Look up what historical context means, then you may understand the point I'm making......

[yellowperil]

I understand historical context thanks.

 

You can try and paint me as stupid if you want to try that tactic but my question still stands unanswered.

[unbeliever]

We've been through this so many times before and I really don't see what progress we're going to make but hey ho.

 

There is a particular brand of Muslims called Muslim Fundamentalists. Unlike most Muslims, the fundamentalists are very literal about the nasty bits of the Quran and act upon them. They don't understand that the world has moved on.

There is a subset of islamic fundamentalism generally called Islamism, which is under the very odd impression that a 1500 year old prescription for how to build a perfect society around Islam is applicable to the modern world and make a thing out of acting upon it.

 

Islamists and fundamentalists in general, are everywhere. They are influential to varying degrees in Muslim dominated countries and within the Muslim communities in Muslim minority countries.

 

The fundamental reason for the conflict (rather than the obvious live and let live solution) is that our prosperity undermines the Islamist case that our way of life and government is inferior, and therefore makes it harder to persuade Muslims in general that they want to live in an Islamist state.

 

I don't know what the solution to all this is, but it's fairly obvious that it's not to be overly critical of the Islamic faith, as it's perfectly possible to be a Muslim and a thoroughly decent person. mafya being a case in point.