'No compulsion in religiion' is not true in islam

[chrisse]

That is why I downloaded a few different translations of the Quran (I have 4 of the accepted 5) because I figured they would start rewriting their ‘perfect’ word of their god. I also downloaded all the accepted translations of the hadiths.

Yes, it took me some time, but it is better than being lied to by muslims about their own texts.

The Hadith collection at USC has also been modified. Some very embarrassing hadiths have been removed. I’ll see if I can get my source on that, I don’t think I linked to it.

Yes, good idea.

 

[jakasaki]

You are not say that verse is refering to something other than the situation Jesus was facing are you?

I haven’t got a clue as to what you are asking me.

 

[sedonaman]

The reason we want to implement Shari’ah (for Muslims, in Muslim lands, I’ll reiterate) is because we want to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression.

If Muslims are “suffering cruelty, injustice, and oppression,” it’s at the hands of other Muslims. So how are you going “to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression” of Muslims by increasing Muslim rule of other Muslims? The best thing that could happen to a Muslim is for him to be ruled by Christians and/or Jews.

 

[chrisse]

If Muslims are “suffering cruelty, injustice, and oppression,” it’s at the hands of other Muslims. So how are you going “to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression” of Muslims by increasing Muslim rule of other Muslims? The best thing that could happen to a Muslim is for him to be ruled by Christians and/or Jews.

The indoctrination of muslims is very sad. Islam is the best and most successful cult, that’s for sure.

 

[sedonaman]

It has been the goal of Islam from the get-go.

I didn’t ask what the goal was; I asked for an example of Muslims coming to the aid of oppressed Christians [the Islamic protection racket doesn’t count].

 

[sedonaman]

Define ‘aid’ in islam.

 

[Jay53]

I find stoning for adultry barbaric as well. I suppose I find it odd that you would say that seeing as your God commands it in Levatical law (I beleive)

Not sure why you find that odd. It is a very harsh punishment. That God chose to implement it against adulterers back then is obviously up to Him - I’m not going to be the one to question His authority. But He also abolished this punishment with the New Covenant established by/through Jesus. (John 8:7)

 

[Sister_Amy]

If Muslims are “suffering cruelty, injustice, and oppression,” it’s at the hands of other Muslims. So how are you going “to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression” of Muslims by increasing Muslim rule of other Muslims? The best thing that could happen to a Muslim is for him to be ruled by Christians and/or Jews.

The oppression is not because of Islam. It is because of secularism, because of flawed democracy, because of dictatorship, because of tyranny, because of military juntas, because of invading armies (AHEM!) and because of anything else you want to add to the list, but not because of Islam.

That’s why Islam is the solution.

 

[sedonaman]

Gosh, sedonaman, don’t you understand, from almost the start of Islam, muslims had to go out and oppress all non-muslims so they could come to their aid. So busy for muslims, so much oppressing to do and so much aiding the subsequently oppressed - to stay oppressed.

Planten adds that Muslim armies had to conquer much of Europe, etc., “to make sure Islam had a fair chance.”

Islamic history as its known to most muslims is not historically factual, but rather an historical narrative, where if the facts don’t fit the narrative, then the narrative becomes the facts.

 

[sedonaman]

Jesus’s name is not in the verse, but the meaning is clear from the context. (Read from a few verses before.)

There you go again: interpreting something “not subject to human interpretation.”

 

[neploho]

The oppression is not because of Islam. It is because of secularism, because of flawed democracy, because of dictatorship, because of tyranny, because of military juntas, because of invading armies (AHEM!) and because of anything else you want to add to the list, but not because of Islam.

That’s why Islam is the solution.

I agree that the problems of the despotic governments in the muslim world are not Islam and not caused by Islam. Nevertheless, would non Muslim citezens have the same rights as Muslims in a properly Islamic state?

 

[neploho]

Not sure why you find that odd. It is a very harsh punishment. That God chose to implement it against adulterers back then is obviously up to Him - I’m not going to be the one to question His authority. But He also abolished this punishment with the New Covenant established by/through Jesus. (John 8:7)

I find it odd that you consider something your God, in the past, thought of as not only morally permissible but a religious imperative on his “children” is “barbaric”.

 

[Jay53]

I find it odd that you consider something your God, in the past, thought of as not only morally permissible but a religious imperative on his “children” is “barbaric”.

OK. Like I said - it’s His world - His prerogative.

 

[Agabriel]

Well one can have problems with some things in Sharia’ (as I do) and still admit that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not examples of a state run by Sharia’.

I find stoning for adultry barbaric as well. I suppose I find it odd that you would say that seeing as your God commands it in Levatical law (I beleive)

When you compare societies, would you please compare something that we do this day? Stoning was stopped centuries ago. Jesus even stopped a stoning. You can have your opinions here, not so easy in a muslim society.

Now, stoning goes on to this very day in muslim countries as do other barbaric acts against people over such things as adultry, unwed mothers, etc. And their own prophet, under the laws he established, he should have been stoned. It is ironic that their prophet wasn’t stoned, but all he had to do was say that Allah is ok with this, or command him to do it. He would rape slaves and tell his followers that it is ok to get them pregnant. I guess if one just takes off the label of human being and make them slaves - or apes, pigs or urine and feces - then it is ok to do with them as they wish.

This is the sort of behavior you are defending. And not only does such things as stoning still go on, but also slavery. It goes on because they feel that they have to emulate their ‘perfect man’, Muhammad.

If a person steals their hand is cut off. This doesn’t even give a person a chance to change. Killing a child because someone has raped her and she didn’t get 4 witnesses - as if rapists bring a crowd to watch them and turn them in! video

And if you want to tell us that we are still doing it to this day in our countries - please prove it. make sure it isn’t some criminal doing the deed because you know that in our country that is a crime and he is considered a criminal.

I am finding your rebuttals a bit weak since you bring up stuff that doesn’t even apply today in our lands.

Slavery in Islam No muslim country has signed the UN anti-slavery law because that would be going against Islam.

 

[sedonaman]

The oppression is not because of Islam. It is because of secularism, because of flawed democracy, because of dictatorship, because of tyranny, because of military juntas, because of invading armies (AHEM!) and because of anything else you want to add to the list, but not because of Islam.

That’s why Islam is the solution.

Definition: Invading army: An army resisting the advance of a conquering Islamic army.

You are asking for others to extend to you what you are unwilling to extend to them. Islam is not the answer because, by denying the Golden Rule, it has become the problem by denying people their human rights. Do you expect the oppressed to lick the boots of their oppressors? How can you expect to get back except what you dish out? How many times do I have to say it?

 

[neploho]

When you compare societies, would you please compare something that we do this day? Stoning was stopped centuries ago. Jesus even stopped a stoning. You can have your opinions here, not so easy in a muslim society.

I can have my opinions here now that secularism has usurped the primacy of religion. St. Aquinas and, I beleive< Church cannon law both said it was quite proper for heretics to be executed by the state. This is what I find annoying. Taking hard won freedoms that did not exist when the Church was the main power, and then using this freedom to goat over Muslim coutries. When Christendom existed it had its own draconian punishments for adultry.

I do not defend such actions. I simply find it hypocritical for Christians to think themselves superior to the “barbaric muhammadans” when these Muslim countries are commiting actions accecpted by your God in the Old Testament. In fact Chrust never forbade slavery, nor did St. Paul. Slavery existed in Christendom for quite some time.

And if you want to tell us that we are still doing it to this day in our countries - please prove it. make sure it isn’t some criminal doing the deed because you know that in our country that is a crime and he is considered a criminal.

I am finding your rebuttals a bit weak since you bring up stuff that doesn’t even apply today in our lands.

Slavery in Islam

No muslim country has signed the UN anti-slavery law because that would be going against Islam.

They don’t apply in “our lands” because those lands are secular republics which have ushed religion into a more benign sphere of personal beleif without any real bearing on the ordering of larger society.

[/QUOTE]

 

[neploho]

Definition: Invading army: An army resisting the advance of a conquering Islamic army.

You are asking for others to extend to you what you are unwilling to extend to them. Islam is not the answer because, by denying the Golden Rule, it has become the problem by denying people their human rights. Do you expect the oppressed to lick the boots of their oppressors? How can you expect to get back except what you dish out? How many times do I have to say it?

I think she was speaking of Western interventionism.

 

[sedonaman]

When you compare societies, would you please compare something that we do this day?

Yes, like consider how long the line is to get into the U.S. legally and how short the lines are to get into places run by Islam. Do Muslims come here to be stoned, maimed, or oppressed? I don’t think so.

I met an American last week who worked in Saudi Arabia for four years. He told me you had to get the Saudi government’s permission to leave the country. I think the short line to get in and permission to leave say it all.

 

[neploho]

Yes, like consider how long the line is to get into the U.S. legally and how short the lines are to get into places run by Islam. Do Muslims come here to be stoned, maimed, or oppressed? I don’t think so.

How long was the line to get into the south american dictatorships run by Catholic despots?

 

[chrisse]

Definition: Invading army: An army resisting the advance of a conquering Islamic army.

You are asking for others to extend to you what you are unwilling to extend to them. Islam is not the answer because, by denying the Golden Rule, it has become the problem by denying people their human rights. Do you expect the oppressed to lick the boots of their oppressors? How can you expect to get back except what you dish out? How many times do I have to say it?

To the mind indoctrinated into this cult called Islam, as long as “allah” has commanded it, no matter how reprehensible, no matter how that individual feels about it himself, then it is okay.

I have seen muslims deny that in Islam it is authorised to marry and sexually stimulate yourself with infants, even suckling babies. When presented with the evidence, you can hear the horror in their voices even at the same time they are saying, if allah allowed it then it is okay.

One I heard was saying this, with the qualifier - “but I wouldn’t”. We can only hope and pray as they see the truth about their cult, they will leave.