Islam: Schizophrenia and Deception?

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Athena I don't know how helpful you statement of faith is? You have faith that because the Quran is written in its original language it is divine truth, however, all of us do not agree with that.

No one is asking you to agree with me... At the same time it is a also a fact that Quran has remained unchanged since inception... Muslim clerics don't have the right to set up a meeting to add few gospels and deduct few...

The problem of this debate is not only "The_Genius and Masoom have faith" but also ''others are atheists"...

I also wish there were rules of logic.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: ItsDarts This alone is enough to show that Allah is not condoning Muslims to START attacks. The rest is Allah giving permission to defend ones self. This is Quranic support against your argument. Sura 8 is nothing more than a historical account. The above is instructions on how to conduct ones self. Think of the bible... In the OT, it says to stone to death people who work on the Sabbath. This only applied to Jews. After Christ came along, he dispensed with all civil laws (punishments) although to commandment not to work on the sabbath is still in effect, the punishment isn't in effect. The same sort of argument can be applied to Islam. Sura 8 is a history of a war and what happened. Sura? 2: 190-194 are moral instructions and what to do if you are attacked. It supports their contention that Islam is a peaceful religion ASSUMING they don't get attacked. They will not (or are not SUPPOSE to) start a fight, but can defend themselves with Allahs blessing. Should the attackers stop, they must stop. I don't see any schitzophrenia or deception, the premise of your OP. Masoom, do I have this correct?

Perfect.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Athena They have been respectful, reverent and gentle, except for the American Black Muslims who are so blinded by hatred of White people, their reasoning is not good. Their racist hatred is another form of indoctrination.

Racism can never be justified but you know the phrase 'what goes around, comes around.'

...and I have explained it to you before that they (Radical Anti-White African American Muslims) aren't part of mainstream Islam but the Nation of Islam. It is a deviate political sect that also indoctrinated Late Malcomn X to hate all White people. However, Late Malcomn X later joined mainstream Islam when he went to Mecca and realized that skin colour means nothing. Only then, he became a true Muslim...

[StrongHeartsWin]

First off, obfuscating with what was done in the Bible is irrelevant. This thread is not a comparative analysis of the Koran and Bible. It is sufficient to just say that the Bible is defunct in worthiness of being called great.

Quote by: ItsDarts You[Masoom] showed that Sura 8 is more of a history of a particular war and in sura? 2:190-194 clearly states only to fight those who fight against you.

Sura 8 begins by speaking in absolutes. That is quite clear. 2:190~194 only brings forth a contradiction. It does not rescue Sura 8 from the absolutes. Furthermore, to cut 2:190~194 out and then apply it to another part of the text is merely doing the thing that theists themselves whine about -- “out of context.”

8:1 specifically sets the stage as an absolute on what to do with spoils of war. It does not say the spoils of war from “this” war. The war described in Sura 8 is merely a backdrop or an example to drive the point on what to do with the spoils of war.

8:1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

Notice the present perfect tense. Notice the lack of a determiner to fix this convesation to these spoils of war.

Masoom keeps not wanting to deal with 8:5. Here we see Muhammed going forth from his home and coming upon a group of people averse to the Truth. Muhammed is not shown to be being threatened by these people but because they oppose the Truth of Allah, they are as if being driven to death. And soon after that we get the picture that all those who oppose Allah, not only get beheaded, but also get a taste of body mutilation.

Notice, and this is important, it is Muhammed who is the antagonist. He sets the events in motion by going forth from his home to tell the Truth. Others resist that truth, and it is then that hostilities commence. Where is the verse saying they were bearing down on Muhammed as he lived peacefully and then ordered to go forth to meet the enemy? It is not there, for Muhammed had innitially been ordered to go forth and spread the Truth. Others were opposed to that and then the battle ensued. Then, Muhammed, after angering a good number of people who opposed him, found himself in a situation where he needed help from angels to overcome the beehive of swarming people that he riled up with his message of intollerance.

ItsDarts seems to offer some refuge to Sura 8 by implying it is a depiction of historical events, and not an endorsement to follow suit in being aggressive to those who oppose Islam. While I don`t fully agree with that assessment of his, I will say that only opens up another can of worms.

Please keep the frameword of the OP in mind. How can a religion be considered “great” in an altruistic sense if it has been built on aggressive assaults on those who do not believe in its Message? Muhammed in 8:5 clearly displays intolerance of other beliefs, and views that as them driving to their doom.

This, expanding verses for examination, doesn`t sound very great, does it:

4:92 It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.

Looks like a slave who does not believe, gets to keep his slave status. Allah is so Wise and the Knower, that he knows a Believer should be spared slavery status at times, but not non-believers. What is great and wise about that?

Here are the torturous ways of Allah:

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

This is Allah`s way of war? To torture?

Masoom, and perhaps ItsDarts, now, want to divorce the one championing something from what is being championed. That may be fine for a rank and file member (any Muslim), but not for the pinnacle (Prophet) who sets an example and one who all will look to for wisdom from his words and deeds? To divorce Muhammed`s deeds from Islam or his message simply by saying they are historical acts and not related to Islam is blind denial at best, and deception at worse.

With that strange mindset the fans of Charles Manson could say that his message, whatever that may be, is one of peace, mercy, and love, despite the historical display of carnage he and his followers embraced and showed us. Those were about 40 years ago. They are historical, aren`t they? It is irresponsible and ludicrous to suggest that the actions of a leader of a cult, be it a small one that has failed, or one that has spread successfully, is divorced from the standards that judge greatness or good or deception. It is also delusional to cut one part from a piece of work and then apply it to another to try and rescue the peice in question. I would bet that somewhere in the memory of Sharon Tate she can recall Charles Manson saying “love one another” or “peace” or some other ravings of a mad man, but would that then mitigate the murders they did in his name for the benefit of his cult? Of course not! Now, tell me why Muhammed and Allah should enjoy a different standard of judgement from Charley. Tell me RIGHT NOW!

[ItsDarts]

This part describes the "spoils of war", in general... 8: 1-4

1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

2 They only are the (true) believers whose hearts feel fear when Allah is mentioned, and when His revelations are recited unto them they increase their faith, and who trust in their Lord;

3 Who establish worship and spend of that We have bestowed on them.

4 Those are they who are in truth believers. For them are grades (of honour) with their Lord, and pardon, and a bountiful provision


This next part, the part you argue for, describes "a war" in particular, in PAST TENSE..... marked by the parts in bold. I agree is doesn't make clear WHAT war or how this war started, but Masooms reference to 2:190-194 still backs up when wars ar to be fought. We can only assume that this past war being described was fought based on the rules set forth un Sura 2. Here the book cuts to an example.

5 Even as thy Lord [i]caused [/I]thee (Muhammad) to go forth from thy home with the Truth, and lo! a [b]party of the believers [/B]were averse (to it).

6 Disputing with thee of the Truth after it had been made manifest, as if they were being driven to death visible. NOTE "death visable" IS A METAPHOR

verse 7 & 8 cut to another example....

7 And when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that it should be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might be yours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by His words, and cut the root of the disbelievers;

Again its not clear what war or why the war was fought. Again we can only assume it was because they were being challenged based on Sura 2.

9 When ye sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): I will help you with a thousand of the angels, rank on rank.

10 Allah appointed it only as good tidings, and that your hearts thereby might be at rest. Victory cometh only by the help of Allah. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Here Allah is only giving angels in proxy, to each of his men, rank on rank, no one actually saw these angels, and this only made the men not fear going into battle. Think of it this way, When you go into battle angels are with each of your men. Like when someone says to you that angels must have been watching over you after surviving a car crash.

12 When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. (to the angels) So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

This is possibly another war. again not defind in how it started. We can only assume here that what they mean by oppose is to (by definition, act against) the messenger. They are starting the war (the enemy) and Allah is with them in spirit. It is Allah doing the smiting necks and fingers (very possibly another metaphor).


I know I may be way off base with this, I admit I don't fully understand all this as its difficult for me to read. One thing is obvious, MOST muslims aren't going around smiting necks and fingers of non-believers. I live very close to Dearborn Michigan, the largest muslim population in the country and for the most part, they are well behaved and interact with christians AND jews with respect.

I was not obfuscating when I brought up the bible, it was merely a comparison and wasn't intended to cover up any part of my argument. The examples of the above war(s) may be found elsewhere in the Quran, but I'm certainly not going to read it all to find them.

[The_Genius]

Just tell me which sure it is...

I will come up with an explanation.

[doolally]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Since the events of 9-11 we have heard time and time again leaders such as Bush or Blaire pleating words like, *“we have no issue with Islam, a great religion deserving of great respect, but rather with the terrorists that seek to ...” in attempts at trying to head off criticisms or a view of The West or Christian nations/states against Islamic nations. However, I take issue with the description that Islam is a “great” religion deserving "respect", and that leaders in their efforts to describe it as such are merely giving lip service to it and the Koran it springs from. I put forth that the Koran is a book which fosters intolerance, vengefulness, violence and non-mercy. It lacks a consistant example of behaviour that fosters understanding and forgiveness and this can be seen by the promises it reserves for nonbeleivers in this world and the 'hereafter'. Verses that state the contrary are evidence that it is a work displaying schizophrenia, and the inability to admit to that and proclaim the opposite is flat deception and denial that perpetuates violence. My remarks are not aimed at the people of Islamic faith, but at Islam and the Koran itself. And, I fully concede that all the above can be directed at the Christian and Jewish Holy Books as well. But for purposes of this thread, I am focused on the point that Islam and the Koran are NOT "great" or deserving of "respect," as has been put forth to appease and calm those that may feel threatened by recent world events. Standing the Koran and Islam alone under the spotlight for examination, I proclaim they are perverted creations which sow enmity amongst man and that is not a “great” thing deserving of "respect." *quote above paraphrased

exellant mess,unfortunatly not enough people will open there eyes and realise this mess is the dog`s bollocks