Crime Salman rushdie attacked on stage

What about all those killed during the Muslim conquest of the Middle East and the West...? What about the Christians getting slaughtered and persecuted around the world...?

What does any of that have to do with a man getting stabbed in the neck for a book he wrote? And for your information, it isn't free speech when people can use violence to coerce you to not say or write certain things, or control speech through violent reprisal. That is the literal opposite of free speech. It is one thing to "cancel" someone who offended you, it is another thing to actual threaten their life and then actually attempt to kill them. You're pretty much in the territory of Pakistani blasphemy laws at that point.

shit. remember when some muslim psycho pig beheaded a teacher? and online many cheered it on.

does anyone have that picture of daniel cormier with his team mates and one of them is wearing a shirt supporting the charlie hebdo slaughter?
 
How about you explain why I’m wrong rather than accusing me of lying? Oh that’s right you can’t, the fact is you don’t know shit about islam, you’re just regurgitating crap you’ve read from anti-Islam websites because it already confirms your world view.

I am quoting from a direct source. The Quran isn't anti-Islam. The reality is the book preaches violence towards non-believers and the only way to avoid that unpleasant truth is to loophole your way out of it. You pay the non-believer tax to your Sharia rulers or convert, obey their laws or you're dead. It's a straightforward interpretation. It defines a target of violence based on their non-believer status.
 
Last edited:
I am quoting from a direct source. The Quran isn't anti-Islam. The reality is the book preaches violence towards non-believers and the only way to avoid that unpleasant truth is to loophole your way out of it. You pay the non-believer tax to your Sharia rulers or convert, obey their laws or you're dead. No other context is necessary in this case.
Islam does preach violence towards non believers, in certain contexts. Islam is not a pacifist religion and doesn’t claim to be. But what’s your point? The US has done a absolutely disgusting things in the name of national security, but no American would say those things represent American values.
 
Islam does preach violence towards non believers, in certain contexts. Islam is not a pacifist religion and doesn’t claim to be. But what’s your point? The US has done a absolutely disgusting things in the name of national security, but no American would say those things represent American values.

What do you mean by certain contexts? Are you referencing in defense of Muslims? 9:29 is straightforward in its call to violence towards non-believers who are not aggressive threats to Muslims.
 
How about you explain why I’m wrong rather than accusing me of lying? Oh that’s right you can’t, the fact is you don’t know shit about islam, you’re just regurgitating crap you’ve read from anti-Islam websites because it already confirms your world view.

Plenty of Muslims don't believe in making perpetual war on believers, but Wahhabists sure do. War against non-believers, Shiites, Sufis and even Sunnis who don't subscribe to their version of Sunnism.

does anyone have that picture of daniel cormier with his team mates and one of them is wearing a shirt supporting the charlie hebdo slaughter?
Is that legit? If so, that ain't good.
 
I am quoting from a direct source. The Quran isn't anti-Islam. The reality is the book preaches violence towards non-believers and the only way to avoid that unpleasant truth is to loophole your way out of it. You pay the non-believer tax to your Sharia rulers or convert, obey their laws or you're dead. It's a straightforward interpretation. It defines a target of violence based on their non-believer status.

All Abrahamic religions texts preach violence against non-believers and sinners.

Of course most followers of those religions choose to ignore those passages, but they're still there ready and waiting to be used to excuse horrible behavior when it's suits the follower.
 
All Abrahamic religions texts preach violence against non-believers and sinners.

Of course most followers of those religions choose to ignore those passages, but they're still there ready and waiting to be used to excuse horrible behavior when it's suits the follower.

<Cage33>

The Quran apologists typically weasel their way out of this fact by claiming most of their book's violence is restricted to defense against aggression.
 
What do you mean by certain contexts? Are you referencing in defense of Muslims? 9:29 is straightforward in its call to violence towards non-believers who are not aggressive threats to Muslims.
It absolutely is not a straight forward call to aggression. It’s pretty clear you don’t even know how the Quran was revealed, it wasn’t just written over the span of months, it was revealed over a period of 22 years, the verses of the Quran address specific instances/experiences that the Muslim community was faced with at the time of revelation. That’s why context matters. A huge part of Quran interpretation is something called the Tafsir, or exegesis. Studying the context in which each verse was revealed is an entire discipline that people spend years mastering, Quran is quite literally all about context. What you’re doing would be like saying “why do we need the Supreme Court, the law says why it says pretty clearly”. No, context matters in interpreting the law and how it applies to each situation. Same thing is true with the Quran, and the vast majority of Islamic scholars do not interpret those verses in the way you do.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of Muslims don't believe in making perpetual war on believers, but Wahhabists sure do. War against non-believers, Shiites, Sufis and even Sunnis who don't subscribe to their version of Sunnism.


.
That’s fine but why should islam be entirely defined by the beliefs of a small minority of extremists? No other group is held to that standard.
 
It is a boring old trope but it's true and it applies to all religions.
It’s true only as far as any set of beliefs (religious or otherwise) can be manipulated to control people. But it’s just a boring atheist shibboleth now, not some kind of profound point.
 
It absolutely is not a straight forward call to aggression. It’s pretty clear you don’t even know how the Quran was revealed, it wasn’t just written over the span of months, it was revealed over a period of 22 years, the verses of the Quran address specific instances/experiences that the Muslim community was faced with at the time of revelation. That’s why context matters. A huge part of Quran interpretation is something called the Tafsir, or exegesis. Studying the context in which each verse was revealed is an entire discipline that people spend years mastering, Quran is quite literally all about context. But you have absolutely zero clue cause you’re talking out of your ass.

9:29 was narrated during the Tabuk expedition. Traveling to territory with the end goal of subjugation while extorting jizya under threat of death. Where was the Byzantine army attacking Muslims? No additional context of self-defense here. You can weasel your way out of many Quran calls to violence by claiming the context is that of defense against Muslim threats. 9:29 - not so much. I don't think I'm the one without a clue.
 
Last edited:
9:29 was narrated during the Tabuk expedition. Traveling to territory with the end goal of subjugation while extorting jizya under threat of death. Where was the Byzantine army attacking Muslims? No additional context of self-defense here. You can weasel your way out of many Quran calls to violence by claiming the context is that of defense against Muslim threats. 9:29 - not so much. I don't think I'm the one without a clue.
The Byzantine empire was a threat, there was absolutely nothing wrong with attacking them at Tabuk, particularly in the context of that time and place. It’s rich that westerners who pre-emptively invade Iraq, bomb dozens of countries, overthrow foreign governments are trying to frame a Muslim attack on the Byzantine empire as some huge travesty loooool.
 
The Byzantine empire was a threat, there was absolute nothing wrong with attacking them at Tabuk. It’s rich that westerners who pre-emptively invade Iraq, bomb dozens of countries, overthrow foreign governments are trying to frame a Muslim attack on the Byzantine empire as some huge travesty loooool.

There was no Byzantine army and no battle at Tabuk. According to Ibn Kathir, they attacked a couple of non-believers, extorted the rest, and left. The point of all this is: invoking self-defense in regard to 9:29 doesn't make sense. It's a call to violence against non-threatening individuals who do not convert or pay tax for being a non-believer.

Why do you continue to cite "Westerners" in your arguments as justification for violence against non-threatening, non-believers in the Quran? Last I checked this was about the Quran, not a group of people 1500 years in the future and their alleged hypocracy.
 
Last edited:
It’s true only as far as any set of beliefs (religious or otherwise) can be manipulated to control people. But it’s just a boring atheist shibboleth now, not some kind of profound point.
I agree. I'm not going to lie...I don't believe in religion.
I'd like to but there's too much evil in this world for me to believe in any god.
 
There was no Byzantine army and no battle at Tabuk. According to Ibn Kathir, they attacked a couple of non-believers, extorted the rest, and left. The point of all this being invoking self-defense in regard to 9:29 doesn't make sense. It's a call to violence against non-threatening individuals who do not convert or pay tax for being a non-believer.

Why do you continue to cite "Westerners" in your arguments as justification for violence against non-threatening, non-believers in the Quran? Last I checked this was about the Quran, not a group of people 1500 years in the future and their alleged hypocracy.
They weren’t non threatening lmao, that’s the point, the Byzantine empire was a mortal threat to the nascent Muslim community and that frontier had to be controlled. There was no UN Security Council back then, that’s how you addressed threats to your security. Even today the US is currently bombing and/or occupying at least 8 countries because they don’t want certain areas to be radical safe havens, these are countries that have NEVER attacked the US, it’s hysterical that your interpretation of what a threat is becomes narrow all of a sudden lol.
 
They weren’t non threatening, that’s the point, the Byzantine empire was a mortal threat to the nascent Muslim community and that frontier had to be controlled. There was no UN Security Council back then, that’s how you addressed threats to your security.

Again, there was no Byzantine army at Tabuk therefore no mortal threat to the Muslim community as that verse was narrated. This doesn't sound like self-defense:

"The Messenger of God told Khalid, 'You will find him (Ukaydir Duma) hunting for cattle.'

Khalid traveled until Ukaydir's fortress was in sight. Ukaydir was on the roof of his fortress with his wife. He then went down and ordered that his horse be brought. It was saddled for him. A number of his family then rode out with him, including a brother of his named Hassan. They all left on the hunt. When they came out, the cavalry of the Prophet engaged them, capturing Ukaydir and killing his brother.

When Khalid brought Ukaydir to the Messenger of God the latter spared his blood and made a treaty with him on the condition that he pay the jizya." - Ibn Kathir Volume 4, Page 21

You and I are spinning our wheels.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top