EGYPTAIR Flight MS804 goes missing

[Akio-]

islam didn't invent radicals

see: kool kids klub

What?

Islamic people trying to Flash Mob Christians dates back to early AD.

[Ad Bot]

[shitlord]

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

first off show me those bolded verses please

also the ones you listed, as far as i can tell are telling you not to worry because they will burn in hell

the last one is the only one that gives your argument a little bit of room as it says that they will cast the terror themselves

The quote specifically mentions "mujahideen," which is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "Islamic guerilla fighters, especially in the Middle East. I see no reason that a disabled person would be unable to worship, but it does make sense that a disabled person would be unable to take up arms, which makes even more sense given the word "mujahideen" is specifically used to describe those most revered by Allah.

Humor me with some mental gymnastics, hun.

okay, hun

its hard to worship allah properly when you cant get out of bed or have dementia or some other stupid stuff, so that defuses your part about why you dont understand those who are disabled. 

i cant argue against the mujahideen definition, but what i can do is show you this verse:

There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned. (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

[Cappytaino]

Still doesn't address the point that the mujahideen are supposedly the most revered and rewarded by the deity of the religion himself. Would that not then constitute a fundamental enabling of violence due to the promise of reward in the afterlife?

[Akio-]

"I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12)

[shitlord]

Still doesn't address the point that the mujahideen are supposedly the most revered and rewarded by the deity of the religion himself. Would that not then constitute a fundamental enabling of violence due to the promise of reward in the afterlife?

read

http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html

[Akio-]

read

http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html

how are any of these false interpretations. the intent is very obvious

"Paradise lies under the shade of swords" (Sahih Bukhari V4B5N73)

"Muhammad said, ‘You are commanded to carry out jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam' " (Qur'an 47:4)

Quran (9:111) Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Now what muhammad did :
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith - KILLED
Uqba bin Abu Muayt - KILLED
Asma bint Marwan - KILLED
Abu Afak - KILLED
Kab bin al-Ashraf - KILLED
Ibn Sunayna – KILLED
Assassination of Musaylimah :Abu Dawud 38:4348
Assassination of `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-`Aufi: Bukhari 5:59:462
Assassination of Abu `Afak : Ibn Ishaq p. 675 / 995.
Assassination of Abu Rafi’ (Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq) : Bukhari 5:59:369
Assassination of Ka’b bin Ashraf : Bukhari 3:45:687
Murder of `Asma' Bint Marwan : Ishaq 676
The Killing of the Chieftain of Dumah : Al-Tabari vol.9 p.58-59
Assassination of Khalid b. Sufyan : Abu Dawud 1:1244
The Killing of Khubaib : Bukhari 4:52:281
The Torture and Murder of Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqyaq : Tabari vol. 8, p.123
The Killing of Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan : Bukhari 4:56:826
The Murder of `Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt : Ishaq 308, See Also Tabari IX:121
The Killing of Yusayr b. Rizam : Al-Tabari vol.9 p.120
The Slaughter of the Ten Meccans : Tabari VIII 181
Murder of Habbar Ibn al-Aswad b. Ka`b al-`Ansi : Bukhari 5:59:662
Murder of al-Huwayrith Nuqaydh Wahb Qusayy : Ishaq 551
The Murder of Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib and his Slaves : Bukhari 3:29:72
The Murder of Miqyas Hubaba : Sirat Page 551
The Blind Jew : Tabari VII 112, See Also Ishaq 372
He went on to kill Jewish tribes as well:
The Banu Qurayza
The Banu Qaynuqa
The Banu Nadir
He also SLAUGHTERED 900 Jews in one day and don't forget that he raided their caravans, looted them as well as taking their women as his "wives" or love slaves.

[Ipquarx]

how are any of these false interpretations. the intent is very obvious

All depends on context and whose reading it. The bible has similar quotes that can be easily misconstrued without context like these quotes. You have to take into account the entire text, how it starts, how it ends, everything inbetween, before you can truly judge any one passage. Even then, as I've said before, it's all subject to personal biases and what philosophies you subscribe to. As an example if you've been raised to be accepting towards extremism and taught to blindly follow in the footsteps of superiors you'd be much more likely to subscribe to these beliefs instead of dismissing them, which someone who was raised to resist extremism would do the vast majority of the time. Even if it's something as silly as "It's put in there to test our faith towards being peaceful!" it's a legitimate interpretation. It makes sense to them, and to them, that's all that matters.

The thing about religion is you can't definitively say "X is worse than Y!" in most cases. Everyone has their own different interpretation of ideology and teachings of their own religions, and it can and will vary wildly from person to person. Even if we were to ignore how people interpret holy texts and just look at the texts themselves, there's millions of different ways to reinterpret the texts, which can lead you to come to wildly different conclusions about what ideology it promotes based on personal biases and what philosophies you subscribe to. This applies to both Christianity and Islam.

[Drydess]

why is it that some random bystander brings up "it's obviously muslims", usually jokingly, and then the thread turns into a religion argument about whether or not it's a peaceful religion
like seriously can we actually have a regular thread about what the topic is actually about rather than an argument about a random controversial topic

[Akio-]

why is it that some random bystander brings up "it's obviously muslims", usually jokingly, and then the thread turns into a religion argument about whether or not it's a peaceful religion
like seriously can we actually have a regular thread about what the topic is actually about rather than an argument about a random controversial topic

are you saying that intellectual debate isn't allowed because you don't want to see it? the topic in itself incited the discussion, not some random comment. get over it.

[Drydess]

are you saying that intellectual debate isn't allowed because you don't want to see it? the topic in itself incited the discussion, not some random comment.

it's not that it's intellectual debate, that I'm usually fine with, it's the fact that news topics always dissolve into unrelated intellectual debate
also am I missing something, because I see nothing about islam that actually has to do with the missing flight, other than population on the plane

get over it.

holy hell I just said something, simple as that

[Akio-]

it's not that it's intellectual debate, that I'm usually fine with, it's the fact that news topics always dissolve into unrelated intellectual debate

but theres nothing wrong with this at all

also am I missing something, because I see nothing about islam that actually has to do with the missing flight, other than population on the plane

donald Annoying Orange tweeted out claiming it was a terrorist attack, and the president of egypt said that the odds of a terrorist attack are higher than the odds of technical failure.

[Tezuni 2.0]

liberals/progressives like to pretend blacks and islamists don't commit vastly proportionally more crime and terrorism, respectively

"but...but... Christians!  White males!  They're the real problem!"  -average progressive

[Drydess]

donald Annoying Orange tweeted out claiming it was a terrorist attack, and the president of egypt said that the odds of a terrorist attack are higher than the odds of technical failure.

alright, thanks

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

liberals/progressives like to pretend blacks and islamists don't commit vastly proportionally more crime and terrorism, respectively

"but...but... Christians!  White males!  They're the real problem!"  -average progressive

Who's said that in this thread? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's people out there who totally believe that, but both sides of this debate stereotype the other. As far as I'm aware the liberal viewpoint is that blacks and islamists are the most "criminal" group out there because of economic conditions and stuffty history, not white people.

[Red Spy]

As far as I'm aware the liberal viewpoint is that blacks and islamists are the most "criminal" group out there because of economic conditions and stuffty history, not white people.

White people are the "oppressors"