If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions.
Have you looked at what has been going in in Egypt ever since the Brotherhood came into power? The Churches are not happy but are cowed as dhimmis under threat of death (remember, Islam is evil - and when they say they are prepared to kill you they really mean it). Your statement is again false. Go and look at what is *actually* happening in Egypt to the Copts - from *Coptic sources*. Then have a look at the Assyrian population in Iraq (harrassment by Muslims and ethnic cleansing where the Assyrians who have been in Iraq longer than the Muslims). Then look at the ethnic cleansing of Serbians in Kosovo - even this last Christmas the Serbs were not allowed to visit their own church. Look at the firebombings of Churches in Indonesia. Yesterday's machine gun attack by Muslims on Thai Buddhists. Is this the "equality" you speak of? You are a clueless dhimmi that refuses to see the reality of what is going on in the world - and by making (false) statements you are enabling the evil to continue. I bet you don't even know what goes on in world daily - which is why your mental model of Islam does not correspond to the reality in the World today, and why you can't explain why jihadis from Mauretania to Indonesia Aceh are going what they are doing. Simple, Islam is evil and is allowing evil people to do evil things and directing good people to ignore the evil.
Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.
Ah, the bullshit old "it only applied in history defense". Well, you'd better tell the millions of imams around the world that preach this every Friday that they are wrong and Jah-Wren Ryel has the true story. A random survey of mosques in the *USA* found around 80% of them had hate-speech and pro-jihad material. You'd better get around to those mosques to tell them that they have got it wrong and all those verses only applied historically.
Why don't we make a wager. If you go to Gaza and publicly and loudly tell Hamas that they have it wrong and jihad is both only historical and an inner-jihad of self improvement and come back to tell the tale then I will publicly come on to Slashdot and say I was wrong and you were right. My terms of the wager are that you get life insurance and I am the beneficiary of the policy. Wager? You know the logical and probably consequences of such an action - which proves your statements patently false and not correlated with reality. Deep down you know that Islam is evil because it is Islam that drives Hamas and Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. Think that Hamas are out of the mainstream? Well, we can make the wager where you go to Egypt's Tahrir square and openly proclaim you are a Jew and believe in equality for all peoples and religions, including Jews. Surely 80 million Egyptians can't all be muddle-headed extremists, right? Same conditions on the life insurance please. Or why not go to Saudi Arabia, point out your allegation of equality of religion under Islam and start building a Church in Mecca. You know what will happen. You also know that it is Islam that commands the people to do what they do. Deep down you also know that Islam is evil. You know you wouldn't survive in an Islamic country if you try to exercise any Enlightment liberty - even one as fundamental (and as harmless to others) as Free Speech. Islam is evil. We both know it. You know what would happen to your life expectancy if you went to Egypt or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or Indonesia or Pakistan and try to practice what you have been preaching here. Everyone reading these forums can see the colossal holes in your arguments where reality rips them to shreds.
You know what really cracks me up? How you started using my name over and over again instead of referring to me with a pronoun. It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Ah, you have nothing left to say, and can't defeat my references - especially the primary source ones - so out comes the denigration. It doesn't change the arguments I've made; that Islam is evil; it doesn't deny the reality that jihadis and entire nations agree with the interpretation of Islam that I have put forward; it doesn't change the fact that your assertion that Islam is not evil does not match the daily evidence; it doesn't change the fact that you are supporting evil and are thereby evil yourself.
So, are we on with the bet? Your choice of Islamic country to go to where you try and exercise your "equal" status. You see, the common thread between the countries is Islam - that's why their responses are so similar and your demise assured if you attempted to do what you claim you can do. If Islam achieves its goal and takes over the West within the next few decades you won't even have to move. Merely by having this conversation you would be an apostate to some imam, and would be marked for death along with the actual Free Thinkers. All readers know this, that's why they can see your arguments don't hold any water.
Please go and view Stephen Coughlin's five part series on Islamic Law, Abrogation and the OIC. You still don't know what you are talking about until you see the counter point of view to the one you made up.
Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?
All you needed to do is watch the first twenty five seconds of a video of Qaradhawi that I posted in an earlier video where he states he's been promoting martyrdom operations for twenty years. Watching 25 seconds of video testimony straight from the horses' mouth would disabuse you of your false notion.
It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Lol. I didn't make my statements for you. I wrote them all for reasonable people who have open minds. They can see the partial-truths you put forward and then I have quoted reliable analysis that consider what the statements really mean (including both pro-Islamist and pro-Enlightenment arguments). I haven't yet got to the good bits. Like when Islamists condemn terrorism suckers like you think they are condemning the violence of Al Qaeda but in fact they are doing the opposite - jihad is legal and mandatory under Sharia and the "terrorists" are states like Israel, America and Britain that wage "illegal war" by defending their citizens against jihadis. Check out Stephen Coughlin's analysis of the Sharia aspects of this (and how the OIC's ten year plan at the UN is unfolding). Betcha didn't know that - because you aren't even looking. That's what the people reading will see. Even a child can understand that Islam is evil based on the state of the 57 Islamic countries and their interactions with their neighbours. No amount of sophistry can hide the obviousness of the truth, despite your feeble attempts to select scripture and commentaries that deny what is evident in the world today. You have no theory that can account for the statements made by jihadis, their parent organizations, the imams, or the actions of their nations. I do - I have presented a theory (not my own, far smarter people have come up with it) that explains it all. Islam is an evil political ideology. That explains all the evidence. It explains the actions of Mohammed. It explains the OIC. It explains Al Qaeda. It explains why Islamists lie to Westerners and the Muslim sheeple. It explains why women are treated like property. It explains the Sunni-Shia war currently raging. You have no coherent explaination of these phenomena - therefore your understanding is a worse approximation of reality than mine. Yes, there are many subtlies in understanding Islam - but it is clear that your explanation that "Islam is not evil" and thereby 1.5 billion Muslims have simply got the wrong understanding of what they are commanded to do is ludicrous. That is what the readers will see
Let's also get scientific about this, let us consider two theories and see how that matches the evidence we see around the world. We'll then consider the probability that each theory is correct (or the degree to which each theory is correct). The two theories are:
Here are some cases, consider which of the two theories best matches the observations:
I'll stop there. It's not even going to be close folks. Which theory about the ideology of Islam *as it is practiced* today.
Now only the deluded would argue that some tiny bit of verse counters the ideology what the 1.5 or so billion Muslims mostly agree on, and how Islam is put into practice in the ways I've listed. The scientific conclusion is that the theory "Islam is an evil ideology" is a vastly better fit to the observed behavior than the theory "Islam is not an evil ideology". That is "Islam is an evil ideology" strongly correlates with observation and there is almost no evidence for "Islam is not an evil ideology" (apart from some legalistic theoretical arguments made by cherry picking abrogated versus and ignoring everything else, including the real world).
So ladies and gentlemen, which theory do you agree with based on the evidence from the real world?
I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.
Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation and how that vastly changes the interpretation of the verses you presented - because Allah himself has abrogated them and caused them to be replaced with newer and better verses (which, incidentally call for jihad). Instead of living up to your promise, essentially that you will find a Qur'anic verse that will abrogate 9:5 you come up with some secondary source.
First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you.
Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).
With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*. Islam will let people practice their religions until they die out (as is happening in the Middle East now that Islamists have no moderating influence there). That is exactly akin to the scheme promoted by the mafia with some extra subjugation and humiliation thrown in for good measure. This is evil, yes? Now while individuals may not be compelled to become Muslim provided they accept discrimination against them as dhimmis there is absolutely no provision for Muslims to be ruled over by non-Muslims in the long term (Muslims may be ruled over in the short term until the Muslims achieve dominance, eg via jihad). This is discriminatory in the extreme. Of course, I'm sure Jah-Wren Ryel never thought about this very hard - which is why he still defends totalitarian evil.
I know that the ladies and gentlemen reading this will see how Jah-Wren Ryel's analysis is superficial and misses critical points that a full analysis gives. This superficial analysis leads him to false conclusions that disagree with mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and he cannot reconcile his views with the reality of the acts in the world today eg. the *factual* figures given in the list of attacks at religionofpeace.com - where over 20000 *fatal* jihadi attacks have been carried out since 9/11 because hundreds of millions of Muslims have a common understanding of Islam, from 1400 years of tradition, that is exactly against Jah-Wren Ryel self-deluded interpretation.
Look, all physicists don't want to believe in Quantum Mechanics as the nature of reality. We would much rather have a nice deterministic view of the world but that simply is not the nature of reality. I'd also like Islam to be a religion of peace that seeks coexistence with other religions in the same way Christianity, Judaism and secular humanism. The reality is that, just like quantum mechanics, Islam is not about telling the truth, or not coveting your neighbours wife, or in the sanctity of life, or in living in peace with your neighbours, or rainbows ponies and unicorns. The reality of Islam is that it is a totalitarian, theocratic, misygonistic, genocidal, racist, homophobic, counter-scientific political ideology that is actively working to undermine and eventually remove the liberties in the Free World. It does not seek coexistence, it seeks to dominate the globe. Don't let Jah-Wren Ryel delusions fool you ladies and gentlemen - he simply doesn't know what he is talking about (although he is arrogant enough to think he does - despite him being proven to be ignorant of critical elements of Islamic theory).
There is so much more to add to this conversation. The Holy Land Foundation Trial, Reliance of the Traveller, a detailed discussion of the evil of Sharia, the global plan of the OIC (which they are advancing quite quickly thanks to useful idiots like Jah-Wren Ryel), the invention of "Islamophobia" by the OIC to shut down objective criticism of Islam or theocracies, the claims of ridiculous and false 'science' in the Qur'an that are completely against scientific proof today, the evidence showing the gradual Islamicization of the West and erosion of liberty and free speech, the historical picture of the Qur'an (and the Sa'ana Quran discovery that shows that the claims of divine origin of the Qur'an are false), the fact that the Qur'an contains no divine information that a iron age writer of the 7th Century would know, the fact that even little Aisha was able to see the hypocrisy of Mohammed and how he make shit up to suit himself (a little pre-pubescent girl like Aisha is smarter than the repulsively fawning Islamic apologists). Then we have the hadiths showing the utter sexual imorality, rapaciousness, treachery and barbarity of Mohammed and his followers. So good people, don't believe the lies the Muslims and their apologists are telling you in their oft-stated quest for global domination.
Islam and Enlightenment values (liberty, equality in all its forms) are completely incompatible. Islam is evil (although many Muslims are good). That is the sad but true reality.
Come back with the verse that abrogates 9:5 and then we can talk. You are not going to find it. They are among Mohammed's last words and there are no peaceful statements that negate it. Islam was (for 1400 years), is, and always will be violent to unbelievers and Muslims of other sects. So don't defend or appease such monstrous evil folks. Stand only for truth, individual liberty, Free Speech, Freedom of Conscience as *equal* religions, self-determination and the rights of women and animals, abolition of slavery in Sudan etc. because Islam commands these all be taken away (as you can see in nearly all the OIC countries)
Finally, a personal word for Jah-Wren Ryel. I hope you travel through Israel to learn how Islam can be done in a way where it is restricted from being evil. Then I hope you live in an Islamic country - you would gain better understanding if you were a women (half the value of a man) or a little boy (subject to the sexual depravities of men who have no access to women). Then you might actually get a clue about how Islam is *really* practiced when there are no Westerners about to moderate and oppose its sheer evilness.
2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion" --That's pretty straight-forward.
Abrogated. Therefore non applicable. Anyone who understands Islamic theology knows this.
Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren.
The fact you don't know about abrogration - a *core doctrine* of Islam - shows you know *nothing* about how Islamic theology fits together. I would be exceedingly embarrassed if I were you. Mind you, the fact that you were able to 'defeat' my 'brethren' and they knew even less than you shows the state of knowledge about Islam is woeful. No wonder, to speak plainly about Islam one becomes slandered as a 'racist' (ridiculous - Islam is an ideology, not a race) and to tell the awful truth endangers the whole evil Islamist project and they react with threats of violence and actual violence against anyone who does speak the truth. That's why I defend my point of view so vigorously, there is so many mislead people out there that don't understand Islamic theology correctly. By re-reading the Qur'an and hadiths with the knowledge of how abrogation works you will arrive at the same picture that bin Laden did, Qaradhawi does and I do. The difference is that they don't care if it is evil in human terms, they only care about follow (the imaginary and clearly evil) Allah's will or not (which could well be evil - but that is not their concern).
So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:
Here's your man Qaradhawi.
It takes less than 25 seconds for him to state that he has supported "matyrdom operations" (that is, murder of innocents) for over 20 years. Look at all his other YouTube videos, all the same evil shit. Pray tell what versus he uses to justify terrorism? Your position is completely counter to reality.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al Qaradawi Implement Sharia Gradually No Chopping Hands for 1st Five Years" [7 months ago]
This is evil.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al- Qaradawi - Kill All Pro Syrian Government Supporters" [1 month ago]
More evil. No only are Muslims commanded to kill other infidels, they are supposed to kill Muslims of other sects.
Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox.
Completely false equivalence. I doubt this Glen Beck guy calls for genocide or the war against people of other faiths. Qaradawi, following his evil ideology, does - which you can easily find if you care to look (but I bet you don't even look, it would fit the nice bubble of unreality you live in).
And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion.
Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.
Do you disagree that it is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim to carry out jihad against infidels? (which clearly means violent jihad and not 'ijtihad' - if you know what that means).
You clearly still have a lot to learn about Islam. You are reading the sanitised taqiyya version meant for suckers. The only thing that matters is not what the Islamists tell non-Muslims (who they are not only permitted to lie to, they are *obliged* as a religious duty). Look for a real picture from an outfit like MEMRI (note, who are )
Aren't you concerned that after seven years of research your regular sources didn't explain in depth abrogation and its significance in interpretation of Islamic Scripture? surely, if you are objective, you must be concerned that your regular sources must be of low reliability if they did not discuss the implications of abrogation on the scripture under discussion.
One excellent source for an understand of Islamic Law is Stephen Coughlin. he used to brief the Pentagon and it was his job to understand Islamic Law by reading *Islamic* sources - not the junk published for the West or by deluded Westerners.
This guy knows Islamic Law better than you or I, and much better than many Muslims. While he never makes a value judgement of Islam as "evil" it is clear that his analysis shows that your arguments are bunk.
So please come back when you've got understand which parts of Islam are abrogated and which are not. Also look at the evil in the "Reliance of the Traveller" (approved by Al Azhar). Also, take a look at (uncensored) news meant for Muslims from the Middle East. Both the MEMRI and CAMERA projects provide great translations and highlight the evil indoctrination provided to Muslims through their mainstream media. Clearly the Islamists believe Islam commands something different to your interpretation (that is, your interpretation is *not* mainstream).
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil
Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
More commandments to do evil on innocents for having the temerity for Free Speech, Free Thinking, Equality of Women, Rights for homosexuals etc.
If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis and pay jizya (where other commandments require them to feel subjugated and humiliated; this is discriminatory and against equality of religions and peoples, against Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience; in a word - evil). If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?
Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith
Horseshit. Here is where you are chosing to ignore evidence that exactly support my point. Osama did not do what he did because he got out of bed on the wrong side. He did it because the Qur'an and hadiths and jurisprudence commanded him to do it. Osama and I have the same view of Islam. You do not. Similarly, Mohammed said and did the things he did because he invented Islam (contrary to ridiculous claims that Islam existed before Mohammed). Islam was the cause of them, and millions of others, doing these things. Now you can choose to act like a lawyer and choose to exclude evidence. However, you could act like a scientist and take a holistic view and look for evidence that counters your claim. As a trained scientist I look for evidence to counter the claim that Islam as an ideology is not evil and put that against the evidence that it is. Guess what, Islam is, one the whole, evil. On relative terms Islam is also far more evil than many other ideologies that are lesser evils.
And your defence?
I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5. I can't help you read if you don't want to. The conclusion of the analysis is basically that it says what everything things it says - a commandment for aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims. Here, for your convenience I'll provide the link again
Now perhaps you don't think 9:5 is evil for a simple reason that I have not yet mention - you are a closet Islamist. I cannot discount that fact. An evil person would never see evil no matter how evil something was. A rational person would read the linked argument I've given, consider the numerous aspects (as the analysis does - it is balanced) and then come to the same conclusion what it says - slaughter and subjugate non-Muslims (which is an evil).
Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence for the supposition that Islam is not evil. All you have is a claim about some research and a statement that your Muslim friends are good people: which I don't doubt in the least, they are people after all, and most people are intrinsicly good by nature - it requires religion/ideology to make them do bad things against that nature.
However, we are not talking about people, we are talking about the dictates of an ideology.
Since you have thus far failed to grok a fundamental of the argument, that people and ideologies are different (even if they influence each other), the consider the following:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg [Physicist], quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Grok the point now? See how many Muslims can be good but that does not excuse the evil of the ideology of Islam itself? defending such an evil ideology necessarily makes one evil too. Don't be evil, be a force for Truth, Goodness and Compassion in this world. Oppose evil and do not tolerate the intolerant.
No, why you consider it not evil? Also, it is clear you know about the greater and lesser jihad. How do you think 9:5 is about greater jihad when the hadiths, history and jurisprudence all indicate the lesser jihad - the violent one. Hopefully you have also looked at the hadiths. How could one say that Mohammed was not evil when it is clear he was. He burnt down a mosque *with people inside it* because it wasn't him to decided on the construction. He slaughtered a tribe, killed its leader by kindling a fire on his chest, and then took the leader's wife for himself (that is, raped her on the day he murdered her husband). He *obliged* lying to promote his interests (completely against Christian or Judaic morality). He promoted killing of everyone that didn't follow his edicts (against the Christian message of tolerance). He promoted sexual immorality and polygamy (against Christian and Judiac commandments). To question Mohammed exacts a greater penalty under Sharia than to blaspheme against Allah Himself. This is all evil. I don't believe in the eschatology of an Anti-Christ, but it is pretty clear that if you were to invent a religion and ideology that was against Judiac and Christian morality then Islam is what you'd come up with. The Qur'an commands evil, the hadiths show that great evil was carried out, Al Azhar promote that evil as the will of Allah to this day. And you defend it and so morally disfunctional you cannot see the problem with a verse that clearly commands slaughter and subjugation of innocents. It is a shame your mind is so closed you cannot see the evil you promote - instead you try (and fail) with sophistry to deny the inexorable conclusion of all the evidence.
Sura 9:5 clearly calls for murder, subjugation and paying what is called jiza for innocent people - even if they do not choose to follow Mohammed. Where is you evidence to counter this? you have none!
Cool. To begin do you understand the principle of abrogration? This is critical.
Let us look at Sura 9. It has many evil ideas in it and is used daily to justify evil acts (eg. to a devout Muslim, jihad against unbelievers is legal and in fact mandatory; that's why what we call terrorism is not illegal under Islamic jurisprudence; they consider it "terrorism" when we defend ourselves from it). Note that there is no verse that abgrogates Sura 9 and Sura 9 abrogates all the other nice verses of the Qur'an (eg. the oft-quoted, "Let there be no compulsion is religion" is abrogated - it simply does not apply; some claim that this verse has not been abrogated but they are negating the rules about abrogation to do so. Sura 9 is among the last This is false. You can't just change the principles of Islam to suit your argument). My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses. It is you that has a differing interpretation of the Qur'an than the four Sunni and single Shia school of jurisprudence. Here's an analysis of the verse, easy to digest and covers both the historicity and supporting evidence:
Can you counter this and still follow the Islamic rules of interpretation? no you can't. This verse stands. This verse is evil. Hence, Islam is evil - and this is why millions of people are oppressed and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence support this. Stop supporting evil. Even better, fight this evil through word and deed (at least stop hassling people on slashdot who do understand the Islamicists interpretation of Islam, which is the *mainstream* interpretation).
It would be nice if Islam was a religion of peace but it simply isn't. All the Islamic schools and a majority of Muslims (who, incidentally, live in South-East Asia, not the Middle East) agree with the interpretations I've given.
A company is known by the men it keeps.