4 ms·

Please state with what you dont agree with in the article instead of crying out propaganda words like islamophobia. Are there factual errors in it?

• g8oz 12y ago
  You really want to play the selective Quranic quote game? Fine I'll indulge you with one example: "Permission to spread the religion by war" - here you've already discredited yourself by sourcing the hate mongering religionofpeace.com. But anyways the sourced page at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm says there is no defensive historical context to the verse at Quran (2:191-193). Wrong. Relocating to Medina did not save the emerging Muslim polity from attacks and raids and from the Meccans. Low status followers who couldn't leave Mecca were still being beaten, tortured and killed. But the crucial bit of false messaging in regards to this verse happens here: "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]" Ha! The naive reader might say "gosh thats pretty much a recipe for constant warfare isn't it?". But Fitna doesn't mean that, it more accurately translates to "discord promoting actions/ state of destablizing disharmony" - think Russia's recent actions in the eastern Ukraine. A similar dynamic is at play with many of the other points on the site. Misleading interpretations or interpretations favored by extremist scholars are put forth as the true face of Islam. More reasonable rulings by more qualified scholars apparently don't count. Devout Muslims who have no problem in being a harmonious part of diverse societies apparently don't count. Because that might undermine the central fallacious Islamaphobic narrative: It's not bad people, it's bad ideology. But it is bad people. There is enough room in any ideology to be an asshole. I'm not going to do anymore than this, because a) I'm not qualified b) I don't have the energy and c) I doubt you're looking for a real debate, propagandists usually are not. As a postscript I really don't get the end game of these arguments, but it seems to be: "can't we just all come together and hate Islam? Can't you see that's the only way to fix the world?"
  • Isley 12y ago
    It wasn't me who wrote the page whose URL I gave but please don't play the "the verses are taken out of the context" game with me. You could have fooled most people five years back but most common people now have learned enough from Islam to see behind such protective "arguments". Hacker News isn't the place where religion should be discussed but I urge anyone to read the Quran - best in a simplified form like in "An abridged Koran" (by Bill Warner) where the verses have been reordered chronologically (as they were in the beginning) so everybody can read those verses together with the context of the life of Muhammad and see why your "Muslims were attacked and had the right to defend themselves" is nothing but a blatant lie and also the blue-print for the Jihad carried out by Hamas, Taliban, Boko Haram and other islamic terror groups that just follow the example of their violent prophet.
    • g8oz 12y ago
      >>Hacker News isn't the place where religion should be discussed. I see, you wanted to do some drive by propaganda without being called out on it. Sorry. Muhammad was a political and military leader of his faith community as well as a spiritual one. I see no reason why any Muslim has to apologize for actions he took in those capacities. And context matters even if it upsets your little narrative. It is the basis of the numerous condemnations of extremist violence put forth by qualified Islamic authorities.
      • Shihan 12y ago
        What, that does exist? Give me an example of a major islamic authority who condems violence and intolerance against non-muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the Jizya when they are under islamic rule.
        • Isley 12y ago
          I'm sure he will come back with some example of the Ahmadiyya sect who isn't recognized by any of the main schools of Islam.