8 ms·

There are lot of baseless and uncited claims in your post. The blog post you cited took a few verses from the Quran, and attempted to deduce rulings out of them

by azth 11y ago

There are lot of baseless and uncited claims in your post. The blog post you cited took a few verses from the Quran, and attempted to deduce rulings out of them, without going back to what scholars know. > For some reason this is not happening. Maybe something for you to research and find out why (hint, because Islam preserves life, and its goal is not to kill left and right, like how you're trying to make it seem to be). The death penalty in Islam is very, very strict, applicable to only a couple of situations, and can only be done by the government. Even then, people are encouraged to forgive if they are in a position to do that. > There is not a single mention of a headscarf anywhere in either the quran or the hadith. If you're looking for the literal word "headscarf" then yes (at least for the Quran). However, covering up (what is known as the headscarf today) is required in Islam. There is not enough space here to discuss this issue, it is sufficient to know that the Muslim women during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, practiced this. > For instance, there is a death penalty for muslims who choose not to live under islamic rule. I would like to see the source of that claim. > And no, the law does not mention the case that there is no islamic state. Just because there is no Caliphite state today, does not mean that there are no Islamic states. Nowhere in the sources is it stated that a Caliphite system is the exclusive way to have an Islamic state. In one Hadith, the Prophet Peace be upon him mentioned that the Caliphite period after him will be 30 years, then it will turn into kingdoms. There are dozens of Hadiths that tell people to have patience, and not to overthrow their governments, even if those governments are messing around with some religious rulings (e.g. delaying prayers until after their time). There are only two cases where it is permissible to overthrow the ruling government, none of which apply to any of the countries of the so called Arab Spring today. We also have Hadiths that describe people with mentalities similar to what we see in ISIS today. One of these Hadiths calls such people the dogs of Hell fire. > That I am a racist if I think otherwise. I don't see what racism has to do with any of this. You're free to believe what you want, but it seems that the vast majority of what you believe about this topic is based on either no evidence at all, or on deliberately misconstrued "interpretations", which can be easily dismissed by a learned individual. > How much does it really match the religion's instructions ? It goes against it 100%. The Prophet Peace be upon him told us not to overthrow our rulers, regardless of how bad they get. They have absolutely no religious basis to their actions; none of the nearby countries recognize them as a legitimate government; we have Hadiths describing people like them. > Islamic ideology glorifies this war of the prophet against the Roman Empire, and the Jewish and other states bordering it... He did not wage war for the sake of waging war. This is another misconstrued view you have of Islamic history. In ALL of the wars that happened during his time, it was to either fend off an attacking enemy, or it was after a peace treaty was broken by the other party. > and describes it as a war that can and should only end with total worldwide victory of the religion. * http://quran.com/49/13 http://quran.com/49/13 * http://quran.com/10/99 http://quran.com/10/99 > keep in mind that islamic marriages are arranged Again, more uncited claims. Arranged (i.e. forced) marriages are against Islamic teachings. Them happening in Muslim countries does not mean these practices were derived from the religion (basic correlation vs. causation fallacy). That being said, I don't disagree that there are many misconceptions that are spread in the Islamic world, about certain rulings or teachings, that in fact, are not from Islam. It is important to educate people about what is and isn't from Islam.

waps 11y ago
You don't even make claims. You are simply deliberately clouding the issue. The statements you make are orthogonal to the claims presented. Take for instance your claim against the idea that sharia presents death as a punishment for certain crimes (including living in a non-islamic state) : > (hint, because Islam preserves life, and its goal is not to kill left and right, like how you're trying to make it seem to be) This is supposed to refute that sharia has the death penalty ... Let's put some of your other claims right here, so that people can realize just how far-fetched and wrong they are : (answer to that islam instructs muslims to fight) > The Prophet Peace be upon him told us not to overthrow our rulers, regardless ... (answer to that islamic ideology glorifies the prophet's wars (yes, plural), raids, mass-rapes and genocides) > He did not wage war for the sake of waging war. True of course, like any other genocidal maniac he liked raping, stealing, and the like. If he could get young girls without a fight, he took it without a fight. For instance, Aisha was sold to him in trade for a contract that Ali would be his successor (go ahead and claim that that does not qualify as an arranged marriage). And muslims are still fighting about that ... hell it's one of the things Daesh claims to be fighting for in Iraq : their opinion being that the contract is invalid. All your other arguments are equally orthogonal. Which means, of course, that you don't rationally disagree with the case presented at all : that islam demands war until the total subjugation of the entire world, and that muslims are teaching their children this. And yes, they add "but don't actually do that because it's stupid" to it, I don't even dispute that. And then Daesh and others field clerics that remind those children, now all grown up and loose from their parents, that the books their parents taught them from teach war, fighting and death, and provide the opportunity, the weapons, and the thing that they can't get on their own : a life, a family, in trade. They do this when those kids are angry, when they're abandoned by society. What people don't realize about Daesh, Hamas, PLA, Al Qaeda and others is that this is what those organisations do, in order of importance : 1) arrange marriages (generally not forcing either party, just vouching for their credentials and bringing them together) 2) provide family support (apartment, basic medical care, schooling, ...) 3) provide jobs, mostly non-violent (mostly building houses actually) 4) attack innocents, carry out attacks, mass-raping of anyone not in their little circle, ... Attacking 4) does not work. It is futile and beside the point. You need to attack, first and foremost, their ability to do 1). You need to attack the ideology itself. And this works. Why does it work ? Because of islam. Because the ideology. Because islam is a violent, despicable religion.

by azth 11y ago

waps 11y ago

You don't even make claims. You are simply deliberately clouding the issue. The statements you make are orthogonal to the claims presented. Take for instance your claim against the idea that sharia presents death as a punishment for certain crimes (including living in a non-islamic state) : > (hint, because Islam preserves life, and its goal is not to kill left and right, like how you're trying to make it seem to be) This is supposed to refute that sharia has the death penalty ... Let's put some of your other claims right here, so that people can realize just how far-fetched and wrong they are : (answer to that islam instructs muslims to fight) > The Prophet Peace be upon him told us not to overthrow our rulers, regardless ... (answer to that islamic ideology glorifies the prophet's wars (yes, plural), raids, mass-rapes and genocides) > He did not wage war for the sake of waging war. True of course, like any other genocidal maniac he liked raping, stealing, and the like. If he could get young girls without a fight, he took it without a fight. For instance, Aisha was sold to him in trade for a contract that Ali would be his successor (go ahead and claim that that does not qualify as an arranged marriage). And muslims are still fighting about that ... hell it's one of the things Daesh claims to be fighting for in Iraq : their opinion being that the contract is invalid. All your other arguments are equally orthogonal. Which means, of course, that you don't rationally disagree with the case presented at all : that islam demands war until the total subjugation of the entire world, and that muslims are teaching their children this. And yes, they add "but don't actually do that because it's stupid" to it, I don't even dispute that. And then Daesh and others field clerics that remind those children, now all grown up and loose from their parents, that the books their parents taught them from teach war, fighting and death, and provide the opportunity, the weapons, and the thing that they can't get on their own : a life, a family, in trade. They do this when those kids are angry, when they're abandoned by society. What people don't realize about Daesh, Hamas, PLA, Al Qaeda and others is that this is what those organisations do, in order of importance : 1) arrange marriages (generally not forcing either party, just vouching for their credentials and bringing them together) 2) provide family support (apartment, basic medical care, schooling, ...) 3) provide jobs, mostly non-violent (mostly building houses actually) 4) attack innocents, carry out attacks, mass-raping of anyone not in their little circle, ... Attacking 4) does not work. It is futile and beside the point. You need to attack, first and foremost, their ability to do 1). You need to attack the ideology itself. And this works. Why does it work ? Because of islam. Because the ideology. Because islam is a violent, despicable religion.