Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable.
Large majorities of Muslims would guarantee free speech if it were up to them to write a new constitution AND they say religious leaders should have no direct role in drafting that constitution.
Muslims around the world say that what they LEAST admire about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values – the same answers that Americans themselves give when asked this question.
When asked about their dreams for the future, Muslims say they want better jobs and security, not conflict and violence.
Muslims say the most important thing Westerners can do to improve relations with their societies is to change their negative views toward Muslims and respect Islam.
[/quote]
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
Oh look, the word “subdue” has a gazillion different meanings in Arabic and they have quite a lot of words for it:
I am gifted with the power of google, apparently, not everyone is. [/quote]
Cool.
Looks like at least 99% of them lead me to NOT want to “feel myself subdued.” But that’s just me.
And then there is the reality of what goes on in Muslim countries, too. See the links above.
[/quote]
Yes, apparently secular humanist and christians come down on them like the four horsemen of the apocalypse and kill them for their own good.
[/quote]
None of which has anything to do with religion.
But then you knew that, of course, and just chose to ignore it.[/quote]
It has something to do with an all encompassing belief system that the leaders of the attacking societies pretend to believe in when it suits them.
Realistically, freedom and democracy are dangerous, radical ideologies that have repeteadly been used to fight wars to bring whole nations under their yoke.
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
[quote]zahmad wrote:
Because you only read the headlines. The data is in the book.[/quote]
But in a polling situation, an honest moderate peace loving Muslim and a radical violent Muslim that believes in lying to non-Muslims to further the faith should both give you the same answer.
One of the tenants of radical Islam is to lie about your beliefs. How can you trust polling of such people?
I am familiar with Al-Taqiyya. It’s applicable to one’s faith (ie. claiming that one is not Muslim), and not to specific beliefs. It’s a safety net in case a Muslim is faced with the situation of “change your religion or die”, and a similar idea was practiced by Christians as well (leading to Christmas being on a pagan holiday). The Gallup data is a survey of Muslims all over the world, Not just in the US.
BTW, this IS the thread about a Muslim Woman competing in Weightlifting.
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
Oh look, the word “subdue” has a gazillion different meanings in Arabic and they have quite a lot of words for it:
I am gifted with the power of google, apparently, not everyone is. [/quote]
a gazillion different meanings, all meaning basically the same thing.
1.Overcome, quieten, or bring under control (a feeling or person)
2.Bring (a country or people) under control by force
I have the power of google also, “google dictionary”, to be exact.[/quote]
Yeah, but those passages were written after those Muslims were attacked, so to curb, quieten or bring under control makes kind of sense.
[/quote]
You are really arguing that there isn’t violent jihad in the Hadith?
“A man asked [the Prophet]: “…and what is Jihad?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.””
There is also a version of Jihad that is an inner struggle, but there it is often used as violent war too.
The funny thing is that you are actually arguing against the main schools of Islam and their teachings.
I am familiar with Al-Taqiyya. It’s applicable to one’s faith (ie. claiming that one is not Muslim), and not to specific beliefs. It’s a safety net in case a Muslim is faced with the situation of “change your religion or die”, and a similar idea was practiced by Christians as well (leading to Christmas being on a pagan holiday). The Gallup data is a survey of Muslims all over the world, Not just in the US.
BTW, this IS the thread about a Muslim Woman competing in Weightlifting.
[/quote]
That isn’t the al-taqiyya that the radicals practice. I’m not saying they have the right version, I’m saying they believe and teach to lie to further Islam and to mislead all non-believers. You cannot poll a people who practice that.
And me referring to the other thread was a sarcastic way of me wondering where the hate mongering was.
You are really arguing that there isn’t violent jihad in the Hadith?
“A man asked [the Prophet]: “…and what is Jihad?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.””
There is also a version of Jihad that is an inner struggle, but there it is often used as violent war too.
The funny thing is that you are actually arguing against the main schools of Islam and their teachings.[/quote]
I never said there wasn’t violent Jihad in the hadith. Jihad has many forms, one of them being in the battle field. But it’s not the highest form of Jihad. The hadith you quote is not supported by the main schools of Islam and their teachings.
Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one’s soul).”
In another Hadith:
“The best Jihad is to speak the truth before a tyrant ruler”
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
Oh look, the word “subdue” has a gazillion different meanings in Arabic and they have quite a lot of words for it:
I am gifted with the power of google, apparently, not everyone is. [/quote]
a gazillion different meanings, all meaning basically the same thing.
1.Overcome, quieten, or bring under control (a feeling or person)
2.Bring (a country or people) under control by force
I have the power of google also, “google dictionary”, to be exact.[/quote]
Yeah, but those passages were written after those Muslims were attacked, so to curb, quieten or bring under control makes kind of sense.
[/quote]
the same way the Nazi’s invaded Poland after being “attacked”?
Yeah, you can justify anything if you try hard enough.
who, exactly, attacked the muslims to cause those verses to be written? So because Mohammad was allegedly attacked by Jews and Christians, it gives Muslims the right to attack ALL Christians and Jews FOREVER??
That is where the Koran and the Old Testament violence comparisons part company. In the OT the Jews were told to kill pagan followers who no longer exist as religions today. After they had done so, they stopped…hell, God also punished Israel by having other Empires conquer them again and again, so in the OT the Israelis were not always the aggressors and more so on the recieving end of violence.
Meanwhile in the Koran, Allah told Mohammad’s followers to kill Jews and Christians, and these verses are used to justify the killing of Jews and Christians even today. Am I right or wrong here?
Maybe someone more versed in the Bible could chime in on this, also, someone more knowlegable about the Koran.
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
Oh look, the word “subdue” has a gazillion different meanings in Arabic and they have quite a lot of words for it:
I am gifted with the power of google, apparently, not everyone is. [/quote]
a gazillion different meanings, all meaning basically the same thing.
1.Overcome, quieten, or bring under control (a feeling or person)
2.Bring (a country or people) under control by force
I have the power of google also, “google dictionary”, to be exact.[/quote]
Yeah, but those passages were written after those Muslims were attacked, so to curb, quieten or bring under control makes kind of sense.
[/quote]
the same way the Nazi’s invaded Poland after being “attacked”?
Yeah, you can justify anything if you try hard enough.
who, exactly, attacked the muslims to cause those verses to be written? So because Mohammad was allegedly attacked by Jews and Christians, it gives Muslims the right to attack ALL Christians and Jews FOREVER??
That is where the Koran and the Old Testament violence comparisons part company. In the OT the Jews were told to kill pagan followers who no longer exist as religions today. After they had done so, they stopped…hell, God also punished Israel by having other Empires conquer them again and again, so in the OT the Israelis were not always the aggressors and more so on the recieving end of violence.
Meanwhile in the Koran, Allah told Mohammad’s followers to kill Jews and Christians, and these verses are used to justify the killing of Jews and Christians even today. Am I right or wrong here?
Maybe someone more versed in the Bible could chime in on this, also, someone more knowlegable about the Koran.
You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity."
“… All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour.”
“… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town – all its spoil – and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.”
Ah, look ye here, I take it back the Quran is truly a disgusting and vile book.
Subdue does not mean force their rules upon. The etymology of the english word does not apply to the arabic word. There is no compulsion in religious belief. That’s what it says in the Quran. Even in Muslim controlled lands, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and their Churches were allowed to make their own laws for their people.
Please take your hate-spreading arguments to someone else.[/quote]
Oh look, the word “subdue” has a gazillion different meanings in Arabic and they have quite a lot of words for it:
I am gifted with the power of google, apparently, not everyone is. [/quote]
a gazillion different meanings, all meaning basically the same thing.
1.Overcome, quieten, or bring under control (a feeling or person)
2.Bring (a country or people) under control by force
I have the power of google also, “google dictionary”, to be exact.[/quote]
Yeah, but those passages were written after those Muslims were attacked, so to curb, quieten or bring under control makes kind of sense.
[/quote]
the same way the Nazi’s invaded Poland after being “attacked”?
Yeah, you can justify anything if you try hard enough.
who, exactly, attacked the muslims to cause those verses to be written? So because Mohammad was allegedly attacked by Jews and Christians, it gives Muslims the right to attack ALL Christians and Jews FOREVER??
That is where the Koran and the Old Testament violence comparisons part company. In the OT the Jews were told to kill pagan followers who no longer exist as religions today. After they had done so, they stopped…hell, God also punished Israel by having other Empires conquer them again and again, so in the OT the Israelis were not always the aggressors and more so on the recieving end of violence.
Meanwhile in the Koran, Allah told Mohammad’s followers to kill Jews and Christians, and these verses are used to justify the killing of Jews and Christians even today. Am I right or wrong here?
Maybe someone more versed in the Bible could chime in on this, also, someone more knowlegable about the Koran.
[/quote]
The Quran is very much against offensive wars.
[/quote]
You had to quote me. I was going to delete the post and forget about it.
Yes, you are correct, it is.
But on the other hand you can justify offensive wars by playing a victim, just sayin.
Or anything, for that matter, like trying to bend the rules in Olympic Lifting to suit your religious beliefs.
[quote]orion wrote:
You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity."
“… All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour.”
“… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town – all its spoil – and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.”
Ah, look ye here, I take it back the Quran is truly a disgusting and vile book.
[/quote]
what? from the OT I presume. I said my opinion about it above.
Some verses may be used to justify the killing of Jews/Christians, but the justification is incorrect. I will type this again, in the Quran it says “Be not the aggressor, for God hates the aggressor”