About TheReligionofPeace.com

[Ropey]

Actually, you've tended more toward using conjecture and your own baseless assumptions. Like most who attempt to criticize Islam, you're guilty of confirmation bias to an extreme degree.

...The difference being that some sort of Caliphate existed for over 1,000 years and many of the states that have used a form of this model have been some of history's most successful (Rashidun, 'Abbasid, pre-Selim II Ottoman Empire, etc.) Your arguments regarding 'conditions' are groundless and asinine since not even the worst and most immoral leaders in these societies did anything that wasn't also common practice among their Christian contemporaries. To which form of government should it be compared? American 'democracy'? The United States disenfranchised a large portion of its population on the basis of race until just over 40 years ago. The sort of society you champion has the same history of misinterpretation and depravity and is no more immune to criticism. Approach the subject without bias or preconceptions and this will become apparent.

Actions and practices you attribute to 'Muslims' are immaterial to discussions of the religion itself unless it can be established that a particular action had a firm basis in a legitimate reading of scripture. The Qur'an isn't responsible for everything those who read it happen to do -- your arguments will fall flat until you realize this and attempt to criticize the religion on more legitimate grounds.

When you put forward ridiculous arguments, I treat them with the low amount of respect I feel that they deserve.

'Evidence' that has yet to make an appearance and any of your posts. Yawn.

Denial is not just a river.

I accept your concession.

It is insane to accept that which is not given in discussion Kalam. There is no concession in this post that I can see.

Yet you accept concessions that are not given? Kind of like Muslim honor in war? Hudna Kalam? Set for ten years and re-arm. Then create an event by the other side and attack after two years of hudna (truce)?

True fail.

You do not come here to discuss. You come here to do no more than obfuscate, minimize and form a pretense of Muslims and how they practice Islam.

 

[Intense]

I think one thing Kalam does show, is that it is not for Muslims to speak for other Muslims, one simply applies and does what one wants, until confronted with superior force. It seems like most else in the World, Islam is confronted with multiple contradictions, where those with the power and influence make and change the rules, with or without reason. We do that here too, we just claim to separate Government from the Church, applying filtered Ideal and Principle, to Civil Law. It would seem part of the disorder around the globe is not knowing where and when to stop adding new burdens to the People as a whole. Just a thought.

 

[Kalam]

It is insane to accept that which is not given in discussion Kalam. There is no concession in this post that I can see.

When someone responds to a post with an oh-so-scintillating one-liner, he affirms that he's either unwilling or unable to put forward an actual response. In other words, he tacitly concedes that he lacks either the motivation or the ability to continue the discussion.

There's a point at which faux outrage becomes so transparent that it hurts your argument more than it helps it. Just a word of advice.

You do not come here to discuss. You come here to do no more than obfuscate, minimize and form a pretense of Muslims and how they practice Islam.

Even if that were the case, I'd still be able to hold my head higher than someone who spends so much of his time trolling, Ropey.

 

[logical4u]

"When you can demonstrate one islamic society" (or leader) "that promotes: truth, freedom, learning, liberty", there will be honor and integrity.
When I have asked you about islam in the past, I used "your" links for information on islam.

Actually, you've tended more toward using conjecture and your own baseless assumptions. Like most who attempt to criticize Islam, you're guilty of confirmation bias to an extreme degree.


...The difference being that some sort of Caliphate existed for over 1,000 years and many of the states that have used a form of this model have been some of history's most successful (Rashidun, 'Abbasid, pre-Selim II Ottoman Empire, etc.) Your arguments regarding 'conditions' are groundless and asinine since not even the worst and most immoral leaders in these societies did anything that wasn't also common practice among their Christian contemporaries. To which form of government should it be compared? American 'democracy'? The United States disenfranchised a large portion of its population on the basis of race until just over 40 years ago. The sort of society you champion has the same history of misinterpretation and depravity and is no more immune to criticism. Approach the subject without bias or preconceptions and this will become apparent.


Actions and practices you attribute to 'Muslims' are immaterial to discussions of the religion itself unless it can be established that a particular action had a firm basis in a legitimate reading of scripture. The Qur'an isn't responsible for everything those who read it happen to do -- your arguments will fall flat until you realize this and attempt to criticize the religion on more legitimate grounds.


When you put forward ridiculous arguments, I treat them with the low amount of respect I feel that they deserve.

If you will not answer simple questions of a faith you claim to be "the only way", it makes me believe that you either have not considered the "truth" or choose to believe and embrace something where evidence demonstrates is destructive to any society it overtakes.

'Evidence' that has yet to make an appearance and any of your posts. Yawn.

Denial is not just a river.

Kalam, I responded with one line because your post was more blah, blah, blah. a Caliphate for 1000 years... do you really think Sharia was in play for all of those 1000 years?
There is no sense in having a discussion with you. You ignore facts and the reality of islamic nations and want to quote "scripture" that is not practiced in any islamic form of government.
You want to act the expert. I ask for facts. You provide none. You do go on, and on, and on about selective parts of "scripture" and about what could have been, what should have been and what could be (even though there is NO evidence it ever worked).

You make statements. I ask questions that everyone else can observe your dodges and outright misrepresentations. They make up their minds about muslims honesty and integrity. I am not saying that you represent all muslims, just that it is extremely disappointing that you portray yourself as a type of expert that will not answer questions about why you believe.

 

[Kalam]

Kalam, I responded with one line because your post was more blah, blah, blah.

You responded with one line because, as I said, you were unwilling or unable to do anything else. Feel free to type an actual response and I'll address it.

As for me considering myself an 'expert'...

 

[logical4u]

Kalam, I responded with one line because your post was more blah, blah, blah.

You responded with one line because, as I said, you were unwilling or unable to do anything else. Feel free to type an actual response and I'll address it.

As for me considering myself an 'expert'...

Islam teaches that the faith should be spread thru deceit and force. Why would you believe any documentation done by muslims?

Islam teaches that the Hebrew "prophets" were theirs also. Why do muslims disregard the prophets' teaching of how terrible deceit and lying is?

Islam teaches that Yeshua is their prophet also. Why do muslims ignore Yeshua's condemnation of deceit and trickery?

 

[Kalam]

Islam teaches that the faith should be spread thru deceit and force.

I'm afraid it doesn't. Please produce a passage from the Qur'an or a sahih or hasan hadith which unambiguously states that a person can spread the religion 'through deceit and force.' Please don't waste my time by posting some unrelated ayah that you find on a propaganda blog and insisting that it allows us to 'lie' through your own silly interpretation of it.

Why would you believe any documentation done by muslims?

Because you hopefully aren't an idiot? If you want to assume that I'm lying to you then there's no point in you continuing this discussion, right?

Islam teaches that the Hebrew "prophets" were theirs also. Why do muslims disregard the prophets' teaching of how terrible deceit and lying is?

Islam teaches that Yeshua is their prophet also. Why do muslims ignore Yeshua's condemnation of deceit and trickery?

The only person ignoring religious injunctions against deceit is you. You have no knowledge of a religion and attempt to attack it on the basis of teachings that don't even exist within it. The closest your kind comes to supporting an argument with evidence is when you quote passages out of context and insist that they prove your false claims even when their meanings are unapparent to you.

 

[logical4u]

Islam teaches that the faith should be spread thru deceit and force.

I'm afraid it doesn't. Please produce a passage from the Qur'an or a sahih or hasan hadith which unambiguously states that a person can spread the religion 'through deceit and force.' Please don't waste my time by posting some unrelated ayah that you find on a propaganda blog and insisting that it allows us to 'lie' through your own silly interpretation of it.

Why would you believe any documentation done by muslims?

Because you hopefully aren't an idiot? If you want to assume that I'm lying to you then there's no point in you continuing this discussion, right?

Islam teaches that the Hebrew "prophets" were theirs also. Why do muslims disregard the prophets' teaching of how terrible deceit and lying is?

Islam teaches that Yeshua is their prophet also. Why do muslims ignore Yeshua's condemnation of deceit and trickery?

The only person ignoring religious injunctions against deceit is you. You have no knowledge of a religion and attempt to attack it on the basis of teachings that don't even exist within it. The closest your kind comes to supporting an argument with evidence is when you quote passages out of context and insist that they prove your false claims even when their meanings are unapparent to you.

Like I said, when you put qualifiers onto answers and dodge the questions, people can see for themselves how you can not reasonably support your faith.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch16_understanding_dishonesty.htm

Chapter Sixteen
When someone first becomes curious and wishes to begin learning about Islam, it is imperative that they first understand the degree to which lying is not only permitted, but actually fostered and even, at times, commanded in Islam. When a Christian wishes to teach others about Christianity, it is simply understood that honesty will be an essential aspect of that sharing. In Islam however, most westerners have a hard time relating to the fact that purposeful exaggerations, covering of the truth and occasionally – outright-deliberate lying is a core part of the religion of Islam. There are actually specific doctrines and traditions that foster a culture of dishonesty within Islam. Now, of course, there are some verses and traditions in Islam that discourage lying:

...
Kithman is a command to deliberately conceal one’s beliefs. It is a particular form of lying primarily practiced by the minority Shia’ Muslims. This doctrine is articulated by Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam of Shia’ Islam:



One, who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us. 2

You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace him.3

Taqiya: Foundation for Deception

The Quran teaches that it is allowable for Muslims to literally deny their faith in order to protect themselves. Muslims who deny their faith will be forgiven as long as their true faith was not really shaken (i.e. their denial was a lie in the purest sense) and only if their denial of faith was for the purpose of avoiding harm (primarily while living among non-Muslims):

Muhammad even allowed lying for the sake of gaining wealth:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you to escape persecution?" The Prophet excused him and said: "Say whatever you have to say." 10

It is the “any end justifies the means” approach to life and religion that Muhammad displays that shines through the most here. And there are numerous other examples of Muhammad encouraging his followers to lie as a means to achieve the end goal of the furtherance of Islam.

Deception Justified To Murder The Enemies of Islam

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." The Prophet said, "You may say it." 11

....

just do a search on deceit in islam and you will get all kinds of hits.

I am asking you in a straight forward way to explain why muslims follow a religion that is based in deceit and uses deceit as a way of life. I realize that there are muslims that see the true Lord and listen to Him in their heart and mind. I don't believe they are involved with deceiving others. I just wonder how muslims that have a "choice" won't see that they are being encouraged to be less (liars).

 

[Kalam]

Chapter Sixteen

[http://www.answering-islam.org]

Pathetic.

Kithman is a command to deliberately conceal one’s beliefs. It is a particular form of lying primarily practiced by the minority Shia’ Muslims. This doctrine is articulated by Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam of Shia’ Islam:

One, who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us. 2

You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace him.3

I generally have no interest in defending the Shi'at 'Ali but I know that these Shi'i ahadith are being presented disingenuously. Kitmaan refers to the practice of feigning allegiance to an oppressive authority; the Shi'ah felt that this was necessary at the time because the Ummayads killed a number of them who openly opposed their rule, including family members of Imam Ja'far.

Taqiya: Foundation for Deception

The Quran teaches that it is allowable for Muslims to literally deny their faith in order to protect themselves.

Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Muhammad even allowed lying for the sake of gaining wealth:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you to escape persecution?" The Prophet excused him and said: "Say whatever you have to say." 10

From As-Sirah al-Halabiyya. We'll assume for the sake of your argument that it's accurate and I won't bother verifying the translation.

"...for the sake of gaining wealth"

That's a joke, right? The passage itself indicates that the purpose was to escape 'persecution'; the Quraysh subjected Muslims to torture and worse before the emigration to Madinah. Why would they bother printing something blatantly dishonest directly above a passage that contradicts it?

It is the “any end justifies the means”

Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.

Deception Justified To Murder The Enemies of Islam

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." The Prophet said, "You may say it." 11

Nobody is called to account for deceiving enemies who declare war on Islam. Does any realistic ideology expect its followers to avoid taking advantage of opportunities in war for the sake of being honest to an enemy?

From Bukhari. I don't know the isnad but will assume that it's authentic for your sake.

just do a search on deceit in islam and you will get all kinds of hits.

And most of them link to blogs and other internet cespits devoid of any trace of objectivity or legitimate scholarship. Why would I waste my time reading polemics that are rife with blatant inaccuracies?

I am asking you in a straight forward way to explain why muslims follow a religion that is based in deceit and uses deceit as a way of life.

Learn how to submit an inquiry without begging the question and you might receive a response. Your presumptuousness makes it clear that you aren't interested in any sort of honest discussion.

 

[Ropey]

Oh the arrogance of Kalam. Demanding that others follow his kind of inquiry.

All he does here is obfuscate, minimize, detach and attach out of context, acts of the mind that do not follow the acts on the ground.

Then you complain when taken to task for such duplicity. You are like your belief.

Not to be trusted.

...yet you often insist on minimizing the effects of events'
...yet you often insist on casting external blame for internal acts (blaming others)

Minimization' is a matter of perception. Too subjective to be a legitimate criticism. I assign blame where blame is due.

What rubbish. Minimization is a matter of perception therefore too subjective to be a legitimate concern.

 

[The Infidel]

I think most muslims say nothing because they are scared to

 

[Kalam]

Oh the arrogance of Kalam. Demanding that others follow his kind of inquiry.

Demanding? I think you'll find that there are no consequences for contradicting my will. Personally, I believe it's rather arrogant to assume that a person can attain a sufficient understanding of a religion by reading non-academical internet musings, indict that religion from this position of ignorance, and then complain when this approach is criticized. As for swooping into a discussion like this and complaining rudely about posts from different threads, well, that's something else entirely...

All he does here is obfuscate, minimize, detach and attach out of context, acts of the mind that do not follow the acts on the ground.

That isn't the subject of this discussion. This is a discussion of doctrine and you are certainly welcome to join it if you'd like to add something relavant. If you have specific complaints about any 'obfuscation', 'minimization', etc from my end in this thread, feel free to share them and I'll address them in sha' Allah.

Then you complain when taken to task for such duplicity.

But I haven't been 'taken to task.' Is that what you plan on doing? I look forward to reading your exposition.

You are like your belief.

Not to be trusted.

I see something has you upset again. If you have doubts concerning the accuracy or honesty of any statement I've made concerning my religion, please make them known and I'll be happy to provide pertinent evidence.

If you want to be bitter and hostile toward me, that's your choice. If you want to respond to posts of mine (posts directed toward other discussants) with talk of arguments from different discussions and repetitive complaints about 'obfuscation', etc. that you never really expound on, that's also your choice. But I'd really appreciate it if you took a more civil approach to things -- I'll try to do so as well.

 

[Ropey]

But I'd really appreciate it if you took a more civil approach to things -- I'll try to do so as well.

Oh, I'm done with you for now. I find it interesting that you would appreciate it if I would do something.

But you just have to try.

 

[Kalam]

But I'd really appreciate it if you took a more civil approach to things -- I'll try to do so as well.

Oh, I'm done with you for now. I find it interesting that you would appreciate it if I would do something.

But you just have to try.

You add significance to these words that their author didn't intend. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

 

[Ropey]

But I'd really appreciate it if you took a more civil approach to things -- I'll try to do so as well.

Oh, I'm done with you for now. I find it interesting that you would appreciate it if I would do something.

But you just have to try.

You add significance to these words that their author didn't intend. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

I just noted it Kalam. There's no need to be sorry for something you do not mean.

 

[Kalam]

Oh, I'm done with you for now. I find it interesting that you would appreciate it if I would do something.

But you just have to try.

You add significance to these words that their author didn't intend. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

I just noted it Kalam. There's no need to be sorry for something you do not mean. I just noted it.

I understand. It wasn't communicated clearly.

 

[logical4u]

Chapter Sixteen

[http://www.answering-islam.org]

Pathetic.

Kithman is a command to deliberately conceal one’s beliefs. It is a particular form of lying primarily practiced by the minority Shia’ Muslims. This doctrine is articulated by Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam of Shia’ Islam:

One, who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us. 2

You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace him.3

I generally have no interest in defending the Shi'at 'Ali but I know that these Shi'i ahadith are being presented disingenuously. Kitmaan refers to the practice of feigning allegiance to an oppressive authority; the Shi'ah felt that this was necessary at the time because the Ummayads killed a number of them who openly opposed their rule, including family members of Imam Ja'far.


Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Muhammad even allowed lying for the sake of gaining wealth:



From As-Sirah al-Halabiyya. We'll assume for the sake of your argument that it's accurate and I won't bother verifying the translation.

"...for the sake of gaining wealth"

That's a joke, right? The passage itself indicates that the purpose was to escape 'persecution'; the Quraysh subjected Muslims to torture and worse before the emigration to Madinah. Why would they bother printing something blatantly dishonest directly above a passage that contradicts it?


Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.



Nobody is called to account for deceiving enemies who declare war on Islam. Does any realistic ideology expect its followers to avoid taking advantage of opportunities in war for the sake of being honest to an enemy?

From Bukhari. I don't know the isnad but will assume that it's authentic for your sake.

just do a search on deceit in islam and you will get all kinds of hits.

And most of them link to blogs and other internet cespits devoid of any trace of objectivity or legitimate scholarship. Why would I waste my time reading polemics that are rife with blatant inaccuracies?

I am asking you in a straight forward way to explain why muslims follow a religion that is based in deceit and uses deceit as a way of life.

Learn how to submit an inquiry without begging the question and you might receive a response. Your presumptuousness makes it clear that you aren't interested in any sort of honest discussion.

Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Isn't this in direct conflict with:

Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.

Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence

I gave you ample opportunities to present the passages "in the correct context". You chose not to do that. I gave you information off of one site out of hundreds and you want to get indignant?

Again, feel free to explain the passages in the "correct" context. To me, the quran seems to contradict itself, repeatedly. What is "taught" by the leaders has even bigger discrepancies.

Example the British extremist Omar Bakri Mohammad's former aide, Anjem Choudary, a British extremist said, "the Muslims don't want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah." He continues: Choudary said that at his protest, he will call on Obama and all Americans to "embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life." and with: He warned Obama: "I do believe that the only way for him to save himself in this life and in the hereafter is to embrace Islam. Islam will eradicate all his sins; he will be like the day his mother gave birth to him. Otherwise, when we do implement the Shariah, obviously he will face the consequences of a trial under the Shariah court."

Choudary has publicly stated he believes the flag of Islam will fly over White House. He repeated that contention in his radio interview.

"I do believe that as a Muslim every part of the world will be governed by the Shariah," he said. "So symbolically the flag of Islam will fly from every single country, every single nation."

Read more: 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis' 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis'


This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?

 

[Ropey]

I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences.

Indeed you are.

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is what it says on paper (the talk). Where do you see the practice (the walk)? In predominately muslim nations, life conditions are some of the worst in the world. I know there are those that claim "poets and scholars" in islam, but today, those same "poets and scholars" are brutally murdered if they stay inside an islamic community.
You keep saying you abhor the violence. Sharia is responsible for the violence. It is an inseperable part of islam, therefore the entire religion is an abomination on all men.

The people that are raised in islam and concentrate on the spiritual and ignore the Sharia (or do it as little as possible for actual survival) can be great people. The religion they follow will continue to spread deceit, not truth. As such, any rational (scientific) people should reject the teachings of Sharia as false and denounce it.

I reject Sharia. Most of the 79 nations in the UN who voted to keep the execution of gays without cause are Islamic majority nations.

The spiritual practices that are the five pillars of Islam are no problem to me.

This is what is being said: the spiritual is fine, it is the Sharia portion where people have issues. The problem with "islam" is that the followers are not allowed to seperate the two.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Muslims in Europe and the US are allowed to separate the two. They can't in Islamic theocracies.
Shariah is the law of the land. Some who live here want to make the Bible the law of the land.

Theocracy is the problem, not the religion.

 

[logical4u]

I reject Sharia. Most of the 79 nations in the UN who voted to keep the execution of gays without cause are Islamic majority nations.

The spiritual practices that are the five pillars of Islam are no problem to me.

This is what is being said: the spiritual is fine, it is the Sharia portion where people have issues. The problem with "islam" is that the followers are not allowed to seperate the two.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Muslims in Europe and the US are allowed to separate the two. They can't in Islamic theocracies.
Shariah is the law of the land. Some who live here want to make the Bible the law of the land.

Theocracy is the problem, not the religion.

There ARE some muslims that "do" seperate the two (Spiritual from Sharia) in the West. There are many that are persecuting those that do to bring Sharia to the West. Look into the countries that welcomed muslims in Europe 'believing' they would join the culture of relative freedom and expression, only to discover their Sharia has followed them and is making cities in Europe into ME type poverty stricken communities where the country's police are "afraid" to go. Until Sharia is rejected by "all", there is no where in this world that is safe. The Sharia extremists believe that no one has any rights and only total domination by Sharia is ACCEPTABLE. You want to believe otherwise, I get that. Try demonstrating where muslim communities are living in peace with their non-believing neighbors. Show us where these muslim communities are that respect the rights of others.