About Islam

[mralstoner]

Here's a crash course in Islam...

Islam is defined as the worship of Allah, and the imitation of Mohammed. There are 90 verses in the Koran which implore Muslims to imitate Mohammed ("a beautiful pattern of conduct").

The words of Allah are found in the Koran (as "received" by Mohammed through visions, dreams [or epileptic fits]). The words and deeds of Mohammed are found in the Hadith (traditions of Mohammed) and Sira (biography of Mohammed). These are the foundational texts of Islam: Koran, Hadith, Sira.

From these foundational text are dervied other texts e.g. the manual for sharia law (Reliance of The Traveller?). Sharia Law is Islamic Law, seemingly about every minute detail of life e.g. when to chop hands and heads off, when to stone someone to death, when to beat your wife, and perhaps even which hand to use when whiping your ... ahem...

The majority of Islamic texts are about Mohammed. So, Islam is more about Mohammed than Allah.

In the first 13 years of Mohammed's prophet tenure, he was a relatively peaceful preacher in Mecca. However, Mohammed's rejection of the existing polytheism of the time, in favour of "one true god", eventually threatened the existing order, and Mohammed was forced to flee from Mecca to Medina, in fear of his life.

In the last 9 years of Mohammed's tenure, we see a radically different prophet. Mohammed became a violent warlord who subjugated the whole of Arabia under the sword of Islam, the details of which are not dinner party conversation. Basically, he picked a fight with everyone around him.

Because of these two radically different periods, the Islamic holy books contain both peaceful and violent verses, depending on what period they came from.

So, both moderates and radicals can quote verses from the Koran to suit their argument. But the later violent verses are said to abrogate the earlier peaceful ones. So, the extremists actually have the stronger argument that Islam really is a religion of the sword.

When you study the life of Mohammed, it becomes crystal clear why so many Muslims turn violent - because Mohammed spend half his prophet tenure steeped in blood.

The biography of Mohammed reads like a war documentary:
https://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfMoha...3/mode/1up

Mohammed beheaded 600-900 Jews on one day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

Mohammed ordered or supported 43 assassinations.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killin...y_Muhammad

The prophet Mohammed commanded 65 military campaigns, and fought in 27 of them. He averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9sYgqRtZGg

The prophet Mohammed sanctioned the killing of about 10 poets who criticised him.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/A..._poets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_12.jpg

The prophet Mohammed took a Jewish girl (Safiyah) to bed on the night of torturing her husband to death.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

Safiyah said: “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father”.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/raymond...out-islam/

Mohammed sanctioned sex slaves as the spoils of war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csl0gxWnyzs

In early Islam, the biography of Mohammed was known as Maghazi (literally, stories of military expeditions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirat_Rasul_Allah

Mohammed nicknamed his swords "Pluck Out" and "Death", and himself had a nickname from early Muslim historian Tabari of "The Obliterator".
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2015/01/12/islam-and-violent-extremism/

The Islamic holy books (Koran, Hadith, Sira) contain more Jew hatred (9%) than Mein Kampf (7%).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjBDDC4wVxk

The Islamic calendar begins when Mohammed stopped being a peaceful preacher in Mecca and became a violent warlord in Medina.

The prophet Mohammed was poisoned by a Jewish women, following his attack on the Jewish settlement of Khaibar. He died three years later as a result.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htm

Three of the first four Caliphs (Muslim rulers after the death of Mohammed) were also so well loved, they too met with violent death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#Rashidun_Caliphs

A core concept of the major religions is the imitation of their archetypal prophets. Christians imitate Jesus and his early followers. Muslims imitate Mohammed and his early followers. Alas, as we have seen, Mohammed is a  not a peaceful role model.

The bottom line is: a devout Muslim, in an ardent search for the right way to follow his religion, inevitably turns to the biography of Mohammed, a man who spent half his prophet tenure steeped in blood. The bloody life of Mohammed is what makes Islam unique when compared to Jesus and the Buddha. (Along with the promise of direct entry into heaven, with virgins, for those who die fighting to expand Islam -- this is the doctrine of jihad, or holy war -- which is the prime inspiration of all those suicide bombers. Allah reserves the greatest rewards and praise for those who die fighting for Islam. I think Allah promises martyrs direct entry into heaven, bypassing judgment day?).

The root cause of Islamic violence is the prophet Mohammed. This makes it incredibly difficult to moderate Islam. But if there is any solution, it begins by acknowledging the violent example of the prophet Mohammed, who is held up to be the perfect role model for all Muslims, for all time.

The key reason why turmoil persists in the Muslim world is that moderate Muslims sweep the violent example of Mohammed under the carpet, and hope that it goes away. But it doesn't go away. Now, the tendency in the West is to likewise sweep Mohammed under the carpet, which is a guarantee that turmoil will follow Muslims here to the West. Indeed, the turmoil is gathering speed as we speak.

The word "Islam" means submission, and Muslims are commanded to subjugate the whole non-Muslim world under Islamic rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_o...d_in_Islam

Islam, being a religion of "peace", spread like wildfire after the death of Mohammed, because everyone saw its "beauty" and "welcomed" their new Muslim overlords with "joy":

Code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

Sorry, couldn't embed this video, only 3 per post allowed.

Congratulations, here is your certificate and funny hat. You are now an expert in Islam.

DID I MENTION THIS NEW EDITOR SUCKS? FORMAT GETS SCREWED UP CHANGING IN AND OUT OF VIEW-SOURCE MODE!

[Etrius]

Wow. Thanks for the lesson, professor. Gotta read it all...

[mralstoner]

Also, Muslims have rules of engagement when fighting to expand Islam (jihad) e.g. they must first invite non-Muslims to convert to Islam. If they refuse, they can then be attacked. In some circumstances, Christians (and others?) who refuse to convert may be allowed to live, but as 2nd-class citizens who a treated poorly and have to pay a tax to keep their heads. This is know as dhimmitude.

Also, apostates (those who leave Islam) can be killed.

And Muslims who are not following Islam correctly may also be killed sometimes. They are called "hypocrites", I think.

[Brian37]

Look at the Abrahamic God all three have. The Koran out of the three books, has the same bloodthirsty gang leader Mafia boss of a god. The thing that makes the Koran harder for followers to break their grip on is that it has the added vile naked assertion that it would be the final book in the trilogy of the books. And while all three depict violence towards dissent and outside tribes, the Koran has the most depictions of violence.

But hero motifs are the core characters of all three. You have a head god in all three that bribe's followers with a afterlife utopia, and promises to protect the tribe from threats and rewords the respective tribe members for loyalty to the tribe.

The truth is they are all the same God character, and Christianity and Islam are merely spin offs of the Hebrew god Yahweh, but even his character was taken from Canaanite polytheism and was a lesser god in that polytheism as part of a "divine family".

Gods of antiquity reflect the tribal times and kingships of the time. Humans lived under feudal kingships and those kings falsely attributed their power and success to the divine. "Prophets" and savior ideas were never unique to monotheism. The human desire to be protected and the gap filling of those desires is what caused humans to create comic book answers as a place card because of their own scientific ignorance.

Islam currently has the biggest problem because it has not had it's age of Enlightenment, but Christianity was once as barbaric as we see far too much of the middle east still is. It' isn't that individuals in the east are nt capable of compassion, that is in our species genes. It is that they are still stuck in the past.

Even in the west, to know Christianity is still a volcano too, you still see the attempts at religious law and sexist laws to control the bodies of women and religious based homophobia. If secular law in the west was suddenly removed, it would not take long for Christianity to regress back into the barbarity of the dark ages.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes the same case about the difference between Mecca and Medina when it comes to the competing sects of Islam. But that really is no different than Protestants and Catholics, liberals vs conservatives.

I always hear people from all religions argue the complexities of their respective religions and sects, and yes, it is complex and historians are needed to untangle that mess. But the idea of grouping around a god claim or holy books or holy writings, will always end up creating divisions.

[Brian37]

My proof is not about it being a prophecy, it just happens to be a prophecy that occurs today, it's not clearly decisive. Just wait to see what I have to say.

I predict humans will do stupid things and get violent with each other over old books. So does that mean I am making a "prophecy" and have a magic bat phone to a sky hero?

[Etrius]

Brian, that's basically what religion is about.
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]

[Brian37]

Brian, that's basically what religion is about.
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]

I love my well intended friends on the left, but even some atheists piss me off by having a kneejerk reaction to things like Dawkins rightful statement that God belief is a delusion, or Hitchens rightfully calling religion poison.

Those observations are not intended to seek a atheist utopia, but really no different than saying if you don't treat a car like a weapon, assume the other guy will screw up, you don't keep your eyes on the road, and you don't wear your seat belt, you are bound to have a wreck.


Penn said it and I agree, "Dont hate the faithful, hate faith itself". The idea that any idea deserves to be blasphemy and scrutiny free is a bad idea for any group to aspire to. You certainly have to allow the claim to be made, but ideas do not make them true by default.

Just like you cannot remove a volcano, while it can look pretty while dormant, it is still a volcano.

[Mystic]

I want to say what I state as a proof is something I take as evidence. I don't mean to say that this would be obvious to everyone else and accepted by them. I don't know how others would take it.

But one of the thing that convince me of the Quran is regarding how the family of Mohammad are designated in Quran but in a way, in which the clear message to the masses, still needs to be conveyed the by Messenger.

5:67 unlike what people  think is not simply stating a trivial fact, that if he doesn't deliver the revelation, then he hasn't delivered the message, but is about a specific thing revealed to him, mainly about the position of Ali and that it needs to be manifested in clear fashion, delivered to the masses.

Now if Ali was part of a chosen family who were divine guides, they would have to be in Quran as well, but this verse shows not everyone will see them in an obvious manner, but then it has to be obvious to anyone who sincerely reflects.

At the same time, the Quran states regarding every recitation of a Prophet, Satan cast a suggestion regarding it, and that God annuls what Satan cast and makes what Satan cast a trial to those with a disease in their hearts.

This can be designed in a way to keep the Quran from being corrupted in a natural way (without supernatural force divine intervention).

Now my hypothesis is this:

1. The Quran regarding the family of Mohammad is clear enough for those who reflect enough and want to know the truth
2. God allowed room for each place where they are mentioned for Satanic forces to suggest a false suggestion so as to keep the words of Quran from being corrupted by their enemies (ie. he allows them to put illogical interpretations)
3.  The true meaning of these verses can be proven as the only possibility with logic and other verses of Quran. 
4. The illogical reading that take precedence in the hearts of people is due to a hidden dark force (Satan and his forces) which shows there is a hidden enemy to humanity and particularly the true Quran and the family of Mohammad as mere error in reflection cannot be the issue when the true meaning is the more logical of the two and the one that is confirmed by Quran showing there is something more going on with the hearts of humanity regarding the Quran.

I will be showing evidence towards this and you can make the judgement.

 

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid that I'm suspicious of any statement that includes the terms "logic" "satan" and "dark forces" Mystic.  

When you provide your evidence..you might want to omit all of those bullshit gtfo cards you're building in.  Things like "heart diseases" - for example.  Or the implication that if things are not clear...it's because people aren't "blah blah blah" enough.  Otherwise..I don't think you'll ever reach the summit you're grasping for.  

[Brian37]

I want to say what I state as a proof is something I take as evidence. I don't mean to say that this would be obvious to everyone else and accepted by them. I don't know how others would take it.

But one of the thing that convince me of the Quran is regarding how the family of Mohammad are designated in Quran but in a way, in which the clear message to the masses, still needs to be conveyed the by Messenger.

5:67 unlike what people  think is not simply stating a trivial fact, that if he doesn't deliver the revelation, then he hasn't delivered the message, but is about a specific thing revealed to him, mainly about the position of Ali and that it needs to be manifested in clear fashion, delivered to the masses.

Now if Ali was part of a chosen family who were divine guides, they would have to be in Quran as well, but this verse shows not everyone will see them in an obvious manner, but then it has to be obvious to anyone who sincerely reflects.

At the same time, the Quran states regarding every recitation of a Prophet, Satan cast a suggestion regarding it, and that God annuls what Satan cast and makes what Satan cast a trial to those with a disease in their hearts.

This can be designed in a way to keep the Quran from being corrupted in a natural way (without supernatural force divine intervention).

Now my hypothesis is this:

1. The Quran regarding the family of Mohammad is clear enough for those who reflect enough and want to know the truth
2. God allowed room for each place where they are mentioned for Satanic forces to suggest a false suggestion so as to keep the words of Quran from being corrupted by their enemies (ie. he allows them to put illogical interpretations)
3.  The true meaning of these verses can be proven as the only possibility with logic and other verses of Quran. 
4. The illogical reading that take precedence in the hearts of people is due to a hidden dark force (Satan and his forces) which shows there is a hidden enemy to humanity and particularly the true Quran and the family of Mohammad as mere error in reflection cannot be the issue when the true meaning is the more logical of the two and the one that is confirmed by Quran showing there is something more going on with the hearts of humanity regarding the Quran.

I will be showing evidence towards this and you can make the judgement.

 

We are not arguing that you don't truly believe the Koran constitutes evidence. We do doubt your perception of reality that it is evidence. We are not being unfair to you, we make the same arguments to all sorts of other religions too.

Now again see if you can spot the pattern.

"Yahweh is the one true real god"
"Jesus is the one true god"
"Hinduism is older than those so it was the first"
"My Jewish texts matches science"
"My bible matches science"
"My Baga Givitas prove Hinduism matches science"

"My Jewish texts contains prophecies"
"The bible contains prophecies"
"Hinduism contains prophecies"
"Mormonism contain's prophecies"

We are not being mean to you by telling you you are NOT doing anything differently than any other religion. Humans get stuck on the pretty parts of their religious works and traditions and it still amounts to wishful gap filling. If you make the argument here, please know that same motif of an argument has been made by other people of other religions. The only difference are the colors and and details.

It really is no different than Coke and Pespi pointing at each other claiming "My soda is the one true soda because the color of the can" missing the point that neither were even the first beverage, which would have been water.