Extremists: a question and a talk

[WinterHold]

God gave a message to an angel to tell to this guy (who couldn't read or write) to tell other people so they could write it down, so other people could read it later.

If this isn't the most absurd, unbelievable story and the absolute worst way to try and communicate (while God is standing around silently watching people kill others due to "misunderstanding" the message), I don't know what is. The responsibility for all this stops with the instigator.

To me, only reasonable conclusions here are that either:

1) God was actually about to die or to become unable to communicate in the future

2) God is a complete idiot

3) God desires mass confusion, murder and war over his message (this doesn't go a long way towards the "peace" angle) and for it to look like complete gibberish to anyone not indoctrinated into it

4) God, if there is one, has nothing to do with this in the first place

Who said that the goal of God is preventing "people from getting killed", by sending the scriptures?
Actually, the goal is something totally different:

Sura 34, The Quran:
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 28 )   And We have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know.
( 29 )   And they say, "When is this promise, if you should be truthful?"

Life is a test, and the Quran preaches in that context. Killing is one of the bad things that can happen in this test, so is pain and so is any positive or negative thing.

It's even stressed on in another verse in the Quran:

Sura 67, The Quran:
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 2 )   [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -

So this is the context of the whole thing; death is a creation of God himself with the statement of so many verses in the Quran. It is a part of this life; or in other words: a part of this test.

---

If you didn't read what I wrote, and didn't even care to see the context of the verse told to you, it is not my problem. If you don't see an intellectual problem with the video you posted, you have a big problem that I can't help you with.

I read what you wrote.   The context was examined in great detail in the video.  The surahs you brought in reply weren't even relevant to the argument presented in the video, so what in fuck are you even babbling about?  If you had watched the video, you'd know why your arguments were irrelevant.  I noticed you didn't address specific claims made in the video, you just dismissed them outright and repeated your standard defense.  I don't believe you actually watched the video.  Either you didn't watch the video, and you're a liar, or you're so incompetent you can't even reply coherently to an argument.

The only intellectual problem I see is yours.

To be honest, I didn't complete it. I watched the first 2 minutes or something, and felt so disgusted by the childish, low method of reading 43435345345 verses in 2 seconds and expect me to answer that, a biased video made for biased people -like you-.
That is a biased man, who ignores the contexts and cherry picks to prove his biased opinion. Sorry Jormungander, but I always thought that these types of videos are made by atheists for atheists, made to bash and listened to by people who also want to bash.
Bring me the verses one by one like a real scholar, read them one by one, detail their explanation, and then maybe you'll be worthy of convincing me.
We humans do that to any other field. But we don't do it to the Quran? consider it another piece of history.

I'll repeat the points for the benefit of the stupid.

1-All the verses that speak about "fighting", speak about "fighting" in the context of war. There was a war against Mohammed -peace be upon him-, and his followers were tortured and killed, so he fought back, with these verses being the command for him to fight back.

No, they do not. Surah 9:29, the verse in question does not. And even those verses you've presented simply give permission to fight defensively, they do not forbid fighting when defense is not an issue, as in 9:29, so your defense doesn't even work. The context of 9:29 was clear. The only person distorting context is you.

You're sure? Let's see the verses with their context:

Sura 9, The Quran:
( 7 )   How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

( 8 )   How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

( 9 )   They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
( 10 )   They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
.

.
.
( 25 )   Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.
( 26 )   Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers and sent down soldiers angels whom you did not see and punished those who disbelieved. And that is the recompense of the disbelievers.
( 28 )   O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
( 29 )   Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
( 30 )   The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
( 31 )   They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Did you see, how he cherry picked verse 29 and ignored the other verses that prove torture and a war being the context of all of this?

---

2-Fighting in Islam is prohibited unless to deter aggression; ironically the youtuber you quoted ignored the verses coming down below:

No, he did not ignore those verses.  He responded explicitly to such claims.  No, you're just lying again.

I just proved that he did.

---

The oldest still-available biography of Muhammad is called the "Sirat Rasul Allah" ("Life of the Prophet of Allah"). This book was written by Ibn Ishaq a century before any of the major works of the Hadith. "Sirat Rasulallah" is considered the most authentic biography of Muhammad. On page 515, we read of an event that took place about three years before Muhammad's death. This specific narrative tells of Muhammad’s conquest of Khaibar, a large Jewish settlement with some of the best date palms in the region. The Jews of Khaibar were prosperous merchants, craftsmen, and farmers. Kinana al-Rabi, who was said to have had the custody of a certain hidden treasure, was brought to Muhammad who asked him about it. Kinana denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said "Yes." Muhammad gave orders that the ruin be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked Kinana about the rest of the treasure he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then Muhammad delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head.

Does Islam Promote Peace?

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a speech at Ayatollah Khomeini’s Mausoleum, June 4, 2002, supports the Palestinian suicide-homicide martyrdoms that are deliberately carried out on innocent Israelis.

"Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in [the] Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance faces this threat."

https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/...conomy.htm

Discussions about Islam typically revolve around certain verses in the Qur’an, but such discussions are often fruitless. The reason for this is that the Qur’an is very inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Qur’an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a very different passage:

   Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).

To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who’s right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of death.

Hence, the verses in the Qur’an that teach Muslims to live in peace should be examined within the historical context of Muhammad’s life, for it is this life that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the life of its founder.

For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to "Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"

. . . . . .

...Should devout Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or should they follow Muhammad’s example by murdering the infidels in their beds?

I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived....

https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/..._faces.htm

That is the saddest story I ever read!
The crimes of this man are so violent, it makes Vlad the Impaler -the Christian European- and the Cannibal medieval European knights and the American Slavers and Joseph Stalin and Hitler look like angels !

Wikipedia talks about an assassination that targeted Mohammed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-34][/url]

Could you read history before debating me, please?
Your sources are biased, and has nothing to do with the truth about Islam's history.