Why is Islam so dangerous?

[paarsurrey]

I have 2 Muslim friends one who is my taxi driver the other one is my driver for logisticare free rides I get to the drs office from Medicaid.. Malik my taxi driver has even tried to set me up with people and told me a tiny bit about the Muslim faith too, hes a sweet guy.

I got an interesting question for you ROTFLMAO! See if you can answer this. What religion forces their women to all covered up like teh Amish long dresses only. hair pulled back, they cant trim or cut their hair and no makeup or jewelry, and have to wear long sleeves and no open toes shoes, no panty hose,and believe their Godhead is the only way to go to heaven and their customs are the only ones>

18 Harsh Rules The Women In The Amish Community Must Follow

Women in Amish society - Wikipedia
The above one means.
Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

Uh, no. Your understanding is poor.
I had never even heard of this holy banditry
before I read your reprinted here below, from you,
and started asking you just how this fits with
those "verses" about "peace" and only defending,
not attacking.

You've been dodging, making things up, changing
the subject, and now forgetting ever since.

I expect no better, there is no way to turn slag
to gold, nor Islam to a religion of peace.

loverofhumanity said: ↑
The Muslims were first attacked, persecuted, their businesses plundered and livelihood destroyed and some killed during 13 years of persecution in Mecca after which they fled to Abyssinia as refugees and given refuge by the Christian King Negus. The Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia intending to exterminate and commit genocide against the Muslim community. An assassination attempt was also made against Prophet Muhammad but failed.

Then they fled to Medina where the Medinians accepted Muhammad. After 13 years of being pursued and hunted down God revealed Sura 2:190 to defend only if attacked.

So the very first attacks and murders and the beginning of the war was started by the Meccans who would not permit freedom of religion to the Muslims as well as plundered all their possessions and exiled them homeless and penniless.

8:26

Call to mind how He gave you shelter when you were few in number and were oppressed in the land, fearing that the enemy would kidnap you. But He provided you a safe asylum,

In a war the Meccans started with intent to exterminate the entire Muslim community attacks on caravans became a war tactic to disrupt flow of goods and supplies which were to be used to attack Muslims.

It was another poster that I had read about caravans so I did address it. So thanks very much for that.

 

[paarsurrey]

18 Harsh Rules The Women In The Amish Community Must Follow

Women in Amish society - Wikipedia
The above one means.
Regards

To add further:
Amish people are NOT Jewish. The Amish are Anabaptist Christians who came to the Thirteen Colonies to escape religious persecution in the Low Countries. Anabaptists were NOT tolerated by the Lutheran Protestants or the Catholic Church, in large part because Anabaptists (like Mennonites, heard of those folks?) presented a significant threat to the state-church relationship, and perhaps would have upended many of the existing social institutions in Central Europe just because Anabaptists based their faith on the teachings of Jesus (love thy neighbor, love thy enemies, conscious decision to be baptized, etc). The Amish are originally part of this branch of the Christian faith tradition, which began in Switzerland, the Netherlands, modern-day Alsace-Lorraine along the Rhine, and various western German states (Germany was not unified at the time).

To put a spike into any conspiracy theorists out there: do your research to verify what I’ve said. Read history books and expand your own knowledge on the subject. If anyone wishes to say that I’m wrong, then give me your source and the day you accessed the source and where.
https://www.quora.com/Are-Amish-people-Jewish

Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

I never stated the Hadith is the Qur'an. I know better as a former Muslim.
The Qur'an does not testify of the character of Muhammad. The Qur'an, which translates to mean simply, "to read", is believed to be the revelations of Allah.
While the Hadith is what can be said to be the journal of Muhammad.
Muhammad was in no wise perfect. And even as a Muslim I knew this because there is nothing in Islam that leads us to believe that. Muhammad was chosen to receive Allah's revelations. He was in no wise perfect however.
Rather than wing it I would hope you would commit to study what Islam is. And is not, as you example you know more of the latter than the former.
Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

Thanks for your post. We have different understandings of Islam likely based on very different sources. But that’s ok we can agree to differ.

 

[Audie]

It was another poster that I had read about caravans so I did address it Thee. So thanks very much for that.

I dont know what you are thanking me for.

You were talking about how raiding caravans
for god is fine. I asked hot to reconcile it
with the verses that talk about self defense
only.

And now I get yet another irrelevant vacuous
post in response. It is the best you can do,
I will expect no better ever.

I know it is hard to defend the indefensible.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I dont know what you are thanking me for.

You were talking about how raiding caravans
for god is fine. I asked hot to reconcile it
with the verses that talk about self defense
only.

And now I get yet another irrelevant vacuous
post in response.

I know it is hard to defend the indefensible.

Caravans were used to fund the genocide against the Muslims so if it was a Quraysh or enemy caravan they would cut off the supply route but if it was allies that they had a treaty with they didn’t interfere with it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I dont know what you are thanking me for.

You were talking about how raiding caravans
for god is fine. I asked hot to reconcile it
with the verses that talk about self defense
only.

And now I get yet another irrelevant vacuous
post in response. It is the best you can do,
I will expect no better ever.

I know it is hard to defend the indefensible.

You are such a patient person and that is to your credit.

 

[Audie]

Caravans were used to fund the genocide against the Muslims so if it was a Quraysh or enemy caravan they would cut off the supply route but if it was allies that they had a treaty with they didn’t interfere with it.

Ok now you are making some sort of effort.

But lets look closer.

By "funding" do you mean directly transferring cash
or supplies to a group who were out to kill all
the muslims?

If so, how do you know that was the case?

Do you mean indirectly funding?
If so, how?

Do you mean that any economic activity
of the "enemy" funds the "genocide"?

This is important for any "lover of humanity"
to think through carefully.

Please tell us how the caravans funded the
enemy and their "genocide".

 

[Audie]

You are such a patient person and that is to your credit.

Thank me by not just blowing off a question with
a nonsensical answer, and we will be friends.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ok now you are making some sort of effort.

But lets look closer.

By "funding" do you mean directly transferring cash
or supplies to a group who were out to kill all
the muslims?

If so, how do you know that was the case?

Do you mean indirectly funding?
If so, how?

Do you mean that any economic activity
of the "enemy" funds the "genocide"?

This is important for any "lover of humanity"
to think through carefully.

Please tell us how the caravans funded the
enemy and their "genocide".

My understanding in today’s language it would be something like an economic embargo (on enemy caravans only) or sanctions to prevent the enemy from resupplying. The enemy has to pay and feed it’s soldiers so squeezing sources of income might force negotiations for a peace settlement and to stop them from oppressing the Muslims.

In the end it worked because Muhammad was able to take Mecca peacefully. Today these sorts of tactics are used against Iran to try to squeeze it economically with oil shipments to try and get it to give up its quest for nuclear weapons.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thank me by not just blowing off a question with
a nonsensical answer, and we will be friends.

I really am not good at listing. You must know that by now. I would jump at the chance and privilege to be your friend. I respect you but as I said I’m a terrible grammarian.

 

[Audie]

My understanding in today’s language it would be something like an economic embargo (on enemy caravans only) or sanctions to prevent the enemy from resupplying. The enemy has to pay and feed it’s soldiers so squeezing sources of income might force negotiations for a peace settlement and to stop them from oppressing the Muslims.

In the end it worked because Muhammad was able to take Mecca peacefully. Today these sorts of tactics are used against Iran to try to squeeze it economically with oil shipments to try and get it to give up its quest for nuclear weapons.

It appears you have shifted from saying
the caravans "funded" (direct economic support)
and obviously untrue. Correct? Are you going
to keep saying "funded"?

Now you are essentially saying that
caravans ere part of the economy and
any economic activity helps the enemy.

So the caravans were a just target.

Is that correct?

(sanctions, btw, are not an act of war. Raiding
caravans is interdiction. Like torpedoing a
tanker, or blowing up a train. Those are acts
of war.)

 

[loverofhumanity]

It appears you have shifted from saying
the caravans "funded" (direct economic support)
and obviously untrue. Correct? Are you going
to keep saying "funded"?

Now you are essentially saying that
caravans ere part of the economy and
any economic activity helps the enemy.

So the caravans were a just target.

Is that correct?

(sanctions, btw, are not an act of war. Raiding
caravans is interdiction. Like torpedoing a
tanker, or blowing up a train. Those are acts
of war.)

Muhammad didn’t want war but an end to oppression. Muslims didn’t want to fight either but were forced to for their survival.

But interfering with the trade was a way of squeezing the Quraysh financially as they relied on passing Medina to do trade.

 

[Audie]

Muhammad didn’t want war but an end to oppression. Muslims didn’t want to fight either but were forced to for their survival.

But interfering with the trade was a way of squeezing the Quraysh financially as they relied on passing Medina to do trade.

I understand all of that. The weaker party never wants war.
I understand the financial squeeze.

You did not say if you are going to continue saying
that the caravans "funded genocide" which is not
simply a grammatical point. It simply not true.
It would not hurt for you to acknowledge that.

In any event, let us move on a bit-

The verses in the koran say you can
only fight if attacked. Correct?

Any economic activity of the "enemy"
is an attack, and a proper target for
whatever counter attack. Right?

Please give me a yes of no somewhere
in your answer to both of those.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I understand all of that. The weaker party never wants war.
I understand the financial squeeze.

You did not say if you are going to continue saying
that the caravans "funded genocide" which is not
simply a grammatical point. It simply not true.
It would not hurt for you to acknowledge that.

In any event, let us move on a bit-

The verses in the koran say you can
only fight if attacked. Correct?

Any economic activity of the "enemy"
is an attack, and a proper target for
whatever counter attack. Right?

Please give me a yes of no somewhere
in your answer to both of those.

Yes the wealth from the caravans were used to supply the war effort, arm, feed and equip the military in order to continue brutal treatment of Muslim with the intent to exterminate Islam.

Yes the Quran only permits self defense.

No Muhammad never attacked offensively. Every military action he took was to protect and defend His people.

 

[Riders]

To add further:
Amish people are NOT Jewish. The Amish are Anabaptist Christians who came to the Thirteen Colonies to escape religious persecution in the Low Countries. Anabaptists were NOT tolerated by the Lutheran Protestants or the Catholic Church, in large part because Anabaptists (like Mennonites, heard of those folks?) presented a significant threat to the state-church relationship, and perhaps would have upended many of the existing social institutions in Central Europe just because Anabaptists based their faith on the teachings of Jesus (love thy neighbor, love thy enemies, conscious decision to be baptized, etc). The Amish are originally part of this branch of the Christian faith tradition, which began in Switzerland, the Netherlands, modern-day Alsace-Lorraine along the Rhine, and various western German states (Germany was not unified at the time).

To put a spike into any conspiracy theorists out there: do your research to verify what I’ve said. Read history books and expand your own knowledge on the subject. If anyone wishes to say that I’m wrong, then give me your source and the day you accessed the source and where.
https://www.quora.com/Are-Amish-people-Jewish

Regards

Yea i was not talking about the Amish anyways.

 

[Audie]

Yes the wealth from the caravans were used to supply the war effort, arm, feed and equip the military in order to continue brutal treatment of Muslim with the intent to exterminate Islam.

Yes the Quran only permits self defense.

No Muhammad never attacked offensively. Every military action he took was to protect and defend His people.

Of COURSE is was all self defense.

Everyone figures that it is just "self defense".
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
was self defense.

The American invasion of Iraq was self defense.

There have been conflicts since before the
beginning. Everybody always sees themselves
as the good guys. Of course your muslims
see it as they do, and, a bit of historical
revisionism makes them even more the
virtuous and innocent victims.

You can quit any time with the propaganda
about the "brutal", "genocide", "Intent to exterminate".

Dont continue to try to insult my intelligence
with that, svp.

Also- absolutely none of that "brutality" has
any bearing on the topic at hand.

The topic is that they did attack caravans
of non combatants, and found a way to make it ok.
Anyone can do that. See Pearl Harbour and
Iraq.

It makes those verses about peaceful-peaceful
phony as a three dollar bill.

(note that they had been doing it anyway, but now
now now, it is holy coz it is in defense of islam!)

 

[Audie]

Yes the wealth from the caravans were used to supply the war effort, arm, feed and equip the military in order to continue brutal treatment of Muslim with the intent to exterminate Islam.

Yes the Quran only permits self defense.

No Muhammad never attacked offensively. Every military action he took was to protect and defend His people.

How do you distinguish between offense and defense?
This is a super important question for them peace -lovers.

EVERYONE says it is defense.
Japanese at Pearl Harbor? Self defense
Americans, Iraq? Self defense.

I notice you are back to saying that the caravans
were directly supporting "genocide". Unless they
were military convoys, that is nonsense.

You appear to be saying that ANY economic activity
of the "enemy" is a fair target. Is that so?

 

[paarsurrey]

Yea i was not talking about the Amish anyways.

Then perhaps these:

"The Haredi burqa sect (Hebrew: נשות השָאלִים‎, translit. Neshót haShalím, lit. 'Shawl[-wearing] Women'), is a religious group within Haredi Judaism, primarily concentrated in Israel, which claims that modesty requires a burqa-style covering of a woman's entire body, a shal(plural shalim, "shawl"), including a veil covering the face. The garment, which looks more like a niqab than a burqa, is also called frumka, a play of the word frum (Yiddish for "devout") and "burqa". The group, which was estimated to number several hundred in 2011, is concentrated in the town of Beit Shemesh."

A member of the sect in Meah Shearim
Haredi burqa sect - Wikipedia

Right, please?

Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

Of COURSE is was all self defense.

Everyone figures that it is just "self defense".
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
was self defense.

The American invasion of Iraq was self defense.

There have been conflicts since before the
beginning. Everybody always sees themselves
as the good guys. Of course your muslims
see it as they do, and, a bit of historical
revisionism makes them even more the
virtuous and innocent victims.

You can quit any time with the propaganda
about the "brutal", "genocide", "Intent to exterminate".

Dont continue to try to insult my intelligence
with that, svp.

Also- absolutely none of that "brutality" has
any bearing on the topic at hand.

The topic is that they did attack caravans
of non combatants, and found a way to make it ok.
Anyone can do that. See Pearl Harbour and
Iraq.

It makes those verses about peaceful-peaceful
phony as a three dollar bill.

(note that they had been doing it anyway, but now
now now, it is holy coz it is in defense of islam!)

Ive already stated that I fully believe Muhammad is a Prophet of God and that the Quran is the earliest historical account we have of the events of that time and it was recorded as events happened.

I believe Muhammad was infallible, perfect, sinless and error free as was the Quran so I believe He acted justly, morally and rightly in every situation.

So I reject any wrongdoing people might attempt to attribute to Him.