Another thread on Islam, Muslims and terrorism, because its needed for some

[firedragon]

Islamic terrorism is encouraged and ultimately (basically) controlled at the top by the world revolutionary movement (wrm) ... I mean the people who are basically behind all revolutions and political upheaval around the world. So, the point of Islamic terrorism is the following:

• Provide a boogeyman. They can invade many countries on this excuse and they can also create police states in countries they already control for the purpose of the so called war on terror.
• It furthers the goal of discrediting the major religions of the world. This time it's to discredit Islam but also in the minds of many people it discredits religion in general.
• It also provides a cover story for their own covert operations around the world. They can do what they "need" to do and blame it on terrorism. It's simple.
• Money, funding and advancement of the military industrial complex.

How they do it. They control everything from the top. They definitely aren't the ones blowing themselves up in suicide attacks. They control terrorist organizations. Unfortunately the people who suffer and die are useful idiots and those they destroy for the cause of "Jihad" ... so they think anyway.

Well, that's surprising honestly because most of the Islamic terrorist groups fight each other, just like any other type. But you maybe right. I just have not heard of this theory.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't know the KKK cause was a religious one?

They were. They used religion as a communication method to recruit and strengthen, just like most other groups.

 

[firedragon]

Why is it that you think you know what I think?


Well at least you admit that you don't have a clue about my thoughts now. That's better.


I think your OP is crammed full of presumption.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Eh... Most muslim folks I've known are good people. When I think of muslim folks, I think of good home cooking.

They'd no sooner resort to terrorism than me. Then again, they certainly aren't fundamentalists. I think fundamentalism is where you start running into issues.

I think fundamentalism would stop it.

This is the difference in perspective. Fundamentalism in media sounds bad, but the voices of reason within Islam since maybe 12 centuries ago has been based on fundamentalism. They believed through out that its the peripheral, extra's that cause deviation, innovation and harm. Fundamentalism is a good thing.

 

[firedragon]

I can go kill the unbeliever of Islam because the Koran says I can. I am being a good Muslim.
I can kill in the name of Jesus but the Gospel say I can't. I am being a bad Christian.
That's the difference.

Q4:95 “Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons
than to those who sit (at home).”
Q8:60 “to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides,
whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.”
Q9:29 “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been
forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the
People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Matthew 5 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

See, this thread was not created to make comparison between Islam and Christianity. But I can see that you have a very superficial knowledge about the Quran and has found the typical verses that we see all the time.

Nevermind. I shall take your statements as a question and respond respectfully. Lets take one verse you gave as an example. You have chosen the right translation to suit your need probably because the website you used used it out of convenience.

Nevertheless, the verse says "al mujahideena fee sabeelillah". the proper translation is "to strive in the way of GOd", there is no fight there. There are some people who inserted with a preconceived idea that Fee Sabilillah means to fight.

Anyway, even if you wish to keep fight in that verse, it just says "in the path of God" which means the way God has mandated. How has God mandated? Do you know? Have you studied the Quran?

Not at all mate. I am gonna call it as it is. What happens is that you will never study the book but cherry pick off a website. So you dont know what the book says. Thats the problem.

 

[firedragon]

Like most things - yes and no.
Christian and Jewish terrorism is difficult to sustain because there's no doctrinal basis
for it. Islam however was created by a warlord and is premised on conquest and forced
conversion.
If you claim to be a born-again killer it's hard finding supporting texts in the Gospels and
Epistles - being a God-is-great Muslim killer is easy as the Quran is filled with violence.

Ah. Now I can see what you really are. So you want to do a cut and paste game my friend? I can show you how bias you are instantly if you want. Anytime, any day. I can show you that everyone can cut and paste.

 

[firedragon]

Your below quote is the main reason that I think what I think. I am glad that you mention it. You are the only one so far I have seen doing this. I told God "show me one, who can admit flaws in Islam and Koran". Another one is for example Pakistan and its PM and a few other Muslims in high positions. Especially how these people criticize France and Macron, because of his new Laws to protect France against terrorism.

IF this PM had just once said "I understand it's bad these Muslim terrorists, and I agree that France does whatever it needs to do, to protect France", I would be okay. But he said the opposite, attacking France for not having Freedom of Religion. He should have said "Sorry for these attacks in name of Islam".

All these things add up a lot. Muslims seem to have an issue to admit Islam/Koran is the cause of much terrorism, and for sure the Koran has something to do with it. Maybe these terrorists just misinterpret the Koran (I give koran advantage of doubt). But then it is highest time to edit the Koran, because with nowadays atomic bombs almost for sale on internet, verses that are so easily misinterpreted are a huge danger.

Pakistan Muslim threatened to nuke Holland over just a drawing contest of Muhammad. That is another crazy Muslim idea, that non-Muslims are also not allowed to draw Muhammad. Absurd. And if Muslims can't see this absurdity then they are supremacists. And therefore dangerous.




Yes, that is why I gave you a winner, to start this thread. This is much better.

Haha. Thanks brother.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I think fundamentalism would stop it.

This is the difference in perspective. Fundamentalism in media sounds bad, but the voices of reason within Islam since maybe 12 centuries ago has been based on fundamentalism. They believed through out that its the peripheral, extra's that cause deviation, innovation and harm. Fundamentalism is a good thing.

Eh... I'm going to disagree with you, there. I grew up in a fundamentalist setting, and I've seen how fundamentalism changes people... It's not a good thing, from what I've witnessed.

I can't think of one terror attack (from any religion) that has been waged because the terrorists had a casual interest in something. For that to happen, that requires zeal, and zeal often goes hand in hand with fundamentalism. That's what I've come to know from my experiences with fundamentalism, at least.

 

[firedragon]

Eh... I'm going to disagree with you, there. I grew up in a fundamentalist setting, and I've seen how fundamentalism changes people... It's not a good thing, from what I've witnessed.

I can't think of one terror attack (from any religion) that has been waged because the terrorists had a casual interest in something. For that to happen, that requires zeal, and zeal often goes hand in hand with fundamentalism. That's what I've come to know from my experiences with fundamentalism, at least.

I am talking from an Islamic perspective. Asoolul Islami is fundamentalism in Arabic. And as I said before, fundamentalism in "Islam" is a good thing. Just that your perspective is a general one, not specific to Islam. Thus if you study Islam in depth then you would know that fundamentalism from that perspective is a good thing. Maybe you cannot use this word from a current world view because it carries so much baggage.

Ill give you an example. A fundamental in Islam that was taught by the Maliki school of thought was that all animals are innocent by default. But when did some Muslims start hating dogs? Do you understand? The fundamentals are good.

The Quran says that it is permitted to eat what your dog catches. It also says that there was a dog sleeping close to the door, inside, with people. But if you travel to a country like Pakistan and even many other countries you will see muslims dont keep dogs. Not necessarily, but generally. Some muslims hate dogs and have serious problems with keeping dogs. But that's not fundamentalism, that's using some peripheral teaching someone cooked up about 4 to 5 centuries after Muhammed died.

I dont think you would agree with my usage of the term, but I am giving you an Islamic perspective.

 

[PruePhillip]

Ah. Now I can see what you really are. So you want to do a cut and paste game my friend? I can show you how bias you are instantly if you want. Anytime, any day. I can show you that everyone can cut and paste.

Nah, COPY and paste is better. But in my case I did neither.
Mohammed was a warrior, the first Islamic Jew killer maybe.
Jesus killed no-one, and taught that you must not let the sun
go down on your anger, but if you can't make peace with your
enemy then love and forgive him in any case.

 

[PruePhillip]

See, this thread was not created to make comparison between Islam and Christianity. But I can see that you have a very superficial knowledge about the Quran and has found the typical verses that we see all the time.

Nevermind. I shall take your statements as a question and respond respectfully. Lets take one verse you gave as an example. You have chosen the right translation to suit your need probably because the website you used used it out of convenience.

Nevertheless, the verse says "al mujahideena fee sabeelillah". the proper translation is "to strive in the way of GOd", there is no fight there. There are some people who inserted with a preconceived idea that Fee Sabilillah means to fight.

Anyway, even if you wish to keep fight in that verse, it just says "in the path of God" which means the way God has mandated. How has God mandated? Do you know? Have you studied the Quran?

Not at all mate. I am gonna call it as it is. What happens is that you will never study the book but cherry pick off a website. So you dont know what the book says. Thats the problem.

Do you think the armies of Allah, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the Imams of Iran, the warriors
who followed Mohammed and did his killing, all failed to interpret the Koran?

 

[PruePhillip]

They were. They used religion as a communication method to recruit and strengthen, just like most other groups.

Some did, for sure. You use what tools you can get your hands on.
But racial supremacy has nothing to do with the New Testament. Here
we read that everyone is a part of that universal message - man and
woman, rich and poor, young and old, black and white.
It takes a Hitler-like perversion to force Christianity into an instrument
of hate.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think fundamentalism would stop it.

This is the difference in perspective. Fundamentalism in media sounds bad, but the voices of reason within Islam since maybe 12 centuries ago has been based on fundamentalism. They believed through out that its the peripheral, extra's that cause deviation, innovation and harm. Fundamentalism is a good thing.

Mohammed killed those who refused to repent. He took their lands too.
Was he a fundamentalist?

 

[rational experiences]

Human memory and human history a part of the human condition to reference that history in status reasons.

Who is the greatest terrorist in history, science was and is.

Who uses scientific information and then falsifies a second time what was already falsified natural life and living conditions? Religious science themes do.

Humans cannot in reason talk before self, whatever age you now are lives as that self. So we taught leave history where it was experienced and lessons learnt, in its past.

A lot of humans cannot seem to acquire and apply that reason today, for storytelling is just storytelling. And reading from a book is just reading from a book.

All life is innate to self presence which is logical, rational and correct.

Hence if you infer/reference history of the past and claim it has a place in the present, then by stories you have to quantify that reasoning to be reasonable.

In the past as per what occurs today, the practice science and life sacrificed was told it was wrong, yet it was not stopped being practiced.

After years of life being phenomena attacked/sacrificed the consensus concluded its own evidence and stopped the science practice.

The illogical human reason today, why abuse life today about information lived and experienced in the past, when we preach by personal self living holy life presence, idealising living conditions that are meant to support living conditions?

 

[firedragon]

Some did, for sure. You use what tools you can get your hands on.
But racial supremacy has nothing to do with the New Testament. Here
we read that everyone is a part of that universal message - man and
woman, rich and poor, young and old, black and white.
It takes a Hitler-like perversion to force Christianity into an instrument
of hate.

Err. No one spoke of the New Testament or the Quran in the OP you see. Even if the Quran is remotely relevant, the NT is not. So whats the point?

 

[firedragon]

Mohammed killed those who refused to repent. He took their lands too.
Was he a fundamentalist?

Can you provide an example, when it was written, by whom, and why you trust it so much?

I have seen this cycle many times mate. Many times. So lets hear it since you love this topic. Actually, maybe if you spent your energy here you might not do it in irrelevant threads. So go ahead.

 

[PruePhillip]

Err. No one spoke of the New Testament or the Quran in the OP you see. Even if the Quran is remotely relevant, the NT is not. So whats the point?

The thread is about Islam.

 

[firedragon]

Do you think the armies of Allah, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the Imams of Iran, the warriors
who followed Mohammed and did his killing, all failed to interpret the Koran?

Lol. Armies of Allah you said. I cant believe this really.

Anyway, lets say this so called "Imams of Iran". Can you quote them quoting the Quran specifically and analyse it objectively? Give me a proper source, and lets see if that is valid. No problem.

 

[firedragon]

The thread is about Islam.

Yeah. So how is the Bible relevant?

 

[PruePhillip]

Can you provide an example, when it was written, by whom, and why you trust it so much?

I have seen this cycle many times mate. Many times. So lets hear it since you love this topic. Actually, maybe if you spent your energy here you might not do it in irrelevant threads. So go ahead.

Nah, just general history about Mohammed. He was a warlord. His armies eventually
got as far as Vienna. This wasn't 'conversion' but conquest.