The Islamic State has infiltrated airports, metro stations, etc.

[Crypto2015]

Why, no, of course not.

I just think that the measures that could ensure that such does not happen tend to aggravate the problem as opposed to helping it.

Do you acknowledge the fact that the probability of a non-Muslim becoming an ISIS operative is zero, whereas the probability of a Muslim becoming an ISIS operative is substantially different from zero?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you acknowledge the fact that the probability of a non-Muslim becoming an ISIS operative is zero, whereas the probability of a Muslim becoming an ISIS operative is substantially different from zero?

I actually do not. People can convert to Islam, you know, and at least conceivably join ISIS then.

But it does not matter anyway. As I just said, I am not willing to pay any price just to be completely certain that there are no ISIS operatives around. Such a goal is destructive and self-defeating.

We should aim to dissolve ISIS's perspective and motivation, not to keep them "out of our borders" or anything similar.

 

[Kirran]

I tried to understand what you were saying, but you are wrong. The New Testament NEVER condones violence. It follows that anyone who condones violence is acting against the teachings of Christ. Regarding homosexuality, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise base their world view not on the Bible, but on the current understanding of what right and wrong are. They believe that the goal of the Bible is to create a better society. They believe this because they do NOT believe that the Bible is the word of God. I know this because I know about clerics in Europe that are being discriminated by their superiors simply because they believe that the Bible is the word of God. In many churches, most priests and pastors do not even believe in God. They think that the church is just a social movement and that Jesus was a social reformer.

So someone who says they're a Christian and is a supporter of gay marriage (including some groups who are avowedly literalist, like the Affirming Pentecostals) is in fact not a Christian? For that matter, one can be a theistic Christian without adhering to Biblical literalism.

It's very easy to say there are no Christian terrorists when you consider them not to be Christian by dint of their terrorism, regardless of their personal identification.

 

[Crypto2015]

The only context you're providing is judging Islam and Muslims by the doings of IS IS. Islam does not do "act" to be reformed, Muslims do. If you say Muslims have to reform, then I strongly agree with you.

As for providing context, I can't see how didn't give any. I provided context at least in my post here:


Ask any Arabic language professional about the word Az-Zalimun, what started most of this, and see for yourself. The word has absolutely to reference to polytheists.

I have provided commentaries by the most respected Islamic commentators. Isn't that enough? Let's take a look at what Ala Maududi, a revered Islamic scholar , tells us about Islam:

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. ‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And ‘Jihād’ refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective."

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet—not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or several nations and vested in one particular nation, but because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme or what would be truer to say from ‘Islam’ which is the programme of well-being for all humanity. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To change the outlook of the people and initiate a mental revolution among them through speech or writing is a form of ‘Jihad’. To alter the old tyrannical social system and establish a new just order of life by the power of sword is also ‘Jihad’ and to expend goods and exert physically for this cause is ‘Jihad’ too"

http://muhammadanism.com/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf

Here you have the writings of Ala Maududi being advertised by Islamicity, the most popular Islamic website in the world:

http://www.islamicity.org/by/sayyid-abul-ala-maududi/

 

[Crypto2015]

So someone who says they're a Christian and is a supporter of gay marriage (including some groups who are avowedly literalist, like the Affirming Pentecostals) is in fact not a Christian? For that matter, one can be a theistic Christian without adhering to Biblical literalism.

It's very easy to say there are no Christian terrorists when you consider them not to be Christian by dint of their terrorism, regardless of their personal identification.

The pro-gay rights Christians may be Christians, but their pro-gay right activism is something that they got from other sources, not from the Bible.

 

[Kirran]

The pro-gay rights Christians may be Christians, but their pro-gay right activism is something that they got from other sources, not from the Bible.

Different people interpret the same scripture differently. Hence Christians who are intolerant towards LGBT+ people, and those who have compassion. Hence Christians who are violent and act as terrorists, and those who would not wish to cause harm to others.

Hence Vedantic Hindus who believe the individual soul is God, who believe it is separate from God and who believe it is a part of God.

 

[Crypto2015]

Different people interpret the same scripture differently. Hence Christians who are intolerant towards LGBT+ people, and those who have compassion. Hence Christians who are violent and act as terrorists, and those who would not wish to cause harm to others.

Hence Vedantic Hindus who believe the individual soul is God, who believe it is separate from God and who believe it is a part of God.

No. Violent Christians are not violent because of their interpretation of the Bible. They find their ideas somewhere else (not in the Bible). By the way, Christians are never intolerant towards gays. We consider homosexuality to be a sin, but we do not endorse violence against homosexuals. Anyone who does that is ignoring all of the teachings of Christ.

 

[Kirran]

No. It is simply not there. They find it somewhere else. By the way, Christians are never intolerant towards gays. We consider homosexuality to be a sin, but we do not endorse violence against homosexuals. Anyone who does that is ignoring all of the teachings of Christ.

Crypto, from your perspective, that is the case. As far as you are concerned, I see that anybody who does things you do not agree to be compatible with Christian understanding are not getting that from the Bible. That's fine, this is how you view it.

But do you understand why, as someone from outside the tradition of Christianity, it doesn't make sense for me to see it that way, when different people claim different things are in line with Christ's teachings? I have no reason to take your word over anybody else's, and for that matter I have no reason to take anyone's word above anyone else's. It makes far more sense for me as a non-Christian to assume that all those who say they are Christian are in fact Christian, and that all those who believe themselves to be deriving their ideas and values from the Bible or Christian tradition or Jesus are, in some sense, doing so. I take the same approach to all faiths, including Hinduism.

While I get that this doesn't make sense to you as a way of looking at things, having as you do your own interpretation on Christianity and your own view on what the teachings really are, do you see why it makes more sense for me to view things in this manner?

 

[Crypto2015]

Crypto, from your perspective, that is the case. As far as you are concerned, I see that anybody who does things you do not agree to be compatible with Christian understanding are not getting that from the Bible. That's fine, this is how you view it.

But do you understand why, as someone from outside the tradition of Christianity, it doesn't make sense for me to see it that way, when different people claim different things are in line with Christ's teachings? I have no reason to take your word over anybody else's, and for that matter I have no reason to take anyone's word above anyone else's. It makes far more sense for me as a non-Christian to assume that all those who say they are Christian are in fact Christian, and that all those who believe themselves to be deriving their ideas and values from the Bible or Christian tradition or Jesus are, in some sense, doing so. I take the same approach to all faiths, including Hinduism.

While I get that this doesn't make sense to you as a way of looking at things, having as you do your own interpretation on Christianity and your own view on what the teachings really are, do you see why it makes more sense for me to view things in this manner?

Please don't believe in what I am saying. Go to the New Testament yourself. Read it. There you will find the answer to your questions.

 

[Kirran]

Please don't believe in what I am saying. Go to the New Testament yourself. Read it. There you will find the answer to your questions.

But people understand the New Testament to mean different things, and to be different things - i.e. the Word of God or the best historical record we have of the life of Jesus and of his teachings.

Even if I go and read the whole New Testament and get one understanding from it, I am not so arrogant as to claim that only my understanding and interpretation can be valid.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I have provided commentaries by the most respected Islamic commentators. Isn't that enough? Let's take a look at what Ala Maududi, a revered Islamic scholar , tells us about Islam:

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. ‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And ‘Jihād’ refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective."

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet—not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or several nations and vested in one particular nation, but because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme or what would be truer to say from ‘Islam’ which is the programme of well-being for all humanity. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To change the outlook of the people and initiate a mental revolution among them through speech or writing is a form of ‘Jihad’. To alter the old tyrannical social system and establish a new just order of life by the power of sword is also ‘Jihad’ and to expend goods and exert physically for this cause is ‘Jihad’ too"

http://muhammadanism.com/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf

Here you have the writings of Ala Maududi being advertised by Islamicity, the most popular Islamic website in the world:

http://www.islamicity.org/by/sayyid-abul-ala-maududi/

Okay, take what KKK and the Crusaders (just two examples) say about Christianity and we're even. It is not like a handful number of people you quote represent Islam and Muslims, billions of Muslims. Let alone what I said before that there are extra clear words that do not really need interpretations.

 

[Smart_Guy]

No. Violent Christians are not violent because of their interpretation of the Bible. They find their ideas somewhere else (not in the Bible).

This idea is screaming "double standard". Why only Christians and not Muslims?

 

[Crypto2015]

Okay, take what KKK and the Crusaders (just two examples) say about Christianity and we're even. It is not like a handful number of people you quote represent Islam and Muslims, billions of Muslims. Let alone what I said before that there are extra clear words that do not really need interpretations.

I am not citing a random group of people or some crazy lunatics who have an outlandish interpretation of Islam. I am citing the most revered and authoritative scholars of Islam. You response: what about the KKK and the crusades? This just proves that you have implicitly acknowledged that I am right about Islam.Why don't you rather work on trying to transform Islam into a more humane movement, without a political side to it, if that is possible at all?

 

[Kirran]

Martin Luther would presumably be one of the most revered and authoritative Christian scholars?

 

[Crypto2015]

Martin Luther would presumably be one of the most revered and authoritative Christian scholars?

He is. However, he himself said that the Bible is the sole authority for a Christian. In this he was right. He also said a lot of crazy things and nobody takes those things seriously because those things were not based on the Scriptures. When I quote Islamic scholars I do not quote their personal opinions, but their interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an. I would also say that Luther's commentaries on the Bible are, as far as I know, quite reliable. His personal opinions, on the other hand, which are not based on the Bible, can be and actually are wrong.

 

[Kirran]

He is. However, he himself said that the Bible is the sole authority for a Christian. In this he was right. He also said a lot of crazy things and nobody takes those things seriously because those things were not based on the Scriptures.

Based on your understanding of said scriptures, of course. My own, also.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am not citing a random group of people or some crazy lunatics who have an outlandish interpretation of Islam. I am citing the most revered and authoritative scholars of Islam. You response: what about the KKK and the crusades? This just proves that you have implicitly acknowledged that I am right about Islam.Why don't you rather work on trying to transform Islam into a more humane movement, without a political side to it, if that is possible at all?

That was a condition I suggested which you seem to ignore taking, and it was clearly a rhetoric to imply a double standard in your posts. Also, revered and authoritative does not necessarily mean right. But the thing is, your not really quoting what they really said anyways. It is easy to quote whatever from anti-Islamic websites in a language other than that of the original source. Simple quotation marks make a whole lot of difference you know.

 

[Smart_Guy]

When I quote Islamic scholars I do not quote their personal opinions, but their interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an.

This sounds really weird to me. Does having different interpretations ring a bill?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

TEL AVIV – The Islamic State has agents working in Western airports, metro stations and “very sensitive facilities in the world,” a leading Islamic State-allied militant claimed in an exclusive interview.

Abu al-Ayna al-Ansari, a Salafist movement senior official in the Gaza Strip, made the claim in a pre-recorded, hour-long interview to air in full on Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” the popular weekend talk radio program broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM in Philadelphia. Klein doubles as Breitbart’s senior investigative reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief.

Ansari is a well-known Gazan Salafist jihadist allied with Islamic State ideology. During the interview with Klein, Ansari seemed to be speaking as an actual IS member, repeatedly using the pronoun “we” when referring to IS and even seemingly making declarations on behalf of IS.

IS has been reluctant to officially declare its presence in Gaza for fear of a Hamas clampdown, but the group is known to be active in the coastal enclave and Ansari is a suspected IS leader. IS-aligned militants have taken responsibility for recent rocket fire from Gaza aimed at Israel.

Ansari claimed IS infiltration of Western transportation systems.

Ansari stated:

The Islamic State is a state. The Islamic State has agents all around the very sensitive facilities in the world, like metro stations, like airports and other places whether in the West or in the Arab world. We have our mujahedeen implanted in those facilities as workers, as employees, even in the security field in the airports.

And they were recruited to work with the Islamic State and we proved that we succeeded to reach a very deep infiltration in these facilities. We showed it in Sinai with the Russian jet. We show it now. And everybody should understand. This is a state. This state will not disappear. It will only become bigger because this is the message. This is the prophecy of Muhammad and this is the promise of Allah…."

Since Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, we shouldn't be worried if our police officers, secret service operatives, medics, airport security guards, etc. are Muslim, right?

I'm just going to assume that is really nothing more than all the "terror alerts" we used to have, when we were told we were going to be attacked, that Al Qaeda was up to something, and public places with lots of people were at risk. And it's not like Brietbart is known for accuracy and honesty and having things well researched.

 

[Crypto2015]

That was a condition I suggested which you seem to ignore taking, and it was clearly a rhetoric to imply a double standard in your posts. Also, revered and authoritative does not necessarily mean right. But the thing is, your not really quoting what they really said anyways. It is easy to quote whatever from anti-Islamic websites in a language other than that of the original source. Simple quotation marks make a whole lot of difference you know.

This is what we do:

I quote a verse from the Qur'an that mandates war against the non-Muslims. Then you come up with an alleged context for that verse that seems to render the verse harmless. You also give a personal interpretation that differs from the most straightforward interpretation of the text. Then I read commentaries on the verse written by the most renowned Islamic scholars of all time to see if the context and interpretation that you provided match the mainstream interpretation of that verse. Time and time again, the most renowned scholars of Islam do NOT agree with you. If it weren't for your objections, I would just quote the Qur'an without resorting to the writings of those scholars.