Bible Justice, Mmmmmmmmmmm-mm!

[Yaya]

Not sure what version of Islam you are referring to, but you will not find anywhere in the Koran or the Hadith the forcing of one to become Muslim with death as the alternative.

More of your LIES. The Muslim Holy texts contain many edicts exhorting Muslims to subdue and slay non-Muslims/'unbelievers' who reject Islam.

You are referring to the verse 9:5, a favorite of the anti-Islamist who take this verse out of the context by showing it alone, and disregarding the circumstances under which it was revealed. Allow me to educate you on this. This verse is specifically referring to the idolators who had broken their pact of peace with the Prophet (PBUH) and spent many years persecuting and torturing the newly converted Muslims. You give the one verse alone, but fail to give the verses before and after the one you mention. Let me give the verse before and those that follow:

9:4: "Excepting those of the idolaters with who you Muslims have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. As for these, fulfill your treaty to them til their term. Lo! Allah loves those who keep their duty to Him.
9:6: "And if anyone of the idolaters seek your protection, then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
9:7..."So long as the Idolaters are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loves those who keep their duty.
9:8: "How can there be any treaty for the others when , if they have the upperhand on you, they do not regard your pact nor honor in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse.
9:12: "And if they break their pledges after their treaty has been made with you and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief..
9:13: "Will you not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Do you fear them! Now Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

Under what circumstances does the Quran say to fight?

Quran: "Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged;and Allah indeed is able to give them victory" (Surah 22, verse 39)

Qur'an: "Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease from the persecution of believers, that which is past will be forgiven them;but if they return to persecuting, then the example of the men of old (who lost in battle to the believers) has already gone before them as a warning.
And fight them until persecution is no more." (Surah 8, verses 38-39)

This is a fallacy that even my own high school text taught about Islam, that it was "spread by the sword".

OF COURSE Islam WAS and IS spread by the sword. Islam's very origins are rooted in aggressive violence and bloody war. "

Even though man, by nature, tends to fight any aggression inflicted upon him, God permits the repelling of aggression by parallel, proportionate means only.

Qur’an: "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)] (Al-Baqarah 2:194)

Quran: "And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits (Al-Baqarah 2:190).

God also makes it clear that religious differences do not justify aggression against anyone, even though they may reach the stage of open conflict:

Quran: "Let not hatred of a people—because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque—incite you to exceed the limits (Al-Ma’idah 5:2). (Context: Revealed when the pagan Arabs stopped the Muslims from worshipping at the Sacred Mosque in Mecca)

Hadith: At-Tabari quotes the following hadith: “The Prophet came to Makkah to perform the lesser Pilgrimage. Some of his companions arrested some local people, taking them as prisoners while they were unaware. The Prophet ordered their release.” We see that the Prophet did this, releasing unbelievers who were taken prisoner, because he did not consider himself in a state of war with the unbelievers, as his purpose was to offer the lesser pilgrimage.

Initiating aggression is not a part of Muslim ethics. Muslims may repel evil with a similar measure, but their purpose in doing so is not to retaliate; rather, it is to bring evil actions committed against them to an end.

The Qur’an demonstrates that the best method to ensure the prevention of evil is to call upon people to pursue forbearance and forgiveness—as the best way to fight animosity:
Quran: "And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend] (Fussilat 41:34).
Quran: "Repel evil with that which is best (Al-Mu’minun 23:96).

Muslims are described in the Qur’an as those who "repel evil with what is good" (Ar-Ra`d 13:22 and Al-Qasas 28:54).

Indeed, even a prisoner of war must eventually be released, as the Qur’an states "either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Muhammad 47:4).

Even in the case of war, it is not permissible to kidnap innocent people or civilians, who must not be a war target, to begin with. From an Islamic point of view, civilians are all those who are non-combatants, such as women and children, as well as the elderly who have no role in the fighting, and men of any religion:

Hadith: "Do not to kill women and children." ( Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)

Hadith: “Do not kill any young person" (Related by Abu Dawood. )

In an order to Khalid ibn Al-Waleed, the army commander, the Prophet (PBUH) said:
Hadith: “Never kill a child or a labor worker.” (Related by Ibn Majah) This last order includes anyone employed in non-combat capacity, such as factory workers, medical personnel, and the like.

The Prophet (PBUH) also made clear the prohibition of killing any elderly man, priests, or hermits dedicated to worship. (Hadith, Related by Abu Dawood)

It is an important Islamic duty to treat prisoners of war kindly and gently, be hospitable to them, and provide them with food and clothing. They must never be subjected to ill-treatment or torture:
Qur’an: "And they [i.e., the believers] give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive" (Al-Insan 76:8)

Hadith: "“Be sure to treat the captives kindly.” (Related by al-Tabarani)

After the Battle of Badr, the Prophet (PBUH) ordered that those unbelievers who were taken captive should be treated kindly. Complying with his order, the Companions of the Prophet gave the captives their food before they themselves ate.

That prisoners of war must be released is clearly stated in the Qur’an:
Quran: "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Muhammad 47:4)

How about upholding treaties?
A number of statements by the Prophet (PBUH) make clear that non-Muslims who have a treaty with Muslims must never be killed, such as Hadith: “Whoever kills a man bound with a treaty, without valid cause, shall never be allowed even the smell of Heaven.” (Related by al-Nassaie.)

On the contrary, the Koran states "There is no compulsion in religion".

*BULLSH1T ALERT*

No really. Here it is:

Quran :"There is no compulsion in Islam" (Surah 2, verse 256)

You conveniently fail to mention, as apologists are known to do, is that that early Koran verse is made invalid and is overridden by the later verses that call for "Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them", amongst other deadly, aggressive, and violent intents towards unbelievers.

How about a later verse then?
Quran: "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (Surah 18, Verse 29)

Not only that, but the Muhammad 'handily' changed his tune later on when Islam was getting much more militarily powerful and he started spouting increasingly intolerant guff like: "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme!"

Oh, you mean he assumed the mantle of military leader and fought to reclaim his home after he had been forced out of it? If that's changing his tune, so be it. He changed it for a very valid and just reason.

By the way, repeating the same verse over and over again doesn't make your argument to me any stronger, especially when you've already taken it out of context and applied it to every non-Muslim.

During the times of the Prophet (PBUH) Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religion, provided they paid a protection tax to the Muslim army for their defense against outside enemies.

Wow. You really are in full-on truth-twisting deluded apologist mode! The choice for conquered non-believers under the boot of Islam was (and IS, because the Quran is still utterly valid and true for all time) either to A) convert to Islam and enjoy 'tolerance' and 'equality' that it brings, or B) don't convert but exist as a severely restricted second-class unbeliever paying the 'non-Muslim tax' to the benefit of the Muslims, with very little if any rights compared to a Muslim, or C) be murdered for rejecting Islam and second-class dirt status.

Truth twisting?

The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

Those are the facts about jizyah.

How can one be forced to believe against what their heart inclines to? It can't be done.

That's where Islam's sword comes in.

No reference needing citing here, you're just a fool if you think that you can so easily change the heart of someone through force. I already cited the verses above from the Quran giving the right to believe or not.

I choose to be a Muslim in a land where I am called "terrorist", "Nazi", etc. daily.

That doesn't sound nice at all. On the other hand, you freely subscribe to a religion, Islam, which is most definitely immoderate, intolerant and violent. You, as an individual, may be a happy-with-homosexuals- happy-with-apostates-happy-with-unbelieving-men -marrying-muslim-women -happy-amongst-many-other-things total pacifist, but that doesn't change the many ugly tenets that are a vital and living part of Islam.

You don't like the tenets of Islam, hey, that's your right. But I don't appreciate the way you ascribe fallacies to my belief, and in doing so, cite no clear reference for it except the actions of select uneducated Muslims today.

All the "be kind to your elders", "fast", and "give to charity"-type good stuff can't make up for the multitude of eternal hate and injustice spewing from the Quran and Ahadith.

Again, I have lived as a Muslim for a long time, and I don't find myself hating anyone, really. You would like me to adopt the preposterous idea that my faith, which I have practiced and studied, is leading me to hate and kill. I know better.

I'm a physician. 99.9% of my time is spent ensuring that non-Muslims see the best they possibly can. And I do it proudly. So stop with this "hate" ********. You are the only one here coming across as a hateful person.

If my wife wears the head scarf, insults are tossed her way everyday.

Not nice, and I don't think she should be provoked like that (obviously the Islamic covering makes her easily identifiable as a Muslim). On another point, she is a bigger fool than you (a man) for remaining to be a Muslim, though.

Calling my wife a fool and then labeling others as hateful? Have you met my wife? If there's one thing I can't stand more than a prejudging hatemonger, its a prejudging hypocrite.

My wife chooses to wear the scarf. Nobody forces her to do it. She is constantly tossed insults, but who the [composite word including 'f*ck'] cares? I consider her courageous and respect her determination.

Still, I choose to be Muslim, and openly so.

You choose to remain blind, and a craven apologist if you don't refute the wicked calls to the faithful within your holy books

I have nothing to apologize for. If anyone owes an apology here, its you. No, no. Don't worry. I don't expect you to. I don't expect much from you at all.

[/quote]

[sprunkner]

I thought he was Comm. Shockwav too, MV... was CS an opthamalogist?

I will say my piece eventually, but my wife is currently wearing much less than a headscarf. Work, work, work.

[Yaya]

I thought he was Comm. Shockwav too, MV... was CS an opthamalogist?

Commander Shockwav and I see, uh, eye to eye on almost everything.

It's uncanny. We have yet to disagree on something.

[Bouncelot]

Only somebody who would be seen as symbolic of perfection. It's hardly racial purity to have one job in the entire country like that.

No dogs, no blacks, no Irish.

That's not even remotely a fair comparison. It's one job that requires somebody who can symbolise perfection in certain rituals.

Which isn't how it's intended at all. There's a fair chance that in that society it would have been as much a hygiene thing as much as anything else/

A hygeine thing that restricts the movements of women, sets them apart from men, and stems from fear of a natural bodily function (something religion has done again and again, there's a reason why it's known as "the curse".

Other things that are considered to make somebody unclean include skin diseases and touching dead bodies. In the conditions the Israelites lived, menstruation could easily have raised similar health and hygiene issues.

Neither of which is something I was advocating. Firstly, however you take it, that commandment doesn't refer to "gay men", but to engaging in a particular activity. Secondly, the rule would appear to only apply to the community of Israel, somebody who is supposedly committed to serving God but, if the "pagan practice" interpretation is correct is moonlighting with another god. I can at least understand it in that context. As for the severity thing, I don't consider any one type of sin to be more severe than another.

Strangely I do, killing is a bit more severe than telling your dad to **** off. And you're still trying to defend the notion that it's okay to kill people who practise sodomy and worship another god, but pretend to worship your god. Which is precisely why Impy, myself and others consider religious people so frightening.

I've said that the Mosaic Law is obsolete. So I'm not defending it as current practice, merely trying to explain why it was allowed in that time period.

So it's okay to be gay as long as you're celibate? Of course, why didn't we think of that before?

Well, why not?

I cann't believe you're seriously asking that question. Do you know anything about what people are actually like, or do you totally live in a world of make-believe?

Are you saying that celibacy isn't possible? If so you're the one living in a world of make-believe. There are millions of people across the world - gay and straight - who live happy and fulfilled lives despite being celibate.

You should see the ****ing kids who hang around my garden.

A product of a culture that's radically different to the one in which that law was given. In that society children were much more respectful of their parents and much less likely to have the opportunity to pursue such a lifestyle.

You think that in the times of the bible everyone lived an idyllic lifestyle, children abstained from alcohol until they were eighteen, went to school and agreed with everything their parents said? I think this law was passed to deal with precisely the sort of kids who hang around my estate.

In a society where extended family living in close proximity was the norm, kids stepping wildly out of line with like the kinds in your estate are far less likely. The sort of kids you're referring to are usually behaving like that either without their parents' knowledge or because their parents don't care. It's a situation that wouldn't arise in that society but does in ours.

So if your son drinks too much, kill him? Nice.

Twist what I said until it fits your preconceptions? Nice.

Your interpretation was extremely ropey, I was just cutting to the chase. Bottom line, if your son drinks too much, you can drag him to court and have him sentenced to death. Not how I want things run in my town. Again, I'd have been executed a few times now, probably several times a week when I was at university.

It does seem to be rather more of a serious offence than that. The situation is somebody who is purposefully living a life that consists primarily of drunken behaviour and the like and frequently and repeatedly refuses to listen when people tell him that he shouldn't be doing that. Oh, and I should point out that custodial sentences weren't much of an option back then.

Um, sorry, but I missed that. I've dealt with the genocide bit, but precisely where were you claiming that the Bible condones murder or incest?

You haven't really dealt with the genocide bit at all, you've said "yeah, but, no but, yeah but, no but" How about Lot ****ing his two daughters? The people of Sodom get their city destroyed (in an area known for its geological instability, curiously enough) for sodomy, but Lot ****s both his daughters and gives rise to two tribes. Not once does the Bible mention that the whole ****ing your daughters thing is sick. It presents it as the most natural thing in the world and also shifts most of the blame onto the girls. It's nasty, sexist, incestual ****, and there's no defending it, though I'm sure you'll say that God made a special compensation in his case or something equally banal and meaningless.

The Bible doesn't defend Lot's incest at all. It looks to me like it's confirmation that Lot and his family have been affected by the immorality of Sodom (and, incidentally, Sodom wasn't destroyed for Sodomy - the incident before its destruction was attempted gang rape of somebody they should have been offering hospitality to, and the implication of other passages is that there were plenty of other sins they were guilty of .

After the flood, God said that He wouldn't do the same kind of thing again, though the way it's described gives the impression that they were as close to that level of nastiness as their technology allowed.

It's convenient that God said he'd never send a flood or anything to kill people again. I remember a tsunami not long back. And the level of nastiness is relative, but I doubt it was anything like as bad as, say, the past 2,000 years.

The Tsunami wasn't even remotely comparable to the flood.

Well, if you're going to say that the Bible is lying about why God chose somebody for a particular task, you might as well forget the idea of any kind of discussion about what the God of the Bible is like. If you look at any example of a Biblical hero, you can always spot flaws and say "God could have chosen or created someone better suited for the task". That's probably the whole point, actually.

What, that an all-powerful and all-knowing God makes mistakes? Doesn't that disprove the whole point?

No. The point is that God chooses to work through people who do make mistakes and muck up, rather than only through some idealised perfect person that nobody else could aspire to being.

And not, for example, the history of a people living in the middle east who conquered everyone else and then used 'God' to justify it?

That's not what the Bible portrays.

Since when? You think the Midianites slaughtered themselves? You think the other tribes abandoned their gods and worshipped the Israelites' war god because they wanted to, or because the Israelites were giving away free cakes that week?

No. War. Slash, stab, murder, conquer, worship. Old Testament stuff.

It's not people using God to justify their actions. It's God acting out judgement through the Israelites. That's the Bible's portrayal, You might disagree with that portrayal, but that's not the same as saying that the Bible paints it differently.

Source please? All I can find in the Bible is that they worshipped Ba'al and some of their women slept with Israelite men. Hardly "truly truly evil" by any standards.

You missed the bits about worship of Molech involving child sacrifice, then? These were not nice fluffy religions.

Neither were the followers of Jehovah. They slaughtered their neighbours and their neighbours' children on the whim of their god. I mean, they are supposed to be the good guys in all this, right? The way you seem to see it is that they're only good because they're the least evil. Which ain't good, by any stretch.

Um, hardly their neighbours. They wiped out (or at least tried to) the religions of the land and those who followed them. There were certainly opportunities for the followers of those religions to defect to Judaism - there are two examples of people who did so who turn up in Jesus' genealogy, for example.

Well, how about the example of Onan, who had a wank and was then killed by God? On that reasoning I should have been killed by God about 4 times a day, on average, for the past 15 years.

Somebody really hasn't read the passage he's talking about. Because if you had, you'd know that it says nothing of the sort.

Onan, first page:

One Jewish interpretation is that Onan was deserving of the death penalty solely because he sinned by spilling his seed (see Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a). The narrative is cited as a reason for the ban on both masturbation and coitus interruptus.

Medieval Catholic authors also understood the activities of God in this story as a condemnation of masturbation and contraception. This interpretation was held by important figures in the early Church, such as St. Jerome who makes explicit reference to Onan's sexual act.

Goes on to say that the act punishable by death is now generally regarded to be coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation, though again, I've been guilty of this one a few (hundred) times as well. Though it didn't always fall on the ground. Point being, your God murdered someone because of it. What a pleasant and understanding God he is. And inconsistent.

Looks like people didn't really read the context of the passage. What happened was that each son died childless. At that time there was an obligation for the brother to marry the wife and produce an heir for his brother. What Onan did was to deliberately refuse to do this.

I actually said that we think we've moved on. Society is very different to what it was then. What worked then wouldn't work now. That doesn't necessarily mean that our way of life or our worldview is any better.

I don't know about your worlddview, but I think I'm considerably better informed than, say, a biblical farmer. And if you paid more attention to the world around you instead of trying to justify why intolerance is okay when God does it or listening to the voice in your head labelled "God", maybe you would be too.

Well, we're all likely to believe that our own worldview is the best, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're right about it. There are aspects of the Western worldview that are at least as wrong as anything the ancient Israelites believed or practiced.

You get as much confusion over the Koran - which claims to be God doing just that. Any substantial revelation given within history will inevitably have aspects which are not so obvious when related to a different culture in a different time to that in which the original revelation was given.

As you'll have seen from my discussions with Yaya, I don't consider the Koran to be the authentic word of God either. I think that both books are fascinating as cultural artifacts, I don't think they're particularly useful lifestyle guides and I certainly wouldn't want either of them as the basis for a legal system for precisely the reason you give above. They are of that time, and that culture. They're anachronous. They're not needed any more.

Missing my point entirely.

I make a fair bit of effort to understand the historical and cultural context of the Bible. But taking the Bible's commentary of itself as an interpretation of those parts does not equate to picking and choosing the bits I like. And my point about genocide is that the only passages which talk about genocide in a positive light are very specific - this is divine judgement on this particular group of people. There is no remit within the text (especially when looked at in the historical context) for genocide outside the context of peoples who no longer exist. And even then there was provision for people from those groups to be saved from it.

No? You don't think that it allows for those who follow God's word to slaughter those who don't? You don't think it might encourage people to mistrust those who follow different religions? Hell, above you're advocating celibacy for homosexuals - essentially you say they should curtail their freedoms for fear of upsetting your God's predilictions. It's already made you into a bigot, how much further before you decide it's time to take the Lord's work into your own hands?

I never said that I wanted to impose my views on anybody else other than by explaining them. I think it's perfectly clear that removing the people of Canaan from the promised land was very much a one-off event, and that there is absolutely no Biblical mandate for Christians to use violence as a means of spreading the gospel.

[Dead Head]

He wants to convince me that my belief is based on violent inclinations and oppressive tendencies.

He will fail miserably.

Hah! I'm not trying to 'convince' YOU. You're way beyond rational redemption.

By tossing insults? Give me something more substantial than that, for God's sake, if you want to debate.

Insults? You're the one holding insulting positions, as per your intolerant cult's directives (i.e. death to gays; wimmin iz lesser legal entities; stoning/lashing/murdering adulterers), and so on.

Islam was forged in violence and bloodshed, and the 'eternal and perfect' holy texts are littered with calls to violence, aggression and expansionist agenda.

Then by all means, provide what we Muslims call daleel. Evidence. Give me your evidence,

"The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ory/early/

"Through conquest and conversion, Muhammad was able to unite the surrounding tribes behind him and eventually assembled such a large force that Mecca capitulated without a fight. By the time Muhammad died, on June 8, 632, he and his followers had united the entire Arabian peninsula under his leadership, and had even sent raiding parties out into the areas now known as Syria and Iraq."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/History_of_Islam

Islam was forged as a conquering aggressive offensive religion, with Mohammad as its expansionist ringleader. Such violent and intolerant example (masked, of course, as 'benevolently' spreading something of benefit to humanity. hah!) resonates ever strongly in the Islamic edicts of today and tomorrow.

instead of attacking with blanket generalizations all too often made in history class and in Western media (I have heard them since I was a young lad and they bore me),

Rim shot!, but no cigar. "Boo-hoo-hoo! Western media hates Islam and always seeks to find ways to muddy its name!", or some such. Riiight.

and I will give you mine, with references if you like. Show me those verses you claim as your argument, but give me the context, give me the history of what was happening the moment those verses were revealed. You won't. Because you don't know the history. You don't know what those verses refer to.

Don't talk to me about it. Talk to your violent militant Muslim 'brothers' about context. The 'moderate majority' of Muslims (like you?) should criticise them PUBLICLY, OFTEN, LOUDLY and UNRESERVEDLY. It doesn't happen, or if it does, it is awfully weak and full of excusing caveat language. You won't. Because your 'moderate' kind, time and time and time again, has a serious aversion to tut-tuting their own (it's always that the murderous Muslims aren't "true Muslims", eh? Hah!) Your Ummah sees itself as 'always under attack'. In a way, such a daft victimhood complex really explains why Muslims can so easily justify all their global butchery and terrorism as some perverse "self-defence" or twisted "retaliation for our brothers and sisters in Palestine" et cetera. Always the victims, eh? NOT.

The Prophet (PBUH) said that anyone who interprets a verse of the Koran from his own belief or interpretation without consulting with him on its actual meaning, even if the person was right, has committed a grave sin. Self-interpretation of the Koran or Hadith are grave sins in Islam.

Well done Mr. Mo. Ensuring HIS rules get followed, bureaucratically. He was a regular Gareth Keenan.

[Dead Head]

Not being funny Yaya but any evidence we show you, you say that its western and thus wrong? - Its kind of like saying everything you say is wrong because its from the middle east and thus backwards...
...

This is partly true, Impy.

Anything you say against Islam, I will likely label as false or inaccurate, and anything I say in defense of Islam, you will likely label as the same.

It comes down to a matter of who you believe, really. Western writers have a tendency to misinterpret or twist facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, about Islam. I don't say this blindly.

I think you do. Religion is a powerful prism of distortion.

I myself was born American, to white parent, in a white neighborhood, and grew up with the Flintstones and Smurfs like any other American. I know the mindset of one educated in the West because I myself am a product of Western education. Because of this, I have the advantage of knowing how those in America come to learn of Islam, and the image of it that is ingrained upon students from a young age.

And how do they come to learn of Islam, and what is the image that is ingrained upon those young American students?

Even with an accurate presentation of the facts, however, you and others will likely find Islam not to your liking. For example, Islam forbids premarital sexual relations. Men are permitted to have more than one wife. There are gender roles that are required to be fulfilled. Prayer five times a day is prescribed. Etc, etc, etc. These things you find distasteful and unnecessary

Distasteful and unnecessary? That's an understatement!

, I view as keys to living a content life with the pleasure of my Creator at its center. I do not deny that Islam teaches these things, and if you find them distasteful, this is your right. I will not change the facts to make Islam more pallatable to you or anyone else, for these things are truly Islamic doctrines.

OK.

But to label Islam as a violent religion, as DH does above, that I have to refute and provide you evidence that this is not the case. Not because I am out to convert you, or even to get you to like me, but rather to state what the truth is.

This is where your thread really breaks down. Islam is indeed a violent religion. It WAS violent when the perfect muslim Mohammad conquered left right and center (they weren't bearing candy, would you believe, but were bearing swords), and that example carries right on through Islam's teachings, and its past, present and [unfortunately] future.

If Islam is the religion that DH above claims it to be, why then is it the fastest growing religion in the world?

So you're trotting out the FGR line, as if that's something that makes a belief great. There are a whole heap of factors accounting for this growth. Demographics. People are mugs. High birth rates amongst sections of Muslims. Gulf cash bolsters Islamic regimes/wannabe-regimes. 'Reverting' an unbeliever to become a Muslim is seen as a wonderful thing. DEATH is Islam's only mandated exit.

Because people want to blow things up? Because they want to become hateful people? If I came across a religion the likes of which DH is portraying, I would stay the hell away, as far away as I could.

Don't put words into my mouth. Look above to some of the possibilities why the global Muslim population is increasing. Your third sentence here is bleakly amusing.

[Dead Head]

Quran: "Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged;and Allah indeed is able to give them victory" (Surah 22, verse 39)

...and since many Muslims have a seemingly perpetual delusion that they're being wronged against, their victimhood complex, all the numerous edicts to violently "defend" themselves are good to put into deadly action. Handy, that.

Quran: "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (Surah 18, Verse 29)

...which continues: "Verily, we have prepared for the disbelievers a fire whose walls will be surrounding them. And if they ask for help (relief, water etc) they will be granted water like boiling oil that will scald their faces. Terrible the drink and an evil resting place."

There is compulsion. It isn't "believe it or not", but it is "believe it... or else!" Ain't Allah a real charmer...

How can one be forced to believe against what their heart inclines to? It can't be done.

That's where Islam's sword comes in.

No reference needing citing here, you're just a fool if you think that you can so easily change the heart of someone through force.

You're just a fool who missed what I said. Underlining for emphasis:

"That's where Islam's sword comes in. Just like the black slaves who were stolen away to the Americas, oppression is quite successful in forcing subsequent generations to believe what the oppressors want the oppressed to believe. The first generation of people will likely, in their hearts, not believe in the force-fed religion, but by jiminey, it works wonders when you look at the offspring a few generations down. In a general sense, it shows just how replaceable one set of dumb religious beliefs is with another. 'On pain of death' works wonders."

You, as an individual, may be a happy-with-homosexuals- happy-with-apostates-happy-with-unbelieving-men-marrying-muslim-women -happy-amongst-many-other-things total pacifist, but that doesn't change the many ugly tenets that are a vital and living part of Islam.

You don't like the tenets of Islam, hey, that's your right. But I don't appreciate the way you ascribe fallacies to my belief, and in doing so, cite no clear reference for it except the actions of select uneducated Muslims today.

Tosh. I ascribe what is self-evident from the backwardness that is Islam in the world today, a world in which terrorism is all too often a euphemism for Islamic terrorism.

So, are you a 'happy-with-homosexuals- happy-with-apostates-happy-with-unbelieving-men-marrying-muslim-women -happy-amongst-many-other-things total pacifist'?
Do you consider practicing gays to be abominable?
A blight on society?
What about someone who listens to 'decadent' Western pop music like, errrr, Dr. Teeth And The Electric Mayhem?
Getting in the way of the business of worshipping that attention-seeking god of yours, are they?
What about Muslim converts to Buddhism?
'Turn back or face god's wrath!', eh?
What if they were your son/daughter?

I'm a physician.

You must have some brains so. Mores the pity that those brains apparently don't apply to religion.

99.9% of my time is spent ensuring that non-Muslims see the best they possibly can. And I do it proudly. So stop with this "hate" ********. You are the only one here coming across as a hateful person.

No, I am forthright. I try to not discriminate against unchosen traits like gender, race, and sexual orientation, or indeed against benign chosen aspects of people. You and other religious people are the sanctimonious conceited discriminatory brats. All the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' and 'i don't judge, let god be the judge' schtick rings VERY hollow.

she is a bigger fool than you (a man) for remaining to be a Muslim, though.

Calling my wife a fool and then labeling others as hateful? Have you met my wife? If there's one thing I can't stand more than a prejudging hatemonger, its a prejudging hypocrite.

No, I'm calling you BOTH fools. Just that she's a bigger one give the even shorter straw your faith deals women.

Again, you're the Muslim, you're the one hatin' on gays, on satire of Mo', on teen girls having boyfriends, and so on. I detest such positions. My detest is the exception, your hate is the 'divine' rule.

Still, I choose to be Muslim, and openly so.

You choose to remain blind, and a craven apologist if you don't refute the wicked calls to the faithful within your holy books

I have nothing to apologize for. If anyone owes an apology here, its you. No, no. Don't worry. I don't expect you to. I don't expect much from you at all.

Right back at ya! Keep on supporting the killing of apostates, the flogging of fornicators, and the condemnation of gays.

[Yaya]

...and since many Muslims have a seemingly perpetual delusion that they're being wronged against, their victimhood complex, all the numerous edicts to violently "defend" themselves are good to put into deadly action.

So its delusional that bombs are being dropped on the heads of Iraqi civilians daily for oil whilst preteen girls are being raped by US soldiers? Its delusional that Muslims are being held in torture chambers for years on end without a trial on tiny islands, only to later be found innocent of any crime?

This is not being "wronged against" in your book? Of course not. It's only Muslims overreacting!

Maybe we'll just close our eyes and pretend it doesn't happen!

...which continues: "Verily, we have prepared for the disbelievers a fire whose walls will be surrounding them. And if they ask for help (relief, water etc) they will be granted water like boiling oil that will scald their faces. Terrible the drink and an evil resting place."

There is compulsion. It isn't "believe it or not", but it is "believe it... or else!"

This is how you define compulsion?

I mean, come on, you don't even recognize the Koran, yet you say it forces you to think a certain way?

On the one hand, you claim to not believe any of this, and on the other you say it twists your hand in some way.

You're floundering, man. You have no authentic references to cite for your argument, nothing from the Koran or Hadith, and use only your own personal opinions as your argument.

Wait, what have we here...

"The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ory/early/

"Through conquest and conversion, Muhammad was able to unite the surrounding tribes behind him and eventually assembled such a large force that Mecca capitulated without a fight. By the time Muhammad died, on June 8, 632, he and his followers had united the entire Arabian peninsula under his leadership, and had even sent raiding parties out into the areas now known as Syria and Iraq."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/History_of_Islam

I provided you as my reference the very sources of my faith, the Koran and the Hadith, as clear evidence that Islam is not what you claim it to be.

And what do you give me to convince me? BB fecking C and an online Western encyclopedia without any mention of who authored that passage?

Wait. There's more...

I ascribe what is self-evident from the backwardness that is Islam in the world today, a world in which terrorism is all too often a euphemism for Islamic terrorism.

And an opinion based on self-evidence! Alas, for you, your opinion doesn't mean **** to me.

Again, you're the Muslim, you're the one hatin' on gays, on satire of Mo', on teen girls having boyfriends, and so on. I detest such positions. My detest is the exception, your hate is the 'divine' rule.

Hating on gays? Funny. I just helped a gay man with CMV retinitis from going blind just this week. And I don't really feel inclined to help those whom I hate. Hating on teen girls having boyfriends? I was a teen with a girlfriend as well once. Don't recall hating myself.

See, if I were to hate everyone who sinned, I would hate every person in the universe, myself included. Do I hate the acts? Yes, I do. I firmly hate the acts and see them as an evil. But we all commit evil. All of us. In Islam, God is forgiving. I ask His forgiveness, and hope that He forgives. Hating the act is quite different from hating the one who commits it.

You hate Muslims, that much you have made quite clear. But I don't hate non-Muslims. I recognize their right to believe as they will, and to live as they choose. I live in a non-Muslim nation, and as such, must live by the rules here or leave. What happens to them in the end is God's business.

I do not enforce myself, as you would have others believe, on those around me. I don't own a sword. Or even a gun for that matter.

It WAS violent when the perfect muslim Mohammad conquered left right and center (they weren't bearing candy, would you believe, but were bearing swords), and that example carries right on through Islam's teachings, and its past, present and [unfortunately] future.

Again, you choose to believe your sources, and I will believe mine.

The Encyclopedia Britannica's and Wikipedia's don't hold up, for me, to the Koran, Hadith, and numerous works of authentic Muslim scholars of old, that I choose to reference.

Look, I think I'll end this "debate" with you. It's funny how Muslims are oft labelled extremists, yet the hate you spew forth in your off-target assessments and baseless accusations are nothing but extreme.

You come at me with the argument of "Look around! See what Muslims are! See what they are doing! This is Islam! BBC says this!"

I find that very, very weak.

Perhaps you should strive to grasp a more objective measure of the events that occur around you instead of adopting this one-dimensional stream of thought you have chosen, this BBC-based Wikipedic bend you have fostered.

I know my belief and I know what my people are guilty of. They are guilty of not properly representing their faith, are guilty of idleness, are guilty of ignorance.

But these are faults of people, not of faith. Unfortunately, you wish to take the terrorist acts of a select few and ascribe this to over a billion people worldwide.

[Shanti418]

I can deal with religious banter and calling people Godless pieces of s***, but a triple post?

That sir, crosses the line.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

So its delusional that bombs are being dropped on the heads of Iraqi civilians daily for oil whilst preteen girls are being raped by US soldiers? Its delusional that Muslims are being held in torture chambers for years on end without a trial on tiny islands, only to later be found innocent of any crime?

This is not being "wronged against" in your book? Of course not. It's only Muslims overreacting!

Maybe we'll just close our eyes and pretend it doesn't happen!

But bombs are also being droped on other ppl who are total *****.

What I find more interesting is that you pick out 'muslims' you know they are not different ppl, they are not like super humans or somthing - they are just flesh and blood like anyone else.

Do you think US soilders/ pilots move around Iraq, spot some civ's and open fire if they can prove they are Muslims? - no, they are doing a job, it just so happens that muslims live there.

So the only wrongs taking place are basic crimes against human beings - not muslims, your just a human. but muslims are not being singled out for special reasons, a bomber at 10'000ft cant tell if the man on the ground is a muslim a christian or an atheist.

its like a fight in a pub - if i hit a white guy its a fight, if i hit a black guy its a racist attack and if i hit a Muslim its an attack on your faith.

The problem with muslims right now in the world is that they split hairs between an attack on a human and an attack on a muslim - this is why the world grows angry with this BS religion.

Theres a war in the middle east right now because religion has kept the ppl thier at 3rd world level and the world is getting smaller all the time - the 1st world west meets the 3rd world past and because the west has evolved beyond faith calling we dont see the problem where as muslims always see the problem as a faith attack.

untill Muslims can understand that the west doesnt count dead Muslims but dead humans we will never live together.