Charlie Hebdo under terrorist attack

[peterbound]

Except Islam did not produce this ideology. The Quran said that "there is no compulsion in religion" and the prophet pbuh said that extremists are "the worst of creation".

and yet, you have the so called 'Sword Verses' in the Quran. Do you feel that these are read out to context, and used by those wishing violence as justification?

Also, and this could be way off, but I've spent a little time in some Moslem (what what, where you at FLOW) countries, and it seems the religion goes out of its way to live in a bygone era, one that throws childish fits when confronted with the idea of conforming to the world, and flatly refuses to allow the idea that they should conform to the world.

[Salafi Stannis]

Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

[Shryke]

Islam is certainly responsible for more, and more violent, extremism than other religions currently do. Its not uniquely more violent, but its at a stage in its history that all other major religions have seemingly finished with. That makes it appropriate to ask questions when this sort of violence occurs that do not get asked when other sorts of violence do.

That's because in, say, the US the christian extremists are either ignored or already integrated into the political process.

Why resort to direct extralegal violence when legislative violence is so much more effective.

[Suttree]

and yet, you have the so called 'Sword Verses' in the Quran. Do you feel that these are read out to context, and used by those wishing violence as justification?

*cough*

[Salafi Stannis]

and yet, you have the so called 'Sword Verses' in the Quran. Do you feel that these are read out to context, and used by those wishing violence as justification?

Also, and this could be way off, but I've spent a little time in some Moslem (what what, where you at FLOW) countries, and it seems the religion goes out of its way to live in a bygone era, one that throws childish fits when confronted with the idea of conforming to the world, and flatly refuses to allow the idea that the world will not conform to them.

The so called "Sword verses" in the Quran came because the prophet and the Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, but were told to not fight back because they were not strong enough, then, after a while, they were told to stand up for themselves. So, yes, they are read out of context. As for your second question, no, you're not way off, most Muslim countries are doing that unfortunately, but hey, I live in London.

[Castel]

The so called "Sword verses" in the Quran came because the prophet and the Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, but were told to not fight back because they were not strong enough, then, after a while, they were told to stand up for themselves. So, yes, they are read out of context. As for your second question, no, you're not way off, most Muslim countries are doing that unfortunately, but hey, I live in London.

If you wish to use historical context here the expansion after the pacification of the Quraysh doesn't really do you any favors does it?

And what do the views on how to deal with the non-Muslims have to do with the Quraysh and their struggle with Mohammed, given their shared religion?

[Salafi Stannis]

If you wish to use historical context here the expansion after the pacification of the Quraysh doesn't really do you any favors does it?

And what do the views on how to deal with the non-Muslims have to do with the Quraysh and their struggle with Mohammed, given their shared religion?

Shared religion? Are you kidding? The whole reason that the Quraysh persecuted the Muslims is because they were Muslims and worshipped Allah, and the Quraysh were not Muslims and worshipped idols. Their faiths could not have been more different.

[Gears of the Beast]

King Stannis the Mannis, do you believe that the Qur'an (in Arabic of course) is the inerrant word of God and the final revelation to man?

[peterbound]

King Stannis the Mannis, do you believe that the Qur'an (in Arabic of course) is the inerrant word of God and the final revelation to man?

Ug.. can we avoid that avenue of conversation. I was actually enjoying the exchange, and this is obviously troll bait.

[Salafi Stannis]

King Stannis the Mannis, do you believe that the Qur'an (in Arabic of course) is the inerrant word of God and the final revelation to man?

I do, but I believe it's open to very wide interpretation, one which is compatible with my liberal values I gained from growing up in the west, such as equality between men and women, straight and gay, Muslim and non Muslim, etc.

[Castel]

Shared religion? Are you kidding? The whole reason that the Quraysh persecuted the Muslims is because they were Muslims and worshipped Allah, and the Quraysh were not Muslims and worshipped idols. Their faiths could not have been more different.

The Quraysh also worshipped Allah from what I remember, they just had a ton of idols as intercessors. Mohammed didn't demolish them, he considered them idolaters and laid out the punishment then took over the Kabbah, which preceded him. He didn't consider them the same as the "people of the book" like Christians or Jews, or other unbelievers. It was a sort of reformation.

It's the difference between how Caesar would view a hostile Roman with mistaken (to him) political views and say...a Gaul.

But I ask you again: If warfare was only to quell the threat from the Quraysh, what of all the expansion that didn't directly involve defending against them or robbing their caravans (an interesting form of defense)?

[Gears of the Beast]

Ug.. can we avoid that avenue of conversation. I was actually enjoying the exchange, and this is obviously troll bait.

How is that troll bait..?

[lojzelote]

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: "The terrorism of ISIS as Al-Qaeda is Islam's number one enemy".

That's wonderful. Sadly I don't think that the enlightened Grand Mufti (wait, isn't it the same guy who not so long ago claimed that it's the duty of women not only cover their hair, but also their face?) holds much sway over the believers because the last time I checked, the state of rights of women and minorities in Saudi Arabia was dreadful. Not exactly what I would put forth as an example of a muslim state with a healthy view of what Islam should look like.

Also, I don't blame you personally. Neither do I blame tha veiled classmate I had once upon time, who otherwise seemed pretty relaxed. But I still think we should limit further immigration, at least until we learn to weed out extremism and stop its causes.

[Salafi Stannis]

That's wonderful. Sadly I don't think that the enlightened Grand Mufti (wait, isn't it the same guy who not so long ago claimed that it's the duty of women not only cover their hair, but also their face?) holds much sway over the believers because the last time I checked, the state of rights of women and minorities in Saudi Arabia was dreadful. Not exactly what I would put forth as an example of a muslim state with a healthy view of what Islam should look like.

Also, I don't blame you personally. Neither do I blame tha veiled classmate I had once upon time, who otherwise seemed pretty relaxed. But I still think we should limit further immigration, at least until we learn to weed out extremism and stop its causes.

I agree, that was a terrible example on my part.

[Salafi Stannis]

The Quraysh also worshipped Allah from what I remember, they just had a ton of idols as intercessors. Mohammed didn't demolish them, he considered them idolaters and laid out the punishment then took over the Kabbah, which preceded him. He didn't consider them the same as the "people of the book" like Christians or Jews, or other unbelievers. It was a sort of reformation.

It's the difference between how Caesar would view a hostile Roman with mistaken (to him) political views and say...a Gaul.

But I ask you again: If warfare was only to quell the threat from the Quraysh, what of all the expansion that didn't directly involve defending against them or robbing their caravans (an interesting form of defense)?

They were two entirely different religions I can assure you, it's Islam 101, the stuff you learn when you're six. There are three different types of worship, the Quraysh only followed one, hence, non Muslim, plus the prophet often referred to them as non Muslim. As for you're other point, I don't know.

[peterbound]

How is that troll bait..?

Come on man, don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. You know where you were going with that.

[peterbound]

They were two entirely different religions I can assure you, it's Islam 101, the stuff you learn when you're six. There are three different types of worship, the Quraysh only followed one, hence, non Muslim, plus the prophet often referred to them as non Muslim. As for you're other point, I don't know.

Only follow one? So, hey, kill them?

Not a good example of a peaceful religion.

[Gears of the Beast]

Come on man, don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. You know where you were going with that.

Yes, I know where I was going with that. Seems like you don't, however.

[Salafi Stannis]

Only follow one? So, hey, kill them?

Not a good example of a peaceful religion.

No, that was an answer to Castel's question on whether or not the Quraysh were Muslim, which, as I was pointing out, they weren't. If you'd read the exchange, you'd know that I was talking about how the Muslims were persecuted by the Quraysh, but not permitted to fight back for lack of strength, then were given permission to fight back after a while.

[Castel]

They were two entirely different religions I can assure you, it's Islam 101, the stuff you learn when you're six. There are three different types of worship, the Quraysh only followed one, hence, non Muslim, plus the prophet often referred to them as non Muslim. As for you're other point, I don't know.

It's different because Mohammed claims it was different. And, maybe by most definitions he's right. The two religions have the same DNA though. Mohammed didn't invent Allah. Mohammed didn't build the Kaaba. Mohammed was a reformer. He took the idols out of the Kaaba, and changed the position of Allah.

As for you not knowing, well, that really makes it hard for you to claim that violence was only about containing the Quraysh no?

As for Islam allowing a secular liberal position after a literalist reading...well, that's tough. Heaven and Hell alone create problems for you.

It is in some sense a legal document. What do you do when you run into something that seems like it was written for 6th century Arabs?

Only follow one? So, hey, kill them?

Not a good example of a peaceful religion.

This is really the worst example to use. The Quraysh it seems, are the ones that started the conflict and persecution that drove Mohammed from Mecca. At least, that's what the victorious Muslims claim. On top of that Mohammed didn't massacre the Quraysh when he took Mecca, quite the opposite.