These not-truely-Scotsmen sure wear some nice sherwanis.

Hey Louis, what in the world do you expect to happen in threads like this where I am the one single person on one side of the argument. Not to mention the weight of the subject.

Judging from his post, I'm going to guess he expects you to not use the No True Scotsman fallacy, over and over and over...

Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayaf etc. Islamic terrorism - not islamic
Female Genital Mutilation - not islamic
Oppression of women - not islamic
Restricting freedom of speech - not islamic
Restricting freedom of religion - not islamic
Imprisonment for Apostasy - not islamic
Death Penalty for Apostasy - not islamic

Coffee, Whitney Houston, Theme Parks, Hospitality = true islam

thread/

Yup.

Lock it up.

I didn't follow this thread all too closely as I'm not familiar enough with the Quran to discuss this, sorry if this question is obvious but, were there any Muslims who contributed thoughts in this thread?

Just the OP.

I'd be curious to see some verses from the Quran that decidedly proves or disproves the death penalty for apostasy, or if that was introduced at a later time. Again, sorry if this was discussed.

The thread isn't ending, I think it's a coding issue. Improperly closed tag.

It closes in IE though, stupid piece of crap.

People can draw all sorts of varied conclusions from text and cherry pick portions to support their view. My point was that those with extremist views (though most would not consider themselves such) are not some fringe group, and are common throughout the Muslim world numbering in the hundreds of millions. Once you get into various Hadith, who many follow, it is clearly prescribed in some work to execute apostates and adulterers. Of course these aren't the only violent incarnations of Islam, as seen with the Life of Muhammad himself, the Conquest which followed his death, and the history which cam after. There are also plenty of lines in the Qur'an which seem to support various forms of violence.

Culture (as previously said) and quality of life of course plays a role, as many people don't need religious motivation and excuses for depraved violence.

I could post random verses and draw interpretation which sanction violence, but when even Muslim scholars themselves can't seem to reach the same end I doubt we will do it on some an internet forum.

BTW the supposed nonviolent verse you posted as 5:33, 5:33 is actually:

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"

There they go with the hacking off limbs again.

I believe you meant 5:32, but you are cherry picking and posting it out of context like I mentioned in the first paragraph. Why not post the whole thing?

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors."

Not only is "innocent" open to interpretation, but it was apparently written to apply to Jews.

I could go . . .

edit: Forgot you random cool history bro about Al Qaeda. They are far from the only violent Jihadist group. While empowered by the west they would have existed and massacred regardless. And hey, way less people died under Pol Pot than Mao. He was obviously a peaceful man!

Some of what is going on itt and the other Islam thread sort of reminds me of the former poster "rizeagainst".----->http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=69 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=109

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=122

Coolerboy has made a few posts reminiscent of the following clown like post by Rize Against----> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=139

This would of course be a false claim.

The accusations and misconceptions of Islam by certain posters itt and the "How to Prevent Islamophobia thread" were thoroughly debunked by a non-religious historian in a previous thread created in rgt. This will most likely be my last post itt as well, as there is no point in continuing this argument. I could offer you a Harvard scholar like argument based on facts and you may still find some ridiculous excuse to disregard fact. That being said I hope this post will serve to at least slightly change the views of some of those responding to the OP in the "How to Prevent Islamophobia thread" a thread in which a select few posters have resorted to bullying Islam/Quran as a whole.

The following comments by "Damaci" debunks the often viscous, illogical view that a select few posters have itt and the other Islam thread.


Honestly if anyone (specifically coolerboy and doggg) still think otherwise then take a look at this(maybe bump the thread) very informative thread created by" Damaci"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...-i-try-706309/

Let's not go overboard and pretend you presented much in the way of argument. An argument is based on premises that lead to a conclusion. You have mostly presented a conclusion that lead to premises. You have done this so consistently that I almost hope that you are a level and/or a troll.

I also sincerely doubt anyone in this thread will be able to spread more Islamophobia than you.

I wouldn't say it is false but that is of course subjective. I consider a death penalty for leaving Islam pretty damn extreme, and as seen in the study I previously posted done by Pew, a highly respected and non-partial institution, they estimate over 100 million people in Pakistan alone support such executions and all sorts of other crazy thing.

While it doesn't prove much, check out the Muslim Peace Conference in Norway. They consider themselves peaceful and moderate but still unanimously support primitive executions for adultery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO6PcFYXMo4

I'm interested in the previous threads and will definitely check them out.

edit: Now that I watch it again I realize it might be fake, which I sincerely hope it is.
edit: Apparently not, it is actually posted by IslamNet as well.

This is the most ironic part.

and yes

I think it is wrong to label a whole religion based on the actions of a minority of its followers.

It may seem cliche or a platitude, but from my admittedly limited understanding, a follower of Islam is to love all creation the same as they love Allah since everything was created by Allah.

God or no god - I don't think it matters so much. The only thing that really counts is causality; don’t practice killing, stealing, sexual abuse, lying, etc ... these are things that run through all religions and non-believers as well.

If people want to argue that this religion or that religion or all religions are negative, that is an individual's right. But, I don't think anyone can or should have a negative attitude towards compassion, it is a basic biological necessity - not a religious matter.

We are all striving for a happy, peaceful mind - and if we examine the situation, we find that compassion is not only the means for peace but also biologically necessary. In this way, religions are all the same - an outgrowth of the basic biological need for compassion and a striving for peace.

At the very least, our mothers had to have enough compassion to go through child birth - without that basic seed of compassion, no one would be here. I think psychology has a lot to say about the early experience of compassion in babies and infants. Experiments with Chimps with no mothers, show an increase in anxiety and violence compared to Chimps raised with mothers.

There are many different religions and there are many different people, it seems unrealistic to think there is a one size fits all approach. We can argue rather this philosophy is better than that philosophy, but such argument shouldn't blind us to the fact that we ultimately are all striving for the same goal. There should be some realistic approach to the subject.

Islam is a religion which shows you a way out of the beast that you are. So how can it not be a religion of peace?
You think, you are not a beast? I will prove you are a beast.
Just tell your mother, every time you are playing poker, she should enter your room, and take some newspapers and generate with them some noise. She should also do this every time yo go to bed and try to sleep. She is also allowed to generate other noises which distract your poker or your sleep. For example when you go to bed, she might just come over your bed and eat with open mouth very slowly some crackers.
Tell her even if you should regret your suggestion, she should still continue with this for 7 days, no matter what happens.
8 days later you will find your picture in the newspaper as someone who did kill his mother. If this shouldn't be the case, than it will be, because you did commit suicide.
At least in these 7 days you will have lots of thoughts about killing your mother or yourself.
Everyone who did ever go on real tilt, he will have seen this beast already. Whoever did wait in a line and did see someone line-jumping, he had already contact with the beast.

This beast is alive as long as we don't overcome our basic instincts. Islam shows you the way to control the beast in you, to control your basic instincts. As soon as you learn to control your basic instincts, you will not kill someone just because this person did generate annoying noises.

Therefore, yes, Islam is a religion of peace.

While I agree that having ones mother crumpling newspapers and eating loudly for seven days would be annoying, I find it truly worrying that you claim religion is what would stop you from killing her.

Maybe you (seriously) need to learn to how to focus. Habituation and focus are a powerful allies.

For the record; I also think "not killing mum" is rather poor proof of peaceful belief. But your entire post is so absurd that it is hard to respond to it seriously. I can't even fathom how this was the first example you thought to write.

Random question here, Are you British tame? I am asking because you say mum instead of mom oh and btw God save the Queen

So this guy shahrad makes one post itt and this is how you respond? You go and tell him he needs to "learn how to focus" Why don't you grow up and stop being a bully. The door is there for you to open tame, Islam is a religion of peace.

This guy tame_deuces is somewhat harsh in his "criticism" of Islam, I'm sure he is an ok guy though. Look at that, amongst this exchange I can call you a good guy tame, can you do the same for the Muslims around the world? Or shall you respond with your typical tame deuces type of post?

Tame you can continue to attack me, I could care less what you think. You know whats funny , all you have to do is show some respect toward Islam and I would not be as defensive with you. You will probably post in response that my argument is not good enough, again I could care less. The responsibility is on you to act like a reasonable adult, after all if you are a psychologist then should you not treat other posters with respect?

Or is it ok to be nasty to others? I mean I made a thread out of peace and love and you are on the other side this argument. In my other Islam thread the first response was actually from Tame in which he referred to the thread as pathetic, this of course under the guise that the thread was created by me.

Nonetheless in the Ask me anything Islam" thread created by Demachi, there are a few more or less nasty posts in reply to Demachi's OP. So before someone like tame_deuces can attack me, he needs to go into Demachis Islam thread to witness the levels of harsh criticism but more important how Demachi debunks practically all of the misconceptions itt. My point is it doesn't really matter who would have created this thread, the "critiques" of Islam like Tame would have still been there.

I said I would most likely not post itt, but this post has given me a reason

Shahrad,

Your views are beneficial to the thread and I wish you were here from the getgo.


The truth is Sharad , there is a beast inside people. But Islam , a religion of peace, eliminates this beast and replaces it with a heavenly bird type of approach to life.

This is blatantly and ludicrously false. If islam did eliminate the beast, then there would be no muslims around the world killing , maiming , and generally doing nasty things ( please note I am not claiming that they do these things because of Islam)

That is your opinion. this is a highly debated topic around the world and you know this. I'm not going to ask you to apologize for your beliefs, nor will I apologize for mine because it is quite clear Islam is a religion of peace based on the past 1400 years. I provided evidence of this, go back and re-read the posts if you think otherwise. I voted Islam as a religion of peace and I am entitled to this view. If you still have concerns then go read the "ask me about Islam thread" created by a Middle east/Islam historian right here on the forums. The explanation provided by damaci is a much more clear one then mine, still there are detractors in both threads.

How about all those atheists walking around killing/raping/maiming people?

I said nothing about islam being a religion of peace or otherwise. In fact I specifically stated that I dont think that muslims who do bad things are necessarily doing it because of their religion

I am addressing your ludicrous and blatently false claim that "Islam removes the beast", when it clearly doesnt, since there are people who follow islam who havent had the beast removed.


This has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you had claimed that Atheism removed the beast, I would have responded similarly that it was a ludicrous and blatently false claim.

They are not True atheists.

Again you are entitled to your opinon and I respect you.

We can agree somewhat here, in the sense that atheism propels one to violence more so then Islam.

I find it interesting that IMO If I was to further state true atheism propels one to violence more so then True Islam it would be categorically true based on the tenants of Islam.