Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Islamophobia in the Conservative Party

170 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

odas
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

:yes:

Time to sleep now. Good night ppl.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, odas said:

Stepbrothers.

Balts and Slavs are brothers. Who also hate each other.

The Nabe, the Algonquian, the largest Native group in North America. Has never warred against each other. Half my tribe fought for the British, went to Canada. The other half stayed in New Jersey. But we never fought each other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, odas said:

Time to sleep now. Good night ppl.

Good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s not about whataboutism.  It’s not about the numbers.  It’s about the doctrine.  Yes, there were atrocities committed in the name of GOD, but it was never established by the doctrine.  It is usually initiated by human hands.  This kind of behavior is institutionalized in Islam.  Where does Jesus say to kill all the unbelievers wherever you find them?  Doesn’t he say, he who is without sin, cast the first stone?

Careful. I said the same thing earlier and got told to shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, odas said:

I am not here to bring peace, i am here to bring the sword.

Sigh!  That has nothing to do with commanding his followers to kill the unbeliever.  He was referring to what his coming was going to do to the old-world establishment.

 

Quote

Rav, Jesus is my prophet too, no lesser or bigger then Mohammed. Jesus was the best human that walked the earth.

That’s because he *IS* the WORD.

 

Quote

Jesus would have been the first to fight the christianity that was established 500 years after him.

I agree in essence but I doubt he would have fought it but for sure would have given it the double palm.  But I’m sure he knew that would have happened and allowed Christianity the room to mature.  And that is what we see in milestones like the Edict of Milan to the Peace of Westphalia.  Where does Islam show the same maturity?  It never has.

 

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
8 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Careful. I said the same thing earlier and got told to shut up.

I’d have to see the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I’d have to see the context.

Post #17.

Edit: actually. never mind.

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 3/12/2019 at 8:06 AM, Golden Duck said:

Anti-Muslim speech does carry the same risk of sanction

Try saying something negative about Islam in the EU and I think you'll have to retract this statement.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, and then said:

Try saying something negative about Islam in the EU and I think you'll have to retract this statement.

I think I meant "does not" and you seem to be aware of that. Thanks. :tu:

The inconsistencies in who has, and has not, been granted visas in Australia - compare David Icke, Lauren Southern and Milo Yiannopolis - are a bit of a bug-bear of mine. I can lean into the apprehension of the "nanny state" on some issues. (My favourite is why NZ can personally still spirit for consumption but Aussies can't.) But, I have to question why antisemitism is the most powerful card in whatever deck we're playing with.

The word antisemitism was coined in dubious circumstances and is used dubiously now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, odas said:

I am not here to bring peace, i am here to bring the sword.

Yeah, but a metaphorical sword. If you read the entire verse, he is talking about the separation from family and friends that becoming a disciple would entail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, odas said:

Ok. Can you give me one example of a verse and I will look into it. Maybe I learn something new.

Hi there Odas. Well, this is what I've found so far. 

Well, everything I'm about to say comes from Google. (I'm not a Koranic scholar, and I don't speak Arabic, let alone ancient Arabic). 
when I googled "smite their necks", I came across THIS website - http://corpus.quran.com/.

There are TWO verses that discuss neck smiting: Chapter 4 of verse 47, (47:4), and chapter 12 of verse 8 (8:12). 

I'm going to start with the latter: 8:12, as it is the simplest. The text goes... 

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12

That seems a bit vague, so I looked at the preceding (and succeeding) verses. Take a gander for yourself, but they seem to constitute a manual of arms, of how to behave in battle. But not a specific battle, or a specific enemy (other than 'disbelievers').. it is ANY battle against disbelievers, or so I interpret it. Note that the title of chapter 8 is... "The Spoils of War". 

Then we have 47:4, which is MUCH more interesting. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Another translation is "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: ......"

And another; "So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)."

Now, two things arise from this. If you are in a battle, then neck-smiting is certainly the order of the day. You can argue about the legitimacy of the battle until the camels come home, but you can't argue about neck smiting !

Except... except.. notice how the references to the battle are in brackets ? Why is that ? 
Well, because... if you look at the morphology of the original arabic text, the word battle, or jihad, or conflict, DOES NOT EXIST.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4#(47:4:1)

 They have been added by the translators. The original arabic text never refers to a battle, it merely refers to unbelievers, and the desirability of smiting their necks. Interesting huh ? I wouldn't mind betting that any English translation of the Koran you can buy has this "battle" inserted, even though it does NOT exist in the original arabic text. Is this a deliberate attempt to "whitewash" the Koran to make it more palatable to Western sensibilities ? Neck-smiting in battle is understandable; random neck-smiting of unbelievers would NOT be.

In terms of applicability; the preceding and succeeding chapters do not talk about smiting, but just generally about worshipping Allah. There is nothing in the text that puts context or limitations on the neck-smiting, other than it must be done to unbelievers. 

Conclusion ? The Neck Smiting verses refer to killing of unbelievers 'wherever they may be found', and is NOT limited to a particular time or location. 
 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
7 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Careful. I said the same thing earlier and got told to shut up.

You said all religions were the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
9 hours ago, odas said:

Are we talking about Jesus and Mohammed or about Islam and the Quran? Mohammed was a human, a warlord, a prophet. Not a God. The same or simmilar saying about enemies we examplehave in the Quran. 

As for numbers, again, please don't push. Thousands of jews forcibly converted to christianity. 

Many more killed. Pagans, the number hard to immagine. 

It has everything to do with the founders and the example they set, it's why Muslim extremists do what they do

I'm pushing, i'll start with Hindu's, millions murdered, taken has slaves, forced conversion, the creation of the Gypsis of the world, the Hindu kush (Hindu slaughter)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
7 hours ago, odas said:

I am not here to bring peace, i am here to bring the sword.

Rav, Jesus is my prophet too, no lesser or bigger then Mohammed. Jesus was the best human that walked the earth.

Jesus would have been the first to fight the christianity that was established 500 years after him.

 

Isa of the Quran isn't the same man as the Christian Jesus.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah, but a metaphorical sword. If you read the entire verse, he is talking about the separation from family and friends that becoming a disciple would entail. 

Entire verse. THAT is what I am trying to explain you guys. Although Quranic verses apear in different Surahs in most cases they are connected with other verses. Also, to understand a verse one has to read the entire Surah.

You see how easy it is to take a verse out of context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Isa of the Quran isn't the same man as the Christian Jesus.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

It has everything to do with the founders and the example they set, it's why Muslim extremists do what they do

I'm pushing, i'll start with Hindu's, millions murdered, taken has slaves, forced conversion, the creation of the Gypsis of the world, the Hindu kush (Hindu slaughter)

Exactely the same happened with Christianity, being a bible part or not. And it happened while Islam was not even established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 minute ago, odas said:

Exactely the same happened with Christianity, being a bible part or not. And it happened while Islam was not even established.

Ummm.. I don't think so Odas ???? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 minutes ago, odas said:

Thank you for your questions post #86.

I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Sorry it's so long :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That seems a bit vague, so I looked at the preceding (and succeeding) verses. Take a gander for yourself, but they seem to constitute a manual of arms, of how to behave in battle. But not a specific battle, or a specific enemy (other than 'disbelievers').. it is ANY battle against disbelievers, or so I interpret it. Note that the title of chapter 8 is... "The Spoils of War". 

This Surah does refer to the Battle Badr.  It does not name the battle but it does describe it (8:42).  But I like how you call it a ‘manual of arms’ because it is generic enough to lay out how all battles should be executed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

This Surah does refer to the Battle Badr.  It does not name the battle but it does describe it (8:42).  But I like how you call it a ‘manual of arms’ because it is generic enough to lay out how all battles should be executed.

ummm.. yes ? Precisely ? 

How do you know that this Surah is reffering to the Battle of Badr ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
30 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

How do you know that this Surah is reffering to the Battle of Badr ? 

I have 2 sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal

And an annotated Koran at:

https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-6/section-5-battle-badr-proof-messengers-truthfulness#surah-al-anfal-verse-42

This is one of my go-to sources (and my favorite).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hi there Odas. Well, this is what I've found so far. 

Well, everything I'm about to say comes from Google. (I'm not a Koranic scholar, and I don't speak Arabic, let alone ancient Arabic). 
when I googled "smite their necks", I came across THIS website - http://corpus.quran.com/.

There are TWO verses that discuss neck smiting: Chapter 4 of verse 47, (47:4), and chapter 12 of verse 8 (8:12). 

I'm going to start with the latter: 8:12, as it is the simplest. The text goes... 

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12

That seems a bit vague, so I looked at the preceding (and succeeding) verses. Take a gander for yourself, but they seem to constitute a manual of arms, of how to behave in battle. But not a specific battle, or a specific enemy (other than 'disbelievers').. it is ANY battle against disbelievers, or so I interpret it. Note that the title of chapter 8 is... "The Spoils of War". 

Then we have 47:4, which is MUCH more interesting. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Another translation is "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: ......"

And another; "So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)."

Now, two things arise from this. If you are in a battle, then neck-smiting is certainly the order of the day. You can argue about the legitimacy of the battle until the camels come home, but you can't argue about neck smiting !

Except... except.. notice how the references to the battle are in brackets ? Why is that ? 
Well, because... if you look at the morphology of the original arabic text, the word battle, or jihad, or conflict, DOES NOT EXIST.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4#(47:4:1)

 They have been added by the translators. The original arabic text never refers to a battle, it merely refers to unbelievers, and the desirability of smiting their necks. Interesting huh ? I wouldn't mind betting that any English translation of the Koran you can buy has this "battle" inserted, even though it does NOT exist in the original arabic text. Is this a deliberate attempt to "whitewash" the Koran to make it more palatable to Western sensibilities ? Neck-smiting in battle is understandable; random neck-smiting of unbelievers would NOT be.

In terms of applicability; the preceding and succeeding chapters do not talk about smiting, but just generally about worshipping Allah. There is nothing in the text that puts context or limitations on the neck-smiting, other than it must be done to unbelievers. 

Conclusion ? The Neck Smiting verses refer to killing of unbelievers 'wherever they may be found', and is NOT limited to a particular time or location. 
 

47:4 talks about war times with nonbelievers more correctly pagan tribes. After they are defeted to show either generosity or take them for ransom. Nothing about killing. I do not see any difference to what is normal in a war. Let them go or exchange for other prisoners.

Will continue to research the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 hours ago, odas said:

 

6 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Isa of the Quran isn't the same man as the Christian Jesus.

 

How so?

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD (Trinity), that he became flesh, and that he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected so that we might have eternal life.  Islam outright denies these core attributes.  There are other comparisons but these are the most important.  The Biblical Jesus would not be second fiddle to the Mahdi.  Isa is a different entity.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.