It's not Islam, is it?

Borachio, if I try to cut the ayah of Quran for example in Al Maun

Fa Waylul lil Musholiin

it mean "it is ashtray those who perform the deeds"

the meaning will be broken. What is it? so everybody who performing a good deeds will be ashtray? this is one ayah. But if you continue the next verses

aladzi na hum ansholatihimsahuun

"are those who reckless on the good deeds"

aladzi na hum yurooun

"those who want to be seen (show off while performing the deeds)"

So it clear those who perform the good deeds for show off and to be abandon (as performing salat not in the right time is nearly abandoning the prayer itself) is the one who ashtray. So do for Qital surah, like Surah At Taubah, you will find many of it. But this is specifically use in the state of war.

this is my own translation as I know a bit arabic, I do it because the internet is pretty crappy sometime you can check the exact translation by Yusuf Ali in Quran online or other translation but the meaning will not far difference.

But if you read it in detail you can get the context of it. Many muslim follow Quran literally, if they really interpretate this ayah as you want it, they will jump to any disbeliever in the street and force them, or at least there will be a group of them like that, while that not happen isn't it? even someone that you category as salafi, they not doing that thing. So you must read the Quran properly. If you want to learn in detail which out from this topic you can PM me, but if regarding this topic you can quote the Quran, I don't have all knowledge but I will try to answer as I can.

Thanks, Haroon. I respect what you say.

Unfortunately, it is only lately that I've become interested in Islam. And my knowledge is so abysmal I don't even know enough to ask sensible questions.

Not that I have any intention of converting, I hasten to add. It is just that truth can be found everywhere and in everything.

Lakum dinukum waliyadiin,

For me is my way, and your way is yours.

How is FAL an Islamophobe?

Aye. To each his own.

Fallen Angel Lord said:

No, the guy it happened to lived next door to him, they were together for a community gathering when it happened. He saw it.

And the 2nd part of your statement isn't true. In many muslim countries, you have to carry a religious ID. If it is not muslim, you are discriminated against in many area, including getting many jobs and promotions. That is not legally allowed in the western world based on religion. That is a a pretty overt way to make people become Muslim. You cannot deny that.
I don't really think you can deny that Mohammed led armies to conquer a lot of surrounding lands and his successors did that same.
Mohammed, whether you believe he's a prophet or not, is undoutely a military genius and one of the most successful generals in history.


Depends where, witch-hunts had basically stopped by the 1800s.

Click to expand...

ID base on religion in muslim country? what do you refer as Muslim country? Lebanon? in that country even their president is Christian. Egypt? no, Indonesia? no, the christian chinese ruling their economy and they free to be what ever they want even move forward for governor election. You will find in many muslim majority country not Islamic country which today is not exist, it is exactly the world like you live today. Except for the corruption as your dear government support a corrupt government for third world country especially muslim country so they can grab what ever they have as long as they keep the puppet family happy and full, just read confession of economic hitman which many of the statement are truth.

About your friend, its hard for me to believe, but if that true, and is very uncommon then it is horribly wrong, mark me, you find most muslim anomalies from this action they never been teach to convert the disbeliever or kuffar but they teach to convey the messages and leave them after that.

haroon said:

About your friend, its hard for me to believe, but if that true, and is very uncommon then it is horribly wrong, mark me, you find most muslim anomalies from this action they never been teach to convert the disbeliever or kuffar but they teach to convey the messages and leave them after that.

Click to expand...

Oh no, it wasn't his friend, it was the neighbor of a friend...
but he also claims that "many" of his friends saw this happen in the Middle East.

and, remember, he said they shot them for not converting... "practically"
(How do you practically shoot someone?)

Don't be afraid to call him out for what he is, a liar.

He is just lying and exaggerating to fuel his own hateful outlook on life, and convert people to his own religion.

Neomega said:

Why is no-one talking about the tradition of open, multiple religions in India is due to The great Moghul emperor, Akbar?

Anybody want to talk about Akbar for a while? How he invited prophets/preists of all religions to come to his temple, that he built, specifically for religious debate, because he loved to hear all the philosophies?

Any Islamaphobes ever even hear about this guy?


LoL

Click to expand...

You mean the man who forcibly and imperially conquered central and northern India from Hindu kings causing mass slaughter in the battles in the process?

WHY ARE YOU CONDONING A MASS SLAUGHTERER AND IMPERIALIST GOOD SIR?

Neomega said:

He is just lying and exaggerating to fuel his own hateful outlook on life, and convert people to his own religion.

Click to expand...

While your outlook, Neomega, has not a tinge of hate in it, does it?

Nothing but sweetness and light with you. Peace and goodwill to all men.

Neomega said:

Oh no, it wasn't his friend, it was the neighbor of a friend...
but he also claims that "many" of his friends saw this happen in the Middle East.

and, remember, he said they shot them for not converting... "practically"
(How do you practically shoot someone?)

Don't be afraid to call him out for what he is, a liar.

He is just lying and exaggerating to fuel his own hateful outlook on life, and convert people to his own religion.

Click to expand...

I just think his neighbor might lie on him, or taking it from another peoples and say it as his own friend, it common on some peoples especially if they already have a fix mind on something. But yes I don't say that part of my mind just to keep myself not accusing someone without evidence, even tough what he say also not an evidence at all.

and if that really what happen, it already on news paper (CNN, Fox news) front pages for year and already land in this forum and been debate.

A muslim shot a non muslim for not converting, that is a news that we never see, and a news that the mainstream media will never miss, why they don't make it on air if it happen?

Joecoolyo said:

You mean the man who forcibly and imperially conquered central and northern India from Hindu kings causing mass slaughter in the battles in the process?

WHY ARE YOU CONDONING A MASS SLAUGHTERER AND IMPERIALIST GOOD SIR?

Click to expand...

Is that your wikipedia understanding of the subject?

If it makes you feel any better, I challenged the professor when she claimed the wars of the Moghul empire were not what led to its economic downfall.

Borachio said:

While your outlook, Neomega, has not a tinge of hate in it, does it?

Click to expand...

tinge?

you must be reading what I write with a calm, soothing voice in your head.

Save_Ferris said:

How is FAL an Islamophobe?

Click to expand...

Please, Neomega, answer my questions before bringing up new ones. You may have a good reason to think that FAL is an Islamophobe, but if you don't reply, I'm going to have to assume that you don't.

Neomega said:

you must be reading what I write with a calm, soothing voice in your head.

Click to expand...

Yes. I do. Stop me if you can.

Neomega said:

Is that your wikipedia understanding of the subject?

If it makes you feel any better, I challenged the professor when she claimed the wars of the Moghul empire were not what led to its economic downfall.

Click to expand...

No, it's not my Wikipedia understanding, Wikipedia is the opiate of the debating internet masses. I used my knowledge that all gubberment's are evil mass murdering machines pushing the NATO Muslim slaughtering agenda. Which includes our little Akbar.

The Quran, OT, NT and just about every other "holy book" I know were composed for, and succeeded due to, the particular situations at the time they were written. They all have plenty of stuff which is idiotic when applied to the modern world or indeed any time and place removed from that of their creation.

Why do some people denounce the Bible or the most insane passages of the OT, but make excuses for the Quran? The Quran is by far the worst, because of that damnable claim about it containing the literal word of their god. The OT and the NT, being older and a mishmash of texts and authors, leave their modern followers comfortable in picking and choosing, rejecting or just ignoring the most insane bits inadequate to the modern world. Not so with the Quran.

I know that I am just rehashing an argument made notorious a few years ago by some pope, and which created some polemic before being conveniently forgotten for the sake of "religious peace". The thing is, he was right. Islam does have much more of a problem with allowing its followers to adapt to the modern world than any of the other old "universalist" great religions. Not much of a prophet, that Muhammad, as it turned out: the future will not, cannot, belong to the religion he founded except is some seriously changed way that dumps the claim to divine origin of their holy book.

Neomega said:

Is that your wikipedia understanding of the subject?

If it makes you feel any better, I challenged the professor when she claimed the wars of the Moghul empire were not what led to its economic downfall.

Click to expand...

The Indian trading economy did not suffer a "downfall" coterminous with the fragmentation of the Mughal state in the eighteenth century. In fact, it has been argued that the Mughals, whose policies certainly fostered interregional trade but also created a tax burden described metaphorically as "Leviathan" by the historian Tapan Raychaudhuri, prevented the development of intermediate social groups better able to organize local economic activity. C. A. Bayly found that the growth rates of the seventeenth century did not noticeably change until after Plassey - and certainly long after the death of Aurangzeb. It was these groups - most famously, the Bengali bhadralok - that partnered with the British (and the French, when they were relevant) to create the economic motor of the "colonial society"; they were not a group imposed by foreigners.

Of course, the relationship between these groups and the Company was not wholly benign, of course, as Irfan Habib and the late M. Athar Ali have shown, and was in fact frequently antagonistic, but their mere existence was a more long-term development with more continuity to precolonial society than was once earlier acknowledged. But it is impossible to argue with the economic data. The Indian economy did undergo a major crisis in the late eighteenth century, brought on largely by the predatory actions of the Company, but this was entirely distinct from the problems that the Mughals had suffered decades earlier.

At the same time, Mughal problems were not totally military, either. Aurangzeb, who was, militarily, fairly successful, was already presiding over a central state whose control over territory was slipping. The traditional narrative claims that this was due to political failings of elite management - certainly in itself a plausible answer - brought on by Aurangzeb's religious intolerance. I'm not sure I buy the intolerance stuff, because Aurangzeb's efforts in that direction weren't that big a deal, but I freely admit that I'm not even close to a specialist in the area. At any rate, Aurangzeb's political failures are well known: his antagonization of the Rajputs, the Sikh and Jat rebellions, the decentralization of military and fiscal power. Bayly has argued instead that the Mughal state failed to adapt to the growing price of maintaining a standing military - a fiscal problem, not an economic one - which had also caused problems for many European states around the same time. Since the Mughals were already extracting nearly as much wealth as they feasibly could before these problems occurred, they had too little "give" in the budget. But the problem with that is that the Mughal military establishment wasn't developing in the same manner as the Europeans' were.

So I dunno. Problems with the Indian economy certainly did not have any connection to the Mughals' issues, but their military failures don't match up that well either.

innonimatu said:

The Quran, OT, NT and just about every other "holy book" I know were composed for, and succeeded due to, the particular situations at the time they were written. They all have plenty of stuff which is idiotic when applied to the modern world or indeed any time and place removed from that of their creation.

Why do some people denounce the Bible or the most insane passages of the OT, but make excuses for the Quran? The Quran is by far the worst, because of that damnable claim about it containing the literal word of their god. The OT and the NT, being older and a mishmash of texts and authors, leave their modern followers comfortable in picking and choosing, rejecting or just ignoring the most insane bits inadequate to the modern world. Not so with the Quran.

I know that I am just rehashing an argument made notorious a few years ago by some pope, and which created some polemic before being conveniently forgotten for the sake of "religious peace". The thing is, he was right. Islam does have much more of a problem with allowing its followers to adapt to the modern world than any of the other old "universalist" great religions. Not much of a prophet, that Muhammad, as it turned out: the future will not, cannot, belong to the religion he founded except is some seriously changed way that dumps the claim to divine origin of their holy book.

Click to expand...

But the problem is, no one's calling people like you Islamophobes. Apparently only Christians can be Islamophobes. I'm not saying you should be called one, I'm saying no one should be called one.

Fallen Angel Lord said:

I feel the same about any religion who tries to legally force their views on other people. I'm Christian myself but God is the final judge, not us. Our job is simply to tell the people about the Gospel and make it known, not force them to accept it.

Preaching the Gospel on the quad at the campus is not the same thing as threatening to kill or expel people if they don't convert.

Zeal of religion is fine, but you can't force it legally or physically on anyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you are going with this because I certainly didn't insinuate it was.

Why don't you address the comments that I have made instead of others if you are supposedly responding to my post?

Fallen Angel Lord said:

When I say "practically held a gun to his head" I mean he pointed the gun at his face and threatened to shoot. I'm well aware of the history of the caliphates from Mohammed. Islam was a religion in its early days that was spread by conquest..

Click to expand...

Why did you make it appear that this is in response to a comment I posted, as well as the rest of the ones in this post, when I clearly did not?

This is not acceptable in the least.