Military class suspended for view on Islam

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by PRB

I don't 'hate' Islam I just understand it. All we've done is provide Islamic verse that supports violent Jihad....Muhammed was not successful at spreading Islam until he adopted violence/war against non believers.
If you have an opinion that we have presented non Quranic verse or Hadith then please...enlighten us.
There is no radical Islam....just Islam.

"I don't 'hate' blacks I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving blacks that support their violence.... There is no violent black... just blacks."

I hope that this transliteration makes a point.

[T-Rock]

Most of what I see in here is circular, immature hate.

Heaven forbid you can be good at your job and at warfighting without hating Islam.

Islam already hates the Kafir…

Why should I be in love with or respect a fascist ideology that asserts, a simple Kafir like me, can be:

Killed:

If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them. (Sura 4:91)

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim
(pgs. 580-590 / Reliance of the Traveller)

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595 / Reliance of the Traveller)

Hated:

They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah. (Sura 40:35)

Beheaded:

When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly. (Sura 47:4)


Crucified:

The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mitt mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Sura 5:33)

Terrorized:

Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!" (Sura 8:12)


Cursed:

They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah's ways. (Sura 33:60-61)

Annihilated:

So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (Sura 6:45)

Punished:

Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come. (Sura 25:77)



Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. Why tolerate intolerance?

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. Why tolerate intolerance?

Then I assume you have equal intolerance of both Christianity and Judaism? Or, more in line with this thread, I should say Christians and Jews. Also, the sentence I have quoted is a deep, dark irony and alludes to the circular hate that I mentioned earlier.

[Peregrino]

Dreadnought - Maybe you should try looking at Islam as a political system. It might help you see beyond your apparent antipathy to religion in general. As to your other argument, the greatest violence done in the name of Christianity was at the height of the Catholic Church's power - when it functioned as a de facto government. I'm not aware of any exhortations in the New Testament to violence in the name of Christ. According to Christian doctrine, the Old Testament which does call for violence was explicitely set aside with the creation of the New Testament (approximately 2000 years ago). (And until the founding of the modern state of Israel, the Jews haven't been strong enough as a culture to engage in Old Testament style violence since the Romans subjugated them.) Unlike the Quran which (in the later surahs) advocates "convert, enslave, or kill unbelievers".

BTW - You might want to expand your reading to include studying Sun Tzu - especially the "know your enemy" part. Your "transliteration" fails miserably. Though it does show you don't have the faintest idea what Islam is about.

[T-Rock]

The ones blaming an entire religion, Islam in this case, for the actions and interpretations of the few, simultaneously ignoring equivalent violence and ignorance in both the Old and New Testaments.

Christianity doesn't have any theological legal imperative ( like Sharia) commanding Christians to go out and do violence on Christianities behalf, whereas Islam does. Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system (SHARIA) that mandates warfare against unbelievers..

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of either Islam or Christianity or Judaism is what they do to the “other”, political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note, however, a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions to be violent, but it is not violence against them.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause”, or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text . This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.
It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.

Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts as opposed to that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics and intellectuals. What artist, critic or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats and murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the response to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruit from the two trees is as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

Source: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/t...and-the-koran/

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Dreadnought - Maybe you should try looking at Islam as a political system. It might help you see beyond your apparent antipathy to religion in general. As to your other argument, the greatest violence done in the name of Christianity was at the height of the Catholic Church's power - when it functioned as a de facto government. I'm not aware of any exhortations in the New Testament to violence in the name of Christ. According to Christian doctrine, the Old Testament which does call for violence was explicitely set aside with the creation of the New Testament (approximately 2000 years ago). Unlike the Quran which (in the later surahs) advocates "convert, enslave, or kill unbelievers".

I think it is worth noting that in a similar way to how you propose that "Christian doctrine" sets aside the Old Testament (which is interesting, considering the widespread if not total inclusion of the Old Testament in almost every service of nearly all practices of Christianity), the vast majority of educated, Western Muslims cast aside and interpret differently the violence in the verses that you are referring to and which are prevalent in this thread. Willful exclusion by those of more moderate temperament of violent verses is not unique to Christianity.

There is also the issue of the extreme liberalness taken with the English interpretations of many of these verses, but I think that that is more appropriately a discussion for a different topic since I am specifically discussing the acceptance of some aspects of a text/religion and the denying of other, more antiquated aspects. The Quran is as illogical and backpedaling as the Bible.

BTW - You might want to expand your reading to include studying Sun Tzu - especially the "know your enemy" part. Your "transliteration" fails miserably. Though it does show you don't have the faintest idea what Islam is about.

I have read Sun Tzu, and I know exactly who my enemy is; I continue to meet him on a nearly daily basis. Fortunately, I have the wherewithal to distinguish between them and those who simply share the same religious faith.

My transliteration is valid if you understand the point that I am making. However, if one is so set in their prejudice then I imagine that it could easily be an offensive and "incorrect" redirection of logic.

I still strongly believe in its appropriateness; however, I also strongly believe in the inability to budge of those to whom it is aimed.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Christianity doesn't have any theological legal imperative ( like Sharia) commanding Christians to go out and do violence on Christianities behalf, whereas Islam does. Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system (SHARIA) that mandates warfare against unbelievers..



Source: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/t...and-the-koran/

I think that that is a fantastic piece of reasoning of fault within those texts. The mental gap that I don't believe in crossing is using this distaste for those texts as justification for a hate against all Muslims or as a reason to call Islam/Muslims "America's enemy."

EDIT: However, that article is extremely (and fairly obviously) biased. Many oft-quoted verses of violence on the Koran are indeed situationally and politically grounded as opposed to "eternal and universal."

[Dreadnought]

A religious scholar that I am acquainted once made some good points to me:

Dunno if you've seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the era known as the 'Golden Age of Islam' by 'al-Hashimi' who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun' and it pronounces the Islamic sentiment of religious freedom quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"

But obviously even the stupidest person can see how much of a contradiction being violent towards someone, for basicaly no other reason than them not being a Muslim, is against the Qur'anic quotes of;
* "There is no compulsion in religion"
* “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?”
* “That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.” (the Islamic version of the Golden Rule)

Those who interpret "defensive justification" as something that allowes Muslims to attack anyone outside of Islam are obviously going against their own religion. That can only be for one (or both) of two reasons, either they really are completely stupid and follow a religion without actualy reading that religion's scripture or they are more motivated by their own politics than they are by their religion.

a reasonable person reading those in their full and correct context would understand that they are talking about times of war, when they are being attacked and their existence is put in threat from outside agencies. It talks about 'disbelievers' because it assumes that no Islamic community would attack another Islamic community, therefore the only people who would attack Muslims are people from outside of Islam.

There are many quotes from the Qur'an like these that are available online that have been edited in a way to make it look like Islam promotes open warfare against non-Muslims, but when we actualy go and read them in their correct context, they are invariably only talking about defensive fighting.
They are also supposed to meet force with equal force, if someone verbally criticises Islam, they are supposed to 'verbally' defend it, if someone physically attacks Muslims, then the Muslims are allowed to physically defend themselves, if someone is trying to kill Muslims, then Muslims are allowed to kill them in self defence or in the defence of others. Which is pretty much the same as what us westerners are allowed to do by law.

The bolded part is especially noteworthy, and I hold the same opinion. The rest of the text merely stands to provide context for the often quoted violent verses.

[T-Rock]

I think that that is a fantastic piece of reasoning of fault within those texts. The mental gap that I don't believe in crossing is using this distaste for those texts as justification for a hate against all Muslims or as a reason to call Islam/Muslims "America's enemy."

Exposing Islam for what it is and having distaste for its ideology doesn’t insinuate hating all Muslims…

[Peregrino]

If you honestly believe Islam is "enlightened", I invite you to build a Christian Cathedral in Saudi Arabia. (BTW - I'm a secular humanist. I have no need to defend Christianity or Judaism. The Islamists would cheerfully lop my head off because I'm not one of the "children of the book" and hence am denied any choice except conversion, slavery, or death. No dhimitude for the likes of me. Part of the reason I have a real grudge with Islam or anyone else who wants to say "my religion is the only true religion, the rest of you are going to hell. I got a "B" in the mandatory Old Testament class when I was working on my BS. The instructor had a difficult time reconciling my refusal to accept "articles of faith" as gospel and my fairly extensive knowlege of the actual history and the bloody politics that went into deciding what would become the dogma of the Catholic Church [everybody else calling themselves "Christian" is a schismatic Catholic - fact - by definition - not opinion].)

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

If you honestly believe Islam is "enlightened"

Not at all, nor have I said so nor meant to imply so.

As regards your statement towards "political Islam", I would like to bring to your attention the documented (and for the time rare) unusually just conquering of Jerusalem by the Islamic Saladin and subsequent treatment of peoples of various religions under his rule.

I use this as example of the fact that, like all religions and their factions, factions of Islam change and vary based upon the time, interpretations, and context.

[T-Rock]

A religious scholar that I am acquainted once made some good points to me:

…"There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)…

If he practiced Islam my guess would be he was practicing Taqiyya… It’s one of the most widely used verses in the Qur’an to appease the ears of the Kafiroon. The average western Kafir are oblivious to the doctrine of nasikh wal mansukh. The verse of the sword, Sura 9:5 abrogates Sura 2:256..., as evidenced by Ibn Kathir:

Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise
(Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 253 to 286, Surah Al-Imran, ayat 1 to 92, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition], Part 3, pp. 37-38)

Islam's core texts, the Qur‘an, Hadith, and scholarly [ulema] consensus hasn’t changed much in 1400 years.. Shariah doesn’t change.

In fact, the Qur’an, as well as the Shariah makes clear the purpose of Islam:



Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29)

Islam and The Objectives of Jihad

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)

w4.0 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE

(1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading.

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (KUFR - Kafiroon) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world (dis: o8.7(20).
(Reliance of the Traveller)

The penalty for Kufr = DEATH

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law-giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment, while one who refrains from it out of obedience to the command of Allah is rewarded.

(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…

f1.3 Someone (who knows Islamic Jurisprudence) or denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…

O4.17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim…

O8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is either disciplined (def17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

O8.7 (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam…

(19) To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)

(Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by PRB

I don't 'hate' Islam I just understand it. All we've done is provide Islamic verse that supports violent Jihad....Muhammed was not successful at spreading Islam until he adopted violence/war against non believers.
If you have an opinion that we have presented non Quranic verse or Hadith then please...enlighten us.
There is no radical Islam....just Islam.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

"I don't 'hate' blacks I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving blacks that support their violence.... There is no violent black... just blacks."

I hope that this transliteration makes a point.

Nope.

I don't hate babies, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving babies that support their violence...There are no violent babies...just babies.

I don't hate women, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving women that support their violence...There are no violent women...just women.

If one starts with a faulty premise, one can arrive at any conclusion that suits their argument or POV.

In this case, for your "transliteration" (you may want to look up the definition of that word...a more apt word would be "substitution"), you assume the following: A=B---------> Islam = blacks; violent jihad = blacks

That makes as much sense as me assuming: A=B ----------> Islam = babies; violent jihad = babies

Substituting words for other words or reforming sentences may yield grammatically correct sentences, but that doesn't negate the logical fallacies that you are building your argument on...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

...My transliteration is valid if you understand the point that I am making..

No, it doesn't. Just because you want something, doesn't make it so. And positing that [argument validity = audience understanding] doesn't support your position in the least.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

...However, if one is so set in their prejudice then I imagine that it could easily be an offensive and "incorrect" redirection of logic.

A "redirection of logic"? Is that new code for faulty logic or creating a logical fallacy?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

...I still strongly believe in its appropriateness; however, I also strongly believe in the inability to budge of those to whom it is aimed.

Just because you believe strongly in your argument, doesn't make it any less illogical than if you didn't believe in it at all...

[T-Rock]

http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/defa...2011%20(3).pdf


In regards to Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley - If CAIR and various Muslim organizations can impede our military leadership from teaching the truth about Islam and intimidate truth tellers about the true nature of Islam, then, for all practical purposes, they control our military….

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by BKKMAN

I don't hate women, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving women that support their violence...There are no violent women...just women...

so I was reading your post and tracking ... Then I got to the highlighted part and I know you don't have a clue NOBODY understands women.

Nice try, though.