Do you think there are only two possibilities? Either believe everything the Qur’an and Hadith say, or believe none of it? Just curious.
Joking doesn’t transmit too well on the internet without emoticons and the like. 
Thanks for the clarification. I’d only add that, as far as I understand it, he looks impressive because he can speak well. But by that standard, Hitler looked impressive too. 
If you omit parts of the religion, you don’t really fit under the umbrella of that religion, do you? For example, I believe in the Bible, but not Lukan or Pauline sources. As well, I do not believe in a trinity among a number of other dogmas that mainstream Christianity holds to. Can I really call myself Christian as an umbrella term, expecting people to understand what it is that I actually believe? No. Hence, I refer to myself as a Nazarene, which ties more closely to what I actually believe.
Much the same way, if you do not believe in the Prophet Muhammad, can you really call yourself a Muslim? Of course not. And given that the Qu’ran and the Hadith are the explicit writings of one such individual, it’s very hard to make a division there. The closest you can come is ignoring everything and simply believing in divinity (ie, being a theist.) And some will also put forth the argument that the Hadith is irrelevant, but even if that were indeed the case, it doesn’t change the tides of my claims.
That being said, it’s impossible to discern who believes what with Islam due to taqiyya and kitman.
Seeing as many hadith are not the explicit writings of Muhammad(they are definitely the writings of Sahih Bukhari), lets go ahead and dismiss them right now anyway.
I’m a Muslim who believes in Quran only myself, and for me I see no reason for anyone to be wary of anything following that as a guide for life. The thing people are scared of is that Quran is calling to either convert or kill people, many verses in Quran completely contradict that claim directly- but then I will hear the silly argument that those verses advocating fighting only in self-defense and to always make peace when the other side wishes to do the same, or that no one can ever be forced to believe aren’t important. Or even worse that I’m practicing “Taqiyya” and purposefully lying to people.
Where is the Quranic justification for something like Taqiyya by the way? Which I am going to assume you believe to be some sort of “Lie to everyone who’s non-muslim to make yourselves sound nice rule” Please find it for me. I want to see the verse which shows this rule. The only verse thats ever brought up is 3:28- which is in reference to purposefully rejecting your fellow Muslims and taking unbelievers that wish you harm as allies- something which can only be acceptable in a case where you fear for your life. An example would be like an afghan villager who cooperates with US military operations because if he doesn’t he’ll end up dead . I don’t know why that’s been turned into a “Lie to non-muslims all the time so you can kill them later” thing.
You and I both know that there are specific grounds within Islam of abrogation toward conflicting ideologies; specifically, the Sword Verses contradict any “peaceful” verses that precede it.
As for taqiyya, suras 2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, 66:2.
@auctionguy10 There’s a lot of stuff in hadith which doesn’t go with Quran. I always found that the crazier sects of muslims followed hadith much more devoutely.
No I do not see any justification for abrogation- any “sword” verses as you call them are always in reference to attackers anyway.
How does 2:225 relate to your claim of Taqiyya? “Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving, Clement.”? This is in reference to making an unintentional promise- its a mistake and God does not punish you for it.
3:28 I just explained is about taking people who wish your people harm as friends because you fear for your life
What is 3:54 talking about? Did you even read these verse DIRECTLY after it? It says that the disbelievers had schemed but that God outschemed them when it comes to Jesus’s death and how God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked.
9:3 speaks that those who disbelieve in God cannot escape from him
16:106- Speaks of those who disbelieve after acquiring faith will incur God’s wrath, with the exception of those who made claims of disbelief under coercion. How does this tie into your Taqiyya claim at all?
40:28…Again did you read any of these verses? "And a believing man of Pharaoh’s family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful, then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar"
A situation where someone in Pharaoh’s family who believes in God and hid his faith due to the fear of Pharaoh’s wrath asked the Pharaoh if he would kill someone just because he brings a message of God? The last part of the verse even says God won’t guide anyone who is a liar.
66:1 and 66:2 talks of not prohibiting that which is already lawful- and that God has already created laws for your promises.
How do ANY of those verses make you think that muslims must lie to non-muslims at all times? The only time you are ever permitted to lie is if you fear for your life(and even then all that promises you is that you don’t lose God’s connection- and that it is better for you to fear God instead of the harm someone might inflict on you for your beliefs).
Not only that, but some hadith which are touted as being explanations of verses in Quran are pretty terrible at it. Take for example these two Quranic verses- which no one needs to know arabic or be Muslim to understand.
[11:4] To GOD is your ultimate return, and He is Omnipotent.
[11:5] Indeed, they hide their innermost thoughts, as if to keep Him from knowing them. In fact, as they cover themselves with their clothes, He knows all their secrets and declarations. He knows the innermost thoughts.
Here is Sahih Bukhari’s hadith explanation of that verse->
Narrated Muhammad bin 'Abbas bin Ja’far:
That he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting: “No doubt! They fold up their breasts.” (11.5) and asked him about its explanation. He said, “Some people used to hide themselves while answering the call of nature in an open space lest they be exposed to the sky, and also when they had sexual relation with their wives in an open space lest they be exposed to the sky, so the above revelation was sent down regarding them.”
Now I don’t think I have to explain why I don’t take hadith into account when it comes to Quran- 11:5 is clearly talking about how no one can hide their intentions from God- yet this hadith says that the verse is talking about people who hide while taking a piss or having sex in open spaces?
Sura 9:5 is a reference to attackers?
Actually, no. The context of this verse pertains to marriage. The examples given is an oath not to have sex with your wife, but going back to doing so anyway as well as divorce. You’re telling me that marriage is somehow an unintentional promise?
Where are you basing that conclusion on?
So that means that Allah was not scheming and is the “best of all schemers”? The word for “scheme” here is “makara”, which is deceit. So, we can establish that your God is the “master of deceit”. If your God is deceitful, what stops you from being such?
But I’m glad you bring up punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. Please explain to me who is considered in the class of “righteous” and who “wicked”. 
So, basically:
“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;” If you can outright deny your entire religion, how – therefore – can you not deny aspects of it? Correlate this with 3:28 and recognize that western society is dar al harb and, oh hey…
Was this not the case when Muhammad not use this kind of deceit when he signed a 10-year treaty with Mecca, while simultaneously preparing his mujahadeen for conquest? Or what about poor Usayr ibn Zarim? Hey, that kind of ties into sura 9:3 that says that believers are not bound by liability to kafir, doesn’t it?
Before I posted them, no. I copy-pasted from another debate I had on this issue, where I did read it before hand. Not sure how that one got in the mix, but it was posted in err.
If this is the case, why is deceit so commonplace among Muslims?
Anyway, “dissolution of your oaths” doesn’t fall into your explanation at all, it seems. Are we beginning to see anecdotal evidence of kitman? All you do in your explanation, though, is validate my point. These laws supersede your word and as such, your word is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. In other words, you have the inalienable right to lie to me if it pertains to your religious convictions.
It is quite simple, those verses where it says that Quran claims justifies abrogation is not in reference to Quran’s own verses being abrogated, its in reference to the scriptures that preceded Quran such as the torah being confirmed and then superceded by it.. I don’t see how any of those verses listed can be misconstrued to think that God stopped caring for peace and now wants violence. I’ve read through those supposed verses which abgrogate others and the extremely poor level of understanding is almost comical. They don’t abrogate anything at all.
Sure is- if you read the rest of Sura 9, verse 13 says clearly [9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.
And since you can only fight against aggressors as confirmed by other suras, it should be obvious enough even without verse 13.
Let me expand on the examples you gave, it tells you not to have sex while a woman is going through menstruation and to wait till she is out of it if you want to have sexual relations- not to “go back to doing it anyway” as you put it. It also definitely does mention divorce in the verse afterwards. Why is this verse confusing you? Even in that context it fits just fine, you and your wife have sex while she is on menstruation and you both didn’t do it intentionally, God does not hold mistakes against you. Unintentional promises are just that, accidents. People accidently joke of divorce when they don’t mean it, this verse in particular can certainly stand alone just like the verse previous to it which says not to use God’s name in casual swearing.
The end of the verse clearly->3:28 …Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution…
Sure, the reference to God being the best of all schemers is that those who do evil such as the ones that killed jesus will have their retribution in the after-life while they think they are doing just fine in this life. Thats why the verses there say just that. God has already laid out his plan- so no matter what plans people come up with in this life, they will all lose to God. Its not an open license to deceive people for the sake of deceiving, it should be obvious enough if you try harder.
Sure- those who are the righteous include->
[3:133] You should eagerly race towards forgiveness from your Lord and a Paradise whose width encompasses the heavens and the earth; it awaits the righteous,****[3:134] who give to charity during the good times, as well as the bad times. They are suppressors of anger, and pardoners of the people. GOD loves the charitable.
[2:177] Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.
Wickedness includes all sorts of things- from intiating aggression[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
Bribes/stealing -[2:188] You shall not take each others’ money illicitly, nor shall you bribe the officials to deprive others of some of their rights illicitly, while you know.
And other things mentioned in Quran. Of course it is worthy to note that talk of who is wicked and righteous is always referring to God’s judgement on the last day- not for any commands for muslims to undertake.
I don’t care for what that guy says so I see no point in viewing that 10 min video(lol spent enough time with all this quoting!), but when its said that such a person cannot escape from God. I specifically mean the entity God- not those who worship him- that is what Quran is always referring to. Judgement on the last day.
Again as the verse says, you can only deny it if you are FORCED to do it, situations like the Spanish inquisition is where this is makes sense- not living in the United states. No one is forced to denounce their religion in the United states so how does that even make sense to say that? The question comes to you “Are you Muslim, do you believe in God”- and if you are in a situation where saying “yes” means your life is forfeit then you are allowed to deny it. You’re trying to find a bogeyman that doesn’t exist.
Taking people who live here as friends is quite different from taking military personnel that is directly involved in killing your people as friends. Did you read 9:4? Believers are bound to all treaties. God disowning them doesn’t mean that believers are not bound by their contracts- or that suddenly they are allowed to aggress when aggression is condemned as the verses I mentioned above show.
How did muhammad use deceit when it came to the 10-year treaty with Mecca? The meccans broke the treaty by killing Muslims(and some non-muslims with them), then Muhammad came in and the Meccans surrendered right away and were granted amnesty before any bloodshed.
Lol that was cute. Its probably the same reason necrophilia is so common amongst Nazarenes that post on the mises forum.
Lets look at the verse right before 66:1- where God reprimands Muhammad for prohibiting things that were never prohibited. That is where 66:2 follows- that you are allowed to dissolve such an egregious mistake. It is not some all-you-can-lie buffet. So if I go and tell people that I know for a fact that Coca-Cola is against God, it is of no negative consequence if I should take those words back and ask for repentance.
Again as anyone can plainly see, the laws indicate that the only time lying is ok is when it comes to lying about your faith when you are in fear for your life. There is no inalienable right to lie in pertaining to my religious convictions. Its a silly thing people like you dig up because them muzzies are out to get ya!
Yeah, that’s where Ron paul and I go our separate ways. Maintaining that the fuel for radical muslims’ hatred for the U.S. is rooted in our presence there is like saying gasoline started the fire. Sorry, buddy, but radical muslims seek to destroy America like they do all cultures other than their own. When did the Buddhists last invade their country? Yet they hit Buddhist monasteries.
http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/muslim-violence-against-buddhists-in-thailand/
To hell with any philosophy seeking to convert or destroy. So many of you hypocritically turn a blind eye toward Islam’s philosophy yet verbosely condemn other religions and the people that see the empirical evidence identifying Islam as such a philosophy. The extremists hate us like they hate all cultures other than their own. You’d have to be damn foolish to ignore the fact that no matter if we pulled out completely of all other countries (I’m fine with that) that they would still seek to kill us. Evidence above and elsewhere confirms that even the Buddhists, peace-loving practitioners who haven’t taken a stronghold anywhere in any predominantly Muslim countries, can’t escape extremists’ convert or destroy philosophy.
It’s amazing to see so many on here jump all over law enforcement for abusing their power when there are plenty of good cops around. I know, they can be as corrupt as any, but many on here use general terms such as “law enforcement” saying that it’s evil and such. They can address the philosophy of law enforcement and monopolistic control, yet when some Muslim starts spouting off that they hate America, we have to all of the sudden become particularists and identify which Muslims hate us before saying “Muslims” and ignore the convert-or-destroy mentality of their philosophy while only addressing particular aspects, yet other religions get the hammer from many of you. I don’t get it.
Brutus wrote:
.. To hell with any philosophy seeking to convert or destroy. …
Genocidal Christian activities threaten to destroy Hinduism in the Carribeans
Christian aggressive conversion mission!-To destroy the Sikh Faith
"Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.
According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. " OBL rip, aka ‘the mastermind’
Cain sounds good from a distance but is delusioned by too much propoganda and likely loves the state more than liberty. Dr. Paul is still the only straight shooter and has the most conservative record to boot.
First off, what is “America”?
Second, I’m certainly opposed to any belief system that demands conversion or death. I just don’t see the vast majority of people who call themselves “Muslims” as holding such a belief system. Do you? Why or why not?
Congratulations on attempting to neutralize my argument by comparing it with another. Your discourse is thus futile and analogous to many responses on here and with anyone you ask. If I said yellow is a good color and in attempting to disprove me you claim red is a good color, what have you proven? Absolutely nothing.
Many libertarians cannot handle criticism of Islam without thus criticizing other religions in comparison in hopes of refuting the original argument, which is pointless. I don’t understand why they do this. What I am saying is Islam is based on a philosophy of convert or destroy, and you compare it to Christianity. I wasn’t referring to Christianity, I was referring to Islam. If you can’t stay on topic, what’s the point of discussing anything?
America is the country founded on the idea of liberty out of British despotism. How far it has strayed is irrelevant to this discussion, but the country exists nevertheless.
I’m glad to see you are opposed to Islamic philosophy. As for the vast majority of people who take the title of Muslim while holding a view of convert or destroy, I don’t care about it. I mean to say the philosophy holds a conversion or consequential destruction facet and that it should be carefully watched. I hate anybody who wants to destroy my country by converting its people or destroying them.
Too true, Brutus - it is like the libertarians of 1940 supporting FDR simply because Hitler and Stalin may be worse.
So basically “I don’t care if other people believe Islam is not about convert or destroy, I do and I like the bubble I live in”.
I can say it again, theres plenty of Quranic verses that directly argue against forcing anyone to believe- I’m a Muslim and I take that seriously. So why so stubborn about it?
Would you take the same route as the above poster and claim that those verses don’t count because its too inconvenient for your own argument?
But really, how stupid is it to just post a few links and declare that as evidence of some Islamic takeover of the world. I can throw you plenty of links where non-muslims are killing people all over the world too. Just say it like it is man, “I like to generalize because it makes things easier for myself”. I invite anyone again who thinks that Muslims are out on some convert/destroy mission if you are ever in New York City to go on some trips with me and meet Muslims yourself. Perhaps then you can really believe in your heart(because I know you’re smart enough to know it in your head), that the world isn’t so black and white.
You mean that’s what you’re referring to as “America”. And I presume that by “country” you mean “area of land under a single government”. Otherwise, I don’t see why you’d attach special significance to the land within the boundaries of the United States.
I’m an atheist, so I’m opposed to all religious philosphies in certain ways. However, I don’t see how Islamic philosophy is (necessarily) centered on “convert or die”.
“As for the vast majority of people who take the title of Muslim while holding a view of convert or destroy” - did you mean to word this the way you did? Or did you mean the vast majority of self-proclaimed Muslims don’t hold that view?
Keep in mind that philosophies are only meaningful if held by actual people. So I’d say that people who have a convert-or-destroy facet to their philosophy should be carefully watched. On the other hand, I don’t equate vigilance with hatred - why do you (apparently)?
Finally, I’m not sure why you attach special significance to the destruction of your country vs. some other country. Countries are also inherently arbitrary areas of land, no?
Oh, one other thing, Brutus - even accepting arguendo that there exist Muslims who believe in convert-or-die, how many do you think there are? If there are only a relative few of them (I’m talking hundreds or thousands, at most), what are the chances that any/all of them would really be able to destroy America or any other country?