Islamic Positive Thread

[Rico1304]

I don't believe any terrorist has ever had one single motive.  People are complex.  Pretending that they're not is just silly.

 

Sometimes, a warped interpretation of a religion can lead someone to murder a priest or to set fire to a planned parenthood centre.  That doesn't mean that the religion itself (and, by extension, its followers) is unequivocally, irredeemably evil.

 

If someone followed a religion with a scripture that said "kill these people" and they then killed those people, that would look to me like an act of religious terrorism.  But, to the best of my knowledge, no religions say that.

I'll remember that.

[Kant]

I've been staying in a hotel full of Muslims for the last couple of days.

 

It's been boss, I get a free run at the bacon and sausages at the breakfast buffet every morning.

[Rico1304]

I've been staying in a hotel full of Muslims for the last couple of days.

It's been boss, I get a free run at the bacon and sausages at the breakfast buffet every morning.

Ha

 

Ask Anrgry if they'd still be Muslims if they ate a sausage.

[KMD7]

 

Anyone fancy a pint?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Ha

 

Ask Anrgry if they'd still be Muslims if they ate a sausage.

Silly and puerile.

 

Still not managed to come up with any bits of the Quran to justify killing innocent people, have you?

[Rico1304]

Silly and puerile.

Still not managed to come up with any bits of the Quran to justify killing innocent people, have you?

'Innocent people' so killing guilty ones is ok?

 

You are my new favourite.

[Strontium]

A lot depends on the definition of "innocence" too. The wives and children of the Jewish men of Medina obviously didn't fall into the innocent category, since Muhammad sold them into slavery (after massacring the men).

 

Although I'm sure it will still be argued that the Qu'ran what Muhammad wrote doesn't approve of slavery or killing, so maybe Mo was on his period or something.

[Rico1304]

Hadith on the gays

 

 

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

 

Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife).

 

Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."

 

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

[AngryOfTuebrook]

This discussion started with you making snarky comments about Muslims "cherry picking" the Quran to distance themselves from ISIS. "Cherry picking" implies that there's stuff in the Quran that does support the actions of ISIS. I've asked you to point out where it is. You have failed. If someone as obsessed as you can't find Quranic support for ISIS, I'm going to assume it isn't there and side with the people who paid for the billboard on this one.

[Rico1304]

This discussion started with you making snarky comments about Muslims "cherry picking" the Quran to distance themselves from ISIS. "Cherry picking" implies that there's stuff in the Quran that does support the actions of ISIS. I've asked you to point out where it is. You have failed. If someone as obsessed as you can't find Quranic support for ISIS, I'm going to assume it isn't there and side with the people who paid for the billboard on this one.

No mate, I went to bed.

 

Here you go. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

[skend04]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

No mate, I went to bed.

 

Here you go. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

OK, I'll read that, but I'll read it with the healthy scepticism that anyone should use when a website claims to be impartial and then immediately declares its prejudice.

 

TROP is a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.

[cloggypop]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

[AngryOfTuebrook]

OK, I'm just skimming it, because it's so obvious that they're just putting their anti-Islamic spin on this and I can't be arsed fact checking over 100 verses.

 

The first one I randomly decided to check was 4:104.  Their spin on it is

"And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

 

Looking at the full verse - in the context of the verses before and after it - there is nothing to suggest that it contains an exhortation to "pursue an injured and retreating enemy".

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/noble/sura4.html#104

 

Needless to say, 5:33 is there, with no reference to the verse before or the verse after.

 

Next random selection, 9:30

"And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Presumably, this anti-Islamic bigoted website wants people to think that this is a call for Muslims to fight Jews and Christians.  There are several English translations of the key phrase "may Allah destroy them" or "Allah's curse be upon them" etc.  The key point is, it's Allah dealing with them (presumably, on Judgement Day).  It does not (as some violent cunts on either side of the fight have claimed) seek to give the green light to Muslims on Earth to go killing anyone.

 

The last random selection I can be arsed with, 48:29

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses 

Again, they are spinning this to make it sound worse.  Here's another translation with a subtly different interpretation.

(48:29) Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, and those who are with him are firm with the unbelievers⁵² but compassionate with one another.⁵³ You see them occupied in bowing and prostrating and in seeking Allah's bounty and good pleasure. They are distinguished⁵⁴ from others by the marks of prostration on their faces. Thus are they described in the Torah.⁵⁵ And their parable in the Gospel is that of⁵⁶ a tilth that puts forth its shoot, then strengthens it so that it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem. This is a sight pleasing to the sowers and one by which the unbelievers will be enraged. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, Allah has promised them forgiveness and a great reward.⁵⁷

52. The companions (of the Prophet) are hard against the disbelievers: They are not such that the disbelievers may mold them as they like. They can neither be cowed nor purchased by any inducement. The disbelievers have no power to turn them away from the great objective for the sake of which they have joined and followed the Prophet (peace be upon him) even at the cost of their lives.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=48&verse=27

 

It's clear that that "Religion of Peace" website is promoting a totally blinkered, bigoted, racist narrative.  Just take a look at this. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/  It would make the Daily Express wince.  Even if that website ever stumbled upon something you agree with, you'd do well to find it from a balanced, reputable source, rather than link to these twats.

http://islamophobia132.weebly.com/the-religion-of-peace-and-islam-watch.html

 

The Religion of peace website is created in order to show that Islam is the antithesis of the website's handle. The website claims to hold “the politically incorrect truth about Islam”.  The editor, Glen Roberts, claims that the website as a non-partisan website that does not promote any religion, but they put forth the idea that Islam is a religion that is “dreadfully unique”. They assert that this uniqueness comes about with the use of Islamic violence and that Muslims and their religion are intolerant individuals who seek the domination of the world. The website also acts as an archive of Islam related violence, but they only include news that support their thesis that Islam is purely a violent religion.  

The problem with this website is not only that it supports a distorted view of Islam, but also that it creates a community around this misinformation. As posing the website as non-partisan, they try to create the image of the Muslim terrorist as a threat to all ideologies, not just conservative Christian, but secular liberals. They also posit the fact that their website is not racism, because Islam is not a race but an ideology. By constructing their notion of race this way, they attempt to avoid the association with racism. They attempt to legitimize their hatred by removing the discussion of race from the discussion.

[Rico1304]

Ok, try Majid Narwaz then.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Ok, try Majid Narwaz then.

No.  I'm not arsed trawling through your shit to try to prove your point.

 

You implied that there is Quranic support for what ISIS do.  I said "show me".

 

I'm still waiting.

[Rico1304]

No.  I'm not arsed trawling through your shit to try to prove your point.

 

You implied that there is Quranic support for what ISIS do.  I said "show me".

 

I'm still waiting.

So establishing a caliphate, taking slaves, throwing gays off roofs, chopping off hands isn't in there?

 

I've shown you a publication from the fuckers telling you why they are doing it. What more do you need.

[ElishaScottBC]

So Marilyn Manson inspired the Columbine massacre? (here) The Joker inspired the Sandy Hook shooting? (here) Eminem inspired a sex attack on a minor? (here)

 

Slender man involved in a second stabbing incident? (here)

 

 

Turn off your tv's, burn your books and whatever you do, don't look at reality directly, dear consistent ones.

[ElishaScottBC]

Back to the positive!

 

 

These girls have a dream. A dream to fully embrace their talent and interest in cars. Rajae and Najlae Lashqar, two sisters from Morocco are set to break the stereotype by becoming  mechanics, they’re all set to make the jumpsuits their most fashionable working attire and to have fun with the grease.

 

Not only have they wished to make their dream come true and break the monopolized field by men, both of them are currently completing their second year of studying being the only ladies in their class. After their studies it is their dream to open their very own garage, a garage that is ‘by women for women’, called Princess Auto. They want women to be able to send their cars for fixing without having to ask men to assist them.

Their dreams were realized with the help of the Let Girls Learn Foundation and with current effort made by Morocco to build their women to be more competitive in the working world. Let Girls Learn wishes to assist in making this effort by Moroccan to come through. Currently Morocco has been making great effort in promoting gender parity in access to education.

 

This effort is important to overcome the economic and cultural challenges that still hinder girls access to quality education. With a help by Let Girls Learn, girls like the Lashqar sisters have a chance to make their dream come through. Let Girls Learn is an initiative by the President and First Lady of the United States to help more than 62 million girls around the globe. (Source)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

So establishing a caliphate, taking slaves, throwing gays off roofs, chopping off hands isn't in there?

 

I've shown you a publication from the fuckers telling you why they are doing it. What more do you need.

And they provided no Quranic justification.

 

It's very simple; show me the verses of the Quran that call on Muslims to kill people indiscriminately and I'll agree that the anti-ISIS poster is cherry-picking.

[Stu Monty]

And they provided no Quranic justification.

 

It's very simple; show me the verses of the Quran that call on Muslims to kill people indiscriminately and I'll agree that the anti-ISIS poster is cherry-picking.

You just commented on a verse stating that non-muslims can be crucified if they don't repent.

 

Why do some liberal people lose all reason when it comes to defending ridiculous stone age books?

[Jose Jones]

Stu Monty, on 08 Aug 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

You just commented on a verse stating that non-muslims can be crucified if they don't repent.

 

Why do some liberal people lose all reason when it comes to defending ridiculous stone age books?

It's mostly because of the context of the conversation.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You just commented on a verse stating that non-muslims can be crucified if they don't repent.

 

Why do some liberal people lose all reason when it comes to defending ridiculous stone age books?

Not just "non-Muslims" - people who wage war and commit atrocities against Islam.

 

I never said it's a good thing; I'm just saying that it doesn't cover what ISIS are doing.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Two stories that fly in the face of national/cultural/religious stereotypes.

 

Iranian men joining in a social media campaign (started by a woman) against the mandatory wearing of the hijab.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iranian-men-wear-hijabs_us_579a5681e4b0e2e15eb4f9b0?

 

 

California State Assembly declares August 2016 "Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-muslim-appreciation-month_us_57a373dbe4b0104052a199fa?

[Hades]

You just commented on a verse stating that non-muslims can be crucified if they don't repent.

 

Why do some liberal people lose all reason when it comes to defending ridiculous stone age books?

Because it's as daft as saying a love of violent films makes one violent.