Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
You do realize you are taking those small tidbits to support your argument completely out of context? In fact, it is just one part of the entire thought.
But hey, you probably have not actually read the Quran, preferring to have someone else do your thinking for you.
How about we look at the entire verse, shall we?
“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, 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.” S. 9:29 Y. Ali
For one thing, the Jizya is not a religious tax or tribute, it is a state tax, so it is only applicable in a Islamic country.
But of course, if you had done one bit of your own research, you would know that.
But how about this nice little verse:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“
Or
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)“
“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)“
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)“
As for 'secular' governments partitioning the middle east after WW1, considering how many of you post that argument have in other debates referred to the US government as "christian" or "based in christian beliefs."
In reference to American expansionism and the subjugation of the Native American tribes, look at how many political speeches at the time referred to Native Americans as "godless" and even the phrase 'manifest destiny' was based in the belief that it was preordained by god.
Part of the mission of the Spanish Conquistadors was to bring the word of God to the savages of the new world. Among the first thing English and French colonists did was to try and convert natives to Christ.
So, the forced conversion conservatives have attributed to Islam is no different than that found in American history, indeed the history of European colonial powers, which did not really change until the initial collapse of the European empires following WW2.
While you are saying you're quoting me in this post, for the most part you are not. I posted nothing from the Koran. I only posted Hadith. So when you say I am posting Koranic verses out of context, you've got the wrong person and showing me the whole Koranic verse to correct me isn't relevant. You did properly bring up an argument I made about government policy vs. religious policy. You made the point that western governmental policy makers used the excuse of Christianity for bad policy. Yet, Islam claims to be the fulfillment of gods law by making the religion also the government. That is the purpose of Sharia. In the bible, Chirst said render on to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render onto God that which is God's clearly making the two things, government and religion, separate. Islam says that separation no longer exist. I've actually sat in Mosque and listened to the imam preach that. So, while the government may have perpetrated the trail of tears, even if the government justified it as happening to godless savages, it wasn't the Christian religions policy. It was a government policy. In Islam, proper adherence to Islam allows no separation between church and state.
In addition, I did not argue that the Koran, which I have read and still look at from time to time, exhorted any killing. I posted Hadith, which are documented sayings of Mohammed he gave to his followers while doing day to day activities. So, if Mohammed was posting the Koran after his visions, that's one thing. What he was telling his followers in the field was Hadith. The Hadith I posted do exhort his followers to mayhem. And my implied meaning was that those Hadith, those directions from Mohammed in the field, are not peaceful and are what some Muslims are using to justify mayhem today. You did not address this issue by stating the trail of tears were perpetrated by supposed Christians. Christ never had a back channel to followers in the field exhorting them to mayhem.
|
RE: Bastille Day Killings - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread