Dresden
Well-known member
Whilst I agree with this entire point, there are vast amounts of people who immigrated from the middle east and wouldn't let that happen.
The ME needs the rest of the world, not the other way around - I agree.
Paris under attack
- Thread starter Motorcycle Mike
- Start date
The ME needs the rest of the world, not the other way around - I agree.
Don't mistake my regard for the lives of Canadian Soldiers as fear or weakness.
Bombing our way to peace has not worked since 2001 and has created more terrorists then ever. Time to try a different approach.
Riceburner
Well-known member
Unfortunately the only way to get into the nooks and crannies is to get in there. And things will get messy. Boots on the ground may be the only choice.
It can't be 'Western' boots on the ground unless its in a support role only. The only way to beat ISIS is to prove their ideology false giving them no relevance in the lives of young vulnerable Muslims.
ISIS is an ideology not a nation invading another middle east country (for the fear of Muslims invading us we have managed to invade a lot of Muslim countries) will solidify the ISIS message that the world is against Muslims. Terrorism feeds on fear and anger. They want the west to invade they want to re-create the crusades. Lets not give terrorists what they want. With smart foreign policy and diplomacy the world can give ISIS nothing to hide behind and they will have to answer to fellow Muslims for all of their killing of Muslims.
Agree, the old bombing and paving never got traction. Well, the bombing did.
Interesting article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34830626
[h=2]'Us or them?'[/h]To maintain the flow of recruits in the long term, the jihadists need to make Muslims feel more vulnerable and alienated in Western societies.
And in countries such as the UK, this objective is being achieved.
Largely unnoticed by the national media, inter-communal tensions are deepening at the local level. Where once the BNP stood alone, there are now a plethora of British - or more often English - nationalist groups resorting to street power.
Each protest makes it easier for the jihadist recruiters to press home the question: "Who are you with - us or them?"
[h=2]'Us or them?'[/h]To maintain the flow of recruits in the long term, the jihadists need to make Muslims feel more vulnerable and alienated in Western societies.
And in countries such as the UK, this objective is being achieved.
Largely unnoticed by the national media, inter-communal tensions are deepening at the local level. Where once the BNP stood alone, there are now a plethora of British - or more often English - nationalist groups resorting to street power.
Each protest makes it easier for the jihadist recruiters to press home the question: "Who are you with - us or them?"
here something an acquaintance of mine brought to my attention.
here what those verses actually mean... **.
*********************************
ISIS and Radical Islam: An Atheist Examines a Stupid Meme
1) “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
A full rendering of verse 2:191 is as follows:
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”
First, a few things to notice: “Expel them from wherever they have expelled you” [italics mine]. “Do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram (the “Grand Mosque” in Mecca) until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them” [italics mine]. Does anyone else notice how this verse is not asking Muslims to preemptively kill? Doesn’t this sound more like self-defense?
This falls in line with what 22:40-41 says,
“Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques.”
Wait–Temples, churches, and synagogues? It’s almost as if the Qur’an is for defending other religions in times of war.
For instance, notice who is killing and attacking first in 3:21,
“Those who disbelieve in the signs of Allah and kill the prophets without right and kill those who order justice from among the people – give them tidings of a painful punishment.”
Also, at the end of 2:193 it says,
“But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”
Except against oppressors. You heard it.
2) “Muslims must not take infidels as friends.”
3:28 actually says:
“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”
Does anyone else notice the “rather than believers” part? Or how about the “except when taking precaution against them in prudence”? I wonder what other Qur’anic passages say about this:
60:8: “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” What if I told Muslims might even have been granted permission to eat with and possibly marry Christians and Jews (“People of the Book”)? Check out 5:5: “This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers.”
Let’s put it this way, if this meme is correct on face value, all the Muslims I know would not be following the Quran.
Also Read: 6 convincing reasons debunking the myth of islam promoting hatred of jews and christians
3) “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.”
3:85 actually says,
“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”
Using this verse as a way to support the conclusion that ISIS interprets the Qur’an correctly seems quite mistaken. This says nothing about military action or violence. It is theologically, not militarily, focused. If you don’t believe me, read the few verses following 85 and tell me it’s not theological.
4) “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”
5:33 actually says:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”
Notice the initial instigator of violence: “Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger.” Now, I’m no fan of crucifying or lobbing of the hands and feet of enemy offenders, but this is certainly not something particular to Muslims during that time. See what happened to Sumayyah bint Khayyat, Bilal the Abyssinian, or what the Quraysh leadership did to other early Muslims. But this is no tit-for-tat argument. It’s merely pointing to historical context.
Most importantly, I want you to read verse 32: “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors” [italics mine].
So does this verse advocate crucifying and maiming infidels at all times and in all places? No. Does it say to early Muslims, during a war in which they are on the defensive, that they could corporeally punish their oppressors? Possibly. Either way, this is not the same thing this meme attempts to express.
5) “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.”
8:60 actually says:
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
If only people would read the following verse, which says, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.” Preparing for oppression to spark fear in oppressors is not the same as a preemptive strike. This is most certainly not what ISIS is doing.
6) “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
9:123 actually says,
“O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.”
Not only is this Surah dealing with treaties and rules of war (see preceding verse), it’s also about the suffering of early Muslims. Verse 128 says, “There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you.” Muslims were suffering, on the defensive, and having to prepare for attacks. They were not doing what ISIS is doing now. (Also read Qasim Rashid’s amazing piece on Muhammed’s rules of war and Jeremiah Bowden’s excellent piece on war and jihad.)
Now, I’m no scholar of Islamic military jurisprudence (“Fiqh”), but it doesn’t take one to see how misleading this meme is.
http://www.patheos.com/…/isis-and-radical-islam-an-atheist…/
Continuing:
Verse 8:65
http://islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8&verse=65&to=69
Verse 9:5
http://discover-the-truth.com/20…/…/04/quran-95-sword-verse/
9:123
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/quran-9123-fight-those-of-…/
47:4
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/quran-473-4-in-the-cause-o…/
Debunking The Myth That The Quran Endorses Violence:
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/debunking-the-myth-that-th…/
here what those verses actually mean... **.
*********************************
ISIS and Radical Islam: An Atheist Examines a Stupid Meme
1) “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
A full rendering of verse 2:191 is as follows:
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”
First, a few things to notice: “Expel them from wherever they have expelled you” [italics mine]. “Do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram (the “Grand Mosque” in Mecca) until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them” [italics mine]. Does anyone else notice how this verse is not asking Muslims to preemptively kill? Doesn’t this sound more like self-defense?
This falls in line with what 22:40-41 says,
“Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques.”
Wait–Temples, churches, and synagogues? It’s almost as if the Qur’an is for defending other religions in times of war.
For instance, notice who is killing and attacking first in 3:21,
“Those who disbelieve in the signs of Allah and kill the prophets without right and kill those who order justice from among the people – give them tidings of a painful punishment.”
Also, at the end of 2:193 it says,
“But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”
Except against oppressors. You heard it.
2) “Muslims must not take infidels as friends.”
3:28 actually says:
“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”
Does anyone else notice the “rather than believers” part? Or how about the “except when taking precaution against them in prudence”? I wonder what other Qur’anic passages say about this:
60:8: “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” What if I told Muslims might even have been granted permission to eat with and possibly marry Christians and Jews (“People of the Book”)? Check out 5:5: “This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers.”
Let’s put it this way, if this meme is correct on face value, all the Muslims I know would not be following the Quran.
Also Read: 6 convincing reasons debunking the myth of islam promoting hatred of jews and christians
3) “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.”
3:85 actually says,
“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”
Using this verse as a way to support the conclusion that ISIS interprets the Qur’an correctly seems quite mistaken. This says nothing about military action or violence. It is theologically, not militarily, focused. If you don’t believe me, read the few verses following 85 and tell me it’s not theological.
4) “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”
5:33 actually says:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”
Notice the initial instigator of violence: “Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger.” Now, I’m no fan of crucifying or lobbing of the hands and feet of enemy offenders, but this is certainly not something particular to Muslims during that time. See what happened to Sumayyah bint Khayyat, Bilal the Abyssinian, or what the Quraysh leadership did to other early Muslims. But this is no tit-for-tat argument. It’s merely pointing to historical context.
Most importantly, I want you to read verse 32: “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors” [italics mine].
So does this verse advocate crucifying and maiming infidels at all times and in all places? No. Does it say to early Muslims, during a war in which they are on the defensive, that they could corporeally punish their oppressors? Possibly. Either way, this is not the same thing this meme attempts to express.
5) “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.”
8:60 actually says:
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
If only people would read the following verse, which says, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.” Preparing for oppression to spark fear in oppressors is not the same as a preemptive strike. This is most certainly not what ISIS is doing.
6) “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
9:123 actually says,
“O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.”
Not only is this Surah dealing with treaties and rules of war (see preceding verse), it’s also about the suffering of early Muslims. Verse 128 says, “There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you.” Muslims were suffering, on the defensive, and having to prepare for attacks. They were not doing what ISIS is doing now. (Also read Qasim Rashid’s amazing piece on Muhammed’s rules of war and Jeremiah Bowden’s excellent piece on war and jihad.)
Now, I’m no scholar of Islamic military jurisprudence (“Fiqh”), but it doesn’t take one to see how misleading this meme is.
http://www.patheos.com/…/isis-and-radical-islam-an-atheist…/
Continuing:
Verse 8:65
http://islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8&verse=65&to=69
Verse 9:5
http://discover-the-truth.com/20…/…/04/quran-95-sword-verse/
9:123
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/quran-9123-fight-those-of-…/
47:4
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/quran-473-4-in-the-cause-o…/
Debunking The Myth That The Quran Endorses Violence:
http://discover-the-truth.com/…/debunking-the-myth-that-th…/
Attachments
Last edited:
hey i am just sharing some food for thought.. it was shared with me so passing it on.
so true..
And how does that morph into "murder unarmed civilians in restaurants in the country you emigrated to"?
one of my friends recently said this in our chats.. makes far more sense than the official narrative.
One big false flag organisation that makes even less Islamic sense than AlQaeda did
International Subterfuge & Instigation Service
Need a flimsy pretext to invade a sovereign nation or moral cover for an international proxy war, hire ISIS for your next global event. Special offer if you order now, half price for for direct strikes on the airline of your proxy enemy!
long read but time well spent
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
how on earth is that a supporters reaction??? are you serious
if you think that garbage is time well spent then who needs ISIS we have you.
seems all your posts are defending one after another. not one shows the sign of remorse for the victims and family.
shows your willingness to defend no matter the cost. almost to the point you would have no plroblem taking a life to show your cause
woww.. just wow...
if their ever were any sheeple... you would be the top sheeple.
Last edited:
