According to the AP, ISIS fighters have poor grasp of Islam and do not know the Qur'an. Given that those guys are known for boiling and burning people alive, beheading, throwing off buildings, drowning in cages, and perhaps there's not a method of killing so awful, so barbaric it would be foreign to them, I'm only scared what they would be doing if they had a deep knowledge of this source of benevolence and mercy:
- And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. (2:191)
- As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. (3:56)
- The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement (5:33)
- I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (8:12)
and that's only the Qur'an. What if they knew the Hadiths? This gets me really scared.
that is because they were spawned by CIA operatives.
nobody in that agency knows a damn thing about Islam, this is why they claimed they were giving the fake bin laden a burial at sea - in accordance with muslim tradition... pretty sure there is no burial at sea tradition.
we're being suckered into nonsense, over and over and over...
U hit the nail on the spot, and as for the person who wrote this post, I can tell u he/she is either a liar or just follows propaganda centerliazed western media. All he or she has done is copy and paste the Quran, taking part of the subject and hiding the other part, the subject is based on terms of war, what they don't want people to know is the part that, say's if they stop fighting u and sign a peace treaty, u should stop fighting them and take them to a safe place where they can not be harmed, and also says God loves the does of good, and so many more.
Tell us about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...
My friend and brother in humanity I missed you. U know I am not good with words watch this hope it will help ur questions.
This is a beautifully done video! I learned a lot.
But the reason I was asking about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is that it was cited by Yasser Arafat after the Oslo Accords as the reason that Muslims should not be angry with him for signing a peace treaty with Israel.
Arafat cited the fact that, in 628, after signing a 10 year peace treaty with the people of Mecca when Muhammad found himself too weak to conquer them, Muhammad went off and raised a bigger army and returned to conquer Mecca just two years later.
The way he recovered from loss of face with his troops from needing to sue for peace was to quickly come up with a reason why it wasn't a loss, leading to the following two new Qur'an verses:
Qur'an 48:1 "Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory”.
Qur'an 48:18-19 He promised much spoils in the near future: "...and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory, and much booty that they will capture".
So they followed him, raided caravans, and built up a bigger army to use to break the Treaty two years later.
This established the principle that Muslims should sign peace treaties with non-Muslims if they find themselves in a position of weakness but then are obligated to break it as soon as possible.
Given that this is a principle of Islam established by Muhammad and still used 1400 years later by Arafat to justify his actions to his Muslim critics (who obviously were expected to understand the reference), why should any non-Muslim nation agree to any peace treaty with a Muslim nation?
As for the Quran? Verses u are referring to I don't no if they are fabricated or not we know the enemy of Islam are plotting and planing to fabricate the Quran I will do my research from trusted sources and get back to u and as far as I am concerned Prophet "MUHAMMAD" P.B.U.H never signed no peace treaty with the pigans of Mecca, during the time he was at Mecca not intell the chased him and his followers out of Mecca soon after his uncle passed away who was his protecter at that time and he did not sign no peace treaty and broken them, as far as I know but I will look into it to, but one thing I know is a revelation was revealed to him by God, informing him if he suspect the non believers and does not believe they will honor peace treaty, he was advised to take the nessery measures including breaking the peace treaty, as we are well aware both the pigans and the Jews of Mecca both broke the peace treaty, so what do u expect, also Prophet "MUHAMMAD" never turned his back no fled from war, that is a clear lie and fabrication.
I see. Apparently Arafat didn't get the memo prior to his Johannesburg speech following the Oslo accords...
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=711&fld_id=723&doc_id=486
I know nothing about Arafat and the oslo accord, by the way I try to follow u way back but can not? U muted me from following u lol. Getting tired going bed now we will continue tomorrow, Take brother
I didn't even know that was possible. I have been able to follow you, no problem.
...I just checked the follower page for the first time - no one has ever been muted by me.
If u want a length TRUETH about the treaty of hudaybiyyah watch this from the expert.
This is 1:16 hours long. If you watched it can you summarize the answer to the simple question:
Is it true that Muslims are required to break their treaties as soon as they are able?
You would understand it better if u listen to it then me writing it, hopeful when u have free time.
These "peace treaty" means paying jizya, recognizing own dhimmi (subhuman) status and so on. Or, if peaceful Muslims are unable to impose this, any peace treaty with them is only temporary, and must be renewed every 10 years (unless they feel strong enough to subdue the infidels). And, if the Muslims feel strong enough earlier, they even need not keep this 10 year term, they can attack at will, as Muhammad did on Mecca.
The CIA didn't need to spawn them. They already existed... but the power vacuum created by the Obama/Clinton foreign policy metastasized their momentum and capabilities.
Then they started beheading people, just to solidify their grip on power.
They're as corrupt as the mob, only they're more bloodthirsty and vindictive.
As far as Bin Laden -- I'm in agreement with the analysis that the SEALs on the Op got trigger happy and mutilated the body through multiple gunshots and the DOD/DOS/WH concealed the body to avoid showing that to the public. Obama was reportedly not pleased that his political trophy was ruined.
When a person suffers a DEEP slice to the neck, they spray blood like a butchered pig till the pressure subsides.... except if you throat is sliced by ISIS!! Then its neat and clean...
Blake, you apparently haven't seen the early ISIS videos with the bad green screen keying, fringing on their contours, the Japanese prisoners were outside in daylight, but the sun was casting shadows from two opposite angles.
These were as fake as this British MI-6 produced vid
and here CNN is pushing it as real, FOX did too
also, why the hell was ISIS gaining strength as we were supposedly bombing them, then Russia gets involved and ISIS is suddenly ON THE RUN?!
Answer, we weren't doing shit, other THAN "ACCIDENTALLY" SUPPLYING THEM with one food and weaponry airdrop after another!!
Seriously, OPEN YOUR EYES.
It's an open secret that Muslim Turkey is the main sponsor of ISIS.
The issue here that a Muslim cannot betray a non-Muslim, it's not treachery but taqiyya, which is in fact endorsed by Islam.
All religious books have ridiculous things in them and I don't think it is fair to just target one , Here are some from the Bible:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother- in-law...."
-Jesus (Matthew 10:34)
Jesus says:
"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13:9, 13:15
We should not target a specific religion by its texts if you have not seen others , You can find more crazy things in other books and not just these two
You must not be very good at pattern recognition.
For the past few generations, the amount of Muslims killing Mulsims and non-Muslims alike has statistically dwarfed anything being done by Christians globally.
Also -- Matthew 10:34 Jesus is pointing out that his message won't bring peace because the powerful will put him to death (came true).
Luke 14:26 -- Jesus was explaining that loving others (including family and friends) more than Him means they can't be his disciples. I'm venturing to guess the original Aramaic was a tad different than has been translated, but that is far more in line with the rest of his teachings than literally extolling followers to hate (which is in direct opposition to “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 5:12)
Isaiah is Old Testament.
Killing all unbelievers and subjugating them under a non-Muslim tax in a global Shariah government is a tad bit different than what Jesus was teaching.
Btw... How many little girls did Mohammed have in his concubine? That alone should be contrast enough for anyone with a clear mind.
Islam = Submit. Not very 'Anarchy' eh ?
I myself am an Atheist so the last few points don't really make me feel anything apart from being confused to why you put it in there , True that some meanings have been lost in translation. But we should remember that this was all around about 1400 years back and all of this back then was considered fine and fair , We should all be sane enough to not do these acts but there still are groups and people doing these acts . If a few people are doing bad things it does not mean you should out bad light on all of the religion.
Here is some facts for u, how ever I am not saying the bible preaches violence
nor does the Quran, people do Islam is perfect, in other hand Muslims are not perfect,
hey, lets not forget the Talmud. Its FILLED with racism.
Apparently goy are: "as cattle" and "can be trampled like the insects beneath your feet"
As well, the whacked out of their minds rabbis that wrote that nonsense say its ok to take a child for carnal purposes as long as they're not old enough to remember it.
AND - "the black skinned peoples, and those from their regions, can never attain true spiritual enlightenment because they are like the beasts of the wild".
Religion is the cause of ALL of our woes.
The faster we grow out of it, the better.
Also, @blakemiles84. You should take a sobering look at Seal Team 6. And the shit that happened to them after they shot and killed sheik omar whats-his-name. It wasn't Bin Laden.
I know. You were military. Wake up man.
I say this with brotherly love and kindness, WE need you.
THEY don't.
Somehow Christians do not kill people by the thousand, do not boil people alive...
3 million Vietnamese, most citizens
1.5 million Iraqi, mostly citizen
unknown numbers of native (first nation) tribal people... oops, I mean 'savages'...
more than 500,000 Japanese men women and children, with 2 nuclear explosives... the only ones used so far "in action".
But no, we're not Christians... we didn't do that stuff....
No, U.S. bombing other countries were not driven by religion as today's Muslims are. That's like saying that the Soviet Union was Christian because Stalin was baptized and even studied in a seminary for some time.
You conveniently ignored the 'savages' we massacred by the many millions on our way west to claim our MANIFEST DESTINY which Americans were telling each other was PROPHESIED in the New Testament. They pointed to scripture (Revelations and Daniel) and said "here we are! in the Bible!!!"
Purely Christian religiously motivated massacre of children and women in their teepees in their villages, we rode through in a slash and burn fury... to open up the west, for all us christian white people.
And we're helping the same thing happen to the Palestinians.
We're gifting 40 billion this year to help do so.
White people want the land brown people live on, always did, always will.
Makes me wish I was non-white.
Almost. :^)
BTW, don't look now but the Russians have a VERY strong resurgent christian movement. Orthodox Christianity is in charge in Russia.
Here we make fun of Christians! Its our national past time!!
Silly jesus freaks! haha!!
Makes you wonder who this benefits, huh?
And no, they were never an evil atheist empire. Stalin NEVER burned down the churches. We were always, and are now, being lied to on a massive scale.
Nazi style... and you do know that few Germans really knew what was going on in those camps, most refused to accept it once told.
WE ARE THERE NOW. Our perspective is being corralled into a tight, easy to grasp, dumbed down for the masses, righteous clash of civilizations....
While we instigate World War 3. And encircle Moscow.
And our people remain grossly over entertained and under educated.
Best thing about it... it'll be so quick, we won't even know what hit us.
woops! I was taking a specific American (anglo) view...
Lets look at the world wide conquests of the SPANISH EMPIRE (violent as all hell when it required fearful force to subjugate the natives). Tuey flew their Christian Crucifix flag... all the while claiming they were only subjugating the entire world because they were 'missionaries' spreading the gospel .... sure.
Yeah, Stalin didn't burn churches, he just closed them down and massacred clergy, at least until his fellow Hitler attacked him, and then Uncle Joe needed support from the Orthodox Church.
Still, USSR murdered more people than the Nazis, and this probably is an achievement.
As for 'savages', perhaps it's sad that they were forced to abandon their native peaceful religions with mass human sacrifices to the "murderous" cross-bearing Christians. Oh my..
I've heard that there are violent passages in the Qur'an, so I appreciate you posting them. To be fair, though, the Bible has some violent passages in it too, but that doesn't make Christianity a violent religion. Context is important, and it's lacking when just a few verses are shared. The other thing to keep in mind is that an outsider to a religion will have a different perspective than a practitioner of the religion. It would be interesting to speak to a practicing Muslim and ask about where those verses fit into the big picture of the religion.
The context here is ISIS. The official propaganda now says that ISIS fighters don't know shit about Qur'an and Islam which is possible. But it's then only scary what they - already extremely violent as they are - would only be doing if they knew Islam better.
U made a very good point
Every way u go u must pay tax so is jizya it's a form of tax to insure u are protected and no harm comes to you, it's a form of treaty, and is way less then the 20% plus u pay for the GOVERMENT, and also tax through other ways such car insurance housing tax not to mantion many more, atleast with jizya that is the only payment u make, and u can trade and be free no other payment. much better than any else on earth only if u knew.
Is jizya just a form of protection money that non muslims must pay or be killed?
Just a protection money in a Muslim land, and that's less then the money we pay the GOVERMENT 20% or more not to include all the example I already mentioned, if u refuse to pay u don't get killed u just don't have the protection of ur self no property and will not be protected by the Muslim ruler of that land, leaving u exposed, but if u agree to pay anyone harms u or ur property is as if though they harmed the Muslim ruler himself. And the major point to rember it's optional an like the GOVERMENT tax it's imposed on the people by force.
Another point to add is not all Muslims rule today apply the Islamic shariya, instead most are slaves of the western GOVERMENT and don't represent Islam
Just done a quick google and what i am reading is jizya is payed by non muslims to carry on practicing their religion in an islamic state. Non payment = enslavement or death.
No that's not true, don't forget in Google u find all sorts of stuff, as for religion it falls under the protection of what I already mentioned when u pay u are full protected on all terms as long as u don't break the terms and conditions,