Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God: kill your son
Abraham: uh...ok
God: holy shit I'm jk
Abraham: umm...
God: I'll probably kill mine tho lol
Abraham: wtf?

LOL!!

You just totally made my day. If you could do the whole bible, you'd be filthy rich!

+1000 Yes, please keep these coming.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, OP. In case you don't know, the Bible is significantly more violent and sexist than the Quran.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/05/christians-hilariously-criticize-bible-after-reading-verses-they-think-are-from-the-quran-video/

"The number of cruel or violent passages in the Quran amounted to 532 or just over 8 percent of the book. The Bible contains 1,318 such passages which amounts to around 4 percent of the book. Of course, the Bible is also a bigger book that contains about 25,000 more verses than the Quran does. In short, the Bible contains more violence than the Quran."

But you should watch this video:

That's the Old Testament. Don't know how many times a week somebody has to point out to one of you atheists that Jesus was pretty solidly against violence to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we going through all this again?

The Jizya tax in Islam is for nonMuslims who are under the control and protection of Muslims. They are exempt from any military duty. They do not have to fight during war. Thus, they are taxed because Muslims are obligated to protect them.

The Quranic ayahs or passages that order killing are only in self defense. The reasons radical Muslims misinterpret these ayahs or passages is because they believe any country that interferes with a Muslim country, politically or otherwise, is doing so with the intention of either corrupting Islam or to help create a more secular nation there. Clearly the radicals do not interpret their own religion properly and there is a complete lack of guidance for them.

It's one thing to not understand these passages and seek clarification, but let's not twist the meaning of them.

Christians and Jews (this isn't available to other non-Muslims) pay jizya "so that they consider themselves subdued." The language is very clear and this isn't some sort of generous draft exemption for other religious groups that, anyway, the early Muslims didn't trust to fight on their side. Muslims have other legal advantages over non-Muslims. As one example, in the case of divorce, the children always go to the Muslim parent.

As posted earlier on the thread, Quranic language like "making trouble in the land" being deserving of violence is indeed wide open to many different interpretations. Something like "corrupting Islam" actually seems like a pretty big deal. There's no specificity in the language about "kill them for this corruption of Islam but not for that corruption of Islam." Thus you see a wide range of opinions about what deserves a violent response.

I am not familiar with this be subdued language--perhaps you could link to the source. What I do know is that large communities of Christians and Jews in the Middle East felt it was a fair enough deal to stay and thrive for well over a thousand years.

The subdued language, from Quran 9:29:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, 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."

It's part of the whole umma/dhimmi system, which very broadly works out to "us" and "them". But surely you know all this. The fact that communities of illiterate and impoverished Christians and Jews (polytheists not so much) stayed for thousands of years doesn't say much at all. You would have done better to point out that the original Muslim conquest was so very fast, and the Muslim conquerors were spread so thin over the Middle East and North Africa, that by necessity the first Muslim rulers were actually extremely tolerant to minority religions and let minorities stay in government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we going through all this again?

The Jizya tax in Islam is for nonMuslims who are under the control and protection of Muslims. They are exempt from any military duty. They do not have to fight during war. Thus, they are taxed because Muslims are obligated to protect them.

The Quranic ayahs or passages that order killing are only in self defense. The reasons radical Muslims misinterpret these ayahs or passages is because they believe any country that interferes with a Muslim country, politically or otherwise, is doing so with the intention of either corrupting Islam or to help create a more secular nation there. Clearly the radicals do not interpret their own religion properly and there is a complete lack of guidance for them.

It's one thing to not understand these passages and seek clarification, but let's not twist the meaning of them.

Christians and Jews (this isn't available to other non-Muslims) pay jizya "so that they consider themselves subdued." The language is very clear and this isn't some sort of generous draft exemption for other religious groups that, anyway, the early Muslims didn't trust to fight on their side. Muslims have other legal advantages over non-Muslims. As one example, in the case of divorce, the children always go to the Muslim parent.

As posted earlier on the thread, Quranic language like "making trouble in the land" being deserving of violence is indeed wide open to many different interpretations. Something like "corrupting Islam" actually seems like a pretty big deal. There's no specificity in the language about "kill them for this corruption of Islam but not for that corruption of Islam." Thus you see a wide range of opinions about what deserves a violent response.

I am not familiar with this be subdued language--perhaps you could link to the source. What I do know is that large communities of Christians and Jews in the Middle East felt it was a fair enough deal to stay and thrive for well over a thousand years.

11:15 again. In Islam there are several schools but no central authority, like the Pope before Henry VIII, to lay down common interpretations and edicts.

The common ground is the Quran, which is God's own words and therefore can't be challenged, although individual passages can be interpreted differently. There is also a body of sayings of the prophet, but these are subject to disputes about authenticity.

Anonymous wrote:Are we going through all this again?

The Jizya tax in Islam is for nonMuslims who are under the control and protection of Muslims. They are exempt from any military duty. They do not have to fight during war. Thus, they are taxed because Muslims are obligated to protect them.

The Quranic ayahs or passages that order killing are only in self defense. The reasons radical Muslims misinterpret these ayahs or passages is because they believe any country that interferes with a Muslim country, politically or otherwise, is doing so with the intention of either corrupting Islam or to help create a more secular nation there. Clearly the radicals do not interpret their own religion properly and there is a complete lack of guidance for them.

It's one thing to not understand these passages and seek clarification, but let's not twist the meaning of them.

Christians and Jews (this isn't available to other non-Muslims) pay jizya "so that they consider themselves subdued." The language is very clear and this isn't some sort of generous draft exemption for other religious groups that, anyway, the early Muslims didn't trust to fight on their side. Muslims have other legal advantages over non-Muslims. As one example, in the case of divorce, the children always go to the Muslim parent.

As posted earlier on the thread, Quranic language like "making trouble in the land" being deserving of violence is indeed wide open to many different interpretations. Something like "corrupting Islam" actually seems like a pretty big deal. There's no specificity in the language about "kill them for this corruption of Islam but not for that corruption of Islam." Thus you see a wide range of opinions about what deserves a violent response.

Twist their meaning? These books are written by men using human language, so of course their meaning are up to interpretation. This is the inherent danger of religious belief. Yes *YOU* may now say as a contemporary Muslim living in a 1st world western country that the peaceful interpretation of these books is the correct one. But by what authority can you make such a claim? Do you claim to know the perfect will of God? How do you know? Note that Christianity has this very same problem, except there aren't many people who are relying violent interpretations of Christianity to kill others - but it certainly has in the past.

There are two ways to assuage the damage that religion can do to human civilization. One is that the human condition will improve with the passage of time, and people will gravitate towards peaceful interpretations of religious texts, as we see in Europe and North America. But I am afraid that this is a long process that takes generations to accomplish. We cannot rid the middle east of poverty and illiteracy in a short period of time, especially not if the violent religious leaders are actively working against such efforts in order to prolong their hold on the people. The only other way is to expose religion for what it truly is: attempts by past humans to control the behavior of others in an age of ignorance. The western world is quickly loosing their religion, much faster than the time it took for the violent-to-peaceful reformation to take place. Religion deserves no special respect above any other fairy take or work of fiction. The sooner people deal with the problem in a rational manner, the sooner we can all get on with the business of making our world better.

Are we going through all this again?

The Jizya tax in Islam is for nonMuslims who are under the control and protection of Muslims. They are exempt from any military duty. They do not have to fight during war. Thus, they are taxed because Muslims are obligated to protect them.

The Quranic ayahs or passages that order killing are only in self defense. The reasons radical Muslims misinterpret these ayahs or passages is because they believe any country that interferes with a Muslim country, politically or otherwise, is doing so with the intention of either corrupting Islam or to help create a more secular nation there. Clearly the radicals do not interpret their own religion properly and there is a complete lack of guidance for them.

It's one thing to not understand these passages and seek clarification, but let's not twist the meaning of them.

Anonymous wrote:Al Huda School is in Maryland.

It is an Islam's duty to support Al Huda Schools.

See video from Iman Muhammed on home page

https://www.duscommunity.org/home

They are trying to expand to more schools

Despite our rapid growth and the successes Allah granted us, Dar-us-Salaam’s vision is still in its early stages.
On the education front, Al-Huda School must continue to expand and improve, producing graduates who are not only balanced –taking the best from the world yet working towards the next life– but also instilling in its graduates the urgency of working to establish a strong, exemplary Muslim community.
Branches of Al-Huda School need to be established in other regions and states, as Dar-us-Salaam received over 40 requests from outlying communities as of 2011.

That Al Huda is not affiliated with the one in Pakistan they are referring to, which is run by Farhat Hashmi.

Thanks to the two previous PPs. One for a great video I am glad I watched (it is short) and the other for links to articles by a thoughtful Muslim, who is the anti-SISI.

“Through ceaseless proselytizing and subtle pressure tactics, Al-Huda has brought a majority of my university’s students under the burqa,” Pervez Hoodbhoy previously wrote. “In comparison with my students of earlier decades, they are less confident, less willing to ask questions in class, and most have become silent note-takers. To sing, dance, play sports or act in dramas is, of course, out of the question for these unfortunates.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2616776/tashfeen-malik-attended-al-huda-islamic-school-that-has-branches-in-u-s-and-canada/#WdHCU4dWXq1gqA82.99

Hoodbhoy: On the scale of human history, the Enlightenment is a very recent phenomenon, barely four hundred years old. One must be hopeful that Muslims will catch up. The real question is how to shake off the dead hand of tradition. The answer lies in doing away with an educational system that discourages questioning and stresses obedience. Reform in the Muslim world will have to begin here. At the core of this problem, lies the tyranny that teachers exert over their students. In Urdu, we say that the teacher is not just a teacher—he is also your father. But in our culture, fathers are considered all-wise, which means that teachers cannot be questioned.

http://www.meforum.org/2593/pervez-amirali-hoodbhoy-islam-science

Sorry, OP. In case you don't know, the Bible is significantly more violent and sexist than the Quran.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/05/christians-hilariously-criticize-bible-after-reading-verses-they-think-are-from-the-quran-video/

"The number of cruel or violent passages in the Quran amounted to 532 or just over 8 percent of the book. The Bible contains 1,318 such passages which amounts to around 4 percent of the book. Of course, the Bible is also a bigger book that contains about 25,000 more verses than the Quran does. In short, the Bible contains more violence than the Quran."

But you should watch this video:

Anonymous wrote:Tashfeen Malik was studying the Quran at Al Huda schools in Pakistan.

The Pakistani woman who carried out the mass shooting in California along with her husband last week had earlier spent a year studying at a conservative religious school for women in this southern Pakistani city, officials said Monday. Officials at the Al Huda center in Multan said that the woman, Tashfeen Malik, enrolled in an 18-month course to study the Quran in 2013, just as she completed a degree in pharmacology at a nearby public university.

“They are trained to be activists and reformers, bringing people back to what they call the ‘real’ Islam, true and pure,” said Faiza Mushtaq, an assistant professor of sociology at the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi, who did her Ph.D. on Al Huda.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/world/asia/tashfeen-malik-attended-conservative-religious-school-in-pakistan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

But does this mean Malik learned her extremist views from this institution? And what would be considered 'fake' islam?

Al Huda School is in Maryland.

It is an Islam's duty to support Al Huda Schools.

See video from Iman Muhammed on home page

https://www.duscommunity.org/home

They are trying to expand to more schools

Despite our rapid growth and the successes Allah granted us, Dar-us-Salaam’s vision is still in its early stages.
On the education front, Al-Huda School must continue to expand and improve, producing graduates who are not only balanced –taking the best from the world yet working towards the next life– but also instilling in its graduates the urgency of working to establish a strong, exemplary Muslim community.
Branches of Al-Huda School need to be established in other regions and states, as Dar-us-Salaam received over 40 requests from outlying communities as of 2011.

Tashfeen Malik was studying the Quran at Al Huda schools in Pakistan.

The Pakistani woman who carried out the mass shooting in California along with her husband last week had earlier spent a year studying at a conservative religious school for women in this southern Pakistani city, officials said Monday. Officials at the Al Huda center in Multan said that the woman, Tashfeen Malik, enrolled in an 18-month course to study the Quran in 2013, just as she completed a degree in pharmacology at a nearby public university.

“They are trained to be activists and reformers, bringing people back to what they call the ‘real’ Islam, true and pure,” said Faiza Mushtaq, an assistant professor of sociology at the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi, who did her Ph.D. on Al Huda.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/world/asia/tashfeen-malik-attended-conservative-religious-school-in-pakistan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0