[Kizzy]

'The founder of Islam - Muhammud himself - carried out Jihad 1400 years ago, incorporated it into the Quran, where it is mentioned over 160 times (in my version of the Qran it is) and it has been an intrinsic part of Islam ever since, and virtually solely responsible for its unparalleled spread across the globe.'

Thinking about this, if this were true how have we in the west lived cheek by jowl with Muslim communities for centuries?

As I said on another thread all ancient texts have questionable content which doesn't gel with our civilised modern perception of religion and or morality.

'Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.
A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.
A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.
A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.
A time to seek and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to cast away.
A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.'

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'The founder of Islam - Muhammud himself - carried out Jihad 1400 years ago, incorporated it into the Quran, where it is mentioned over 160 times (in my version of the Qran it is) and it has been an intrinsic part of Islam ever since, and virtually solely responsible for its unparalleled spread across the globe.'

Thinking about this, if this were true how have we in the west lived cheek by jowl with Muslim communities for centuries?

As I said on another thread all ancient texts have questionable content which doesn't gel with our civilised modern perception of religion and or morality.

'Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.
A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.
A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.
A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.
A time to seek and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to cast away.
A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.'

I thought that was an original by Cat Stevens ...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I thought that was an original by Cat Stevens ...

No, you were bopping the night away to king Solomon.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'The founder of Islam - Muhammud himself - carried out Jihad 1400 years ago, incorporated it into the Quran, where it is mentioned over 160 times (in my version of the Qran it is) and it has been an intrinsic part of Islam ever since, and virtually solely responsible for its unparalleled spread across the globe.'

Thinking about this, if this were true how have we in the west lived cheek by jowl with Muslim communities for centuries?

As I said on another thread all ancient texts have questionable content which doesn't gel with our civilised modern perception of religion and or morality.

'Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.
A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.
A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.
A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.
A time to seek and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to cast away.
A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.'

The Quran has been misrepresented throughout its history and so has the bible.
We will always get cafeteria Christians and Muslims picking out verses to support their cause or biaseses.

The Old and New Testament talk about killing and war and so does the Quran
http://www.gotquestions.org/war-Bible.html
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/qu...3-violence.htm
and because these scriptures were written a long time ago, it leaves it all a bit open ended. These two books are frayed around the edges but they are still used to determine who lives and who dies.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

How can ANYONE misrepresent the fact that Muhammud INITIATED JIHAD, incorporated it into the QRAN, and that MUSLIMS carried it out for 1400 years?

Are you DENYING EVERY SINGLE COPY of the QURAN itself?

Are you denying the HISTORICAL RECORDS of MUSLIMS themselves?

This is yet more sad deflection, and I for one would be pleased if you merely addressed my post. It was you after all who said you would welcome anyone debating with you.

To play devil's abracadabra... Perhaps people can "misrepresent" that fact in exactly the same way that members of every other religion misrepresent, reinterpret, or outright deny large chunks of their holy texts which are just as out there bat**** bonkers?

You know, like the Christians who want to pretend that it's suddenly OK to be gay or that we shouldn't kill adulterers, or that there aren't countless examples of God being petty, vengeful and violent, etc., or that there hasn't been oceans of blood spilled in the name of Christianity, When it's all quite clearly written there in black and white?

Not that I'm actually defending the Quran here or any other aspect of Islam or any other religion... I'm just saying, there's this hilarious hypocrisy afoot here in the West when people bleat "look! Look what it says in this evil Muslim book!!" and insist upon taking every word literally, whilst at the same time insisting blue-in-the-face that their own violent little book is "open to interpretation"

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To play devil's abracadabra... Perhaps people can "misrepresent" that fact in exactly the same way that members of every other religion misrepresent, reinterpret, or outright deny large chunks of their holy texts which are just as out there bat**** bonkers?

You know, like the Christians who want to pretend that it's suddenly OK to be gay or that we shouldn't kill adulterers, or that there aren't countless examples of God being petty, vengeful and violent, etc., or that there hasn't been oceans of blood spilled in the name of Christianity, When it's all quite clearly written there in black and white?

Not that I'm actually defending the Quran here or any other aspect of Islam or any other religion... I'm just saying, there's this hilarious hypocrisy afoot here in the West when people bleat "look! Look what it says in this evil Muslim book!!" and insist upon taking every word literally, whilst at the same time insisting blue-in-the-face that their own violent little book is "open to interpretation"

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To play devil's abracadabra... Perhaps people can "misrepresent" that fact in exactly the same way that members of every other religion misrepresent, reinterpret, or outright deny large chunks of their holy texts which are just as out there bat**** bonkers?

You know, like the Christians who want to pretend that it's suddenly OK to be gay or that we shouldn't kill adulterers, or that there aren't countless examples of God being petty, vengeful and violent, etc., or that there hasn't been oceans of blood spilled in the name of Christianity, When it's all quite clearly written there in black and white?

Not that I'm actually defending the Quran here or any other aspect of Islam or any other religion... I'm just saying, there's this hilarious hypocrisy afoot here in the West when people bleat "look! Look what it says in this evil Muslim book!!" and insist upon taking every word literally, whilst at the same time insisting blue-in-the-face that their own violent little book is "open to interpretation"

Good luck, been trying to hammer that point home for days

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To play devil's abracadabra... Perhaps people can "misrepresent" that fact in exactly the same way that members of every other religion misrepresent, reinterpret, or outright deny large chunks of their holy texts which are just as out there bat**** bonkers?

You know, like the Christians who want to pretend that it's suddenly OK to be gay or that we shouldn't kill adulterers, or that there aren't countless examples of God being petty, vengeful and violent, etc., or that there hasn't been oceans of blood spilled in the name of Christianity, When it's all quite clearly written there in black and white?

Not that I'm actually defending the Quran here or any other aspect of Islam or any other religion... I'm just saying, there's this hilarious hypocrisy afoot here in the West when people bleat "look! Look what it says in this evil Muslim book!!" and insist upon taking every word literally, whilst at the same time insisting blue-in-the-face that their own violent little book is "open to interpretation"

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To play devil's abracadabra... Perhaps people can "misrepresent" that fact in exactly the same way that members of every other religion misrepresent, reinterpret, or outright deny large chunks of their holy texts which are just as out there bat**** bonkers?

You know, like the Christians who want to pretend that it's suddenly OK to be gay or that we shouldn't kill adulterers, or that there aren't countless examples of God being petty, vengeful and violent, etc., or that there hasn't been oceans of blood spilled in the name of Christianity, When it's all quite clearly written there in black and white?

Not that I'm actually defending the Quran here or any other aspect of Islam or any other religion... I'm just saying, there's this hilarious hypocrisy afoot here in the West when people bleat "look! Look what it says in this evil Muslim book!!" and insist upon taking every word literally, whilst at the same time insisting blue-in-the-face that their own violent little book is "open to interpretation"

The question of violence within the Holy Books of all religions in general has NOTHING whatsover to do with the subjects under 'debate' (Lol ) on this thread - which is specifically Islamic terrorism and Jihad - and if you want to debate Christianity or the contents of the Judeo Christian bible, why don't you start a seperate thread and I will gladly contribute to it.

We have, however, debated/discussed/argued the above subjects several times on other threads but I am willing to retread that path if you like.



The violence in the 3,500 year old Old Testament is 'close ended' violence which is 'of its time' and 'era specific'.

Where today are there any 'Amorites' or 'Perizites' for Christians or Jews to go out and slay?

The Quran, however contains over 160 commands for its followers to go out and behead and slay, in addition to other commands to abduct and sell into slavery.

Whilst there have been, and still are, inhuman extremists who claim to be 'Christian', just as there have always been, and still are, inhuman extremists who are atheists, in light of the terrible atrocities being perpetrated over most of the globe by inhuman extremists who claim to be Muslim, it is absolutely ridiculous and infantile to jocularly suggest that any person of other faiths who condemn it or even discuss it, are hypocrites.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The question of violence within the Holy Books of all religions in general has NOTHING whatsover to do with the subjects under 'debate' (Lol ) on this thread - which is specifically Islamic terrorism and Jihad - and if you want to debate Christianity or the contents of the Judeo Christian bible, why don't you start a seperate thread and I will gladly contribute to it.

We have, however, debated/discussed/argued the above subjects several times on other threads but I am willing to retread that path if you like.



The violence in the 3,500 year old Old Testament is 'close ended' violence which is 'of its time' and 'era specific'.

Where today are there any 'Amorites' or 'Perizites' for Christians or Jews to go out and slay?

The Quran, however contains over 160 commands for its followers to go out and behead and slay, in addition to other commands to abduct and sell into slavery.

Whilst there have been, and still are, inhuman extremists who claim to be 'Christian', just as there have always been, and still are, inhuman extremists who are atheists, in light of the terrible atrocities being perpetrated over most of the globe by inhuman extremists who claim to be Muslim, it is absolutely ridiculous and infantile to jocularly suggest that any person of other faiths who condemn it or even discuss it, are hypocrites.

The subject of the thread is how you would deal with terrorism if you were leader of the US or EU... Nothing to do with Islam or Jihad

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

OFFS:

I write:

'The founder of Islam - Muhammud himself - carried out Jihad 1400 years ago, incorporated it into the Quran, where it is mentioned over 160 times (in my version of the Qran it is) and it has been an intrinsic part of Islam ever since, and virtually solely responsible for its unparalleled spread across the globe.'

To which your response is:

"Thinking about this, if this were true how have we in the west lived cheek by jowl with Muslim communities for centuries?"


Are you REALLY being SERIOUS? "if this were true"???????????????

Why don't you research and learn your subject matter before continuously dissing and contadicting with, and sniping at, the perfectably legitimate well-intentioned posts of those members who do know their subject matter?

OF COURSE IT'S TRUE.

As for the rest of your post - What the hell does it mean?

I live next to Bradford, as have my family for generations.... how then have we never been the target of any jihad?
I'm not dissing you, I'm asking for an explanation, the rest of my post was scripture.
It's Muhammad btw.