Dutch Politician Suggests to Ban the Quran (1 Viewer)

[jb_nc]

parachute account to defend islam

 

[Snaykew]

[/indent]
lmao, British born UK bombers, Usama bin-Laden wasn't exactly short a penny either, Saudia Arabia (where the majority of the 9-11 hi-jackers came from) is not a "poor" country either.

Wealth has nothing to do with it, both the poor and the élite can be brainwashed into believing propaganda.

No, not every single terrorist was born in the UK.

SEE I CAN IGNORE HALF YOUR POST TOO.

 

[PrinceHarry]

According to American military sources a large number of foreign terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia who are not exactly poor. All 9/11 bombers as someone mentioned before were also well educated, and rich compared to your average muslims (they can afford to study in us universities and learn pilot lesson etc). Crime has a lot to do with poverty but with terrorism it doesnt. Its the Book!

 

[jb_nc]

No, not every single terrorist was born in the UK.

SEE I CAN IGNORE HALF YOUR POST TOO.

We're not talking about your local thief, we're talking about Islamic militants who plan to commit acts of terror on Western targets.

 

[jimmayyy]

I sincerely urge you to provide me with any quotes from the quran justifying killing innocent people!

first of all, i cbf reading your post because all it seems you are doing it disagreeing with my opinion due to your own biased attitude, so i'll jump to the most appealing part of your post.

now, hear this before you read on: i do not think that the koran should be banned, nor that it is a bad book, that muslims are terrorists blah blah blah blah.

all i was saying in my previous posts was pointing out that the logic of argument used to ban mein kampf could well be used to ban the koran.

i shall now place myself in the shoes of an extremist islamic terrorist and show you requested quotes:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

NB: "Them" is in reference to "Infidels" or un-believers, as the passages preceeding this discusses their prescence in the Muslim nation.

Okay, so we have established it it good to slay infidels. But, you may argue, that doesn't mean you should travel halfway around the world until you find them and attack them in their own country, does it? Well..

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

Apparently, it does.

What about just getting along peacefully in every day life with Christians or Jews? Nope...not okay either;

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

So, just attack them once and be done with it...?

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

Oh. What about our brother Arabs who have also lived in our area for thousands of years, worship the same God but have a different prophet? Surely, oh peaceful religion of Islam, they shouldn't be killed?

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Can't we at least be friends?

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

Alright, alright. Who am I supposed to war against again? I forgot...

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)

Why, exactly?

"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" (8:39)

When, exactly? Plz be more specific, you peace-loving book, you.

"When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them"(9:5)

Shit, all this infidel-killing surely won't leave much time for all the peaceful shit we are going to get up to, right?

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

i could be here all day, buddy.

 

[jimmayyy]

GET OVER IT!

get over what, exactly? having freedom of speech and expressing an opinion? nah, ill be right

We get it already you hate muslims you hate the quran muhammad's a rapist blah blah blah.

typical extremist response. i don't hate muslims, i only know a handful but those i do i respect and like a great deal. i don't hate the koran either. i haven't read it cover to cover and i'm a firm beliver in NOT JUDGING THINGS UNTIL YOU KNOW THEM WELL ENOUGH TO. perhaps you should try it.

PS didnt see anyone calling the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) a rapist anywhere. maybe your burka is clouding your vision.

This has got to be the biggest waste of space ever its not even a dicussion its a rant against Islam.

a) its not a rant against islam at all, its a discussion on the banning of the koran
b) if you don't want to contribute, kindly fuck off. no one will miss you

I must be living in a different planet because in the news I watch not all murders and rapist are MUSLIMS you may be shocked to realise that god forbid there are also some CHRISTIAN MURDERS RAPIST AND BOMBERS. who would have thought.

way to take allah's name in vain, i like how you slipped that in there. i am also fully aware that bad people come from all faiths. i'm not a christian either, so that little attack really did nothing to me. however, we aren't talking about that.

And yes I'm A MUSLIM woman and very proud of it and contrary to poular belief ISlam provides me with freedom and if you guys actually did dome research about Islam instead of relying on the stupid media propaganda on the news everyday if you're lucky one day you might realise that Islam is about peace.

ahahahahahahaha. this has got to be the best part. in fact, laughter is the best reponse.

all in all, a shit reply. doing your cause heaps of justice with rants like this, pal.

 

[wasupdog]

get over what, exactly? having freedom of speech and expressing an opinion? nah, ill be right



typical extremist response. i don't hate muslims, i only know a handful but those i do i respect and like a great deal. i don't hate the koran either. i haven't read it cover to cover and i'm a firm beliver in NOT JUDGING THINGS UNTIL YOU KNOW THEM WELL ENOUGH TO. perhaps you should try it.

PS didnt see anyone calling the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) a rapist anywhere. maybe your burka is clouding your vision.



a) its not a rant against islam at all, its a discussion on the banning of the koran
b) if you don't want to contribute, kindly fuck off. no one will miss you

I must be living in a different planet because in the news I watch not all murders and rapist are MUSLIMS you may be shocked to realise that god forbid there are also some CHRISTIAN MURDERS RAPIST AND BOMBERS. who would have thought.

way to take allah's name in vain, i like how you slipped that in there. i am also fully aware that bad people come from all faiths. i'm not a christian either, so that little attack really did nothing to me. however, we aren't talking about that.



ahahahahahahaha. this has got to be the best part. in fact, laughter is the best reponse.

all in all, a shit reply. doing your cause heaps of justice with rants like this, pal.

ur quotes are incorrect. .... ive got the Quran infront of me.

 

[MaNiElla]

Source: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Muhammad/muhammad_terrorism.htm#Early

Many of the above points are still true and valid to this day. Especially when it comes to criticism of Mohamed himself.

By the way terrorists are not pushed by desperation to violence but by their clear conscience and their beleives in the writings of Quran, the word of the devil, Satan.

LMAO, thats exactly what the Israelis do to the innocent palestinians :rofl:

 

[MaNiElla]

first of all, i cbf reading your post because all it seems you are doing it disagreeing with my opinion due to your own biased attitude, so i'll jump to the most appealing part of your post.

now, hear this before you read on: i do not think that the koran should be banned, nor that it is a bad book, that muslims are terrorists blah blah blah blah.

all i was saying in my previous posts was pointing out that the logic of argument used to ban mein kampf could well be used to ban the koran.

i shall now place myself in the shoes of an extremist islamic terrorist and show you requested quotes:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

NB: "Them" is in reference to "Infidels" or un-believers, as the passages preceeding this discusses their prescence in the Muslim nation.

Okay, so we have established it it good to slay infidels. But, you may argue, that doesn't mean you should travel halfway around the world until you find them and attack them in their own country, does it? Well..

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

Apparently, it does.

What about just getting along peacefully in every day life with Christians or Jews? Nope...not okay either;

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

So, just attack them once and be done with it...?

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

Oh. What about our brother Arabs who have also lived in our area for thousands of years, worship the same God but have a different prophet? Surely, oh peaceful religion of Islam, they shouldn't be killed?

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Can't we at least be friends?

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

Alright, alright. Who am I supposed to war against again? I forgot...

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)

Why, exactly?

"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" (8:39)

When, exactly? Plz be more specific, you peace-loving book, you.

"When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them"(9:5)

Shit, all this infidel-killing surely won't leave much time for all the peaceful shit we are going to get up to, right?

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

i could be here all day, buddy.

LOL, this explains what the stuff that you posted mean:

http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm

 

[Gosford]

LOL, this explains what the stuff that you posted mean:

http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm

thankyou
its a shame that people take things like that out of context
maybe those terrosist go on the same sites as these...critics
such a shame really
if they could only focus their energy on finding the truth
then they can try and argue
like
Oh it says that muslims should attack non-believers at times in war
they could say, we believe you shouldnt (LOL)
even though that may sound bogus
it at least be an opinion (as bad as it may be) that was based on fact

 

[beentherdunthat]

LOL, this explains what the stuff that you posted mean:

http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm

:wave: Hiya people.
Ah, good one Maniella... a very noteable comeback.
But I think, for the good of everyone who wait, 'cbf' to read rather 'large' peices of arguements, and only those that they find 'appealing'... here's a snippet that would largely interest you. {See, the bold, is used to CATCH your attention... I think we need fireworks these days though...}

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

 

[jimmayyy]

thankyou
its a shame that people take things like that out of context
maybe those terrosist go on the same sites as these...critics
such a shame really
if they could only focus their energy on finding the truth
then they can try and argue
like
Oh it says that muslims should attack non-believers at times in war
they could say, we believe you shouldnt (LOL)
even though that may sound bogus
it at least be an opinion (as bad as it may be) that was based on fact

oh my...you are clearly more retarded than i thought. listen, i will try and dumb it down: I AM NOT ATTACKING ISLAM AS A TERRORIST RELIGION. i do not think that it is, like i said in my previous posts i do not hate it, or think it is wholly bad, or that muslims are automatically terrorists or any shit like that. I DO NOT BELIEVE/THINK/ARGUE THAT. also like i said, the few muslims i do know are the peaceful, friendly, loving type of people i'm sure the majority of muslims are. i am not criticising in any way, i am simply pointing out that, but the SAME FALLACY OF LOGIC AND ARGUMENT that lead to the banning of mein kampf, the koran too SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BANNING, IF MEIN KAMPF IS. you get me? i am actually supporting it as remaining NOT banned, but the dutch are being extremely hypocritical banning one and not the other.

you asked me to give you quotes which, in the mind of a militant radical muslim, justify terrorism. i supplied you such quotes. you seem to be missing my point wholly.

 

[Gosford]

oh my...you are clearly more retarded than i thought. listen, i will try and dumb it down: I AM NOT ATTACKING ISLAM AS A TERRORIST RELIGION. i do not think that it is, like i said in my previous posts i do not hate it, or think it is wholly bad, or that muslims are automatically terrorists or any shit like that. I DO NOT BELIEVE/THINK/ARGUE THAT. also like i said, the few muslims i do know are the peaceful, friendly, loving type of people i'm sure the majority of muslims are. i am not criticising in any way, i am simply pointing out that, but the SAME FALLACY OF LOGIC AND ARGUMENT that lead to the banning of mein kampf, the koran too SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BANNING, IF MEIN KAMPF IS. you get me? i am actually supporting it as remaining NOT banned, but the dutch are being extremely hypocritical banning one and not the other.

you asked me to give you quotes which, in the mind of a militant radical muslim, justify terrorism. i supplied you such quotes. you seem to be missing my point wholly.

but the quran doesnt contain anything in it that makes it violent
that nazi book apparently does (never read it)
the whjole purpose of the NAzi book is bad
the Quran is to educate and contains rules set by God for us to live by.
Hey to make people happy we should maybe consider putting a little footnote in Quran
"please read verses in context so people do not do silly things"


You supplied with utter bollocks not quotes
half of them were not properly translated
and the other half were out of context.
the Quran is a book of peace

 

[beentherdunthat]

oh my...you are clearly more retarded than i thought. listen, i will try and dumb it down: I AM NOT ATTACKING ISLAM AS A TERRORIST RELIGION. i do not think that it is, like i said in my previous posts i do not hate it, or think it is wholly bad, or that muslims are automatically terrorists or any shit like that. I DO NOT BELIEVE/THINK/ARGUE THAT. also like i said, the few muslims i do know are the peaceful, friendly, loving type of people i'm sure the majority of muslims are. i am not criticising in any way, i am simply pointing out that, but the SAME FALLACY OF LOGIC AND ARGUMENT that lead to the banning of mein kampf, the koran too SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BANNING, IF MEIN KAMPF IS. you get me? i am actually supporting it as remaining NOT banned, but the dutch are being extremely hypocritical banning one and not the other.

you asked me to give you quotes which, in the mind of a militant radical muslim, justify terrorism. i supplied you such quotes. you seem to be missing my point wholly.

lol, I see what you mean.

 

[jb_nc]

You supplied with utter bollocks not quotes
half of them were not properly translated
and the other half were out of context.
the Quran is a book of peace

I think Christopher Hitchens commented in God is not Great that Islam is especially smart because it does not allow translations as they are not the 'true word' of God (we all know God only speaks Arabic). Unlike Christianity viz the translations from Latin to common English, French et al.

 

[PrinceHarry]

A religion of piss is that what you meant? All islamic countries are ruled with barbarity, oppression, intimidation derived straight from Quran, the book of evil. Islamo fascism is the enemy of western civilisation today as was Communism and Nazism and banning its root cause is one step towards destroying these evils.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

Way off current point but digging up some old dirt from page 14 15 or 16 (can't remember), since no one argued against it:

but that is not for me to defend because I am not a Christian. I think the fact that they re-interpret the Bible every now and then to fit with their believes is ridiculous.

I disagree, and I know you aren't the only one who thinks this so I'm going to write a mega long essay on my views thanks to biology and religious studies. So let's start with "every now and then." That's quite a loose term. What I've heard about a congregation of the figureheads of the church having the Bible changed some centuries ago is ridiculous. Re-interpretting however, is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to the Bible. It's the main tool to understanding Christianity. It was originally made up of Hebrew and Greek writings, and official translations were not agreed upon, so priests were in demand to give their translation of the words and interpretation of their meaning for the more simple folk.

So it has been about interpretation from the start, and "every now and then" I suppose would be referring to large changes in what has been for the most part an unchanging interpretation. These changes I don't see as rediculous either. The teachings of the Bible believed to be the direct words of God, particularly Old Testament, can be fairly ambiguous, so changing interpretations are inevitable. It's necessary, since the words aren't always applicable to present culture and lifestyle. The old values are still there, but just aren't so widely accepted as they once were (and yes there were some odd values such as stonings, but the New Testament wiped that one off as being unacceptable, thanks to good ol' JC).

A lot of people such as yourself say that it's hypocritcal for the Bible's interpretation to change so much due to scientific discovery and the like, but my rebutle to that is that scientific theories themselves are changed in interpretation due to later discoveries, and no one seems to have any beef with that. A prime example would be interpretations of the nature of evolution. A tonne of scientists got it wrong but they are commended for adding to its understanding. I don't see how this should differ much from interpretations of the Bible. Recent studies in DNA have caused huge changes in evolutionary theory, and yet have caused no such changes in interpretation of the Bible. There's an example where interpretation of biological science changes and that of the Bible does not. It's not so ridiculous then. We accept new interpretations of science, why can we not do the same for Christianity? I can't find a new interpretation of the Bible outside the confines of the old beliefs.

And that's that. If you've read through that, then thanks. I'm proud of it. I'm not a religious kook but I hate it when people rag on religions because they're like old men. They're strict, were all the rage way back when, don't easily fit in to today's culture and are incapable of successfully defending themselves. But they're still cool, you just gotta see it

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

I'd say Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned in the first place. That would clear up the hypocracy, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have an effect. If anything it would support modern ideals, since anyone who would read the book in the first place would understand that racism is shit, and it gives insight into the fucked up mind of a dirty racist bastard, providing more evidence for the overall shitiness of racism. As for those who would read the book because they're screwed up neo-nazi's, I think the book being there or not has no effect on their actions or beliefs. So in the end, there's no need to ban anything else

 

[Serius]

Yeah ban it, that should be a good stepping stone to start banning Islam entirely. Whilst i dont mind freedom of religion and i like freedom of speech, Islam isnt a religion and free speech allready has limits. Even if we are going to class it as a religion i still dont like it.

I tolerate freedom of religion because it makes the idiots happy and it doesnt usually cause any real harm. Most of them arent entirely morons so they practise moderately and it has no real effect on anything. Islam is entirely fukt so ban it if you can.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Way off current point but digging up some old dirt from page 14 15 or 16 (can't remember), since no one argued against it:



I disagree, and I know you aren't the only one who thinks this so I'm going to write a mega long essay on my views thanks to biology and religious studies. So let's start with "every now and then." That's quite a loose term. What I've heard about a congregation of the figureheads of the church having the Bible changed some centuries ago is ridiculous. Re-interpretting however, is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to the Bible. It's the main tool to understanding Christianity. It was originally made up of Hebrew and Greek writings, and official translations were not agreed upon, so priests were in demand to give their translation of the words and interpretation of their meaning for the more simple folk.

So it has been about interpretation from the start, and "every now and then" I suppose would be referring to large changes in what has been for the most part an unchanging interpretation. These changes I don't see as rediculous either. The teachings of the Bible believed to be the direct words of God, particularly Old Testament, can be fairly ambiguous, so changing interpretations are inevitable. It's necessary, since the words aren't always applicable to present culture and lifestyle. The old values are still there, but just aren't so widely accepted as they once were (and yes there were some odd values such as stonings, but the New Testament wiped that one off as being unacceptable, thanks to good ol' JC).

I'm not sure if iamsickofyear12 was referring to formal bible revision gatherings or simply the fact that a lot of religious morons reinterpret it as they see fit in order to justify whatever it is they're up to. This portion of your essay is probably wasted if that's the case, as it seems like something of a throw away line.

A lot of people such as yourself say that it's hypocritcal for the Bible's interpretation to change so much due to scientific discovery and the like, but my rebutle to that is that scientific theories themselves are changed in interpretation due to later discoveries, and no one seems to have any beef with that. A prime example would be interpretations of the nature of evolution. A tonne of scientists got it wrong but they are commended for adding to its understanding. I don't see how this should differ much from interpretations of the Bible. Recent studies in DNA have caused huge changes in evolutionary theory, and yet have caused no such changes in interpretation of the Bible. There's an example where interpretation of biological science changes and that of the Bible does not. It's not so ridiculous then. We accept new interpretations of science, why can we not do the same for Christianity? I can't find a new interpretation of the Bible outside the confines of the old beliefs.

I think the difference is that it's accepted that science is something that develops and becomes more refined as it goes, whereas the bible has been presented, from the start, as the ultimate truth. You may be comfortable with the idea that your faith hinges upon a book which needs to be periodically adjusted so that it maintains at least some contact with reality, whilst others will find this ridiculous.

And that's that. If you've read through that, then thanks. I'm proud of it. I'm not a religious kook but I hate it when people rag on religions because they're like old men. They're strict, were all the rage way back when, don't easily fit in to today's culture and are incapable of successfully defending themselves. But they're still cool, you just gotta see it

After defending it, it sounds like you're now describing religion as extraneous. Just an observation, obviously that's not what you intended, just after defending it, your post takes an inconsistent tone here.