Do Not Blame Muslims!

[gaffo]

The first inherent problem with Islam is to claim that everyone is inherently Islamic in nature, and that they must all be brought back to Islam. Therein lies conflict. No other Abrahamic religion claims that sort of universality in nature. Sure, Christianity tries to 'save' non believers, but never makes claims to everyone being a Christian at their very origin.

you do not know of Judiasm and its theology of Noahide Law then.


it is the same in mindset as Islam.

[gaffo]

The first inherent problem with Islam is to claim that everyone is inherently Islamic in nature, and that they must all be brought back to Islam. Therein lies conflict. No other Abrahamic religion claims that sort of universality in nature. Sure, Christianity tries to 'save' non believers, but never makes claims to everyone being a Christian at their very origin.

Agree.
In fact, no other religion claims that.

so you as ignorant of Judaism.

interesting.

[Dalek Prime]

The first inherent problem with Islam is to claim that everyone is inherently Islamic in nature, and that they must all be brought back to Islam. Therein lies conflict. No other Abrahamic religion claims that sort of universality in nature. Sure, Christianity tries to 'save' non believers, but never makes claims to everyone being a Christian at their very origin.

you do not know of Judiasm and its theology of Noahide Law then.


it is the same in mindset as Islam.

Actions are louder than words.

[gaffo]

The first inherent problem with Islam is to claim that everyone is inherently Islamic in nature, and that they must all be brought back to Islam. Therein lies conflict. No other Abrahamic religion claims that sort of universality in nature. Sure, Christianity tries to 'save' non believers, but never makes claims to everyone being a Christian at their very origin.

you do not know of Judiasm and its theology of Noahide Law then.


it is the same in mindset as Islam.

Actions are louder than words.

I agree, and if .0001 of the Population is Judiac, their actions can have little effect - good or ill.

unlike Muslims who make up .25 percent of the population.


.....................


but i note your deflection.

you claimed that only Muslims had the "we are all muslims at heart" - I called you out on this.

do you NOW affirm you were ignorant of Judaic theology (that it is identical to Islam)?

knowing NOW of the Noahide (that you clearly did not know about when you posted earlier making your claim about only Muslims blah blah blah), do you affirm my assertion sir?


https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... gLFhfD_BwE

[Dalek Prime]

you do not know of Judiasm and its theology of Noahide Law then.


it is the same in mindset as Islam.

Actions are louder than words.

I agree, and if .0001 of the Population is Judiac, their actions can have little effect - good or ill.

unlike Muslims who make up .25 percent of the population.


.....................


but i note your deflection.

you claimed that only Muslims had the "we are all muslims at heart" - I called you out on this.

do you NOW affirm you were ignorant of Judaic theology (that it is identical to Islam)?

knowing NOW of the Noahide (that you clearly did not know about when you posted earlier making your claim about only Muslims blah blah blah), do you affirm my assertion sir?


https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... gLFhfD_BwE

Not really, because they do not assert that I must come into a fold, but rather that a standard of morality should be met for the sake of survival, which is a secular truism as well. We live with a social contract as humans we should minimally abide. And that, for it's time, was the minimum. They do not require subservience to their faith that Islam requires.

And don't assume what I know. I know that my many friends are Jewish, and that they have required nothing of me save my friendship, as is true of Christian's as well. But I have a particularly close relationship with Judaism from my past dealings. They have always been a grace to my life.

[gaffo]

ok, valid post from you. i agree with it.

why do you think Islam is the outler? why do you think it's view is outside of the Noahide one?

we are talking about Islam overall here BTW - not Wahhabism.

the latter is the same a Hasidism, Pentocostelism (tribal - narrow minded, intolarent).

[Veritas Aequitas]

ok, valid post from you. i agree with it.

why do you think Islam is the outler? why do you think it's view is outside of the Noahide one?

we are talking about Islam overall here BTW - not Wahhabism.

the latter is the same a Hasidism, Pentocostelism (tribal - narrow minded, intolarent).

Re Wahhabism and its implication, note this point I posted in the other thread;

It is very critical to differentiate the ideology of Islam from its believers, i.e. Muslims.
Do you agree on this?

Other than the minimal good global elements, the point is the ethos/core of of Islam is embedded with a very evil ideology.
Problem is the ideology of Islam is immutable and is contractually enforceable on ALL Muslims, or else it is punishment in eternal Hell. Thus there is no room for reforming Islam completely to the normal moral standards.
Wahhabism and Salafism focus on the core ideology of Islam and mainly on that which is a divine duty and 'good' to them but 'evil' for humanity.
Therefore one cannot compromise with Islam the ideology because that would be complicit in promoting the inherent core evil ideology held on strongly by a certain % of Muslims.

Note if only 20% of Muslims adopt something like the Wahhabi or Salafi views, then we have 300 million of them. The higher probability is a large % >50% agree to some shades of Wahhabism or certain elements that are likely to cause evil acts.
Note a mere lone wolf is capable of terrible evil acts and violence, 18++ to do a 911, what do you think a pool of 300 [~] million can and will do.
This reality is already glaringly evidence since Islam emerged to the present and it will be worst in the future.

[Age]

Define the ideology of islam in the shortest amount of words possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Define the ideology of islam in the shortest amount of words possible.

The ideology of Islam is conditioned by its constitution, i.e. the immutable words of Allah stated within the Quran.



A Muslim is a person who has entered [explicitly or impliedly] into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah in exchange for promises and all the terms are stipulated in the Quran.

It is as easy as that.

The critical point here is once a person has entered into a contract with another party [in this case Allah] the believer must comply with the terms of the contract [as in the immutable Quran] fully without exception*.
* the Quran has the clause; within the person's ability.
Thus a physically handicapped person need not go to war to fight non-believers but nevertheless must provide moral, financial or other kinds of support.

Therefore if the terms of the contract include killing non-believers within circumstances, then the believer must carry out that term to fulfill his/her obligation to be entitled to the promised rewards of eternal life in heaven laden with sensual delights.

[Dalek Prime]

ok, valid post from you. i agree with it.

why do you think Islam is the outler? why do you think it's view is outside of the Noahide one?

we are talking about Islam overall here BTW - not Wahhabism.

the latter is the same a Hasidism, Pentocostelism (tribal - narrow minded, intolarent).

I am not distinguishiing between sects of Islam. I am speaking of it from a historical perspective of conquest and blood. Its founder grounded it in such, and that is its legacy today. Yes, I am keenly aware of he blood and conquest of other faiths. But not in their roots. Yeshua shed his own blood. Mohammed, his enemies.

[Age]

Define the ideology of islam in the shortest amount of words possible.

The ideology of Islam is conditioned by its constitution, i.e. the immutable words of Allah stated within the Quran.



A Muslim is a person who has entered [explicitly or impliedly] into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah in exchange for promises and all the terms are stipulated in the Quran.

It is as easy as that.

To make it even easier and simpler for you to understand. I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means peace. And, 'muslim', literally, means follower of peace.

Therefore, the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE is a follower of, what leads to, peace.

Do you find any thing wrong with that?

The critical point here is once a person has entered into a contract with another party [in this case Allah] the believer must comply with the terms of the contract [as in the immutable Quran] fully without exception*.

Have you ever thought about, that the person/persons who wrote the quran could have misconstrued and/or misinterpreted what was being inspired in some way?

In fact could you in any way misconstrue or misinterpret any thing you hear or read?

Have you ever heard of game played by children called chinese whispers or telephone?

* the Quran has the clause; within the person's ability.
Thus a physically handicapped person need not go to war to fight non-believers but nevertheless must provide moral, financial or other kinds of support.

You have to be able to clearly and succinctly be able to define 'person' accurately and correctly in order to not misinterpret or misconstrue that clause.

Therefore if the terms of the contract include killing non-believers within circumstances, then the believer must carry out that term to fulfill his/her obligation to be entitled to the promised rewards of eternal life in heaven laden with sensual delights.

What exactly is a believer and a non-believer?

And, what exactly are they believing or not believing in?

By the way, it is extremely easy and simple to kill a non-believer without ever harming or hurting any human body in any way, shape or form.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Define the ideology of islam in the shortest amount of words possible.

The ideology of Islam is conditioned by its constitution, i.e. the immutable words of Allah stated within the Quran.



A Muslim is a person who has entered [explicitly or impliedly] into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah in exchange for promises and all the terms are stipulated in the Quran.

It is as easy as that.

To make it even easier and simpler for you to understand. I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means peace. And, 'muslim', literally, means follower of peace.

Therefore, the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE is a follower of, what leads to, peace.

Do you find any thing wrong with that?

The above interpretation 'Islam is a religion of peace' does not align with the ethos of Islam and that is a very dangerous proposition.
This is like insisting a seemingly tame tiger is friendly and not dangerous while ignoring the inherent beastly nature of that tiger.
Many supposedly tame animals, tigers, lions, chimpanzees, bears, kept as pets which at most time were 'friendly' etc. had turned on and killed their owners and others.

With Islam, one must understand the various aspects of its inherent nature. One nature of Islam is, it is inherently evil.
If you believe Islam is peaceful because the majority of Muslims are peaceful then you are ignoring the inherent evil nature of Islam.
The clue is so glaring with the regular evidences of the terrible evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who quoted verses from the Quran to justify their acts of evil which they claim is a divine duty.

True there is an element of 'peace of mind' re Islam for those who are Muslims who submit but 'piece' in the sense of pieces of body parts for non-Muslims and humanity.

You have heard but unfortunately you do not seem to have read the Quran [core of Islam] thoroughly.

Note this! [you could have easily read this before trying to educate me]

Islam (Arabic: إسلام‎, IPA: [alʔɪsˈlaːm] (About this sound listen)) is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root S-L-M which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace.[44]

In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[45][46]

Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender".

Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means "submitter" or "one who surrenders".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

I hope you get educated from the above [not me] and if you are not convinced read the Quran thoroughly.

To submit to Allah and qualify as a Muslim, a person must enter into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah via the terms and conditions stipulated solely within the Quran.
The terms and conditions within the Quran represent the ideology of Islam which contains loads of evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts and violence on non-Muslim.

The critical point here is once a person has entered into a contract with another party [in this case Allah] the believer must comply with the terms of the contract [as in the immutable Quran] fully without exception*.

Have you ever thought about, that the person/persons who wrote the quran could have misconstrued and/or misinterpreted what was being inspired in some way?

In fact could you in any way misconstrue or misinterpret any thing you hear or read?

Have you ever heard of game played by children called chinese whispers or telephone?

The Quran was supposedly put in writing >30 years after the death of Muhammad from oral transmission via memory.
Obviously the errors & corruption re Chinese Whisper would have taken effect and different from whatever was the original.

God is an impossibility to be real.
Thus there is no such thing as an inspiration from a God in relation to the Quran or any theistic texts.
Thus the so-called present Quran intact from the beginning was compiled by humans from human thoughts and not from a God.

It is strongly argued [by opposing scholars] there was no such person named Muhammad as described in the Quran. The Quran was compiled by a group of men who wanted to control the masses [using religion] and drive their imperialistic intents [incorporating political elements into the religion].

As far as Islam is concerned, what is Islam is represented in the supposedly intact and immutable Quran which is the same at present as it was 1400 years ago backed up by a copy in Paradise in God's possession.

* the Quran has the clause; within the person's ability.
Thus a physically handicapped person need not go to war to fight non-believers but nevertheless must provide moral, financial or other kinds of support.

You have to be able to clearly and succinctly be able to define 'person' accurately and correctly in order to not misinterpret or misconstrue that clause.

Per the Quran, it is up to Allah to judge ultimately.
It is so obvious, if a person has lost two legs, how can that person fight effectively in a war then 1400 years ago.

Therefore if the terms of the contract include killing non-believers within circumstances, then the believer must carry out that term to fulfill his/her obligation to be entitled to the promised rewards of eternal life in heaven laden with sensual delights.

What exactly is a believer and a non-believer?

And, what exactly are they believing or not believing in?

By the way, it is extremely easy and simple to kill a non-believer without ever harming or hurting any human body in any way, shape or form.

That is the point.
You are asking the above because you are ignorant of what is in the Quran.
Who is a believer as a Muslim is defined very clearly in the Quran.

You cannot simply shoot from the hip [based on ignorance], to be intellectually fair, you need to read the Quran to counter my views of the Quran and Islam.

Do you agree with this?
The ideology of Islam is conditioned by its constitution, i.e. the immutable words of Allah stated within the Quran.

A Muslim is a person who has entered [explicitly or impliedly] into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah in exchange for promises then must comply with all the terms are stipulated in the Quran and SUBMIT to Allah.

The central meaning of Islam is 'submission' or 'surrender'.
Islam = peace is secondary and only confined to Muslims only and no peace is reserved for non-Muslims.

[henry quirk]

A whole lot of energy goes into dissecting Islam, to prove 'this' or dispute 'that'.

Question: if a cult arose wherein the cultists kill folks claiming Santa commands they, the cultists, cleanse the world of 'the naughty', which is the more sensible approach...

*...spend endless hours trying to understand the Santa cultists?

*...end the motherfuckers as quickly and directly as possible?

Seems to me the proper answer is apparent.

[HexHammer]

PRIMARY focus should be on the ideology of Islam.

True, in the bible it speaks of a false prophet that gives the image it's power and will make it speak, a wolf in sheep's clothing that speaks like a dragon.

[Age]

The ideology of Islam is conditioned by its constitution, i.e. the immutable words of Allah stated within the Quran.



A Muslim is a person who has entered [explicitly or impliedly] into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah in exchange for promises and all the terms are stipulated in the Quran.

It is as easy as that.

To make it even easier and simpler for you to understand. I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means peace. And, 'muslim', literally, means follower of peace.

Therefore, the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE is a follower of, what leads to, peace.

Do you find any thing wrong with that?

The above interpretation 'Islam is a religion of peace' does not align with the ethos of Islam and that is a very dangerous proposition.

There was NO interpretation from me. I said, "I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means peace.

The only interpretation being made here comes from you. What do you now say is 'the ethos of islam'? and how does this differ from 'the ideology of islam'? Just changing words, and then trying to fit those new words into your already held position, some times does more damage to your argument then good.

And, how are the words 'islam is a religion of peace', which by the way is NOT what I said nor wrote but rather what you said or wrote, a supposedly very dangerous position? Dangerous to what exactly? I may ask you. It could be said that it is extremely dangerous to you and your strongly held position because it is completely opposes what you propose and believe.

This is like insisting a seemingly tame tiger is friendly and not dangerous while ignoring the inherent beastly nature of that tiger.
Many supposedly tame animals, tigers, lions, chimpanzees, bears, kept as pets which at most time were 'friendly' etc. had turned on and killed their owners and others.

I did NOT insist any thing. You, however, have made an interpretation based on you assuming some thing, which you are now trying to insist.

What you have written here about non-human animals also has nothing to do whatsoever with what I am saying, and meaning.

By the way by just saying ignoring the inherent beastly nature of a animal does NOT in any true way infer that the inherent nature of islam is evil in any way, shape, nor form. Just because you believe it is so does not make it so.

Also, dogs have turned on their owners, and others, and killed them. But what has that got to do with anything about a discussion of what is the ideology of islam?

You are trying to argue that ideology of islam is inherently evil. I said what I have heard.

With Islam, one must understand the various aspects of its inherent nature. One nature of Islam is, it is inherently evil.

Is that the ultimate and indisputable truth?

Or, is that just yours, and few others, interpretation of 'islam'. I have already said what i have heard and that is the word 'islam', literally, means peace. If that word does mean that or not is another matter. I just looked in a dictionary, one of countless many, and it said that the word islam is related to salam, which in engish means peace. So not to sure how you came to the conclusion that the nature of islam, which is related to salam, or peace in english, is inherently evil. From my perspective your leap of one religion related to peace being inherently evil seems to have some ulterior motive behind it.

Do you somewhat detest or do not like the islam religion? If yes, then why so?

Whatever answer you give I will always bring you back to the point that the ideology behind a word that is related to peace is peace. If a human being, however, construes or wants to construe a word, or the ideology behind that word, in a different way, then so be it. There is nothing I can do about that.

If you believe Islam is peaceful because the majority of Muslims are peaceful then you are ignoring the inherent evil nature of Islam.

Why would you come up with such a foolhardy statement as, "If you believe ..." based on me saying, "I have heard ..."?

Me hearing what another says certainly does NOT lead me to believe any thing.

Jumping to a conclusion of any thing, like for example what you proposed here, based on an uncountable number of scenarios is truly amazing, but then jumping from that to that must conclude the indisputable fact that there IS the inherent evil nature of islam. You are jumping from completely foolish made up imaginary and assumed scenario to make a final and complete other made up imaginary and assumed conclusion.

Tell me how it is possible that the inherent nature of the word islam, which is based upon or related to the word salam, which, literally, means peace in english, can be inherently evil in nature?

Is it possible that you are looking from a misconstrued or distorted viewpoint?

Could it be possible that your non-islamic upbringing has skewed your now views and beliefs?

Or, are you foolish enough to say that you could not be skewed in any way, shape, or form?

The clue is so glaring with the regular evidences of the terrible evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who quoted verses from the Quran to justify their acts of evil which they claim is a divine duty.

Are you so blind not to see that all acts of terrible evil, from ALL people, are "justified" in some way, shape, or form? That is, only justified to the one doing the evil act. The very fact that a person has to some how "justify" any act at all, evil or wrong, before they can actually do it is enough evidence that any and all people who do wrong and commit violence try to justify their actions. What do you use to try to justify your wrong, violent, and/or evil acts?

Or, are you going to try to suggest that you do not do wrong?

True there is an element of 'peace of mind' re Islam for those who are Muslims who submit but 'piece' in the sense of pieces of body parts for non-Muslims and humanity.

Was that an attempt at some sort of humor?

You have heard but unfortunately you do not seem to have read the Quran [core of Islam] thoroughly.

Do you read with pure, open and unadulterated eyes?

Or, do you read with prejudiced and already altered states of views?

If it is the former, then please let us all on how you can possibly do this.

Note this! [you could have easily read this before trying to educate me]

Did I try to educate you?

Or, did i just write some words down to evoke a reaction in you?

Islam (Arabic: إسلام‎, IPA: [alʔɪsˈlaːm] (About this sound listen)) is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root S-L-M which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace.[44]

In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[45][46]

Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender".

Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means "submitter" or "one who surrenders".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

That was about more or less what i said, which was, "I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means peace. And, 'muslim', literally, means follower of peace".

To me, roughly, what this says here is that the word islam is of a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace. I certainly do NOT see any thing that remotely relates to evil, bad, nor wrong. I am not sure why you put this here or what you are wanting me to see.

If, however, you now want to talk about God, by the way, then God is usually more associated with peace then it is with evil also. And, to submit or surrender to 'God', a usually more associated to peace being, rather than an evil being, then following a God or peace, or submitting to a God or peace, or surrendering to a God or peace, sounds way more inherently peaceful, than inherently evil does. Well to me anyway. You may think and see differently.

I hope you get educated from the above [not me] and if you are not convinced read the Quran thoroughly.

What is it in the above that you want me to see and get educated about exactly. Again, to me, it states, roughly, that the word 'islam' is in a class of words relating to concepts of oneness, safeness, peacefulness, and submitting to, or being with that, oneness, safeness, and peacefulness.

What is in the quran that leads you to believe that the ideology of islam is inherently evil in nature? I certainly do not see anything in your use of wikipedia.

I did not see any thing in that one wikipedia interpretation that lead me to see any thing evil. Also, I do not get educated from one dictionary nor from one source of information. Do you believe wikipedia is the end all of and for ALL information and knowledge?

Also, what was it exactly you were hoping i would see and get educated from in that one snippet from wikipedia?

To submit to Allah and qualify as a Muslim, a person must enter into a covenant [spiritual contract] with Allah via the terms and conditions stipulated solely within the Quran.

I know that is what you said before.

The terms and conditions within the Quran represent the ideology of Islam which contains loads of evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts and violence on non-Muslim.

Why do you not name some or at least one of these supposed evil elements?

Have you yet even considered that it could be your interpretation of some thing, which may well of been intended as truly pure and good, that is what is evil, itself? Or, is it not possible that you have any sort of incorrect, wrong, or evil, interpretation?

Do you know what the original intended message was in the quran and the ideology behind it?

What is an evil prone muslim?

Are only musliims evil prone?

Are you prone to evil, or is that not even possible?

Have you ever thought about, that the person/persons who wrote the quran could have misconstrued and/or misinterpreted what was being inspired in some way?

In fact could you in any way misconstrue or misinterpret any thing you hear and/or read?



So, to you it is very obvious that errors and corruption would have taken effect from the original true nature of islam, is that correct?



If you say so.

So, what is this thing that you say is supposedly impossible to be real?

And, if a thing is not even possible to be real, then why even bring it up and talk about it?



Who said any thing about being inspired from a God? I certainly did not.

And, just because you believe some thing is not possible to be real, then that in and of itself does NOT mean that it is factual. What actual evidence do you have that God is impossible to be real, and for, thus there is no such things as an inspiration from that non-possible thing? Did you just write this to try to override or try to ignore the fact that you just agreed to, in writing, that obviously errors and corruption would have taken effect from the true nature of the quran?

If errors and corruption have actually taken effect and are different from whatever was the true nature of the original message of the quran, then how can you be so positively sure that the inherent nature of islam, and/or the quran, is evil?

If any person writes some thing down, the writing does not just come from a human hand moving unintentionally nor uncontrollably. The hand is being controlled and moving in a certain way and shape to form certain characters to produce what is usually known as words, which I suggest would have been inspired. Inspired from somewhere or something. What that inspiror is or where it comes from is for another discussion, for later on. What inspires you to think the words you do, and then say them or write them down?

Or, do you have absolutely no idea why you say and do what you do? Are you just another human being going through life just repeating what it sees, hears, and thinks?



Great conclusion you have decided upon, and pure knowledge intended for all human beings, I guess you now want them to know and follow. There was not really that much thought that went into your logic was there, and was your logic completely sound and valid all the way through? Let us take a look;

P1. God is an impossibility to be real. (What this truly insightful peace of knowledge that you have obtained and is based upon? Is it only known by you).
p2. There is no such thing as an inspiration from a God. (Which is sort of completely and utterly totally obvious, if there is no possibility of a God in the first place).
C. All compiled work by humans comes from human thoughts. (and not from that thing that is supposedly an impossibility, which if no one has noticed, this speaks for itself, in many ways, by the way.)

So, your whole argument is that all work compiled by humans comes from human thoughts, which i also conclude is correct. But I did not need two completely absurd premises to arrive at the fact that any work compiled by humans comes from human thought. This fact, by the way, still does not bring you any closer to arguing that the ideology of islam is inherently evil in nature.

Anyway, are these truly inspired words coming from you, or are they just inspired words by you, or, are they not inspired at all and are just words from or by you, or are they just something else or something else completely different?

Take as long as you want to think about that, and work it out. Just let us know if you want more time to answer it.

Do you now want your logical and conclusive works, to you, to be followed as absolute truths by all human beings. Do you now want all human beings to follow, submit, and/or surrender to you, and your inspirations or inspired works?

Or are these compiled works down by human thought just that, human thought, which from the very beginning to the present work appear completely skew-if.

Or, do you want people to keep looking for the actual and real truth of things?



Is a 'strong' argument the same as a 'sound, valid' argument?

I will give you a clue, one is true, the other may or may not be true.



And what is the intention behind the compilation of the words by one, "Thus the so-called present Quran intact from the beginning was compiled by humans from human thoughts and not from a God."?

Was the purpose of those words compiled by a group of one intended to control, educate, or enlighten any thing?

As far as Islam is concerned, what is Islam is represented in the supposedly intact and immutable Quran which is the same at present as it was 1400 years ago backed up by a copy in Paradise in God's possession.




You have just proven how much you can skew what is written. I said more or less you have to be able to clearly and succinctly be able to define 'PERSON' accurately and correctly ....

You then went on, for reasons only known to you, about it is so obvious if a person looses a leg or two ... This has absolutely nothing at all about what was in clear and obvious printed words in front of those eyes. The evidence is here for all to see just how much you can misconstrue what is actually written in front of you. This example is shown just in a few words, imagine how much you can be led astray by your own prejudiced and wrong views when you have to read a few more than just what is written here, like a whole book for example.



How absolutely sure of this are you?



And, just so I get that answer as absolutely correctly and knowingly as you KNOW it, how about you just spell it out for us all here and now?

By the way, I did NOT ask Who is a believer as a muslim is. I asked the actual two questions that I actually asked you.



The only view you have expressed here is that 'the ideology of islam is inherently evil', which by the way you did not read in the quran but rather that is the interpretation that you gain from the words in the quran. This evident fact is very easily seen by your own words, which are based on the very fact that you have not yet displayed once shred of evidence that the ideology of islam is inherently evil. You just believe they are. Your own beliefs are not necessarily fact, and continually insisting others NEED to read the quran to counter your views is not necessarily true, either.

Beliefs, by their very nature, can not be countered. Based on your beliefs, no matter who has the read the quran and what is posed to you, you will not even look at what is posed, let alone you ever considering it. Your beliefs are blatantly and glaringly obviously set in stone, as they say. You have solidly stated that the 'ideology of islam is inherently evil' and you believe that is the truth with all the conviction that you can muster up, so no matter what is laid out in front of you and how true or not that is, you are not even prepared to look at it in the way that it is presented.

The only evidence you have shown for your belief and conviction is your already held prejudiced and distorted views of truth and reality. Your already gained prejudiced views is the only evidence that you have to show for your own distorted beliefs.




Hang on, I asked you two very simple questions, which you very quickly dismissed and did not even touch on, but now you expect me to answer your questions. You even tried to side step my questions by not even looking at them and trying to be completely ignorant of them by going down some well worn path that the "other" is ignorant. The only things people are ignorant to, and want to be ignorant to, is your own distorted views and beliefs. Show some evidence and proof for those views that you dearly love to hold onto. Do not just keep repeating the view.

A few seconds ago you said there is no such thing as inspired by God, which can also be translated as there is no such thing as the words, Immutable or not, of Allah. But now you want me to answer a question posed about the ideology of some thing that is the immutable words of Allah. To you, is there any book ever written by the words of Allah, or is there not?

If your answer is there is not, then why ask this question? If some thing does not exist, then why talk about it and worse still even ask questions in relation to it? If some thing does not exist, then it does not exist. End of story. Full stop. Get it?

By the way i also said, "By the way, it is extremely easy and simple to kill a non-believer without ever harming or hurting any human body in any way, shape or form." You completely ignored this also. Obviously you did not want to touch on this fact as well.

Anyway, to answer your question, I agree that the ideology of some thing, including islam, could be conditioned by its constitution. What some thing is actually constituted by I guess fairly well conditions what the ideology of that thing is, so I do not see islam being much different than just about every thing else, if not all. As to whether the words of God being immutable, and having already been written down some where, without ever having been corrupted or in error by human beings, then that is another discussion for another time, which obviously you would not want to get involved in due to your immutable words and belief that God is an impossibility to be real, or ever existing.



So what?

If any contract that stipulates any thing is entered into to by any person, then that is just what it is. That does not in any way mean that the contract is inherently evil. Did you forget that you have to include what evidence you have the the ideology of islam is inherently evil, and not just keep producing your beliefs that you think/know the ideology of islam is inherently evil? By continually just keep thinking and saying it is does NOT mean that it is. The only one you are fooling is you.

If you want others to believe what you do, then show some evidence, but what is more important, that is if you want to learn more, be open to others feedback.




You keep going on more about the meaning of islam being submission and/or surrender. Do you think submitting and/or surrendering to peace, instead of its opposite war, is somehow inherently evil or wrong?

Islam = peace is secondary and only confined to Muslims only and no peace is reserved for non-Muslims.

Hang on, you started this by trying to argue that the ideology of islam is inherently evil, but now you are saying that islam = peace, and that is secondary. How can an attempt at arguing for the premise that the ideology of islam is inherently evil but then come to the conclusion that islam = peace, and then use the words that that IS SECONDARY, as if that is ONLY secondary to the discussion?

You then go on dismissively, and ignorantly by the way, to then suggest that peace is only confined to muslims only and that no peace is reserved for non-muslims. You truly have skewed the quran beyond recognition of its intended purpose. But please do NOT feel alone. You are NOT the only one to do this. In fact even from since the actual people who wrote the quran the intended message has been lost in misinterpretation and translation.

I have already suggested that it is extremely easy to kill a non-believer or non-muslim without ever injuring a single human body. In fact it is just as simple and as easy to kill a believer and a muslim as it is to kill a non-believer and non-muslim, and each time without ever harming nor hurting a single part of any single human body. Does this quell any interest in you this time?

Or, is it just to much to think about, and question?

I have already suggested how you have to be able to clearly and succinctly be able to define 'person' accurately and correctly before you could even begin to understand the quran, and other things, fully. You also need to be able to define 'believer', 'non-believer', 'muslim', 'non-muslim' correctly before you could even begin to start the read the quran correctly and accurately. In fact there are lot of things you need to be able to define and know what they truly are before you can even begin to look at see things correctly and accurately.