Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Gary Childress]

Don't give those excuses.

My approach is to critique the evil and violent elements from the ideology of Islam because it is so evident such elements has and is inspiring SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers as evident below;


What is so bigotry about that since I am relying of evidence and facts.
If you do not agree just give me counter arguments to show otherwise instead of jumping to make stupid judgments.

How many of those "terror attacks" on your "tracker" are attacks by Muslims against other Muslims?

There are Muslims [deemed apostates, hypocrites as enemies] killed in that list.
The fact that Muslims kill their own kind driven by their ideology will only reinforced my argument in showing how crazy and evil the ideology is.

Well. Maybe you are right. I don't like violence, so if Islam is a violent ideology, then it sounds like it is best to discourage belief in it. Of course, I have never been in a situation where preserving my life depended upon doing violence, either. If I were ever to find myself in such a situation--where I had to either fight back or die--I don't know if I would remain nonviolent. So it's difficult for me to judge the beliefs of others harshly who do turn to violence (if it is because they have been pushed to an existential limit where they must fight or die). I don't know if that is the case with everyone in the ME who is using violence or not. I do know that right now many people in the ME are living in horrible times. Many of them (even women and children) are indeed facing existential threats and those existential threats can maybe be tied to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by my country, the United States. Therefore I find it very difficult to judge the beliefs of people in the ME (most of whom practice Islamic faith) harshly.


I hope you can understand my hesitation to judge the beliefs of others harshly in the aftermath of a great injustice done by leaders of my own country to those people.

[Age]

Well. Maybe you are right. I don't like violence, so if Islam is a violent ideology, then it sounds like it is best to discourage belief in it. Of course, I have never been in a situation where preserving my life depended upon doing violence, either. If I were ever to find myself in such a situation--where I had to either fight back or die--I don't know if I would remain nonviolent. So it's difficult for me to judge the beliefs of others harshly who do turn to violence (if it is because they have been pushed to an existential limit where they must fight or die). I don't know if that is the case with everyone in the ME who is using violence or not. I do know that right now many people in the ME are living in horrible times. Many of them (even women and children) are indeed facing existential threats and those existential threats can maybe be tied to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by my country, the United States. Therefore I find it very difficult to judge the beliefs of people in the ME (most of whom practice Islamic faith) harshly.


I hope you can understand my hesitation to judge the beliefs of others harshly in the aftermath of a great injustice done by leaders of my own country to those people.

The word 'islam' literally means, or derives from the word, Peace.
The word 'muslim' closely relates to meaning follower.
So, a 'muslim' is just a person who follows Peace.

The ideology of the quran is Peace and to be a follower of Peace.
This can be clearly seen within the quran, when read from a perspective.

The True intention behind the quran, and ALL religious texts, are the exact same, when read from a perspective.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, what is seen and understood, within, and from, ANY thing, is solely depended upon the one looking at it, that is; thee observer.

What is relayed from that observer, the person, is depended upon on how they view things, and obviously from what they have thus seen. What a person sees is not necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This is because of how they view things, and, how a person views things is very depended on past experiences. Unless a person has only had perfect past experiences, then obviously they will have non-perfect views, which then also obviously distort how they then see things.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it. Or, if that one is not around anymore then that True intention can NEVER be known. The closest, however, to discovering the True intention/ideology of any writing is if EVERY one is in agreement on what the True intention or ideology is. Until then, no matter what any person proposes, it is just an assumption of what the True intention/ideology IS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How many of those "terror attacks" on your "tracker" are attacks by Muslims against other Muslims?

There are Muslims [deemed apostates, hypocrites as enemies] killed in that list.
The fact that Muslims kill their own kind driven by their ideology will only reinforced my argument in showing how crazy and evil the ideology is.

Well. Maybe you are right. I don't like violence, so if Islam is a violent ideology, then it sounds like it is best to discourage belief in it. Of course, I have never been in a situation where preserving my life depended upon doing violence, either. If I were ever to find myself in such a situation--where I had to either fight back or die--I don't know if I would remain nonviolent. So it's difficult for me to judge the beliefs of others harshly who do turn to violence (if it is because they have been pushed to an existential limit where they must fight or die). I don't know if that is the case with everyone in the ME who is using violence or not. I do know that right now many people in the ME are living in horrible times. Many of them (even women and children) are indeed facing existential threats and those existential threats can maybe be tied to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by my country, the United States. Therefore I find it very difficult to judge the beliefs of people in the ME (most of whom practice Islamic faith) harshly.

I hope you can understand my hesitation to judge the beliefs of others harshly in the aftermath of a great injustice done by leaders of my own country to those people.

I agree it would be wiser not to be hasty in judgment especially if it is negative.

Your evidence is restricted to the US intervention in Iraq and ME. Since this is so narrow and shallow, you need to loosen up a bit more with your judgment till you have more wider and deeper knowledge and evidence.

You will note in History, the US has intervened and messed up with many countries in the past but there is no serious global reactions such as those from Islam majority countries.
Wherever they are Muslims any where in the World, they will chant 'Death to America' even where the US has not intervened in their affairs.
Even with other countries intervening and conquering other Nations there are no serious issues, note China and Tibet. But there is simmering big global issue coming up with China and Xinjang - a majority Muslim state of China.
In addition, where there are Muslims there are always political problems on a global scale, note Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines, and elsewhere.

The clue is quite obvious, i.e. it has something to do with the ideology of Islam.

I have already provided much evidences from the Quran and actual Islamic based evil and violent acts.

I don't think my views can be more effective from here except you have to widen and deepen your knowledge on Islam and its influences on the real Islamic-based evil and violent acts to form more sound conclusions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The word 'islam' literally means, or derives from the word, Peace.
The word 'muslim' closely relates to meaning follower.
So, a 'muslim' is just a person who follows Peace.

The ideology of the quran is Peace and to be a follower of Peace.
This can be clearly seen within the quran, when read from a perspective.

The True intention behind the quran, and ALL religious texts, are the exact same, when read from a perspective.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, what is seen and understood, within, and from, ANY thing, is solely depended upon the one looking at it, that is; thee observer.

What is relayed from that observer, the person, is depended upon on how they view things, and obviously from what they have thus seen. What a person sees is not necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This is because of how they view things, and, how a person views things is very depended on past experiences. Unless a person has only had perfect past experiences, then obviously they will have non-perfect views, which then also obviously distort how they then see things.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it. Or, if that one is not around anymore then that True intention can NEVER be known. The closest, however, to discovering the True intention/ideology of any writing is if EVERY one is in agreement on what the True intention or ideology is. Until then, no matter what any person proposes, it is just an assumption of what the True intention/ideology IS.

You are misleading and telling lies.
Note this
viewtopic.php?p=386622#p386622
with your misleading definition of what is Islam.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it.

With a theistic ideology, there is no true intention of any true entity with intention.

Thus what is the true intention can be inferred rationally from the contents of the accepted holy texts that the believers believe to be true.
I have already proven there are loads on evil and violent elements in the Quran [core of Islam] that exhort believes to act accordingly as their divine duty.
The consequences of their divine duty results in evil and violent acts committed on non-believers merely because they disbelieve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From your answer I take it you don't understand where I'm coming from. That's fine. You do you. Just don't try to tell me what I should do or believe. I'll go with what my conscience and mind tells me based on my experiences. We all seem to have different experiences in the world that guide our beliefs. Mine appear to be different than yours. Have a good day.

I am not telling you what you should believe.
Note you were accusing me as a bigot [directly or indirectly]. My point is whatever you believe, engaging or accuse someone in a discussion it need to be supported by wider and deeper source of knowledge. This is an intellectual default not my command.

It is the same with your next discussion with anyone else. One should be intellectual responsible to rely on extensive knowledge to form one's beliefs.

[Gary Childress]

From your answer I take it you don't understand where I'm coming from. That's fine. You do you. Just don't try to tell me what I should do or believe. I'll go with what my conscience and mind tells me based on my experiences. We all seem to have different experiences in the world that guide our beliefs. Mine appear to be different than yours. Have a good day.

I am not telling you what you should believe.
Note you were accusing me as a bigot [directly or indirectly]. My point is whatever you believe, engaging or accuse someone in a discussion it need to be supported by wider and deeper source of knowledge. This is an intellectual default not my command.

It is the same with your next discussion with anyone else. One should be intellectual responsible to rely on extensive knowledge to form one's beliefs.

I deleted my post which you cite above (before you responded to it) because I changed my mind and thought better of it. Just FYI.

[Age]

The word 'islam' literally means, or derives from the word, Peace.
The word 'muslim' closely relates to meaning follower.
So, a 'muslim' is just a person who follows Peace.

The ideology of the quran is Peace and to be a follower of Peace.
This can be clearly seen within the quran, when read from a perspective.

The True intention behind the quran, and ALL religious texts, are the exact same, when read from a perspective.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, what is seen and understood, within, and from, ANY thing, is solely depended upon the one looking at it, that is; thee observer.

What is relayed from that observer, the person, is depended upon on how they view things, and obviously from what they have thus seen. What a person sees is not necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This is because of how they view things, and, how a person views things is very depended on past experiences. Unless a person has only had perfect past experiences, then obviously they will have non-perfect views, which then also obviously distort how they then see things.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it. Or, if that one is not around anymore then that True intention can NEVER be known. The closest, however, to discovering the True intention/ideology of any writing is if EVERY one is in agreement on what the True intention or ideology is. Until then, no matter what any person proposes, it is just an assumption of what the True intention/ideology IS.

You are misleading and telling lies.
Note this
viewtopic.php?p=386622#p386622
with your misleading definition of what is Islam.

That is My INTERPRETATION, so how can IT be misleading?


I am allowed to share My INTERPRETATION. So, either take IT or leave IT.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it.

With a theistic ideology, there is no true intention of any true entity with intention.

You have contradicted your-own-self twice already today in other threads, and just now you have done it two more times here in this forum.
1. If there is NO true intention with a theistic ideology, then how can you profess to KNOW the true intended ideology of islam, which you continually do? You are NOT a believer, in islam, therefore you do NOT know. (But, you are a BELIEVER of many other DISTORTED things). You have NOT met a believer, in islam, who says that the ideology of islam is inherently evil and violence is the true intention of islam.
2. How can I be misleading and telling lies, as you state I am above, in my definition of what islam is? If, as you now say, there is NO true intention with a theistic ideology, then there can be NO thing to mislead on.

I have already expressed how I could NOT be misleading as I am just giving an INTERPRETATION, which is ALL of what you can do also, but to insist that I am misleading and lying is to portray some thing that is now NOT even possible, with your now BELIEF here.

Thus what is the true intention can be inferred rationally from the contents of the accepted holy texts that the believers believe to be true.

AND, 'you', veritas, are NOT a believer, therefore, according to your own so called "logic" would NOT know the "true intention", which I am more confused of now if you are saying there IS a true intention or there is NOT a true intention with a theistic ideology?

Maybe if you TRY TO find out exactly position you WANT to hold onto first, and then TRY TO argue for whatever position you decide to take, then you MIGHT make things more clear, for your self.

By the way I KNOW exactly WHERE, WHAT, and WHY you are SO VERY CONFUSED and so write accordingly. I just ask these clarifying questions, to you, KNOWING that if you answer them, then you WILL fall deeper into your own trap. And this is thus the very reason WHY you do NOT answer my clarifying questions at all.

I have already proven there are loads on evil and violent elements in the Quran [core of Islam] that exhort believes to act accordingly as their divine duty.

WHO have you, so called, "proven" this to?

You certainly have NOT proved any such thing to Me.

The consequences of their divine duty results in evil and violent acts committed on non-believers merely because they disbelieve.

Well subhuman people like you, veritas, should not NOT BELIEVE in PEACE and HARMONY.

If you, adult human beings, really did BELIEVE in PEACE and HARMONY for ALL of yourselves, instead of being non-believers, then you would NOT be the CAUSE of ALL the WRONG and EVIL acts in the world. You would BE Creating PEACE instead.

By the way if it looks like I am here to start up trouble, then BELIEVE Me if you want when I say this is WHAT is GOING TO HAPPEN.

YOU, non-believers are on your last stance, without much time left at all for ALL of you.

[Gary Childress]

Veritas, maybe it would help the argument between us along if I try to relate what I think I hear you saying. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views):

You believe that Muslims are more violent than most other peoples in the world AND it is because of what the Quran says that causes them to be more violent. Therefore, if it were NOT for what the Quran says OR if the Quran did NOT exist, or was somehow removed from their lives (by convincing Muslims not to believe in it anymore), then the people who are currently reading and believing in it would not be as violent as they currently are. Is that correct?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, maybe it would help the argument between us along if I try to relate what I think I hear you saying. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views):

You believe that Muslims are more violent than most other peoples in the world AND it is because of what the Quran says that causes them to be more violent. Therefore, if it were NOT for what the Quran says OR if the Quran did NOT exist, or was somehow removed from their lives (by convincing Muslims not to believe in it anymore), then the people who are currently reading and believing in it would not be as violent as they currently are. Is that correct?

Nb: in this case we are relating specifically to religious related evil and violence only, NOT ALL types of evil acts.

Yes, but note, it is SOME Muslims are more violent than most other religious [not all] people in the world as driven by the loads of evil elements in their core holy texts.
Generally, the doctrines of religions are by default peaceful but that is not the case with Islam as evident from their holy texts and the evil acts of believers.

Yes, if the Quran did not exist or is suppressed effectively, then there will be no more Islamic-based evil and violent acts.

Note this is at best a discussion at present. To put whatever I propose into practice cannot be done immediately or <50 years but rather possible in >50 >75 >100 or 150 years in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The word 'islam' literally means, or derives from the word, Peace.
The word 'muslim' closely relates to meaning follower.
So, a 'muslim' is just a person who follows Peace.

The ideology of the quran is Peace and to be a follower of Peace.
This can be clearly seen within the quran, when read from a perspective.

The True intention behind the quran, and ALL religious texts, are the exact same, when read from a perspective.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, what is seen and understood, within, and from, ANY thing, is solely depended upon the one looking at it, that is; thee observer.

What is relayed from that observer, the person, is depended upon on how they view things, and obviously from what they have thus seen. What a person sees is not necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This is because of how they view things, and, how a person views things is very depended on past experiences. Unless a person has only had perfect past experiences, then obviously they will have non-perfect views, which then also obviously distort how they then see things.

What the ACTUAL True intention or ideology IS behind or within absolutely any writing can only be Truly KNOWN, obviously, by the one who wrote it. Or, if that one is not around anymore then that True intention can NEVER be known. The closest, however, to discovering the True intention/ideology of any writing is if EVERY one is in agreement on what the True intention or ideology is. Until then, no matter what any person proposes, it is just an assumption of what the True intention/ideology IS.

You are misleading and telling lies.
Note this
viewtopic.php?p=386622#p386622
with your misleading definition of what is Islam.

That is My INTERPRETATION, so how can IT be misleading?
I am allowed to share My INTERPRETATION. So, either take IT or leave IT.

IT is misleading because your interpretation do not conform the original meaning of what is Islam as represented in the Quran in its full context.

The consequences is, if some [vulnerable and blind] people who agree with you in thinking Islam is peaceful and convert to Islam on that basis, they would have been misled by you. Eventually they will be committing evil and violent acts in compliance with the tenets/command of Islam as their divine duty.

Thus your INTERPRETATION is effectively a potential evil.

[Gary Childress]

Veritas, maybe it would help the argument between us along if I try to relate what I think I hear you saying. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views):

You believe that Muslims are more violent than most other peoples in the world AND it is because of what the Quran says that causes them to be more violent. Therefore, if it were NOT for what the Quran says OR if the Quran did NOT exist, or was somehow removed from their lives (by convincing Muslims not to believe in it anymore), then the people who are currently reading and believing in it would not be as violent as they currently are. Is that correct?

Nb: in this case we are relating specifically to religious related evil and violence only, NOT ALL types of evil acts.

Yes, but note, it is SOME Muslims are more violent than most other religious [not all] people in the world as driven by the loads of evil elements in their core holy texts.
Generally, the doctrines of religions are by default peaceful but that is not the case with Islam as evident from their holy texts and the evil acts of believers.

Yes, if the Quran did not exist or is suppressed effectively, then there will be no more Islamic-based evil and violent acts.

Note this is at best a discussion at present. To put whatever I propose into practice cannot be done immediately or <50 years but rather possible in >50 >75 >100 or 150 years in the future.

OK. I think I maybe see what you are saying, perhaps. So when you say "religious related evil and violence" do you specifically mean something like using violence to convert people to a religion (as opposed to say, using violence more 'pragmatically'--for lack of a better word--for the purpose of subduing a dangerous enemy)? I mean, I suppose I must agree, using violence to force someone to convert to a religion sounds pretty absurd and ridiculous, especially given the fact that probably none of us can really know anything significant with any level or certainty concerning "transcendental" or "other-worldly" truths. Telling someone to "submit to Allah or die" is perhaps as credible and effective as telling someone to "submit to the almighty Flying Spaghetti monster or die." It's patent nonsense.

However, using violence for other reasons, to subdue a dangerous enemy, can sometimes be necessary to prevent being destroyed by an aggressive or dangerous enemy. I mean, my own leaders seem to use that strategy quite a bit.

So, for example; maybe if instead of issuing absurd and ridiculous threats telling people to "submit to Allah or die," had ISIS said something along the lines of "get your invading soldiers out of our land and stop bombing our citizens or die" then something like that might be more along the lines of "fair game". Is that correct?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, maybe it would help the argument between us along if I try to relate what I think I hear you saying. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views):

You believe that Muslims are more violent than most other peoples in the world AND it is because of what the Quran says that causes them to be more violent. Therefore, if it were NOT for what the Quran says OR if the Quran did NOT exist, or was somehow removed from their lives (by convincing Muslims not to believe in it anymore), then the people who are currently reading and believing in it would not be as violent as they currently are. Is that correct?

Nb: in this case we are relating specifically to religious related evil and violence only, NOT ALL types of evil acts.

Yes, but note, it is SOME Muslims are more violent than most other religious [not all] people in the world as driven by the loads of evil elements in their core holy texts.
Generally, the doctrines of religions are by default peaceful but that is not the case with Islam as evident from their holy texts and the evil acts of believers.

Yes, if the Quran did not exist or is suppressed effectively, then there will be no more Islamic-based evil and violent acts.

Note this is at best a discussion at present. To put whatever I propose into practice cannot be done immediately or <50 years but rather possible in >50 >75 >100 or 150 years in the future.

OK. I think I maybe see what you are saying, perhaps. So when you say "religious related evil and violence" do you specifically mean something like using violence to convert people to a religion (as opposed to say, using violence more 'pragmatically'--for lack of a better word--for the purpose of subduing a dangerous enemy)? I mean, I suppose I must agree, using violence to force someone to convert to a religion sounds pretty absurd and ridiculous, especially given the fact that probably none of us can really know anything significant with any level or certainty concerning "transcendental" or "other-worldly" truths. Telling someone to "submit to Allah or die" is perhaps as credible and effective as telling someone to "submit to the almighty Flying Spaghetti monster or die." It's patent nonsense.

It is not using violence to convert people or as a self defense.
The general ethos of Islam as sanctioned by God is, non-believers can be killed merely for the basis & reason because they disbelieve Islam, i.e. Allah and Muhammad. This is an insult and threat to the superiority of Islam.
Many innocent non-Muslims had been killed based on this reason, i.e. merely being disbelievers.

However, using violence for other reasons, to subdue a dangerous enemy, can sometimes be necessary to prevent being destroyed by an aggressive or dangerous enemy. I mean, my own leaders seem to use that strategy quite a bit.

Islam is basically an imperialistic religion and thus initiate the first attack to conquer and dominate others from Spain to India. So this is not a case of self-defense or just wars.

In other cases, the Islamists will create their own cases to induce reactions and thus use that as an excuse as self-defense and make greater advances in their conquest. This is what happened with the crusades which was a reaction to the attacks initiated by the Islamists.

The US had initiated attacks and react as self-defense [nb: Pearl Harbor] but this is a separate topic re Politics. All evil including politics should be condemned.

But my point here is, religions are supposed to be peaceful and should not include any commands by a God to kill non-believers merely because they disbelieved the religion.

So, for example; maybe if instead of issuing absurd and ridiculous threats telling people to "submit to Allah or die," had ISIS said something along the lines of "get your invading soldiers out of our land and stop bombing our citizens or die" then something like that might be more along the lines of "fair game". Is that correct?

This is from ISIS directly.
You have to read this carefully.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563

[We hate and attack you];
1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads:
2. "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

Phew, I have quoted the above many times, but most do not get it.

Note,
the foreign policies of the US and the West are the SECONDARY reasons,
the PRIMARY reason is because the majority of the West are non-Muslims.

Hope you get this very critical point.

• [We [Muslims] hate and attack you];
  1. Because you are disbelievers
  "We [Muslims] hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
  you reject the oneness of Allah

Get it?

[Gary Childress]

Nb: in this case we are relating specifically to religious related evil and violence only, NOT ALL types of evil acts.

Yes, but note, it is SOME Muslims are more violent than most other religious [not all] people in the world as driven by the loads of evil elements in their core holy texts.
Generally, the doctrines of religions are by default peaceful but that is not the case with Islam as evident from their holy texts and the evil acts of believers.

Yes, if the Quran did not exist or is suppressed effectively, then there will be no more Islamic-based evil and violent acts.

Note this is at best a discussion at present. To put whatever I propose into practice cannot be done immediately or <50 years but rather possible in >50 >75 >100 or 150 years in the future.

OK. I think I maybe see what you are saying, perhaps. So when you say "religious related evil and violence" do you specifically mean something like using violence to convert people to a religion (as opposed to say, using violence more 'pragmatically'--for lack of a better word--for the purpose of subduing a dangerous enemy)? I mean, I suppose I must agree, using violence to force someone to convert to a religion sounds pretty absurd and ridiculous, especially given the fact that probably none of us can really know anything significant with any level or certainty concerning "transcendental" or "other-worldly" truths. Telling someone to "submit to Allah or die" is perhaps as credible and effective as telling someone to "submit to the almighty Flying Spaghetti monster or die." It's patent nonsense.

It is not using violence to convert people or as a self defense.
The general ethos of Islam as sanctioned by God is, non-believers can be killed merely for the basis & reason because they disbelieve Islam, i.e. Allah and Muhammad. This is an insult and threat to the superiority of Islam.
Many innocent non-Muslims had been killed based on this reason, i.e. merely being disbelievers.

However, using violence for other reasons, to subdue a dangerous enemy, can sometimes be necessary to prevent being destroyed by an aggressive or dangerous enemy. I mean, my own leaders seem to use that strategy quite a bit.

Islam is basically an imperialistic religion and thus initiate the first attack to conquer and dominate others from Spain to India. So this is not a case of self-defense or just wars.

In other cases, the Islamists will create their own cases to induce reactions and thus use that as an excuse as self-defense and make greater advances in their conquest. This is what happened with the crusades which was a reaction to the attacks initiated by the Islamists.

The US had initiated attacks and react as self-defense [nb: Pearl Harbor] but this is a separate topic re Politics. All evil including politics should be condemned.

But my point here is, religions are supposed to be peaceful and should not include any commands by a God to kill non-believers merely because they disbelieved the religion.

So, for example; maybe if instead of issuing absurd and ridiculous threats telling people to "submit to Allah or die," had ISIS said something along the lines of "get your invading soldiers out of our land and stop bombing our citizens or die" then something like that might be more along the lines of "fair game". Is that correct?

This is from ISIS directly.
You have to read this carefully.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563

[We hate and attack you];
1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads:
2. "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

Phew, I have quoted the above many times, but most do not get it.

Note,
the foreign policies of the US and the West are the SECONDARY reasons,
the PRIMARY reason is because the majority of the West are non-Muslims.

Hope you get this very critical point.

• [We [Muslims] hate and attack you];
  1. Because you are disbelievers
  "We [Muslims] hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
  you reject the oneness of Allah

Get it?

What evidence exists for the belief that the "primary" reason for Islamic terrorism is over religious reasons (the desire to destroy non-believers) and NOT over recent foreign policies of other nations that have intervened in their lands? I mean, if Islam simply wanted to kill all non-believers, then how is it that there have apparently been many circumstances where non-Muslims have lived peacefully within Muslim controlled territories throughout its history (even during the height of its domination and power when surely they could easily have killed whomever they wanted in their own territories)? How do you or I know whether ISIS truly expresses the intent of Muhammad anymore than, say the Crusades truly expressed the intent of a figure who was so radically pacifist that he apparently willingly died on a cross when he was ordered to be executed by his enemies?

I have not read the Quran but I've read and listened to audio and video from various scholars who have said that the Quran does not advocate war unless Muslims are attacked. Here's something to that effect from a blogger with the Huffington Post, which echoes what I've often heard stated with regard to the Quran and war/violence:

The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-he ... 22114.html

Who should I believe, you or various scholars who seem to say otherwise? Have you read the Quran from cover to cover? I have not. And even if either of us have read it cover to cover, does that even guarantee understanding anymore than a Pope "understands" the teachings and motives of Christ when he orders a "crusade" that apparently ends up killing many innocent women and children in a foreign land?

[Age]

You are misleading and telling lies.
Note this
viewtopic.php?p=386622#p386622
with your misleading definition of what is Islam.

That is My INTERPRETATION, so how can IT be misleading?
I am allowed to share My INTERPRETATION. So, either take IT or leave IT.

IT is misleading because your interpretation do not conform the original meaning of what is Islam as represented in the Quran in its full context.

The consequences is, if some [vulnerable and blind] people who agree with you in thinking Islam is peaceful and convert to Islam on that basis, they would have been misled by you.

NO sane person would CONVERT to islam, NOR CONVERT to ANY other religion. I also do NOT want any one to agree with me. I WANT you, human beings, to SEE things for yourselves.

The WHOLE message I am TRYING TO POINT OUT is Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the OBSERVER, which means Absolutely EVERY thing IS just whatever INTERPRETATION YOU, the OBSERVER, SEES and puts onto and into ANY and EVERY thing.

There is NO need to CONVERT to absolutely ANY thing, when all you have to do is just be your SELF. If you want to convert to any thing, then CHANGE and CONVERT into your REAL and TRUE SELF.

The ONLY REASON human beings CONVERT to things other than their TRUE SELF is because of BELIEFS and BELIEVING things.

Eventually they will be committing evil and violent acts in compliance with the tenets/command of Islam as their divine duty.

YOU still do NOT and can NOT GET IT.

YOU, veritas, DO NOT KNOW the original meaning of what IS islam, NO matter how much you BELIEVE you do. YOU are just making an INTERPRETATION, based solely upon YOUR assumptions and BELIEFS.

Thus your INTERPRETATION is effectively a potential evil.

You have already been told and warned that YOU, yourself, are being evil NOW, by the way you are expressing hatred of "others", and their religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Eventually they will be committing evil and violent acts in compliance with the tenets/command of Islam as their divine duty.

YOU still do NOT and can NOT GET IT.

YOU, veritas, DO NOT KNOW the original meaning of what IS islam, NO matter how much you BELIEVE you do. YOU are just making an INTERPRETATION, based solely upon YOUR assumptions and BELIEFS.

Your views above are very stupid judgments.

I have argued in the following OP -What is Belief
viewtopic.php?p=386804#p386768

• 1. Beliefs are assumed truth
  2. It is a default and inherent mental activity of all human beings to facilitate survival
  3. The question is whether beliefs are justified or unjustified.
  4. Justified beliefs can be confined to the individual applying repeatable and justifiable verification processes.
  5. Where justified beliefs are shared and agreed upon by others then they are Justified True Beliefs i.e. objective knowledge, e.g. scientific knowledge.

What I believe 'What Islam is' is Justified Belief in the contexts and qualified of the whole of the Quran*. Such a belief is agreed by all Muslims [as far as I have read them] and non-Muslims scholars. What I claimed is qualified to the above condition and not a claim of an Absolute answer [this is impossible].

* you have not read the Quran thoroughly thus blindly argue for it. I have read the Quran VERY seriously.

Note a Muslim is one who had entered into a contract/covenant with Allah.
A contract will contain definite terms to be complied by both parties.
Islam as 'submission' or 'surrender' is provided in the terms of that contract within the Quran.