http://youtube.com/watch?v=8uBZGCItQm8

Very interesting.

Many religions go through a phase where they are overly militant. The problem with Islam is that it has never progressed through that stage and still believes it is okay to kill non-believers.

In the beginning of the video, it talks about an elderly Jewish man named Afak and how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered Afak's assassination because he was a "political opponent" and spoke against the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Judging that it was taken from Ibn Sa'ds hadith, it's unreliable. This Hadith, in particular, is officially rated by Hadith scholars as unreliable and of no basis.


This story was taken from what Muslims call al-Hadith or al-Sunnah. Basically, the hadith is a collection of stories attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

First, the Hadith was passed down verbally for hundreds of years after the prophet. Because of this, one must make sure that the hadith has basis and not made up during those years.

Next, the hadith is second to the Quran. So if any hadith is contradicted by the Quran, it is considered either reliable or unreliable and of no basis. Later in the video, it mentions the Quran verse 8:12-" I will instill terror in the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off." Like I've said many times over in this thread and I'll probably say it more in the future, there is historical context behind the Quran. This particular verse was revealed during the Battle of Badr, one of the first battles between the Muslims and Meccan pagans. It's not a universal order, only in time of war.

As for the 5:38 verse, in which it says "Cut off the hands of thieves whether they are male or female, as a punishment of for what they have done--a deterrent of God: God is almighty and wise." First, a thief with no hands probably won't steal again. :) But joking aside, the translation between Arabic to English is difficult. The verse 5:39 reads, "If one repents after committing this crime, and reforms, God redeems him. God is Forgiver, Merciful." The literal understanding of these two verses would be to mark the hands of thief to display to other people that he is a theif. Another understanding of the verses would be to cut off the resources of the thief.


Very interesting.

It was definitely interesting. Wrong but interesting nonetheless.

Many religions go through a phase where they are overly militant. The problem with Islam is that it has never progressed through that stage and still believes it is okay to kill non-believers.

Don't judge the whole Muslim population by the actions of the few...:thumbs:

Many religions go through a phase where they are overly militant. The problem with Islam is that it has never progressed through that stage and still believes it is okay to kill non-believers.
Islam already passed through it. The problem is that it's going through it again. Then again, it could just be a product of the environment. You don't see American Muslims crying out for the blood of the West.

You don't see American Muslims crying out for the blood of the West.
Because we'd feed them their hearts.

...You don't see American Muslims crying out for the blood of the West.

No? Maybe you should read this recent article (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/northeast/view.bg?articleid=1017418). It appears that some might be warming up to the task.

From the article:

This is a place where experience and intuition and guts makes a difference.

Two of the three things listed above, according to the left, officers can't use.

Not that your average cop possesses any of the three, but I digress.

I have to be honest, though - that's some pretty scary shit, Es....

It seems to me the article is primarily focusing on (what I like to refer to as) the "Dharmabum mentality" - not just on the followers of Muhammadanism. In all honesty, nobody should worry here - an ingénue dyke could take Dharma in a fistfight, and probably most of the overly impassioned Internet "warriors" out there, too.

Because we'd feed them their hearts.
It couldn't be because they don't really hate the West, could it?

It couldn't be because they don't really hate the West, could it?
It could, I suppose, however - if I were a bettin' man......

It could, I suppose, however - if I were a bettin' man......
If you were a bettin' man, you'd bet that there were more Muslims who sign up to defend this country than destroy it. You would also go out and talk to various American Muslims about how they feel about the country, read articles written by them, listen to statements put out by Muslim groups, etc. You would also note that there have not actually been any instances of homegrown Islamic terrorism in the US and that there were no riots here over the Mohammed cartoons.

Your opinion, however, seems to be based on stereotypes that might well apply to Muslims in other countries but certainly don't apply to the ones here.