Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Trump has got a 10 billion dollar bank account.
What has Hillary got?

are you suggesting that Donald Trump is doing Gods work Strange?

Trumps trademark hairstyle is an indication that somebody up there is looking out for him..
Jesus said- "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

God's works? More like the devil's works. He's a bigot and xenophobe who said he would ban all Muslims from entering this country. That's against our Constitution.
The fact that he's so popular shows that this country are filled with bigots and white supremacists.

America is a Christian nation so it's only right that heathens should be banned from coming in, especially those who were dancing with joy on 9/11.

American is NOT a christian nation. We have the FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
United states freedom of religion
In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment.
Freedom of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

said- "America is NOT a christian nation. We have the FREEDOM OF RELIGION"
-----------------------------------------------

If you're happy to let muslims blow you up it's none of my business..
Of course none of us care what religion anybody is provided they're peaceable, otherwise they need to have their asses busted-
"The right of self defense is the first law of nature"- St. George Tucker (1752-1827) American judge and militiaman

And I don't think the Pilgrim Fathers were muslims.
PS- the Constitution was date-stamped "the Year of our Lord", not Allah-
Wiki- "Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

Top 20 religions in the United States.
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Just out of the extent of ignorance of the Quran that one can see from some of posts:
Quran has a large number of the Ayahs (verses). (about 6200)
Many of them talk about the unity of God.
Some were revealed to prophet Muhammad at the time of peace. Some at the time of war. So, you see them in some cases seemingly contradictory but you have to know the context in which the ayah has revealed.
"Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you." (2.191)
On the other side, you see in a few verses later in the same Sura:
"There is no compulsion in religion." (2.256)
And also in another Sura:
" ...who ever killed a soul, except for a soul slain, or for sedition in the earth, it should be considered as though he had killed all mankind; and that who ever saved it should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. "(5.32)
And also, Islam is mainly divided into Sunni and Shia . Undeniably there is a difference between them less or more like what it is between Catholics and Protestants.
But if you really want to know more about the radical Islam and it's origin this article in Huffingtonpost can help you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
You know all, the tricky is when look how oil dollars have been successful in zipping the mouth of countries which claim they are always stood on the side of democracy.

According to the Islamic theory of abrogation:

2.256 "There is no compulsion in religion."

is abrogated by

9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

(If you don't understand that Christians/Jews are disbelievers, then read through Surah 5 - the 112th chronologically.)

Surah 2 is 87th in Chronological order, while Surah 9 is 113th. Abrogation means that when any contradiction arises in the Quran, the latter verse (chronologically) has primacy / the most power.

There are only 114 Surahs, and 114 is only a a few verses long. Surah 9 is effectively the last surah giving instruction/directions, and so its words carry primacy in the Quran (ie they can't be abrogated). Surah 9 is also the most violent and intolerant Surah in the Quran.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran

Surah 9 talks of:
- Muslims ordered to fight polytheists & the death/enslavement of such
- Muslims ordered to fight Christians/Jews until the death/submission of such (the literal meaning of 9.29)
- Muslims ordered to Jihad (although it doesn't use the word directly, it talks at length about the requirement to fight in the name of Allah, and the evils of muslims who do not)

So to say that in the Quran, there is no compulsion in religion is....disingenuous.

The mistake you make is assuming that Muslims and Muslim majority countries don't have the potential to exist amiably in the modern world, because of the Qur'an, of all things. So instead you live in fear and attack a religion, which btw is much more than a book. If you lived in a Muslim majority country and knew a lot Muslims with varying perspectives, you'd know that Islam cannot be reduced to one interpretation and has not just more than one but an abundance of interpretations, some of which forgo even the slightest acknowledgement of Qur'anic verses.

Has the Qur'an influenced Muslims? Yes. The way it has influenced, however, is not singular, has changed and continues to. Your viewpoint seems to be that Islam is more predisposed to bigotry, war, and terrorism than other major value systems, and for this reason, must be dealt with accordingly.

Where is the historical and sociopolitical context? Is it irrelevant?

Maybe instead of citing violent and intolerant verses and talking about the Islamic ideology --OR the greatest threat the modern world faces today--which alienates Muslims, especially young reform-minded Muslims, who are essentially being told they belong to a dangerous ideology committed to murdering non-believers, when they know they don't, you should instead be committed to the undertakings of progressive Muslims who are suppressed by corrupt regimes which Western governments have helped cultivate.

I find it sad that dialogue on Islam in the West revolves solely around whether it is or isn't dangerous. What exactly are you trying to do?

To judge Muslims, their capabilities and susceptibilities, by the Qur'an is... disingenuous

Another perspective is that the history of Christianity is full of killings and other atrocities. Type "Christian atrocities" in any search, and you'll learn more about humanity and religion.

Not at all.

The majority of Muslims have the potential to, and do live peacefully with their non-muslim neighbours, and I've said this a number of times in this thread.

At the same time, too many Muslims don't live amiably with the modern world (and here I am talking about Islamic Terrorists - amiable is a much more vague term), with significant contributions to those Muslims not doing so...being found in the ideology of the Quran & Hadiths.

So in relation to your statement, quoted, it is not I who has made assumptions.

These are quite relevant to motivations towards terrorism.

However, there are two very good reasons for discussing the religious contribution. Each singular issue is a problem:

1. It is the (Islamic) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Islamic terrorism; and

2. The very common political commentary that has been running in Western Political circles since this thread started is:
- 'Islam is a religion of peace',
- 'the terrorists are not true muslims'
- 'the terrorists have hijacked Islam' etc.

In other words, the accepted political commentary is that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. This is blatantly untrue. And this needs to be understood by the west.

As more and more Islamic terrorist attacks hit the West, people are starting to question the truth of such claims (italicised) , but we still aren't to the stage yet of open and honest discussion about the problem.



Your whole statement, quoted, rests on my judging 'Muslims'. You obviously use 'Muslims' to include all Muslims, in their practising variations of the religion of Islam. However, I have always aimed my posts at the violence done in the name of Islam & the contributing ideology of Islam, rather than at 'Muslims'. Could you please show me where I judge 'Muslims', rather than the contributing ideology of Islam?

Note: I have used the term 'Muslims' with the inverted commas, in order to keep meaning with perennialloner's intent (all Muslims), rather than to mean 2-3 Muslims, or 'this group of Muslims' or 'that sect of Muslims' etc.

as you know, it is not uncommon for ppl to use religious texts to justify certain endeavors--slavery, colonialism, imperialism, war, etc... islamic terrorism isn't the first thing to use religious justification and won't be the last thing. you're trying to make this ideology, as you say, more unique than it is.



Hezbollah is part of this list. There are plenty of Christian/Socialist Lebanese who fight for Hezbollah, their motivations being anywhere from dissatisfaction with the confessional gov to Palestinian oppression in Lebanon to Israel. Are you cherrypicking what constitutes Islamic terrorism?



More ppl question these claims because they're afraid now, not because there isn't truth to them.



You are being dishonest. You have not aimed your posts at the violence done in the name of Islam alone. Your point is not that there's violence done in the name of Islam. Your point is that Islam is a dangerous and pervasive ideology--and have relentlessly said so. You are the one who has managed to lump Muslims into one category. You cannot say that Islam is a dangerous ideology and also say you're only judging the actions of some Muslims, because clearly you are judging some overarching Islamic ideology to which all Muslims adhere to-- though not by your myopic definition, mind you.

So peaceable Muslims are ok then? Just trying to clarify your position. And what is involved in ass busting?

High Strangeness aka Romeo Fabulini is a small time criminal who has spent time in prison. He's hardly an upstanding member of society.

(I suspect his recent absence was another stay at Her Majesty's pleasure.)

How so. Your justification that follows this sentence doesn't show that.

True enough

Yes I have.

So we both agree on your 'justification', but not the meaning of the 'justification'. That's because what you posted as 'disagreeing' doesn't disagree - one is the aim, and one is the reason.

ie. If you wish the full version...which you should know - because you've apparently read it:

I have always aimed my posts at the violence done in the name of Islam & the contributing ideology of Islam, rather than at 'Muslims', because, after research and observation, I've come to the conclusion that it is a dangerous religion. Escalating Terrorist events in the name of Islam, around the world, are showing this to be true. What is written in the Quran, shows this to be true. The life of Mohammed, shows this to be true.

You've apparently read plenty of what I've written, so you will know that what I've consistently talked about is 'violence done in the name of Islam' - the most obvious of this being terrorist incidents done in the name of Islam. And most of those articles that I post showing such, also show a claim of the terrorist showing Allahu Akbar, or claiming allegiance to ISIS or similar that identifies it as being done in the name of Islam.

I can see this will cause some more trouble, so let me post some links to clarify things:

Further reasons that I have posted - because I consider it a dangerous religion, and because I have observed that there is a very strong aversion to discussion of this problem:
if I say 'Islam contributes to violence done in its name' and have no supporting evidence...then that opinion would rightfully be accused of not having a leg to stand on.

Further, holding that opinion...if it's correct, should mean that the violence in the name of Islam is ongoing...otherwise my opinion would be based on a fallacy...and without evidence that it is ongoing

the point of this is to get people curious enough to look whether or not there is a problem, (and more importantly) to look into the causes for themselves, and come to their own conclusion...even if their conclusions differ to mine.

not admitting the problem, leads to greater long term problems

not admitting the problem leads to losing control of the message

When will apologists look into the Quran for themselves

You're being dishonest because you call Islam a dangerous religion but say you aren't judging Muslims. How is that possible? You obviously think Muslims on the basis of their religion are a danger. Is that not judgment? What is this attack the ideology not the individual nonsense. By attacking the so called ideology, you're attacking the individual.