Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Correct me if I'm wrong / have read it incorrectly:

Those polls show Clinton leading substantially...but in the US, voting isn't compulsory. So you worry that because of the Polls:
- Trump's supporters will turn out in greater numbers; while
- Clinton's supporters will turn out in lesser numbers;
- Which may then lead to a Trump triumph?

That's a possiblity, but (and I don't know if this is truly the case), surely this is a polarising election, meaning more people will turn out, both for and against, the person who has polarised them?

All the polls I've seen show it to be a very close race. It's dumbfounding because Trump has no knowledge about foreign policy. He even seems to lack knowledge of our Constitution when he talks about banning Muslims from entering this country. He insulted the parents of an American soldier who gave his life for this country, and said he has no respect for John McCain. He also has a history of discrimination against blacks.

http://www.voanews.com/a/trump-reveals-lack-knowledge-foreign-policy/2947174.html

Yes, I gathered these things from the tidbits I catch of your election campaign.

I just googled 'US national debt under Obama' and see that it's almost doubled during his two terms in office-
"On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. Today it's slightly more than $19 trillion"
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

Wonder if it'd double again under Pres Trump?..

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=debt+vs+gdp+graph+since+2000&view=detailv2&&id=18A82D4E5A0B0134133B2175CA5C48D97513FEF9&selectedIndex=1&ccid=TLgJm6LR&simid=607999454229890428&thid=OIP.M4cb8099ba2d1b5854975e38d6b177c49o0&ajaxhist=0

Trump has got 10 billion in his bank account because he knows about business economics and stuff, and would be the ideal man to handle America's purse strings..
How much has Obama got?

If any Muslims out there don't want to share the blame when other Muslims commit atrocities in the name of Islam, then they need to do a LOT more to speak out and oppose those atrocities.

And that means to oppose the atrocities unequivocally, not say something like "yes it was technically wrong but I'm glad America got what it deserved".

If any liberals out there don't want to share the blame when other liberals joyously embrace and support Islamic atrocities, they need to start doing a LOT more to speak out against those other liberals.

Actually it's too late for liberalism, it's a doomed ideology at this point. But Muslims might want to consider heeding my advice.

It'll be all right.

He's certainly no worse than Bill Clinton was in 1992.



No, that's the Democrats not knowing what the Constitution says.



No he didn't.



Nonsense.

Trump made black Arsenio Hall the winner of one of his 'Apprentice' series.
He also has a mix of races and creeds on the shows, I don't see any racism there..

Hello Vikorr, it's good talking to you.
It's in fact not a contradiction. Maybe this verse shows briefly what am I trying to say.
60.8: ( Sura AL-MUMTAHINA, verse 8):
"Allah does not forbid you to be kind and to act justly to those who have neither made war on your Religion nor expelled you from your homes. Allah loves the just"
It says that people who are not expelling you from your home or are not making war on you, be kind and act justly to them.
I do understand your worry about the kind of radical behavior that you see.
But when you search how such an ideology has been formed, you see the game is very tricky. (at least in my opinion)
Maybe the movies "Lawrence of Arabia" and " Queen of the desert" can be helpful in this regard.

You know, this world, without Christians, is not as beautiful as it is.
I love true Christians..

High Strangeness isn't a real Christian. He's a nasty hate filled bigot who has spent time in prison.

Poor Old Spike has even boasted about it and posted pictures of himself wearing SS combat gear holding a very big knife.

I am living in Iran. In the east of capital Tehran. Near mountain Damavand.
Honestly, I have a hazy understanding of how insecurity can be.
Not all the middle east, but rather in north of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestine and Afghanistan. There are some other tumults in other countries but to the best of my knowledge, the horrible threat of war is mainly in those countries I said.

My father
Christianity and Islam, can be used to connect us rather than disconnect us.

Who me? What? Where? I like Jesus because among other things he attacked organised religion and told the snooty priests "You're full of filth...offspring of vipers...hellbound.."
Whose side are you on, Jesus's or theirs?

Well why not become one yourself?
No disrespect to Mohammed, but he's a corpse in a box, but Jesus is not.
Spot the difference?

Hello Sky

As you know, the Quran is dualistic in nature - in that it has a LOT of direct contradictions. It has:

- direct quotes on peace, never harming another personf for any reason - usually from the early Meccan period

-and direct calls to war - usually from the Medinan period onwards, after Mohammad gained himself an army. As Mohammad life got further along, his calls to violence increased.

All of these verses to peace & violence (the violent verses are much more numerous than the peaceful verses) come from the same book - one that is meant to be the revelations of Allah through just one man.

Without the concept of abrogation, the Quran could not be viewed as anything other than a contradictory mess (in regards to peace v jihad). These contradictions are explained away through the concept of abrogation, which talks about verses being revealed as the newly forming Islamic community was able to withstand them. The reasoning being that if they had been given the commands to attack their enemies (given more and more towards the latter stages of Mohammads life) while they were still young in Mecca, as they did from Medina onwards, then the Muslims and Islam would have been annihilated...so the verses to violence were revealed as the Muslims grew in strength and were able to carry out Gods full will.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This leads to a problem. The behaviour of Mohammad towards the end of his life was one of battle and political expansion. The last commands of Mohammad were for war to expand Islam. A truly major problem with this, is that there was no end date given in his command to war. Ie it can still be viewed as a non ended war. Hence the Islamic concept of the House of Islam and the House of War.

But because of the dualistic nature of the Quran - it also talks about how to bide your time / living peacefully with your enemy, if your enemy is stronger than you.

In the years following Mohammads death, his direct followers, and the subsequent generations, followed his final commands - as I mentioned earlier - so much so, that they expanded from the peninsula, all the way to India, and all the way to the Atlantic ocean. This is not the behaviour of people commanded to live peacefully.

In repsonse to these both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Al Bukhari, in their Hadiths compiled chapters on how to conduct Jihad. I understand that you are Shiite and those are Sunni. Sunni is the main source of Islamic Terrorism today. It's also the larger branch.

If you were to apply your passages of peace to the actions of those who understood Mohammad's commands best (his direct followers and the few generations thereafter)...your passages of peace would not be able to stand up to the actions of those people - 2 hundred years of expansionist Jihad.

-------------------------------------------------------

With Wahahbis, Salafis, IS etc Qtub etc idealising that time period - this creates a problem. Qtub, who influenced the Muslim Brotherhood, to some extent Hizb ut Tahrir, and other extremist organisations (membership of which runs over 1 million. The Muslims brotherhood was 2 million at one stage) idealised the first generation, and the following few generations.

With the internet, it is possible for any person to now search and understand his life and commands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

It is good that yourself, and so many other Muslims have found a way to explain away the violence in the Quran, and the violence in the name of Islam (following the commands of Mohammad) exhibited by the first and following generations. We need your type of views on this earth.

The issue I am pointing out in this post is - not all Muslims explain it away or want to explain it away.

Hello Vikorr,
It's really nice to see you having such amount of knowledge. A lot of people harshly attack Islam while they don't know even it's very preliminary concepts . I'm okay with them. Just trying to tell them that's not how they think.
Let me be more frank with you. Excuse me, with do respect, but what you call the abrogation of 60.8 by Sura 9 because of their chronological order, is a simple fallacy. The subject is different.
If you divide the non-Muslims into two groups, one of them having their own living, without making war on you, the other group, those who make war on you, expelling you from your home, and things like that... one of the Ayahs deals with the first group (kindness and justice is advised) and the other Ayah deals with the second group (severity with these people has been advised).
But I implied from the other part of your post:

Sorry, can you elaborate? Do you mean the ideology of Islam is that if Muslims grew in strength one day, then they can start fighting non-Muslims, Christians, Jews...in any way?
I don't have any idea. It's trickery. When it comes to trickery, everything is possible. In this case, as a Muslim, I'm not on the defensive side.
But better let the sleeping dogs lie. Just pointing out that at least for those who are smart enough, it is not hazy any more that the kind of radical Islam that we see now, is in fact, the extramarital children of tricky foreign policy of some western countries with some governments of the region to take a bilateral advantage of. Let me a little bit more discuss about it.
The ideology of Wahhabism is " To purify Islam".
Isn't the name trickery itself? A relatively newly established branch of Islam, trying to purify Islam itself. Why not for example, to purify the world from non-Muslims? Or slogans like that?
They call Shia Muslims (mainly Iranian people) "Kafir". I'm sorry to say, but I think, for them, pigs are better than Shia Muslims.
They were present in the region from long years ago.We saw them from time to time... brainwashed people, who had bombs in one hand, and a spoon in the other hand, trying to blow up the bomb in the crowd, and after being killed, transferring to heaven and eating lunch with prophet Muhammad with the spoon that they take with themselves. (Just think of the extent of ignorance)
But when this child grew up, the world saw its other face.
9/11, terrorist attacks in the heart of the Europe,...
It was just after that, that the world called it "Radical Islam".
In my opinion, IS is not a religious movement.
What do you call beheading a boy in front of his parents?
I don't include IS even in Sunnis. Sunnis in north of Iraq are joining Shias to fight them (Hashd al-Sha’abi).
It's rather a tricky movement, brainwashing ignorant people in the direction of the purpose of some groups. Even some countries.
In this way, ignorance of some western people, is aggravating the situation.
The existence of this group is a challenge for the world's security. Not just for Muslims, but for Christians, Jews, Atheists...all around the world.
In such a situation, all of us, we need to forget about our old disagreements, differences, we need unity, connection, coalition.. This is not the kinda of world that we can find 100% agreement with anybody, anything, any country..
By such threads, we are just agitating Muslims against Christians, Christians against Muslims, Jews against both of them, Atheists against all of them...

I don't think in the way that you think..
I love people, by default..
I don't see any significant problem with real Christians to start "Not loving" them. They are beautiful really.
It doesn't mean that I am in complete agreement with them.