The Story Of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled.

"After studying Islamic doctrine and history, I soon realised that almost all of what is conveyed to us regarding Islam, its goals and its influence on the actions and beliefs of Muslims, is entirely wrong. This lack of understanding has been the root cause of the horrendous policy failures in such areas as the “War on terror,” Middle Eastern foreign policy, the Arab- Israeli conflict and so forth, which tend to dominate our daily news cycle.


It is also clear that the reason for these failures, is an almost total lack of knowledge of the doctrine of Islam amongst all sections of Western society; from politicians, academics, journalists, teachers, right on down to the man in the street. Given the rapidly rising threats from Islamic “extremists” and the growing number of conflicts involving Muslims, this would seem to be a failure of epic proportions."

http://www.johnwalton-is.net/download/Story of Mohammed Islam Unveiled.pdf?

 

There is no evidence that Mohammed actually existed as depicted in literature. Uthman's committee wrote the Koran. All of the hadiths were written many decades and a couple of centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust. No actual historical figure ever saw the guy.

 

Even if that is so, I don't see what that has to do with the argument at hand. The relations between Islam and the west are deeply problematic, and whether one of them is correct is not the point.

 

Oh.. this goes back to Bill Warner.. and he's an ignoramus.

 

Hmm. Let's see here. You offered an unsubstantiated opinion. I presented verifiable facts. So, who's the ignoramus? Would you care to try to refute anything he said, and back it up with credible sources? That's how debates work.

- - - Updated - - -

You actually believe that? Well, bless your heart. You must be a democrat. Why else would you believe that right and wrong don't matter?

- - - Updated - - -

Sources?

 

That's not quite what I said. For the purposes of the relation between the west and Islam it does not. Attempting to convince one another of the correctness of one's view rarely leads to either peace or agreement.

 

Who said anything about peace or agreement? That will never happen. Islam is dedicated to ridding the world of all those who do not follow their perverted and violent religion. They are a existential threat. The reason we should seek to understand Islam is to defeat it. Nothing more. It's us or them. That is a cold hard fact. They will destroy us, unless we destroy them first.

 

So, the muslims who consider themselves and other muslims to be under existential threat from the west, do you think they are justified in making the same argument against the west?

 

It's painfully obvious that you did not read the OP. Why don't you read it. It won't take that long. Until you do, you are arguing from ignorance. Read it.

 

It is true that I have not read more than a skim, and consequentially, I take some care making sure that my arguments are agnostic of the information it may contain. In my skim, I found nothing that was both new and important for the arguments I have been making. I'm not going to read any word document anyone gives me, but if you have a chapter or two you'd recommend I can address how relevant those are.

There are a lot of moderates and potential moderates out there, and we will need their help and understanding if we want to do anything short of a genocide to the point that we're as bad as what we'd be trying to suppress. Just like Christians eat shellfish, there are a lot of people who aren't that strict in practice. However, there is one thing that will make them that devoted, and that's making them think that we are going to destroy them.

So, by all means, what is your recommended course of action?

 

Mohammed instructed his followers to hide in plain sight when they were weak, but to attack when they are strong. They have been following these instructions for over a thousand years. Look at the problems they are causing in Europe. They immigrate, lie low and breed like rabbits, then they attack. They use deception, and have no problem lying to infidels. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. When they are called to do so, they will answer the call for Jihad. The ones who do not are not devout muslims. As for my recommended course of action, there is only one thing that has been proven effective in dealing with those savages. It's called a Crusade. I think we are overdue for one. Islam should be outlawed in every country. The world would be a better place if we did so.

 

Pretty obvious that you and the author of what you cited are basing your opinion from a biased perspective, namely a Christian one and anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of Islam would know that the Islamic radicals are, just like Christian radicals, greatly misinterpreting both the Qu'ran and the Bible.

 

Really? Where is that in the Koran? Do you usually get away with your ignorant pontificating?

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Where is that in the Koran? Do you usually get away with your ignorant pontificating?

 

I think you overestimate how closely this would be followed. If your definition of a muslim is one who would do all of this, then you're not using the word muslim according to its definition, and when you look for statistics of muslims, only a fraction of those listed will qualify as "devout muslims" under your definition. Just like the vast majority of Christians wouldn't put homosexuals to death or anything like that, most muslims aren't going to go out of their way to attack.

There is one exception, and that is if we make clear that we're crusading against them (or otherwise make it impossible for them to live their normal lives). In that sense, your view is a self fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't have to be categorically true, but it becomes true by people holding it as true. Similarly, it's unfalsifiable, you've constructed an idea where no matter what happens, you can always argue that any piece of evidence is actually a lie, which means you can't actually assess whether what you say is true.

In what sense were the Crusades "proven effective"? They produced no peace the last nine times, and the relevant lands were reconquered.

 

And what do you think we should do with all the Muslims?

 

The Islamic caliphates as they existed from 632 until the 1920s, and now again for the last few years, are not a product of a misinterpretation of Islam. They are a product of a literal interpretation of the Koran and hadiths.

 

Nah.. there's NOTHING about a caliphate in the Koran.. and most hadiths were written hundreds of years later.

Most Muslims don't want a caliphate.. For instance, the Wahhabi reform movement came about to get rid of the Ottoman Empire and drive the Turks off the Arabian peninsula.

 

Says the person who is more often wrong than right. TBH fundamental Christians and Muslims are not that different from each other both interpret their religious texts in ways that suit their own agenda in order to demean others.

 

Let's remember that the vast majority of Islam is on our side against terrorism, and that there is no chance of reducing the radical religious terrorism we see in the ME without the help of Muslims throughout the region.

Plus, this idea that non-Muslims can understand modern Islam by reading the Qur'an is ridiculous. As with Christianity and other religions, the interpretation of ancient writings by those of the religion today must be consulted.

 

So you think the 1300 years of Islams 1400 year history under the rule of the Islamic Caliphate, had nothing to do with Islam????? The Muslims disagree

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-go...-jurist-imam-khomeini/form-islamic-government
http://www.islamicity.org/6479/governance-of-islamic-state-during-caliph-hazrat-ali/
https://www.alquranclasses.com/concept-of-good-governance-in-islam/

 

Grugore's interpretation of the doctrine isn't the problem here. It is the muslims interpretation that causes this worldwide campaign of Islamic terrorism.

 

Well, it is a literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths, dictating Islamic law applied by Islamic government that causes us problems today. The Sunnis consider the first four Caliphs to be the "Rightly Guided" Caliphs, to be emulated.

 

KSA and the GCC states certainly don't want a caliphate.

 

Well, of course the governments don't want the alternative governments required by Islamic doctrine. That would be their demise.

 

Well, this shows that muslims don't have to be (and many aren't) as committed to some of the ideas presented in the OP as Grugore and others suggest, and that many have other priorities even if that doesn't mean they would publicly distance themselves from Islam. As such, any argument that bases itself on "a literal interpretation" or any particular version of theology is less reliable than a more practical interpretation.