"Kill them unless they convert" (ISIS is just FOLLOWING a "great religion")

"The Islamic State group views Yazidis as apostates and has vowed to kill all who do not convert to Islam."
"....and tell them to convert to Islam or face death, Reuters reports."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/militants-execute-hundreds-of-minorities-in-iraq-official-says/

They are simply FOLLOWING Qur'an 9:5 or 9:29, as well as the overall direction of the Islamic texts (which include hatred of the non-believer, and also of course death to apostates), so arguably we can not blame them for doing that....if we respect the underlying belief system which instructs them to do that very thing.

Question: so which do YOU choose, "A" or "B"?
A. We should "respect" Islam and other religions (like Obama says), and if we respect their religion then if they are just simply FOLLOWING the texts of said "great religion" (GW Bush's words) then we can't complain about their actions when they just follow it, now can we.....or why would we consider it a respected "great religion" in the first place?
OR
B. We should NOT "respect" Islam (and other religions that teach hatred towards the non-believer - such as the Bible, i.e. Moses' slaughter, and also "hell" for non-believers, etc.), because we are civilized enough to oppose killing/hatred of non-believers like their texts state.

Which is it?

 

Neither A nor B. There are areas where such religions and others coexist peacefully and cooperate for the good of society. Therefore the fault lies in the fanatical applications and motives of the intolerant oppressors.

Step up the drone and napalm production and give them what they deserve for their pathological ruthlessness.

 

ISIS's # 1 American hero:







No surprise that it is REPUBLICAN John McCain.

 

But when a person (Mohammad) threatens people will eternal torture for not loyally following his (fanatical) dictates, you have to agree at least that he deserves a good chunk of the blame for said actions, correct?

 

We discussed those verses in another of your threads yesterday.. and you are still wrong.

 

But what about when their motives (as you said) are dictated by their religion itself (as in Q9:5/9:29 which say convert or die, and other Islamic texts which say to implement Allah's law via Jihad)?

 

So tell us in what context, or when, "convert or die" (Q9:5/9:29) is indeed justified! If Bush had said that Muslims much convert to his religion, or die, would that have been ok with you? If not, then quit giving Mohammad a pass like you always ALWAYS do.
Mohammad could advocate genocide against the Jews (oh wait, he DID!), and you'd still defend him. Incredible.

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

 

Yes, McCain doesn't seem to understand that religions are evil.

 

I'll take it that you choose "A", so therefore you respect Islam, and the Islamic texts say to do what ISIS is doing, so you can't complain about ISIS's incredibly ruthless actions, now can you. If you complain about ISIS's actions then you are a hypocrite.
You have to agree that if ISIS STOPPED following Mohammad's example that the world would be a better place, correct?

 

You tell us, because I don't know.
Are the fundy extremists correct in their interpretation of how people should follow islam?
Or are the millions of peaceful followers correct in their interpretation of islam?

 

Since the "peaceful" followers won't condemn the violent instructions in their own Qur'an, they are clearly complicit.
It's like a Nazi who won't complain about Hitler, when asked.
Mohammad has them by the balls.......criticize me and we'll see that you burn, and NO VIRGINS FOR YOU!

 

You still haven't read the Koran.. So stick with your simpering cut and paste sites.

 

What "interpretation" is there in Q9:29 which says for the infidel to pay the jizya?
What "interpretation" is there in 9:5 which says for the infidel to convert or die?
Like with the bible, the problem is not the interpretation, but the source material itself being morally defective, and just invented by con-men.

 

You are correct that this is not a quote from the Qur'an, but if, hypothetically (you and I weren't actually there) if Mohammad did say the exact things in the above hadith quote, would you condemn him? Would you condemn calls to genocide? I would, because modern Secular Humanism is not about power of one people over another people, and not invented by a mad-man.

- - - Updated - - -

YOU clearly don't understand Islam, and let me prove it to readers here: Margot2, what in your opinion are the 3 VERY WORST things that the Islamic texts say? The very worst? Ready, go!
(She will fail this test miserably, I predict, but I could be wrong.)

- - - Updated - - -

You can't answer the question, can you!? So I'll ask again: "So tell us in what context, or when, "convert or die" (Q9:5/9:29) is indeed justified!"

 

Yet, 99+% of the muslims are enforcing that verse. Why?

I agree, muslim nations need to taking a larger role in controlling the extremists.

 

You just don't get it, do you? Ask your "moderate" Muslim friends if Mohammad was wrong to say in Q9:5 to convert or die, and see how many will say that he was wrong. A moral person would indeed say he was wrong. So they are not moral.
Ask a "moderate" Christian if Jesus was morally wrong to proclaim that non-believers (let's use Gandhi as an example) are so vile that they deserve brutal, savage, never-ending torture, just for believing differently than that SOB, and you'll see that Christians are clearly no more moral than Muslims/ISIS are.

- - - Updated - - -

Just change the Islamic texts!

 

And you can stick to DEFENDING a pedo, murderer, torturer, enslaver, be-header, raper of captives (Q4:24), wife-beater (Q4:34), sexist pig if you are too afraid to tell the truth (you fear "Allah"....I know you're a Christian, but you aren't a confident enough Christian to be sure that maybe "Allah" is actually not real so you play it safe.....don't want to risk Allah's hell.....)

As per the Islamic texts, and Mohammad's example, ISIS would take you as a sex slave in a heart-beat, so you might want to reconsider defending Mohammad all the time.
"Women have faced an ever-more terrifying ordeal. Many are simply grabbed on the street and kidnapped by the militants, condemned to being used as a sex slave or even being forced to marry a member of the Isis clan." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/life-under-isis-robbery-sex-slaves-headless-bodies-street-1459147

 

Harsh demands and threats are the drawbacks of the religions in question. You can say that one religion may be more drastic in that regard and therefore more undesirable than another.

Blaming the authors doesn't undue the damage, but it is important to note that the worst of them got nasty because he wasn't making any headway being nice. Willingness to harness the vileness of humanity for the sake of expanding his domain makes him a candidate for the despot rating.

Despots of history have made their way up the ladder. The only antidote is opposition from sensibility.

 

Muslims are fighting ISIS..

The penalties for rape, murder and pedophilia in the Muslim world are harsh. You probably need to think things thru.

 

Not ideologically are they taking ISIS on, because they know they can't, because ISIS is following the texts more than the "moderates" are. Only local Muslims who are being displaced are fighting them, and usually for their, say, Shiite sect, not because ISIS is immoral. The only people fighting ISIS who live half-way around the world are the non-Muslim Americans.

Rape of CAPTIVES is legal in Islam, such as the Christian captives that Boko took, and the Yazidi captives that ISIS took. I didn't say a Muslim man can just run down the street raping anyone he wishes.....no, Mohammad approved of rape only in certain cases.
Pedophilia is NOT illegal in much of the Islamic world as a pervert Muslim can have sex with a 9 year old in certain Islamic lands ("marrying a 9 year old is considered rape, since he's effectively forcing himself on her - she was sold to him by her Muslim father), especially, say, 1300 years after the founding of Islam (100 years ago.)

 

Such is the fallacy of fundamentalism, strict adherence to the literal messages of scripture. Sensible people know better than to subscribe to uncivil dictums. It's a matter of discerning bad advice from good advice.

It's also a matter of not letting one's self be brainwashed to the point where one abdicates personal responsibility and follows the orders of an authority that are in violation of good moral standards. Thus it is necessary for pious individuals to commit to the positive ideals in religion while maintaining discretion against negative content.

The bottom line: The "word of God" has been infiltrated with contamination since its inception. Those who fail to make proper sense of scripture do what the fanatics do.

 

The penalty for killing one's own child, if it cleanses the family "honor", is very very minimal in much of Islam. Barbaric.
A daughter, for example, is seen as simply a possession of the Muslim male.
I will agree that what IS HARSH in Islam is the penalty for being gay in Islam......DEATH. Now THAT'S harsh.
If Mohammad did indeed say to kill gays (maybe he didn't, I wasn't there) then would you, for once, condemn Mohammad (again, if, repeat if, he said to kill gays.) A moral person of course would.

- - - Updated - - -

The Qur'an is the literal word of god (Muslims and the Qur'an say), do you know that? So not taking it literally is not really an option, for a loyal Muslim.

- - - Updated - - -

How exactly does one make "proper sense" of "dashing babies against rocks", as in the immoral Bible? Clearly people who believe that that book is moral, are clearly not.

- - - Updated - - -

How about if the piece of garbage who wrote the advice (kill gays, non-believers burn in hell, slavery is ok) in the first place be given the most blame?

- - - Updated - - -

Mohammad is pretty much a despot, correct?

 

They do claim that the Koran is the genuine word of God and that the Bible is just Western Man's opinion of the word of God. Elevating one over the other is an ominous symptom.

It's convenient for them to idolize their founder and overlook his gross transgressions. One has to wonder what portion of their populations have drawn a high line between brainwashing and sensibility.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with societies where many youth have poor prospects of attaining a decent life. Ghettos produce angry people. Concentration of wealth is part of the problem.

Again, books of scripture can be of mixed content, not just all one kind or the other. People who have lost sight of the distinction are deluded.

The truth about his actual past speaks for itself. I still place most responsibility on the receivers and the leadership that perpetuates the scheme.

 

While I'm always very pleased to see input from you, FS (no one calls a spade a spade like you do .... would that there were more of it!), in defence of Margot, I don't think you're correct on this. I seem to recall she has lived in or spent time in the middle east, and as a fellow former resident of an Islamic state, I know that the reality of living amongst such graceful and dignified people changes one's perception of islam. I've never had a moment's trouble from 'good muslims' (who are vastly in the majority in most of the world), and certainly nothing like the awful double standards and impositions visited on me by Christians in the name of their faith. That counts for alot, and I dare say it would for you, too, if you had the opportunity to live amongst ordinary, decent, hardworking, family oriented muslims.

 

Many Americans have not had that sort of experience so they are sitting ducks for negative propaganda and hate sites.