Not at all. I am a traditional Hindu.
No.
This thread has nothing to with what is in the Islam, but what is the percertion of the society about it.
Having said that, if the mod would shift the thread, i have no objection either. But, i do not think that would be right decision.
with love,
sanjay
Arminius,
For more clarification, i am a proud Hindu, but even if i were a Muslim, i would not be ashamed of that either.
with love,
sanjay
So you are a “traditional Hindu”, as you said, and yet you defend the Islam. That reminds me of the modern Christians of the Occidental culture, thus the Catholics and Protestant Christians, because many of them also defend the Islam in order to destroy their own religious community. So why I am saying that? The modern Occidental Christianity is the only religious community which destroys itself. Today Christianity is the most attacked religious community. So it is more attacked than Islam. Christianity is attacked by other religious systems and also by itself.
That’s true. 
{tis shame}
I noted long ago that Christianity seems to have given up on itself. But that’s what comes from not really understanding your adversary.
Not exactly, James.
The fact of the matter is that he is not just an ordinary cleric. He is seen as the master of Quran and Islamic issues within the Muslim intellectualls and educated middle class. He has a lot of followers who recpect and obey him too. That is why he is not short of money either.
During his last demonstration at Islamabad almost one year ago, he gathered such a huge crowd and maintained it for 2-3 days there, that Pakistani PM was forced to invite him to talk and accepted his demands at that time, though nothing much happened in the end.
But, he is enough popular to be taken seriously.
Philosophically, you are not wrong, James.
But, does that mean that all should close their eyes, ears and mouths and sit in the corner?
That does not serve the purpose either.
Secondly, if no one can neither know nor tell the complete truth, what is the solution?
That is all true. I know that happens and he knows that too. That is why he does not live permanetly in Pakistan but in Canada as he has dual citizenship.
But, at least he is honest and have the courage to display it, even at the cost of his life.
Some hate him but some respect him too, even in the hardcore Arab countries. He is at least giving the vioce to those who see the misuse of Islam but cannot help it.
And, he is doing far more that only preaching. His organization runs many schools in Pakistan. He has founded a political party and been parlimentarian himself too in the past, though he resigned later on some issues.
That is true and Jesus knew that by hook or by crook, one day they will win over him too. Did he not tell that already?
But, he still did what should be done. Knowing his defeat and fate did not force him to compromise with his mision.
A very few use to have the courage to do that.
Secondly, had Jesus done the opposite and kept silent, there would be no Christianity either as we know it today.
Today, no body remembers those Jews but everybody remembers Jesus.
James, sometimes one has to do what should be done, irrespecitve of the result would be. Sometimes, efforts become more important and effective than the results.
with love,
sanjay
I don’t know any Western Christian who would say: “I am a proud Christian”. This Christian would not survive the agitation of the Western media. And that fits exactly to what I said in my last post.
Zinnat, how can you know whether or not you are ashamed, if you were a Muslim? You are no Muslim!
Arminius,
I am defending truth, not Islam. And, by the way, i defend Christianity too in the same way.
It is neither my fault nor i can help it for the simple reason that i do not see much wrong in either of those.
My knowledge/faith in Hinduism does not restrict me to defend Islam. However, it may be diificult for a Muslim or a Christian to do the same for Hinduism. I know their reasons.
Secondly, my guess is that you have not studied Hinduism much, otherwise you would have not said this.
[u]Barring Deistic subsets, Hinduism is more philosophy than a conventional religion. It is quite different from Abrahamic religions in this reagard.
Secondly, besides scricptures, when it comes to the details of spiritual practices like yoga and meditation, there is no difference between Vedanta, Buddhism and Sufism, except language[/u].
And, that is my real interest because that is the real essense of any religion. All the rest that we see in the religious scriptures, is derived or concluded from that.
with love,
sanjay
You are saying that you defend Islam and that you are no Muslim, but merely defending the truth. So, I conclude that for you the Islam belongs to the truth, and you mean “reality”, when you use the word “truth”. Right? That’s important because reality and truth are not the same. Religious communities are a part of reality, regardless of whether they are also a part of truth or not; but if religious communities are a part of truth, then they are always also a part of reality.
Okay.
That is what a modern Western Christian also says. But Christianity is originally a so-called “monotheistic” religion, and since it has become modern it demands defending other religions, especially other “monotheistic” religions. So, what you are saying is something which belongs thematically to the Islam but refers to your own religion, the Hinduism. Hinduism as a whole is no so-called “monotheistic” but a “polytheistic” religion. And in polytheistic religions the defense of other religions is not as big a problem as in “monotheistic” religions because polytheistic religions are able to integrate other religions. Thus: when Christianity defends other religions, then it attacks itself because it is actually a “monotheistic” religion; and because the modern Western Christianiity has been destroying itself more and more since the beginning of its modern times it probably has been changing from a monotheistic to a polytheistic religion.
And if all religions do that what the modern Western Christianity has been doing since the beginning of its modern times, then there would merely be polytheistic religions. And polytheistic religions can also be called as one polytheistic religion, if there is nomonotheistic religion anymore (maybe that will be the case in future). A good omen for you and your religion, Zinnat.
Maybe for 99% of the humans in the future the religion will be a polytheistic one (similar to what the monotheists call heathendom), the society and its economy and policy either a “Brazilanised” one with an impending dominance of the machines, or similar to that of the hunters and collectors of the past.
Not for many modern Western Christians. But probably you don’t know much about Christianity and other “monotheistic” religions (see above and below).
Really? One can doubt that.
Said what? I knew much more about Hinduism than you about Christianity.
So, thanks for your insults and good bye.
Zinnat was trying to defend the truth about Islam, not trying to defend that Islam IS truth. He has done the same concerning Christianity. He is saying that someone has a misunderstanding of what Islam or perhaps Christianity is really about and he is trying to set the story straight. He is not claiming that any of them are necessarily religions of Truth (else he would be defending RM:AO 
).
If they cannot say that, it simply means that they neither understand Jesus/Christianity nor true Christians either, forget about being proud. That is out of the question.
By the way, you will not find every Hindu defending Islam and Christianity either.
Yes, media effects, though it is not the sole reason.
I can know that by looking into what exactly Islam stands for. By doing that, i can assume what would be my thinking about Islam, if i were a Muslim.
with love,
sanjay
If you are interpreting reality as whatever has been happened or happening in the name of Islam, then i am certainly not supporting that in totality.
I am supproting whatever truth is in Islam, which i think is in the majority. The same is with Christianity.
I doubt that. But, i may be wrong, given the fact that odds are in the favor that you know about their mindset more than me.
Christianity is certainly a monotheistic religion. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
This is from where the problem starts. Christians (mostly) do not understand/interpret Christianity how it should be done. They even do not follow what Jesus said in this regard.
Did Jesus ever ask not to follow what Moses said? Yes, he clarifed many issues and made it a simple read for the masses.
Christianity is nothing but Jesus’s interpretation of the Moses with some amendments and additions, which were required by the time to avoid masses from confusion prevailed at that time. And, in the same way, Islam/Quran/Mohammad not once asked to disrespect either Moses or Jesus. On the contrary, the fact of the matter is that Quran gives more importance to Moses than Mohammad itself in some regards. Islam says that every Prophet was given a specific task and made competent specifically for it. Every prophet, right from Adam to Mohammad, had a special seal/marking, Just as members here at ILP use to have a specific singnature.
But, do the adherants of these three religions folllow the directions of their original leaders? People neither understand nor do that, much less in the spirit than the letter, though the focus should be more on the spirit than the letter.
All these religions are a part of greter Abramics, from Adam to Mohammad. They lost their true purpose and meaning if taken individualy.
Secondly, there is some difference between not following and demeaning/hating. Not fillowing is fine and acceptable but demeaning is not. Any religion does not need to support others. Not demaning is enough.
Believe what you want or find worthy to believe and let others do the same, but have the patience to listen to the criticism too. Discuss, debate and argue but not demean, hate or try to force the issue with unwarrented power.
Hinduism is more philosophy/idealogy than a conventional religion. It also tells how to make and use tools too besides telling about the final product. Other religions lack this quality as they talk about the product only, not tools.
No matter what Christianity did/doing, the world would ultimately become monotheistic, but not in a literal sense. Sooner or later, no matter how late it would be, human race will realize the ultimate truth. That truth will become a sole religion, though it would comprise almost all present ones too, but with some necessary amendments and new inclusions.
Humans are destined to that future. That is inevitable, no matter how impossible it may look at present.
That is what i was saying about the tools and the product issue.
Hinduism does not dictate terms up to the last destination. It tells the way, give you tools, show the assembly line, but does not assemble the final product for you. It says do it yourself by using given guidelines and tools. Consult me if there is any need but do not expect me to do it for you.
On the other hand, Abrahamic religions offer final product only. They neither give tools nor tell the method how to make it. All they say that this is going to be in the last. Thus, no need to go in the details of the processing as that may confuse you. You can have it as it is.
Lord Krisna says the same to Arjun in Mahabharat/Gita about his hesitation to fight against his own relatives.
[b] Lord Krisna says do not hesitate, discern the good and just from evil and unjust, and do exactly what should be done by you under the given circumstances, irrespective of what will be the outcome and to what extent you can influence that, and also do not worry how the outcome may affect the others too.
Your discreation and duty ends at your honest and objective discerning and consequent action taken. That is all. The result is neither in your hand nor you are competent enough to comprehend it its full capacity, thus forget about that and do not try to discount that in your thinking and action[/b].
That is precisely what i am trying to do. Hinduism gives me the choice to disern good from bad on my own. That is why i can defend whatever truth i find in other religions, even being a Hindu.
But, Abrahamic religions do not give this liberty.
That, how can i defend Islam being a proud Hindu.
I have no way of knowing that in reality as we never discussed that. That is why i said it is my geuss that you have not studied Hinduism much. My guess may be wrong.
Secondly, as far as my knowledge of Christianity is concerned, I may not be aware of its litrature much, but i get the gist of its basic ideology for sure.
Good bye.
But, i do not even tried to insult you, forget about doing that. I am not sure for what you are taking an offence.
It would be better if you clarify that.
with love,
sanjay
Exactly, but i fail to understand why intellectuals are unable to get this simple thing straight.
I have seen enumerable occasions, almost everytime, as soon as i say a word in the support of any religion, people straightaway start telling me how bad things they have in them. They even do not bother to look what exactly i am trying to say.
The massage taped in their tape recorder turns on and does not stop untill it plays out fully, whether that old recorded message is pertinent with the discussion or not. They just play it on and on. Knowingly or unknowingly, it is included in their moral premises to do so everytime, whenever they found a slight reason. As soon as they start talking, this recorded tape turns on atomatically and keep playing in the background all the time.
Armininus will provably take this as his insult too, though he has not said anything such and i am not referring to him either.
I do not have any problem with RM. I believe you and accepet its methodology.
But, as we discussed earlier, i have one difference with AO.
with love,
sanjay
Nevertheless, James,
You seem to be agree with the OP about his interpretation of the Islam. What will happen to him is a different issue.
with love,
sanjay
The problem with Islam, the same problem suffered by all major religions, is that there is more than one “real interpretation” of it. It’s based in a particular set of holy scriptures as well as the words and actions of prophets, and those are always open to multiple interpretations. The Umma has but one interpretation, and even if it is the oldest or most traditional, that does not make it correct (or, at least, not the only correct interpretation). i tend to think Islam might reasonably be seen as condoning the violence of certain terrorist groups - i myself am no scholar of Islam, but certainly there are numerous actual scholars and clerics who would agree with me, infidel though i may be. So while the insightful and eloquent cleric highlighted in many of Zinnat’s videos may be right that by a certain classical interpretation of scripture, terrorist political violence is unjustifiable, there are still obviously many clerics (some no doubt equally eloquent and insightful) who disagree, yet have just as reasoned interpretations of Koran.
i guess i simply don’t believe that Islam, or any other major religion, is innocent of inciting violence among people, notwithstanding the OP’s implication that people who think religions incite violence are “biased and intellectually blind”. As Zinnat’s cleric himself points out, it is the NON-violent extremism present in all religions that gives rise to violent extremism.
True.
Almost true.
That is true. Some cleric type people support terrorism, which they should not do.
Having said that, if you start investigating and look deep enough into those people, you will find that most of those are actually nowhere near to be a cleric in true sense. They do not have neither any real capability nor knowledge to interpret Quran.
Many people may not be aware of that Quran is not written in common Arabic but pre-cassical Arabic, which is quite different and complicated from the present form. A simple ‘.’ can completely change the meaning. There are much people left in the world that can read and understnand it correctly and completely. There is special course of it and it takes about 8-9 years to learn that language only. And, there is only school to learn that, somewhere in Saudi Arabia.
Most of the people/cleric/intellectual interpret the previous interpretations. They actually do not know what is written there and what exactly it means. This is going on and on. One blind following the other blind standing next to him assuming that the other one would have the vision..
Thus, the fact of the matter is most of those people, who recite Quran in their support, do not know themselves what does their recitation actually stands for.
UPF, my assumption is that there are not more than a couple of hundreds people left in the world, which can understand Quran in the real sense. Thus, the time has come for taking texts in the spirit, not literaly.
That is what is the actual cause of all that from either side. Religions are used to motivate people for other purposes. It is the same thing that people do use nationalism to motivate others to fight. Religions are not the cause but mere tools, which are fallen unfortunately in the wrong hands.
UPF, may i sak you to show me where Mohammad asked to kill innocents or even the adherants of other religions?
Please, do not tell me that this particular group or person says that. Tell me specifically where Mohammad said that?
On the other hand, i can tell you a lot of his sayings where he said otherwise.
You are commiting the same mistake of reaching the conclusion without investigation.
It is neither the fault of Mohammad nor Quran if some people are interpeting them wrongly. Discern the real culprit.
with love,
sanjay
Who are you talking to, and what are you appealing to? One needs to consider that, or one might as well be talking out loud about his visions of flying unicorns.
Anyone who falls in that category.
I do not undestand clearly what you mean by that!
It would be better if you elaborate a liitle to make it easier for me to understand and answer.
My guess is that you are saying why you should believe him and not someone who claims about a flying unicorn.
with love,
sanjay
i googled “Quran scriptures advocating violence”, and the first link that came up contained the following:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - “idtihad” - and oppression - a variation of “z-l-m” - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) - “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) - “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) - “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) - “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) - “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) - “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) - “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) - “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) - “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:59-60) - “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Quran (8:65) - “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) - “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Quran (9:14) - “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”
Quran (9:20) - “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) - “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) - “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) - “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) - “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) - “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) - “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) - “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) - “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?
Quran (9:123) - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (17:16) - “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)
Quran (21:44) - “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) - “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) - “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) - “Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,” Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. “But if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
Quran (47:35) - “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Quran (48:17) - “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) - “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.
Quran (61:4) - “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) - “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) - “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Religion, politics and economics (and in many cases science also) do not deal with truth or justice. They deal with preserving and advancing interests. What good does it do to appeal to objectivity to biased (or to intellectually blind people, whatever that means) who, by default, are primarily interested in preserving their own view. And on top of that, you’re asking them to watch what some Islamic scholar says! As if by watching these videos they will magically become unbiased and un-blind.
The REAL interpretation of Red Khmer ideology is super peaceful. I look down on all these dumb people who got murdered and thought it wasnt peaceful. They should not be so presumptious. They should have realized what Pol Pot REALLY meant.