BOG does his own argument a bit of disservice by quoting Islamic holy texts out of context. I actually got a kick out of Wusti's response, "Turn the other cheek" which is quite spot on now.

I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but here is how I see it holistically:

Christians should model their behavior after Jesus Christ. For the most part, Jesus was a very giving person. Indeed, according to that faith, Jesus sacrificed himself through crucifixion so his believers would have eternal salvation. Jesus never married or issued children according to canon, so everything he did was altruistic to others, even those who persecuted him. The Sermon on the Mount basically revises the entire Bible up until that point and (generally) calls for a kinder, gentler faith. This story of generosity and sacrifice is the archetype which resonates deeply among Christians.

Muslims should model their behavior after the prophet Muhammad. Muhammad was a great spiritual, political and military leader. He conquered much of the Middle East, north Africa and Iberia creating an enormous caliphate. He had many wives and many children. This in part left Islam with a fractured legacy and eventual schism. Some of the Koran deals with the legal system of governance for the caliphate. Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewess during one of his military campaigns leading to his death a few weeks later. This story of righteous living leading to personal strength and dignity is the archetype which resonates deeply with Muslims.

I think it is clear that some of the governance verses in the Koran seem incompatible with western constitutional republics. But I also think it is a fool's errand to believe that eradication of militant opponents and aggressive conversion from one faith to another will solve the world's problems. Christianity and Islam have both proven resilient for millennia. Neither is going away any time soon.

Finally, a discussion about Middle East without a single mention of Israel. Well, except this one.

It had been mentioned. According to Orothaic, Israel is not to be considered in the case of Syria:

"actually Israel is a pretty major power to, but doesn't get involved with Arabic conflicts for stability reasons"

Now that I'm thinking about it, I would not be surprised, however, if Israel were puttinga big deal of money and efforts on that anti-muslim propaganda and websites that have stolen BOG's brain

@BaldoldGuy - let's just say for the sake of arguement that you are right about ISIS and others taking there actions straight from the Quran. Where does that leave the world? If 1.6 Billion followers of Islam really do act in the way you describe Vs the 2.2 Billion Christians who will turn the other cheek to their astrocities, surely the world would be Muslim in a few short years? Are you suggesting the atheists, Buddhists, Sikhs come to Christianities rescue? Are you suggesting that Christian should drop its central doctine of loving thy neighbour, refusing to cast the first stone and turning the other cheek until thy are no more?

"It had been mentioned. According to Orothaic, Israel is not to be considered in the case of Syria"

Yeah, because Israel will not take militrary action beyond it's own (and palestinian) borders. It is not getting involved with the large Sunni (Saudi) and Shia (Iranian) conflict.

Because if one thing could unite the two factions of Islam, it would be Israeli interference.

(and i know there are Irish peace-keepers deployed - under UN mandate - to Syria, who have been pushed back into Israel, through shelling from various forces, and i'm pretty thankful to Israel for letting them cross the border)

BOG, people can use religion to justify conflict/murder.

Or they can use an atheistic ideology to justify conflict/murder. (See: the Soviet Union)

Or they can use economics to justify conflict. (see: Capitalism)

Whatever they use, you can also claim that blah... Is their God.

(like 'Money is their God', for Capitalist societies, or 'Communism is their God')

This doesn't make 'God' inherently evil, just because people are using it as an excuse to do evil things.

People fight for all kinds of reasons. Following Islam in Malaysia, Bangladesh, or Indonesia (three of the most populous states with Muslim majorities; 433 million people of which ~356 million are Muslim)is completely different from being from Nigeria, or Pakistan; from being Iranian (Persian) or Moroccan. (each country with a large Islamic population: ~364 million muslims)

The culture of East Asia is massively different from the Arabs Muslims in the middle east, or the sub-saharan Africans of Nigeria, or the Persian Muslims of Iran.

You can't simply lump them all into one category.

And even within the Arabs, there is a a huge variety of different school of thought, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches#/media/File:Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

There is one branch Wahhabism, which is considered ultra-conservative and orthodox.

To quote wikipedia "Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and the Taliban. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) also draws on Wahhabism for its ideology."
...and...

"The alliance between followers of ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) proved to be rather durable."

You can see it is not an old tradition dating back to Muhammad (~610–632) but comes from over a thousand years later.

And you can also see that it is related to Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest US ally in the region.

Why? Because they have a lot of oil. (did i mention people will use economics as an excuse to violence? - there is a great quote from Noam Chomsky which i can't find right now, where he talks about US foreign policy in the 60s, where someone asks why people hate America, and is told, they hate us because we exploit their oil, and they should hate us for this, and we should take their oil this way... Basically the arguement that this is in the US national interest...)

So if you want to specifically discuss Wahhabism, and it's approximately 4.56 million followers in the Persian Gulf region. Then that is a very different discussion to have.

Or if you want to discuss why US policy, violence and oppression, lead to millions of deaths in the same region. Even why it might be in the US national interest. (Or what the Soviet Union would have done in the absence of US presence in the region... given that this directly relates to Russia [considered the successor state to the USSR], and now China getting involved in airstrikes against ISIS)

As i mentioned before, there is a geo-political game being played on at least three levels. The global one between Russia/China on one side, and the US/western allies on the other. The regional one between Iran and Saudi Arabia (with Turkey on the sidelines, while Egypt and Israel keeping well out of things) and the local one, where ISIS, the Kurds, and other local Shia/Sunni militias all fight for their own survival...

Without making any moral judgements, are these rational actors? Is this normal human behaviour, and tribalism? Can we expect better from international powers? Could regional powers push for a regional peace deal and carve up the region again (as it was carved up by the British/French when the Ottoman Empire collapsed?) These are all interesting questions - ones which i don't know how to answer.

Shield – “You don't have to admit it here but I hope one day you come to understand a more realistic view of the world.”
I used to share your naïve belief of Islam, that the God of Abraham was the God of the Jew and the god of the Muslim – why can’t we just all get along. Then I started studying about Islam. I learned a lot: Abrogation, for one. The concept of "abrogation" in the Koran is that Allah chose to reveal something that supercedes what was said earlier. The concept of abrogation is Surah 2:106: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things” How can an eternal revelation of Allah could have such a short time-bound revelation in it, if Allah was indeed the all-knowing, all-wise, creator and sustainer of the universe. The Koran is by itself not an eternal and universal scripture. It is time-bound, and changed as Mohamed grew in power. The Koran was peaceful when he was weak, and these verses were abrogated when he gained strength in Medina.
What struck me is the fact that the terrorists of today use the Koran as their playbook. They follow the words Mohammed dictated to his followers.
I share Winston Churchill’s view of the world. Churchill is one of the guys who saved Western Civilization from the Evil of Socialism in Germany:
From an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

I think I’m in good company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCedWxlG90M

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/sir-winston-churchill-s-family-begged-him-not-to-convert-to-islam-letter-reveals-9946787.html

Churchill's family begs him not to convert to Islam??

And i believe you will find that Germany was a Fascist state. (and some would argue that the US is currently becoming more and more Fascist, so i don't know about saving anyone from Socialism... considering most of Europe is made up of social democracies today)

Maniac - Jesus acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must not cut off the heads of non-believers. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.

Jeff – “BOG does his own argument a bit of disservice by quoting Islamic holy texts out of context.”
Great. Lets discuss the actual verses. Why don’t you take a crack at explaining the meaning of these. Put them in the proper context. I am interested in your perspective.

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Sura (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"

Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Sura (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."

I believe they mean exactly what they say.

@BaldGuy - so Christians can be peaceful or violent and use the bible to underpin their actions. They are the sole arbiters as to when to turn other cheek or take up arms. Cool religion.

Shield -"However you have to realize you're saying stuff that has blatant inaccuracies, is non sequitur, and contains a lot irrational ideas that dont make sense with the way the world actually is."
Examples, please.

You are not an Islamic Scholar, thus no-one ~1.57 Billion Muslims in the world gives a shit.

The 4.56 million Wahhabistic Muslims only care about the Wahhabist interpretation.

So, please, do yourself a favour, and stop talking like your interpretation is useful for anything other than justifying the murder of more than a Billion people.

It is Xenophobic, and Islamophobic. And unless you are planning to convert and follow these teachings, i don't care what you think of them.

(that was @BaldGuy - and should read 'no-one of the world's 1.57 Billion Muslims...')

BOG, if you were truly interested in having these questions you have answered, by this point you would have gone to your local mosque (I'm sure there is a mosque where you live or else somewhere close to it if you do live in a free society) and had this discussion with a learned scholar, who would have told you exactly why and how your views are off. Since, instead, you take to the Internet and simply pick and choose what from the Qu'ran you want to bring up, and then blast and contrast this to your personal views, I can tell that you really don't have interest in having this discussion for real. As such, I wish you the best in your ventures, but I will be muting this thread, as this discussion is nothing other than incredibly annoying to be a part of. Goodbye.

Maniac -@BaldGuy - so Christians can be peaceful or violent and use the bible to underpin their actions. They are the sole arbiters as to when to turn other cheek or take up arms. Cool religion.
No, it is not that simplistic. Christians will fight against Evil, although peace ia always preferred. Muslims will behead unbelievers.

Tolstoy -"You are quoting selected verses and fractions of verses"
I quoted those verses as a starting point. Asking all to put them in the proper context.

No takers yet. They prefer to obfuscate, ignore the question, or mute the thread.

Tolstoy - " Especially since they contradict Muhammed's own actions in his lifetime, when he allowed people to renounce Islam in Medina and defect back to the Quraish as part of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.”
Yeah, that is another problem with Islam. Mohammed changed his mind on how to act as he grew in power. He invented the concept of "abrogation" in the Koran that he used when he changed his mind. The concept of abrogation is in Surah 2:106: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”

The Koran was more peaceful when Mohammed was weak, and the peaceful verses were abrogated when he gained strength and power.

You are losing takers because you're a troll or a moron and people don't care enough about you to keep wasting time. You have lots of guidance already.

This is like GOP candidates in the US discussing whether or not the boogie man is real. He's not and deating is a waste of time. If you don't believe me I then I don't know what to tell you. Not going to write a 10 page research paper convincing you he's a story.

Doesn't the burden of proof kind of lie with the person claiming Islam is evil and must be destroyed?

It's a ridiculous claim to make without proof and if you did not read the Koran and made a serious attempt to find that proper context yourself, you're not to be taken seriously.

You can't just assume evil and ask people to prove you're wrong.

shield '"This is like GOP candidates in the US discussing whether or not the boogie man is real."
This is a non sequitur. No GOP candidate has mentioned the boogiman, and none claim he is real.
I quote from islamic holy books. I start with the premise that the words mean what they mean. I am convinced they do. When Mohamed tells his followers to behead non-believers, I take him at his word. Far too many examples in the news to show that to this day his followers are doing as he commands. The lack of a response proves to me that the words do mean what they say.

I have read the Koran. Everything in Sura 8 supports the clear language of these two verses.
Sura (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"
Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Nothing taken out of context. I get no responses because the clear words of Mohammed cannot be denied. The islamists are following the commands of Mohamed.

i still stand by my position; it is a form of imperialism to tell others what they think about their beliefs.

And i will not indulge in talking to someone about his Imperialistic Xenophobia.

If you are interested in talking about the topic of the geo-political implications of Russian intervention, or even of the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam and those who act on it; then that is an entirely different matter. (and there are problems with the phrase Wahhabist, along with internal conflicts between the Clerics and Princes of Saudi Arabia as you might expect from any group which has over 4 million people... - still a minority in Saudi Arabia... population ~29 million)

'The lack of a response proves to me that the words do mean what they say. '

No, but i may respond by muting you for that comment.

baldOldGuy - the evidence suggest that the 1.6 billion Muslim don't interpret their holy books in the same way as you do. I might not be the most observant person but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if 1.6 billion people had been beheaded. Likewise you contention that Christians prefer peace but may take up arms against evil doesn't make sense in that they get to define what is evil. If you are defining Muslims as evil because some behead people you are allowing yourself to judge them as evil as cover for you demonising them.

I understand the KKK, abortionist who target doctors and other cite christian scripture, am I to assume all Christians share the same views?

Maniac - I appreciate your responses and your willingness to engage in a dialogue on an important topic. Thank you.
So a few points:
1. I claim Islam is Evil. A religion that directs its followers to behead unbelievers is evil. I don't think a rational person would think otherwise.
2. Do the words of the Koran say what they mean? The answer is yes. The Islamists point to the Koran as justification for beheading Christians simply for not believing in Islam. Nobody here has claimed otherwise. Nothing is taken out of context, some say it is but give no examples. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
3. Yes, most Muslims do not behead non-believers. I am happy they are ignoring the Koran in living their lives.

"I understand the KKK, abortionist who target doctors and other cite christian scripture" Can you give me examples? Even one?

BOG the quotes you reference aren't even in the quran which you'd know if you read it. Haha. You silly goose.