question to muslims of MAL
im still a muslim
38.6%
32
i was a muslim and now im irreligious
8.4%
7
im not a muslim i just want to vote
53.0%
44
83 votes
| i just happen to come accross about this word - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion its another term for nonreligious beliefs, and im wondering how many muslims become irreligious with recent islamophobia going on because most terrorism for the past decade is done my muslim extremism http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report i wonder how many muslims have doubts about their religion (i mean not just the current extremism going on but as well finding faults or disbelief on quran or islamic ways) and now converted to irreligion like atheism or agnosticism for example do you know any muslims that drop their religion? do you think in the future more muslims will drop their religion? from what i observe here in our country there are more christians dropping their religion and becoming irreligious like atheist or agnostic and ye i do not know any muslim in our area that became irreligious ye i made this thread on current events because muslims or islam is the majority of world news right now |
degFeb 19, 2015 2:15 AM
| How can you be a muslim and not have a religion? That makes absolutely no sense. |
| I guess that's becoz they keep it silent out of fear of retribution either lawful or not and/or social suicide? Seems like that but I can't really say. |
 |
| It's funny that most people don't realize that before the 20th century, Islam was a peaceful religion, by and large, and Christianity was where Islam is now, except Christianity was FAR worse. What CERTAIN(stress on certain) Muslim groups are doing now is fairly new, in the scope of world history. Bit off topic, but I thought I should interject that anyways. Personally, I do not know any Muslims that have dropped their faith, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had been recently, like young Christians have been doing. I'm sure that young, educated people are tired of their religious affiliations' bullshit. Of course, the penalty for apostasy is explicitly death in Islam, while it is not in Christianity. There is no penalty for apostasy in Christianity, which very clearly makes it harder for Islamic people to drop their religion in Theocratic countries. I personally don't understand why people who don't live in theocracies can come to terms with this...sort of thing, be it Islam or Christian(both Abrahamic religions), however. It's pretty clear that a very large majority of those people haven't read their own holy books, or you wouldn't be hearing this constant preaching about religion promoting peace. |
Wicked_GloryFeb 19, 2015 2:03 AM
| Lemme smang it girl. |
Wicked_Glory said: Of course, the penalty for apostasy is explicitly death in Islam, while it is not in Christianity. There is no penalty for apostasy in Christianity, which very clearly makes it harder for Islamic people to drop their religion in Theocratic countries. that is new info to me, i googled about that too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam that sucks its a violation of freedom imo, i can imagine many muslims want to drop their religion but cannot do so because of this |
Wicked_Glory said: It's funny that most people don't realize that before the 20th century, Islam was a peaceful religion, by and large, and Christianity was where Islam is now, except Christianity was FAR worse. What CERTAIN(stress on certain) Muslim groups are doing now is fairly new, in the scope of world history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_civil_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna |
| None. No Muslim is ever going to drop his/her faith because some douchebag killed some people. They all know what's in their religion and whats not. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Pxi2 said: Wicked_Glory said: It's funny that most people don't realize that before the 20th century, Islam was a peaceful religion, by and large, and Christianity was where Islam is now, except Christianity was FAR worse. What CERTAIN(stress on certain) Muslim groups are doing now is fairly new, in the scope of world history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_civil_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna Congrats! You just linked a million pages completely unrelated to islam religion! War for territory does not equal war for religion |
Pxi2 said: Wicked_Glory said: It's funny that most people don't realize that before the 20th century, Islam was a peaceful religion, by and large, and Christianity was where Islam is now, except Christianity was FAR worse. What CERTAIN(stress on certain) Muslim groups are doing now is fairly new, in the scope of world history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_civil_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna You lose all credibility when you call "Timur" and "Babur" Islamic conquerors. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Yumes-lil-Faggot said: None. No Muslim is ever going to drop his/her faith because some douchebag killed some people. They all know what's in their religion and whats not. yep my fault on not elaborating on that, i mean not just the current extremism going on but as well finding faults or disbelief on quran or islamic ways, i will edit the first post |
Yumes-lil-Faggot said: Pxi2 said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_civil_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna You lose all credibility when you call "Timur" and "Babur" Islamic conquerors. Yeah I swear some people know typing bullshit better than using their mind. |
j0x said: Yumes-lil-Faggot said: None. No Muslim is ever going to drop his/her faith because some douchebag killed some people. They all know what's in their religion and whats not. yep my fault on not elaborating on that, i mean not just the current extremism going on but as well finding faults or disbelief on quran or islamic ways, i will edit the first post Finding faults is easy. Making the Quran relevant to those faults is even easier. It depends on the perspective. I for one never found a fault but I could clearly see how many would find some. But I doubt that Muslims of this age even bother to ponder over it. Hell, 90% of the Muslims I've met in real life never ever read the Quran. Their ignorance is their bliss. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Pxi2 said: Wicked_Glory said: It's funny that most people don't realize that before the 20th century, Islam was a peaceful religion, by and large, and Christianity was where Islam is now, except Christianity was FAR worse. What CERTAIN(stress on certain) Muslim groups are doing now is fairly new, in the scope of world history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_civil_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna I suppose that's what I get for not being specific enough, although, "by and large" means "generally". Meaning that I was not saying or implying that Muslims have always been a peace-loving group of people(because they haven't) but compared to Christianity, they have been more peaceful, or at the very least fair, up until recent times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades Slave trading by specific religious groups doesn't prove anything. Every civilization in the history of the world has conducted in slave trade, none of whose were as cruel as the European exploitation during the 1400-1600's of Africans. My source for this is Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States". If you've bothered to show me all these links, maybe you should've bothered to actually acquire knowledge about the slave trade in world history, as well. I feel like you haven't read some of these, or else you'd know(for example) that one of the reasons that the Ottomans began to have success in conquering the Byzantine empire was because crusaders kind of sacked Byzantine around 1200. Oh look, Christians attacking each other. Then, you have the more recent example of the U.N. arbitrarily drawing borders through whatever Islamic nations they feel like, see Israel, 1948. I'm not trying to stand up for Islam as a peaceful religion, it's an exercise in pointless and flawed rhetoric. What I am saying is that Christianity did some pretty atrocious, and very arguably worse things, and it should most certainly not be put on a pedestal. Edit: I'd like to parrot what others said, as well. Timur relied on Islamic symbolism to help his conquering. Territory wars don't mean that what the conqueror held as religious ideals represent the religion or belief system as a whole, much like Stalin doesn't represent Atheism and Columbus didn't represent Christianity. |
Wicked_GloryFeb 19, 2015 2:29 AM
| Lemme smang it girl. |
Sakuyae said: Yumes-lil-Faggot said: You lose all credibility when you call "Timur" and "Babur" Islamic conquerors. Yeah I swear some people know typing bullshit better than using their mind. The Islamic conquests of the first caliphates were ordered/lead by the prophet and the following 4 rightly guided Caliphs. Babur and Timur are incredibly important figures in the spreading of Islam to India, Central Asia and Russia. The Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate and most muslims (Sunni), from Indonesia and India to Morocco hailed them as the legitimate leaders of the faith. Their conquests were incredibly violent and lead to the spreading of Islam in the Balkans. The fact that they called themselves Ghazi says alot about them. *Not a christian, literally has the alot of the same problems as Islam. Like seriously. All religions are the product of politics and philosophies from thousands of years ago. The feud over Muhammad's succession still affects today. The Islamic civil wars had politics and military might decide who would lead the Islamic empire, etc/ |
Pxi2Feb 19, 2015 2:30 AM
Pxi2 said: Sakuyae said: Yeah I swear some people know typing bullshit better than using their mind. The Islamic conquests of the first caliphates were ordered/lead by the prophet and the following 4 rightly guided Caliphs. Babur and Timur are incredibly important figures in the spreading of Islam to India, Central Asia and Russia. The Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate and most muslims (Sunni), from Indonesia and India to Morocco hailed them as the legitimate leaders of the faith. Their conquests were incredibly violent and lead to the spreading of Islam in the Balkans. The fact that they called themselves Ghazi says alot about them. *Not a christian, literally has the alot of the same problems as Islam. Like seriously. All religions are the product of politics and philosophies from thousands of years ago. The feud over Muhammad's succession still affects today. The Islamic civil wars had politics and military might decide who would lead the Islamic empire, etc/ Just because they said it was in the name of islam does not mean it was. Excuses are always needed. The first Caliphate's conquest said it was in the name of religion because they only had this excuse. If the war would have been a reconquest, the excuse would have been "getting back our territory" And also, of course if you conquer a territory, you try to spread your religion. I'm studying history, and ottomans actually didn't force others to take their religion. At least not in Europe. Sure, they built their churches (I forgot the name) but they didn't force the religion on the people. |
Wicked_Glory said: Of course, the penalty for apostasy is explicitly death in Islam, while it is not in Christianity. There is no penalty for apostasy in Christianity, which very clearly makes it harder for Islamic people to drop their religion in Theocratic countries. This is fair, and I also don't expect many Muslims to drop their beliefs because quite frankly they are literally hostages to it. As you said, in Islamic countries, the penalty for apostasy is death....and if they don't kill you they're going to torture you at the very least. It's simply not worth it. |
retrogamer32x said: Sakuyae said: Just because they said it was in the name of islam does not mean it was. Excuses are always needed. The first Caliphate's conquest said it was in the name of religion because they only had this excuse. If the war would have been a reconquest, the excuse would have been "getting back our territory" And also, of course if you conquer a territory, you try to spread your religion. I'm studying history, and ottomans actually didn't force others to take their religion. At least not in Europe. Sure, they built their churches (I forgot the name) but they didn't force the religion on the people. The Ottomans forced plenty to take their religion, just not everyone. The Ottomans forced first born Christian sons to be taken and raised as Muslims (called Janissaries), and forcibly converted Christians they took as slaves. Janissaries - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries They also enslaved and forcibly converted the entire population of Otranto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto And at the close of their empire, they ethnically cleansed their Armenian population - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide I know that too. But Jannissaries were kids forced to become rootless soldiers. Which is what the Sultan wanted. An army full of men without roots, so they would only be loyal to him, the only person they have a connection too. Religion -except for the fact they had to be the followers of islam- had nothing to do with it. |
retrogamer32x said: I still don't follow the logic there; they took European children baptised as Christians and converted them to Islam, and raided European countries for slaves who were converted or executed (like in Otranto). Then, when their power was waning, they just executed Christians who hadn't fled to Imperial Russia or the breakaway Greek state, except for children taken to be raised as Muslism, especially young girls. How is that not converting Europeans to Islam? I'm talking about ottomans, and in peaceful times. Of course in war, you make slaves out of your enemies and convert their religion because you have to show you are superior. In peaceful times, they didn't force their religion to others. Okay, very rarely. |
| The number of Muslims in the world is not as big as numbers suggest. In countries where someone can be killed for not being muslim anymore they will be fake muslims. They also count babies as Muslims. |
j0x said: do you know any muslims that drop their religion? Nope, even tho there's no penalty for apostasy in Kuwait (the heart of middle east, literally).. & we already have around 20-25% of the population non-muslims (athiests, christains, hindus & buddhists ).. Kuwaitis make only 40% of the population.. the other 60% from other countries.. from what i see more ppl are getting into it, almost every friday (after the friday prayer).. j0x said: do you think in the future more muslims will drop their religion? Nope, unless they let loose to their bad personal desires. there are few who will do so.. but these few won't make any difference. |
traed said: The number of Muslims in the world is not as big as numbers suggest. how many are muslims right now then? wikipedia says this Christianity = 2.2 billion Islam = 1.8 billion Secular[/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist ≤ 1.1 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations im surprise irreligion is getting bigger! and its about time |
| I have no clue since it can only be guessed at. There is an ex muslim group i found a wiki page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Council_of_Ex-Muslims |
Pxi2 said: The Islamic conquests of the first caliphates were ordered/lead by the prophet and the following 4 rightly guided Caliphs. Babur and Timur are incredibly important figures in the spreading of Islam to India, Central Asia and Russia. The Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate and most muslims (Sunni), from Indonesia and India to Morocco hailed them as the legitimate leaders of the faith. Their conquests were incredibly violent and lead to the spreading of Islam in the Balkans. The fact that they called themselves Ghazi says alot about them. *Not a christian, literally has the alot of the same problems as Islam. Like seriously. All religions are the product of politics and philosophies from thousands of years ago. The feud over Muhammad's succession still affects today. The Islamic civil wars had politics and military might decide who would lead the Islamic empire, etc/ I can only speak for Muhammad (pbuh) and the caliphs. Yes, they conquered according to the Rules of Jihad. No problem there. Then comes Babur and Timur. Timur burned down Mosques just as many as he burned down Churches. He killed Muslims just as many as non-Muslims. Yes, his conquest resulted in the spread of Islam but that was never his aim. Same goes for Babur, the grand child of Timur. If you do a deep research here, the only reason for the spread of Islam that one can find here is the 'Saints'. Especially, the Indian region. It was because of their preaching that Islam's influence grew. I don't give a damn about the Ottomans. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
____________Bash said: I don't any Muslims personally who converted to other religion or became agnostic,but they are decent amount of them in twitter if you want to hunt them down lol. how are they not punish with the death penalty yet? or are they located on a different country like a western country? |
retrogamer32x said: Sakuyae said: I'm talking about ottomans, and in peaceful times. Of course in war, you make slaves out of your enemies and convert their religion because you have to show you are superior. In peaceful times, they didn't force their religion to others. Okay, very rarely. The Ottomans were in a continual state of expansive war for over 300 years, I still have to disagree. They pushed all the way to Austria at the height of their empire, after conquering all of eastern and central Europe as well as Asia Minor and North Africa. EDIT: Maps don't lie, over 300 years of continuous expansive war - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire I KNOW LMAO I LIVE IN HUNGARY AND WE FOUGHT AGAINST THEM FOR ABOUT 500 YEARS But my point still stands. They force religion in war, which is not a special ottoman thing, but they didn't in peaceful times. Which is rare for a religious nation. |
| "do you know any muslims that drop their religion?" actually,there was more poeple after the attack on CH converted to Islam like the Chinese and German in addition to a footballer and a even a women like Isabel Matic . The Media havn't say anything about that in your country ? |
| Whatever.. |
j0x said: how are they not punish with the death penalty yet? or are they located on a different country like a western country? They probably moved out. Also, many Muslims (including some high ranking scholars like Dr.Zakir Naik) don't agree with the "Death for Apostasy" law as it directly contradicts the Quran and the life of Muhammad(pbuh). The most obvious reason would be: Death for adultery: Devised by the Quran. Death for Murder: Devised by the Quran. Death for Apostasy: Found in some Ahadith but not in the Quran. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
retrogamer32x said: I just get annoyed at this, because the British Empire was allied with the Ottoman Empire for many years and there is a lot of -intentionally- bad history out there in English speaking countries (the British allied against Russia with the Turks to preserve their hold on India). Christians committed plenty of atrocities too, but there's a weird tendency to idealize the Ottomans for some reason, when they were far worse than most Arab caliphates aside from the Umayyads. That's precisely the reason why I don't give a damn about the Ottomans. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Dropping a religion due to public fear is dumb |
Yumes-lil-Faggot said: j0x said: how are they not punish with the death penalty yet? or are they located on a different country like a western country? They probably moved out. Also, many Muslims (including some high ranking scholars like Dr.Zakir Naik) don't agree with the "Death for Apostasy" law as it directly contradicts the Quran and the life of Muhammad(pbuh). The most obvious reason would be: Death for adultery: Devised by the Quran. Death for Murder: Devised by the Quran. Death for Apostasy: Found in some Ahadith but not in the Quran. what is Ahadith? Muyashi said: actually,there was more poeple after the attack on CH converted to Islam like the Chinese and German in addition to a footballer and a even a women like Isabel Matic . The Media havn't say anything about that in your country ? nope im only getting news on the internet now a days |
j0x said: what is Ahadith? The plural of "Hadith". |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| "nope im only getting news on the internet now a days" What @@ !! Why they just report only the bad side X_x |
| Whatever.. |
Battlechili1 said: That is not necisarily the reason. A person may lose faith in their religion when they see it carried out to its full extent of extremes.Dropping a religion due to public fear is dumb |
Battlechili1 said: Dropping a religion due to public fear is dumb i mean not just the current extremism going on but as well finding faults or disbelief on quran or islamic ways Yumes-lil-Faggot said: j0x said: what is Ahadith? The plural of "Hadith". from what i skimmed on wiki is that its base on the religious ways of Muhammad, i wonder why death penalty though for those who abandon islam that is some extreme punishment |
Muyashi said: Not true. Thats only the case if from a biased source. There even are positive news sites"nope im only getting news on the internet now a days" What @@ !! Why they just report only the bad side X_x http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ http://positivenews.org.uk/ Not sure if they have anything on subjects like this or not |
j0x said: from what i skimmed on wiki is that its base on the religious ways of Muhammad, i wonder why death penalty though for those who abandon islam that is some extreme punishment More than 50% of the Hadith are fabricated. The base of all laws in Islam is Quran and "Death for Apostasy" contradicts Quran. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
traed said: Muyashi said: Not true. Thats only the case if from a biased source. There even are positive news sites"nope im only getting news on the internet now a days" What @@ !! Why they just report only the bad side X_x http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ http://positivenews.org.uk/ Not sure if they have anything on subjects like this or not I meant that kind of subjects although .. |
| Whatever.. |
| What would ypu consider positive news related though? |
traed said: What would ypu consider positive news related though? My point is they like to report and see the crazy ones , what would increase the hate, its a policy |
| Whatever.. |
j0x said: do you know any muslims that drop their religion? do you think in the future more muslims will drop their religion? I know a few of them. Most of them were born in Europe and only pretend to their conservative family that they are still muslim. They drink alcohol and eat whatever they want. They simply prefer the lifestyle in Europe to the one they have in holidays when they visit their "homeland". With more integration in Europe these numbers will only rise. |
Muyashi said: So you would rather them cover it up? Its the news for a reason. Anything else usually falls into the category of articles relating to surveys.traed said: What would ypu consider positive news related though? My point is they like to report and see the crazy ones , what would increase the hate, its a policy |
Yzeelb said: j0x said: do you know any muslims that drop their religion? do you think in the future more muslims will drop their religion? I know a few of them. Most of them were born in Europe and only pretend to their conservative family that they are still muslim. They drink alcohol and eat whatever they want. They simply prefer the lifestyle in Europe to the one they have in holidays when they visit their "homeland". With more integration in Europe these numbers will only rise. that is good to hear, i can imagine them abandoning islam once they become independent in europe |
| Nah I don't know any people or friends that have left Islam, even tho I live in a 80% Sunni Islamic country where leaving Islam is not punished with anything. Saying that people are afraid to leave Islam cause of death penalty is just dumb, there's a lot of full Islamic countries that don't do that. As for the 2nd question, I doubt it, seeing as of now even with all the terrorism and bad stuff happening to Islam, its still the largest growing religion in the world. It can only continue to grow, nothing else. |
 |
| I know two acquaintances who are now devout atheists. retrogamer32x said: Both religions are equally are guilty, but the Umayyad conquest of Iberia, and the conquest of the Copts in Egypt (which both occured before the 1st Crusade was called) were more peaceful than the Crusades? That's just silly. I'm an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, but the Crusades were called after more than half of the historically Christian countries had been conquered (Egypt, Antioch, Latin Iberia, Assyria). "I'm just an impartial bunny, but I think Ann sucks!" It doesn't work like that. Yes, they were far more peaceful, Crusaders, and the Inquisition too were far worse, and far less tolerant than Ummayads who let in Jews and Christians to live alongside them. |
| End Zionazism |
Mikasa said: I know two acquaintances who are now devout atheists. retrogamer32x said: Both religions are equally are guilty, but the Umayyad conquest of Iberia, and the conquest of the Copts in Egypt (which both occured before the 1st Crusade was called) were more peaceful than the Crusades? That's just silly. I'm an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, but the Crusades were called after more than half of the historically Christian countries had been conquered (Egypt, Antioch, Latin Iberia, Assyria). "I'm just an impartial bunny, but I think Ann sucks!" It doesn't work like that. Yes, they were far more peaceful, Crusaders, and the Inquisition too were far worse, and far less tolerant than Ummayads who let in Jews and Christians to live alongside them. The Muslims are well known for letting their captive nations combine their religion with Muslim, retain their languages, retain their cultures, and retain their town heads/rulers, as well as holding masses in the conquered countries' native tongues, none of which Christianity are very well known for doing. |
| Lemme smang it girl. |
retrogamer32x said: Let me clarify my position: All religions are stupid and hold back intellectual thought, some are more stupid than others in their present incarnation. My point is that I'm not apologizing for Christianity, but (much like Bill Maher) I get annoyed at the willful denial of history by a lot of apologists for Islam while portraying Europeans incorrectly. "The Muslims" is meaningless, each caliphate (and later the Ottomans) acted differently. The Turks are not the Umayyads, the Umayyads are not the Andalusians (though the Anadalusians claimed to be their successors). The Spanish were not the Byzantines. I don't even know how to argue with "The Muslims" after I gave specific examples of given regimes already. You don't have to. It was about "Islam" from the beginning not "The Muslims". |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Wait, why is this in Current Events? |
| I've been here way too long... |
Yumes-lil-Faggot said: retrogamer32x said: Let me clarify my position: All religions are stupid and hold back intellectual thought, some are more stupid than others in their present incarnation. My point is that I'm not apologizing for Christianity, but (much like Bill Maher) I get annoyed at the willful denial of history by a lot of apologists for Islam while portraying Europeans incorrectly. "The Muslims" is meaningless, each caliphate (and later the Ottomans) acted differently. The Turks are not the Umayyads, the Umayyads are not the Andalusians (though the Anadalusians claimed to be their successors). The Spanish were not the Byzantines. I don't even know how to argue with "The Muslims" after I gave specific examples of given regimes already. You don't have to. It was about "Islam" from the beginning not "The Muslims". Islam is something, and Muslims are something else . |
| Whatever.. |
retrogamer32x said: I think the key point there is that there were many different schools in Islamic thought, just as there were in Christian thought. At the time the Umayyads invaded, the Christian, Coptic Egyptians were at war with (and split from) both the Byzantine emperor and the Roman Pope, how does it make sense to talk about "The Christians" either? In the same way, I can't blame Islam for the Turks did. I think people want easy answers, but there just aren't any if we're being honest. That's the whole point here. Diversity exists in all ideologies. You can't blame the ideology based on some of it's upholders. You can only argue the ideology itself. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |