CapitalistGod said: It always has, people defending Islam are equally biased when using the context excuse. You just need to go back to Muhammad and there's a biography by Ibn Anishaq that's supposed to be his most accurate life story. Not all attacks were self defence, he also tortured someone called Kinana for his gold, which Muslims will tell you he was a war criminal. And he'd kill all men who surrenderd if they were in puberty, stealing their wives to marry them or have them as slaves. ALso, just a minor nitpick... Islam has had a bad reputation even before WW1 Also the Mughals didn't exactly follow the Quran precisely either, by offering money for the capture of Sikhs, forced conversions and torture, hence why Sikhs and Hindus hate Islam. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| Wow, i regret making this thread... |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
RobinVPersie said: Why do you regret creating this thread?Wow, i regret making this thread... |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
CapitalistGod said: Epistemophilic said: Lol I forgot to address this. True Islam teaches that every human being has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion without the threat of coercion or punishment. This understanding stems directly from the Quran, which clearly declares, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:257). Therefore, true Islam wholeheartedly supports the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—both of which, like true Islam, guarantee freedom of conscience, religion, and speech. Those who fail to understand this and misinterpret this are wrong. The message is plain and simple. I understand your contempt for Islam. If I saw all of this idiocy in the middle east from an uninformed perspective, I would undoubtedly have a stance similar to yours. But realize that I am not an apologist. I am simply trying to make you see how Islam really is virtuous and no concrete opinion can be formed about it unless your knowledge of Islam is complete. Form your opinion after understanding Islam, and you'll see that it's not as bad as you would think after hearing about those barbaric terrorists. As I said the words "True Islam" is meaningless....Just as "True Christianity" is meaningless in this kinds of discussions. Division and differences among muslims is inevitable, to which history bears witness, as do the texts of the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet said: “Whoever among you lives after I am gone will see a great deal of dissent.” Dissent has occurred in the political field, as well as in the fields of thought which is represented in the appearance of different sects at the end of the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, such as the Murji’is, Shi’ah and Khawaarij. This division should happen when some groups drifted away from the way of the main body of the Muslims and developed their own different approach, and they were distinguished by their own names and character. So the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and the ‘aqeedah of the majority of Muslims, was not confused even for a day with that of the other, misguided sects, so that those sects would not dare to call themselves Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, rather they are called after the bid’ah (innovation) that they introduced, or the person who founded the sect. You can see that when you examine the names of all the sects. The famous hadeeth about the muslims splitting into seventy-three sects bears witness to that. It was narrated from Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan that he said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood among us and said: “Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this ummah will split into seventy-three: seventy-two in Hell and one in Paradise, and that is the jamaa’ah (main body of Muslims).” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also described them in the following terms: “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one group.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “(Those who follow) that which I and my companions follow.” This is the clearest sign that the Muslim can use to determine what is the saved group, so he should follow the way of the majority of scholars, those whom all the people testify are trustworthy and religiously-committed, and he should beware of every sect that differs from the main body of Muslims by following innovation. It's simple to see that this is true Islam, and all other innovations (Like the bloodthirsty interpretations of ISIS) are false. Ibn Taymiyah says: Hence the saved group is described as Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and they are the greater majority and the vast multitude. As for the other groups, they are followers of weird ideas, division, innovation and whims and desires, and none of these groups reached anywhere close to the size of the saved group, let alone being equal to them, rather some of these groups are very small in number. The sign of these groups is that they go against the Quran, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The one who follows the Quran, Sunnah and scholarly consensus is one of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. The concept of true or pure Islam has always been present in Islam. |
| Probably never, unless the Qu'ran sees a drastic edit. Otherwise people will always fear a religion that preaches the destruction of the non-Muslim world... edit There will always be a Muslim who will pick and choose which verses in the Qu'ran are true/accurate and what ahadith are true. As if they can decide the religion on their refusal to accept what it is. And then there will be Muslims who say "not the true Islam" as if their views are supported by the Qu'ran when it is not. Then there will people the Muslims who will see verses advising men to beat and rape and claim it is "out of context". It will only incite a war in a thread or a huge circlejerk. Instead the more accurate thing to say would be "Just as with the Bible, the Qu'ran is not direct Law anymore (a guidance, if you will) and should no longer be followed as it was back then" or even "The religion has evolved beyond the violence it one prescribed to people", but nope. They claim Muslims aren't "true" Muslims because they follow the Qu'ran exactly as it was written and meant to be understood (verses claim it is written in such a manner any person could understand it perfectly) and that they truly are "true" Muslims because they 1: pick and choose 2: decide the meaning of very clear verses 3: ignore others. |
RhaeserysMay 1, 2016 3:08 PM
 "Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." |
Masked_Mantis said: CapitalistGod said: It always has, people defending Islam are equally biased when using the context excuse. You just need to go back to Muhammad and there's a biography by Ibn Anishaq that's supposed to be his most accurate life story. Not all attacks were self defence, he also tortured someone called Kinana for his gold, which Muslims will tell you he was a war criminal. And he'd kill all men who surrenderd if they were in puberty, stealing their wives to marry them or have them as slaves. ALso, just a minor nitpick... Islam has had a bad reputation even before WW1 Also the Mughals didn't exactly follow the Quran precisely either, by offering money for the capture of Sikhs, forced conversions and torture, hence why Sikhs and Hindus hate Islam. There is no evidence what so ever for this story of Kinana because there is no narration or source given. It was contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet's character. Also, the Mughals weren't shining beacons of Islam, they hardly practiced it. Have you heard of Din-e-illahi? It was created by Akbar to promote tolerance. Muslims and Hindus haven't always hated each other, they had been living in peace for centuries until a certain company thought there was profit in India. It's Ibn Ishaq btw. |
| @Epistemophilic I really don't see the meaning of *True Islam* when there are barbarians practicing what they do in the name of Islam(Mid East countries for example)... I'm pretty sure they'll believe what they do is in accordance to *True Islam*... I'm more inclined to believe that what they're practicing at the center of Islam(which is Mecca which is then located in Saudi Arabia) practices the *True Islam* you're talking about... |
| The war on the middle east is literally the epitome of islamophobia..something that is supported by the governments of the west. the supposed "backbone" of our culture supports a full on war with a specific religion also there is no such thing as "true islam"; it's only the side you're willing to acknowledge. I don't think Islam is a religion of peace. It is been around for centuries but has only recently been massively introduced to the west and has not been assimilated yet. Historically, Christianity was just as violent as Islam is now in terms of terror. It became more peaceful as its influence spread and absorbed other influences from different ideologies. |
powerwogMay 1, 2016 2:58 PM
CapitalistGod said: @Epistemophilic I really don't see the meaning of *True Islam* when there are barbarians practicing what they do in the name of Islam(Mid East countries for example)... I'm pretty sure they'll believe what they do is in accordance to *True Islam*... I'm more inclined to believe that what they're practicing at the center of Islam(which is Mecca which is then located in Saudi Arabia) practices the *True Islam* you're talking about... Just read my previous post, I've made it simple enough to understand. Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, and true Islam is practiced there. However, they have a big salafist influence, which is a much stricter version of Islam. Complete covering of the body for women? No other country but Saudi. No driving for women? No country but Saudi. How can everyone but them be wrong? The easiest way to describe Salafis is to say they are like the ultraorthodox. Salafis are very strong on Sunnah things including minor Sunnahs and adhere to them very strongly. The real Islam is the one practiced by the Prophet and his companions. That's it. |
Epistemophilic said: It's in the most prized biography of Muhammad's life, from Ibn Ishaq. They even have Kenana's wife named who was of course married to Muhammad once Kenana was killed. Muhammad killed lots of people, so you'll have to pick parts of his character, like people pick the hadiths. Masked_Mantis said: It always has, people defending Islam are equally biased when using the context excuse. You just need to go back to Muhammad and there's a biography by Ibn Anishaq that's supposed to be his most accurate life story. Not all attacks were self defence, he also tortured someone called Kinana for his gold, which Muslims will tell you he was a war criminal. And he'd kill all men who surrenderd if they were in puberty, stealing their wives to marry them or have them as slaves. Also the Mughals didn't exactly follow the Quran precisely either, by offering money for the capture of Sikhs, forced conversions and torture, hence why Sikhs and Hindus hate Islam. There is no evidence what so ever for this story of Kinana because there is no narration or source given. It was contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet's character. Also, the Mughals weren't shining beacons of Islam, they hardly practiced it. Have you heard of Din-e-illahi? It was created by Akbar to promote tolerance. Muslims and Hindus haven't always hated each other, they had been living in peace for centuries until a certain company thought there was profit in India. It's Ibn Ishaq btw. And there is now due to Sikhs defending Hindus from forced conversions, what matters is how Islam is today. It's become worse and worse, and people have been ignoring "no compulsion" over and over. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Epistemophilic said: CapitalistGod said: @Epistemophilic I really don't see the meaning of *True Islam* when there are barbarians practicing what they do in the name of Islam(Mid East countries for example)... I'm pretty sure they'll believe what they do is in accordance to *True Islam*... I'm more inclined to believe that what they're practicing at the center of Islam(which is Mecca which is then located in Saudi Arabia) practices the *True Islam* you're talking about... Just read my previous post, I've made it simple enough to understand. Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, and true Islam is practiced there. However, they have a big salafist influence, which is a much stricter version of Islam. Complete covering of the body for women? No other country but Saudi. No driving for women? No country but Saudi. How can everyone but them be wrong? The easiest way to describe Salafis is to say they are like the ultraorthodox. Salafis are very strong on Sunnah things including minor Sunnahs and adhere to them very strongly. The real Islam is the one practiced by the Prophet and his companions. That's it. Hence, highlighting the meaninglessness of *True Islam* in this discussion. Which is exactly my point ages ago. |
| Only time will tell, but personally I don't see it likely. |
| As long as ignorance continues to exist, no. This applies to both sides. |
 |
| It might fo away when those darn extremists step it down, and when countries like Saudi Arabia stop being barbaric regimes. I don't personally hate muslims, but I can see why some people do. If Christians were blowing themselves up and hacking people to pieces in Bangladesh, they would probably receive a simmilar reaction. Then again you have some pretty extreme Buddhists in Burma that few people seem to care about. But we also need to remember that the Muslim extremists have in many ways portrayed themselves as an opponent and enemy of western culture and values. Boko Haram, litteraly means "western education is forbidden" or something like that. I know plenty of muslims that are super chill, but I can see why people who haven't met any or that have met very few would be sceptical/scared. |
 |
Masked_Mantis said: Epistemophilic said: It's in the most prized biography of Muhammad's life, from Ibn Ishaq. They even have Kenana's wife named who was of course married to Muhammad once Kenana was killed. Muhammad killed lots of people, so you'll have to pick parts of his character, like people pick the hadiths. There is no evidence what so ever for this story of Kinana because there is no narration or source given. It was contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet's character. Also, the Mughals weren't shining beacons of Islam, they hardly practiced it. Have you heard of Din-e-illahi? It was created by Akbar to promote tolerance. Muslims and Hindus haven't always hated each other, they had been living in peace for centuries until a certain company thought there was profit in India. It's Ibn Ishaq btw. And there is now due to Sikhs defending Hindus from forced conversions, what matters is how Islam is today. It's become worse and worse, and people have been ignoring "no compulsion" over and over. I could explain it all to you, but it's not worth the trouble, search it for yourself on a website that isn't obviously biased. Don't you find it odd though, some hadith showing Muhammad with a merciful character, and some hadith claiming that he committed acts such as this? It doesn't make sense. Remember that the hadith were collected 200 years after his death, and not all of them can be relied upon. Some have been changed in the details, while others have been completely fabricated. It makes sense when you consider that hadith which contradict the teachings of Islam or the character of the prophet are false. Ibn Ishaq hasn't provided an isnad or matn, so this hadith isn't reliable. |
| I feel Islam is not compatible with western culture. That being said though I am not a fan of any religion. Islam is just the worst offender and well I dont consider Islamic people bad by any means. But I feel the amount of terrorism happening related to the religion cant just be because of bad education and/or ignorance. While it might be true for some I am pretty sure that isnt true for the ones born here in Europe/America. Your question can be answered with one word: No. |
 |
CapitalistGod said: Epistemophilic said: Just read my previous post, I've made it simple enough to understand. Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, and true Islam is practiced there. However, they have a big salafist influence, which is a much stricter version of Islam. Complete covering of the body for women? No other country but Saudi. No driving for women? No country but Saudi. How can everyone but them be wrong? The easiest way to describe Salafis is to say they are like the ultraorthodox. Salafis are very strong on Sunnah things including minor Sunnahs and adhere to them very strongly. The real Islam is the one practiced by the Prophet and his companions. That's it. Hence, highlighting the meaninglessness of *True Islam* in this discussion. Which is exactly my point ages ago. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind if you completely reject to believe. This discussion is wasting both of our times. |
Epistemophilic said: The real Islam is the one practiced by the Prophet and his companions. That's it. So then... لَا يَسۡتَوِى الۡقَاعِدُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَ غَيۡرُ اُولِى الضَّرَرِ وَالۡمُجَاهِدُوۡنَ فِىۡ سَبِيۡلِ اللّٰهِ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ ؕ فَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ دَرَجَةً ؕ وَكُلًّا وَّعَدَ اللّٰهُ الۡحُسۡنٰىؕ وَفَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ اَجۡرًا عَظِيۡمًا ۙ Translation: Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward. Or what about Surat Al-Baqarah 2:91-193? Is that true Islam? |
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." |
Jelmazmo said: Epistemophilic said: The real Islam is the one practiced by the Prophet and his companions. That's it. So then... لَا يَسۡتَوِى الۡقَاعِدُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَ غَيۡرُ اُولِى الضَّرَرِ وَالۡمُجَاهِدُوۡنَ فِىۡ سَبِيۡلِ اللّٰهِ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ ؕ فَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ دَرَجَةً ؕ وَكُلًّا وَّعَدَ اللّٰهُ الۡحُسۡنٰىؕ وَفَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ اَجۡرًا عَظِيۡمًا ۙ Translation: Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward. Or what about Surat Al-Baqarah 2:91-193? Is that true Islam? This is getting tedious. You know what's coming, that's right, iiiiiit's Post the whole chapter and then we'll talk. |
Epistemophilic said: Jelmazmo said: So then... لَا يَسۡتَوِى الۡقَاعِدُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَ غَيۡرُ اُولِى الضَّرَرِ وَالۡمُجَاهِدُوۡنَ فِىۡ سَبِيۡلِ اللّٰهِ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ ؕ فَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ بِاَمۡوَالِهِمۡ وَاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ دَرَجَةً ؕ وَكُلًّا وَّعَدَ اللّٰهُ الۡحُسۡنٰىؕ وَفَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ الۡمُجٰهِدِيۡنَ عَلَى الۡقٰعِدِيۡنَ اَجۡرًا عَظِيۡمًا ۙ Translation: Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward. Or what about Surat Al-Baqarah 2:91-193? Is that true Islam? This is getting tedious. You know what's coming, that's right, iiiiiit's Post the whole chapter and then we'll talk. ahaha "Context" is the go to when someone can't argue something. Just because you say someone is lacking context doesn't make it true. If anyone is interested in reading this chapter, chapter 2 (that's right, it starts quickly): http://quran.com/2 https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Qu%27ran+chapter+2 Though whatever context could ever make "slaughter" right? For the Qu'ran the justification is someone being a transgressor, and do you know what the Qu'ran defines as a "transgressor"? Of not being of the faith of Muhammad's God. But nothing the Qu'ran or what Muslims ever say can rightly justify or explain the heinous things that are taught in the Qu'ran. Instead you throw it aside or scream "out of context" without even proving it so that you don't have to face it and so that you can charge Islamic extremists of not following the faith when clearly...they are. |
RhaeserysMay 1, 2016 3:38 PM
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." |
Jelmazmo said: Epistemophilic said: This is getting tedious. You know what's coming, that's right, iiiiiit's Post the whole chapter and then we'll talk. ahaha "Context" is the go to when someone can't argue something. Just because you say someone is lacking context doesn't make it true. If anyone is interested in reading this chapter, chapter 2 (that's right, it starts quickly): http://quran.com/2 https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Qu%27ran+chapter+2 Though whatever context could ever make "slaughter" right? For the Qu'ran the justification is someone being a transgressor, and do you know what the Qu'ran defines as a "transgressor"? Of not being of the faith of Muhammad's God. But nothing the Qu'ran or what Muslims ever say can rightly justify or explain the heinous things that are taught in the Qu'ran. Instead you throw it aside or scream "out of context" without even proving it so that you don't have to face it and so that you can charge Islamic extremists of not following the faith when clearly...they are. You apply the ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And kill them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the killing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. |
Epistemophilic said: CapitalistGod said: The question is..... What constitute as an 'education' about this religion? Among the scholars in that religion... majority of their 'teachings' are questionable. Sure, there maybe those who seek to reform their religion(but most of them are Anti- Semites too).. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern-day_Muslim_scholars_of_Islam So, where can I get the valid 'education' about this? P.S I have read the Qu'ran.... and like the Bible, it has some contradictory stuff... But unlike Christianity, most of Islam seems to carry out the nasty stuff...(I mean look at SAudi and their practices against gays) It's true that the scholars have too much power over the people. People who join organisations like ISIS have a very poor understanding of Islam. Many of them have not read the Quran, and their source of knowledge of Islam are the scholars, who can very easily manipulate them. There are very few scholars who have a reasonable grasp on the concepts mentioned in Islam. If you have read the Quran, you should know that the Islam presented by salafist scholars in Saudi Arabia and other places is very different from the Islam in the Quran. Let me give you an example - It was narrated that Anas bin Mâlik said: The Messenger of Allah said “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim”. Now this hadith says that seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim. So why are women denied education in the muslim world? People interpret the Quran in a way which is suitable to their agenda, and which is antithetical to the true meaning of the Quran. Cutting the hand of thief, killing apostates and homosexuals, and stoning to death of adulterers are not part of islam ?! It was narrated that Anas bin Mâlik said: The Messenger of Allah said “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim”. Now this hadith says that seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim. So why are women denied education in the muslim world? Not only that. Most muslims countries ban and censor anything that goes against islam. Books that support atheism, evolution for example often get censored. You can't seek knowledge when you don't give people enough freedom. |
I need some sleep after this shit.... |
| Hating a religion is not the same as hating all the people in that religion. The ones who actually hate all Muslims are very few. The vast majority of all Muslims believe the same things though and over 90 % are the same branch of Islam; Even their so called "normal" Muslims are intolerant and chauvinistic matched only by the most extreme conservative Christians and orthodox jews. Even in the western world |
traedMay 1, 2016 4:01 PM
Epistemophilic said: You apply the ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And kill them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the killing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Nothing you provided changes the fact that the verse I gave calls for the slaughter of people on what the Qu'ran treats as "transgressions" (this is not self-defense!) or that it says persecuting Muslims is far worse than slaughter (so Muslims should do it whenever they "persecuted"). It later goes on to direct the Muslims that if they, the transgressors, cease with their "transgressions" (which you mistakenly decide = self defense based on absolutely no evidence) a Muslim should also cease with their slaughter or when their holy month appears they should stop (and then resume after). And yet, in some twisted way, you think this context I was "missing" explains away or justifies the action itself based on something that wasn't even stated in the Qu'ran because that's how you feel? I have read the entire Qu'ran, in three different translations. Simply showing a single verse is not taking something out of context. |
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." |
| Watch the Islam apologists, completely ignore you traed. They don't like actual stats, also remember Taqiyya, you literally can not trust them to be truthful. Oh the old of of context bs. Also btw noticed how Epis said the Qu'ran says it doesn't say to kill innocents. But what is innocent to a Muslim? I'm an Agnostic Atheist that means I'm a heretic (i.e not innocent), so its alright to kill me then? Also no one in this fucking world is innocent, everyone has committed at least some form of sin, so the whole oh don't worry we only kill non-innocents, well guess what that pretty much open season on humanity |
ElPysCongrooMay 1, 2016 4:13 PM
Jelmazmo said: Epistemophilic said: You apply the ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And kill them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the killing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Nothing you provided changes the fact that the verse I gave calls for the slaughter of people on what the Qu'ran treats as "transgressions" (this is not self-defense!) or that it says persecuting Muslims is far worse than slaughter (so Muslims should do it whenever they "persecuted"). It later goes on to direct the Muslims that if they, the transgressors, cease with their "transgressions" (which you mistakenly decide = self defense based on absolutely no evidence) a Muslim should also cease with their slaughter or when their holy month appears they should stop (and then resume after). And yet, in some twisted way, you think this context I was "missing" explains away or justifies the action itself based on something that wasn't even stated in the Qu'ran because that's how you feel? I have read the entire Qu'ran, in three different translations. Simply showing a single verse is not taking something out of context. It does not say to kill the transgressors lol. Clearly you don't understand. These set of verses gave the muslims permission to fight against the Quraish, it wasn't sent to say 'kill all transgressors.' I fail to see how you can interpret it that way. |
ElPysCongroo said: Watch the Islam apologists, completely ignore you traed. They don't like actual stats, also remember Taqiyya, you literally can not trust them to be truthful. Oh the old of of context bs. Also btw noticed how Epis said the Qu'ran says it doesn't say to kill innocents. But what is innocent to a Muslim? I'm an Agnostic Atheist that means I'm a heretic (i.e not innocent), so its alright to kill me then? Also no one in this fucking world is innocent, everyone has committed at least some form of sin, so the whole oh don't worry we only kill non-innocents, well guess what that pretty much open season on humanity I don't feel the urge to kill you, so there's something. lol, these verses were sent as permission to fight for self-defence, interpreting them to mean kill all non-muslims is irrational and stupid. |
traed said: Hating a religion is not the same as hating all the people in that religion. The ones who actually hate all Muslims are very few. The vast majority of all Muslims believe the same things though and over 90 % are the same branch of Islam; Even their so called "normal" Muslims are intolerant and chauvinistic matched only by the most extreme conservative Christians and orthodox jews. Even in the western world These stats can be misleading, because opinion in the Islamic world is very divided. This must have taken a lot of time, nice work. |
traed said: Hating a religion is not the same as hating all the people in that religion. The ones who actually hate all Muslims are very few. The vast majority of all Muslims believe the same things though and over 90 % are the same branch of Islam; Even their so called "normal" Muslims are intolerant and chauvinistic matched only by the most extreme conservative Christians and orthodox jews. Even in the western world right use pew stats but when some uses a the press freedom index to say oh one nation is bad you get dismissed im sorry but thats the reply i got when some qaue the same oew stats as you did while i brought up the fact that the us it seafk and a bad press freddom record in yo conside the fatc taht press freedom is in the constuion also it back a regime that is rated 101 in press freedon 7 an d then aks me for proof of the censorsip that repoters with ou t broders states when so polel expect me ot tallk every languge in the world ------- im sorry bad war of words in a yt coonets war with some one like you- ---------------------- while i dont difrreagre pew id say this do 75 plus peracnt if all muisim live in sharia nations no theu do not does muuratina a Muslim matoty nation finsh almost 60 places higer than isreail in press freedom but you not talk about zionism the political Ideology like yyou do islam zionism has cuase more displaced or unfree people or has takedn more laand at os not rightfully there than islam has that is fact [ and no im not defedn terrorism at all but just think bout the double standeds im not biased im stating fact ex,maple ou can bash on arabs as muhc as you want but soon as you say any thign anti zionist you called racsist that is so fucking regressive that is a joke |
| "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Epistemophilic said: It does not say to kill the transgressors lol. Clearly you don't understand. These set of verses gave the muslims permission to fight against the Quraish, it wasn't sent to say 'kill all transgressors.' I fail to see how you can interpret it that way. First let us ignore the part of the verse that stated "Such is the recompense of the disbelievers". lol you clearly lack the context you cried about earlier. I bet you never even read the Qu'ran. lol Al-Baqarah, 2:65: وَلَقَدۡ عَلِمۡتُمُ الَّذِيۡنَ اعۡتَدَوۡا مِنۡكُمۡ فِىۡ السَّبۡتِ فَقُلۡنَا لَهُمۡ كُوۡنُوۡا قِرَدَةً خَاسِـِٔـيۡنَ And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, "Be apes, despised." Al-Baqarah 2:66: فَجَعَلۡنٰهَا نَكٰلاً لِّمَا بَيۡنَ يَدَيۡهَا وَمَا خَلۡفَهَا وَمَوۡعِظَةً لِّلۡمُتَّقِيۡنَ And We made it a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded [them] and a lesson for those who fear Allah. 2:75 and beyond continue to explain some parts of the transgressions I mentioned, such as "perverting" the faith Muhammad/Allah believes to be true. 2:90 بِئۡسَمَا اشۡتَرَوۡا بِهٖۤ اَنۡفُسَهُمۡ اَنۡ يَّڪۡفُرُوۡا بِمَآ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰهُ بَغۡيًا اَنۡ يُّنَزِّلَ اللّٰهُ مِنۡ فَضۡلِهٖ عَلٰى مَنۡ يَّشَآءُ مِنۡ عِبَادِهٖۚ فَبَآءُوۡ بِغَضَبٍ عَلٰى غَضَبٍؕ وَلِلۡكٰفِرِيۡنَ عَذَابٌ مُّهِيۡنٌ How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers (transgressors) is a humiliating punishment. And in 2:59: فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِيۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا قَوۡلاً غَيۡرَ الَّذِىۡ قِيۡلَ لَهُمۡ فَاَنۡزَلۡنَا عَلَى الَّذِيۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا رِجۡزًا مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ بِمَا كَانُوۡا يَفۡسُقُوۡنَ Then the transgressors (some translations will say "wrong-doers") substituted another saying for that which had been given them; and so We sent down a scourge upon the transgressors (wrong-doers) from the heavens for their transgression. It is common knowledge that the Jews are referred to as "transgressors" within the Qu'ran, and sometimes even the Christians. And 2:193 also really says: وقاتلوهم حتى لا تكون فتنة ويكون الدين لله فان انتهوا فلا عدوان الا على الظالمين Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. EDIT Epistemophilic said: I don't feel the urge to kill you, so there's something. lol, these verses were sent as permission to fight for self-defence, interpreting them to mean kill all non-muslims is irrational and stupid. سورة الصف (As-Saf): سبح لله ما في السماوات وما في الارض وهو العزيز الحكيم Whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth glorifies Allah. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. يا ايها الذين امنوا لم تقولون ما لا تفعلون O! you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do? كبر مقتا عند الله ان تقولوا ما لا تفعلون Most hateful it is with Allah that you say that which you do not do. ان الله يحب الذين يقاتلون في سبيله صفا كانهم بنيان مرصوص Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows (ranks) as if they were a solid structure . واذ قال موسى لقومه يا قوم لم تؤذونني وقد تعلمون اني رسول الله اليكم فلما زاغوا ازاغ الله قلوبهم والله لا يهدي القوم الفاسقين And (mention or remember) when Musa (Moses) said to his people: "O! my people! Why do you hurt me while you know (I think this part includes "certainly") that I am the Messenger of God to you? So when they turned away from the path, God (Allah) turned their hearts away from the Right Path. And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). واذ قال عيسى ابن مريم يا بني اسرائيل اني رسول الله اليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التوراة ومبشرا برسول ياتي من بعدي اسمه احمد فلما جاءهم بالبينات قالوا هذا سحر مبين And (mention or remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (God) unto you confirming the Taurat (Torah) which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he came to them with clear proof, they said: "This is plain magic!" ومن اظلم ممن افترى على الله الكذب وهو يدعى الى الاسلام والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين And who does more wrong than the one who invents a lie against Allah, while he is being invited to Islam? And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers and disbelievers) folk. يريدون ليطفئوا نور الله بافواههم والله متم نوره ولو كره الكافرون They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of Islam, this Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad) with their mouths. But Allah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it). هو الذي ارسل رسوله بالهدى ودين الحق ليظهره على الدين كله ولو كره المشركون He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters)/kafir in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammed hate (it). I'm too lazy to write out the Arabic for all of the rest of them, but here is the rest of the verses in English (feel free google or read the qu'ran to compare): 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, 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, that is indeed the great success. And also He will give you another blessing which you love, help from Allah (against your enemies) and a close (or it is "near") victory. And give glad tidings O Muhammad to the believers. يا ايها الذين امنوا كونوا انصار الله كما قال عيسى ابن مريم للحواريين من انصاري الى الله قال الحواريون نحن انصار الله فامنت طائفة من بني اسرائيل وكفرت طائفة فايدنا الذين امنوا على عدوهم فاصبحوا ظاهرين O you who believe! Be you helpers in the causes of Allah as said 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), and to Al-Hawariun (the students): "Who are my helpers in the causes of Allah?" Al-Hawarieen said: "We are Allah's helpers". Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved. So We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the uppermost. EDIT 2 Nevermind, I'll just add the Arabic anyways. lol |
RhaeserysMay 1, 2016 7:35 PM
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time." |
| I would like to say i dislike most religions. Best reason why is ppl bring it into their laws and government, which majority Islamic countries do a ton btw. This religion is literally holding such countries back. Christians don't like sex before marriage, but is it an american law? No. Islamists don't like women going out in public by themself or driving, is it a law in say saudi arabia? YES. Not gonna lie though, in certain US states u can't buy alcohol on sunday, which is a Christian law. Religious laws are terrible. Another thing is intolerance. Lets go with sex before marriage again or being gay. Christians may talk behind ur back, disapprove, or gossip. But physical harm won't come to you, unlike islamists. The middle east is one of the more violent places on earth. Islamists want it to go away while holding so tightly to their religion, not realizing it's the reason their intolerant toward not only outsiders, but each other. |
| Allahu akbarrrrrr!!!!!!!!! You got scared just now didn't you? No. The answer is no. |
CapitalistGod said: As I said the words "True Islam" is meaningless....Just as "True Christianity" is meaningless in this kinds of discussions. Practically, yes. Theoretically, it exists and hence is not meaningless. The fact that there are divided opinions on something which signifies a certain unity means that originally, the 'signified' was actually just one thing. @Epistemophilic Yes you know it but you're wasting your time. The other side has arguments as strong as you do. And it's simply because of- you guessed it right - your own brethren: the Muslims and what they do. But then there's also the fact that none of the atheists/agnostics here recognize the virtue of 'moral relativism' (which is just ironic). @traed 's whole post reeks of the lack of awareness of 'moral relativism'. To discredit Islam morally, the only stance one can take is something on the lines of, 'My morals are superior to Islam's'. But it goes without saying that your morals have just as much credibility as a moral code which stipulates death for an apostate. Vilifying an ideology for its moral bankruptcy is like criticizing apples because you find oranges sweeter. Well, the guy next door finds apples sweeter. Who wins? To all the people who want to argue against Islam, here's an advice: Find logical discrepancies in Islam. Logic is something Muslims and non-Muslims alike agree upon, unlike morality. If you build your argument on logic, it will have more credibility. Undoubtedly, it will devolve into philosophy which obviously the majority of users here aren't capable of. So, here's a general advice for everyone actually: Debating religion is one of the most futile things one can do in life; don't do it. |
| @Trance- Pretty sure sentencing someone to death for having sex outside of marriage, leaving Islam or being gay is objectively horrible. All of which I recall you promoting as okay and beneficial to set an example. The only reason people even keep up that sort of thing is because they think its the word of God and do not question it. It's not moral relativism, it's moral suppression. |
traed said: @Trance- Pretty sure sentencing someone to death for having sex outside of marriage, leaving Islam or being gay is objectively horrible. All of which I recall you promoting as okay and beneficial to set an example. The only reason people even keep up that sort of thing is because they think its the word of God and do not question it. It's not moral relativism, it's moral suppression. What objective basis do you have for declaring it 'objectively horrible'? That's right, none. The fact is, morals and religion are a matter of whim and fate (if you believe in the latter). If you can rationalize your faith, then you have no faith. If you can rationalize your morals, then they aren't absolute and hence have credibility as far as you, yourself, are concerned. It's not moral suppression unless people are being forced into this ideology. You can say that people born in Islam cannot leave Islam and that is moral suppression, but first thing is, one can leave Islam if the state he's living in is not an Islamic theocracy. Apostasy is punishable by death simply because the time around which Islam came, nations had theological boundaries; and to leave one's religion was tantamount to committing treachery. But then I can also pull out the philosophical argument: You had no reason to believe in a religion in the first place, there is no reason for you to leave it either; if you feel that your 'enjoyment' is being suppressed by being a Muslim, then the simple solution is: be a Muslim on the paper only. It's just a label. Whether you practice it out or not, is entirely up to your own volition. Demanding for something arbitrary like 'complete freedom' in this scenario is nonsense; just leave the country and become an apostate if it bothers you that much. PS premarital sex isn't punishable by death, btw |
Trance- said: What objective basis do you have for declaring it 'objectively horrible'? Literally everyone that is not a degenerate sociopath or doing things only because in the name of God. Trance- said: You can say that people born in Islam cannot leave Islam and that is moral suppression, but first thing is, one can leave Islam if the state he's living in is not an Islamic theocracy. Not safely as long s there are other Muslims around. Trance- said: Apostasy is punishable by death simply because the time around which Islam came, nations had theological boundaries; and to leave one's religion was tantamount to committing treachery. You cant use a rationalization for it in the past then apply it to the modern age. Also I am aware many Muslims consider babies Muslims so all people who are not Muslim leave Islam. Although I suppose they have some period of lenience for small children. Trance- said: You had no reason to believe in a religion in the first place, there is no reason for you to leave it either; if you feel that your 'enjoyment' is being suppressed by being a Muslim, then the simple solution is: be a Muslim on the paper only. It's just a label. Someone being Muslim in name only would subject them to Sharia punishments. Trance- said: PS premarital sex isn't punishable by death, btw Eh, I forgot what ones it was. It's still considered punishable in other ways. |
traed said: Trance- said: What objective basis do you have for declaring it 'objectively horrible'? Literally everyone that is not a degenerate sociopath or doing things only because in the name of God. That's not an objective basis, lol. Not safely as long s there are other Muslims around. I was speaking theoretically. Don't bring in what Muslims are doing. The discussion is about Islam - the ideology. Not the ideologues. You cant use a rationalization for it in the past then apply it to the modern age. Also I am aware many Muslims consider babies Muslims so all people who are not Muslim leave Islam. Although I suppose they have some period of lenience for small children. Babies aren't considered Muslim. They're just considered subscribers of monotheism - Tawhid, precisely. That's a flawed argument. What rationalization in the past? Someone being Muslim in name only would subject them to Sharia punishments. Unless you're committing crimes, no. If sex is the issue, get married. If drinking is the issue, leave the country. I'd sure feel sorry for you that you weren't compatible with the place you were born in but that's no reason for you to cause turmoil in your society. Eh, I forgot what ones it was. It's still considered punishable in other ways. It was flogging. Numbered flogging. |
Trance- said: But then there's also the fact that none of the atheists/agnostics here recognize the virtue of 'moral relativism' (which is just ironic). @traed 's whole post reeks of the lack of awareness of 'moral relativism'. To discredit Islam morally, the only stance one can take is something on the lines of, 'My morals are superior to Islam's'. But it goes without saying that your morals have just as much credibility as a moral code which stipulates death for an apostate. Vilifying an ideology for its moral bankruptcy is like criticizing apples because you find oranges sweeter. Well, the guy next door finds apples sweeter. Who wins? Moral relativism? That is just looking at morals at different standpoints, it holds no water to defend your theology because the entire reason it is even being attacked is the lack of morals in it by other the standard of if oppression is present, if people are being punished for extremely small thing. Your analogy is completely false, I do not find the debate of orange and apple, and whether one is sweeter then another to be even interchangable in this debate. What we are saying is that the Apple is poisonous and is making you punish your own people for little vices and oppressing them, and comparing it to our Orange which is just sweet. And let's make it clear here. Islam is not an ideology, it's a theology. Clear up this misconception please. To all the people who want to argue against Islam, here's an advice: Find logical discrepancies in Islam. Logic is something Muslims and non-Muslims alike agree upon, unlike morality. If you build your argument on logic, it will have more credibility. Undoubtedly, it will devolve into philosophy which obviously the majority of users here aren't capable of. So, here's a general advice for everyone actually: Debating religion is one of the most futile things one can do in life; don't do it. No. Just no. Just because moral is not absolute and that doesn't support your argument towards everyone's criticism towards your theology being absurd and evil, your purpose of it seems to be just making the entire argument more confusing when it can be objectively view by the point that: It advocates for the killing of non-believers, restraining the overall freedom of an individual especially woman and extremely harsh punishment for small things. By your logic of moral relativism, any moral beliefs can therefore be justified because they are different that of your own, anything as long as it is not of your culture can be gloss over as mostly harmless, it isn't. I think what you really want to say is that your ideas should not be judged base on it's morals but that is patently absurd seeing how it is part of the theology, you are not the one setting the standard of right and wrong here, if I can tell you the standard for moral comparison and the proportion of happiness/oppression, I can point out all the moral flaws of your this theology alone with many others. Even looking at the merit of logic, I can redirect you to several websites and video that shows logical contradiction of Islam. I can disprove the existence of God itself with science and nihilism; if you are going to talk about philosophy. The goal of philosophy is to question everything around us and look for truth. I find you settling on a lot of these pre-conceivied notion to be the exact opposite. I will make it clear if you do not feel comfortable scrutinizing your theology, I will disengage, but what you are saying here is that somehow the way people live there is fine as long as they are oppressed into it and that the idea alone with many other religious idea in itself is fundamentally harmful. I absolutely disagree with that. |
| @Trolls_Bane Theology is the study of religion, not religion itself. An ideology is a set of ideas; and religion is a set of ideas that pretend to be 'axioms'. You cannot disprove the existence of God and please don't waste your or my time in that fruitless endeavor. Your understanding of moral relativism is flawed. If you're against Islamic morals, then make it clear that Islam is wrong by your point of view - don't assert a factual superiority of your morals over some other moral system. The rest of your post is, characteristically, stupid. |
| How many of you bigots have actually met Muslim people? |
 |
| @trance- That is condescending and even more stupid because little points of mine was directly attacked and just vainly gloss over. About theology, it is the study of religion itself, the ideas within and the concept of deity, it is better wording than ideology which only consists of the IDEAS, skipping over the concept of God himself, so no, it is theology and not ideology. According to Merriam Webster as well. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology : a system of religious beliefs or ideas So don't even try going with that line of rhetoric again, you are wrong. My understanding of moral relativism is flawed? Will you care to bloody elaborate? The definition of moral relativisms the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. That is exactly what I said, that does not evade itself from criticism just because you deem moral as subjective and that logic can be apply universally on literally every sort of ridiculous ideas, rendering it false, please, do tell what is wrong with it. I did not assert factual superiority, I literally wrote the thing that are wrong base on the standard of human living, and oppression and extreme punishment is fundamentally wrong as humans are limited by this system. Please don't try to hide behind IEP to defend your theology because it doesn't. God does not exist because, theory of evolution (this defeat the theory of design) and the Big Bang theory(this defeat that the universe was created through careful engineering) all suggests no one behind such deed and it has been shown different people in different culture has different beliefs so not one theology is definitive, and with nihilism, God has no purpose in this world as by questioning his motive of wanting human to worship him and creating human to begin, will always inevitably arrived at the conclusion that, the existence of God himself is therefore pointless and so is the existence of humanity and God is simply the answer to humanity's nihilism. |
| @Trolls_Bane Theology is systematic, not systemic. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology Yeah you win the debate. Relish your glory. Make clear to everyone that you won this debate. |
| @Trance- (Master of Evading valid points) You were wrong on the definition of theology. No. You educate yourself, the definition was clear on the dictionary, it is a system of religious belief or idea. I win the debate and relish in my glory? When the fuck did i even imply that? Also that is just fucking cute coming from you. Fine. If you don't want to discourse. We will leave it at that. |
Trance- said: if this post is serious, I believe that there are uneducated bigot Christians and Jews in other parts of the world as wellThe amount of atrocious shit that Muslims do is even more unbelievable. I'm saying that as a Muslim. The hate that Islam receives, though may be unjustified as this ideology once produced great men too, makes sense. People will naturally believe that it's due to their ideology that they're screwing up the world and not because of their lack of education and general corruption which plagues their societies. |
 Freddy Nicholas said: have control, be yourself, god is dead |
Malarkey said: Trance- said: if this post is serious, I believe that there are uneducated bigot Christians and Jews in other parts of the world as wellThe amount of atrocious shit that Muslims do is even more unbelievable. I'm saying that as a Muslim. The hate that Islam receives, though may be unjustified as this ideology once produced great men too, makes sense. People will naturally believe that it's due to their ideology that they're screwing up the world and not because of their lack of education and general corruption which plagues their societies. Are they in majority? If there are bigoted Christians in a Muslim country, then they'll be put in jail in no time. Even if you're considering Christians/Jews living in other countries, then bigoted ones of them are doing their own fuck ups. Matter of fact is, look at the Middle East and the condition over there. The decline of Muslims from being once the superpower has given birth to an identity crisis which has now evolved into a 'quest for lost glory'. Nothing more, nothing less. |
| Yeah, when a new phobia becomes popular... |
 |
| once isis is gone followed by a reformation it will stop but I wont see that happening for a while. |
| Muslims need to take a hard look at themselves first before crying foul all the time. Headscarf controversy here in Turkey is one. You did not allow women to work in many jobs, become government officials. When ataturk comes and changes this, now they cry you hate us, because of our headwear. No. I want you to be able to do what you want without being afraid all the time. They cry cry and then change as if nothing happened. And then i am the guilty one. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » do you hide or deny your dark side to others or society?deg - 6 hours ago |
12 |
by deg
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» whats your shoe size ?sussybakagirl420 - Mar 22 |
21 |
by 707supremacist
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
315 |
by Lightskynight
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - Yesterday |
15 |
by 707supremacist
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» What jobs do you all have? ( 1 2 )AnxiousMike - Feb 11, 2023 |
80 |
by zoeanime13
»»
19 minutes ago |