Ghaem - PlasmaHam Debate

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam, well here is the thread. Now let me see your expertise on matters related to Islam.

[PlasmaHam]

Well, you were the one who wanted and started this debate. Ask me a defined question on why Islam is bad, or make a claim supporting Islam being a peaceful religion. You make the first move.

I would also like to say that this debate is between Ghaem and I. Unless you are moderating this thread, I request that no one else post.

[Emerald Dream]

I would also like to say that this debate is between Ghaem and I. Unless you are moderating this thread, I request that no one else post.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen. Please understand this is an open forum, and anyone is free to contribute to any thread here.

If you truly want a one-on-one conversation - feel free to use the Visitor Message and Private Message system.

[Vermilion]

I just had to post to make a point.

[Ghaem]

Well, you were the one who wanted and started this debate. Ask me a defined question on why Islam is bad, or make a claim supporting Islam being a peaceful religion. You make the first move.

I would also like to say that this debate is between Ghaem and I. Unless you are moderating this thread, I request that no one else post.

I say Islam is not a threat, because according to the very basic of this religion, Quran, and other sources of law it has defined rules for peaceful interactions between Muslim nation and other factions.

I want you to bring evidence from the concept of this religion itself and its early history during first years that Islam is innately violent.

[PlasmaHam]

Sorry, but that's not going to happen. Please understand this is an open forum, and anyone is free to contribute to any thread here.

If you truly want a one-on-one conversation - feel free to use the Visitor Message and Private Message system.

Apologizes for that. Another forum I had allowed one-on-one debates so I thought this place allowed them as well.
Ghaem, I'm sorry to do this to you, but I don't think I want to continue with this debate. I was intending for a one-on-one public debate, but it seems like that isn't going to happen. Its not that I am chickening out, but I honestly don't feel like doing an open debate regarding Islam right now.

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam, a shame. I hope in the future we will be able to have a one-to-one debate. But I will keep this thread open so if anyone else wanted to debate they can. I am ready to debate.

[Emerald Dream]

Ghaem PlasmaHam I really do encourage you both, if you want to continue your conversation - please continue your discussion through VM or PM (or encourage others to join you here). I apologize for the inconvenience to both of you, but we don't restrict members from posting wherever they want to.

[PlasmaHam]

Ghaem PlasmaHam I really do encourage you both, if you want to continue your conversation - please continue your discussion through VM or PM (or encourage others to join you here). I apologize for the inconvenience to both of you, but we don't restrict members from posting wherever they want to.

Thank you, but I have done way too many open Islam debates over the last few months. After awhile, it just gets too repetitive to continue.

[Ghaem]

Ghaem PlasmaHam I really do encourage you both, if you want to continue your conversation - please continue your discussion through VM or PM (or encourage others to join you here). I apologize for the inconvenience to both of you, but we don't restrict members from posting wherever they want to.

It is okay, others can join us too. I mentioned above.

[Dalcourt]

It is okay, others can join us too. I mentioned above.

Well I don't want to join the debate or anything. I just have a question and I leave it to you if you answer here or write me a VM.
Every Muslim I meet seems kinda obsessed with discussing his/her religion...is there a certain reason for it? I mean I know quite a few Muslim people where I live and they always seem to want to discuss with me about religion even if I'm not interested in talking about religion at all. It's like they always want to justify their views or whatever. But why?

[Jinglebottom]

Well I don't want to join the debate or anything. I just have a question and I leave it to you if you answer here or write me a VM.
Every Muslim I meet seems kinda obsessed with discussing his/her religion...is there a certain reason for it? I mean I know quite a few Muslim people where I live and they always seem to want to discuss with me about religion even if I'm not interested in talking about religion at all. It's like they always want to justify their views or whatever. But why?
Quite the opposite for me. Whenever I ask my Muslim friends anything about their religion, they'll immediately respond with "it's none of your business."

[Ghaem]

Well I don't want to join the debate or anything. I just have a question and I leave it to you if you answer here or write me a VM.
Every Muslim I meet seems kinda obsessed with discussing his/her religion...is there a certain reason for it? I mean I know quite a few Muslim people where I live and they always seem to want to discuss with me about religion even if I'm not interested in talking about religion at all. It's like they always want to justify their views or whatever. But why?

If they are doing so against your will, tell them this verse from Quran and they will leave you to yourself:

"...For you, your beliefs and for me, mine"

It also depends on how is the atmosphere toward Muslims in your country. May I ask where you live?

Quite the opposite for me. Whenever I ask my Muslim friends anything about their religion, they'll immediately respond with "it's none of your business."

You should ask scholars. Many Muslims are usually not even aware of their religion, and they just seem that by asking question about Islam, you only want to demonize it for them, so they will answer you this way. But a real Islamic Scholar like Seyyed Hussein Nasr, or Musa Sadr; they were quite different.

[Dalcourt]

If they are doing so against your will, tell them this verse from Quran and they will leave you to yourself:

"...For you, your beliefs and for me, mine"

It also depends on how is the atmosphere toward Muslims in your country. May I ask where you live?


Well I live in the USA...and I guess everyone knows what some people think about the Islam here. Still not around where I live cuz we have way more bigger problems than thinking about religious stuff.

I usually hardly talk about religion at all and I guess that's why they want to draw me into that discussions...and it's not only class mates from immigrant families from Muslim countries but also black people here that converted to Islam at some point...maybe those are on some missionary trip or whatever.

It's annoying somehow whenever some terrorist attack like the latest in Nice or so happens they try to discuss their religion even more...and I'm just like all gods in heaven and around I have never thought you'd be a terrorist and I don't bother in what you believe at all

[Ghaem]

Well I live in the USA...and I guess everyone knows what some people think about the Islam here. Still not around where I live cuz we have way more bigger problems than thinking about religious stuff.

I usually hardly talk about religion at all and I guess that's why they want to draw me into that discussions...and it's not only class mates from immigrant families from Muslim countries but also black people here that converted to Islam at some point...maybe those are on some missionary trip or whatever.

It's annoying somehow whenever some terrorist attack like the latest in Nice or so happens they try to discuss their religion even more...and I'm just like all gods in heaven and around I have never thought you'd be a terrorist and I don't bother in what you believe at all

I understand. Tell them to stop dragging you into such discussions when you are not willing, since if they want to give you a view of Islam, they do not need and if you were willing you could go to better people with more knowledge than them yourself. This way they might are even committing sins.

But it also seems that they are worried about being demonized in someway.

[Uniquemind]

I know the answer as to why they want to share the Islamic faith, it's partly a response to defend the concept of their faith as something else other than causing destruction on the news.

I am also willing to step into the ring and debate.

But I need time, cause I'm busy.

[lliam]

I say Islam is not a threat ...

Annotation:

Take any religion on this planet ... non of'em are threads. Fanatics are the ones who give their own faith a bad reputation. And often the true sinners are those, who's faith is just of fundamental beliefs.

[Jinglebottom]

You should ask scholars. Many Muslims are usually not even aware of their religion, and they just seem that by asking question about Islam, you only want to demonize it for them, so they will answer you this way. But a real Islamic Scholar like Seyyed Hussein Nasr, or Musa Sadr; they were quite different.
It's usually nothing specific... things like the differences between how Sunnis and Shias pray, what verses they recite when someone passes away etc. But then again, they hate Shias and always make fun of them.

[Ghaem]

It's usually nothing specific... things like the differences between how Sunnis and Shias pray, what verses they recite when someone passes away etc. But then again, they hate Shias and always make fun of them.

Yeah yeah we are "Rafezis" in their eyes. Such a shame I hear that our of Iran Sunnis are like this. Here we have Shias and Sunnis who are ready to die for each other.

[Jinglebottom]

Yeah yeah we are "Rafezis" in their eyes. Such a shame I hear that our of Iran Sunnis are like this. Here we have Shias and Sunnis who are ready to die for each other.
I do live in a country where tensions between them are high, usually among kids and older adults. Those in the 18-30 age group are more open-minded.

[Ghaem]

I do live in a country where tensions between them are high, usually among kids and older adults. Those in the 18-30 age group are more open-minded.

Ignorance breeds Conflict. Still I believe even such simple questions are better to be answered by experts of such matters, personally I suggest you ask "Shia scholars", but I do not know who can answer your questions better in Lebanon.

[phuckphace]

why argue about peaceful vs. bellicose because as long as it stays in its own Urheimat (the sandy wastes of where the fuck ever) it literally does not matter either way. Islam has been around for centuries but only as of the last century has it become a significant antagonist of the West.

also sup ROTW, this place is truly too legit to quit. don't be surprised if I take a while to reply tho

[jamie_n5]

I will say first that I agree with Emerald Dream that if you want a private debate then PM each other back and forth. When you open it in a thread then any member of VT has a right to comment.
OK here is my comment on Islam. There has since the beginning of time been unrest in Islam and the whole middle East and always will be until the end of time. This is even written in the bible.

[sqishy]

I do live in a country where tensions between them are high, usually among kids and older adults. Those in the 18-30 age group are more open-minded.

Are those younger than 18 generally less open-minded? Just wondering.

[Jinglebottom]

Are those younger than 18 generally less open-minded? Just wondering.
The 14 to 18 age group is particularly awful in that regard, but it's mostly just shit-talking and not actual confrontation.

[sqishy]

The 14 to 18 age group is particularly awful in that regard, but it's mostly just shit-talking and not actual confrontation.

Ah, I get you. That's better at least.

[PlasmaHam]

Islam has been around for centuries but only as of the last century has it become a significant antagonist of the West.



So, I guess the conquests of the Middle East, Battle of Tours, Fall of Constantinople, the Crusades, the Barbary Wars, and WWI doesn't exist for you.

[Ghaem]

So, I guess the conquests of the Middle East, Battle of Tours, Fall of Constantinople, the Crusades, the Barbary Wars, and WWI doesn't exist for you.

You are talking about Dynasties using Religion for their own purposes not what the religion itself says.

Besides, conquests of the Middle East did not just begin with no previous tensions.

Eastern Roman Empire was already at war with Islamic Government of Arabia under Muhammad himself when three of Muslim ambassadors to Byzantine Empire were executed harshly and the emperor failed to response to Muslims' demand for handing over the governor responsible for their deaths.

Sassanid Empire also began harassing Muslim cities alongside its Iraqi borders, as a response to growing number of Muslims in its territories.

Rest of the battles done by Umayyad Caliphate, Abbasid Caliphate, Sultanates and Seljuk and Ottoman Turks and others were just political games not supported by religion, but abusing the religion. Not to forget in Medieval times, political governments, which Islam at its very cores disapproves, were all abusive and expansionist. Not to forget Frank Catholics invasion of Jerusalem and Palestine, which in no way had any relation to ruling dynasty of Egyp, the Fatimids, but Franks simply got in war with them and sacked the city to its ground, purging its Muslim and Jewish populations mercilessly.

Berbery wars were not religious, using it against Islam doesn't work.

And WWI, the only Muslim government involved was Ottoman Empire, which beside its rivals illegally invaded another Muslim neutral nation, Iran. So it was not a religious war.

[PlasmaHam]

So, wait. Muslim doctrine disapproves of military expansion despite Mohammed himself actually attacking and conquering Mecca under the name of Islam?

The Barbary Wars are actually a pretty close mirror to common day events. One of the few occasions where it pays off to know history. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, president, Founding Father, and a very learned man regarding the Barbary Wars

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

It sure seems odd that the almost exact same claims regarding Islam can be made 200 years apart despite being wrong in your eyes.

[Ghaem]

So, wait. Muslim doctrine disapproves of military expansion despite Mohammed himself actually attacking and conquering Mecca under the name of Islam?[/I]

Have you ever heard of "Hudaybie Treaty"? If not, just shut your mouth when it comes to history of early Islam, because this simply means you are -100% familiar with history. And I can shower you with pages from the history of early Islam, you are talking to someone pretty familiar with it.


The Barbary Wars are actually a pretty close mirror to common day events. One of the few occasions where it pays off to know history. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, president, Founding Father, and a very learned man regarding the Barbary Wars

[I]We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

There, I said it. Remember what I said? Barbary States were monarchies. Monarchies are not approved by Islamic Principles. The very Islamic governments are not tolerating the concept of any Sultan or Monarch upon themselves, they are considered as "Taqut" or unlawful rulers according to the very text of Quran itself.

As I said, it was just abusing the religion for political goals, not what the religion itself says.

[PlasmaHam]

Have you ever heard of "Hudaybie Treaty"? If not, just shut your mouth when it comes to history of early Islam, because this simply means you are -100% familiar with history. And I can shower you with pages from the history of early Islam, you are talking to someone pretty familiar with it.



I have heard of the Hudaybie Treaty. Some say Mohammed actually broke it first, when he refused to return a refugee from the city, despite the treaty clearly saying such. Even if the Meccans were at blame, it was a huge case of overreacting on Mohammed's part. A tribe friendly to the Meccans attack some Muslims, so the reasonable thing to do is to attack the city itself, which wasn't even involved in the incident! Seems to be like Mohammed was just looking for an excuse to go to war, he clearly didn't like Mecca after all.





There, I said it. Remember what I said? Barbary States were monarchies. Monarchies are not approved by Islamic Principles. The very Islamic governments are not tolerating the concept of any Sultan or Monarch upon themselves, they are considered as "Taqut" or unlawful rulers according to the very text of Quran itself.


So, basically ever Muslim government that ever existed was not actually Muslim. That really paints a good portrait of the consistency and hypocrisy of your religion. If the direct followers of Mohammed founded monarchies, then Islam must be really messed up. So, Mohammed was at wrong when he gained control and ruled Medina and Mecca?

I haven't even gotten into the juicy stuff yet and you're quaking. I'm done with this for now. Again, I don't want to get into a full debate, I just wanted to spice up the thread for other people.

[Ghaem]

I have heard of the Hudaybie Treaty. Some say Mohammed actually broke it first, when he refused to return a refugee from the city, despite the treaty clearly saying such. Even if the Meccans were at blame, it was a huge case of overreacting on Mohammed's part. A tribe friendly to the Meccans attack some Muslims, so the reasonable thing to do is to attack the city itself, which wasn't even involved in the incident! Seems to be like Mohammed was just looking for an excuse to go to war, he clearly didn't like Mecca after all.

Hudaybia Treaty was negotiated after a series of harsh military confrontations between Pagan Tribes of Mecca and Muslim Government of Medina. Two direct offensive military actions against Medina was done by Meccan Tribes before Fall of Mecca to Muslims which was done with no military action.

1. Battle of Uhud: A confrontation which happened after Battle of Badr and Meccans wanted to take revenge for their losses in that battle and sent an Army under Abu Sufyan himself to lay siege to Medina. It at first appeared to be in favor of Meccans, but a day after Battle of Red Lion, the invading army retreated to Mecca, preparing for another massive attack on Medina to destroy Muhammad's government.

2.Battle of Khandagh: When pagans and their allies laid siege to Medina from three sides and Muslims tried to defend the city by digging tunnels around it. The pagans lost the battle and paved the way for the treaty.

According to the treaty Muslims were allowed to visit their holy sites and relatives in Mecca safely, without pagans interrupting them. Both sides were obligated not to declare war on the other and their respective allies and trading caravans were allowed to pass safely through roads. Breaking the treaty by each sides was a sign of declaration of war.

Those some says are just winds in the air if you cannot bring reliable historical sources for them, as I have read in Tabari and other early sources an ally of Meccans attacked a caravan belonged to a non-Muslim ally of Medina, breaking one of the main records of the treaty, thus beginning the war between factions; so Muhammad's attack on Meccans and its allies was legitimate since it was according to the treaty itself. Besides, Mecca's population were more than a half Muslim when Muslim army arrived at Mecca, putting aside that Muhajerins and Muhammad himself were Meccans who were forced to leave their homes and properties behind by pagans before migrating to Medina.

Let's also not forget how Mecca was captured; without bloodshed.

So now did you get that Mecca was not just captured on whims and mims?




So, basically ever Muslim government that ever existed was not actually Muslim. That really paints a good portrait of the consistency and hypocrisy of your religion. So, Mohammed was at wrong when he gained control and ruled Median and Mecca?


Monarchy is the control of royal family over a government without any right. If you were just a little familiar with Islamic Principles of Governing, you would understand that Muhammad was not a monarch, he was a governor fully supported by his people. Two things are important for an Islamic Government: 1. Public Support for the Governor 2. Religious and Legal Legitimacy for the Governor.

Monarchies usually undermine both. Monarchs were above Law and Royal Blood was enough for someone to become a ruler. This places nearly all governments after Muhammad in Islamic Blacklist which many Islamic Scholars consider just Muslims in power not Islamic Governments. This includes all Umayyad Caliphate, Abbasid Caliphate and ... so on to modern Muslim Monarchies.

Now did you get what we said?

BTW, lets talk about women's rights. I'm sure a religion founded on such peaceful principles and blind devotion should have equal footing for women

What are your complains?

[Porpoise101]

So, basically ever Muslim government that ever existed was not actually Muslim.
According to your interpretation of Islam, you could say that the first (4?) caliphs were Islamic and generally followed the principals.

Then again, could you call any European monarchy Christian? Corrupt, immoral nobles of the West weren't very Christian in my view. Without a few exceptions like Edward the Confessor, the rulers of Europe didn't exactly follow Christian principles, but used it to invade and take power. That being said, many of the local people (Christian and Muslim) were following their faith well and truly.

[PlasmaHam]

Your post has no more historical backing than mine. I guess I am just going to take your word for it, despite this being a relatively modern idea to defend Islam.



Let's also not forget how Mecca was captured; without bloodshed.


I was waiting for you to bring that up. Mohammed outnumbered the Meccans, so they wisely just surrendered. As soon as Mohammed took control, the Meccans started to convert to Islam to avoid his wrath. Mohammed, being a smart commander, was more interested in gaining more soldier than killing, so he let them live. Of course, those who disagreed with Mohammed faced a cruel fate. I'm sure you've heard of Asma bint Marwan.

Perhaps Mohammed was fully supported as "governor" because he claimed to be a prophet, and made those who converted to Islam claim that? Hitler was fully supported by the Germans, yet his motives were far from good.

[PlasmaHam]

According to your interpretation of Islam, you could say that the first (4?) caliphs were Islamic and generally followed the principals.

Then again, could you call any European monarchy Christian? Corrupt, immoral nobles of the West weren't very Christian in my view. Without a few exceptions like Edward the Confessor, the rulers of Europe didn't exactly follow Christian principles, but used it to invade and take power. That being said, many of the local people (Christian and Muslim) were following their faith well and truly.

Christianity speaks against the union of Church and state. Islam, having their religious leader also being a political and military leader, supports union of religion and state. I could go in a big long rant about Catholicism, but the there never should have been Christian nations. However, Christianity had the Reformation, which started a return back towards New Testament principles of religious liberty. And overall, Christian nations are now pinnacles of freedom, while Muslim nations, are not so much.

This is not really the thread for such, but I don't really see how they used the Bible to justify attacks. The Catholic Church was infamous for relying more on political than religious goals during its reign of power.

[Ghaem]

Your post has no more historical backing than mine. I guess I am just going to take your word for it, despite this being a relatively modern idea to defend Islam.
you've heard of Asma bint Marwan.




For my claims, I can refer you too:

Ibn Hesham's history volume 2 page 776-791
Waghedi volume 2 page 574-612
Ibn Kathir volume 2 page 239-244
Ibn Saad volume 2 page 95


Your references please?


I was waiting for you to bring that up. Mohammed outnumbered the Meccans, so they wisely just surrendered. As soon as Mohammed took control, the Meccans started to convert to Islam to avoid his wrath.

Meccan nobles surrendered on terms of converting to Islam, not whole Meccan population, this includes Abu Sufyan and his family and Ghurayshi nobles. Besides the Public Forgiveness was for all residents of Mecca. Those who were exempted were :
1. Akrame Bin Abi Jahl: who later was forgiven
2. Safwan Ibn Umayya: who later was forgiven
3. Abdullah Ibn Khutal: who was punished for murder
4. Huyres Ibn Naqidh: who broke the conditions of "Public Forgivness" and got killed
5. Mughis Ibn Sabate: who was punished for murder
6. Aslam Ibn Zab'ari: who later was forgiven
7. Wahshi Ibn Harb : who later was forgiven

~Women:

1. Hind Bint Atabe
2. Sareh: who was later forgiven
3. Two female slaves of Pagan noble Ibn Khatl, who broke the conditions of "Public Forgiveness" by citing revolts among Meccan populations after the capture.

Reference : Tabari History Volume 3 page 1187

Asma Bint Marwa was killed before Mecca, in Medina on charges of treason for inspiring revolts within Medina Society having ridiculed the people of Medina for obeying a chief not of their kin and citing violence.

It shows your great accuracy. Bravo.

Perhaps Mohammed was fully supported as "governor" because he claimed to be a prophet, and made those who converted to Islam claim that? Hitler was fully supported by the Germans, yet his motives were far from good.

Nearly all historical sources from fully Muslim biased to conservative ones admit that Muhammad was a ruler of great care for his subjects. You dare to challenge that? Go for it and for the rest of 48 hours I will bring any book I know to hammer you with them. Muhammad was supported not just because he claimed to be a prophet, but also because of his personal traits which are recorded in more than 80 percent of all historical references on his life, Muslim and others. Comparing Muhammad with Hitler is like comparing jewel to dirt. I dare to say you are mostly illiterate about history this way. I suggest you at least study works of William Montgomery Watt's works for beginning. Bernard Lewis is also good if you like view more biased toward your own aims.

[PlasmaHam]

Asma Bint Marwa was killed by order of Mohammed. She rebuked the Medina men for obeying a foreign leader, like you said. Mohammed ordered her killed, and later rejoiced with the man who killed her, and praised him, claiming that her life wasn't worth that of two goats head butting. This sure doesn't seem like the actions of a peaceful man that a so called "peaceful" religion should be based upon.

Your claims about converting to Islam emphases my point about Islam. Islam spreads by the sword, with forced conversions. You clearly said it yourself, that the leaders were basically forced by Mohammed to convert to Islam(that or face death, pretty obvious). Now, if a Muslim is supposed to follow Mohammed's life, then it seems like forcing someone to convert to Islam is justifiable.


I've been using the Koran for my research. I like to use the direct source, instead of referring to biased side material. That's what your average Muslim reads and follows anyway.

As I originally said on the subject, I have done way too many of these debates recently. I challenge anyone else to continue this debate, I've given a few good points to work on. I get too wrapped up in these and I really don't have the time to continue this.

[Ghaem]

Asma Bint Marwa was killed by order of Mohammed. She rebuked the Medina men for obeying a foreign leader, like you said. Mohammed ordered her killed, and later rejoiced with the man who killed her, and praised her, claiming that her life wasn't worth that of two goats head butting. This sure doesn't seem like the actions of a peaceful man that a so called "peaceful" religion should be based upon.

First bring references for exact thing you said. Besides it was completely clear Asma Bint Marwan was behind a violent civil action against Muhammad, there were others who criticized Muhammad in Medina but did not face the same fate, mostly Jewish.

Your claims about converting to Islam emphases my point about Islam. Islam spreads by the sword, with forced conversions. You clearly said it yourself, that the leaders were basically forced by Mohammed to convert to Islam(that or face death, pretty obvious). Now, if a Muslim is supposed to follow Mohammed's life, then it seems like forcing someone to convert to Islam is justifiable.

Pagan leaders of Mecca were murderous beasts preying on every aspect of humanity possible! By converting to Islam they would prove they have changed their beliefs from the past and are regretful for what they have done!It was just for them not any other living being in Mecca since their past was completely clear and they would be killed on charges for torture, homicide and imposing forced poverty on people of Mecca anyway.
Besides, forced conversion is outlawed in Quran itself in Sura Baqra 256 and 257 "...There is no force in accepting the religion since the right path is clear from the wrong one, and those who turned their back from Taqut and believed in God are like having grabbed an unbreakable string that will never get apart and God is Seeing and Listening."

I've been using the Koran for my research. I like to use the direct source, instead of referring to biased side material. That's what your average Muslim reads and follows anyway.

Yet no actual reference from Quran was seen in your posts. Congratulations.

[Dalcourt]

Why do all debates about Islam always work the same? Which is what I initially talked about...on this thread.
Everything is justified through obscure religious scripts nobody in the Western world and no ordinary Muslim who is not some sort of religious scholar knows.

I mean your everyday Christian fanatic just cites the Bible and not any obscure writings and I'm sure your everyday Muslim just sticks to the quoran likewise.


so I never get those talks at all but probably I'm not smart enough for that.

[Ghaem]

Why do all debates about Islam always work the same? Which is what I initially talked about...on this thread.
Everything is justified through obscure religious scripts nobody in the Western world and no ordinary Muslim who is not some sort of religious scholar knows.

I mean your everyday Christian fanatic just cites the Bible and not any obscure writings and I'm sure your everyday Muslim just sticks to the quoran likewise.


so I never get those talks at all but probably I'm not smart enough for that.

The fact is he says he is researching the Quran; yet 1. He does not know its framework
2. Its timeline
3. Its order within itself that Quran itself is not enough and it must be carefully intercepted and studied. in Sura Tobe 122 "...They must study in religion and teach their people as they return."
4. Not even one verse clearly to clarify his statement.

All I ask is evidence which seems he lacks.

[Dalcourt]

The fact is he says he is researching the Quran; yet 1. He does not know its framework
2. Its timeline
3. Its order within itself that Quran itself is not enough and it must be carefully intercepted and studied. in Sura Tobe 122 "...They must study in religion and teach their people as they return."
4. Not even one verse clearly to clarify his statement.

All I ask is evidence which seems he lacks.

of course I can't speak for PlasmaHam and what sources he cites from but if I can have a wild guess I think he quotes from the same source like religious fanatics who claim Allah wants them to cleanse the world off non-beliefers.

[Ghaem]

Peanut_ Well then I want the source itself, not just the claim.

[Dalcourt]

Peanut_ Well then I want the source itself, not just the claim.

so maybe you should ask people like the guy who tried to murder a tourist family from Hong Kong on a train in bavaria shouting a ‘Allahu Akbar’ for his sources?

[Ghaem]

so maybe you should ask people like the guy who tried to murder a tourist family from Hong Kong on a train in bavaria shouting a ‘Allahu Akbar’ for his sources?

I have asked. I have been to Iraq and discussing these matters with some of local Sunnis there who seemed to have sympathy for people like them. They are using verses of Quran which permits killing armed enemies in cases of declaration of war and acts of national defense (Jehad), or internal affairs like civil war, inciting violence and insecurity, spreading corruption through Muslim lands.

When asked that according to which of these verses, terrorist acts are considered legitimate, they say for spreading the religion or for vengence of lost lives of Muslims. As I said according to that verse in Sura Baqara forced conversion is considered Haraam and an act of Transgression, so spreading the religion cannot be done through violent means. In Quran it is said that to honor the treaties with non-Muslim neighbors and nations which have no ill intention toward Muslim countries and are not at war with Muslims. Any act of aggression from Muslim side is considered transgression and it is certain that the transgressors will be punished. These acts are not supported by Islam since they do not fit in cases that violence is permitted, and also their usual targets are unarmed civilians which harming them is considered as an unforgiveable sin by Islam.

This way those migrants to non-Muslim nations have no right to incite any violence in their respective residences. Besides groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are considered internal enemies of Muslims for spreading terror and insecurity through Muslim lands and their killing is permitted.

They are considered Khawrejis, those who are out of religion, and since they are openly engaged in unrigtful armed conflict, they must be put down so peace can be restored.

If Europe would act better on its security, monitoring such suspects before they actually do anything, and prevent schools influenced by kinds of Wahhabi School to get any foorhold in their soil, and stop using such misrable idiots for furthering their own goals in places like Middle East, this incidents can easily been prevented. Easier than you think.

[PlasmaHam]

I’m sorry if my knowledge of Islam is too little for you. My strong suit is Christianity, but I do Islam on the side. You don’t have to respond to me if you feel I don’t know anything about Islam.

Your arguments are all just nit-pickings I’ve noticed. What you seem to be saying, that if a Muslim does one thing the Koran prohibits, then they are not true Muslims. A country that follows Shira law, worships Allah, and does regular pilgrimage is not Muslim, because they break one rule regarding Monarchy, something that isn’t clear anyway. I don’t see how the Barbary Wars can be excused as being non-Islamic simply because the government broke a few rules. Everyone, even you regardless of if you want to admit it or not, have broken Islamic laws. Does that make you non-Islamic?

The Crusades were caused by both Islamic actions against the Byzantine Empire and the banning of European commerce and pilgrimage across the Middle East. At one point, there was actually an Eastern Catholic Church, but in typical Muslim fashion those churches were either destroyed, turned into mosques, or taxed out of existence. Christians have been fighting a defensive war against Islamic expansion for years, so in your logic it is justifiable for them to retaliate. That is basically what you keep promoting in your terrorism thread, is it not?

And yes, any historical or Christian scholar will tell you that the Middle East was primarily Christian until the 800s AD. Christianity originated out of the Middle East, it doesn’t make sense to claim Christianity wasn’t in the Middle East.

Enough with Islamic history for now, what matters anyway is what the Koran says. I am going to pull out a classic Mohammed card, and talk about his wives. Specifically, his 6-year-old wife. I have so many people try to defend this, yet none have done it adequately.

I am asking you an earnest question. If someone is reading straight from the Koran, no outside sources or commentary, do you believe that person can interpret it as a call to holy war? I am not saying that the Koran is bad here, I am just asking if it can be interpreted to justify war.

[Ghaem]

I’m sorry if my knowledge of Islam is too little for you. My strong suit is Christianity, but I do Islam on the side. You don’t have to respond to me if you feel I don’t know anything about Islam.

Your arguments are all just nit-pickings I’ve noticed. What you seem to be saying, that if a Muslim does one thing the Koran prohibits, then they are not true Muslims. A country that follows Shira law, worships Allah, and does regular pilgrimage is not Muslim, because they break one rule regarding Monarchy, something that isn’t clear anyway. I don’t see how the Barbary Wars can be excused as being non-Islamic simply because the government broke a few rules. Everyone, even you regardless of if you want to admit it or not, have broken Islamic laws. Does that make you non-Islamic?

Wait, what did I say about differences between Muslims in Power and Islamic Government? I said these powers were considered just Muslims in Power not Islamic Governments approved by Islam and Quran itself, which means Muslims supporting them were sinners. And being Monarchy is not just a little reason for saying a government is not Islamic, it is undermining one the reason for saying a government is considered "Islamic" not just "Muslims in Power".


The Crusades were caused by both Islamic actions against the Byzantine Empire and the banning of European commerce and pilgrimage across the Middle East. At one point, there was actually an Eastern Catholic Church, but in typical Muslim fashion those churches were either destroyed, turned into mosques, or taxed out of existence. Christians have been fighting a defensive war against Islamic expansion for years, so in your logic it is justifiable for them to retaliate. That is basically what you keep promoting in your terrorism thread, is it not?

Right before the Crusades the Byzantine Empire, the very Orthodox Christian Empire of Anatolia, was in great odds with Catholics, not to forget Catholics in their way to Jerusalem mercilessly massacred different populations of Orthodox Christians through Anatolia.

Also, I have reliable sources that will outlaw your claim that Churches were either destroyed or turned into mosques or taxes out of existence as "Typical Muslim Fashion". According to Bernard Lewis and most other historians on Middle East matters, these acts throughout whole Islamic territories were RARE, in Fatimid Caliphate even more rare. The time that Crusades happened, Fatimid Caliphate was not even imposing regular restriction on non-Muslims in holy lands.

For my references you can study History of Crusades written by Steven Runciman.

Your references please?

I would say Christians fighting against Muslim invaders in southern Europe is considered defensive and absolutely legitimate even according to Islamic texts like Quran, since Muslim side involved was an illegitimate government at first Umayyad Caliphate; crusades in no way was considered defensive through whole historical references. It can be said that Muslim attacks was one of Minor reasons that crusades happened according to Bernard Lewis and it was just a motivation not any major reason. Besides, last Muslim attack to Western Europe was done more than 90 years before the crusades.

Not to forget that Cathoilc Christians in Western Europe were in no way friendly with Jews and Orthodox Christians. The acts of crusaders in holy lands during First Crusades clearly shows this.



And yes, any historical or Christian scholar will tell you that the Middle East was primarily Christian until the 800s AD. Christianity originated out of the Middle East, it doesn’t make sense to claim Christianity wasn’t in the Middle East.


I didn't say Christianity, I said Catholic Christianity was not something very familiar with Middle East; Catholics even then were in great odds with Orthodox Christians. And no, even before Islam Middle East was not primarily Christian. Exiled Jews from holy lands, Maniits, Zoroastrians and Hanifs were sharing Middle East with Christians, under sever circumstances according to historical references of course, especially Jews.


Enough with Islamic history for now, what matters anyway is what the Koran says. I am going to pull out a classic Mohammed card, and talk about his wives. Specifically, his 6-year-old wife. I have so many people try to defend this, yet none have done it adequately.

Which according to analytic sources was not 6 when married, but 17 since her sister who was 10 years older than him at the time was 27 in Lunar Year.

"Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126. "On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics."

People bringing excuses like this usually says "9" not "6". You have gone even further I suppose.

And let's talk about Quran. In Quran it is said that Marriage is only legitimate if both groom and bride are willing and agree. I am sure that it is no exception for Aisha case neither. A woman that age is not old enough to marry legally according to Quran itself, putting aside all other Islamic Texts.

I am asking you an earnest question. If someone is reading straight from the Koran, no outside sources or commentary, do you believe that person can interpret it as a call to holy war? I am not saying that the Koran is bad here, I am just asking if it can be interpreted to justify war.

No it can't. In Quran there are verses limiting use of violence in inter-factional matters only to defensive actions and wars declared upon Islamic nations, and it is solely aimed at armed forces not civilians/

Besides, in Quran itself it says Quran must be with Hadith and Sira and without them it is not enough. Only Wahhabi School of Thought believes Quran itself is enough, which their claim is outlawed according to Quran itself Sura Tuba.

[Dalcourt]

If it's all so completely different what is said in the quoran and other religious writings why seem so many Muslim then interpreting it all wrong?

I'd say that most Christians don't give a fuck about what's said in the Bible if they do wrong they do wrong cuz they want it and don't try to justify it with some word of god or whatever.

Most things that seem to go wrong in predominantly islamic countries and involving Muslim seem to be justified by them as being said by the prophet or whatever.

Then when people wonder what kind of religion justifies such things...one always gets the answer oh that's not at all in the quoran those people get it all wrong. So seriously? Maybe then Islam is thought wrong to a great deal of people but why? or is it too complicated for the ordinary person to understand and I guess most people from islamic countries didn't do theology stuff at the university. so if you don't study it are you prone to get your religion completely wrong?

is there two versions of your scripture...one for the peaceful people and one for terrorists and people who spit on human rights in general?

I don't want to offend you with my questions and I chose to word them like that on purpose and I don't want some answer with lenthy citations of some religious writings.
I want an answer that's easy go understand for everyone...like the black kids from my neighbour hood who think converting to islam is kinda cool or the Conservative white who agree wit Trump on seeing Muslims as evil.

[Ghaem]

Peanut_

This has several reasons.

First, Islam is one of the few religions which require Muslims to establish an independent government when most majority of the population of an area is following them.

Second, The verses of Quran need expertise to extract the basic laws from them and interpret them. For example there is a verse in Quran which says : "فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَ خُذُوهُمْ وَ احْصُرُوهُمْ وَ اقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تابُوا وَ أَقامُوا الصَّلاهَ وَ آتَوُا الزَّكاهَ فَخَلُّوا سَبيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحيمٌ " in Sura Tuba and its rough translation is this :

"So when prohibited months are past, so kill Pagans anywhere you find them and arrest them and besiege them and place traps for them anywhere possible; if they repent and said prayers and paid Zakat money, let them go and God is merciful"

What would you get reading this verse at the first glance? Well you surely will not anything merciful about this.

Now another verse from the same Sura:

"يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ"

"Prophet! Fight Those who hide the truth and Infidels and get hard with them since their destination is hell and their return is the worst"

See? It says fight infidels and Kafirs. It is violent.

But what about these verses? This verse is from Sura Baqara:

"وَ قاتِلُوا في‏ سَبيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذينَ يُقاتِلُونَکُمْ وَ لا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدينَ"

"In the way of God, fight those who fight and don't transgress; surely God does not like transgressors."

Or this verse in the same Sura:

"لا إِكْراهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَ يُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فقد استَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقى‏ لاَ انْفِصامَ لَها وَ اللَّهُ سَميعٌ عَليمٌ"

"There is no force acceptance in religion, since right path is clear from the wrong one, and those who turned from Taqut and believed in God, so they have grabbed a strong string that will not be torn apart and God is listening and understanding."

Or this Sura "Kaferun":

"قُلْ یَا أَیُّهَا الْکَافِرُونَ ﴿١﴾ لا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ ﴿٢﴾ وَلا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ ﴿٣﴾ وَلا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ ﴿٤﴾ وَلا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ ﴿٥﴾ لَکُمْ دِینُکُمْ وَلِیَ دِینِ ﴿٦﴾ "

"Oh Hiders of Truth! I do not pray what you pray and you do not pray what I pray; I do not believe in what you believe and you do not believe in what I believe! So for you your religion and for me mine."

Or this one in Sura al- Emran :

"قُلْ* يَا أَهْلَ* الْکِتَابِ* تَعَالَوْا إِلَى* کَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَ بَيْنَکُمْ* أَلاَّ نَعْبُدَ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ* وَ لاَ نُشْرِکَ* بِهِ* شَيْئاً وَ لاَ يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضاً أَرْبَاباً مِنْ* دُونِ* اللَّهِ* فَإِنْ* تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ* "

"Say: Oh People of the Book! (Means Christians, Jews, Saebis, Izedis, Druze right now, Zoroastrians) come to the word which is common among you and us, that we do not pray anyone except God, and do not take any partner for it, and do not take some of us from some of us as Lords except God. So if they rejected this offer, tell them : So witness that we are Muslims!"

Or this in al-Nahl Sura:

"فَإِنْ* تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْکَ* الْبَلاَغُ* الْمُبِينُ* "

"...If they didn't accept do not worry, Your only duty is to bring them this message."

I'm sure that you have already realized that there is a Paradox between verses of Quran regarding. This paradox get even greater if you bring in other verses and Strong Hadith in Chain of Quotes.

Why this much paradox you may ask?

I will continue explaining more for you Peanut_ if you really have found this paradox.

[Leprous]

I will say first that I agree with Emerald Dream that if you want a private debate then PM each other back and forth. When you open it in a thread then any member of VT has a right to comment.
OK here is my comment on Islam. There has since the beginning of time been unrest in Islam and the whole middle East and always will be until the end of time. This is even written in the bible.

Might I ask you how you know if this is true? As far as I'm aware the Islam has been around for much longer so the guys who wrote the bible shouldn't know that there has ALWAYS (which you said) been a time of unrest. Without the Islam culture we in the Western world would be living without allot of things.

[jamie_n5]

Well believe me The SpecialOne I in no way or manor meant to knock down Islam. I also agree that we gained a lot of things from there culture. I guess I probably misrepresented the bible. I was mixing up things from Revelations that talk of unending unrest and battles in the Mideast that will have no ends. Sorry, no offense intended.

[Ghaem]

Jamie_n , The Special One, Please Please. stay on the subject of the thread.

[Leprous]

Jamie_n , The Special One, Please Please. stay on the subject of the thread.

Which is about Islam if I'm not mistaken. We did talk about that.

[Ghaem]

Which is about Islam if I'm not mistaken. We did talk about that.

Oh apologize then. I was a bit sleepy reading your posts.

[Dalcourt]

Ghaem
I have heard some of those verses you quoted here...and those who told me about them explained that expanding territory and converting or killing others is justified in their scripture...so if that's wrong why is it there...or if it means something different why is it written that way?

[PlasmaHam]

As far as I'm aware the Islam has been around for much longer so the guys who wrote the bible...

Um, yeah, that's not true. The Bible was written approximately from 2000BC to 70AD by various writers all inspired by God. The Koran, Mohammed, and Islam didn't arrive until the 700s AD. That is a pretty substantial difference, don't you think?

[Ghaem]

Peanut_, Well there comes the the Knowledge of Interpretation and Studies of Hadith and Tradition and History of Early Islam which are all needed in interpretation of Quran.

Remember this verse?

"So when prohibited months are past, so kill Pagans anywhere you find them and arrest them and besiege them and place traps for them anywhere possible; if they repent and said prayers and paid Zakat money, let them go and God is merciful"

It has a history behind which you have to know before interpreting anything. By "Pagans", this verse is actually referring to a group of Quraysh Nobles who were supposed to be executed for their roles in Muslims' deaths and suffering during their times in Mecca and Medina, after Mecca fell to Muslims. Their certain punishment was death, only if the repent from their deeds and convert to Islam as a sign of their honesty. This verse is not a general verse and must be Interpreted very carefully according to all evidences in hand among Islamic Texts. Others were left to themselves who did not have any role in Muslims suffering.


In Islam war for expansion of territory is not permitted. There are a two reasons that war can be done and it is religiously justified:

1. Defending Islamic Territories from Foreign Aggression and Invasion.
2. Muslims in foreign lands being persecuted or killed for not abandoning their faith; not even allowed to leave and migrate, as is mentioned in Quran for Muslims who are under such circumstances. This one is done to release those Muslims not to occupy any land.

Expanding political borders is a worldly goal and worldly goals are not legitimate in wars.

Conversion cannot be forced according to Quran and people must accept the religion with their own will, so this goal for war is not acceptable neither.

Now we get back to such verses like this:

"Prophet! Fight Those who hide the truth and Infidels and get hard with them since their destination is hell and their return is the worst"

and this:

"In the way of God, fight those who fight you and don't transgress; surely God does not like transgressors."

Fighting is justified only if THIS condition exists. Those who fight you must be fought, not surrendered too, nor fled from. But fighting those who do not have any intention to fight you, well that is transgression and forbidden.

Unfortunately most Muslims do something which in Jurisprudence is called "Personal Interpretation of Quran". It is a very unfortunate event which has happened many times and during many periods of times after Muhammad himself. Governments like Umayyid and Abbasid Caliphate has done this to justify their illegitimate rule on Muslims and for their expansions and wars for wealth and land.

For interpreting the Quran, one needs near- complete authority in field like Quranic Arabic, Hadith, Tradition and History of Early Islam. Few people are experts in this field for sure. In Shia Jurisprudence we call them "Marja" which means "Reference". They interpret Quran and extract laws and rules. Others are not considered legitimate.

But the problem with today's killings are 100% percent, without any doubt, products of Salafi and Wahhabi Schools of thoughts which emphasize that literal interpretation of Quran is enough for extracting rules and one can read a verse and acts according to it. This is against the Islamic Principle that Quran must be reviewed as whole and not just any verse independently. These schools of thoughts also do not see Hadith and Tradition necessary for interpreting which is another great misery. This way the path to Religious Corruption is wide-open.

[Leprous]

Um, yeah, that's not true. The Bible was written approximately from 2000BC to 70AD by various writers all inspired by God. The Koran, Mohammed, and Islam didn't arrive until the 700s AD. That is a pretty substantial difference, don't you think?

Buuut is it not true that the old testament was Jewish?

Also, I just noticed my mistake. Doesn't mean Islam didn't give us allot though.

[Ghaem]

Buuut is it not true that the old testament was Jewish?

PlasmaHam, I think you two are talking about Torah and Gospel right?

[Leprous]

PlasmaHam, I think you two are talking about Torah and Gospel right?

Actually just about which religion is older. I fucked up here.

What I do know is that it is a matter of standpoint. Not every Muslim claims their religion is newer.

[Ghaem]

Actually just about which religion is older. I fucked up here.

Well from an Islamic point of view:

There is no more than One Abrahamic religion and that is Islam. Actually Islam means "Coming into right path". According to Quran all messengers from Adam the first Intelligent Human, to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Eisa (Latin Jesus)and Muhammad were all messengers of God and preachers of one religion.

[Leprous]

Well from an Islamic point of view:

There is no more than One Abrahamic religion and that is Islam. Actually Islam means "Coming into right path". According to Quran all messengers from Adam the first Intelligent Human, to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Eisa (Latin Jesus)and Muhammad were all messengers of God and preachers of one religion.

So it all depends?

[Ghaem]

So it all depends?

Depends on what?

[Leprous]

Depends on what?

The point of view you have on the subject. Which one is older.

[Ghaem]

The point of view you have on the subject. Which one is older.

Oh yes.

[Dalcourt]

The point of view you have on the subject. Which one is older.

or maybe there will be a new prophet arrive next year and say that Jews, Christians and Muslims are wrong and this new word of god he (or maybe a she this time??) is going to preach now is the real deal.
or maybe this prophet is already here we just hadn't time to pay attention cuz we were busy playing pokemon go??

Religious beliefs really is a weird thing.

[Leprous]

or maybe there will be a new prophet arrive next year and say that Jews, Christians and Muslims are wrong and this new word of god he (or maybe a she this time??) is going to preach now is the real deal.
or maybe this prophet is already here we just hadn't time to pay attention cuz we were busy playing pokemon go??

Religious beliefs really is a weird thing.

Well you're not the only one who doesn't understand them my friend. Maybe Trump is this prophet?

[Dalcourt]

Well you're not the only one who doesn't understand them my friend. Maybe Trump is this prophet?

*Gasp* Haven't thought about Trump yet but now as you say it...it's highly possible.

[Leprous]

*Gasp* Haven't thought about Trump yet but now as you say it...it's highly possible.

Looking at how some people worship him it is...anyways getting of topic here.

[Dalcourt]

Looking at how some people worship him it is...anyways getting of topic here.

lol yeah maybe ... don't really know what the original topic was anyway

[Ghaem]

Peanut_, Messengers must have evidences for their claims, which most had.

First no messenger says the previous one is wrong. The arrival of messengers are actually revival of the main religion, which has been corrupted through time by different factors.

Second, God sometimes provides direct support for them through performing E'ejaz (things that others are not capable of doing so) which is usually a response to demand of those who oppose them by saying "If you are a messenger of God, then show us a sign from it".

So it is not like tomorrow another messenger is going to come.

[Leprous]

Peanut_, Messengers must have evidences for their claims, which most had.

First no messenger says the previous one is wrong. The arrival of messengers are actually revival of the main religion, which has been corrupted through time by different factors.

Second, God sometimes provides direct support for them through performing E'ejaz (things that others are not capable of doing so) which is usually a response to demand of those who oppose them by saying "If you are a messenger of God, then show us a sign from it".

So it is not like tomorrow another messenger is going to come.

Well I don't even believe in these messengers. Still feel like there is no evidence they existed in the first place.

[Dalcourt]

Peanut_, Messengers must have evidences for their claims, which most had.

First no messenger says the previous one is wrong. The arrival of messengers are actually revival of the main religion, which has been corrupted through time by different factors.

Second, God sometimes provides direct support for them through performing E'ejaz (things that others are not capable of doing so) which is usually a response to demand of those who oppose them by saying "If you are a messenger of God, then show us a sign from it".

So it is not like tomorrow another messenger is going to come.

Well I'd say the religious beliefs like Judaism, Christianity and Islam think of each other that the other is wrong...why else would there ever have been fighting between them like the Crusades, Jews hating on Muslim and vice versa...Jews being against Jesus and persuading the Romans to kill him...why would violence happen if not cuz everyone thinks they are right and the others are wrong?

And the claims and evidence of messengers...it's just up to other people to believe it or not. So some of those messengers are seen as a true prophet or messiah or whatever you want to call them, others are heretics and the third party is nutcases that maybe found some obscure sects...but who is really a true messenger...nobody knows.

End of the day religion is just a man made concept and the concepts most people can agree and/or are somehow indoctrinated by the respective leaders in a certain are the large religions. The not so popular concepts are becoming religious splinter groups and sects...There's no right or wrong after all...nobody can't tell me that it's wrong to worship a tree in my backyard if I want and if I'd manage to do some great speeches about how this tree could save our souls I could become a religious leader, too for some sad souls who have nothing better to do with their lives than to follow me.

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam, I think you two are talking about Torah and Gospel right?

Well, the Torah really only refers to the first five books of the OT while the Gospel only refers to the first four books of the NT. I am talking about the Bible as a whole.

A large amount of Old Testament books are included or referenced in the Dead Sea scrolls, so the oldest still existing records of the Bible go back to 400 BC if you want to get nit-picky about it.

peanut There is already a thread to bash religion as a whole. This is focusing on Islam. If you feel like using Christianity or other religions to talk about Islam, feel free, but simply bashing religion as a whole does not belong here.

The original topic here was discussing Islam. Basically this is Ghaem's Ask a Muslim thread, just with more debating than normal.

[Dalcourt]

PlasmaHam

Well from an Islamic point of view:

There is no more than One Abrahamic religion and that is Islam. Actually Islam means "Coming into right path". According to Quran all messengers from Adam the first Intelligent Human, to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Eisa (Latin Jesus)and Muhammad were all messengers of God and preachers of one religion.

So in a broader sense it was still about Islam.
And apart from that it's not called "bashing religion" but "freedom of speech".

[PlasmaHam]

And apart from that it's not called "bashing religion" but "freedom of speech".

If that was true, then there wouldn't be any order in these forums.

[Leprous]

If that was true, then there wouldn't be any order in these forums.

Yeah actually it is. I have the right to disagree with people and give my opinion. If I was bashing a religion I would say stuff like "all Christians are stupid and homophobic and shitty people" which I don't. I simply give my opinion.

[Ghaem]

Well I'd say the religious beliefs like Judaism, Christianity and Islam think of each other that the other is wrong.

From a Muslim point of view, I would say that's not right. I even brought verses of Quran which says there must be cooperation between people of the book and Muslims since they are all in parts Muslims.

As I said in Islamic beliefs there is no "Religions", but just one "Religion". It means all messengers were preachers of one religion and that is Islam. It means Eisa was a messenger of God in Islam, Mosa the same, Ebrahim the same, Nooh the same, and finally we have Muhammad which in Islam is considered the last.


..why else would there ever have been fighting between them like the Crusades, Jews hating on Muslim and vice versa...Jews being against Jesus and persuading the Romans to kill him...why would violence happen if not cuz everyone thinks they are right and the others are wrong?

I am sure none of these event were for religious reasons. Crusades seriously had political intentions behind it and religious differences were just a motivation not the main reason.

I have not heard any Jew hates another Muslim or vice versa around myself.

They were Jewish leaders who persuaded Romans to kill Eisa, not whole Jews. And it also had serious political issues behind it, mostly financial.


And the claims and evidence of messengers...it's just up to other people to believe it or not. So some of those messengers are seen as a true prophet or messiah or whatever you want to call them, others are heretics and the third party is nutcases that maybe found some obscure sects...but who is really a true messenger...nobody knows.

There are too many factors that identify if a person is true in his intentions or not. Wanting to bring them all for you right now, and I should have become a serious Theologian and an authority over this matter. But one of this factors, as I mentioned, is E'ejaz which not everyone can claim he has that ability to call for it.

About this if you want, I can explain more.


End of the day religion is just a man made concept and ...

There is a serious difference between sect and religion as I know from a Muslim point of view. What you are talking about here is sect.

[Dalcourt]

Ghaem if you have never heard of people hating on each other due to religious reasons or trying to justify their wars about territory, money and power with religion then I dunno wh ywe are even talking.

Cuz this is the whole point of this discussion in a nutshell. The reason why people are prejudiced about a religion and others try to explain why this religion isn't so bad after all.

The problem with religion is not what the original let's call 'em "founders" for the lack of any better word intended with their beliefs but what people made of it during the years and if you say this is all rainbows and unicorns then I guess we live on a different planet.

[Ghaem]

Ghaem if you have never heard of people hating on each other due to religious reasons or trying to justify their wars about territory, money and power with religion then I dunno wh ywe are even talking.


As you yourself are also saying, they try to justify their wars for worldly desires with religion. There is no real religious reason for their violence anyway. Besides, I said no general population hate another general population just for their faith difference. You were generalizing them.


Cuz this is the whole point of this discussion in a nutshell. The reason why people are prejudiced about a religion and others try to explain why this religion isn't so bad after all.


Actually the primary point of this discussion was a private debate about how good one of the sides is aware of a matter related to other side. It was primarily about saying that "No. It is not justified by my religion and its very concepts and those involved in such acts must be stopped by force if needed according to its very text."

More it went further, it came to this.

The problem with religion is not what the original let's call 'em "founders" for the lack of any better word intended with their beliefs but what people made of it during the years and if you say this is all rainbows and unicorns then I guess we live on a different planet.

That is what I am saying too. We must get to the basics of this religion. If this is done, such violent acts would never happen. I do not know other religions, but my religion is against its basic structures being manipulated and misused by its selfish so-called followers.