Atheism, Religion and related discussion


#296

We can’t really use TROP as a reliable source, since TROP is: a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.

This sounds like anti-Islam to me.

Do you have sources you can link it to?

This is interesting reading :smiley:.

Who was the most violent prophet in history?

Most readers will immediately assume it was the Prophet Muhammad, thanks to a decades long wave of Islamophobia and a sustained campaign of anti-Muslim propaganda. But here’s a tip: it wasn’t Muhammad. Not by a long shot. In fact, Moses had Muhammad beat by far.

But it wasn’t even Moses. In fact, it was Joshua–a Jewish prophet of Israel. Today, he is regarded by Jews as “a mighty warrior” of the faith, a victorious hero, and a righteous prophet after Moses:


#297

You can always look into the quotes themselves. Why should I consider this not to be violent when it is so direct? These quotes are strong and very graphical.

Why should I trust a source called loonwatch, especially with such an idiotic slogan?
And how does another potentially violent man subtract from the acts of muhammad?


#298

I’ve denounced Islamist extremism multiple times in this very thread. I have no tolerance for people who use their religion as a battering ram against the rights of others - But I also have limited patience for blanket smears against 1.5 billion people that paint them all as inherently violent because of their Religion. I am acutely aware of the discrimination and prejudice that Muslims living in western countries face and don’t think this kind of rhetoric does anything other than perpetuate their problems.


#299

There is no doubt in my mind that there are many peaceful muslims. The problem is humans are easily deceived and are extremely prone to self-deception. I think you are willing to protect the ideology because you want to protect the people and thereby overlook the nasty stuff. .


#300

Okay, fair enough, found another site where it says the same:

http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur’an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam.

Because some people here is saying Islam is so much more violent than the Christianity, but i disagree and from what i have learned Islam is not the main reason for terror attacks, terrorists is abusing Islam and uses Islam wrongly as a reason for why they are doing terror attacks.


#301

If I do a little digging I should also be able to find numerous sources that say the crusades were a counter-act to islamic aggression. At least, I have seen that viewpoint with sources numerous times.

Hey, I am not gonna discuss if old testament christianity is worse. New testament is easy because the only agressive act Jesus committed was flipping a table. And the few so called violent quotes said by Jesus are known to be parables as far as I remember.


#302

So what do you think about the Quotes from the Quran I posted to you yesterday? I want to hear your opinion.


#303

I can’t interpreted the quotes from the Quran, but i found some who did:

Quran Commentary on 3:151

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

“We will cast terror (read ru‘b or ru‘ub) into the hearts of the disbelievers: after departing from Uhud they resolved to return in order to exterminate the Muslims, but they were terrified and did not return; for what they have associated, because of their associating, with God that for which He has revealed no warrant, that is, [no] argument in support of its worship, namely, idols; their abode shall be the Fire; evil is the abode, the resting place, of the evildoers, the disbelievers.” [1]

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

“(We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve) [3:151]. Said al-Suddi: “After Uhud, Abu Sufyan and the idolaters headed toward Mecca. But after they traversed a certain distance, they felt regret, saying: ‘Evil is that which we have done! We massacred them [Muslims] such that none of them remained except those who fled from the battlefield and then we left them alone. Go back and exterminate them’. But when they decided to do so, Allah, exalted is He, cast terror in their hearts which made them decide against what they had resolved to do. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed this verse.” [2]

Quran Translation and Commentary by Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi

“The promise of casting awe and fear into the hearts of the disbelievers in this verse was made in the background of the battle of Uhud when the disbelievers of Arabia marched back to Makkah without any obvious reason and inspite of defeat overtaking Muslim (Baydawi). However, after having covered a certain distance on their way to Makkah, they awoke to their folly. When they thought of marching back to Madinah, Allah Almighty filled their hearts with such awe and fear that they could not muster the courage to do so. The most they could do was to hire a Madinah-bound villager to go there and tell Muslims that theu were coming back. But, this whole deal came into the knowledge of the oly Prophet § in Madinah through revelation. He marched to Hamra al-Asad to apprehend them but they had already run away from there. This was the background in which the present verse was revealed.” [3]


#304

Me reading this thread like:


#305

Whattt iss uppp HitmanForumNation… I’m your host…


#306

These verses sound horrible only when you handpick them and misquote them in an attempt to demonize Islam. You must know the historical context and what Muslims were confronting when these verses were revealed in order to gain a proper understanding of them.

I’m gonna quote what I read somewhere about a verse of Quran that is similar to those you posted. Please give it a read:

I’m living in a Muslim country myself and I assure you that the people here cannot be labelled “terrorists” by any stretch of imagination (There are extremists though, but even they do not approve of terrorism. It’s also important to note that extremism comes from their false interpretation of the religion) These people are disgusted by the horrible crimes ISIS or our own government commits in the name of Islam.

I’m not a very religious person myself and I don’t think Islam is perfect. I’m actually leaning towards agnosticism a bit lately but what offends me is the fact that out of all of the good Muslims out there you choose that tiny fraction of the Muslim population that commit all sorts of horrible crimes and blame ALL of the Muslims for what they do.

Terrorism is not only Un-Islamic, but Anti-Islamic.


#307

I think you’re misunderstanding your own point.

So, peaceful people hijack a religion where the customary greeting is “Peace be unto you.” and where the founder stressed that community and living in harmony is what their God wants, and made it all about peace and living in harmony?

Isn’t it far more likely that the religion has been systematically misrepresented as being violent by people who have a massive interest in normalizing violence in areas where they require violence to obtain cheap access to oil from these areas where the most high profile people are Muslims?

Particularly given that it’s a religion that requires it’s members to contribute to charity and to fast every year in order to remember the ordeals of the less fortunate.

So far you have yet to provide any evidence of that other than a few select quotes from a hate site that remove the context from them.

It’s pretty simple: Pick up a history book and look into what was happening in his region at the time and what kind of rulers opposed the existence of Islam.

You just linked to a hate site which is notoriously inaccurate and tends to do things like attribute every homicide that happens in the Arabic world to Islamic “terrorism” (as though non-Muslims people don’t kill each other regularly), quotes sections of the Quran with the most inflammatory translation possible (example, translating jihad to “holy war” instead of “spiritual struggle”) and no context and then just makes shit up if it can’t find anything on any given week.

This is much akin to advocating that you’re not racist, you just know that black people are inherently inferior and supposed to be slaves because a nice man in the Ku Klux Klan told you it was an objective fact. I very strong suggest you diversify your reading and perhaps avoid sites that are specifically built to create alarm and hate.

This is also in contradiction to your claims about wanting to judge Islam off the words of Muhammad since the site does not catalog any of Muhammad’s calls for forgiveness, peaceful solutions, etc but does happily make such claims as Islam demands the Burqua by misinterpretations as referring to commandments of “The Prophet’s wives” as referring to all women (and not the actual wives of the actual Prophet, all of whom were give a special holy status and often sought for counsel by men and women alike, and didn’t want to deal with awkward gazes). Doing so is like demanding that Catholocism demands all men abstain from sex because it expects Monks and Priests to.

More correctly: When Muhammad was a simple merchant and preacher, he was able to practice peacefully as nobody cared, but as he started gathering hundred and thousands of followers, people started to interpret him as a threat and he was required to begin engaging in military action to protect his people. Much like: Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists and basically every large group that has ever existed outside of very strong law protection.

(A big give away btw, is any site that refers to Islam as the “religion of peace” is not likely not going to be reliable since the person who essentially made that phrase topical was George W Bush, thus it’s a pretty big give away they’re not interested in the actual gritty details but the modern sensationalism.)

But that would mean you should consider the possibility you have deceived yourself and radically oversimplified the situation.

And so advocate more nasty stuff in the name of pre-emptively stopping nasty stuff? That’s not how nasty stuff works.

Rather, when people misrepresent millions of people and blame them for the misfortunes they had no say in, accuse them of advocating things that they don’t stand for, etc you build a foundation of conflict. That inevitably leads to some of them deciding that if the system will not provide them opportunities or justice, they will create their own.

Despite all of this, however, they are still far less dangerous than the people on the other side who are raised on horrifying fairy tales that the outsiders are dangerous, and they are far superior - and thus commit terrorist attacks at a much higher rate simply because they feel entitled to smite the “other” and assert their right to everything they want.

The only way to reduce the nasty stuff is actual understanding and the adjustment of the system to provide the most opportunities and justice possible to the most people.

Flipping a table, improvising a whip out and chasing businessmen out of their marketplace by swinging the improvised whip at them - interesting how you want to downplay even this relatively minor act of violence by Jesus. However Jesus did propose many forms of radical passive aggressive resistance that would create major problems for the occupying Roman Empire.

Also, you can’t just dismiss the Old Testament violence because it was specifically chosen by the founders of Christianity as an institution - who also curated what parts of New Testament that they wanted to keep - so far all we know there was a bit in there about Jesus punching people in the dick for laughs but they decided that was Off Brand. It is, for example, already known that there are versions of the New Testament where Jesus was not resurrected.

Because, unlike Muhammad, Jesus did not build Christianity - it was formed decades, arguably even centuries after his death. In fact one of the earliest debates between Christian scholars was: “Are we Jews?”


#308

This sounds very objective.


#309

Ok guys i for the past few days seeing this thread, used my old contacts and got my hands on someone Who could have answered all the basic questions about Islam. (But i think @ingrobny did a nice job putting things into their context)
However Instead i found another person of much much more interest.

I was expecting to keep a question/answer session with this person in private for those who are interested in their ideology. I am not really sure how to handle this. But id like your ideas on what would you want to know and how do we conduct this session.
One thing i am sure of is that it cannot be done in public.


#310

That’s the smartest, most level-headed and considerate thing anyone has posted in this whole thread. Thumbs up @KrugerSchmidts :+1:. Unfortunately, that’s about all I can share in my response. I have no idea how you would go about having the discussion but I hope you are able to find a way and that all the right people (on every side) can participate. Good luck!


#311

You can conduct a group PM


#312

This could work. But who to add? i am sure some people will be left out who would want in. Can people further be added into the PM Group later?


#313

Yeah you can add people at any time. I’d like to join :slight_smile:


#314

Let’s settle this debate once and for all: I am God. Okay? You got me.

Move along now :wink:


#315