Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are your thoughts on Islam?

Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:45:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?
Here is an extract of Historical fact & accuracy by the Historian Gibbon -

MAHOMET'S FLIGHT FROM MECCA TO MEDINA

(p. 673) - The first and most arduous conquests of Mahomet were those of his wife, his servant, his pupil, and his friend; since he presented himself as a prophet to those who were most conversant with his infirmities as a man.

(p.674) - . . . "Friends and kinsmen," said Mahomet to the assembly, "I offer you, and I alone can offer, the most precious of gifts, the treasures of this world and of the world to come. God has commanded me to call you to his service. Whom among you will support my burden? Who among you will be my companion and my vizar?"

No answer was returned, till the silence of astonishment, and doubt, and contempt was at length broken by the impatient courage of Ali, a youth in the fourteenth year of his age. "Oh prophet, I am the man: whosoever rises against thee, I will dash out his teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, rip up his belly. Oh prophet, I will be thy vizar over them." Mahomet accepted his offer with transport, and Abu Taleb was ironically exhorted to respect the superior dignity of his son. (Extract from Gibbon's - "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" D M LOW - A one-volume abridgement, pp. 673-674) (My Bold) -

MAHOMET DECLARES WAR AGAINST THE INFIDEL

From all sides the roving Arabs were allured to the standard of religion and plunder: the apostle sanctified the licence of embracing the female captives as their wives or concubines; and the enjoyment of wealth and beauty was a feeble type of the joys of paradise prepared for the valiant martyrs of the faith. "The sword," says Mahomet, "is the key of heaven and of hell: a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven: at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim." (Extract from Gibbon's - "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" D M LOW - A one-volume abridgement, p. 679) -

THE CHARACTER AND PRIVATE LIFE OF MAHOMET

. . . The use of fraud and perfidy, of cruelty and injustice, were often subservient to the propagation of the faith; and Mahomet commanded or approved the assassination of the Jews and idolaters who had escaped from the field of battle. By the repetition of such acts the character of Mahomet must have been gradually stained; and the influence of such pernicious habits would be poorly compensated by the practice of the personal and social virtues which are necessary to maintain the reputation of a prophet among his secretaries and friends. Of his last years ambition was the ruling passion; and a politician will suspect that he secretly smiled (the victorious imposter!) at the enthusiasm of his youth, and the credulity of his proselytes.1 A philosopher will observe that their credulity and his success would tend more strongly to fortify the assurance of his divine mission, that his interest and religion were inseparably connected, and that his conscience would be soothed by the persuasion that he alone was absolved by the Deity from the obligation of positive and moral laws. (Extract from Gibbon's - "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" D M LOW - A one-volume abridgement, p. 690) -

Mahomet breaks his own Laws -

Perfumes and women were the two sensual enjoyments which his nature required, and his religion did not forbid; and Mahomet affirmed that the fervour of his devotion was increased by these innocent pleasures. The heat of the climate enflames the blood of the Arabs, and their libidinous complexion has been noticed by the writers of antiquity.

Their incontinence was regulated by the civil and religious laws of the Koran: their incestuous alliances were blamed: the boundless licence of polygamy was reduced to four legitimate wives or concubines; their rights of both bed and of dowry were equitably determined; the freedom of divorce was discouraged; adultery was condemned as a capital offence; and fornication, in either sex, was punished with an hundred stripes. Such were the calm and rational precepts of this legislator; but in his private conduct Mahomet indulged the appetites of a man, and abused the claims of a prophet. A special revelation dispensed him from the laws which he had imposed on his nation; the female sex, without reserve, was abandoned to his desires; and this singular prerogative excited the envy rather than the scandal, the veneration rather than the envy, of the devout Musulmans. (Extract from Gibbon's - "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" D M LOW - A one-volume abridgement, p. 691) -

INFLUENCE OF MAHOMET

Mahomet was instructed to preach and to fight; and the union of these opposite qualities, while it enhanced his merit, contributed to his success: the operation of force and persuasion, of enthusiasm and fear, continually acted on each other, till every barrier yielded to their irresistible power. His voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other: the restraints which he imposed were requisite to establish the credit of the prophet, and to exercise the obedience of the people; and the only objection to his success was his rational creed of the unity and perfections of God. (Extract from Gibbon's - "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" D M LOW - A one-volume abridgement, p. 693)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vizier n. hist. high official in some Muslim countries. [ultimately from Arabic] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)
- - - -

perfidy n. breach of faith; treachery.  perfidious adj. [Latin perfidia from fides faith] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)- - - -

pernicious adj. very harmful or destructive; deadly. [Latin pernicies ruin] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)

- - - -

1 - In some passages of his voluminous writings, Voltaire compares the prophet, in his old age, to a fakir "qui d"tache la cha"ne de son cou pour en donner sur les oreilles " ses confr"res."

fakir n. Muslim or (rarely) Hindu religious beggar or ascetic. [Arabic, = poor man] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)

ascetic "adj. severely abstinent; self-denying. "n. ascetic, esp. religious, person.  asceticism n. [Greek askeo exercise] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)
- - - -

libidinous adj. lustful. [Latin: related to *libido] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)- - - -

incontinent adj. 1 unable to control the bowels or bladder. 2 lacking self-restraint (esp. in sexual matters).  incontinence n. (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)- - - -

rapine n. rhet. plundering. [Latin: related to *rape1] (Pocket Oxford Dictionary)

cf.

In fairness to Islam, there is little doubt they learned from the fundamental attitude of the narcissistic & violent biblical jebus -

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
"" Luke 19:27 English Standard Version/ESV Story book

QED
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:03:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It has its peaceful followers. I think it's strict. And I think an alarming proportion of terrorists fill its ranks. But I've seen quite a few Islamic liberals or progressive Islamists as they call themselves (and yes it seems ironic but they are). After watching Mustafa Akyol's talk on TED, I think there's enough space for Islam to evolve and give the world less reason to despise or fear the religion.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"In fairness to Islam, there is little doubt they learned from the fundamental attitude of the narcissistic & violent biblical jebus -

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."" Luke 19:27 English Standard Version/ESV Story book

QED"

In fairness to Jesus Christ whom you slander with ugly lies, please stop spreading Islamic propaganda about our Christian faith just because you, like Muhammad, like Muhammad's clones taught to think exactly like Muhammad, don't understand Christian texts and don't understand that a storyteller is not the same person as the characters in the stories he tells. That is utterly absurd logic yet it is yours and Muslims looking at Jesus telling a parable STORY about an ancient king to make a moral point. My God, if a story teller uses animals in the story one supposes that the storyteller thus is an animal..bad logic makes bad religion makes bad judgment calls about things not understood..
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

I don't know enough about it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me is that hard times make for hard people. I don't think it's any accident that the Muslim religion has its roots in such a harsh environment as the deserts of the Middle East, or that Muhammad himself was a raider of caravans before marching into Mecca in a show of force (according to my college history book). With that said, I do believe that as a religion it should be tolerated, and that most Muslims are people who aspire to goodness and peace. What I find most odd is that the Muslims and Jews seem so very similar, and yet hold such hate for each other.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:29:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:05:39 PM, biomystic wrote:
"In fairness to Islam, there is little doubt they learned from the fundamental attitude of the narcissistic & violent biblical jebus -

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."" Luke 19:27 English Standard Version/ESV Story book

QED"

In fairness to Jesus Christ whom you slander with ugly lies,
The LIAR! is YOU!

I am merely quoting from the alleged preferred propaganda these self acclaimed jebus' believers prefer to use to try to justify themselves!

Why do you deny the biblical text?

You remain meanwhile in error whilst moi remains vindicated!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:34:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are violent Muslims and non-violent Muslims. I don't know who is living consistently with Islam, though, because I haven't read the Qur'an yet.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:13:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me is that hard times make for hard people. I don't think it's any accident that the Muslim religion has its roots in such a harsh environment as the deserts of the Middle East, or that Muhammad himself was a raider of caravans before marching into Mecca in a show of force (according to my college history book). With that said, I do believe that as a religion it should be tolerated, and that most Muslims are people who aspire to goodness and peace. What I find most odd is that the Muslims and Jews seem so very similar, and yet hold such hate for each other.

Yes. Even (supposing the Bible is correct on that score) sharing an ancestor. Yet such hate.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:57:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:13:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me is that hard times make for hard people.

I like this, he's basically implying that people are largely a product of their environment; at least, that's the way I interpret this.

With that said, I do believe that as a religion it should be tolerated, and that most Muslims are people who aspire to goodness and peace.

So you think that's it a tolerable religion? Do you think Islam, in its true form, which isn't necessarily what all Muslims espouse, could live in peace with other religions, or even irreligion?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 9:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:03:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
It has its peaceful followers. I think it's strict. And I think an alarming proportion of terrorists fill its ranks. But I've seen quite a few Islamic liberals or progressive Islamists as they call themselves (and yes it seems ironic but they are). After watching Mustafa Akyol's talk on TED, I think there's enough space for Islam to evolve and give the world less reason to despise or fear the religion.

What was said in that lecture which made you think Islam could evolve? Somewhat like Christianity, perhaps, in terms of evolving into something acceptable? Am I right in assuming that you think it's inherently bad?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 9:08:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:57:29 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:13:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me is that hard times make for hard people.

I like this, he's basically implying that people are largely a product of their environment; at least, that's the way I interpret this.



With that said, I do believe that as a religion it should be tolerated, and that most Muslims are people who aspire to goodness and peace.

So you think that's it a tolerable religion? Do you think Islam, in its true form, which isn't necessarily what all Muslims espouse, could live in peace with other religions, or even irreligion?

I'm honestly not sufficiently familiar with all the minutiae of Islamic practice to answer the question concerning other religions, although I have hope that this could be the case, but personally I doubt it could ever really coexist with total irreligion. As I recall, didn't Muhammad make a very big distinction between nonbelievers and "men of the Book"?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 9:23:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 9:00:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:

What was said in that lecture which made you think Islam could evolve? Somewhat like Christianity, perhaps, in terms of evolving into something acceptable? Am I right in assuming that you think it's inherently bad?

Here's a link to the transcript of the talk: http://new.ted.com...

Here's one part that stands out; I also confirmed it during last year's Ramadan

" And I went there -- I noticed that there was a male
section, which was carefully separated from the female section.
And I had to pay, order and eat at the male section. "It's funny," I
said to myself, "You can mingle with the opposite sex at the holy
Kaaba, but not at the Burger King."

Quite ironic. Ironic, and it's also, I think, quite telling. Because the
Kaaba and the rituals around it are relics from the earliest phase of
Islam, that of prophet Muhammad. And if there was a big emphasis
at the time to separate men from women, the rituals around the
Kaaba could have been designed accordingly. But apparently that
was not an issue at the time. So the rituals came that way."

I don't think it's inherently bad. It has parts I agree with and I parts I don't. I know of one that's a popular misconception: that they believe they will have virgins in paradise. Another TED talk by an agnostic deals decisively with that.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 10:16:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Italicized portions are from my previous conversation w/ Zarroette.

Me:
"Your alternative description of Islam [backward, putrid, vile, loathsome and a filthy skid-mark on humanity] is SO much better than "evil""

Zarroette:
"You weren't accurate, Hody, so I corrected you. My concern was not with the sentiment, rather accuracy."


First of all, my name isn't really Hody.
Second, I'd rather condense your long line of insults into one word, even if it is slightly inaccurate. If it bothers you that much, I'll use "hateful" instead.

.
.
.

Me:
"When did following the Quran become a tenet of Islam? The Quran is just a book compiled by early Muslims quite some time after Muhammad's death. There is a REASON so many Muslims don't take it literally."

Zarroette:
"Yeah, so Allah, in his wisdom, organised the creation of a book, that was intentionally so vague that it can be interpreted any way. The reason 'Muslims' have to play around with the meaning of the words, is because they know its intended meaning is hateful and awful."


Except Allah didn't write that book at all. Humans did.
And you didn't actually answer my contention that the Quran was never a tenet of Islam. Muhammad didn't have any say in what went into the Quran.
I don't really know why early Muslims decided that it was God's Word.
Same with the Bible and Christianity.

.
.
.

Me:
"The actions of a few thousand extremist a**holes does not make the entire ideology "evil"."

Zarroette:
"You're straw-manning my argument, even after I clarified it so that you wouldn't, you frigging dumbf*ck. Get it this time: It's the ideology I have a problem with, not its apparent followers. A debate with you would honestly be a waste of my time."


I WAS talking about the ideology. Not the "apparent followers".
And, like I said, the Quran isn't necessarily even part of that ideology, meaning that Islamic fundamentalism/extremism with it's idiotic Sharia Law and all isn't really the "true form" of Islam. It's a skewed offshoot of it.

http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 10:16:59 PM, Romanii wrote:
Italicized portions are from my previous conversation w/ Zarroette.

Me:
"Your alternative description of Islam [backward, putrid, vile, loathsome and a filthy skid-mark on humanity] is SO much better than "evil""

Zarroette:
"You weren't accurate, Hody, so I corrected you. My concern was not with the sentiment, rather accuracy."



First of all, my name isn't really Hody.
Second, I'd rather condense your long line of insults into one word, even if it is slightly inaccurate. If it bothers you that much, I'll use "hateful" instead.

FFS, you were wrong, it wasn't a big mistake, get over it already!!!


.
.
.

Me:
"When did following the Quran become a tenet of Islam? The Quran is just a book compiled by early Muslims quite some time after Muhammad's death. There is a REASON so many Muslims don't take it literally."

Zarroette:
"Yeah, so Allah, in his wisdom, organised the creation of a book, that was intentionally so vague that it can be interpreted any way. The reason 'Muslims' have to play around with the meaning of the words, is because they know its intended meaning is hateful and awful."



Except Allah didn't write that book at all. Humans did.

I DIDN'T SAY "ALLAH WROTE THE QURAN". I SAID ***ORGANISED***, IMPLYING THAT HE DIDN'T WRITE THE QURAN. Allah has every opportunity to change the quran, seeing that he is omnipotent. I NEVER said that he wrote it.

And you didn't actually answer my contention that the Quran was never a tenet of Islam. Muhammad didn't have any say in what went into the Quran.

So Muslims just make up rules to follow, they simply have to think what Allah wants them to do, and that makes them Muslim? So the quran is irrelevant? So Allah, in his infinite wisdom, allowed the creation of a book that has nothing/little to do with Islam, and then had people write in the book that the quran is the primary source of his word?

I don't really know why early Muslims decided that it was God's Word.

ANOTHER FRIGGING STRAW-MAN. I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT WAS GOD'S WORD. IT WAS WRITTEN BY HUMANS, BUT IT WAS INSPIRED BY ALLAH. IT EVEN QUOTES WHAT ALLAH SAID. DO YOU GET THAT NOW, OR DO I HAVE TO UNDERLINE AND BOLD EVERY SENTENCE I WRITE, IN HOPE THAT YOU DON'T STRAW-MAN ME?

Same with the Bible and Christianity.

Whatever, try staying on point.


.
.
.

Me:
"The actions of a few thousand extremist a**holes does not make the entire ideology "evil"."

Zarroette:
"You're straw-manning my argument, even after I clarified it so that you wouldn't, you frigging dumbf*ck. Get it this time: It's the ideology I have a problem with, not its apparent followers. A debate with you would honestly be a waste of my time."



I WAS talking about the ideology. Not the "apparent followers".

No, you weren't, but this really doesn't matter. You appear unable to let things go, so no doubt you'll write half a page on why you were talking about the ideology.

And, like I said, the Quran isn't necessarily even part of that ideology

This is honestly so ridiculous, but let's hear why you think that it isn't...

meaning that Islamic fundamentalism/extremism with it's idiotic Sharia Law and all isn't really the "true form" of Islam. It's a skewed offshoot of it.

Oh yeah, so the Sharia (meaning 'Law', btw. You're literally saying 'Law Law', like an idiot, which isn't surprising, considering you don't even know where it comes from) was taken out of thin air. There's absolutely nothing about Sharia in the quran at all, it's all just made-up. Anything said about Sharia in the quran is not the "true form" of Islam, it's a skewed offshoot of itself.

I was going to start again with you, but you literally just quoted our entire conversation, hence trying to keep it going. That's fine, let's keep this going; I'm ready for it.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?


-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............


-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.


-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels? It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.


-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran. All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.


-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?



-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............

If God did intervene in human folly then nothing good or bad would ever happen to us.



-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.

No, it means that the ideals of the religion of love and peace have been buried under trash-tier scripture that some Muslims fail to see through.



-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels?

Because their book doesn't really show many signs of divine inspiration, so it shouldn't really be treated as such...

It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.

The book isn't a tenet of the religion. It is a companion guide, at best.


-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran.

Which isn't actually God's Word.

All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.

I never said the Quran doesn't encourage that...
I simply said that the Quran isn't God's Word.



-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...

You haven't really shown that following the Quran word for word is a doctrine of Islam... Muhammad never said to follow the Quran. He said to follow his revelations. And the Quran isn't an accurate source of those revelations.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:21:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

Ah yes! About.com!!! My favourite place for scholarly work!


The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?

I'm sure it would be so easy to accidentally confuse the word 'kill' with 'love'.




-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............

If God did intervene in human folly then nothing good or bad would ever happen to us.

Where are you getting this from? How do you know that these are the teachings of Islam, if you don't have a reference for what Allah commands? Do you understand the problem with what you're doing, and more importantly, why it's a problem? You see how you're putting words in Allah's mouth?




-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.

No, it means that the ideals of the religion of love and peace have been buried under trash-tier scripture that some Muslims fail to see through.

How did you determine this? Besides, if this is somehow true, why would Allah, in his infinite wisdom, not allow for a more accurate representation of Islam?




-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels?

Because their book doesn't really show many signs of divine inspiration, so it shouldn't really be treated as such...

Even though they're quoting Allah?

So Allah, in his infinite wisdom, didn't divinely inspire a book about himself, because it doesn't matter all that much? It doesn't matter that Allah is being worshiped in the wrong way? If he thought otherwise, wouldn't he intervene? Do you honestly think that a god, who is omnipotent, would allow an inaccurate book about him, which claims to quote him?


It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.

The book isn't a tenet of the religion. It is a companion guide, at best.

Suddenly, Muslims realise that they're book isn't going to be free of criticism in the free world. Muslims counter-act this problem by pretending that the quran can be followed whenever you feel like, conveniently ignoring the fact that this defeats the purpose of a holy book.



-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran.

Which isn't actually God's Word.

It isn't entirely God's word, yeah. But you won't read my comment, like the other two times, because you need to straw-man my argument in order to have a hope of appearing convincing.


All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.

I never said the Quran doesn't encourage that...

Good, then the quran encourages all of those rancid things. I'm glad we're getting somewhere.

I simply said that the Quran isn't God's Word.

The quran says that it's god's word (in some places, such as when it's quoting Allah). Oh but that's wrong, because it says so -- where exactly? Where does Allah say otherwise? You're not making things up, are you?




-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...

You haven't really shown that following the Quran word for word is a doctrine of Islam...

The quran says it quotes Allah, in some places. Wouldn't Allah amend the quran if it were wrong? I mean, millions of people are reading it and worshiping Allah incorrectly, right?

Muhammad never said to follow the Quran. He said to follow his revelations.

Semantic double-talk; I don't even know that this is true, anyway.

And the Quran isn't an accurate source of those revelations.

Proof? Surely About.com can answer your questions, again!
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:45:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:21:35 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

Ah yes! About.com!!! My favourite place for scholarly work!

Good job attacking my sources rather than my argument.



The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?

I'm sure it would be so easy to accidentally confuse the word 'kill' with 'love'.

How bout you just read this debate, since you don't seem willing to have a serious argument with me?

http://www.debate.org...

It shows that the Quran isn't nearly as violent as you think it is.

The errors in the Quran aren't as huge as confusing the words "love" and "kill". The errors involve the probably accidental integration of human iron age mentality into it during transmission.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:55:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:45:13 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:21:35 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

Ah yes! About.com!!! My favourite place for scholarly work!

Good job attacking my sources rather than my argument.

Because Wikipedia and the like are credible sources, and should not be attacked.




The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?

I'm sure it would be so easy to accidentally confuse the word 'kill' with 'love'.

How bout you just read this debate, since you don't seem willing to have a serious argument with me?


http://www.debate.org...

It shows that the Quran isn't nearly as violent as you think it is.

Lol, now you're trying to escape this conversation without having to address my arguments. Maybe if I get time, I'll read this, because this is something worthwhile (the only worthwhile thing I've received from this conversation).


The errors in the Quran aren't as huge as confusing the words "love" and "kill". The errors involve the probably accidental integration of human iron age mentality into it during transmission.

Yeah, that was an oversight!! Allah really messed up in letting that get through! Too bad he isn't omnipotent and couldn't fix that now...

Thanks for dropping all my other points, because I exposed your b.s. with clever rhetorical questions, that in order to answer correctly, you would have to expose the flaws in your arguments. Oh well, now go and be a waste of time elsewhere. Goodbye.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 2:02:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:13:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is it a violent religion? Should it be tolerated? Do the true teachings speak of peace?

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me is that hard times make for hard people. I don't think it's any accident that the Muslim religion has its roots in such a harsh environment as the deserts of the Middle East, or that Muhammad himself was a raider of caravans before marching into Mecca in a show of force (according to my college history book). With that said, I do believe that as a religion it should be tolerated, and that most Muslims are people who aspire to goodness and peace. What I find most odd is that the Muslims and Jews seem so very similar, and yet hold such hate for each other.

The hatred between Jews and Muslims is overstated, mostly due to the Israel/Arab conflict. Historically Jews and Muslims have gotten along far better than Jews and Christians. For most of the past 2000 years, Jews were far safer in Muslim countries than Christian ones. While it certainly wasn't ideal for Jews to be second class citizens in these countries, it's relative.

As for the similarities in the religions, when politics are ignored, Jews do have a certain solidarity with Muslims because these 2 religions are closely related, especially in contrast to Christianity and the differences between them fundamentally.

However, ultimately today it comes down to the aforementioned conflict and Jewish and Christian modern reformation status. Both are fairly liberal and co-exist in modern liberal societies in contrast to Muslim societies. Therefore, these days, Jews are naturally safer and more comfortable in those Christian societies contrasting Muslim societies which perpetuates the perception mentioned.

But this is a relatively short period of time in the grand scheme of things, so while I might agree that currently this "hatred" might be real and significant enough, it's not an historic truth when all things are taken into account.... at least to the extent of which anyone, especially the other Abrahamic religions, tolerates Jews.
Debate.org Moderator
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 2:30:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?



-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............

If God did intervene in human folly then nothing good or bad would ever happen to us.



-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.

No, it means that the ideals of the religion of love and peace have been buried under trash-tier scripture that some Muslims fail to see through.



-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels?

Because their book doesn't really show many signs of divine inspiration, so it shouldn't really be treated as such...

It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.

The book isn't a tenet of the religion. It is a companion guide, at best.


-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran.

Which isn't actually God's Word.

All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.

I never said the Quran doesn't encourage that...
I simply said that the Quran isn't God's Word.



-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...

You haven't really shown that following the Quran word for word is a doctrine of Islam... Muhammad never said to follow the Quran. He said to follow his revelations. And the Quran isn't an accurate source of those revelations.

I don't think you'll be able to find many Muslims who don't accept the Quran as their holy book.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:28:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:


http://islam.about.com...


Sound like an accurate method of transmission?

Very ironic if you think (about.com) article goes for your point support rather that's against your point or your point seems baseless. That says,,,,,,,,"........instructed scribes to mark down the revelation on whatever materials were available: tree branches, stones, leather, and bones. ",,,,,,, if you say it was compiled in book form later on, then so what difference does it make?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:31:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:29:37 PM, Composer wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:05:39 PM, biomystic wrote:
"In fairness to Islam, there is little doubt they learned from the fundamental attitude of the narcissistic & violent biblical jebus -

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."" Luke 19:27 English Standard Version/ESV Story book

QED"

In fairness to Jesus Christ whom you slander with ugly lies,
The LIAR! is YOU!

I am merely quoting from the alleged preferred propaganda these self acclaimed jebus' believers prefer to use to try to justify themselves!

Why do you deny the biblical text?

You remain meanwhile in error whilst moi remains vindicated!

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' 15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. 16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.' 17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.' 18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.' 19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.' 20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.' 22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?' 24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.' 25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' 26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "

This should put that verse in context........

In this verse, Jesus is talking metaphorically as a King who punishes others for acting unjustly.He obviously is talking in Hyperbole.

Christianity is not a 'one-book' religion.It has a 2000 year unbroken chain of traditions that allow us to understand what is written.

This way, we are not 'cherry-picking' our beliefs, we are merely following the entire book in it's true spirit.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 8:02:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 2:30:37 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?



-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............

If God did intervene in human folly then nothing good or bad would ever happen to us.



-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.

No, it means that the ideals of the religion of love and peace have been buried under trash-tier scripture that some Muslims fail to see through.



-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels?

Because their book doesn't really show many signs of divine inspiration, so it shouldn't really be treated as such...

It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.

The book isn't a tenet of the religion. It is a companion guide, at best.


-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran.

Which isn't actually God's Word.

All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.

I never said the Quran doesn't encourage that...
I simply said that the Quran isn't God's Word.



-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...

You haven't really shown that following the Quran word for word is a doctrine of Islam... Muhammad never said to follow the Quran. He said to follow his revelations. And the Quran isn't an accurate source of those revelations.

I don't think you'll be able to find many Muslims who don't accept the Quran as their holy book.

And I don't think you'll be able to find many Muslims who actually follow the Quran word for word...
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 8:08:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:28:19 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:


http://islam.about.com...


Sound like an accurate method of transmission?

Very ironic if you think (about.com) article goes for your point support rather that's against your point or your point seems baseless. That says,,,,,,,,"........instructed scribes to mark down the revelation on whatever materials were available: tree branches, stones, leather, and bones. ",,,,,,, if you say it was compiled in book form later on, then so what difference does it make?

The actual book was written by people who had supposedly memorized those writings; the Quran is certainly not a perfect copy of those original writings.

Anyways, my views on this subject are soon to change.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 8:08:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 8:02:14 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 2:30:37 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:00:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:40:05 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:24:44 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:09:36 AM, Zarroette wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding my point.
Let's start over.

-- The Quran was written and compiled by humans long after Muhammad's death.

Maybe, but where's your proof/evidence?

http://islam.about.com...

The Quran was written 10 years after Muhammad's death based on what a couple of his followers remembered of his scribes' writings.

Sound like an accurate method of transmission?



-- For some reason Muslims started regarding it as God's Word. God does not intervene in human folly.

How do you know this? Did god tell you through the qu- -- hmmmm.............

If God did intervene in human folly then nothing good or bad would ever happen to us.



-- It contains quite a bit of violence in it simply because that was the norm of the era. Such brutality was expected of any iron-age tribe.

And you know what that means? That means it's a trash-tier religion that belongs in the iron-age. It is absolutely inferior as a way of culture (compared to really anything modern, such as Secularism, or even your religion), and it's religious views really haven't been proven.

No, it means that the ideals of the religion of love and peace have been buried under trash-tier scripture that some Muslims fail to see through.



-- Some idiot extremists are unable to understand its historical context and follow it as if that sort of violence is still acceptable today.

Yes, that's right, the quran has to be interpreted that way because it says so -- um, where exactly? If their book is telling them to "kill the infidels", then why shouldn't they be killing the infidels?

Because their book doesn't really show many signs of divine inspiration, so it shouldn't really be treated as such...

It's this kind of artistic interpretation that muddies the truth about Islam: that it's no better than defecating in a street's gutter, in terms of societal and religious value. That's why you're making all these excuses, because the book doesn't speak for itself.

The book isn't a tenet of the religion. It is a companion guide, at best.


-- Extremism is not Islam in its true form; it is an uneducated, xenophobia-motivated, radical off-shoot of the main religion.

LOL, I love all these terms you're using: 'violence acceptable today', 'extremism', 'radical off-shoot' etc. What you consider to be 'extremism' is exactly what is commanded in the quran.

Which isn't actually God's Word.

All these euphemisms you're using are an attempt to double-talk your way out of saying: 'the quran literally tells believers to kill others, beat their women, cut-off the hands of those who steal' etc.

I never said the Quran doesn't encourage that...
I simply said that the Quran isn't God's Word.



-- A literal interpretation of the Quran is not a doctrine of Islam.

Says you. Oh no, wait! There are little footnotes telling us that the quran is not to be taken literally! I can also hear Allah talking to me right now!-: 'do not take it literally', he says. Hmm, hold on, that's not right; I must be trying to make excuses for a defunct ideology. There aren't any footnotes here, nor am I hearing things...

You haven't really shown that following the Quran word for word is a doctrine of Islam... Muhammad never said to follow the Quran. He said to follow his revelations. And the Quran isn't an accurate source of those revelations.

I don't think you'll be able to find many Muslims who don't accept the Quran as their holy book.

And I don't think you'll be able to find many Muslims who actually follow the Quran word for word...

Fair enough.