Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Islam is the worst of all religions

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

Response: Richard Dawkins is a dummy. So his words are not valid.

As for Islam, according to critics, the hadith which only states "kill those who change their religion" means to kill those for simply leaving Islam. So I'm asking the question, "what's wrong with your English"? Does the hadith mention the word "Islam"? No. It doesn't mention any specific religion. It's ambiguous. So to give it meaning without context is a false interpolation and not what the text means. Nor does the hadith give any reasoning to what Muhammad meant or who or what he"s referring to. Had you read all of the qur'an and sunnah within context, you would know that the verse in the qur'an which states "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) completely eradicates any rationality that the hadiths means to kill someone because they left Islam. Verses 88-93 of chapter 4, particularly 92, prohibits killing anyone, including non-Muslims, unless it is in self-defense. Lastly, even in the very same volume from your link of Bukhari, in volume 9 book 89, numbers 316 and 318 show that when a person came to the Muhammad and wanted to leave Islam and asked his permission, Muhammad........did nothing. And when the man walked away, Muhammad.......did nothing. With all of this context, it is clear that when concerning the killing of apostate, it was ordered to do so and done so in response to apostates who waged war or conspired in war with the Muslims.

So you just presented an example of how Islam is the Best of religions. Thanks.
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:45:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

You should live in a true muslim society to understand the religion in depth and research more before accusing the entire religion of being the worst based on such a small misinterpreted information. Every hadith has a deeper meaning.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:58:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
4:90
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

So yeah...
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:58:13 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
4:90
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

So yeah...

haa i forgot to mention what the bible position about apostasy.. Deuteronomy 13:6-11
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

now thats in Judaism.. christains got some lucky to run away from this saying "its OT we follow NT".. but ignoring the same God revealed this law to the jews... and paul says 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

this is what paul says about the OT he is not talking about NT because at that time NT didnt exist yet... so actually u should condemn Judaism and not Islam.
Never fart near dog
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why should a person who disbelieves after becoming Muslim be executed?
Praise be to Allaah.
The punishment for apostasy from the religion of Islam is execution. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
""And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever""
[al-Baqarah 2:217]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ""Whoever changes his religion, execute him."" Narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh. What this hadeeth means is that whoever leaves Islam and changes to another religion and persists in that and does not repent, is to be executed. It was also proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ""It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa""ah."" Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This harsh punishment is for a number of reasons:
1 "C This punishment is a deterrent to anyone who wants to enter Islam just to follow the crowd or for hypocritical purposes. This will motivate him to examine the matter thoroughly and not to proceed unless he understands the consequences of that in this world and in the Hereafter. The one who announces his Islam has agreed to adhere to all the rulings of Islam of his own free will and consent, one of which rulings is that he is to be executed if he apostatizes from the faith.
2 "C The one who announces his Islam has joined the jamaa""ah (main body) of the Muslims, and whoever joins the main body of the Muslims is required to be completely loyal and to support it and protect it against anything that may lead to fitnah or destroy it or cause division. Apostasy from Islam means forsaking the jamaa""ah and its divine order, and has a harmful effect on it. Execution is the greatest deterrent that will prevent people from committing such a crime.
3 "C Those Muslims who are weak in faith and others who are against Islam may think that the apostate has only left Islam because of what he has found out about its real nature, because if it were the truth then he would never have turned away from it. So they learn from him all the doubts, lies and fabrications which are aimed at extinguishing the light of Islam and putting people off from it. In this case executing the apostate is obligatory, in order to protect the true religion from the defamation of the liars and to protect the faith of its adherents and remove obstacles from the path of those who are entering the faith.
4 "C We also say that the death penalty exists in the modern laws of man to protect the system from disorder in some situation and to protect society against certain crimes which may cause its disintegration, such as drugs etc. If execution can serve as a deterrent to protect man-made systems, then it is more appropriate that the true religion of Allaah, which Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it [cf. Fussilat 41:42], and which is all goodness, happiness and tranquility in this world and in the Hereafter should punish those who commit acts of aggression against it and seek to extinguish its light and defame its image, and who fabricate lies against it to justify their apostasy and deviation.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:14:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

those words are uttered about situations called war (though often misinterpreted). When the Prophet was engaged with the Meccan Pagans, it was a war to the death. Tribes often shared the same religion, so a man converted in these situations would usually mean taking a good size force over to the enemy (there was no neutrality in this fight). Its brutal, but the 'ethics' of war are often not nice. Best to deny a aid to your enemy, then allow him to use the same force against you. Brutal, but Patton and a host of other Generals throughout history have issued the same commands.

In general, most Muslims do no ascribe to the application of the rules of war to the everyday lives their mostly peaceful followers. Islam also states, that one is tolerate people of the book, an exception almost without equal among the religions.

The vast majority of Muslims are worried about the same thing as anyone else, their families and provisioning for them. There friends, etc. The draw far more strength from the reminders of charity, for the control of baser desires, for hospitality, for forgiveness, than they do worrying about the ethics of war ... when necessary.

I rarely see anyone acknowledge, much less criticize, Islamic calls for forgiveness and repellence, its praise of pardon or clemency. These receive FAR more mention that does the ethic of war, and it is no accident that the extremists in Islam heighten the former to the exclusion of the later.
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:23:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:14:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

those words are uttered about situations called war (though often misinterpreted). When the Prophet was engaged with the Meccan Pagans, it was a war to the death. Tribes often shared the same religion, so a man converted in these situations would usually mean taking a good size force over to the enemy (there was no neutrality in this fight). Its brutal, but the 'ethics' of war are often not nice. Best to deny a aid to your enemy, then allow him to use the same force against you. Brutal, but Patton and a host of other Generals throughout history have issued the same commands.

In general, most Muslims do no ascribe to the application of the rules of war to the everyday lives their mostly peaceful followers. Islam also states, that one is tolerate people of the book, an exception almost without equal among the religions.

The vast majority of Muslims are worried about the same thing as anyone else, their families and provisioning for them. There friends, etc. The draw far more strength from the reminders of charity, for the control of baser desires, for hospitality, for forgiveness, than they do worrying about the ethics of war ... when necessary.

I rarely see anyone acknowledge, much less criticize, Islamic calls for forgiveness and repellence, its praise of pardon or clemency. These receive FAR more mention that does the ethic of war, and it is no accident that the extremists in Islam heighten the former to the exclusion of the later.

I agree. The Hadith was actually based on that situation and time. I heard that enemies used to betray our religion a lot and use this method to harm us since it was a war. It was mainly to prevent this kind of evil methods. We focus more on the positive side of our religion.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:23:12 PM, TheLastMan wrote:

I agree. The Hadith was actually based on that situation and time. I heard that enemies used to betray our religion a lot and use this method to harm us since it was a war. It was mainly to prevent this kind of evil methods. We focus more on the positive side of our religion.

You will forgive me, I have read the Koran, and as a historian, the Prophet's story is an amazing one. If you wish a story of virtue and the avoidance of violence, that the Prophet provides a glimpse of just how hard you have to press a man of genuine faith to pick up a sword.

He was hardly a man of nobel birth, and his story of revelation is not one in which a man went out of his way to accept the duty. Yet the duty was given him and he accepted it. Largely ignored, his faith drew followers and eventually the ire of the local authorities. They began to harass and assault the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet never reacted violently. Eventually the Pagan rulers of Mecca exiled the Prophet and his followers, stripping them of all their worldly possessions and casting them into the most inhospitable region of the Arabian Peninsula - a portion of land filled with notoriously rebellious tribes. The Meccans has little doubt that this was a death sentence. The Prophet did not respond with violence.

Instead, he unified these rebellious tribes into a powerful and cohesive force - one that could conceivable rival the Meccans power. Still the Prophet did not act.

Eventually, the Meccans used any pretense to eliminate the Meccans. With no warning, and no ability to cross the desert without adequate supplies of water, etc. the Prophet was faced with the choice being death by thirst and privation for he and all who followed him, or to stand and fight against men who would murder every last one of them. He then, and only then, made the decision to fight. Heavily outnumbered, he fought at Badr, and won. Astoundingly so.

Mecca, however, was quite powerful, and if the force sent was annihilated, the seat of power was not. Once again, rather than compromise, Meccan raised all the power it could. It did so by using the tribal system to, if you forgive the simplicity, call the tribes to war. Mohammed did the same. So began a three year long war where, had the Prophet lost, every person who followed him would have been murdered or sold into slavery. the battles swing back and forth, and so to did the intrigue in a existential war where the two sides were locked in a death match. It is under these conditions that, and specific to these instances only, that Islam's more controversial commands come from (not altogether different than the Old Testament in similar circumstances).

If war is brutal, the end was not. Mohammed in victory was more merciful than anyone had the right to expect in such situations. The people of Mecca expected, rightly so, death and slavery. What they got was an opportunity. The Pagan faith, the source of the conflict was defeated - it would stand no more. The war had ben won decisively. Mohammed offered all who remained an opportunity to covert (removing the source if the fight) and pardoned all who accepted his offer. More noteworthy still, rather than raze the city or planer it, Mohammed installed it not just as the center of his power, but as the center of the religion - Islam's most holy site. The pilgrimage assured Mecca's place and prosperity rather than its destruction.

These are hardly the acts of merciless curmudgeon bent on world domination. Whether one is Muslim or not, the story is incredible.

Many people will point to the subsequent conquest after Mohammed's death, but the ebb and flow of battles across these regions are not specific to any one religion. Mohammed legal system, at least for the time, was a significant improvement to the corrupt warlord's of the era. Disciplined Islamic Armies, incorruptible civil servants, widened clerics and judges ... it would be the equivalent of living in Somalia today .. and having a military force sweep through the region and its wake bring ... justice, prosperity, governance, rule of law, and in this case - and loft ethic and religion (which is not going to happen in modern Somalia). To be living by what was essentially the law of the jungle, the codes and ethic of Islam was a significant improvement.

We tend to, in the West, let our biases get in the way of understanding, but I consider it very fortunate to have served openly with Muslims. To those Muslims I came to know as friends, understanding the faith was one thing that they shared with me, not to convert me, but so that I would understand who and what they were. The things these Muslims talked about were duty to the poor, charity, honor, forgiveness, desperate for a state free of corruption, that protected rather than exploited its people. War was something thrust upon them by others, not something they sought out.

There are certainly extremists among the Islamic faith, and I have come face to face with them, but I have also seen one Muslim community after another reject those fanatics. The Westerners put more stock in these extremist narratives than do most Muslims is something we do to our great folly.

Islam is not our enemy, extremism is. That is not something found only in Islam. As we come to know Islam, we come to see how far the extremists have drifted from the message of Islam. For them, Islam is a means to an end, a cherry picked quotient whose goal is the empowerment of men - not allah.

At least that is one Westerner's take on it.
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:26:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:13:02 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:23:12 PM, TheLastMan wrote:

I agree. The Hadith was actually based on that situation and time. I heard that enemies used to betray our religion a lot and use this method to harm us since it was a war. It was mainly to prevent this kind of evil methods. We focus more on the positive side of our religion.

You will forgive me, I have read the Koran, and as a historian, the Prophet's story is an amazing one. If you wish a story of virtue and the avoidance of violence, that the Prophet provides a glimpse of just how hard you have to press a man of genuine faith to pick up a sword.

He was hardly a man of nobel birth, and his story of revelation is not one in which a man went out of his way to accept the duty. Yet the duty was given him and he accepted it. Largely ignored, his faith drew followers and eventually the ire of the local authorities. They began to harass and assault the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet never reacted violently. Eventually the Pagan rulers of Mecca exiled the Prophet and his followers, stripping them of all their worldly possessions and casting them into the most inhospitable region of the Arabian Peninsula - a portion of land filled with notoriously rebellious tribes. The Meccans has little doubt that this was a death sentence. The Prophet did not respond with violence.

Instead, he unified these rebellious tribes into a powerful and cohesive force - one that could conceivable rival the Meccans power. Still the Prophet did not act.

Eventually, the Meccans used any pretense to eliminate the Meccans. With no warning, and no ability to cross the desert without adequate supplies of water, etc. the Prophet was faced with the choice being death by thirst and privation for he and all who followed him, or to stand and fight against men who would murder every last one of them. He then, and only then, made the decision to fight. Heavily outnumbered, he fought at Badr, and won. Astoundingly so.

Mecca, however, was quite powerful, and if the force sent was annihilated, the seat of power was not. Once again, rather than compromise, Meccan raised all the power it could. It did so by using the tribal system to, if you forgive the simplicity, call the tribes to war. Mohammed did the same. So began a three year long war where, had the Prophet lost, every person who followed him would have been murdered or sold into slavery. the battles swing back and forth, and so to did the intrigue in a existential war where the two sides were locked in a death match. It is under these conditions that, and specific to these instances only, that Islam's more controversial commands come from (not altogether different than the Old Testament in similar circumstances).

If war is brutal, the end was not. Mohammed in victory was more merciful than anyone had the right to expect in such situations. The people of Mecca expected, rightly so, death and slavery. What they got was an opportunity. The Pagan faith, the source of the conflict was defeated - it would stand no more. The war had ben won decisively. Mohammed offered all who remained an opportunity to covert (removing the source if the fight) and pardoned all who accepted his offer. More noteworthy still, rather than raze the city or planer it, Mohammed installed it not just as the center of his power, but as the center of the religion - Islam's most holy site. The pilgrimage assured Mecca's place and prosperity rather than its destruction.

These are hardly the acts of merciless curmudgeon bent on world domination. Whether one is Muslim or not, the story is incredible.

Many people will point to the subsequent conquest after Mohammed's death, but the ebb and flow of battles across these regions are not specific to any one religion. Mohammed legal system, at least for the time, was a significant improvement to the corrupt warlord's of the era. Disciplined Islamic Armies, incorruptible civil servants, widened clerics and judges ... it would be the equivalent of living in Somalia today .. and having a military force sweep through the region and its wake bring ... justice, prosperity, governance, rule of law, and in this case - and loft ethic and religion (which is not going to happen in modern Somalia). To be living by what was essentially the law of the jungle, the codes and ethic of Islam was a significant improvement.

We tend to, in the West, let our biases get in the way of understanding, but I consider it very fortunate to have served openly with Muslims. To those Muslims I came to know as friends, understanding the
Agreed. Thank you for understanding the Islam more deeply :) I'm a muslim who live in a muslim society with really nice people. We always think about helping the poor and mankind. We always take care of our guests very nicely. People must understand the difference between Islam and radical Islam.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:29:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:13:02 PM, neutral wrote:

Islam is not our enemy, extremism is

And "extremism", is simply anything vastly different from main-stream. In Galileo's day, observing the stars and planets to determine how the the bodies of our solar system moved in relation to the other bodies of the solar system, was EXTREMISM!

In the first century, Christianity was EXTREMISM!

In Joseph Lister's day, it was EXTREMISM to have surgeons wash their hands before performing surgery.

In the Wright brothers time, it was EXTREMISM to believe that men could build machines which would allow them to take to the air.

Unfortunately, the majority of people haven't learned that applying a negative connotation to a word which isn't inherently negative (in fact, the word "negative" is another example), and then tagging anything they don't like, or don't understand, with that word, or don't understand with that label, is just a means to avoid having to try to find anything actually wrong with what they have tagged.

It's EXTREME to stage a peaceful picket against violence, but perfectly acceptable to sign up to kill people whom you will never meet, and don't know, simply because you're told to kill them.

Extremism isn't the enemy. Bigotry, closed-mindedness, and the thoughtless acceptance of defaults is the enemy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:36:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:29:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:13:02 PM, neutral wrote:

Islam is not our enemy, extremism is

And "extremism", is simply anything vastly different from main-stream. In Galileo's day, observing the stars and planets to determine how the the bodies of our solar system moved in relation to the other bodies of the solar system, was EXTREMISM!

In the first century, Christianity was EXTREMISM!

In Joseph Lister's day, it was EXTREMISM to have surgeons wash their hands before performing surgery.

In the Wright brothers time, it was EXTREMISM to believe that men could build machines which would allow them to take to the air.

Unfortunately, the majority of people haven't learned that applying a negative connotation to a word which isn't inherently negative (in fact, the word "negative" is another example), and then tagging anything they don't like, or don't understand, with that word, or don't understand with that label, is just a means to avoid having to try to find anything actually wrong with what they have tagged.

It's EXTREME to stage a peaceful picket against violence, but perfectly acceptable to sign up to kill people whom you will never meet, and don't know, simply because you're told to kill them.

Extremism isn't the enemy. Bigotry, closed-mindedness, and the thoughtless acceptance of defaults is the enemy.

A case in point.

The nihilistic extremism demonstrated by the sheer ignorance and rabid flame baiting is indeed the equivalent of the hysteria that drives Al Qaeda.

That a person writ in this would claim to be against bigotry is laughable. You will note he left of the previous centuries worst and most violent offenders - the worst the world has ever seen - atheists.

I that case, they will blame the dominant political force - dictatorship - but these dictators handily used atheism to bad mouth religion as this bigot did, and they did so to absolutely merciless effect - the worse the world has ever seen.

Yet oddly, a man so concerned about violence and biases drawing the wrong lessons leaves this out? Recent and easily verifiable history?

Even worse, he attempts to take honorable service and bad mouth that is his unquenchable cowardice and bigotry.

Some people are simply beyond reason, Beasty proves that extremism, sloth, and simply dishonesty coupled with the bigoted use of hypocrisy drive more than Muslims mad.

Worse religion of all time? Nihilistic atheism.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:36:42 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:29:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:13:02 PM, neutral wrote:

Islam is not our enemy, extremism is

And "extremism", is simply anything vastly different from main-stream. In Galileo's day, observing the stars and planets to determine how the the bodies of our solar system moved in relation to the other bodies of the solar system, was EXTREMISM!

In the first century, Christianity was EXTREMISM!

In Joseph Lister's day, it was EXTREMISM to have surgeons wash their hands before performing surgery.

In the Wright brothers time, it was EXTREMISM to believe that men could build machines which would allow them to take to the air.

Unfortunately, the majority of people haven't learned that applying a negative connotation to a word which isn't inherently negative (in fact, the word "negative" is another example), and then tagging anything they don't like, or don't understand, with that word, or don't understand with that label, is just a means to avoid having to try to find anything actually wrong with what they have tagged.

It's EXTREME to stage a peaceful picket against violence, but perfectly acceptable to sign up to kill people whom you will never meet, and don't know, simply because you're told to kill them.

Extremism isn't the enemy. Bigotry, closed-mindedness, and the thoughtless acceptance of defaults is the enemy.

A case in point.

The nihilistic extremism demonstrated by the sheer ignorance and rabid flame baiting is indeed the equivalent of the hysteria that drives Al Qaeda.
Yes, notice all of my "flame baiting". Anyone see any flames?

That a person writ in this would claim to be against bigotry is laughable. You will note he left of the previous centuries worst and most violent offenders - the worst the world has ever seen - atheists.
Let us note that bigotry is a false sense of superiority, not one supported by dozens of objective studies.

I that case, they will blame the dominant political force - dictatorship - but these dictators handily used atheism to bad mouth religion as this bigot did, and they did so to absolutely merciless effect - the worse the world has ever seen.
And a dictatorship is God's method (according to Christian doctrine).
Notice how I "bad-mouthed" religion? (Only I didn't.)

Yet oddly, a man so concerned about violence and biases drawing the wrong lessons leaves this out? Recent and easily verifiable history?
Because it's simply not true. This is Neutral's slant which he can't seem to see past. Atheism and dictatorships are completely independent mindsets. Religion and dictatorships are inextricably linked. You nearly always have a god, and that god practices totalitarian and dictatorial rule.

Even worse, he attempts to take honorable service and bad mouth that is his unquenchable cowardice and bigotry.
And now if you apply the word "honorable" to killing people who have never tried to harm you, simply because you are paid to do so, and told to do so, it's no longer a bad thing... because it's been labeled "honorable". This is the same system used when the word "extremism" is applied to say something is bad. Take something which is obviously horrendous and inexcusable, call it "honorable" and now it's a good thing.

Some people are simply beyond reason, Beasty proves that extremism, sloth, and simply dishonesty coupled with the bigoted use of hypocrisy drive more than Muslims mad.
Sloth? Dishonesty? Sorry, Neutral, but you have demonstrated both of those traits beyond anyone else on the forum, aside from Fatihah (who I've not seen recently).

Worse religion of all time? Nihilistic atheism.
Because Neutral says so. (Of course, it's also the only one supported by the evidence.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Islam is truly the worst of religions as it brainwashes its believers more thoroughly than any other religion with its commandment to repeat the words of Muhammad five times daily plus the Taboo against any straying ideologically in any direction than Muhammad's mindset. That last one using terrorism to keep Muhammadans in line. They stray, they are to be killed and I don't want to hear any sloppy propaganda from Muhammadan liars that this isn't the case as they try to show above with hadith interpretations. Jesus always gave the realistic test to prove a prophet's worthiness: "by their fruits ye shall know them" and it is the actual acts of Muhammadans following their Muhammad IDOL that prove Islam is quite the dangerous threat to modern social values that protect human rights.

Human rights and Muhammadanism are completely incompatible. You either choose to live in freedom and democratic protections of that freedom or you choose to live as slaves to an ancient dead man's ambition to conquer and control the world from his grave. You Muhammadans are brainwashed now and can't recognize that your brains don't work right anymore, the critical analysis is gone that has been replaced by words of Muhammad repeated thousands of times in your head. So its pointless talking to you as you will not hear anything but Muhammad's words and never learn how to be humane beings and not killer apes as Muhammad trains Muhammadans to be. Not human beings anymore but robots programmed by themselves to carry out a totalitarian fascist ideology that uses God for authority but has no comprehension at all what God is or what God's Plan for humanity is.

Muhammadanism only appeals to those people who have never really experienced social freedom in their strong man dominated fascist Muhammadan nations so they don't know what they are missing. And worse, because of brainwashing, don't care to know what they have missed in humanitarian social change. Ahmadiyyah Islam is a completely different story as its Messiah has mellowed out all of Muhammad's spiritual errors to create a real religion of peace. And of course, the killer ape Muhammadans can't stand this and attack even fellow Muslims for being peaceful people.

Yes, indeed, Muhammad's Islam is the world's worst religion by far. It needs to be exposed as a viral infection that makes Muhammadan males turn into apes without any morality whatsoever.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:07:22 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Islam is truly the worst of religions as it brainwashes its believers more thoroughly than any other religion with its commandment to repeat the words of Muhammad five times daily plus the Taboo against any straying ideologically in any direction than Muhammad's mindset. That last one using terrorism to keep Muhammadans in line. They stray, they are to be killed and I don't want to hear any sloppy propaganda from Muhammadan liars that this isn't the case as they try to show above with hadith interpretations. Jesus always gave the realistic test to prove a prophet's worthiness: "by their fruits ye shall know them" and it is the actual acts of Muhammadans following their Muhammad IDOL that prove Islam is quite the dangerous threat to modern social values that protect human rights.

Human rights and Muhammadanism are completely incompatible. You either choose to live in freedom and democratic protections of that freedom or you choose to live as slaves to an ancient dead man's ambition to conquer and control the world from his grave. You Muhammadans are brainwashed now and can't recognize that your brains don't work right anymore, the critical analysis is gone that has been replaced by words of Muhammad repeated thousands of times in your head. So its pointless talking to you as you will not hear anything but Muhammad's words and never learn how to be humane beings and not killer apes as Muhammad trains Muhammadans to be. Not human beings anymore but robots programmed by themselves to carry out a totalitarian fascist ideology that uses God for authority but has no comprehension at all what God is or what God's Plan for humanity is.

Muhammadanism only appeals to those people who have never really experienced social freedom in their strong man dominated fascist Muhammadan nations so they don't know what they are missing. And worse, because of brainwashing, don't care to know what they have missed in humanitarian social change. Ahmadiyyah Islam is a completely different story as its Messiah has mellowed out all of Muhammad's spiritual errors to create a real religion of peace. And of course, the killer ape Muhammadans can't stand this and attack even fellow Muslims for being peaceful people.

Yes, indeed, Muhammad's Islam is the world's worst religion by far. It needs to be exposed as a viral infection that makes Muhammadan males turn into apes without any morality whatsoever.

Turkey.

Indonesia.

India. (One of the largest populations of Muslims on the planet.)

There are a billion Muslims, and they are far from all being violent - a long way.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:11:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:21:48 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

Response: Richard Dawkins is a dummy. So his words are not valid.

Lol, I like how you start with a pure ad hom - attacking the man, not his words. It's like you're trying to lose all credibility right off the bat.



As for Islam, according to critics, the hadith which only states "kill those who change their religion" means to kill those for simply leaving Islam. So I'm asking the question, "what's wrong with your English"? Does the hadith mention the word "Islam"? No. It doesn't mention any specific religion. It's ambiguous.

You're the one who talks about "context." The text cannot possibly mean to kill people who change *from* another religion *to* Islam. That reading would be illogical. It means to kill people who desert the faith. I'll provide other quotes below that also *directly* refute what you claim.

So to give it meaning without context is a false interpolation and not what the text means. Nor does the hadith give any reasoning to what Muhammad meant or who or what he"s referring to. Had you read all of the qur'an and sunnah within context, you would know that the verse in the qur'an which states "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) completely eradicates any rationality that the hadiths means to kill someone because they left Islam. Verses 88-93 of chapter 4, particularly 92, prohibits killing anyone, including non-Muslims, unless it is in self-defense.

lol, apparently you don't know your own religion very well. "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse [adultery] and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
- Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17

"A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. . . . Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.'"
- Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

"It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim . . . but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer [adultery], a life for a life [self defense], and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community [apostacy]."
- Sahih Muslim, 16:4152

Lastly, even in the very same volume from your link of Bukhari, in volume 9 book 89, numbers 316 and 318 show that when a person came to the Muhammad and wanted to leave Islam and asked his permission, Muhammad........did nothing. And when the man walked away, Muhammad.......did nothing.

This is literally the passage you're referring to: "A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam and the bedouin got a fever where upon he said to the Prophet "Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. He came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my Pledge.' But the Prophet refused. Then (the bedouin) left (Medina)."

Muhammad didn't kill the Bedouin or order him to be killed (unlike the Jew who left the religion (in Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271)) because he simply *refused* to accept the man's resignation from Islam. It's not apostacy if the Prophet Himself refuses to accept your resignation from the religion. That means you're still part of the religion.

With all of this context, it is clear that when concerning the killing of apostate, it was ordered to do so and done so in response to apostates who waged war or conspired in war with the Muslims.

So you just presented an example of how Islam is the Best of religions. Thanks.

Islam is a hateful religion not because there are *no* good examples in the religion of where someone *wasn't* murdered for doing common things (like leaving the religion). It's a hateful religion because there are *so many* passages that justify murder for apostacy. In Pakistan, a man recently murdered his daughter for refusing to wear the veil. This is justified by the above passages about the penalty for apostacy being death. Bad people can easily use the religion to justify their actions.

That aside, I don't even think you're correct. It seems that the penalty for apostacy was clearly intended to be death, notwithstanding your (mis)interpretations to the contrary.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:17:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:45:36 PM, TheLastMan wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

You should live in a true muslim society to understand the religion in depth and research more before accusing the entire religion of being the worst based on such a small misinterpreted information. Every hadith has a deeper meaning.

F*ck, I'd rather kill myself than live in a "true Muslim society," such as Afghanistan under the Taliban.

You claim the Hadith has "deeper meaning," and that I need to live there to understand, then you concede my point in your next post, and agree that the penalty for apostacy is death.

The problem with all of your justifications below is that it is non-responsive. Dawkins point was that it is inhumane to teach children that they are Muslims and then teach them that the penalty for apostacy is death. It denies their agency. They have no choice in the matter and are forced to be Muslim, and then are told they will be murdered by their parents or society if they later choose to leave the religion. All four of your points assume an adult who chose the religion voluntarily. Is faith based on abject fear really true faith?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:21:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:06:55 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:58:13 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
4:90
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

So yeah...

haa i forgot to mention what the bible position about apostasy.. Deuteronomy 13:6-11
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

now thats in Judaism.. christains got some lucky to run away from this saying "its OT we follow NT".. but ignoring the same God revealed this law to the jews... and paul says 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

this is what paul says about the OT he is not talking about NT because at that time NT didnt exist yet... so actually u should condemn Judaism and not Islam.

Sure Judaism is a terrible religion. You're supposed to eat Kosher your whole life and there's no Heaven to even get into. Kinda dumb.

But you don't prove that Islam *doesn't* believe in murdering apostates merely by proving that Judaism *does.*

The passage you quoted above is about non-Muslims who claim to be allies of Islam and is context-specific to a particular military campaign. I don't see how it's relevant to apostacy. All you're proving is that your Islamic education has failed to teach you basic logic skills and how to argue.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:28:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:14:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:15:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:


As Richard Dawkins explains in the video to the right, at least Christianity allows people to leave the religion without killing them. The Hadith teaches that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

"[T]he Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
" Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

The problem with teaching children that if they leave Islam, they will be put to death should be *obvious.* It denies them agency. They have no choice in their religion. They cannot choose a different religion or choose to be areligious.

Islam is a cruel and violent religion and this passage has been used to murder countless people in Muslim countries.

Is it really not enough that God judges people (after they die)? You need your religion to punish apostates who leave the religion with immediate death?

those words are uttered about situations called war (though often misinterpreted). When the Prophet was engaged with the Meccan Pagans, it was a war to the death. Tribes often shared the same religion, so a man converted in these situations would usually mean taking a good size force over to the enemy (there was no neutrality in this fight). Its brutal, but the 'ethics' of war are often not nice. Best to deny a aid to your enemy, then allow him to use the same force against you. Brutal, but Patton and a host of other Generals throughout history have issued the same commands.

The passages refer to there being three reasons you can kill someone: self defense, adultery, apostacy. I don't see how the Hadith textually limits itself to the historical context you're talking about. You can claim that we need to study the history to decide what parts of Islam to follow, but then you buy into Dawkin's point that *secular ethics* and *rationality* are necessary to decide what parts of a religion to keep and what to throw at as "immoral."


In general, most Muslims do no ascribe to the application of the rules of war to the everyday lives their mostly peaceful followers. Islam also states, that one is tolerate people of the book, an exception almost without equal among the religions.

It kind of doesn't matter what "most Muslims" do. I hear most Satanists are lovely people. Just because the people are "normal" and have "normal" concerns about their family doesn't mean the *religion* isn't hateful. Many of the quotes from the Hadith can easily be used to justify murdering apostates. I don't even understand how you could take issue with a father who murders his daughter for leaving the religion. The Hadith explicitly states that doing this is *okay.*


The vast majority of Muslims are worried about the same thing as anyone else, their families and provisioning for them. There friends, etc. The draw far more strength from the reminders of charity, for the control of baser desires, for hospitality, for forgiveness, than they do worrying about the ethics of war ... when necessary.

I rarely see anyone acknowledge, much less criticize, Islamic calls for forgiveness and repellence, its praise of pardon or clemency. These receive FAR more mention that does the ethic of war, and it is no accident that the extremists in Islam heighten the former to the exclusion of the later.

Kind of my point though. Christianity doesn't have as many of these "extremist" passages that say to murder apostates and non-believers. It's not as easy to use it to justify terrorism or murdering small children who don't listen to their parents. Yeah there's that one quote about stoning disobedient children, but it's in the Old Testament, which Christians don't profess to follow as law. In contrast, Islam has *at least* 4 quotes from the Hadith saying that it is permissible to murder apostates.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:34:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:26:54 PM, TheLastMan wrote:

Agreed. Thank you for understanding the Islam more deeply :) I'm a muslim who live in a muslim society with really nice people. We always think about helping the poor and mankind. We always take care of our guests very nicely. People must understand the difference between Islam and radical Islam.

Radicalism is along a spectrum. It is not a binary: "radical" or "not radical."

Your own beliefs are pretty radical. You have stated that you would *agree* that apostates should be put to death. So basically you love and want to help others. As long as they remain Muslim. If they don't remain Muslim, you would like to slaughter them.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 4:23:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 2:34:39 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:26:54 PM, TheLastMan wrote:

Agreed. Thank you for understanding the Islam more deeply :) I'm a muslim who live in a muslim society with really nice people. We always think about helping the poor and mankind. We always take care of our guests very nicely. People must understand the difference between Islam and radical Islam.

Radicalism is along a spectrum. It is not a binary: "radical" or "not radical."

Your own beliefs are pretty radical. You have stated that you would *agree* that apostates should be put to death. So basically you love and want to help others. As long as they remain Muslim. If they don't remain Muslim, you would like to slaughter them.

I did not say that. We would help anyone even if they are not muslims. Also, we never force anyone to become muslim. Personally, I have never experienced or seen any situation that muslims were killing others for leaving the religion. Such situation never occured.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 4:37:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 4:23:02 AM, TheLastMan wrote:
At 9/9/2014 2:34:39 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 9/8/2014 5:26:54 PM, TheLastMan wrote:

Agreed. Thank you for understanding the Islam more deeply :) I'm a muslim who live in a muslim society with really nice people. We always think about helping the poor and mankind. We always take care of our guests very nicely. People must understand the difference between Islam and radical Islam.

Radicalism is along a spectrum. It is not a binary: "radical" or "not radical."

Your own beliefs are pretty radical. You have stated that you would *agree* that apostates should be put to death. So basically you love and want to help others. As long as they remain Muslim. If they don't remain Muslim, you would like to slaughter them.

I did not say that. We would help anyone even if they are not muslims. Also, we never force anyone to become muslim. Personally, I have never experienced or seen any situation that muslims were killing others for leaving the religion. Such situation never occured.

What do you mean - you force all your children to be Muslim... It's not like you raise them teaching them that they can choose to be either Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:06:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 2:28:54 AM, bluesteel wrote:


The passages refer to there being three reasons you can kill someone: self defense, adultery, apostacy. I don't see how the Hadith textually limits itself to the historical context you're talking about. You can claim that we need to study the history to decide what parts of Islam to follow, but then you buy into Dawkin's point that *secular ethics* and *rationality* are necessary to decide what parts of a religion to keep and what to throw at as "immoral."

Why would anyone listen to Dawkins about ethics?

Rational people understand context. For example, we know that shooting people in our normal lives is wrong, yet these same people understand that in the confines of war, people get killed and it in not murder (sometimes it still is anyway).

How rational do you need to be to figure out that there is a difference between war and peace, that the later is desirable and that really, the way we behave in battle should be the way we behave in peace? That contextual reality is difficult to grasp?

It would appear that context is a concept that exceeds Dawkins intellectual limits, that does not it should for everyone else.

Nor indeed should it cause us to make a mass generalization of over a billion people, and assume that a few sentences reflects the entirety of the faith they practice.


It kind of doesn't matter what "most Muslims" do. I hear most Satanists are lovely people. Just because the people are "normal" and have "normal" concerns about their family doesn't mean the *religion* isn't hateful. Many of the quotes from the Hadith can easily be used to justify murdering apostates. I don't even understand how you could take issue with a father who murders his daughter for leaving the religion. The Hadith explicitly states that doing this is *okay.*

http://news.sky.com...

http://unitedwithisrael.org...

http://blogs.reuters.com...

http://www.islamtimes.org...

Suna, Shia - they all denounce the extremists, BUT, they don't count. The highest authorities in Islam slam them consider their practice unIslamic, and all you do is compare them to Satanists? Have you ever actually et one? The spiritual ones who covert with demons for temporal power? ALL Muslims are like that?

And what do you think of this:

"We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don't want to. I don't want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders [sic] and rapists and torturers and child abusers. It's them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It's a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don't regard it as a grim task at all."

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org...

Yep, that is Chris Hitchens talking about Islam, advocating another Crusade. Sound like a good idea? There are parts of your religion (The Hadith and not the Koran) that require contextual understanding (just like the Old Testament), therefore we should paint them as sub-human monsters and seek to eradicate them: genocide.

Please, tell us which side in the more extreme? Or should we just both sets of extremists in a room and let them go at it?


Kind of my point though. Christianity doesn't have as many of these "extremist" passages that say to murder apostates and non-believers. It's not as easy to use it to justify terrorism or murdering small children who don't listen to their parents. Yeah there's that one quote about stoning disobedient children, but it's in the Old Testament, which Christians don't profess to follow as law. In contrast, Islam has *at least* 4 quotes from the Hadith saying that it is permissible to murder apostates.

We have had them in our past. At times we have had MORE extremists than the Muslims, The IRA. the KKK (It pretends to be Christian by ripping off scripture to form the Church of Jesus Christ Christian), etc. etc. The movements that have set off the extremists elements are discernible, and religion is only one of the elements in question.

Do you seriously think that the vast majority of Islamic parents murder their children? Or that child abuse is ONLY found in Islamic communities?

How many quotes can you find about forgiveness, repentance, mercy?

237 mentions of forgive in the Koran alone ... 123 for repent ... 343 for mercy.

And yet someone reading this would ignore hundreds of passages on moderation, to look at ... 4 passages ... ignore the contextual difference between war and peace ... and decide that 1% trumps 99% ... that is a logical error.

No one doubts that extremists exist, but if you cannot separate extremist from moderate, the error is on you. Pray tell, why is Turkey relatively Westernized and secular, but not Sudan?

There are answers here beyond demonizing a billion people.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:19:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 2:11:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:


Lol, I like how you start with a pure ad hom - attacking the man, not his words. It's like you're trying to lose all credibility right off the bat.

Response: I like how try to defend the man, yet failed to provide any logic that shows that the man is not a dummy, thus confirming the words that he is dumb. It's like I don't have to refute you since you helped to confirm it.

You're the one who talks about "context." The text cannot possibly mean to kill people who change *from* another religion *to* Islam. That reading would be illogical. It means to kill people who desert the faith. I'll provide other quotes below that also *directly* refute what you claim.

Response: Exactly. It does not mean to kill people who change from another religion to Islam. That's exactly what I said. Thanks for making my point.

So to give it meaning without context is a false interpolation and not what the text means. Nor does the hadith give any reasoning to what Muhammad meant or who or what he"s referring to. Had you read all of the qur'an and sunnah within context, you would know that the verse in the qur'an which states "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) completely eradicates any rationality that the hadiths means to kill someone because they left Islam. Verses 88-93 of chapter 4, particularly 92, prohibits killing anyone, including non-Muslims, unless it is in self-defense.

lol, apparently you don't know your own religion very well. "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse [adultery] and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
- Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17

"A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. . . . Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.'"
- Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

"It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim . . . but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer [adultery], a life for a life [self defense], and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community [apostacy]."
- Sahih Muslim, 16:4152

Response: Apparently, you either don't know English, or suffer from some mental deficiency. Which is it? For you just made my argument, by quoting several hadiths, and not one says that the reason for killing someone who leaves the religion is because they left. Show me the word "reason" or its synonym in the text? Exactly. You can't, thus refuting yourself. Therefore the hadiths that you presented that say to kill someone who leaves Islam, not one of them gives reason as to why. They all are ambiguous as to the reason why, until we read the context that clearly shows it refers to self-defense, as proven by verse 2:256 that says there is no compulsion in religion, and verses 4:88-93 that clearly say that killing is prohibited unless in self-defense. Debunked as usual.

As for death for adultery, you really sound foolish since it's a teaching from your own Bible. The difference is in Islam, the punishment was reduced to 100 lashes, whereas your Bible never does. Debunked again.

Lastly, even in the very same volume from your link of Bukhari, in volume 9 book 89, numbers 316 and 318 show that when a person came to the Muhammad and wanted to leave Islam and asked his permission, Muhammad........did nothing. And when the man walked away, Muhammad.......did nothing.

This is literally the passage you're referring to: "A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam and the bedouin got a fever where upon he said to the Prophet "Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. He came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my Pledge.' But the Prophet refused. Then (the bedouin) left (Medina)."

Muhammad didn't kill the Bedouin or order him to be killed (unlike the Jew who left the religion (in Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271)) because he simply *refused* to accept the man's resignation from Islam. It's not apostacy if the Prophet Himself refuses to accept your resignation from the religion. That means you're still part of the religion.

Response: Oh, so now the definition of apostasy changes when the evidence smacks you in the face. According to you now, apostasy means leaving Islam only if Muhammad accepts it. If that is the case, then you just debunked yourself again, since every hadith you quoted about apostasy before, every single one of them simply call apostasy as leaving Islam. Not one says it's leaving Islam and Muhammad accepts it.

Debunked again.

With all of this context, it is clear that when concerning the killing of apostate, it was ordered to do so and done so in response to apostates who waged war or conspired in war with the Muslims.

So you just presented an example of how Islam is the Best of religions. Thanks.

Islam is a hateful religion not because there are *no* good examples in the religion of where someone *wasn't* murdered for doing common things (like leaving the religion). It's a hateful religion because there are *so many* passages that justify murder for apostacy. In Pakistan, a man recently murdered his daughter for refusing to wear the veil. This is justified by the above passages about the penalty for apostacy being death. Bad people can easily use the religion to justify their actions.

That aside, I don't even think you're correct. It seems that the penalty for apostacy was clearly intended to be death, notwithstanding your (mis)interpretations to the contrary.

Response: Yet we just watched your rebuttals utterly fail, thus your own weak responses show that Islam is a beautiful and just religion. If you wanted to know what a bad and trifling religion is, all you have to do is open your Bible:

Lev.12: 1-5- females are double polluted when giving birth to females than males.

Luke 14:26- You must hate your family to be a disciple of Jesus.

Ephes.5: 22-24- women must submit to their husbands.

You really have to read this part. In 2Samuels 12:2-5, David sleeps with the Wife of Uriah and she conceives a child. Verses 6-13, King David invites Uriah over for a meal and afterwards he sleeps at the door of King David's house.

Now watch this.

Verses 14 - 27, David gives a letter to Uriah to give to Joab. The letter reads that Joab is to put Uriah on the frontline of the hottest battle so he can die. When he dies, he takes Uriah's mourning wife and marries her, and she bares his son. This displeased God.

But wait. I'm not finished yet. It get's even more despicable.

The next chapter, from verse 1-13, God sends Nathan to state to David that HE is displeased by the fact that David abused his authority by having s child with Uriah's wife and then having him killed. But.......God actually forgave David. Instead...............as verses 14- 18 read, God instead kills his newborn child!!

What!!!

Debunked as usual.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:34:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:07:22 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Jesus always gave the realistic test to prove a prophet's worthiness: "by their fruits ye shall know them"

so, under this beautifull test, let us test Jesus himself.
First of All, Jesus was himself one of the greatest hypocrites ever if not the most hypocrite one. He said that he was the messiah foretold in Hebrew scriptures. John also approved him, but the concept of messiah does not exist in hebrew scriptures. Jesus lied. In the hebrew scriptures or OT as we call, concept of messiah does not exist, there exists mashaiach which means "anointed" not messiah. http://www.jewfaq.org... christ

As a result of that greatest ever hypocrite, till now, in the 21st century his followers are lying people as if there exists a concept of messiah in the OT. What a great fruit, lying. Yes, Jesus himself has a great fruit, his fruits have been lying people for about 21 centuries.

2. Jesus does not match the criterias of that mashiach even at the time he lied. http://www.aish.com... but he lied and his followers are still lying as if Jesus is the messiach/mashaiach. A great fruit.

3. Now, christians say that OT is not valid anymore, after Jesus, it is abolished. And the torah gives a beautifull test to determine whether a prophet is true or not:
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Deutronomy 13:5

now, christians need to decide: a)either Jesus abolished Torah/OT and it is not valid more, hence under the test of deutronomy 13 Jesus is a false prophet B) Jesus did not abolish it, OT is still valid and the followers of Jesus must obey OT(which they ignore now)

4) let us look at the fruits of Jesus of Nazareth, the greatest hypocrite ever: his followers caused 2 world wars, which caused about the death of 100 million people.
His followers colonised africa, latin ameria, his followers made so many people slave.
In history, some of the Followers of the greatest hypocrite ever did not marry but fucked underage BOYS.
His followers are the greatest producters of pornography.

Here it is, under tests, Jesus is a false prophet. Even under the tests of the bible and Jesus himself, Jesus is himself a false prophet.

Let Jesus answer you:

""Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother""s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ""Let me take the speck out of your eye,"" when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother""s eye. Matthew 7.

So christians, you had better shut your mouth up and dont open it as long as you are not to eat something.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:01:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:34:34 AM, Artur wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:07:22 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Jesus always gave the realistic test to prove a prophet's worthiness: "by their fruits ye shall know them"

so, under this beautifull test, let us test Jesus himself.
First of All, Jesus was himself one of the greatest hypocrites ever if not the most hypocrite one. He said that he was the messiah foretold in Hebrew scriptures. John also approved him, but the concept of messiah does not exist in hebrew scriptures. Jesus lied. In the hebrew scriptures or OT as we call, concept of messiah does not exist, there exists mashaiach which means "anointed" not messiah. http://www.jewfaq.org... christ

As a result of that greatest ever hypocrite, till now, in the 21st century his followers are lying people as if there exists a concept of messiah in the OT. What a great fruit, lying. Yes, Jesus himself has a great fruit, his fruits have been lying people for about 21 centuries.

2. Jesus does not match the criterias of that mashiach even at the time he lied. http://www.aish.com... but he lied and his followers are still lying as if Jesus is the messiach/mashaiach. A great fruit.

3. Now, christians say that OT is not valid anymore, after Jesus, it is abolished. And the torah gives a beautifull test to determine whether a prophet is true or not:
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Deutronomy 13:5

now, christians need to decide: a)either Jesus abolished Torah/OT and it is not valid more, hence under the test of deutronomy 13 Jesus is a false prophet B) Jesus did not abolish it, OT is still valid and the followers of Jesus must obey OT(which they ignore now)

4) let us look at the fruits of Jesus of Nazareth, the greatest hypocrite ever: his followers caused 2 world wars, which caused about the death of 100 million people.
His followers colonised africa, latin ameria, his followers made so many people slave.
In history, some of the Followers of the greatest hypocrite ever did not marry but fucked underage BOYS.
His followers are the greatest producters of pornography.

Here it is, under tests, Jesus is a false prophet. Even under the tests of the bible and Jesus himself, Jesus is himself a false prophet.

Let Jesus answer you:

""Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother""s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ""Let me take the speck out of your eye,"" when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother""s eye. Matthew 7.

So christians, you had better shut your mouth up and dont open it as long as you are not to eat something.

I was unaware that Christianity was responsible for Social Darwinism and Japanese Emperor Worship? I believe Christianity also proceeded the modern advent of Nationalism? Secret Alliances? Even Fuedalism itself? Not too mention that whole Industrial Revolution thing ...

Huh, you learn a lot about religion by talking to atheists.

Again, worst religion ever? Nihilistic atheism.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jesus always gave the realistic test to prove a prophet's worthiness: "by their fruits ye shall know them"

Yep. You can see it right here how the inherent fascist ideology in Muhammadism rears its ugly intolerant head to make war against Christians by trying to brand Christians Jews following Jewish Mitzvot Law when such was never the case for Jewish Christians. That was the whole point of getting out from under a bunch of lying priests of Judah. The priests are all the same: They tell lies in order to establish and maintain social position and power .

You Muhammadans are brainwashed robots now and its useless to talk to you as your brains don't work right anymore. You are brainwashed to think only like Muhammad would think and look to find errors in Jewish and Pauline (Gentile Churchman) Christian texts because that's what Muhammad did in his war against Jews (and Christians and all other religions) You have no individual identities now, just clones of Muhammad so what is the point of debating robots trained to deceive others about the true violent core of Muhammad's religion of constant war against all other ways of worshiping God or even running societies.

Advice to Muhammadans? Find a place far away from other Muhammadans and go through withdrawal from your addiction to Muhammad's words placed into your brains 5 times daily. You are brainwashed people and need to end the source of brainwashing if you are ever to recover your individuality again and think for yourselves.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:50:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd just like to point out that Richard Dawkins has recently PRETTY MUCH condoned paedophilia and acting on it in a certain generation of people. The man and his conceptions are ridiculous. Of course that's an ad hom and doesn't detract from the point that Islamic culture is more severe than Christian culture, but then perhaps mass-shootings etc. should be considered as a part of American Christian culture. Sure though, it's nice to have a bogeyman to point at (and profitable for the likes of Dawkins).
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:52:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everyone likes a bogeyman. A nice demon outside themselves. See Charleslb's posts about terrorism being bandied about so ridiculously for its justificatory powers.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:54:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's OK that the Catholic priests raped all those kids guys, that was in a different time, harmless. And yet, Islam is a cunt? Dawkins is a walking joke.