Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Trad. Islam a Religion or Terrorist group?

JansenTheRepublican
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 9:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Islam has stirred many problems in the western world. Those who follow traditional Islam are generally ISIS, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. They support the killing of Infidels as stated in the Quran. I generally do not acknowledge oppression as a real thing, but traditional Islamists are not peaceful and they oppress women, they kill those who convert to another religion, and they wage war through jihad. I would like to initiate you to research more on traditional Islam and rebut on my statement that Traditional Islam is a Terrorist group backed by a holy text. If I amassed a group and murdered Jews in the name of God because I was born a Christian, would I be a terrorist group or a new branch of Christianity? Please note that modern Islam found in America and Saudi Arabia is great and they are the peaceful ones you think about when you see Islam. Note the difference between tradition (original Quran) and those who have adapted from killing infidels and murdering apostates. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Quotes for the Quran- Source http://www.wvinter.net...
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org... to see various Sharia punishments.
Capital punishments " by beheading / crucifixion (for apostasy, for highway robbery with homicide), by stoning (for illicit sex by a married offender)

Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)

Flogging, between 40 to 100 strokes (for sex by unmarried offender, drinking alcohol, gambling, and accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present Muslim witnesses of the crime)

Traditional Islam sounds incredibly peacful *Sarcasm*
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Modern Islam- https://en.wikipedia.org...

On the issue of jihad, modernists such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, took a different line than "traditionalist-classicist" scholars, emphasizing that jihad was allowed only as defensive warfare to respond to aggression or "perfidy" against the Muslim community, and that the "normal and desired state" between Islamic and non-Islamic territories was one of "peaceful coexistence." According to Mahmud Shaltut and other modernists, unbelief was not sufficient cause for declaring jihad. The conversion to Islam by unbelievers in fear of death at the hands of jihadists (mujahideen) was unlikely to prove sincere or lasting. Much preferable means of conversion was education. They pointed to the verse "No compulsion is there in religion" Quran 2:256
A trend for Islamic Modernism was taking the four traditional sources of Islamic jurisprudence"the Quran, the reported deed and saying of Muhammad (hadith), consensus of the theologians (ijma) and juristic reasoning by analogy (qiyas) -- and reinterpreting the first two sources (the Quran and hadith) "to transform the last two [(ijma and qiyas)] in order to formulate a reformist project in light of the prevailing standards of scientific rationality and modern social theory."

Rebuttals are welcome!
JansenTheRepublican
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 10:30:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you actually read the Qur'an, and look up any of these passages, it is pretty obvious that they are all taken out of context. Usually reading the actual passage, the passage just before it or the passage just after it will clear up discrepancies.

The Qur'an is very easy to take out of context.

For the first decade of Islam, the Muslim community was pacifistic, and persecuted violently. This was in the city of Mecca. Eventually, Mohammed and the Muslims moved up north to what is now called Medina in order to live peacefully. The people in Mecca who were persecuting them, followed them up, and continued to fight them.

When the Qur'an refers to "infidels", it means "unfaithful", specifically referencing those who were violating peace treaties.

If you look at the life of Mohammed, he would often times bend over backwards for peace, often times to the puzzlement of his followers.

Islam really is a religion of peace, and doesn't deserve the type of reputation it has in the west. You have to understand, the people who perpetuate these things have agendas, and are not interested in understanding the Islamic faith. A good Muslim is a good person who you will not have issue with.

If you read the Qur'an straight through and understand what it is saying, there is very little in there that would give you the impression that this is a warlike religion of evil that it is portrayed to be. Unfortunately, most English translations are somewhat clunky.

I recommend this translation, as it is an accurate and easy to understand translation. There are also a lot of helpful annotations that give background information to when the verses were revealed.

http://www.amazon.com...

That said, any serious study of The Qur'an should also be done alongside a study of The Prophet Mohammed. Considering the type of environment he was in, Mohammed very consistently acted admirably and with compassion. This stereotype of "convert or die by the sword!" was not at all how Mohammed behaved.

The Qur'an teaches a message of tolerance, peace, and respect. While the Qur'an does say it is ok to fight someone if they are attacking you, it makes it very clear that this is a personal choice. It also makes it very clear that if your attacker makes any offer of peace, you should accept it.

I would encourage you to look up these passages you posted, and read them in context.

If you have any sincere and respectful questions, I will do my best to answer them.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 10:38:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, those sects follow Salafism, which is not traditional Islam at all, and is actually heavily criticized by more traditional Islamic sects schools of thought. Consider this book review by traditional Islamic scholar, of the book of another traditional Islamic scholar.

"The name Salaf has been usurped by a movement which seeks to impose its own narrow interpretation of Religion towards a re-fashioning of the teachings of Islam. The adherents of this movement call themselves "Salafi." Such an appellation is baseless since the true Salaf knew no such school as the "Salafi" school nor even called themselves by that name; the only general name they recognized for themselves was that of Muslim. As an eminent scholar has stated, the Salafiyya is not a recognized school of thought in Islam, rather, it refers to a blessed historical period of our glorious past.

In reality, today"s so-called "Salafi" movement, now about thirty years old, is the modern outgrowth of an two-century old heresy spawned by a scholar of the Najd area in the Eastern part of the Arabian peninsula by the name of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). This scholar has been refuted by a long line of scholars both in his time and ours. Their names and the titles of some of their excellent refutations are found in the bibliography given at the end of this introduction.

In essence, Salafism and Wahhabism are the same, but the latter is identified by its founder while the former takes the name of the Salaf and makes it its own. Yet both Salafism and Wahhabism depart from the belief and practice of the Salaf, as the present book abundantly makes clear.
About the Book

Al-Zahawi displays a profound mastery of the proofs of Ahl al-Sunna which he presents in a clear and systematic style. The book is divided into concise sections tracing the origins of the Wahhabi/Salafi movement and the teachings that this movement promotes in isolation of the doctrine of the majority of Muslims. After a brief historical overview of the bloody origins of Wahhabism and the "Salafi" creed, the author turns to investigate the foundations of the shari`a which have been targeted by the Wahhabi/Salafi movement for revision, namely:

the Wahhabi/Salafi tampering of the doctrine of the pious Salaf concerning Allah"s essence and attributes, and his freedom from body, size, or direction;

their rejection of ijma` (scholarly consensus) and qiyas (analogy);

their rejection of the sources and methodological foundations of ijtihad (deriving qualified judgment) and taqlid (following qualified judgment).

The author then narrows down on the Wahhabi/Salafi practice of takfir, which is their declaring Muslims unbelievers, according to criteria not followed by the pious Salaf but devised by modern-day "Salafis." The author shows that the "Salafis" went out of bounds in condemning the Umma (Muslim Community) on the question of taqlid, declaring unbelievers all those who practice taqlid, that is, the majority of Muslims. Finally, the author turns to the linchpin of "Salafi" philosophy: leaving the ijma` of the true Salaf in declaring unbelievers all Muslims who use the Prophet Muhammad"s intercession, Peace be upon him, as a wasila or means of blessing."
http://sunnah.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 11:08:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Qur'an teaches a message of tolerance, peace, and respect. While the Qur'an does say it is ok to fight someone if they are attacking you, it makes it very clear that this is a personal choice. It also makes it very clear that if your attacker makes any offer of peace, you should accept it.

I would encourage you to look up these passages you posted, and read them in context.

If you have any sincere and respectful questions, I will do my best to answer them.

I have a sincere and respectful question: how does one like you explain the Ottoman Empire? Excluding ISIS, the last Islamic Caliphate, which, by your definition, should mean they were a country devoted to peace, tolerance, and respect. I do not find the conversion of young Christian boys into Janissaries to be respectful, I do not find the dhimmi system imposed on those of a different faith nor the Armenian Holocaust in which people were butchered to be a show of tolerance, and I do not find the Empire's expansion of territory to mean peace. Explain how a nation bound by Islam, theocracy, could commit such acts against man. Islam may not be a terrorist group, but it seems that its implementation as a theocracy breeds war, intolerance, and disrespect of the highest degree. So, if you will, justify for me and all those who believe Islam to be a breeding ground for chaos and enslavement 600 years of ruling under what you call Peace, Tolerance, and Respect.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:35:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 9:23:38 PM, JansenTheRepublican wrote:
Islam has stirred many problems in the western world. Those who follow traditional Islam are generally ISIS, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. They support the killing of Infidels as stated in the Quran. I generally do not acknowledge oppression as a real thing, but traditional Islamists are not peaceful and they oppress women, they kill those who convert to another religion, and they wage war through jihad. I would like to initiate you to research more on traditional Islam and rebut on my statement that Traditional Islam is a Terrorist group backed by a holy text. If I amassed a group and murdered Jews in the name of God because I was born a Christian, would I be a terrorist group or a new branch of Christianity? Please note that modern Islam found in America and Saudi Arabia is great and they are the peaceful ones you think about when you see Islam. Note the difference between tradition (original Quran) and those who have adapted from killing infidels and murdering apostates. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Quotes for the Quran- Source http://www.wvinter.net...
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org... to see various Sharia punishments.
Capital punishments " by beheading / crucifixion (for apostasy, for highway robbery with homicide), by stoning (for illicit sex by a married offender)

Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)

Flogging, between 40 to 100 strokes (for sex by unmarried offender, drinking alcohol, gambling, and accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present Muslim witnesses of the crime)

Traditional Islam sounds incredibly peacful *Sarcasm*
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Modern Islam- https://en.wikipedia.org...

On the issue of jihad, modernists such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, took a different line than "traditionalist-classicist" scholars, emphasizing that jihad was allowed only as defensive warfare to respond to aggression or "perfidy" against the Muslim community, and that the "normal and desired state" between Islamic and non-Islamic territories was one of "peaceful coexistence." According to Mahmud Shaltut and other modernists, unbelief was not sufficient cause for declaring jihad. The conversion to Islam by unbelievers in fear of death at the hands of jihadists (mujahideen) was unlikely to prove sincere or lasting. Much preferable means of conversion was education. They pointed to the verse "No compulsion is there in religion" Quran 2:256
A trend for Islamic Modernism was taking the four traditional sources of Islamic jurisprudence"the Quran, the reported deed and saying of Muhammad (hadith), consensus of the theologians (ijma) and juristic reasoning by analogy (qiyas) -- and reinterpreting the first two sources (the Quran and hadith) "to transform the last two [(ijma and qiyas)] in order to formulate a reformist project in light of the prevailing standards of scientific rationality and modern social theory."

Rebuttals are welcome!

Response: Of every verse that you quoted from the Qur'an saying to kill or fight or attack or slay non-Muslims, not one of them say attack "First". Not one says to fight a peaceful person. We also read in the Qur'an not to fight those who incline to peace (8:61). And to fight those who fight you (2:190). And the non-Muslims attacked first (9:13).

So to recap:

Your verses: Muslims are to attack, fight, slay and kill the non-Muslims wherever you find them.

My verses: Muslims cannot fight those who incline to peace. Muslims fight those who fight you. the Non-Muslims attacked first.

Put together: Fight the non-Muslims who fight you. They attacked you first. So attack and kill them wherever you find them, but do not fight those who incline to peace.

So what you have done jansen is helped to show that according to context, Islam is a peaceful and just religion because it promotes self-defense, and self-defense is just.

Thanks.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 1:29:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:35:57 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/24/2015 9:23:38 PM, JansenTheRepublican wrote:
Islam has stirred many problems in the western world. Those who follow traditional Islam are generally ISIS, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. They support the killing of Infidels as stated in the Quran. I generally do not acknowledge oppression as a real thing, but traditional Islamists are not peaceful and they oppress women, they kill those who convert to another religion, and they wage war through jihad. I would like to initiate you to research more on traditional Islam and rebut on my statement that Traditional Islam is a Terrorist group backed by a holy text. If I amassed a group and murdered Jews in the name of God because I was born a Christian, would I be a terrorist group or a new branch of Christianity? Please note that modern Islam found in America and Saudi Arabia is great and they are the peaceful ones you think about when you see Islam. Note the difference between tradition (original Quran) and those who have adapted from killing infidels and murdering apostates. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Quotes for the Quran- Source http://www.wvinter.net...
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org... to see various Sharia punishments.
Capital punishments " by beheading / crucifixion (for apostasy, for highway robbery with homicide), by stoning (for illicit sex by a married offender)

Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)

Flogging, between 40 to 100 strokes (for sex by unmarried offender, drinking alcohol, gambling, and accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present Muslim witnesses of the crime)

Traditional Islam sounds incredibly peacful *Sarcasm*
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Modern Islam- https://en.wikipedia.org...

On the issue of jihad, modernists such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, took a different line than "traditionalist-classicist" scholars, emphasizing that jihad was allowed only as defensive warfare to respond to aggression or "perfidy" against the Muslim community, and that the "normal and desired state" between Islamic and non-Islamic territories was one of "peaceful coexistence." According to Mahmud Shaltut and other modernists, unbelief was not sufficient cause for declaring jihad. The conversion to Islam by unbelievers in fear of death at the hands of jihadists (mujahideen) was unlikely to prove sincere or lasting. Much preferable means of conversion was education. They pointed to the verse "No compulsion is there in religion" Quran 2:256
A trend for Islamic Modernism was taking the four traditional sources of Islamic jurisprudence"the Quran, the reported deed and saying of Muhammad (hadith), consensus of the theologians (ijma) and juristic reasoning by analogy (qiyas) -- and reinterpreting the first two sources (the Quran and hadith) "to transform the last two [(ijma and qiyas)] in order to formulate a reformist project in light of the prevailing standards of scientific rationality and modern social theory."

Rebuttals are welcome!

Response: Of every verse that you quoted from the Qur'an saying to kill or fight or attack or slay non-Muslims, not one of them say attack "First". Not one says to fight a peaceful person. We also read in the Qur'an not to fight those who incline to peace (8:61). And to fight those who fight you (2:190). And the non-Muslims attacked first (9:13).

So to recap:

Your verses: Muslims are to attack, fight, slay and kill the non-Muslims wherever you find them.

My verses: Muslims cannot fight those who incline to peace. Muslims fight those who fight you. the Non-Muslims attacked first.

Put together: Fight the non-Muslims who fight you. They attacked you first. So attack and kill them wherever you find them, but do not fight those who incline to peace.

So what you have done jansen is helped to show that according to context, Islam is a peaceful and just religion because it promotes self-defense, and self-defense is just.

Thanks.

Fati, Why did you claim over 40 times that "children like sex" , in the "now that homosexual marriage is legal" thread, without showing any evidence of your dubious claim?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 11:08:04 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
The Qur'an teaches a message of tolerance, peace, and respect. While the Qur'an does say it is ok to fight someone if they are attacking you, it makes it very clear that this is a personal choice. It also makes it very clear that if your attacker makes any offer of peace, you should accept it.

I would encourage you to look up these passages you posted, and read them in context.

If you have any sincere and respectful questions, I will do my best to answer them.

I have a sincere and respectful question: how does one like you explain the Ottoman Empire? Excluding ISIS, the last Islamic Caliphate, which, by your definition, should mean they were a country devoted to peace, tolerance, and respect. I do not find the conversion of young Christian boys into Janissaries to be respectful, I do not find the dhimmi system imposed on those of a different faith nor the Armenian Holocaust in which people were butchered to be a show of tolerance, and I do not find the Empire's expansion of territory to mean peace. Explain how a nation bound by Islam, theocracy, could commit such acts against man. Islam may not be a terrorist group, but it seems that its implementation as a theocracy breeds war, intolerance, and disrespect of the highest degree. So, if you will, justify for me and all those who believe Islam to be a breeding ground for chaos and enslavement 600 years of ruling under what you call Peace, Tolerance, and Respect.

First of all, I would just like to make this clear from the get go.

I am not a Sunni. I am not a Shi'ite. I respect the Qur'an. If you examine the history of the Islamic movement, it wasn't even a generation after the death of Mohammed that things began to fall from the path.

What I'm trying to say is, God's rule is over all. I do not respect any of the Caliphs as having religious authority whatsoever. These are temporal rulers. This has to do with politics.

The marriage of church and state certainly is a dangerous thing. The Muslim faith is not one of hierarchies, no man is above any other man or woman. God is The Universal Head of State.

So it is a mistake to attribute the actions of people to the message of Islam. Submission to God is about loving reality, and surrendering to it. This leads to peace.

While all rulers and governments are put into their positions by God, they themselves are not God.

When the first Muslim Ummah was formed in Medina, it more closely resembled a modern secular state than a fascist theocracy. There are many passages in the Qur'an to suggest that we are to respect and tolerate those of different faiths.

People will point to these gruesome sounding passages about "infidels" not realizing that the "infidels" being described are specifically those who are violating peace treaties and making trouble. Reading these passages in context usually clears up a great deal of the controversy surrounding them. The life of Mohammed itself dispels the idea that Mohammed was anything but a man who bent over backwards for peace, often to the displeasure of even the people he was leading.

No, Islam is a religion of peace. The religion has no hierarchy, no real church structure. God is authority, and Islam is about a personal relationship with God. It's about sincerity of faith and charity.

Yes, there are people, and there always will be people, who will use religion as a tool in order to get things done. Sometimes this will lead to despicable things. This is probably unavoidable. Christianity is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name. Islam is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name.

What can you do?

To give a more modern example of how it only takes a few saboteurs in order to make a movement look bad, look into COINTELPRO, which is an example of infiltrating a movement in order to destroy it from the inside out while simultaneously projecting a negative image to the public. The FBI was well aware of this effect, which is the same effect that keeps people away from the scriptures that the world faiths are built on.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 2:58:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 2:07:26 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:

Yes, there are people, and there always will be people, who will use religion as a tool in order to get things done. Sometimes this will lead to despicable things. This is probably unavoidable. Christianity is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name. Islam is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name.


So you admit that you cannot justify 600 years of Islamic brutality? Also, if you are not Sunni or Shi`ite, why would you be attempting to counter my argument, considering the overwhelming majority of Muslim are of either sect, and they would not consider you a Muslim at all? Like many, you bring about talks of Christianity, which I find fascinating, since I think the Catholic Church must have forgotten to put the book detailing Yeshua fighting off and raiding Jewish settlements with his rogue band of Christian warriors. We are not talking about Christianity, Theologian, we are talking about implementation of Islam, which you say brings peace, respect and tolerance, but yet all large-scale cases of it have shown nothing but intolerance, bloodshed, and misery. Tell me why, and not just because "People do bad things", because I'm still waiting for the Westboro Bapist Church to announce their new foundation of a state within America.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 2:58:41 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:07:26 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:

Yes, there are people, and there always will be people, who will use religion as a tool in order to get things done. Sometimes this will lead to despicable things. This is probably unavoidable. Christianity is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name. Islam is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name.


So you admit that you cannot justify 600 years of Islamic brutality?
If you form your opinion by reading a historian, then don't study one but all of them, & conclude coherently. I'd not defend Ottoman empire here because topic isn't that really, but I think discussing ottoman don't support your view fully...

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Also, if you are not Sunni or Shi`ite, why would you be attempting to counter my argument, considering the overwhelming majority of Muslim are of either sect, and they would not consider you a Muslim at all?
As long as one don't reject the basics of Islamic belief, one is Muslim. Belief matters not the label.
Like many, you bring about talks of Christianity, which I find fascinating, since I think the Catholic Church must have forgotten to put the book detailing Yeshua fighting off and raiding Jewish settlements with his rogue band of Christian warriors. We are not talking about Christianity, Theologian, we are talking about implementation of Islam, which you say brings peace, respect and tolerance, but yet all large-scale cases of it have shown nothing but intolerance, bloodshed, and misery.
Today if a Jew in France supports the innocent Muslims massacred ruthlessly in Gaza considering his freedom, he got a police wrath for raising up his voice. But I feel very hesitated to directly blame the French authorities whereas neither the police is justified nor the dual-standard media is. So your claim is a huge generalization, yet a wrong one & manipulated by cherry picking. Sorry!

Tell me why, and not just because "People do bad things", because I'm still waiting for the Westboro Bapist Church to announce their new foundation of a state within America.
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~
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 5:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM, Dazz wrote:

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

Yes, so as long as they paid a tax, and that still doesn't address the taking of Christian boys to become Jannisaries


So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Like I said above, the Ottoman Empire did convert people, or at least brain-washed young boys into Islam, and they were also forced to pay a tax, like I mentioned above. You also fail to address the Armenian Holocaust, which cost the lives of over a million people. You are very bluntly failing to answer any of my questions, and instead are trying to pick apart pieces of my statements instead of addressing it as a whole. I do not need you to count anything, but the million massacred bodies that you have ignored. Also, your grammar is making it very difficult to understand what you are saying.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 5:25:36 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM, Dazz wrote:

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

Yes, so as long as they paid a tax, and that still doesn't address the taking of Christian boys to become Jannisaries

That sort of slavery was actually explicitly condemned under Islamic law, and was a Turkic cultural practice evolving out of the Kul system. You know that it is un-Islamic because the Sultan held slaves which had converted to Islam. Under traditional Islamic law, if a slave converts he is freed. There were also laws against the separation of families, and slaves were originally only drawn from unransomed prisoners of war. So, yeah, the Jannisaries were a far cry from any Islamic system, and were more of a political institution, a way to staff the palaces and armies with fiercely loyal guards and high-level bureaucrats,

So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Like I said above, the Ottoman Empire did convert people, or at least brain-washed young boys into Islam, and they were also forced to pay a tax, like I mentioned above.

A TAX! The HORROR!

You also fail to address the Armenian Holocaust, which cost the lives of over a million people. You are very bluntly failing to answer any of my questions, and instead are trying to pick apart pieces of my statements instead of addressing it as a whole. I do not need you to count anything, but the million massacred bodies that you have ignored. Also, your grammar is making it very difficult to understand what you are saying.

... The Armenian genocide was championed by the Young Turks, a secularist, nationalistic group of political parties seeking to end the absolutist monarchy and reduce the role of religion in public life. You have at least some obligation to learn something about history, especially tragic history, before using it as a talking point. This genocide was a complex issue, and while religious persecution may have simmered at the outset, it was in the end guided primarily by Turkish nationalism.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 8:59:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 2:58:41 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:07:26 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:

Yes, there are people, and there always will be people, who will use religion as a tool in order to get things done. Sometimes this will lead to despicable things. This is probably unavoidable. Christianity is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name. Islam is not about war and persecution, yet these things have been done in its name.


So you admit that you cannot justify 600 years of Islamic brutality? Also, if you are not Sunni or Shi`ite, why would you be attempting to counter my argument, considering the overwhelming majority of Muslim are of either sect, and they would not consider you a Muslim at all? Like many, you bring about talks of Christianity, which I find fascinating, since I think the Catholic Church must have forgotten to put the book detailing Yeshua fighting off and raiding Jewish settlements with his rogue band of Christian warriors. We are not talking about Christianity, Theologian, we are talking about implementation of Islam, which you say brings peace, respect and tolerance, but yet all large-scale cases of it have shown nothing but intolerance, bloodshed, and misery. Tell me why, and not just because "People do bad things", because I'm still waiting for the Westboro Bapist Church to announce their new foundation of a state within America.

Implementation of Islam? What is that even supposed to mean? I didn't say anything about implementing Islam. All large-scale cases of "implementing Islam" having shown nothing but intolerance, bloodshed, and misery? Don't you think that is a great deal of hyperbole? Certainly by examining history, you could make the opposite case. I don't see why you'd be afraid of the WBC, there isn't a thing that they could do that would gain any legitimate traction. I work with people who would be called "fundamentalists", and the WBC is a frequent source of mockery for them.

That said, I will make the attempt to clear some things up.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

The Qur'an does describe what you might think of as a "religion". The Qu'ran uses the word "deen" which means, "way of life" to describe "religion", which just sheds more light into the meaning of the word. The religion that the Qur'an prescribes is very simple. Stay focused on The Truth with sincerity of belief, and practice charity towards others. It is the same way of life or "religion" that all the prophets proclaimed, and this is Qur'anic.

The problem you have is not The Qur'an or Mohammed the Prophet, but how people have used these things to manipulate others. It certainly is a terrible thing, but you are going to find this in a society whether or not it is religious. It's amazing what you can get people to earnestly go along with if you convince them that you are on the side of Truth! You can do this just as easily through irreligious methods as religious ones. There are people who will use the theory of evolution as a justification for committing all types of social atrocities. Do any of these things truly follow from the theory of evolution? I would say that they don't.

There is a lot of chaos going on in the middle east, and things are so much more complicated than people tend to paint it. Things are happening the way they are happening for a multitude of reasons. Fearing them and their religion will only come to hurt us in the future. The best way to wage warfare here is to understand where they are coming from. Read the Qur'an! Understand what it is trying to say. Show respect. The Qur'an itself holds the key towards combating any "Islamic state". Don't attack them. Make constant offers of peace. Don't persecute Muslims. Leave them alone. They will sort out their problems, and they won't be a problem. Fearing them will only make matters worse.

Islam is not the enemy. That is the wrong battle to fight. We are dealing with a culture that places a great deal of importance on God. Of course they are going to shout praise! Of course they are going to attempt to glorify God in what they do! This does not mean that God is the enemy, it is a part of the culture. Just as Christian influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Christian, Islam influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Muslim.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:31:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 6:36:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 5:25:36 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM, Dazz wrote:

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

Yes, so as long as they paid a tax, and that still doesn't address the taking of Christian boys to become Jannisaries

That sort of slavery was actually explicitly condemned under Islamic law, and was a Turkic cultural practice evolving out of the Kul system. You know that it is un-Islamic because the Sultan held slaves which had converted to Islam. Under traditional Islamic law, if a slave converts he is freed. There were also laws against the separation of families, and slaves were originally only drawn from unransomed prisoners of war. So, yeah, the Jannisaries were a far cry from any Islamic system, and were more of a political institution, a way to staff the palaces and armies with fiercely loyal guards and high-level bureaucrats,

Can you give me an example of a western country that has taken young children of another religion and converted them to be put into the military?

So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Like I said above, the Ottoman Empire did convert people, or at least brain-washed young boys into Islam, and they were also forced to pay a tax, like I mentioned above.

A TAX! The HORROR!

So you would support a tax in the United States of America that made people other than the Christian faith pay money to the government? I've heard a lot of people over in that country talk about a "Christian Nation" With your attitude, maybe they ought to go for it.

You also fail to address the Armenian Holocaust, which cost the lives of over a million people. You are very bluntly failing to answer any of my questions, and instead are trying to pick apart pieces of my statements instead of addressing it as a whole. I do not need you to count anything, but the million massacred bodies that you have ignored. Also, your grammar is making it very difficult to understand what you are saying.

... The Armenian genocide was championed by the Young Turks, a secularist, nationalistic group of political parties seeking to end the absolutist monarchy and reduce the role of religion in public life. You have at least some obligation to learn something about history, especially tragic history, before using it as a talking point. This genocide was a complex issue, and while religious persecution may have simmered at the outset, it was in the end guided primarily by Turkish nationalism.

I received my information on the Armenian Genocide from the United Human Rights Council's website, which specifically states:

"This triumvirate of Young Turks, consisting of Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, came to wield dictatorial powers and concocted their own ambitious plans for the future of Turkey. They wanted to unite all of the Turkic peoples in the entire region while expanding the borders of Turkey eastward across the Caucasus all the way into Central Asia. This would create a new Turkish empire, a "great and eternal land" called Turan with one language and one religion." (Emphasis added)

Obviously, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Armenians were Christian was cause for turmoil, hence the Armenian Genocide. Your claim that religious persecution only played a minor part in it is, in the most blunt sense: wrong. The fact that they were of a different religion stopped the Young Turks's plans for a united Empire. Please do not claim others need to educate themselves when you yourself are false; its very embarrassing to one's ego, and only seeks to solidify your opposite's points.

(Link to website, to validate my claim: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:04:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:31:27 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 6:36:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 5:25:36 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM, Dazz wrote:

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

Yes, so as long as they paid a tax, and that still doesn't address the taking of Christian boys to become Jannisaries

That sort of slavery was actually explicitly condemned under Islamic law, and was a Turkic cultural practice evolving out of the Kul system. You know that it is un-Islamic because the Sultan held slaves which had converted to Islam. Under traditional Islamic law, if a slave converts he is freed. There were also laws against the separation of families, and slaves were originally only drawn from unransomed prisoners of war. So, yeah, the Jannisaries were a far cry from any Islamic system, and were more of a political institution, a way to staff the palaces and armies with fiercely loyal guards and high-level bureaucrats,

Can you give me an example of a western country that has taken young children of another religion and converted them to be put into the military?

Well, considering this isn't an traditional Islamic practice, this is irrelevant. But the West enslaved African children for use in brutal chattel slavery, while the Ottomans gave them influential court positions.

So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Like I said above, the Ottoman Empire did convert people, or at least brain-washed young boys into Islam, and they were also forced to pay a tax, like I mentioned above.

A TAX! The HORROR!

So you would support a tax in the United States of America that made people other than the Christian faith pay money to the government? I've heard a lot of people over in that country talk about a "Christian Nation" With your attitude, maybe they ought to go for it.

No, but we live in a Western, secular, constitutionally limited republic. Religious empires did exist, you know, for thousands of years...

You also fail to address the Armenian Holocaust, which cost the lives of over a million people. You are very bluntly failing to answer any of my questions, and instead are trying to pick apart pieces of my statements instead of addressing it as a whole. I do not need you to count anything, but the million massacred bodies that you have ignored. Also, your grammar is making it very difficult to understand what you are saying.

... The Armenian genocide was championed by the Young Turks, a secularist, nationalistic group of political parties seeking to end the absolutist monarchy and reduce the role of religion in public life. You have at least some obligation to learn something about history, especially tragic history, before using it as a talking point. This genocide was a complex issue, and while religious persecution may have simmered at the outset, it was in the end guided primarily by Turkish nationalism.

I received my information on the Armenian Genocide from the United Human Rights Council's website, which specifically states:

"This triumvirate of Young Turks, consisting of Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, came to wield dictatorial powers and concocted their own ambitious plans for the future of Turkey. They wanted to unite all of the Turkic peoples in the entire region while expanding the borders of Turkey eastward across the Caucasus all the way into Central Asia. This would create a new Turkish empire, a "great and eternal land" called Turan with one language and one religion." (Emphasis added)

Obviously, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Armenians were Christian was cause for turmoil, hence the Armenian Genocide. Your claim that religious persecution only played a minor part in it is, in the most blunt sense: wrong. The fact that they were of a different religion stopped the Young Turks's plans for a united Empire. Please do not claim others need to educate themselves when you yourself are false; its very embarrassing to one's ego, and only seeks to solidify your opposite's points.

(Link to website, to validate my claim: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...)

So, you have an unsourced claim from a site to back up your claim, and you think that the fact that you did a 20 second Google search to find it now makes you an expert on the subject. In case you weren't aware, the Armenians were an ethnic group as well as a religion. Hence the genocide and diaspora. The Young Turks also had a complex relationship with Islam, but they were originally against it, then moderated to reforming it, and experienced conflict with the Ulama over this issue. If you want to actually understand the issue, then I suggest that you read The Young Turks in Opposition, by M. Sukru Hanioglu. But you're probably just looking to tie Islam, however tenuously, to genocide. Oh well.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Implementation of Islam? What is that even supposed to mean? I didn't say anything about implementing Islam. All large-scale cases of "implementing Islam" having shown nothing but intolerance, bloodshed, and misery? Don't you think that is a great deal of hyperbole? Certainly by examining history, you could make the opposite case. I don't see why you'd be afraid of the WBC, there isn't a thing that they could do that would gain any legitimate traction. I work with people who would be called "fundamentalists", and the WBC is a frequent source of mockery for them.

By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide). Where did I say I was afraid of an American Fundamentalist group? The reason I mentioned them was precisely because of them being what one would call extremists, yet they are utterly harmless to the general populace, unless I'm mistaken and they are butchering the masses as we speak.

That said, I will make the attempt to clear some things up.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

The Qur'an does describe what you might think of as a "religion". The Qu'ran uses the word "deen" which means, "way of life" to describe "religion", which just sheds more light into the meaning of the word. The religion that the Qur'an prescribes is very simple. Stay focused on The Truth with sincerity of belief, and practice charity towards others. It is the same way of life or "religion" that all the prophets proclaimed, and this is Qur'anic.


The problem you have is not The Qur'an or Mohammed the Prophet, but how people have used these things to manipulate others. It certainly is a terrible thing, but you are going to find this in a society whether or not it is religious. It's amazing what you can get people to earnestly go along with if you convince them that you are on the side of Truth! You can do this just as easily through irreligious methods as religious ones. There are people who will use the theory of evolution as a justification for committing all types of social atrocities. Do any of these things truly follow from the theory of evolution? I would say that they don't.

"Theory of Evolution"? I'm curious as to where you found that out.

There is a lot of chaos going on in the middle east, and things are so much more complicated than people tend to paint it. Things are happening the way they are happening for a multitude of reasons. Fearing them and their religion will only come to hurt us in the future. The best way to wage warfare here is to understand where they are coming from. Read the Qur'an! Understand what it is trying to say. Show respect. The Qur'an itself holds the key towards combating any "Islamic state". Don't attack them. Make constant offers of peace. Don't persecute Muslims. Leave them alone. They will sort out their problems, and they won't be a problem. Fearing them will only make matters worse.

Make constant offers of peace. Fearing them will only make matters worse. Why would any country in their right mind constantly offer peace to people massacring people and chopping their heads off? Also, Muslims have had over 1000 years to "sort out their problems", so I doubt they'll be going anywhere anytime soon.

Islam is not the enemy. That is the wrong battle to fight. We are dealing with a culture that places a great deal of importance on God. Of course they are going to shout praise! Of course they are going to attempt to glorify God in what they do! This does not mean that God is the enemy, it is a part of the culture. Just as Christian influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Christian, Islam influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Muslim.

So culture is not reflective of the rock (in this case: religion) that it is founded on? You seem to be passionate about this topic, but I would suggest you take your spirituality and claim of "Truth" and "Reality" elsewhere where it is actually pertaining to the topic at hand. This type of gibberish does nothing to prove a point, nor refute mine.
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 2:37:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 2:04:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:31:27 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 6:36:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/2/2015 5:25:36 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:43:25 PM, Dazz wrote:

"For much of the Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a small Jewish population today......Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England. ......" Wikipedia

Yes, so as long as they paid a tax, and that still doesn't address the taking of Christian boys to become Jannisaries

That sort of slavery was actually explicitly condemned under Islamic law, and was a Turkic cultural practice evolving out of the Kul system. You know that it is un-Islamic because the Sultan held slaves which had converted to Islam. Under traditional Islamic law, if a slave converts he is freed. There were also laws against the separation of families, and slaves were originally only drawn from unransomed prisoners of war. So, yeah, the Jannisaries were a far cry from any Islamic system, and were more of a political institution, a way to staff the palaces and armies with fiercely loyal guards and high-level bureaucrats,

Can you give me an example of a western country that has taken young children of another religion and converted them to be put into the military?

Well, considering this isn't an traditional Islamic practice, this is irrelevant. But the West enslaved African children for use in brutal chattel slavery, while the Ottomans gave them influential court positions.

You mean Africans in general, though I fail to recall any stories of African children being taken from their homes and then converted to Christianity to serve in the military. Maybe you Americans know more than me.

So the bee always sits on the abscess. Further you need a hard time to justify your statement of 600 years brutality, if that could had happened, you'd had not seen any non-Muslim under ottoman empire or other, & Muslims could have very easily turned the whole masses towards Islam leaving coming generations quite loyal [you know what happened to Jewish population in crusades & German massacre, they still owe gratitudes to ottoman empire in that sense], but there is no such record. Non-muslims enjoyed their freedom & safety, & history admits it, do I need to count the names for you?

Like I said above, the Ottoman Empire did convert people, or at least brain-washed young boys into Islam, and they were also forced to pay a tax, like I mentioned above.

A TAX! The HORROR!

So you would support a tax in the United States of America that made people other than the Christian faith pay money to the government? I've heard a lot of people over in that country talk about a "Christian Nation" With your attitude, maybe they ought to go for it.

No, but we live in a Western, secular, constitutionally limited republic. Religious empires did exist, you know, for thousands of years...

Show me where western civilizations collected tax based upon another's religion.

You also fail to address the Armenian Holocaust, which cost the lives of over a million people. You are very bluntly failing to answer any of my questions, and instead are trying to pick apart pieces of my statements instead of addressing it as a whole. I do not need you to count anything, but the million massacred bodies that you have ignored. Also, your grammar is making it very difficult to understand what you are saying.

... The Armenian genocide was championed by the Young Turks, a secularist, nationalistic group of political parties seeking to end the absolutist monarchy and reduce the role of religion in public life. You have at least some obligation to learn something about history, especially tragic history, before using it as a talking point. This genocide was a complex issue, and while religious persecution may have simmered at the outset, it was in the end guided primarily by Turkish nationalism.

I received my information on the Armenian Genocide from the United Human Rights Council's website, which specifically states:

"This triumvirate of Young Turks, consisting of Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, came to wield dictatorial powers and concocted their own ambitious plans for the future of Turkey. They wanted to unite all of the Turkic peoples in the entire region while expanding the borders of Turkey eastward across the Caucasus all the way into Central Asia. This would create a new Turkish empire, a "great and eternal land" called Turan with one language and one religion." (Emphasis added)

Obviously, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Armenians were Christian was cause for turmoil, hence the Armenian Genocide. Your claim that religious persecution only played a minor part in it is, in the most blunt sense: wrong. The fact that they were of a different religion stopped the Young Turks's plans for a united Empire. Please do not claim others need to educate themselves when you yourself are false; its very embarrassing to one's ego, and only seeks to solidify your opposite's points.

(Link to website, to validate my claim: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...)

So, you have an unsourced claim from a site to back up your claim, and you think that the fact that you did a 20 second Google search to find it now makes you an expert on the subject. In case you weren't aware, the Armenians were an ethnic group as well as a religion. Hence the genocide and diaspora. The Young Turks also had a complex relationship with Islam, but they were originally against it, then moderated to reforming it, and experienced conflict with the Ulama over this issue. If you want to actually understand the issue, then I suggest that you read The Young Turks in Opposition, by M. Sukru Hanioglu. But you're probably just looking to tie Islam, however tenuously, to genocide. Oh well.

Where did I claim I was an expert? The website I was referring to is apart of the United Nations, a peacekeeping force that tends to keep tabs on the various crimes against Humanity that are occurring across the world; I highly doubt they would wish to hide and lie about Holocausts. Also, it appears you admitted to the fact that Islam played a very large part in the events preceding the Armenian Genocide, which is good; I can say I'm educating at least one person today. Also, I'm not trying to tie Islam to genocide, I'm merely stating the fact that Islam played an important role in the Armenian Genocide, which you yourself claim to be a complex relationship in and of itself. By trying to bring down my arguments by calling them "tenuous", your just as good as a child saying "this sucks!" after losing a game of checkers, though I commend your ability not to get all spiritual on me, and at least attempt to infuse educated thoughts into your statements.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:06:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide).


These are cultural things, and have nothing to do with the message of Islam. You will find similar situations in other cultures as well.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

I'm not telling you what "reality" is, I'm telling you what these concepts mean. If anyone is asserting their beliefs on anyone, it would be the person trying to tell someone else what it is they believe.

If you want to get into a war of semantics, I assure you that the dictionary is on my side and will clear up any discrepancies. Now, if you would have only waited a moment, and let me finish what I was saying before you felt the need to interrupt...


The Qur'an does describe what you might think of as a "religion". The Qu'ran uses the word "deen" which means, "way of life" to describe "religion", which just sheds more light into the meaning of the word. The religion that the Qur'an prescribes is very simple. Stay focused on The Truth with sincerity of belief, and practice charity towards others. It is the same way of life or "religion" that all the prophets proclaimed, and this is Qur'anic.


The problem you have is not The Qur'an or Mohammed the Prophet, but how people have used these things to manipulate others. It certainly is a terrible thing, but you are going to find this in a society whether or not it is religious. It's amazing what you can get people to earnestly go along with if you convince them that you are on the side of Truth! You can do this just as easily through irreligious methods as religious ones. There are people who will use the theory of evolution as a justification for committing all types of social atrocities. Do any of these things truly follow from the theory of evolution? I would say that they don't.

"Theory of Evolution"? I'm curious as to where you found that out.

Yet the only thing you single out in that entire paragraph is my comment on evolution, which implies a great deal about the type of prejudices you hold against those who profess faith. You will have an easier time communicating with me if you do away with these prejudices, and actually make an effort to understand what I'm saying.


There is a lot of chaos going on in the middle east, and things are so much more complicated than people tend to paint it. Things are happening the way they are happening for a multitude of reasons. Fearing them and their religion will only come to hurt us in the future. The best way to wage warfare here is to understand where they are coming from. Read the Qur'an! Understand what it is trying to say. Show respect. The Qur'an itself holds the key towards combating any "Islamic state". Don't attack them. Make constant offers of peace. Don't persecute Muslims. Leave them alone. They will sort out their problems, and they won't be a problem. Fearing them will only make matters worse.

Make constant offers of peace. Fearing them will only make matters worse. Why would any country in their right mind constantly offer peace to people massacring people and chopping their heads off? Also, Muslims have had over 1000 years to "sort out their problems", so I doubt they'll be going anywhere anytime soon.

You don't seem to be educated very well on the history of the region. If you were, you'd realize how ridiculous these statements are.

People get their heads chopped off in war. It's part of what happens.


Islam is not the enemy. That is the wrong battle to fight. We are dealing with a culture that places a great deal of importance on God. Of course they are going to shout praise! Of course they are going to attempt to glorify God in what they do! This does not mean that God is the enemy, it is a part of the culture. Just as Christian influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Christian, Islam influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Muslim.

So culture is not reflective of the rock (in this case: religion) that it is founded on? You seem to be passionate about this topic, but I would suggest you take your spirituality and claim of "Truth" and "Reality" elsewhere where it is actually pertaining to the topic at hand. This type of gibberish does nothing to prove a point, nor refute mine.

If you are concerned about meaningful communication, I would suggest that you abandon your condescending attitude and show a little respect by speaking to me as an equal. I'm not catering to your insecurities. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it would be best to keep your ignorance to yourself, and refrain from calling what I say "gibberish" because you don't understand it. I'm a theologian. I'm not asking that you respect me as being authoritative, but I certainly believe that I am authoritative. That being the case, if you are arrogant with me, it is only to your detriment.

The "truth" and "reality" that I speak of certainly does have to do with this topic. You refuse to accept these understandings, more comfortable with the lies and propaganda you've been told than what is true. If you'd rather trade in the truth for a lie, it is to your own detriment! You neither harm me nor God. It is in your own best interest that you keep it real. Can we agree on this?
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:06:04 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide).


These are cultural things, and have nothing to do with the message of Islam. You will find similar situations in other cultures as well.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

I'm not telling you what "reality" is, I'm telling you what these concepts mean. If anyone is asserting their beliefs on anyone, it would be the person trying to tell someone else what it is they believe.

"Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality"" You just did.

If you want to get into a war of semantics, I assure you that the dictionary is on my side and will clear up any discrepancies. Now, if you would have only waited a moment, and let me finish what I was saying before you felt the need to interrupt...

I just proved you were wrong, using a dictionary...


The Qur'an does describe what you might think of as a "religion". The Qu'ran uses the word "deen" which means, "way of life" to describe "religion", which just sheds more light into the meaning of the word. The religion that the Qur'an prescribes is very simple. Stay focused on The Truth with sincerity of belief, and practice charity towards others. It is the same way of life or "religion" that all the prophets proclaimed, and this is Qur'anic.


The problem you have is not The Qur'an or Mohammed the Prophet, but how people have used these things to manipulate others. It certainly is a terrible thing, but you are going to find this in a society whether or not it is religious. It's amazing what you can get people to earnestly go along with if you convince them that you are on the side of Truth! You can do this just as easily through irreligious methods as religious ones. There are people who will use the theory of evolution as a justification for committing all types of social atrocities. Do any of these things truly follow from the theory of evolution? I would say that they don't.

"Theory of Evolution"? I'm curious as to where you found that out.

Yet the only thing you single out in that entire paragraph is my comment on evolution, which implies a great deal about the type of prejudices you hold against those who profess faith. You will have an easier time communicating with me if you do away with these prejudices, and actually make an effort to understand what I'm saying.

Where are the Evolution extremist murdering people? I point that out because that statement is absurd, not because I have a perceived opinion of everything else.


There is a lot of chaos going on in the middle east, and things are so much more complicated than people tend to paint it. Things are happening the way they are happening for a multitude of reasons. Fearing them and their religion will only come to hurt us in the future. The best way to wage warfare here is to understand where they are coming from. Read the Qur'an! Understand what it is trying to say. Show respect. The Qur'an itself holds the key towards combating any "Islamic state". Don't attack them. Make constant offers of peace. Don't persecute Muslims. Leave them alone. They will sort out their problems, and they won't be a problem. Fearing them will only make matters worse.

Make constant offers of peace. Fearing them will only make matters worse. Why would any country in their right mind constantly offer peace to people massacring people and chopping their heads off? Also, Muslims have had over 1000 years to "sort out their problems", so I doubt they'll be going anywhere anytime soon.

You don't seem to be educated very well on the history of the region. If you were, you'd realize how ridiculous these statements are.

So the World should make peace with ISIS? Also, Islam is the only religion right now that people who are conquering land and taking children to pose in advertisements believe in.
People get their heads chopped off in war. It's part of what happens.

Actually, decapitation by knives or axes has been pretty non-existant in the western world, especially when it comes to lining up civilians and chopping off their body parts.

Islam is not the enemy. That is the wrong battle to fight. We are dealing with a culture that places a great deal of importance on God. Of course they are going to shout praise! Of course they are going to attempt to glorify God in what they do! This does not mean that God is the enemy, it is a part of the culture. Just as Christian influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Christian, Islam influenced culture is not a good representation of what it means to be Muslim.

So culture is not reflective of the rock (in this case: religion) that it is founded on? You seem to be passionate about this topic, but I would suggest you take your spirituality and claim of "Truth" and "Reality" elsewhere where it is actually pertaining to the topic at hand. This type of gibberish does nothing to prove a point, nor refute mine.

If you are concerned about meaningful communication, I would suggest that you abandon your condescending attitude and show a little respect by speaking to me as an equal. I'm not catering to your insecurities. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it would be best to keep your ignorance to yourself, and refrain from calling what I say "gibberish" because you don't understand it. I'm a theologian. I'm not asking that you respect me as being authoritative, but I certainly believe that I am authoritative. That being the case, if you are arrogant with me, it is only to your detriment.

I have no insecurities. This "meaningful discussion" you are referring to is merely you trying (poorly) to answer my questions and critiques of Islam. Sure, you can believe that your authoritative; I can also believe that I go to the bar with Jesus and Mohammed (PHUBDCGU) every Tuesday and get the Hindu cook to make us some hamburgers, but that doesn't mean its true. I have no arrogance, just as much as you have no real argument against my statements.
The "truth" and "reality" that I speak of certainly does have to do with this topic. You refuse to accept these understandings, more comfortable with the lies and propaganda you've been told than what is true. If you'd rather trade in the truth for a lie, it is to your own detriment! You neither harm me nor God. It is in your own best interest that you keep it real. Can we agree on this?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 11:15:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:06:04 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide).


These are cultural things, and have nothing to do with the message of Islam. You will find similar situations in other cultures as well.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

I'm not telling you what "reality" is, I'm telling you what these concepts mean. If anyone is asserting their beliefs on anyone, it would be the person trying to tell someone else what it is they believe.

"Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality"" You just did.

You think that when I say, "Islam is the act of accepting reality" I mean something other than what I say I'm saying. Accepting reality does not mean adopting "Islam" as a religion.

God represents the Ultimate or Supreme Reality. This is both how the concept is understood in theological circles, and how it is understood by the dictionary.

I'm not telling you what reality is. I am telling you what these concepts mean when translated into plain English.

If choose not to use my definitions, you are not going to be talking about the same thing. I will help you to understand these conceptts.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:28:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 11:15:31 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:06:04 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide).


These are cultural things, and have nothing to do with the message of Islam. You will find similar situations in other cultures as well.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

I'm not telling you what "reality" is, I'm telling you what these concepts mean. If anyone is asserting their beliefs on anyone, it would be the person trying to tell someone else what it is they believe.

"Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality"" You just did.

You think that when I say, "Islam is the act of accepting reality" I mean something other than what I say I'm saying. Accepting reality does not mean adopting "Islam" as a religion.

God represents the Ultimate or Supreme Reality. This is both how the concept is understood in theological circles, and how it is understood by the dictionary.

I'm not telling you what reality is. I am telling you what these concepts mean when translated into plain English.

If choose not to use my definitions, you are not going to be talking about the same thing. I will help you to understand these conceptt

I don't need your help to understand anything. If you have nothing to add or refute in terms of what I said, then nothing more is needed to be said, and my statements stand.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
Actually, decapitation by knives or axes has been pretty non-existant in the western world, especially when it comes to lining up civilians and chopping off their body parts.

HAHAHAHAHA.

My God, if anyone doubted that the closest you've ever come to cracking open a history book was to use one as a coaster, this statement should clarify things for them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 1:22:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 12:28:42 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/3/2015 11:15:31 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:06:04 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/3/2015 2:05:07 AM, The_Shaman wrote:
By "large-scale cases of implementing Islam", I am referring to the various theocracies and Caliphates that have arisen, which often ended in rebellion and bloodshed (or genocide).


These are cultural things, and have nothing to do with the message of Islam. You will find similar situations in other cultures as well.

Islam is neither a religion or a terrorist group. Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality". By doing so, you will have peace. As long as you are lying to yourself or willingly trading the truth for what is false, you will not have peace. This is something very easy to accept for those who do not have too much baggage attached to what is fundamentally simple, or for those who do not have hang ups about using the terminology.

Definition of religion: "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Islam: Worships Allah and is organized into various sub-groups and sects.

Therefore: Islam = Religion

Do not try to tell what is or what isn't "reality", that is crossing a very dangerous line to assert your beliefs upon someone else.

I'm not telling you what "reality" is, I'm telling you what these concepts mean. If anyone is asserting their beliefs on anyone, it would be the person trying to tell someone else what it is they believe.

"Islam is the act of submitting to God, or another way of saying same thing is, "accepting reality"" You just did.

You think that when I say, "Islam is the act of accepting reality" I mean something other than what I say I'm saying. Accepting reality does not mean adopting "Islam" as a religion.

God represents the Ultimate or Supreme Reality. This is both how the concept is understood in theological circles, and how it is understood by the dictionary.

I'm not telling you what reality is. I am telling you what these concepts mean when translated into plain English.

If choose not to use my definitions, you are not going to be talking about the same thing. I will help you to understand these conceptt

I don't need your help to understand anything. If you have nothing to add or refute in terms of what I said, then nothing more is needed to be said, and my statements stand.

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 3:45:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 12:43:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 10:00:22 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
Actually, decapitation by knives or axes has been pretty non-existant in the western world, especially when it comes to lining up civilians and chopping off their body parts.

HAHAHAHAHA.

My God, if anyone doubted that the closest you've ever come to cracking open a history book was to use one as a coaster, this statement should clarify things for them.

You should show me examples of what your saying, I must really be in the dark. I never knew that the United States of America and other European countries were capturing tourist, photographers, and other civilians, putting them in front of a camera, and then chopping off their heads. You must have exclusive footage of this, so I think I'd would be imperative that you show this to the rest of the world. When I say "non-existant", I am referring to what ISIS and many countries such as Saudi Arabia are doing. Actually, come to think of it, Saudi Arabia is on a roll this year: http://www.independent.co.uk...

Instead of trying to insult me, perhaps you should ask for clarification or critique my statements. This is Debate.org, after all.
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 3:52:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Reverting to name-calling now? Very mature, Theologian.

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.


Why should I trust you? I asked a question. you gave a response, I critiqued said response, you gave another response, and I continually critiqued each.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?

I do understand these things, you merely assume that you are in the right, and must share your version of the "Truth" with everyone around you. I do not assert that my statements are the "Truth", I merely present them to be critiqued. You have tried, but failed to refute them. You can keep trying, but do not tell me that you think you can make me "understand these things", that asserts your automatically right, which is not the case for either of us.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:51:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 3:52:05 PM, The_Shaman wrote:

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Reverting to name-calling now? Very mature, Theologian.

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.


Why should I trust you? I asked a question. you gave a response, I critiqued said response, you gave another response, and I continually critiqued each.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?

I do understand these things, you merely assume that you are in the right, and must share your version of the "Truth" with everyone around you. I do not assert that my statements are the "Truth", I merely present them to be critiqued. You have tried, but failed to refute them. You can keep trying, but do not tell me that you think you can make me "understand these things", that asserts your automatically right, which is not the case for either of us.

I'm not calling you names, I'm trying to explain something to you. You don't understand nearly as much as you think you do. No, you don't know what I'm saying. Are you going to take the time to understand me?

Start over please, for the sake of discussion, because I'm not going to talk to you if you aren't going to listen.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:51:09 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/4/2015 3:52:05 PM, The_Shaman wrote:

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Reverting to name-calling now? Very mature, Theologian.

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.


Why should I trust you? I asked a question. you gave a response, I critiqued said response, you gave another response, and I continually critiqued each.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?

I do understand these things, you merely assume that you are in the right, and must share your version of the "Truth" with everyone around you. I do not assert that my statements are the "Truth", I merely present them to be critiqued. You have tried, but failed to refute them. You can keep trying, but do not tell me that you think you can make me "understand these things", that asserts your automatically right, which is not the case for either of us.

I'm not calling you names, I'm trying to explain something to you. You don't understand nearly as much as you think you do. No, you don't know what I'm saying. Are you going to take the time to understand me?
"Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. " That is an insult upon my intelligence, as clear as day. If you need to insult someone to make a point, then maybe I don't need to understand you.
"

Start over please, for the sake of discussion, because I'm not going to talk to you if you aren't going to listen.

I'm not going to present the information I've already given all over again. Your conversation has become quite child-like, and I think if this is the best this debate site has to offer against someone like myself, I've come upon a forum of children, which is what 4chan is for.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:24:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 11:08:04 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
The Qur'an teaches a message of tolerance, peace, and respect. While the Qur'an does say it is ok to fight someone if they are attacking you, it makes it very clear that this is a personal choice. It also makes it very clear that if your attacker makes any offer of peace, you should accept it.

I would encourage you to look up these passages you posted, and read them in context.

If you have any sincere and respectful questions, I will do my best to answer them.

I have a sincere and respectful question: how does one like you explain the Ottoman Empire? Excluding ISIS, the last Islamic Caliphate, which, by your definition, should mean they were a country devoted to peace, tolerance, and respect. I do not find the conversion of young Christian boys into Janissaries to be respectful, I do not find the dhimmi system imposed on those of a different faith nor the Armenian Holocaust in which people were butchered to be a show of tolerance, and I do not find the Empire's expansion of territory to mean peace. Explain how a nation bound by Islam, theocracy, could commit such acts against man. Islam may not be a terrorist group, but it seems that its implementation as a theocracy breeds war, intolerance, and disrespect of the highest degree. So, if you will, justify for me and all those who believe Islam to be a breeding ground for chaos and enslavement 600 years of ruling under what you call Peace, Tolerance, and Respect.

- Come back with that question when you're really sincere, I'll be glad to answer you then. Now, I am not displeased that Skep realised how utterly uninformed you are & put you in your place.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:24:25 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 7/29/2015 11:08:04 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
The Qur'an teaches a message of tolerance, peace, and respect. While the Qur'an does say it is ok to fight someone if they are attacking you, it makes it very clear that this is a personal choice. It also makes it very clear that if your attacker makes any offer of peace, you should accept it.

I would encourage you to look up these passages you posted, and read them in context.

If you have any sincere and respectful questions, I will do my best to answer them.

I have a sincere and respectful question: how does one like you explain the Ottoman Empire? Excluding ISIS, the last Islamic Caliphate, which, by your definition, should mean they were a country devoted to peace, tolerance, and respect. I do not find the conversion of young Christian boys into Janissaries to be respectful, I do not find the dhimmi system imposed on those of a different faith nor the Armenian Holocaust in which people were butchered to be a show of tolerance, and I do not find the Empire's expansion of territory to mean peace. Explain how a nation bound by Islam, theocracy, could commit such acts against man. Islam may not be a terrorist group, but it seems that its implementation as a theocracy breeds war, intolerance, and disrespect of the highest degree. So, if you will, justify for me and all those who believe Islam to be a breeding ground for chaos and enslavement 600 years of ruling under what you call Peace, Tolerance, and Respect.

- Come back with that question when you're really sincere, I'll be glad to answer you then. Now, I am not displeased that Skep realised how utterly uninformed you are & put you in your place.

You mean attempt to hurl insults like a child? I sourced my statements, and provided historic examples. How about I ask you this question Yassine; Why is it that Islam is the main religion of large terrorist groups of ISIS and Boko Haram, and why is that once one falls, another comes to take it's place?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:46:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 7:38:46 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:51:09 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/4/2015 3:52:05 PM, The_Shaman wrote:

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Reverting to name-calling now? Very mature, Theologian.

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.


Why should I trust you? I asked a question. you gave a response, I critiqued said response, you gave another response, and I continually critiqued each.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?

I do understand these things, you merely assume that you are in the right, and must share your version of the "Truth" with everyone around you. I do not assert that my statements are the "Truth", I merely present them to be critiqued. You have tried, but failed to refute them. You can keep trying, but do not tell me that you think you can make me "understand these things", that asserts your automatically right, which is not the case for either of us.

I'm not calling you names, I'm trying to explain something to you. You don't understand nearly as much as you think you do. No, you don't know what I'm saying. Are you going to take the time to understand me?
"Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. " That is an insult upon my intelligence, as clear as day. If you need to insult someone to make a point, then maybe I don't need to understand you.
"

Start over please, for the sake of discussion, because I'm not going to talk to you if you aren't going to listen.

I'm not going to present the information I've already given all over again. Your conversation has become quite child-like, and I think if this is the best this debate site has to offer against someone like myself, I've come upon a forum of children, which is what 4chan is for.

*face palm*
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
The_Shaman
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:00:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:46:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:38:46 PM, The_Shaman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:51:09 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/4/2015 3:52:05 PM, The_Shaman wrote:

Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. Do you want to argue or have an enlightening conversation? What is debate about for you?

Reverting to name-calling now? Very mature, Theologian.

Will you trust me when I say that your statements do not stand, you are terribly misinformed, and I will gladly help you through each subject one at a time? If I answer all your questions as it stands, your faulty understanding of one area is going to warp your perception of my answer, and accurate communication isn't going to take place.


Why should I trust you? I asked a question. you gave a response, I critiqued said response, you gave another response, and I continually critiqued each.

Now, do you want to understand these things? Are you at least going to humor me for a bit?

I do understand these things, you merely assume that you are in the right, and must share your version of the "Truth" with everyone around you. I do not assert that my statements are the "Truth", I merely present them to be critiqued. You have tried, but failed to refute them. You can keep trying, but do not tell me that you think you can make me "understand these things", that asserts your automatically right, which is not the case for either of us.

I'm not calling you names, I'm trying to explain something to you. You don't understand nearly as much as you think you do. No, you don't know what I'm saying. Are you going to take the time to understand me?
"Any arrogant crap for brains can "win" an argument. " That is an insult upon my intelligence, as clear as day. If you need to insult someone to make a point, then maybe I don't need to understand you.
"

Start over please, for the sake of discussion, because I'm not going to talk to you if you aren't going to listen.

I'm not going to present the information I've already given all over again. Your conversation has become quite child-like, and I think if this is the best this debate site has to offer against someone like myself, I've come upon a forum of children, which is what 4chan is for.

*face palm*

Would you prefer a debate upon this, Theologian? Perhaps this community can decide whether or not my statements stand.