If people are going to say Islam is violent....

Well, if we are talking modern times, the here and now, I would say Islam is pretty darn scary and is a threat, and even physically harmfull to a great many people in the world today. Christianity and the Evangelist movement is a joke and anoying but they are not butchering people wholesale at the moment.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah quote mining....let's start here. Show me where he advocated using violence because you have not done so with those quotes. Basically they mean there will be conflict due to His new teachings. You're up....DarkOfKnight

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Perhaps you should read up on early Muslim history to get context and see what 'actually' happened rather than making statements with no real knowledge of what you're talking about, no? (note that I put 'actually' in quotes because there is a good deal of scholarly debate among historians surrounding the events during Muhammad's life and shortly thereafter)

And this goes not only for fidosim LJ, but for everyone in this thread making similar claims.

Ilovegames1992

Can you link me to some historical texts which prove Muhammad led raids pleas. Not even disputing it i just like at least some semblance of evidence.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Hypocritical much? Anyway let's look at the leaders of the two religions. Mohammed I believe was a warlord....no? Jesus....turned the other cheek. /threadehhwhatever

Perhaps you should read up on early Muslim history to get context rather than making statements with no real knowledge of what you're talking about, no?

And this goes not only for LJ, but for everyone in this thread making similar claims.

I love how you keep saying "green flag, green flag" but have yet to back up what you're asserting.

(BTW: as far as a green flag being flown over Mecca...yeah. The flag of Saudi Arabia is green, and Mecca is in Saudi Arabia.)

Islam teaches violence, therefore the religion itself IS violent.

Christianity doesn't teach violence, and Jesus never practiced violence. Muhammad DID practice violence.

Any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, therefore, can not be blamed on the religion, while violence committed in the name of Islam can be.

That's why we can say Islam is a violent religion, while Christianity is not.

Islam teaches violence, therefore the religion itself IS violent.

Christianity doesn't teach violence, and Jesus never practiced violence. Muhammad DID practice violence.

Any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, therefore, can not be blamed on the religion, while violence committed in the name of Islam can be.

That's why we can say Islam is a violent religion, while Christianity is not.

nousername66

Christianity does teach violence. Good lord, read the Old Testament.

(And before anyone says anything: the Old Testament has been a part of the Christian Bible for near 2,000 years, so yes, it counts.)

[QUOTE="nousername66"]

Islam teaches violence, therefore the religion itself IS violent.

Christianity doesn't teach violence, and Jesus never practiced violence. Muhammad DID practice violence.

Any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, therefore, can not be blamed on the religion, while violence committed in the name of Islam can be.

That's why we can say Islam is a violent religion, while Christianity is not.

worlock77

Christianity does teach violence. Good lord, read the Old Testament.

(And before anyone says anything: the Old Testament has been a part of the Christian Bible for near 2,000 years, so yes, it counts.)

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="nousername66"]

Islam teaches violence, therefore the religion itself IS violent.

Christianity doesn't teach violence, and Jesus never practiced violence. Muhammad DID practice violence.

Any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, therefore, can not be blamed on the religion, while violence committed in the name of Islam can be.

That's why we can say Islam is a violent religion, while Christianity is not.

LJS9502_basic

Christianity does teach violence. Good lord, read the Old Testament.

(And before anyone says anything: the Old Testament has been a part of the Christian Bible for near 2,000 years, so yes, it counts.)

And yet the OT has been a part of the Christian Bible all thise time. As I pointed out. And if Christian teachings are only found in the New Testament then I want you to go and point that out to every goddamned redfaced Christian minister who's shouted words from the Old Testament at the pulpit.

Why do you people keep creating pointless topics on religion?Let the stupid people have their stupid opinions.Who cares what anyone thinks of Islam(and any other religion for that matter)anyway?

[QUOTE="fidosim"]At the risk of sounding like a douche, you could argue that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, since the central figure of Christianity was a man who never led an army, preached that "those who live by the sword die by the sword," and was put to death by the state while allegedly asking God to forgive his executioners; whereas the central figure of Islam was an expansionistic warlord who was apparently capable of great brutality, and whose successors created through force a worldly community stretching from Portugal to the borders of India.chessmaster1989

Hypocritical much? Anyway let's look at the leaders of the two religions. Mohammed I believe was a warlord....no? Jesus....turned the other cheek. /threadLJS9502_basic

Perhaps you should read up on early Muslim history to get context and see what 'actually' happened rather than making statements with no real knowledge of what you're talking about, no? (note that I put 'actually' in quotes because there is a good deal of scholarly debate among historians surrounding the events during Muhammad's life and shortly thereafter)

And this goes not only for fidosim LJ, but for everyone in this thread making similar claims.

The problem with Islamic scholastic is that so often anything negative is written off as anti-Islamic and left at that. Some writings by Ibn Warraq would be an example. Nonetheless I would love to see what you have been reading. I have a feeling I could guess some of the biased sources you would use to paint a rosy picture of early Islam, but I'll wait and see.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Christianity does teach violence. Good lord, read the Old Testament.

(And before anyone says anything: the Old Testament has been a part of the Christian Bible for near 2,000 years, so yes, it counts.)

worlock77

And yet the OT has been a part of the Christian Bible all thise time. As I pointed out. And if Christian teachings are only found in the New Testament then I want you to go and point that out to every goddamned redfaced Christian minister who's shouted words from the Old Testament at the pulpit.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh...the OT is the Jewish history. Christianity teachings are ONLY in the NT. Really shouldn't confuse the two....Jesus is the founder of Christianity. Where does HE preach violence?LJS9502_basic

And yet the OT has been a part of the Christian Bible all thise time. As I pointed out. And if Christian teachings are only found in the New Testament then I want you to go and point that out to every goddamned redfaced Christian minister who's shouted words from the Old Testament at the pulpit.

lol

Dude, seriously. I know you like to maintain this perfect rosy picture of your religion in your head, and to rule anything contrary to that as "not Christian" but pull your head out of the clouds. To say that Christians do not use the OT as a basis for their teachings, customs and laws is to, quite simply, ignore reality. If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then why, for instance, do they make such a contentious issue over displaying the Ten Comandments? If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then where does their stance against homosexuality come from?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

And yet the OT has been a part of the Christian Bible all thise time. As I pointed out. And if Christian teachings are only found in the New Testament then I want you to go and point that out to every goddamned redfaced Christian minister who's shouted words from the Old Testament at the pulpit.

worlock77

lol

Dude, seriously. I know you like to maintain this perfect rosy picture of your religion in your head, and to rule anything contrary to that as "not Christian" but pull your head out of the clouds. To say that Christians do not use the OT as a basis for their teachings, customs and laws is to, quite simply, ignore reality. If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then why, for instance, do they make such a contentious issue over displaying the Ten Comandments? If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then where does their stance against homosexuality come from?

Homosexuality is not against Christianity. Sexual acts outside of marriage are...which means homosexual sex is exactly the same as pre marital sex or adultery. But homosexuality is not a problem in and of itself.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Christianity does teach violence. Good lord, read the Old Testament.

(And before anyone says anything: the Old Testament has been a part of the Christian Bible for near 2,000 years, so yes, it counts.)

worlock77

And yet the OT has been a part of the Christian Bible all thise time. As I pointed out. And if Christian teachings are only found in the New Testament then I want you to go and point that out to every goddamned redfaced Christian minister who's shouted words from the Old Testament at the pulpit.

It bothers me when people reference the Old Testament without any thought about the relevance with the addition of the New Testament. I'm not saying you, just in general.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] While we don't often agree, I've generally considered you to be one of the more well read users here. But in this instance you are wrong. The OT is a companion book to the NT because it has some scripture in it considered to be prophetic. However, in no way do Christians use the OT as the basis for teachings, customs, and laws. If you look at the two in these regards you would notice they aren't the same. So to say Christians use the book as part of their religion is disingenuous. The OT has the prophecies for the Messiah. It shows the history of God's chosen people. Very little of the OT is actually used in Christian services. LJS9502_basic

lol

Dude, seriously. I know you like to maintain this perfect rosy picture of your religion in your head, and to rule anything contrary to that as "not Christian" but pull your head out of the clouds. To say that Christians do not use the OT as a basis for their teachings, customs and laws is to, quite simply, ignore reality. If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then why, for instance, do they make such a contentious issue over displaying the Ten Comandments? If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then where does their stance against homosexuality come from?

Homosexuality is not against Christianity. Sexual acts outside of marriage are...which means homosexual sex is exactly the same as pre marital sex or adultery. But homosexuality is not a problem in and of itself.

Brother, all I can say is that you must be wearing the biggest pair of blinders ever.

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]That is true. The problem is that the generations alive today get to experience first hand Islam being used as a means to deliver death, suffering, and malice. No one on these forums were alive during the Crusades. The native american I have to say was less about christianity and more about common territory. I will give you the Holocaust. Not slavery of africans in the U.S. however.

But Islam is the evil religion in the world TODAY. CreasianDevaili

Maybe based on the people who follow it...it indicates nothing about the teachings of the religion itself. The Qur'an never says anything that condones killing an innocent person. In fact it explicitly states that killing one innocent person is the equivalent of killing entire mankind in terms of sin.

So...you really think people understand that the teachings of Islam aren't actually violent/oppressive/misogynistic? I see that it's understandable that people would blame religions that have fundamentalists due to their spreading, but I'd say it wouldn't make sense to call the religion itself violent. Just certain aspects of the spread of it and some of its followers.

Atheism is violent

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

lol

Dude, seriously. I know you like to maintain this perfect rosy picture of your religion in your head, and to rule anything contrary to that as "not Christian" but pull your head out of the clouds. To say that Christians do not use the OT as a basis for their teachings, customs and laws is to, quite simply, ignore reality. If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then why, for instance, do they make such a contentious issue over displaying the Ten Comandments? If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then where does their stance against homosexuality come from?

worlock77

Homosexuality is not against Christianity. Sexual acts outside of marriage are...which means homosexual sex is exactly the same as pre marital sex or adultery. But homosexuality is not a problem in and of itself.

Brother, all I can say is that you must be wearing the biggest pair of blinders ever.

Atheism is violent

themajormayor

The Islamic empires are some of, if not, the most tolerant empires on the planet...The one incident that was a drastic deviation from the tolerance of ISlamic empires was the unfortunate incident of the Armenian Genocide

Under very specific circumstances, but it isn't the same slavery as Europeans practiced, as European slavery was based around the notion of racial inferiority giving justification to enslave a particular group of people. In European slavery, the slaves and their children, in most cases, were enslaved for life. On the contrary, in Islam, any child born from a slave is free, and the slave cannot be enslaved for life. In european slavery, it was also forbidden, again in most cases, to teach slaves, but under Islam, it is strongly recommended. Slaves in Islam are given basic human rights as well, unlike European slaves that were constantly abused

Islam DOES NOT allow spousal abuse, as it is one of the largest sins you can commit...If women choose not to have sex with their husbands for no apparent reason, then it would become more likely that the husband would be inclined to commit a sin (Adultery) to fulfill his sexual desires, that its why. That doesn't mean women have to have sex when their husbands desire, but at least have a decent reason...What do you mean unfair inheritence? They obtain, in nearly all cases, the same exact amount...No, sexual slavery is not allowed in Islam. LOL were does it state that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion, the majority of people in hell are female, women were the first fitna for the Jews"? It says women will be the majority of people in Heaven AND Hell, but the rest of that information is not true...

There is obligatory Jihad in defense...Thats it. BTW, Jihad is not "Holy War"...

Nayef_shroof

True, some of the Islamic empires were tolerant and actually treated non-Muslims well. However, that doesn't make Islam tolerant. Read the unabridged versions of the old tafsirs, which clearly condone violence. They have substantial evidence to back up their claims. And no, these aren't ignorant scholars; they were some of the most pious and influential scholars in the history of Islam, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari. I would show you the verses myself and prove that they are violent and lack tolerance, but I'd rather have you read them for yourself, so you can develop the critical mind that made me leave Islam. Don't read sources from "modernist" or "progressive" scholars, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, I am well aware of how Islam asks Muslims to treat slaves well, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam allowed slavery. Slavery is wrong, not because slavers can be abusive, but because it's an egregious infringement upon liberty (among other things).And sexual slavery is, in fact, allowed; go read the verses that say that men can have sex with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess", which means "captives."

Islam forbids spousal abuse? Then what should I make of Qur'an 4:34? It clearly says that presumably recalcitrant wives should be beaten if sexual abstinence and scolding prove to be useless. Granted, Muhammad said that beating shouldn't be severe, but he did not clearly define "severe" (some scholars say that this means beating a wife with a toothbrush, but I think you can see how absurd that idea is for discipline) did practically ignore a woman who was covered in bruises as a result of spousal abuse. The bottom line is that no one deserves to be beaten, even if he or she is disobedient. Two wrongs never make a right. In fact, disobedience doesn't even exist in a relationship in which both partners are equal. Islam only assumes that disobedience may exist in a marriage because a Muslim husband is supposed to subordinate his wife according to Qur'an 4:34.

Also, why does sex have to be the right of the husband in Islam? Women are just as sexual as men; shouldn't they have an undeniable right to sex as well? And how come the husband can refuse sex when the wife feels that she might cheat on him? I know why: the husband is supposed to "be in charge of" his wive, so any attempt to undermine his authority (i.e. not acquiescing all the time) is not Islamic. Also, I'm pretty sure that people have much more self-control that Islam claims. In any case, this hadith encourages marital rape, because consent is clearly disregarded. No one should have sex against his or her will.

As for inheritance, women generally receive half the amount men receive. Obviously, that's unfair.

The same narration that says that women are stupid is the same one that says that the majority of women are in hell. In fact, it isbecausethey are unintelligent and less religious that they will be the majority in hell, according to Islam. Ergo, many women will go to hell simply for being female. There is no evidence that women will be the majority in paradise. Read Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim to see what I mean. You'll find those ahadith there (including the one about women being a trial to the Jews, IIRC).

Finally, I urge you read the authentic Islamic sources (not extremist at all, mind you) that agree that offensive jihad is obligatory. And while jihad doesn't necessarily mean "holy war", whether or not it does doesn't matter in light of what scholars have said about offensive jihad.

I tried my best to believe that Islam was a perfect religion, but denialism can only go so far.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

Atheism is violent

LJS9502_basic

Ha you need a flame shield?

I dont, because i'm Batfink:

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]

The Islamic empires are some of, if not, the most tolerant empires on the planet...The one incident that was a drastic deviation from the tolerance of ISlamic empires was the unfortunate incident of the Armenian Genocide

Under very specific circumstances, but it isn't the same slavery as Europeans practiced, as European slavery was based around the notion of racial inferiority giving justification to enslave a particular group of people. In European slavery, the slaves and their children, in most cases, were enslaved for life. On the contrary, in Islam, any child born from a slave is free, and the slave cannot be enslaved for life. In european slavery, it was also forbidden, again in most cases, to teach slaves, but under Islam, it is strongly recommended. Slaves in Islam are given basic human rights as well, unlike European slaves that were constantly abused

Islam DOES NOT allow spousal abuse, as it is one of the largest sins you can commit...If women choose not to have sex with their husbands for no apparent reason, then it would become more likely that the husband would be inclined to commit a sin (Adultery) to fulfill his sexual desires, that its why. That doesn't mean women have to have sex when their husbands desire, but at least have a decent reason...What do you mean unfair inheritence? They obtain, in nearly all cases, the same exact amount...No, sexual slavery is not allowed in Islam. LOL were does it state that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion, the majority of people in hell are female, women were the first fitna for the Jews"? It says women will be the majority of people in Heaven AND Hell, but the rest of that information is not true...

There is obligatory Jihad in defense...Thats it. BTW, Jihad is not "Holy War"...

ghoklebutter

True, some of the Islamic empires were tolerant and actually treated non-Muslims well. However, that doesn't make Islam tolerant. Read the unabridged versions of the old tafsirs, which clearly condone violence. They have substantial evidence to back up their claims. And no, these aren't ignorant scholars; they were some of the most pious and influential scholars in the history of Islam, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari. I would show you the verses myself and prove that they are violent and lack tolerance, but I'd rather have you read them for yourself, so you can develop the critical mind that made me leave Islam. Don't read sources from "modernist" or "progressive" scholars, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, I am well aware of how Islam asks Muslims to treat slaves well, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam allowed slavery. Slavery is wrong, not because slavers can be abusive, but because it's an egregious infringement upon liberty (among other things).And sexual slavery is, in fact, allowed; go read the verses that say that men can have sex with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess", which means "captives."

Islam forbids spousal abuse? Then what should I make of Qur'an 4:34? It clearly says that presumably recalcitrant wives should be beaten if sexual abstinence and scolding prove to be useless. Granted, Muhammad said that beating shouldn't be severe, but he did not clearly define "severe" (some scholars say that this means beating a wife with a toothbrush, but I think you can see how absurd that idea is for discipline) did practically ignore a woman who was covered in bruises as a result of spousal abuse. The bottom line is that no one deserves to be beaten, even if he or she is disobedient. Two wrongs never make a right. In fact, disobedience doesn't even exist in a relationship in which both partners are equal. Islam only assumes that disobedience may exist in a marriage because a Muslim husband is supposed to subordinate his wife according to Qur'an 4:34.

Also, why does sex have to be the right of the husband in Islam? Women are just as sexual as men; shouldn't they have an undeniable right to sex as well? And how come the husband can refuse sex when the wife feels that she might cheat on him? I know why: the husband is supposed to "be in charge of" his wive, so any attempt to undermine his authority (i.e. not acquiescing all the time) is not Islamic. Also, I'm pretty sure that people have much more self-control that Islam claims. In any case, this hadith encourages marital rape, because consent is clearly disregarded. No one should have sex against his or her will.

As for inheritance, women generally receive half the amount men receive. Obviously, that's unfair.

The same narration that says that women are stupid is the same one that says that the majority of women are in hell. In fact, it isbecausethey are unintelligent and less religious that they will be the majority in hell, according to Islam. Ergo, many women will go to hell simply for being female. There is no evidence that women will be the majority in paradise. Read Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim to see what I mean. You'll find those ahadith there (including the one about women being a trial to the Jews, IIRC).

Finally, I urge you read the authentic Islamic sources (not extremist at all, mind you) that agree that offensive jihad is obligatory. And while jihad doesn't necessarily mean "holy war", whether or not it does doesn't matter in light of what scholars have said about offensive jihad.

I tried my best to believe that Islam was a perfect religion, but denialism can only go so far.

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]

The Islamic empires are some of, if not, the most tolerant empires on the planet...The one incident that was a drastic deviation from the tolerance of ISlamic empires was the unfortunate incident of the Armenian Genocide

Under very specific circumstances, but it isn't the same slavery as Europeans practiced, as European slavery was based around the notion of racial inferiority giving justification to enslave a particular group of people. In European slavery, the slaves and their children, in most cases, were enslaved for life. On the contrary, in Islam, any child born from a slave is free, and the slave cannot be enslaved for life. In european slavery, it was also forbidden, again in most cases, to teach slaves, but under Islam, it is strongly recommended. Slaves in Islam are given basic human rights as well, unlike European slaves that were constantly abused

Islam DOES NOT allow spousal abuse, as it is one of the largest sins you can commit...If women choose not to have sex with their husbands for no apparent reason, then it would become more likely that the husband would be inclined to commit a sin (Adultery) to fulfill his sexual desires, that its why. That doesn't mean women have to have sex when their husbands desire, but at least have a decent reason...What do you mean unfair inheritence? They obtain, in nearly all cases, the same exact amount...No, sexual slavery is not allowed in Islam. LOL were does it state that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion, the majority of people in hell are female, women were the first fitna for the Jews"? It says women will be the majority of people in Heaven AND Hell, but the rest of that information is not true...

There is obligatory Jihad in defense...Thats it. BTW, Jihad is not "Holy War"...

ghoklebutter

True, some of the Islamic empires were tolerant and actually treated non-Muslims well. However, that doesn't make Islam tolerant. Read the unabridged versions of the old tafsirs, which clearly condone violence. They have substantial evidence to back up their claims. And no, these aren't ignorant scholars; they were some of the most pious and influential scholars in the history of Islam, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari. I would show you the verses myself and prove that they are violent and lack tolerance, but I'd rather have you read them for yourself, so you can develop the critical mind that made me leave Islam. Don't read sources from "modernist" or "progressive" scholars, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, I am well aware of how Islam asks Muslims to treat slaves well, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam allowed slavery. Slavery is wrong, not because slavers can be abusive, but because it's an egregious infringement upon liberty (among other things).And sexual slavery is, in fact, allowed; go read the verses that say that men can have sex with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess", which means "captives."

Islam forbids spousal abuse? Then what should I make of Qur'an 4:34? It clearly says that presumably recalcitrant wives should be beaten if sexual abstinence and scolding prove to be useless. Granted, Muhammad said that beating shouldn't be severe, but he did not clearly define "severe" (some scholars say that this means beating a wife with a toothbrush, but I think you can see how absurd that idea is for discipline) did practically ignore a woman who was covered in bruises as a result of spousal abuse. The bottom line is that no one deserves to be beaten, even if he or she is disobedient. Two wrongs never make a right. In fact, disobedience doesn't even exist in a relationship in which both partners are equal. Islam only assumes that disobedience may exist in a marriage because a Muslim husband is supposed to subordinate his wife according to Qur'an 4:34.

Also, why does sex have to be the right of the husband in Islam? Women are just as sexual as men; shouldn't they have an undeniable right to sex as well? And how come the husband can refuse sex when the wife feels that she might cheat on him? I know why: the husband is supposed to "be in charge of" his wive, so any attempt to undermine his authority (i.e. not acquiescing all the time) is not Islamic. Also, I'm pretty sure that people have much more self-control that Islam claims. In any case, this hadith encourages marital rape, because consent is clearly disregarded. No one should have sex against his or her will.

As for inheritance, women generally receive half the amount men receive. Obviously, that's unfair.

The same narration that says that women are stupid is the same one that says that the majority of women are in hell. In fact, it isbecausethey are unintelligent and less religious that they will be the majority in hell, according to Islam. Ergo, many women will go to hell simply for being female. There is no evidence that women will be the majority in paradise. Read Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim to see what I mean. You'll find those ahadith there (including the one about women being a trial to the Jews, IIRC).

Finally, I urge you read the authentic Islamic sources (not extremist at all, mind you) that agree that offensive jihad is obligatory. And while jihad doesn't necessarily mean "holy war", whether or not it does doesn't matter in light of what scholars have said about offensive jihad.

I tried my best to believe that Islam was a perfect religion, but denialism can only go so far.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]

The Islamic empires are some of, if not, the most tolerant empires on the planet...The one incident that was a drastic deviation from the tolerance of ISlamic empires was the unfortunate incident of the Armenian Genocide

Under very specific circumstances, but it isn't the same slavery as Europeans practiced, as European slavery was based around the notion of racial inferiority giving justification to enslave a particular group of people. In European slavery, the slaves and their children, in most cases, were enslaved for life. On the contrary, in Islam, any child born from a slave is free, and the slave cannot be enslaved for life. In european slavery, it was also forbidden, again in most cases, to teach slaves, but under Islam, it is strongly recommended. Slaves in Islam are given basic human rights as well, unlike European slaves that were constantly abused

Islam DOES NOT allow spousal abuse, as it is one of the largest sins you can commit...If women choose not to have sex with their husbands for no apparent reason, then it would become more likely that the husband would be inclined to commit a sin (Adultery) to fulfill his sexual desires, that its why. That doesn't mean women have to have sex when their husbands desire, but at least have a decent reason...What do you mean unfair inheritence? They obtain, in nearly all cases, the same exact amount...No, sexual slavery is not allowed in Islam. LOL were does it state that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion, the majority of people in hell are female, women were the first fitna for the Jews"? It says women will be the majority of people in Heaven AND Hell, but the rest of that information is not true...

There is obligatory Jihad in defense...Thats it. BTW, Jihad is not "Holy War"...

Nayef_shroof

True, some of the Islamic empires were tolerant and actually treated non-Muslims well. However, that doesn't make Islam tolerant. Read the unabridged versions of the old tafsirs, which clearly condone violence. They have substantial evidence to back up their claims. And no, these aren't ignorant scholars; they were some of the most pious and influential scholars in the history of Islam, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari. I would show you the verses myself and prove that they are violent and lack tolerance, but I'd rather have you read them for yourself, so you can develop the critical mind that made me leave Islam. Don't read sources from "modernist" or "progressive" scholars, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, I am well aware of how Islam asks Muslims to treat slaves well, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam allowed slavery. Slavery is wrong, not because slavers can be abusive, but because it's an egregious infringement upon liberty (among other things).And sexual slavery is, in fact, allowed; go read the verses that say that men can have sex with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess", which means "captives."

Islam forbids spousal abuse? Then what should I make of Qur'an 4:34? It clearly says that presumably recalcitrant wives should be beaten if sexual abstinence and scolding prove to be useless. Granted, Muhammad said that beating shouldn't be severe, but he did not clearly define "severe" (some scholars say that this means beating a wife with a toothbrush, but I think you can see how absurd that idea is for discipline) did practically ignore a woman who was covered in bruises as a result of spousal abuse. The bottom line is that no one deserves to be beaten, even if he or she is disobedient. Two wrongs never make a right. In fact, disobedience doesn't even exist in a relationship in which both partners are equal. Islam only assumes that disobedience may exist in a marriage because a Muslim husband is supposed to subordinate his wife according to Qur'an 4:34.

Also, why does sex have to be the right of the husband in Islam? Women are just as sexual as men; shouldn't they have an undeniable right to sex as well? And how come the husband can refuse sex when the wife feels that she might cheat on him? I know why: the husband is supposed to "be in charge of" his wive, so any attempt to undermine his authority (i.e. not acquiescing all the time) is not Islamic. Also, I'm pretty sure that people have much more self-control that Islam claims. In any case, this hadith encourages marital rape, because consent is clearly disregarded. No one should have sex against his or her will.

As for inheritance, women generally receive half the amount men receive. Obviously, that's unfair.

The same narration that says that women are stupid is the same one that says that the majority of women are in hell. In fact, it isbecausethey are unintelligent and less religious that they will be the majority in hell, according to Islam. Ergo, many women will go to hell simply for being female. There is no evidence that women will be the majority in paradise. Read Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim to see what I mean. You'll find those ahadith there (including the one about women being a trial to the Jews, IIRC).

Finally, I urge you read the authentic Islamic sources (not extremist at all, mind you) that agree that offensive jihad is obligatory. And while jihad doesn't necessarily mean "holy war", whether or not it does doesn't matter in light of what scholars have said about offensive jihad.

I tried my best to believe that Islam was a perfect religion, but denialism can only go so far.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The ten commandments? Used as a basis for laws in many countries.....but I have to say...I don't know where these Christians are that display the ten commandments except for judges I'll give you. It's not something I've ever seen displayed in Christian homes or churches for that matter. In the NT there are two commandments and two only....and if one follows them....they'd end up keeping the ten plus some.

Homosexuality is not against Christianity. Sexual acts outside of marriage are...which means homosexual sex is exactly the same as pre marital sex or adultery. But homosexuality is not a problem in and of itself.

LJS9502_basic

Brother, all I can say is that you must be wearing the biggest pair of blinders ever.

I've been a Baptist, a Penticostal, an Adventist and a Methodist. I've learned a thing or two about the religion in my time.

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

True, some of the Islamic empires were tolerant and actually treated non-Muslims well. However, that doesn't make Islam tolerant. Read the unabridged versions of the old tafsirs, which clearly condone violence. They have substantial evidence to back up their claims. And no, these aren't ignorant scholars; they were some of the most pious and influential scholars in the history of Islam, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari. I would show you the verses myself and prove that they are violent and lack tolerance, but I'd rather have you read them for yourself, so you can develop the critical mind that made me leave Islam. Don't read sources from "modernist" or "progressive" scholars, as they usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, I am well aware of how Islam asks Muslims to treat slaves well, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam allowed slavery. Slavery is wrong, not because slavers can be abusive, but because it's an egregious infringement upon liberty (among other things).And sexual slavery is, in fact, allowed; go read the verses that say that men can have sex with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess", which means "captives."

Islam forbids spousal abuse? Then what should I make of Qur'an 4:34? It clearly says that presumably recalcitrant wives should be beaten if sexual abstinence and scolding prove to be useless. Granted, Muhammad said that beating shouldn't be severe, but he did not clearly define "severe" (some scholars say that this means beating a wife with a toothbrush, but I think you can see how absurd that idea is for discipline) did practically ignore a woman who was covered in bruises as a result of spousal abuse. The bottom line is that no one deserves to be beaten, even if he or she is disobedient. Two wrongs never make a right. In fact, disobedience doesn't even exist in a relationship in which both partners are equal. Islam only assumes that disobedience may exist in a marriage because a Muslim husband is supposed to subordinate his wife according to Qur'an 4:34.

Also, why does sex have to be the right of the husband in Islam? Women are just as sexual as men; shouldn't they have an undeniable right to sex as well? And how come the husband can refuse sex when the wife feels that she might cheat on him? I know why: the husband is supposed to "be in charge of" his wive, so any attempt to undermine his authority (i.e. not acquiescing all the time) is not Islamic. Also, I'm pretty sure that people have much more self-control that Islam claims. In any case, this hadith encourages marital rape, because consent is clearly disregarded. No one should have sex against his or her will.

As for inheritance, women generally receive half the amount men receive. Obviously, that's unfair.

The same narration that says that women are stupid is the same one that says that the majority of women are in hell. In fact, it isbecausethey are unintelligent and less religious that they will be the majority in hell, according to Islam. Ergo, many women will go to hell simply for being female. There is no evidence that women will be the majority in paradise. Read Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim to see what I mean. You'll find those ahadith there (including the one about women being a trial to the Jews, IIRC).

Finally, I urge you read the authentic Islamic sources (not extremist at all, mind you) that agree that offensive jihad is obligatory. And while jihad doesn't necessarily mean "holy war", whether or not it does doesn't matter in light of what scholars have said about offensive jihad.

I tried my best to believe that Islam was a perfect religion, but denialism can only go so far.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] Nope, your incorrect about every point, making blatant assumptions about matters that you obviously know little about...Nayef_shroof

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Brother, all I can say is that you must be wearing the biggest pair of blinders ever.

I've been a Baptist, a Penticostal, an Adventist and a Methodist. I've learned a thing or two about the religion in my time.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Brother, all I can say is that you must be wearing the biggest pair of blinders ever.

worlock77

I've been a Baptist, a Penticostal, an Adventist and a Methodist. I've learned a thing or two about the religion in my time.

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]He grew up Muslim I believe....what makes your interpretation correct?MannyDelgado

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] Wut? There is little/no room for interpretation in Islam. All the points he makes exhumes his apparent ignorance of Islam

Nayef_shroof

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]So he wrote at length and in depth about the misogyny inherent in Islam, and your response was to flatly contradict him - and we're supposed to think that he's the ignorant one?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]So he wrote at length and in depth about the misogyny inherent in Islam, and your response was to flatly contradict him - and we're supposed to think that he's the ignorant one?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] Because his assumptions are false, and there is no room for self-interpretation of the religion in Islam ...Study the material for yourself...Im not going to sit here and right a wall of text only to be accosted by arrogant atheists reiterating the same false misinformationKh1ndjal

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] Because his assumptions are false, and there is no room for self-interpretation of the religion in Islam ...Study the material for yourself...Im not going to sit here and right a wall of text only to be accosted by arrogant atheists reiterating the same false misinformationNayef_shroof

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Isn't that your interpretation?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Isn't that your interpretation?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] No...In Islam, it states that If there is an aspect you don't fully comprehend, you ask someone more knowledgeable to explain and give proof of that explanationNayef_shroof

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] No...In Islam, it states that If there is an aspect you don't fully comprehend, you ask someone more knowledgeable to explain and give proof of that explanationKh1ndjal

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] No...In Islam, it states that If there is an aspect you don't fully comprehend, you ask someone more knowledgeable to explain and give proof of that explanationNayef_shroof

[QUOTE="Kh1ndjal"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then that means you are following someone's interpretation. And that means there is no right answer....LJS9502_basic

Maybe the religion of islam isnt violent, but certainly some of the people that follow it are. Same goes with a lot of religions and other beliefs, however. It's probably more a problem with humanity as violence seems to be our way of solving most conflicts.

Maybe the religion of islam isnt violent, but certainly some of the people that follow it are. Same goes with a lot of religions and other beliefs, however. It's probably more a problem with humanity as violence seems to be our way of solving most conflicts.

sonicare

^What I'm trying to say here. I don't believe any religions are violent. All religions have a purpose in this world, none of which involve harming others. My only reason in the OP for singling out Christianity is to make a point--that a minority of followers clearly have the power to tarnish the overall faith's reputation and attribute it to the actions of said individuals. This makes sense considering how drastic their actions have been. But all I'm trying to get at here is that the faith/teachings alone have nothing to do with these radical acts committed.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] While we don't often agree, I've generally considered you to be one of the more well read users here. But in this instance you are wrong. The OT is a companion book to the NT because it has some scripture in it considered to be prophetic. However, in no way do Christians use the OT as the basis for teachings, customs, and laws. If you look at the two in these regards you would notice they aren't the same. So to say Christians use the book as part of their religion is disingenuous. The OT has the prophecies for the Messiah. It shows the history of God's chosen people. Very little of the OT is actually used in Christian services. LJS9502_basic

lol

Dude, seriously. I know you like to maintain this perfect rosy picture of your religion in your head, and to rule anything contrary to that as "not Christian" but pull your head out of the clouds. To say that Christians do not use the OT as a basis for their teachings, customs and laws is to, quite simply, ignore reality. If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then why, for instance, do they make such a contentious issue over displaying the Ten Comandments? If Christians do not use the Old Testament as such then where does their stance against homosexuality come from?

Homosexuality is not against Christianity. Sexual acts outside of marriage are...which means homosexual sex is exactly the same as pre marital sex or adultery. But homosexuality is not a problem in and of itself.

Are you by any chance a new[er] catholic?

[

Are you by any chance a new[er catholic?

fooZar777

[QUOTE="fooZar777"]

[

Are you by any chance a new[er catholic?

LJS9502_basic

Sorry then, some of your well versed points mislead me.

Why dont people realize Christianity and Catholicism are two different things?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah quote mining....let's start here. Show me where he advocated using violence because you have not done so with those quotes. Basically they mean there will be conflict due to His new teachings. You're up....DarkOfKnight