Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

Not really, Jesus states in Matthew that he came to enforce the old (as in OT) laws, not replace them.

He was also quite the hypocrite, given that he wasn’t opposed to a bit of violence himself.

But He went against the law about stoning adulterers and eye for an eye

Who needs improving?

Everything. I see it as an evolving process that isn't just limited to religion.

All of which seem to be written by St. Paul.

Who was a very influential Christian. I'm not sure what your point is?

Theocracies could definitely treat gay people better. Not sure how this is squared with other members of the religion who don't treat gay people in the same way and other Muslim majority countries which have supported LGBT rights.

As above, it shouldn't be limited to theocracies as we should even look at an individual level (if influenced by something)

 

[DesertPenguin]

Humans. They're a clearly flawed design from a lazy developer who was just trying to cash in on the hominid craze.

2020 is the worst mass show of those flaws and there's no patch in sight.

The virus protection could do with a major update.

Have you guys seen TierZoo on YouTube? You'll get a good laugh

 

[Scaff]

But He went against the law about stoning adulterers and eye for an eye

Did you not notice the word hypocrite in my post?

Christians have no moral authority over the other two Abrahamic faiths, they are just as bad in regard to persecution, hatred, death, etc.

Jesus cursed a tree and caused it to die for the crime of not bearing fruit out of season, killed a villages whole herd of pigs (that's them ****ed then), beat the crap out of people in a temple and cherry-picked which parts of the OT to bother with on a frequent basis, its no wonder contemporary Christians do the exact same!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Did you not notice the word hypocrite in my post?

Christians have no moral authority over the other two Abrahamic faiths, they are just as bad in regard to persecution, hatred, death, etc.

Jesus cursed a tree and caused it to die for the crime of not bearing fruit out of season, killed a villages whole herd of pigs (that's them ****ed then), beat the crap out of people in a temple and cherry-picked which parts of the OT to bother with on a frequent basis, its no wonder contemporary Christians do the exact same!

I never interpreted it as Jesus beating people in the Temple - is there evidence for this?

* Not disputing that He didn't show anger

 

[UKMikey]

Inasmuch as biblical verses count as evidence John 2:13 says He beat them with a whip.

 

[Scaff]

I never interpreted it as Jesus beating people in the Temple - is there evidence for this?

* Not disputing that He didn't show anger

How exactly do you think he got them to leave?

His use of a scourge (cat o nine tails - a particularly nasty form of whip) was used to drive people from the grounds of the largest temple in the city, one that covered 26 acres, and was full, what with it being Passover? I've covered this in detail in the God thread before, its a task that requires direct physical action and at a minimum would cause panic and either direct or indirect injury to people.

Do you honestly think that you can do a version of shouting fire in a public place capable of holding thousands and not cause injury?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Inasmuch as biblical verses count as evidence John 2:13 says He beat them with a whip.

Where?

 

[UKMikey]

Where?

Sorry, 2:15.

 

[HenrySwanson]

How exactly do you think he got them to leave?

His use of a scourge (cat o nine tails - a particularly nasty form of whip) was used to drive people from the grounds of the largest temple in the city, one that covered 26 acres, and was full, what with it being Passover? I've covered this in detail in the God thread before, its a task that requires direct physical action and at a minimum would cause panic and either direct or indirect injury to people.

Do you honestly think that you can do a version of shouting fire in a public place capable of holding thousands and not cause injury?

But it seems that you're comparing this (your interpretation) with the actions of Muhammad, and I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that they are the same with regards to violence?

 

[Scaff]

But it seems that you're comparing this (your interpretation) with the actions of Muhammad, and I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that they are the same with regards to violence?

Good job I didn’t say that then!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Good job I didn’t say that then!

But the point I was making with regards to Islam was that it was more violent.

You countered by saying:

Christians have no moral authority over the other two Abrahamic faiths, they are just as bad in regard to persecution, hatred, death, etc.

So, as I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not I'll ask, do you think Islam is a more violent religion (in so much as it can be used to inspire violent acts) than Christianity?

 

[Scaff]

But the point I was making with regards to Islam was that it was more violent.

You countered by saying:

Christians have no moral authority over the other two Abrahamic faiths, they are just as bad in regard to persecution, hatred, death, etc.

So, as I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not I'll ask, do you think Islam is a more violent religion (in so much as it can be used to inspire violent acts) than Christianity?

Nope.

You seem to be mixing up Christ and Christianity.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Nope.

You seem to be mixing up Christ and Christianity.

How do you come to the conclusion that they are equally violent when looking at scripture and the words and actions of the founders (or even early members of the faiths)?

 

[Scaff]

How do you come to the conclusion that they are equally violent when looking at scripture and the words and actions of the founders (or even early members of the faiths)?

Analysis of the two shows that to be the case:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&t=1599472019097
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ble-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

How do you come to the conclusion that they are equally violent when looking at scripture and the words and actions of the founders (or even early members of the faiths)?

So the first few centuries of late-Zoroastronism/nascent-Judaism were peaceful times without violent social schism? Are you making the same claim for Christianity? I mean, we know they were extraordinarily violent, tribal times. It's difficult to believe that anybody might still be thrashing about in this argument.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Analysis of the two shows that to be the case:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&t=1599472019097

But which Christians are going by the example of Saul? Which even subscribe to herem?

Surely the NT supercedes this....

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ble-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

This is saying the OT is more violent. * I'm not sure it's prescribing violence, but rather detailing violent acts taken at the time.

The quote I used from the Quran:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

is prescribing violence for every Muslim regardless of time, and not just in the context of a past war.

* It's actually also saying killing and destruction are referenced more in the NT than the Quran, so if you want to then believe the Quran therefore preaches a more peaceful message than the NT well....goodluck!

 

[Scaff]

But which Christians are going by the example of Saul? Which even subscribe to herem?

Surely the NT supercedes this....

Once again, no the NT doesn't supersede it, JC himself even says so in the Matthew.

If the NT supersedes the OT, then why is the OT still included, why are the 10 commandments still enshrined in every church, why is the OT still used to preach and still taught as gospel?

This is saying the OT is more violent. * I'm not sure it's prescribing violence, but rather detailing violent acts taken at the time.

The quote I used from the Quran:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

is prescribing violence for every Muslim regardless of time, and not just in the context of a past war.

* It's actually also saying killing and destruction are referenced more in the NT than the Quran, so if you want to then believe the Quran therefore preaches a more peaceful message than the NT well....goodluck!

which bit of utter violence would you like me to pick from the Bible as a rebuttal? Cherry-picking doesn't;t support your argument, nor does it disprove the two sources I cited.

Oh, and why are you once again forgetting that the OT exists and is a core part of Christian teaching? Not that the NT came along and Christianity was all of a sudden peacefully and non-violent as a faith. For an allegedly peaceful faith, it has managed a lot of killing in its name.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So Christians should turn the other cheek and not carry out lethal punishments for crimes but...."utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them"??

which bit of utter violence would you like me to pick from the Bible as a rebuttal? Cherry-picking doesn't;t support your argument, nor does it disprove the two sources I cited.

As one of the last chapters chronogically in the Quran, doesn't it hold more weight?

 

[Danoff]

As one of the last chapters chronogically in the Quran, doesn't it hold more weight?

I think this comes from not taking the texts seriously enough. If there is an all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent being, that being knew the future when the past occurred. There is no such thing as "more weight" due to chronological order. All of it should be taken with the same weight as equally consistent and perfectly in line with future events.

 

[Scaff]

So Christians should turn the other cheek and not carry out lethal punishments for crimes but...."utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them"??


As one of the last chapters chronogically in the Quran, doesn't it hold more weight?

OK it seems I do have to.

"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God"

"you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."

"For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses."

"it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town"

"For the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to survive?”"

"The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up."

I can keep going?

 

[UKMikey]

It's like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Ku Klux Klan, the Gulf War and the Lord's Day Resistance Army never happened.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Ku Klux Klan, the Gulf War and the Lord's Day Resistance Army never happened.

But there were fine people on both sides, and their lawyer is adamant that they're a victim of circumstance.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think this comes from not taking the texts seriously enough. If there is an all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent being, that being knew the future when the past occurred. There is no such thing as "more weight" due to chronological order. All of it should be taken with the same weight as equally consistent and perfectly in line with future events.

Not so, because of abrogation found in the Quran.

Basically later verses that were "revealed" to Muhammad overwrite earlier laws/instructions. There's a debate on what that means regarding violence in the Quran (particularly the Sword verse) since the Muhammad of Medina was more offensive in nature than the Muhammad of Mecca.

OK it seems I do have to.

"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God"

"you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."

"For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses."

"it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town"

"For the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to survive?”"

"The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up."

I can keep going?

So you've given me accounts of what happened and what will happen. I don't see incitements to violence for modern day Christians??

Whereas, and I'm still only using one verse, is there not an instruction for every Muslim regardless of time/space to:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled

It's like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Ku Klux Klan, the Gulf War and the Lord's Day Resistance Army never happened.

I never said Christianity wasn't violent, but you've given examples of things that virtually all Christians would denounce/say is a misrepresentation.

This, in comparison is a list of only the groups listed by the UN as terrorist organisations relating to ISIS and therefore isn't even a comprehensive list of Islamist groups active today:


Abdullah Azzam Brigades

Abu Sayyaf

Aden-Abyan Islamic Army

al-Haramain Foundation

Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya

Al-Mourabitoun[note 1]

Al-Nusra Front[note 2]

al-Qaeda

al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)[note 3]

Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia)

Ansar al-Islam

Ansar Dine

Ansaru

Armed Islamic Group of Algeria

Osbat al-Ansar

Boko Haram[note 4]

Caucasus Emirate

Egyptian Islamic Jihad[note 5]

Haqqani network

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami

Harkat-ul-Mujahideen

Harakat Sham al-Islam

Jamiat ul-Ansar[note 6]

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham[note 7]

Islamic Jihad Union

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Islamic State in the Greater Sahara

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province

Jaish-e-Mohammed

Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar

Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid

Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin[note 8]

Jamaat-ul-Ahrar

Jemaah Islamiyah

Jund al-Aqsa

Jund al-Khilafah

Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari

Lashkar-e-Taiba

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group

Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa

Mujahidin Indonesia Timur

Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

Turkistan Islamic Party[note 9]

You've also got to remember that a poll of French Muslims found that a quarter of young Muslims in 2020 refused to explicitly condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks

 

[UKMikey]

How many of the organisations above are supported by Wahhabist theocracies? Taken as a whole what percentage of the world's Muslim population do they represent?

 

[Scaff]

So you've given me accounts of what happened and what will happen. I don't see incitements to violence for modern day Christians??

Are you seriously attempting to claim that modern-day Christians have not used the bible as justification for violence?

That's a serious claim you are making!

Whereas, and I'm still only using one verse, is there not an instruction for every Muslim regardless of time/space to:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled

You mean a verse that even Muslim scholars still debate the exact meaning to, and one that I'm quite sure has been used to justify violence, as have the texts of just about all faiths.

https://listverse.com/2014/03/20/10-religious-verses-used-to-justify-terrible-atrocities/

I never said Christianity wasn't violent, but you've given examples of things that virtually all Christians would denounce/say is a misrepresentation.

Ah, but when you expand the same concept to all Muslims the same is pretty much true.

In both cases the vast majority condemn the violent actions of the minority, you see this in Christianity, yet for some reason (maybe because you are a Christian) you don't see it in other faiths and particularly in Islam.

This, in comparison is a list of only the groups listed by the UN as terrorist organisations relating to ISIS and therefore isn't even a comprehensive list of Islamist groups active today:


Abdullah Azzam Brigades

Abu Sayyaf

Aden-Abyan Islamic Army

al-Haramain Foundation

Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya

Al-Mourabitoun[note 1]

Al-Nusra Front[note 2]

al-Qaeda

al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)[note 3]

Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia)

Ansar al-Islam

Ansar Dine

Ansaru

Armed Islamic Group of Algeria

Osbat al-Ansar

Boko Haram[note 4]

Caucasus Emirate

Egyptian Islamic Jihad[note 5]

Haqqani network

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami

Harkat-ul-Mujahideen

Harakat Sham al-Islam

Jamiat ul-Ansar[note 6]

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham[note 7]

Islamic Jihad Union

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Islamic State in the Greater Sahara

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province

Jaish-e-Mohammed

Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar

Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid

Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin[note 8]

Jamaat-ul-Ahrar

Jemaah Islamiyah

Jund al-Aqsa

Jund al-Khilafah

Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari

Lashkar-e-Taiba

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group

Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa

Mujahidin Indonesia Timur

Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

Turkistan Islamic Party[note 9]

And what percentage of Muslims alive today do they make up exactly?

You've also got to remember that a poll of French Muslims found that a quarter of young Muslims in 2020 refused to explicitly condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks

And?

You people being edgy is hardly anything new, I mean Americans of all ages spent years openly fundraising and supporting a terrorist organisation in Europe, one with a good deal of blood on its hands that trained other terrorist organisations around the globe.

 

[Danoff]

Not so, because of abrogation found in the Quran.

Basically later verses that were "revealed" to Muhammad overwrite earlier laws/instructions. There's a debate on what that means regarding violence in the Quran (particularly the Sword verse) since the Muhammad of Medina was more offensive in nature than the Muhammad of Mecca.

I'm familiar. It doesn't "overwrite" earlier instructions, it's an evolution of the relationship with god. The earlier instructions were (by definition) perfect, and remain perfect. It is as though humanity was maturing and the father god figure was offering more leeway and nuanced rules for the maturing people. His instructions for the less mature people must necessarily have still been perfect. Otherwise he is not a god. This is basically the required interpretation of these scriptures, because if this god is drafting and revising his rules, he's not a god, at least not an omnipotent eternal god.

Even if you don't agree with a word of what I wrote above, you need to understand that Christianity does incorporate the OT, and leans on it heavily in many flavors of Christianity. The degree to which the NT invalidates the old is a point of argument within the religion, but it is present, and Christianity does bring it out, especially when it's convenient.

I'm not saying that I think the teachings of Christianity are equally violent to the teachings of Islam. In fact, I think I'm wholly unqualified to make that kind of determination. I'm just trying to get you to recognize that you can't remove the OT from Christianity, as Christians do not do it (even though sometimes, when it's convenient, they pretend they do).

 

[HenrySwanson]

Are you seriously attempting to claim that modern-day Christians have not used the bible as justification for violence?

That's a serious claim you are making!

If you can show me a verse that can be used in that way I'll be up for debating its intention.

You mean a verse that even Muslim scholars still debate the exact meaning to, and one that I'm quite sure has been used to justify violence, as have the texts of just about all faiths.

https://listverse.com/2014/03/20/10-religious-verses-used-to-justify-terrible-atrocities/

You've given a link to something that doesn't have that verse in it.

Ah, but when you expand the same concept to all Muslims the same is pretty much true.

In both cases the vast majority condemn the violent actions of the minority, you see this in Christianity, yet for some reason (maybe because you are a Christian) you don't see it in other faiths and particularly in Islam.

I just showed an example where 25% of young Muslims refused to explicitly condemn the execution of people who drew a cartoon of their prophet,,,,

If you can show a quarter of Christians refusing to explicitly condemn the LRA or the KKK then I'm all ears.

And what percentage of Muslims alive today do they make up exactly?

Enough so they can impact on peoples lives violently.

And?

You people being edgy is hardly anything new, I mean Americans of all ages spent years openly fundraising and supporting a terrorist organisation in Europe, one with a good deal of blood on its hands that trained other terrorist organisations around the globe.

I kinda remember a debate saying that it was older people harbouring intolerant views and that the young members of the faith were the future....

I'm familiar. It doesn't "overwrite" earlier instructions, it's an evolution of the relationship with god. The earlier instructions were (by definition) perfect, and remain perfect. It is as though humanity was maturing and the father god figure was offering more leeway and nuanced rules for the maturing people. His instructions for the less mature people must necessarily have still been perfect. Otherwise he is not a god. This is basically the required interpretation of these scriptures, because if this god is drafting and revising his rules, he's not a god, at least not an omnipotent eternal god.

So Allah was offering more scope for violence for the "mature" Muslim?

Even if you don't agree with a word of what I wrote above, you need to understand that Christianity does incorporate the OT, and leans on it heavily in many flavors of Christianity. The degree to which the NT invalidates the old is a point of argument within the religion, but it is present, and Christianity does bring it out, especially when it's convenient.

I'm not saying that I think the teachings of Christianity are equally violent to the teachings of Islam. In fact, I think I'm wholly unqualified to make that kind of determination. I'm just trying to get you to recognize that you can't remove the OT from Christianity, as Christians do not do it (even though sometimes, when it's convenient, they pretend they do).

I'm not denying the OT is a part of our beliefs. But to believe that the writings of what a King did a millenium before Christ existed has meaning to Christians now? I'm not so sure....

 

[Danoff]

So Allah was offering more scope for violence for the "mature" Muslim?

I'm not under the impression that the Koran has more appetite for violence than the OT. The OT is pretty blood-soaked.

I'm not denying the OT is a part of our beliefs. But to believe that the writings of what a King did a millenium before Christ existed has meaning to Christians now? I'm not so sure....

I'm not following you.

 

[Scaff]

If you can show me a verse that can be used in that way I'll be up for debating its intention.

How about "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

Used by many Christians to justify punishment and the beating of children.

You've given a link to something that doesn't have that verse in it.

The wiki entry on that verse covers it, you did check on its interpretations before citing it I take it?

The link is regarding my point about it being an issue with almost all faiths.

I just showed an example where 25% of young Muslims refused to explicitly condemn the execution of people who drew a cartoon of their prophet,,,,

If you can show a quarter of Christians refusing to explicitly condemn the LRA or the KKK then I'm all ears.

Goalposts moving. Oh and you might want to check your translations before you keep using the term 'explicitly', as that's not how the 26% groups translate to at all, and a good percentage grouped in that 26% were actually indifferent. 16% to be exact among the young and 13% among all Muslims surveyed. When you get to the actual explicit would not condemn ("you do not condemn") its 10% for young Muslims, 11% for all French youth, and 5% for all Muslims and 4% for all French. Which is quite a different picture! Yes, that's right more French youth as a whole didn't condemn the terrorists that Muslim youth!

Next time look at the actual data behind the headline and get a better translation done.

Enough so they can impact on peoples lives violently.

Oh and again with those goalposts. You seem to be forgetting that you are actually in Europe and America far more likely to fall victim to extreme right-wing terrorism, which is mainly (but not entirely) Christian based.

Now, what percentage of Muslims do those groups make up?

I kinda remember a debate saying that it was older people harbouring intolerant views and that the young members of the faith were the future....

Did I make that point in a debate? I don't recall doing so, as such please put the strawman down.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Enough so they can impact on peoples lives violently.

People can make a violent impact on other peoples' lives while only being (for example) three people. The fact that terrorists exist and that some of them have religious causes does not reflect on the religion as a whole. But we'll go round that again, I'm sure.

I was interested in your list of Muslamical Terrorors and thought you might like this list too:

Continuity Army Council
Continuity IRA
Cumann na mBan
Fianna na hEireann
Irish National Liberation Army
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
Irish Republican Army
Loyalist Volunteer Force
National Action
NS131
Orange Volunteers
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Saor Eire
Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)
Scottish Dawn
System Resistance Network
Ulster Defence Association
Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force