Islam - What's your view on it?

[BHRxRacer]

Well at the very least it's because it's the religion causing the most problems in the world, especially with regard to violence. And it's not like it's being completely singled out either, we pick on Christianity too, but that's under control in most places.

The religion itself is not causing problems. A group of people that hijacked it ages ago cause problems. Not making that distinction is very ignorant.

Then why do you?



Citation required.

Oh and while Famine is using the Romans as an example plenty of other (and earlier) civilizations such as Mesopotamia had same sex marriage ceremonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions




Who's reinterpreting now?

Which part of taking it out of context don't you get it? If you consider the context in which the word came about, you don't have to make an interpretation. It's clear.

Oh and the citation can be wikipedia itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[120] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear.[121]

The reason why Islam is being singled out in this case is the rather obvious fact that Islam is the subject of this thread!

I don't see people (in general) saying Christianity is violent. Hateful maybe, but not violent/dangerous. The latter being the problem a lot of members here seem have, exclusively with Islam.

edit

The jig is up. We can all see through you.

What happened to rule 12 or 6 or whatever it was?

 

[Famine]

If you could work on making your general comments make sense before you try to make pithy comments that also don't make sense, we'll all have a better time of it.

Incidentally I never said anything about Rome, so your current obsession over them is also without sense.

 

[Scaff]

Which part of taking it out of context don't you get it? If you consider the context in which the word came about, you don't have to make an interpretation. It's clear.

It's would appear that's not the case. If it was clear then we would not be having this discussion at all

Oh and the citation can be wikipedia itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

Do you know what I really hate? I mean really, really hate? Quote mining. Now how about you quote that entire piece rather than just the bit that you see as suiting your view?

I don't see people (in general) saying Christianity is violent. Hateful maybe, but not violent/dangerous. The latter being the problem a lot of members here seem have, exclusively with Islam.

Then you need to read a few more post on the site, as I have repeatedly given examples from many, many other religions, however that doesn't change the fact that the reason why the focus is on Islam here is that this is a thread about Islam.

 

[BHRxRacer]

If you could work on making your general comments make sense before you try to make pithy comments that also don't make sense, we'll all have a better time of it.

Incidentally I never said anything about Rome, so your current obsession over them is also without sense.

...? What general comment did I make here that makes no sense? Bahrain not having homophobic laws? That's the post where you came in.

Also
@Spurgy 777 said you talked about the Romans. I never saw that, but he said it. Here:

@BHRxRacer I'm pretty sure Famine has said before, that the Romans had gay marriage up until Christianity came around, so you couldn't be more wrong. Also, definitions are definitions, you can't say "they actually meant this...". If the definition is "to provide with a husband or wife", that's it, that means a marriage is when someone or something is provided with a wife or husband.

As for Islam being and dangerous, it's a religion, which makes it inherently dangerous for promoting irrational thinking and blindly believing what people say.

anyway

It's would appear that's not the case. If it was clear then we would not be having this discussion at all

That's fair if you actually consider the context before translating something. The problem I have is that @Famine and that other guy took the literal translation and closed it at that. If we both had taken context under considerations and came up with different interpretations, then it's perfectly fine.

Do you know what I really hate? I mean really, really hate? Quote mining. Now how about you quote that entire piece rather than just the bit that you see as suiting your view?

Okay, I can't quote things I read in the past so let's focus on that article. Tell me what the correct meaning of it is. I may have misunderstood.

the reason why the focus is on Islam here is that this is a thread about Islam.

Ugh, not really. Read this:

To the people that made incredibly ignorant and hateful comments about Islam, I'd like to know if you're anti-religion (understandable, somewhat) in general, or just anti-Islam?

See? I wanted to know from people that single out Islam, why they single it out. I didn't assume they're singling it out because they post here...

 

[PeterJB]

Whether somebody is anti-Islam or anti-Religion is irrelevant. This is a thread about Islam, and as such discussions about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Shinto, Mormonism or Neo-Paganism would be off topic.

 

[Scaff]

Okay, I can't quote things I read in the past so let's focus on that article. Tell me what the correct meaning of it is. I may have misunderstood.

You are attempting to condense the history of ancient Rome into a single point, when it spanned 12 centuries (as near as damn it), during which gay marriage was both legal and illegal (who would have though that laws could change).

The point of which is that pre-abrihamic religions same sex marriages have been accepted in a range of cultures around the globe, as such its the abrehamic religions that are redefining marriage to exclude same-sex and not the other way around. This bizarre attempt by the abrehamic religions to try and 'own' the definition of marriage is both inaccurate and absurd.

Ugh, not really. Read this:

See? I wanted to know from people that single out Islam, why they single it out. I didn't assume they're singling it out because they post here...

Does that one person speak for the entire site?

No, so please don't try and imply they do. This is a thread on Islam and as such the focus will be on that, however in the 'Does God exist' thread the issue of violence within all religions has been and is being discussed, as such a claim of bias against Islam in these regards in unfounded.

I will however (from my own perspective) state that currently Islam certainly does have more of an issue with violence being carried out in its name that any other religion.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You are attempting to condense the history of ancient Rome into a single point, when it spanned 12 centuries (as near as damn it), during which gay marriage was both legal and illegal (who would have though that laws could change).

The point of which is that pre-abrihamic religions same sex marriages have been accepted in a range of cultures around the globe, as such its the abrehamic religions that are redefining marriage to exclude same-sex and not the other way around. This bizarre attempt by the abrehamic religions to try and 'own' the definition of marriage is both inaccurate and absurd.

No you missed the point. What I tried to say is, when the word "marriage" was invented, it was invented in the time when gay marriage was not legal yet. Hence the past tense in the piece I quoted.

Does that one person speak for the entire site?

No. Did I say that?

No, so please don't try and imply they do.

I didn't.

This is a thread on Islam and as such the focus will be on that, however in the 'Does God exist' thread the issue of violence within all religions has been and is being discussed, as such a claim of bias against Islam in these regards in unfounded.

No claim. I ASKED how many people in this thread, are exclusively anti-Islam.

Are you okay?

I will however (from my own perspective) state that currently Islam certainly does have more of an issue with violence being carried out in its name that any other religion.

Not quite. If "violence" is inclusive of domestic violence, yes, maybe. If by violence you mean people getting killed, I disagree. There are other groups of believers out there that are doing much more killing.

Regardless, do you think it's the belief to blame or a sub-group of their believers that deliberately misinterpret it for personal gain?

edit-

That's a quick change of attitude after I saw you constantly posting about your future kids (and shielding them from certain things) in that other thread.

Just saw this. No change, the intimacy thing is one of the reasons I don't want kids. I was just saying I wish people would share my ideas, so that I can have kids too.

 

[Spurgy 777]

The religion itself is not causing problems. A group of people that hijacked it ages ago cause problems. Not making that distinction is very ignorant.

The religion itself is causing the problems, it encourages and promotes irrational thinking, and people who think irrationally, generally act irrationally. And the difference between Islam, and for example Christianity, is that Christianity is moving away from promoting irrational thinking (mostly because people realise it's nonsense so try to make it look rational, but still). And that's not even going into what the Quran actually says, and from what I've seen before (can't remember exact quotes and don't have time right now to find them, which is why I'm not going into it too much) some of it isn't exactly what I'd call friendly.

 

[BHRxRacer]

The religion itself is causing the problems, it encourages and promotes irrational thinking, and people who think irrationally, generally act irrationally. And the difference between Islam, and for example Christianity, is that Christianity is moving away from promoting irrational thinking (mostly because people realise it's nonsense so try to make it look rational, but still). And that's not even going into what the Quran actually says, and from what I've seen before (can't remember exact quotes and don't have time right now to find them, which is why I'm not going into it too much) some of it isn't exactly what I'd call friendly.

Well first of all I have to ask, do you mean theism or religion? Because religion doesn't necessarily mean believing in a deity, or irrational thoughts in general. Anyway most people confuse them so I'll assume you mean theism.

I still disagree anyway, being open to the idea that there could be something out there (god/aliens) isn't harmful at all.

Oh and regarding Islam specifically, I'd like to inform you that you're misinformed. Whatever you heard, whatever quotes you read, are either completely wrong or taken out of context. You can say Mohammed faked all of it, that's fine, but to say the religion he tried to pass on was violent is wrong.

 

[GBO Possum]

The religion itself is not causing problems. A group of people that hijacked it ages ago cause problems. Not making that distinction is very ignorant.
<snip>

<snip>
You can say Mohammed faked all of it, that's fine, but to say the religion he tried to pass on was violent is wrong.

The result is still the same for the world today. Whatever claims are made about Mohammed, the world of Islam today is violent.

(Although some sources would deny Mohammed's peacefulness - http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad)

Today, Islam is THE most common factor associated with self-destruction with the linked objective of killing other people. Some call it suicide bombing, others call it martyrdom. It's still Islam-inspired violence.

 

[Scaff]

No you missed the point. What I tried to say is, when the word "marriage" was invented, it was invented in the time when gay marriage was not legal yet. Hence the past tense in the piece I quoted.

Citation required.

No. Did I say that?


I didn't.


No claim. I ASKED how many people in this thread, are exclusively anti-Islam.

Sorry but you did. Certainly that's how it came across.

Are you okay?

I'm fine, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Not quite. If "violence" is inclusive of domestic violence, yes, maybe.

Violence is violence, why exclude anything?

If by violence you mean people getting killed, I disagree. There are other groups of believers out there that are doing much more killing.

Please name them.

Regardless, do you think it's the belief to blame or a sub-group of their believers that deliberately misinterpret it for personal gain?

Its both, because as much as you may not want to accept it these people see themselves as the true believers and anyone who disagrees with them as wrong (and the intractable nature of religion ensures this rather unpleasant cycle continues). Now while this affects all religions (the LRA in terms of Christianity is an example, as are the 969 movement in terms of Christianity) at present Islam suffers more in this regard.

 

[KSaiyu]

The religion itself is not causing problems. A group of people that hijacked it ages ago cause problems. Not making that distinction is very ignorant.

People are gradually waking up to the fact that it is people who use this excuse to absolve that religion of the damage it has done to the world who are ignorant and not those with genuine concerns.

 

[Carbonox]

The religion itself is not causing problems. A group of people that hijacked it ages ago cause problems. Not making that distinction is very ignorant.

Of course, everytime we see Muslims inciting violence, it's No True Islam™. Makes perfect sense.

Oh and regarding Islam specifically, I'd like to inform you that you're misinformed. Whatever you heard, whatever quotes you read, are either completely wrong or taken out of context. You can say Mohammed faked all of it, that's fine, but to say the religion he tried to pass on was violent is wrong.

Go ahead, make a statement about Mr. Mo's peacefulness without any evidence. Saying "if you think this way, it's just plain wrong" won't win you any sorts of arguments.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Well first of all I have to ask, do you mean theism or religion? Because religion doesn't necessarily mean believing in a deity, or irrational thoughts in general. Anyway most people confuse them so I'll assume you mean theism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

So yes, you're right, I did mean theism as technically superhuman doesn't necessarily mean supernatural (although, if you don't have evidence for a superhuman controlling power, then it's still irrational).

I still disagree anyway, being open to the idea that there could be something out there (god/aliens) isn't harmful at all.

Being open to it isn't, but people are actually believing it without any evidence, which is irrational and harmful.

Oh and regarding Islam specifically, I'd like to inform you that you're misinformed. Whatever you heard, whatever quotes you read, are either completely wrong or taken out of context. You can say Mohammed faked all of it, that's fine, but to say the religion he tried to pass on was violent is wrong.

We could have a "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" argument all day, but until I actually get round to finding the quotes, it's a pointless discussion, hence why I said I'm not getting into it.

 

[KSaiyu]

The more I think about it, the more I realise I'm not angry at you BHRxRacer, I'm angry at the circumstances that led to you having these views. Reading your posts reminds me of my postings around 7-8 years ago (although with slightly more zeal). I'm sorry that education has failed to open your mind to think critically about the world, and I'm mad that too many are kow-towing to a growing minority who want to institutionalise such thinking globally.

Sometimes you have to be willing to lose a little of your faith to gain more from your religion.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Today, Islam is THE most common factor associated with self-destruction with the linked objective of killing other people. Some call it suicide bombing, others call it martyrdom. It's still Islam-inspired violence.

No different from the people blaming gun violence on movies. Existed before movies, and will never cease to exist. Don't blame the movies, or in this case religion. Just because there's a common factor, doesn't mean it's the cause.

Citation required.

Doesn't the article itself say "the roman law did not (past tense) recognize gay marriage"?

If I misunderstood what it says, tell me what the correct meaning is.

Sorry but you did. Certainly that's how it came across.

Not at all. Maybe it came across that way to you because you're angry at me

It's pretty clear, I asked "those who are anti-islam" (didn't say the whole forum, or the whole world, just the people hating on Islam here) if they are exclusively anti-islam or other beliefs. No claim, nothing. Again, it's literally what I said, and I think it's clear.

I'm fine, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

It has to do with you thinking my very clear message coming across in a bad way. Suddenly you started following my posts and quoting them and such, thought you're behind a desk fuming or something. If that's the case I'd like it if you calm down, so we can understand each other better.

Violence is violence, why exclude anything?

I'm not excluding it, I just want to know the scope we're talking about.

Please name them.

American military personnel?

Or any other military that's killing civilians for that matter. They're no different from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up. They both believe they're doing the right thing.

Its both, because as much as you may not want to accept it these people see themselves as the true believers and anyone who disagrees with them as wrong

I'm aware of that. You don't think these people make normal people's life harder here?

Now while this affects all religions (the LRA in terms of Christianity is an example, as are the 969 movement in terms of Christianity) at present Islam suffers more in this regard.

Because it's common in places where there's poverty and ignorance, as was the case with Christianity in Europe before. Doesn't change anything. It has little to do with the belief itself.

Of course, everytime we see Muslims inciting violence, it's No True Islam™. Makes perfect sense.

Oh it does. Are all Finns bigoted racist drunken assholes? Or is it that every time I see one he's not a true Finn?

Go ahead, make a statement about Mr. Mo's peacefulness without any evidence. Saying "if you think this way, it's just plain wrong" won't win you any sorts of arguments.

YOU are the one making the proposition here. You provide evidence that the belief itself is violent. So far every link I've clicked it is either made up crap or something taken out of context. I debunked @GBO Possum 's BS links already.

If you have more, post them. Oh and don't bother with ******** blogs with titles like "top 10 evil things in Islam". I want quotes from the Quran.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

So yes, you're right, I did mean theism as technically superhuman doesn't necessarily mean supernatural (although, if you don't have evidence for a superhuman controlling power, then it's still irrational).



Being open to it isn't, but people are actually believing it without any evidence, which is irrational and harmful.



We could have a "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" argument all day, but until I actually get round to finding the quotes, it's a pointless discussion, hence why I said I'm not getting into it.

Read the 3rd definition in that link

People believing in it doesn't necessarily do harm either. How is it harmful? Don't tell me it makes people close minded and stop them from practicing "science". Maybe that's what Christianity did in certain times, but science Flourished in Islam's time here.


It is a pointless discussion without quotes yes, but until you provide them you're wrong lol. If we're going to believe everything people or our media says, then I should start believing you're a homosexual infidel who's main purpose in life is to Bomb Muslim children.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I'm not angry at you BHRxRacer, I'm angry at the circumstances that led to you having these views. Reading your posts reminds me of my postings around 7-8 years ago (although with slightly more zeal). I'm sorry that education has failed to open your mind to think critically about the world, and I'm mad that too many are kow-towing to a growing minority who want to institutionalise such thinking globally.

Sometimes you have to be willing to lose a little of your faith to gain more from your religion.

Not sure how to take this. What circumstances?

 

[Carbonox]

Oh it does. Are all Finns bigoted racist drunken assholes? Or is it that every time I see one he's not a true Finn?

Weird, when I look at this country, I see one of the most liberal places in the world, which by the way fares a lot well on the human rights front than any Muslim country you can find. Surely that's a coincidence, because No True Islam™ would allow any of the stuff going on in Iraq, Somalia or any other hellhole you can find down there.

YOU are the one making the proposition here. You provide evidence that the belief itself is violent. So far every link I've clicked it is either made up crap or something taken out of context. I debunked @GBO Possum 's BS links already.

If you have more, post them. Oh and don't bother with ******** blogs with titles like "top 10 evil things in Islam". I want quotes from the Quran.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Not good enough for you? Wouldn't be the first time, clearly.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Read the 3rd definition in that link

I'm pretty sure that one doesn't fit in with the context, your point?

People believing in it doesn't necessarily do harm either. How is it harmful? Don't tell me it makes people close minded and stop them from practicing "science". Maybe that's what Christianity did in certain times, but science Flourished in Islam's time here.

As I've said a few times now, it encourages and promotes irrational thinking, and people who think irrationally, generally act irrationally. But lets be clear, that doesn't mean people will necessarily think irrationally just because their religion encourages it, there are other factors involved.

It is a pointless discussion without quotes yes, but until you provide them you're wrong lol. If we're going to believe everything people or our media says, then I should start believing you're a homosexual infidel who's main purpose in life is to Bomb Muslim children.

Firstly, until I've got evidence, I haven't made a factual claim, so I can't be wrong because I there's nothing for me to be wrong about, secondly, who said I was just believing what someone else has said? If I did that, I think I'd get the hypocrite of the year award, what a silly thing to say!

 

[BHRxRacer]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Not good enough for you? Wouldn't be the first time, clearly.

I almost stopped when I read this:

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule."

Then I read one of the Quran examples and laughed because it's just what I thought. Another mis-quoted and mistranslated text. All the calls for "fights" and "war" are PURELY for self defense, none of them for the sake of Islamic rule or anything like that at all. Point me to one.

I'm pretty sure that one doesn't fit in with the context, your point?

Which is why I assumed you meant that one.

But lets be clear, that doesn't mean people will necessarily think irrationally just because their religion encourages it, there are other factors involved.

You could've made that clearer. You said it generally makes them act irrationally. That's quite a statement. From my observation here people aren't all that irrational.

Firstly, until I've got evidence, I haven't made a factual claim, so I can't be wrong because I there's nothing for me to be wrong about, secondly, who said I was just believing what someone else has said? If I did that, I think I'd get the hypocrite of the year award, what a silly thing to say!

You said based on what you've seen it wasn't friendly. I'm just saying what you've seen was wrong, probably some of the **** @Carbonox keeps quoting

 

[Carbonox]

I don't know how far @BHRxRacer even read. Here, I'll put the first verse in plain sight.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

What we have here is a reasonable explanation for why this is not a self-defence verse, but clearly one designed for offensive warfare. With that, here's @BHRxRacer's counter-argument...

Then I read one of the Quran examples and laughed because it's just what I thought. Another mis-quoted and mistranslated text. All the calls for "fights" and "war" are PURELY for self defense, none of them for the sake of Islamic rule or anything like that at all.

Leaving it up to other members to decide what sounds more plausible.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I don't know how far @BHRxRacer even read. Here, I'll put the first verse in plain sight.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

What we have here is a reasonable explanation for why this is not a self-defence verse, but clearly one designed for offensive warfare. With that, here's @BHRxRacer's counter-argument...



Leaving it up to other members to decide what sounds more plausible.

See what I mean by mistranslation? Fitnah ( فتنة ) means to cause havoc/mayhem (death, in this case killing of Muslims) via misinformation.

I won't go further, because everything else is also mistranslated or taken out of context. It's sad that there aren't enough, or any English speaking Scholars* that actively correct these things.

edited*

 

[KSaiyu]

Not sure how to take this. What circumstances?

You can PM if you want clarification as this thread is about Islam.

 

[Spurgy 777]

You could've made that clearer. You said it generally makes them act irrationally. That's quite a statement. From my observation here people aren't all that irrational.

I could've done, but I thought it was self explanatory as encouraging/promoting irrational thinking, doesn't mean it automatically makes all religious people think irrationally, but at least you understand now.

You said based on what you've seen it wasn't friendly. I'm just saying what you've seen was wrong, probably some of the **** @Carbonox keeps quoting

If you can claim what I've seen is wrong, you must know what I've seen, and considering I can't even remember the quotes myself, that's quite an achievement, but by all means, provide this evidence you have that what I've seen is wrong.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I could've done, but I thought it was self explanatory as encouraging/promoting irrational thinking, doesn't mean it automatically makes all religious people think irrationally, but at least you understand now.



If you can claim what I've seen is wrong, you must know what I've seen, and considering I can't even remember the quotes myself, that's quite an achievement, but by all means, provide this evidence you have that what I've seen is wrong.

I've read the Quran in Arabic, and I saw nothing that incites hatefulness or violence (unless you consider self defense violence). So yeah, whatever you read/saw is probably misquoted or mistranslated (thus, wrong).

 

[Spurgy 777]

I've read the Quran in Arabic, and I saw nothing that incites hatefulness or violence (unless you consider self defense violence). So yeah, whatever you read/saw is probably misquoted or mistranslated (thus, wrong).

So what you're saying is that what I saw is "probably" wrong, which is different to saying that it is wrong. Ones an educated guess and the other is a factual claim based on no evidence.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So what you're saying is that what I saw is "probably" wrong, which is different to saying that it is wrong. Ones an educated guess and the other is a factual claim based on no evidence.

My bad, thought I used probably in that post.

 

[Scaff]

Doesn't the article itself say "the roman law did not (past tense) recognize gay marriage"?

Why are you limiting this to a small period in Roman history?

I'm not.

Not at all. Maybe it came across that way to you because you're angry at me

It's pretty clear, I asked "those who are anti-islam" (didn't say the whole forum, or the whole world, just the people hating on Islam here) if they are exclusively anti-islam or other beliefs. No claim, nothing. Again, it's literally what I said, and I think it's clear.

Why do you think I'm angry with anything? This is the second time you have (incorrectly) doen this to me, please stop

It has to do with you thinking my very clear message coming across in a bad way. Suddenly you started following my posts and quoting them and such, thought you're behind a desk fuming or something. If that's the case I'd like it if you calm down, so we can understand each other better.

You may wish to check how long I've been active in these discussion before you start throwing accusations like that about.

I'm not excluding it, I just want to know the scope we're talking about.

Then why try and set limits on wharts included or excluded?

American military personnel?

When did they become a belief?

Or any other military that's killing civilians for that matter. They're no different from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up. They both believe they're doing the right thing.

When did any military become a belief?

To be blunt if you can't see the difference then you are a part of the issue.

Because it's common in places where there's poverty and ignorance, as was the case with Christianity in Europe before. Doesn't change anything. It has little to do with the belief itself.

Exactly and it has everything to do with belief.

 

[Harsk100]

Yesterday, I saw the news which an sudanese woman was released from jail after she was accused from leaving the Islams. She went to Italy and she converted her self an Christian with her husband.

I don't mind if there's islam people.... They can be islam if they respect the beliefs.

 

[Famine]

Yesterday, I saw the news which an sudanese woman was released from jail after she was accused from leaving the Islams. She went to Italy and she converted her self an Christian with her husband.

It was considerably worse than that.

She was convicted of apostasy for leaving the Islamic faith and sentenced to be hanged to death - despite never being a Muslim and thus impossible for her to commit apostasy, she was convicted because she should have been a Muslim on the basis that her father was one. She was also given 100 lashes for adultery because she had a child with her Christian husband - a marriage the Sudanese government didn't recognise because as a Muslim (which she wasn't) she wasn't allowed to have a non-Muslim husband. She had her child in prison with her and gave birth to a second one while in gaol - and in fact while chained to the floor...

She was eventually released on appeal and went to board a plane to the USA, whereupon she was rearrested and taken in for questioning.


In both cases, she was arrested on claims alone from her own half-brother, who it's alleged wanted her out of the way so he could take over her business.

While this has very little to do with Islam itself, only the fact that the faith is so fundamentally rooted in Sudanese culture, law and government allowed it to get to a point where a man's word outweighs a woman's even if it's wrong, a woman's faith is governed by her father's even if it's not true and had her sentenced to hang to death for no crime.

 

[Danoff]

Then why try and set limits on wharts included or excluded?

I think everyone tries to limit warts.