Nothing to do with Islam?

[sayak83]

I don't care what "Islamic experts" say. They don't agree with each other, and it often doesn't translate to what happens in real life. I care only about outcomes in the world, not some random Imam's hypothetical interpretations.

That makes no sense. If George the drunken psycopath indulges in mass shooting and says its what Jesus says one should do, his view is as valid as that of any of the theologians or the pope or the head pastor of a large Christian church?

 

[sayak83]

Not with me, but it's okay, I'm happy to have answered.

This wasn't you?
Nothing to do with Islam?

 

[FearGod]

You have no idea of how deeply wrong you are.

You think so.

 

[Sakeenah]

I don't care what "Islamic experts" say. They don't agree with each other, and it often doesn't translate to what happens in real life. I care only about outcomes in the world, not some random Imam's hypothetical interpretations.

I have the feeling we're going in circles here. Our discussion was not about what you care about ,we were discussing of what islamically is considered defense and using the right definition.

There is no difference of opinion on the issue of defense, the only group that disagrees are groups like ISIS. I don't think they can be considered islamic experts.

I also care about what happens in the world, so I don't mind discussing that. But don't share your opinion and make it out to be an Islamic definiton, this is misleading. I might know it's incorrect, but others who know very little about Islam may think that we actually hold those beliefs.

 

[icehorse]

That makes no sense. If George the drunken psycopath indulges in mass shooting and says its what Jesus says one should do, his view is as valid as that of any of the theologians or the pope or the head pastor of a large Christian church?

The problem you have is that there is no real authority in Islam. For any influential Imam you name, it will be the case that his following is tiny in comparison to all the Muslims in the world.

 

[icehorse]

This wasn't you?
Nothing to do with Islam?

Oh right, I recall, thanks. I think the discussion shifted from a comparison of scripture to a comparison of histories correct? So if I'm recalling correctly I would summarize my stances on these two topics like this:

- the Quran is worse than the Bible
- Muslim history and Christian history are equally shameful.

 

[icehorse]

I have the feeling we're going in circles here. Our discussion was not about what you care about ,we were discussing of what islamically is considered defense and using the right definition.

There is no difference of opinion on the issue of defense, the only group that disagrees are groups like ISIS. I don't think they can be considered islamic experts.

I also care about what happens in the world, so I don't mind discussing that. But don't share your opinion and make it out to be an Islamic definiton, this is misleading. I might know it's incorrect, but others who know very little about Islam may think that we actually hold those beliefs.

It's my understanding that most of the bloody Islamic conquest that's occurred over the last 1400 years was justified as being "in defense" of Islam. So when it comes to groups like ISIS, even though most of the world's Muslims disagree with them, it's really difficult to show where ISIS isn't implementing a very plausible set of actions based on Islamic scripture and Islamic history.

So I appreciate the you personally disagree with the definition of "defense" that I offered. But I think my claim is pretty easy to defend from a statistical perspective.

 

[FearGod]

Oh right, I recall, thanks. I think the discussion shifted from a comparison of scripture to a comparison of histories correct? So if I'm recalling correctly I would summarize my stances on these two topics like this:

- the Quran is worse than the Bible
- Muslim history and Christian history are equally shameful.

What is your proof that the quran is bad?

 

[FearGod]

It's my understanding that most of the bloody Islamic conquest that's occurred over the last 1400 years was justified as being "in defense" of Islam. So when it comes to groups like ISIS, even though most of the world's Muslims disagree with them, it's really difficult to show where ISIS isn't implementing a very plausible set of actions based on Islamic scripture and Islamic history.

So I appreciate the you personally disagree with the definition of "defense" that I offered. But I think my claim is pretty easy to defend from a statistical perspective.

Yes by defense you may have the land, When Muslims defeated the Atheists who launched
the war first then Muslims ruled the land and most of people accepted Islam when they
realized the peaceful message of Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

You think so.

I do have authority to speak on my own behalf, you know.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes by defense you may have the land, When Muslims defeated the Atheists who launched
the war first then Muslims ruled the land and most of people accepted Islam when they
realized the peaceful message of Islam.

Are you talking about something that actually happened somewhere and somewhen?

 

[FearGod]

Are you talking about something that actually happened somewhere and somewhen?

The war started first by the Arab atheists trying to stop the message of Islam by force,
the Muslims won and controlled the land and most of the people accepted Islam and
hence the land became a Muslim land, next the Persians launched their war against
the Muslims and the Muslims won and Persia became a Muslim land, the Byzantine
from the other side launched their wars against Muslims and the Muslims won and
most people of the region accepted Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

The war started first by the Arab atheists trying to stop the message of Islam by force,
the Muslims won and controlled the land and most of the people accepted Islam and
hence the land became a Muslim land, next the Persians launched their war against
the Muslims and the Muslims won and Persia became a Muslim land, the Byzantine
from the other side launched their wars against Muslims and the Muslims won and
most people of the region accepted Islam.

Excuse me, but this is a badly needed question: what on Earth are you talking about?

 

[FearGod]

Excuse me, but this is a badly needed question: what on Earth are you talking about?

Historical events.

 

[LuisDantas]

Historical events.

Then no doubt you can point out where and when they happened, including convincing support for your claim about "Arab atheists".

Which, incidentally, would be one of the very few admissions that there are atheists in Arabia. Word has it that atheists risk their lives or at least their social acceptance if they are openly atheistic in those lands.

Of course, that has nothing to do with Islaam. Except that it has everything to do with Islaam.

 

[sayak83]

Oh right, I recall, thanks. I think the discussion shifted from a comparison of scripture to a comparison of histories correct? So if I'm recalling correctly I would summarize my stances on these two topics like this:

- the Quran is worse than the Bible
- Muslim history and Christian history are equally shameful.

My stance is.
The NT is equally problematic as the Quran.
Christian history is far far bloodier than Islamic history.

 

[FearGod]

Then no doubt you can point out where and when they happened, including convincing support for your claim about "Arab atheists".

Which, incidentally, would be one of the very few admissions that there are atheists in Arabia. Word has it that atheists risk their lives or at least their social acceptance if they are openly atheistic in those lands.

Of course, that has nothing to do with Islaam. Except that it has everything to do with Islaam.

Atheists were free to be atheists when it comes to peace, but the Atheists were the aggressors
by using force to stop the peaceful message of Islam, is that really hard for you to comprehend?

 

[icehorse]

My stance is.
The NT is equally problematic as the Quran.
Christian history is far far bloodier than Islamic history.

For the sake of discussion, I could agree with both of those claims, and still feel it's appropriate to give Islam harsh criticism. (And, FWIW, I'm also quite critical of Christianity.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists were free to be atheists when it comes to peace, but the Atheists were the aggressors
by using force to stop the peaceful message of Islam, is that really hard for you to comprehend?

Yes, it is hard for me to comprehend why you are presenting obvious fiction and hoping it to be taken for fact.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, it is hard for me to comprehend why you are presenting obvious fiction and hoping it to be taken for fact.

Because invading peaceful nations contradict the quran in which it says

(2:190)
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Can you comprehend what the verse says to the Muslims?