Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US

[Lyndon]

If the bible says to kill non believers that's A OK, But if the Koran does, that's evil Islam.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

why are religious texts so hopelessly ambiguous according to you?

Because parts of them are. But even parts of Shakespeare are. So is the US Constitution. Philosophers are also subject to multiple interpretations. Even when it is clear, there is still the potential for misinterpretation. Friedrich Nietzsche hated nationalism and the rise of anti-semitism in Germany, and loathed his sister's marriage to an anti-semite, but the Nazi's had an interpretation that fit in very nicely into their ideology. The Bible and Quran are no exceptions.

 

[Crypto2015]

Because parts of them are. But even parts of Shakespeare are. So is the US Constitution. Philosophers are also subject to multiple interpretations. Even when it is clear, there is still the potential for misinterpretation. Friedrich Nietzsche hated nationalism and the rise of anti-semitism in Germany, and loathed his sister's marriage to an anti-semite, but the Nazi's had an interpretation that fit in very nicely into their ideology. The Bible and Quran are no exceptions.

Parts of them may be open to interpretation, but the overall message is clear. For example, nobody would say that in his opinion the US constitution condones rape. Religious texts are as unambiguous as the US constitution.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If the bible says to kill non believers that's A OK, But if the Koran does, that's evil Islam.

It's actually not - and people call Christianity & Christians out on intolerance all the time: look at the more violent parts of the 'pro-life' movement in the States. Islam is not being singled out for special treatment. The problem with Islam is that it is being used to justify the systematic suppression, degradation and even outright slaughter of minorities in countries where Muslims are the majority in a way that Christianity is currently not being used - or at least to nowhere near the same scale (if you want to cite the violence in the American 'pro-life' movement then fair enough); and that Islam seems to be rigidly uncompromising in its pursuit of worldly compared to Christianity which has had much of its influence over the corridors of power removed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For example, nobody would say that in his opinion the US constitution condones rape

Probably because it says nothing about rape - this is not even a valid position. However, things like the First and Second amendments are frequently challenged and questioned.

Religious texts are as unambiguous as the US constitution.

If the US Constitution is not ambiguous, then why does the Supreme Court periodically examine it and state their own interpretations of it? As for the Bible, nowhere does it state that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old, no where does it state that the days of Creation are the 24-hour days we know, but some people read that and interpret it as such. Nowhere does it say that Mary Magdalene is a prostitute, but that is how some people interpret it.

The problem with Islam is that it is being used to justify the systematic suppression, degradation and even outright slaughter of minorities in countries where Muslims are the majority in a way that Christianity is currently not being used

A pizza joint in Indiana recieved a quarter of a million dollars in donations because they got scared after an online "threat" was received after they said they'd refuse service for a gay wedding. The Nazis were Christian. The KKK is Christian. Slave owners have used the Bible to justify owning slaves, and to justify the oppression of women. Today the Muslim lands are acting no differently than Christian lands during the Medieval Era. But we can't ignore the fact there are still modern and contemporary Christian terrorist organizations, and even modern terrorism itself is credited as being started by the Christian Guy Fawkes.
The fact that the Bible and Quran can be read as condoning and promoting great evils is not contested. However, what we do need to ask, given the widespread-appeal of Christianity and Islam, is how much of it is religious and how much of it is political. We can look at the Catholic Church and know that from what Jesus taught he would not approve of his followers possessing such grand wealth and powerful political muscles that are frequently flexed (even still today). We can look at ISIS, and know that a lot of what they do is explicitly forbidden by the Quran. And if we do include the political aspect, we see much of the same corruption, abuse, and same general ****yness that political Christianity and Islam is very often subject to, but we also see the political abuse in the East and West, theist and atheist, and in cultures ranging from the "primitive and backwoods" up the "sophisticated and cultured" societies.
And we can say that although in the West the Church isn't funding wars and violence like it has, but we can definitely say that things like colonialism and imperialism has, and a part of the issues we are having with the Middle East today do directly result from British imperialism. Had the British not gotten involved, or perhaps even just made good on their promises, and if America had not butted in, I have no doubts we'd be seeing a very different Middle East today.

 

[Crypto2015]

Probably because it says nothing about rape - this is not even a valid position. However, things like the First and Second amendments are frequently challenged and questioned.

If the US Constitution is not ambiguous, then why does the Supreme Court periodically examine it and state their own interpretations of it? As for the Bible, nowhere does it state that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old, no where does it state that the days of Creation are the 24-hour days we know, but some people read that and interpret it as such. Nowhere does it say that Mary Magdalene is a prostitute, but that is how some people interpret it.

A pizza joint in Indiana recieved a quarter of a million dollars in donations because they got scared after an online "threat" was received after they said they'd refuse service for a gay wedding. The Nazis were Christian. The KKK is Christian. Slave owners have used the Bible to justify owning slaves, and to justify the oppression of women. Today the Muslim lands are acting no differently than Christian lands during the Medieval Era. But we can't ignore the fact there are still modern and contemporary Christian terrorist organizations, and even modern terrorism itself is credited as being started by the Christian Guy Fawkes.
The fact that the Bible and Quran can be read as condoning and promoting great evils is not contested. However, what we do need to ask, given the widespread-appeal of Christianity and Islam, is how much of it is religious and how much of it is political. We can look at the Catholic Church and know that from what Jesus taught he would not approve of his followers possessing such grand wealth and powerful political muscles that are frequently flexed (even still today). We can look at ISIS, and know that a lot of what they do is explicitly forbidden by the Quran. And if we do include the political aspect, we see much of the same corruption, abuse, and same general ****yness that political Christianity and Islam is very often subject to, but we also see the political abuse in the East and West, theist and atheist, and in cultures ranging from the "primitive and backwoods" up the "sophisticated and cultured" societies.
And we can say that although in the West the Church isn't funding wars and violence like it has, but we can definitely say that things like colonialism and imperialism has, and a part of the issues we are having with the Middle East today do directly result from British imperialism. Had the British not gotten involved, or perhaps even just made good on their promises, and if America had not butted in, I have no doubts we'd be seeing a very different Middle East today.

I see that you are so desperate that you resorted to the "the KKK is Christian" argument. It is obvious that KKK and the Nazis were acting against the teachings of Christ. If you claim the opposite you just show that you know nothing about Christianity. By the way, slave traders deserve the death penalty according to the Law of Moses. I have shown you over and over again that your Obama view of the world is based on fantasy and not on fact. Violence is what keeps Islam together. It has been like this since the times of Muhammad. When Muhammad was alive he killed the apostates. When he died, the first Caliph had to kill thousands of apostates to keep Islam together. This is a historical fact and it is known as the wars of apostasy. Islam spread only because of the sword. It has always been like that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

A pizza joint in Indiana recieved a quarter of a million dollars in donations because they got scared after an online "threat" was received after they said they'd refuse service for a gay wedding. The Nazis were Christian. The KKK is Christian. Slave owners have used the Bible to justify owning slaves, and to justify the oppression of women. Today the Muslim lands are acting no differently than Christian lands during the Medieval Era. But we can't ignore the fact there are still modern and contemporary Christian terrorist organizations, and even modern terrorism itself is credited as being started by the Christian Guy Fawkes.

I don't dispute any of this - except maybe the Guy Fawkes thing. But it doesn't really address the part of my sentence you left out...

or at least to nowhere near the same scale (if you want to cite the violence in the American 'pro-life' movement then fair enough); and that Islam seems to be rigidly uncompromising in its pursuit of worldly compared to Christianity which has had much of its influence over the corridors of power removed.

...the exclusion of which makes it seem as though I was being more resolutely absolute than I actually was.

The fact that the Bible and Quran can be read as condoning and promoting great evils is not contested. However, what we do need to ask, given the widespread-appeal of Christianity and Islam, is how much of it is religious and how much of it is political. We can look at the Catholic Church and know that from what Jesus taught he would not approve of his followers possessing such grand wealth and powerful political muscles that are frequently flexed (even still today). We can look at ISIS, and know that a lot of what they do is explicitly forbidden by the Quran. And if we do include the political aspect, we see much of the same corruption, abuse, and same general ****yness that political Christianity and Islam is very often subject to, but we also see the political abuse in the East and West, theist and atheist, and in cultures ranging from the "primitive and backwoods" up the "sophisticated and cultured" societies.

Fair enough. What do you think Islamic State are doing that's forbidden in the Quran?

And we can say that although in the West the Church isn't funding wars and violence like it has, but we can definitely say that things like colonialism and imperialism has, and a part of the issues we are having with the Middle East today do directly result from British imperialism. Had the British not gotten involved, or perhaps even just made good on their promises, and if America had not butted in, I have no doubts we'd be seeing a very different Middle East today.

Fair point. I think it'd be the same and different at the same time. I know, a complete contradiction. What I mean is that the Middle East probably wouldn't be divided up like it is now but, frankly, we'd probably have Muslims of various denominations still going at each other, looking for blood.

 

[Crypto2015]

Let's see if a video helps you to see these things more clearly

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I see that you are so desperate that you resorted to the "the KKK is Christian" argument. It is obvious that KKK and the Nazis were acting against the teachings of Christ.

If your rationale is 'someone who fails to follow or goes out of their way to act against the teachings of Christ are not Christians' (which is that infamous No True Scotsman) then there are far fewer Christians in the world today than we've been led to believe. The most basic definition of a Christian (according to just about all Christian denominations) is one who accepts Christ's salvation. All else is sugar-coating. Hitler and a great many Nazis professed Christian beliefs (you can get quotes from Mein Kampf if you want to see for yourself). That didn't stop them from committing atrocious sins; just like being a believing Christian hasn't stopped others in the past & present from committing atrocities.

If you claim the opposite you just show that you know nothing about Christianity. By the way, slave traders deserve the death penalty according to the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses was a Jewish tradition; not a Christian one. Keep trying. There are also verses in the Bible that justify slavery.

I have shown you over and over again that your Obama view of the world is based on fantasy and not on fact.

Uh, isn't your religion centred around a guy coming back from the dead?

Violence is what keeps Islam together. It has been like this since the times of Muhammad. When Muhammad was alive he killed the apostates. When he died, the first Caliph had to kill thousands of apostates to keep Islam together. This is a historical fact and it is known as the wars of apostasy. Islam spread only because of the sword. It has always been like that.

Don't act like Christianity is any better than Islam in this regard. Don't you dare. Christianity spread by both the sword and by the strong-arm of law once it entered the corridors of Roman imperial power. And that's not even talking about the ridiculous levels of blood-letting members of various Christian sects engaged in; both amongst themselves and the Pagan citizens of the Empire. After Rome fell Christianity would not have spread as far and as fast as it did if its followers didn't seduce their ways into the halls of warlords and kings across Europe to ban worship of the Old Gods in numerous places. The Saxons (in Germania, not in Britain) were forcibly Christianised, the Danes, the Norse, the Swedes were all forced to accept Christianity. The Jews have, for centuries, been subject to persecution because they were labelled as 'Christ-killers'.

This wouldn't have happened if, like Islam, Christianity didn't have a militaristic 'us.vs.them' attitude toward non-Christians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"the KKK is Christian" argument. It is obvious that KKK and the Nazis were acting against the teachings of Christ.

You've obviously never read any Klan or Nazi literature, and haven't read Mein Kampf either. They are both Christian based organizations, they both accept Salvation through Christ the Son of God, and they both don't care if you don't think they are Christian.

I have shown you over and over again that your Obama view of the world is based on fantasy and not on fact.

Fantasy is believing the earth to be no more than 10,000 years old, human parthenogenesis, dead people coming back to life, and bread and wine turning into literal flesh and blood (and, yes, Obama believes such things).

Violence is what keeps Islam together.

It also kept Christianity together, and helped it spread throughout Europe.

Fair enough. What do you think Islamic State are doing that's forbidden in the Quran?

Quite a few things, actually, such as killing aid-workers and journalists, desecrating bodies of the dead, their war of aggression, forced conversions, destroying tombs and shrines of prophets and their companions, and declaring a Caliphate without support from the Ummah.

we'd probably have Muslims of various denominations still going at each other, looking for blood.

It's possible (and maybe likely), but before the rise of religious extremism was the rise of deep nationalism, which came about when the idea of liberal democratic societies were just starting to take hold, but that didn't happen as complete and total outsiders began calling the shots and drawing borders.It's possible we may not have as much fighting, because prior to the border redrawing by the British and French, warring tribes, sectarian groups, and others largely and mostly avoided each other, but after the border redrawing many of these groups became mixed into new states with groups that wanted to kill them. It's difficult to tell, but unarguable that the West played a role in making things really nasty over there.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Quite a few things, actually, such as killing aid-workers and journalists, desecrating bodies of the dead, their war of aggression, forced conversions, destroying tombs and shrines of prophets and their companions, and declaring a Caliphate without support from the Ummah.

Where in the Quran does it forbid these things? The last one I'm more willing to believe but I'm sceptical about the others - particularly wars of aggression and forced conversions which Muslims have readily engaged in since pretty early on.

 

[Crypto2015]

To Shadow Wolf and the Scotsman,

No matter how much you try to soil Christianity, the fact remains that Christianity condemns everything that the KKK and the Nazis did. This is the truth and deep inside you know it, unless you really have no clue of what Christianity teaches. By the way, the Law of Moses is not a tradition . It is based on the word of God as contained in the Bible. Also, early Christianity spread despite the persecutions, while Islam spread exclusively because of the persecutions that the Muslims themselves were carrying out. Scotsman, you are no different from a radical Muslim. People like you destroy the West from within, while the Jihad fighters try to destroy it from the outside. If it weren't for people like you and Shadow Wolf, there would be no problem with Islam at all. It is because of people like you that the West is in this deep cultural and moral crisis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No matter how much you try to soil Christianity, the fact remains that Christianity condemns everything that the KKK and the Nazis did.

Christianity has soiled itself: violent passages in the Bible, the Crusades, Inquisition, spread by the sword, and a belief that is constantly evicting God and Satan from one place to another as we've learned Heaven isn't in the sky or the clouds, and Hell isn't at the center of the earth/lowest parts of the earth.

Scotsman, you are no different from a radical Muslim.

Yeah, because he's out killing infedels, encouraging people to blow themselves up, and is such a terrible person.

If it weren't for people like you and Shadow Wolf, there would be no problem with Islam at all. It is because of people like you that the West is in this deep cultural and moral crisis.

I didn't write the Quran, nor do I condone many of the things contained within. However, I will offer critiques of it, as well as critiques of the Bible. And how am I responsible for this cultural and moral crisis? I don't support an economic system that leaves the masses struggling to provide the basic essentials, and I don't hold up a book that condones slavery, stoning adulterers, and holy wars as a measuring stick of morality.

Where in the Quran does it forbid these things? The last one I'm more willing to believe but I'm sceptical about the others - particularly wars of aggression and forced conversions which Muslims have readily engaged in since pretty early on.

The no compulsion of religion is Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256, which states non-Muslims must find the path to the "true religion" on their own, and it even clearly states "let there be no compulsion of religion;" Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 states that while Muslims can fight against those who attack them and oppressors, Allah does not permit wars of aggression.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

To Shadow Wolf and the Scotsman,

No matter how much you try to soil Christianity, the fact remains that Christianity condemns everything that the KKK and the Nazis did.

The fact remains that the KKK, as an organisation, are as devoutly Christian as you. Same goes for the Nazis. You can keep trying to deny it but the proof is in the pudding.

This is the truth and deep inside you know it, unless you really have no clue of what Christianity teaches.

Claiming to know what I think is arrogance which is a sin. You're demanding that we view Christianity entirely through the lens of what it teaches rather than also including the historical actions of the faith's adherents. This is something you are not willing to do when it comes to Islam. The Qu'ran has verses in it that promote religious tolerance (Shadow Wolf quoted them in her previous post) yet you insist on ignoring these because Muslims down the centuries have spread their religion through violent actions.

I'm merely pointing out your own religiously-blinkered hypocrisy.

By the way, the Law of Moses is not a tradition . It is based on the word of God as contained in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure it's a legal tradition (you know; the whole 'eye for an eye' thing) that Christ did away with in Matthew 5:38-39

"38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

He's saying people who follow him shouldn't follow the Law of Moses.

Also, early Christianity spread despite the persecutions, while Islam spread exclusively because of the persecutions that the Muslims themselves were carrying out.

How did Muhammed gain his first handful of followers when he had no power, no wealth and no means by which to persecute others?

Scotsman, you are no different from a radical Muslim. People like you destroy the West from within, while the Jihad fighters try to destroy it from the outside. If it weren't for people like you and Shadow Wolf, there would be no problem with Islam at all. It is because of people like you that the West is in this deep cultural and moral crisis.

Your histrionics are adorable.

If you want to take us down the path of whose religion is more 'Western' here then I'll point out that:

1. My gods, not yours, had cults & temples originating in Europe. Your god did not; he is an imported Semitic tribal deity. Your religion is an imported faith from the Middle East.
2. My gods, not yours, were worshipped by cultures that shaped the Western world. Your god's worshippers rejected that Western culture as pagan. And when they had the chance, corrupted what they could and tore apart what they could not. The hypocrites.
3. I don't worship the god of Abraham (the same one Muslims profess to worship) - you do.
4. Of the two of us you are the only one who advocates fighting a Middle Eastern monotheism with another Middle Eastern monotheism.

It's not due to people like me that Christianity is on a decline in the UK and across parts of Europe. We're moving steadily past a culture influenced by Middle Eastern monotheisms - despite what the barbarians in Russia or Iraq might say. It may shock you that there are options beyond Christianity & Islam - it's a false social dichotomy.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The no compulsion of religion is Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256, which states non-Muslims must find the path to the "true religion" on their own, and it even clearly states "let there be no compulsion of religion;" Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 states that while Muslims can fight against those who attack them and oppressors, Allah does not permit wars of aggression.

I suspect I'm preaching to the converted here but that would mean Muhammed ignored the Qur'an in order to spread Islam. And since Islam seems very focussed on his actions, as well as the Qur'an, it's fair to say that how Muhammed acted is an important part of the faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus said the following: ""Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28). This was a reference to his resurrection. The Son of Man coming in his kingdom was the resurrected Christ. They were not expecting to see Judgement Day, because they knew that there were many prophecies that needed to be fulfilled before that (i.e., the destruction of the second Temple as prophesied both by Jesus and Daniel, which took place in 70 AD). You can see this clearly from what Paul wrote here: "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him: We ask you, brothers, not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4). So, they knew from the start that the Antichrist was meant to come before Jesus' second coming. Despite your efforts to show the contrary, the Bible is clear in its message. The Bible tells us that we must love our enemies: "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (Matthew 5:38-41). There is no other instruction about how to deal with our enemies, no authorization to fight evil with evil. We must fight evil with good: "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:20-21)

You are utterly wrong about Islam. What I told you about Islam is mainstream Islam, not the idealized Islam of Obama and Hillary. This is the real Islam:

"... Jews and the Christians ...should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way."

Abul A'la Mawdudi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, vol 2, p. 183.

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet .... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule."

Abu A'la Mawdudi in Jihad in Islam
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf

You are extremely wrong about the "no compulsion in religion" message. All knowledgeable Muslims know that this message was abolished by Sura 9, that commands Muslims to slay ALL of the unbelievers and fight ALL of the people of the Book. I can easily prove that to you. You are also wrong about Paul. I can also prove that to you. I can do it in another post because this one is too long.

Where do Christians get all the stuff about gay people being an abomination from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are the one who is wrong and I will tell you why: you atheists believe that the message of the Bible and the message of the Qur'an are so ambiguous that they admit almost any interpretation. This is patently false. Anyone with a honest understanding of what the Bible and the Qur'an teach knows that the message contained in the Bible is clear and unambiguous. The same can be said about the Qur'an and its message. Since you people don't believe in anything, it is impossible for you to understand what is to believe in something. For example, you cite the book of Chronicles without even taking into account that in Acts 15 the early church came to the unambiguous decision that the Christians should not follow the law of Moses as a legal code. Just read that single chapter of the Bible and you will understand why you are so wrong. There are other passages on the topic as well.

So, I cite the Bible to prove my point, but you cite a crazy Young Earth creationist of whom I have never heard. That alone should give you a clue about who is wrong in this discussion. The Millet system actually proves that in Islam people are discriminated according to their religious affiliation. A Muslim and a Christian are not equal before the law in an Islamic state. A Christian is a dhimmi, a second-class citizen that is meant to be killed if he fails to pay the poll tax, fights against a Muslim (even to defend his life or that of a member of his family) etc.

Considering the fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations in existence, that kinda contradicts your claim that the message of the Bible isn't open to interpretation. A Young Earth Creationist you've never heard of is certainly following his interpretation of the Bible - whether you agree with the interpretation or not isn't really relevant.

Also, atheists can believe in lots of things, just not any god(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where do you get this idea that religious texts are open to any interpretation? Do you think that this applies to any text? For example, do you think that someone can read my posts and believe that I agree with you in everything? I don't think so. If my posts are clear enough for someone to understand my opinion, why are religious texts so hopelessly ambiguous according to you?

Probably from the fact that millions of different people believe millions of different things about said religious texts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here are a couple of good bits of information:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
...
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html
So the Bible has more than twice as many cruel or violent passages as does the Quran.
When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses (at least as marked in the SAB/Q), the Quran has about twice that of the Bible. (5.34 vs. 2.71%)

 

[Crypto2015]

Christianity has soiled itself: violent passages in the Bible, the Crusades, Inquisition, spread by the sword, and a belief that is constantly evicting God and Satan from one place to another as we've learned Heaven isn't in the sky or the clouds, and Hell isn't at the center of the earth/lowest parts of the earth.

Yeah, because he's out killing infedels, encouraging people to blow themselves up, and is such a terrible person.

I didn't write the Quran, nor do I condone many of the things contained within. However, I will offer critiques of it, as well as critiques of the Bible. And how am I responsible for this cultural and moral crisis? I don't support an economic system that leaves the masses struggling to provide the basic essentials, and I don't hold up a book that condones slavery, stoning adulterers, and holy wars as a measuring stick of morality.

The no compulsion of religion is Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256, which states non-Muslims must find the path to the "true religion" on their own, and it even clearly states "let there be no compulsion of religion;" Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 states that while Muslims can fight against those who attack them and oppressors, Allah does not permit wars of aggression.

Whether you like it or not the Western notion of what human rights are comes straight from the Judeo-Christian understanding of the universe. The fact that men and women are equal before the law is a direct consequence of the fact that the Bible states that women and men are equal before God. The fact that there is no slavery in predominantly Christian countries (while until very recently slavery was still socially and legally acceptable in several parts of the non-Christian world) is a direct consequence of the fact that the Bible says that freemen and slaves are equal before God. The fact that we don't kill babies (or that at least Christians are against it) like the Greeks used to do is a direct consequence of the fact that the Bible says that all human beings were created in God's image. The fact that men cannot kill their wives, as the ancient Scandinavians used to do, is a direct consequence of the fact that the Bible says that women are created in God's image. If you reject the Biblical God and, therefore, reject all of the ideas that come from the Judeo-Christian view of the world, you are left with nothing to justify why we should be against infanticide, against the killing of women, against slavery, in favor of gender equality, and in favor of freedom of speech. Have you ever wondered why there is no gender equality or freedom of speech in Islam? Is it because these ideas are not part of the Qur'an. Actually, the Qur'an rejects these ideas.

Rejecting the Biblical God not only erodes all of the ideas that gave the West all of its social liberties, but also decreases the weapons that we have to defend them against a different understanding of the world. People like you or the Scotsman believe in freedom of speech, but you have no way to justify what you believe. You can only say that you feel that your ideas are right. This is indeed a very weak justification. That's why there are so many converts to Islam in the UK, since people (1) understand that Islam is more rational than a world view that is entirely based on feelings and (2) they need God and you have made a very good job of slandering the Christian God.

I can't believe that you are naive enough the believe in the "there is no compulsion is religion" lie.

"Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise." (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition, Part 3, pp. 37-38)

"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority."
An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh
Al-Nahas, p. 80