Islam vs. Christianity

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 224
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
[A]
This is what I wrote.
Stephen wrote: 
 I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.#113
Notice I said- chooses                         ^^^^^^^         



aql_reason wrote:  So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes?
Stephen wrote:  And you have used the word en-"FORCE"- es  .
aql_reason wrote: Yes you are right. Even if I did write that, you would still be against it.
NO, Wrong!.  Read [A] above as to what I actually wrote and not what you wished me to have written, so stop trying to put words in my mouth.That is being deceitful.
 I  specifically choses the word "chooses". #113  . So to repeat myself for clarity : I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.#113 Only you have used the word "force".



Stephen wrote:  So, tell me,  is it wrong for someone or group to en- force their religious ideology onto others. Yes or No?
aql_reason wrote:  Not necessarily. [.......................................](nudity, guns, vaccines, etc.
Again you are ignoring that  which  I  have specifically concerning "religious ideology".  Stop swerving. It is a yes or no answer.



And what is the punishment for apostates in Islam?
Depends on how you define apostasy 
So are you saying Muslims/Islam defines apostasy different to other religions?  Why don't you define it for us ?








YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@aql_reason
Impossible(def): not able to occur, exist, or be done. Because you believe miracles exist, they can't be impossible. If I said I don't accept miracles. Quote me. 
You said you as a human cannot accept anything illogical. 
Miracle:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:

So, either
A. using your logic, you should be an atheist. 
B. Your God is not all powerful, because (like you said) he can't do anything illogical. 

God is all powerful. 
So, God can defy logic, because in order to be all powerful by definition, you would have to create logic. 

God can only break the rules of physics and nature. Not logic.
Then he isn't all powerful...........

Again, you can't say:
"God is all powerful."

and 

"God can only break the rules of physics and nature. Not logic."

Thats a direct contradiction into the nature of God. 

So we limit what God can do.
A creation can limit the creators' abilities, based on the premise that they can't comprehend the creators' abilities?
Thats funny.

 Therefore, he can't do impossible things. 
Then your God, isn't all powerful, if he can't do impossible things, period. 

Yes God is not bound by logic.  We are bound by logic. You agree human knowledge is limited? So its not that its impossible for God to break the laws of logic. We can't accept it. Because we can't accept contradictions. Understand? 
Ok. I understand your argument, but your wording is very poor.

You're basically saying that God can himself defy logic, because he created it, but in order to be a fair God, he must represent only what we find logical as evidence for him and his teachings.

Thats fine to argue. 

However, that doesn't contradict the fact that we humans are also triune in body, mind, and spirit. So why can't God? 
Also, what is illogical about God coming down to earth in a human body, claim to be God, and perform many supernatural miracles to prove it. 
Thats not illogical if you believe in the supernatural. There is an argument to be made about the logic of that if you're an atheist.
But if you believe in the supernatural, and a God that can do anything, it makes more sense for him to appear and do supernatural thing to prove himself rather than claim divinity from a man. 

You claim my faith is blind, yet you base your religion based on the fact that one man claimed to have a revelation from God and had others write down his revelation. That takes a lot of faith my friend. 

Miracles are not illogical.
So, the miracle of God coming down in the body of a man isn't illogical then. 

Yes. 
Wow.........well that's a self-defeating argument my friend. 

Seeing is not the main way to reach truth. Depends what their intention was. If they were genuine, then they are not at fault.
What happened to God appearing to us logically? 

Yes. If what that guy says is more reasonable. 
What's more reasonable?
Taking the words of a man who describes Jesus 500 years after Jesus lived as truth. 
or
Taking the words of people who literally walked with Jesus, as truth

The assumption is false. The entire Bible is not Gods words. And Quran refers to which ones are. One of Muhammads miracle was the Quran. It was the only book that didn't get corrupted because it doesn't contain contradictions. Contradiction. Verse A says do X, verse B says don’t ever do X. So no. 
So, in order to understand what parts of the Bible true and which parts are false, we need to line it up with the Qur'an, which was written 500 years after the Bible was completed, in order to understand what parts of the Bible are true?

And you are basing this off of the fact that a man said God told him? 
That is less reasonable by a long shot. 

So, we must read the bible, by first reading the Qur'an then read the Bible, but just throw out the other parts that don't agree with the Qur'an, based soley on the claim of a man, who lived 500 years after the Bible was finished, and claimed to have a revelation from God. 
That is not logical, I'm sorry.  

Islam does not believe in attacking people based on their religion.
Then why:
Did Muhammed fight in or oversee many battles, many of which were offensive ones.
Did Muhammed order the execution and maiming of many people, including massacres.
Does the Qur’an teach Jihad as a means to spread the faith and there is no possible question that this Jihad is principally warfare.  Much of the Qur’an is advice for battle and conquest.
Does the Hadith agree with this and even expands on it.
Was Muhammad’s vision was put into practice and by AD 700 his followers created one of the largest empires in history.
Was Muhammed promised immediate access to heaven to those who died in war for Allah.

Based on the doctrine of abrogation, what is acknowledged as the last or nearly the last of the suras is Sura 9—the most violent of all the Suras.  In this one, Muslims are told to no longer compromise with Jews or Christians, but to attack and defeat them.

Christians and Jews are people of the book and are respected.
Thats laughable:
«لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ الْيَهُودَ، فَيَقْتُلُهُمُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَتَّى يَخْتَبِىءَ الْيَهُودِيُّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ الْحَجَرِ وَالشَّجَرِ، فَيَقُولُ الْحَجَرُ وَالشَّجَرُ: يَامُسْلِمُ يَاعَبْدَاللهِ هَذَا يَهُودِيٌّ خَلْفِي فَتَعَالَ فَاقْتُلْهُ إِلَّا الْغَرْقَدَ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ شَجَرِ الْيَهُود»
(The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except Al-Gharqad, for it is a tree of the Jews.)


aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Morphinekid77
The Divine essence cannot cease to be what it is.
Yes it can. You are literally saying "divine essence" not God itself. 

Again, at risk of pointlessly repeating myself, there was no change to the Divine essence at the incarnation. Because the Divine essence cannot change. God is immutable.
You say "divine essence" and then you say God. I will explain why such thinking is problematic later. 

When we say "God became man" we mean the divine essence was united to something that was created, i.e the body of Jesus, but the D.E. itself did not "become" created in the sense that it ceased being creator and was now created. That doesn't even make logical sense to say that and it's not what we teach.

There was a very ancient heresy called Kenosis which taught the D.E. lost some of it's attributes during the incarnation. We beat those guys and that is not what we teach. To formulate it mathematically, A=Divine Essence. B=created flesh. 

We are not saying, A turned into B and therefore ceased being A.  We are also not saying A and B were united in such a way that they became a hybrid blend of each other (C). (Both of those mistaken views would entail the contradiction you're speaking about)

What we ARE saying is A was united to B (AB) but both natures remained perfectly intact. The human nature was not swallowed up by the Divine, and the Divine did not cease being divine and turn human. 

I want you to really give some thought to that before responding.
How is what you said different than any other human? Every creation is Gods divine essence plus their materialistic body. Are you claiming that there is something that is not Gods creation? 

If someone had my hand (my essence), for example, would they be me? No. They are using my hand! The same is applied with God essence. 

Jesus is no one special. We are all united by God i.e have his essence. Unless you are implying that we are made by another God other than the one who made Jesus? 

Accept the Quran does exactly this. How does Allah create man? He breathes into the clay and it becomes man, correct?

How does Jesus create birds in  Surah Al-Ma'idah? 

"How I taught you writing, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. How you moulded a bird from clay—by My Will—and breathed into it and it became a ˹real˺ bird—by My Will. "

Did Allah take Jesus as a partner in creation? If no, why did he give him the same exact power to create that Allah alone should possess? 

Why did Allah AND Gibreel create the body of Jesus together?

Surah At-Tahrim

˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.

If Allah alone is creator and giver of life, what in the world is going on in this Aya? Was Gibreel Allah's partner in creating Isa? 


If Allah has no partners, it certainly seems Gibreel and Isa create and help him create in identical manners. 


God gives everyone powers i.e his divine essence but we don't then conclude they are God or equals. God gave us all powers to create. Words are being created by me to talk to you.




aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
NO, Wrong!.  Read [A] above as to what I actually wrote and not what you wished me to have written, so stop trying to put words in my mouth.That is being deceitful.
 I  specifically choses the word "chooses". #113  . So to repeat myself for clarity : I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.#113 Only you have used the word "force".
Just answer the question Stephen, do you agree with this statement, yes or no? 
"So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes?"

Secularism would agree. Isn't that what all the yap about human rights is about? The whole hijab protests in Iran? You disagree? 

Again you are ignoring that  which  I  have specifically concerning "religious ideology".  Stop swerving. It is a yes or no answer.
I don't swerve. I'm quite straightforward. Re-read and you will see the answer. It's not binary. 
So are you saying Muslims/Islam defines apostasy different to other religions?  Why don't you define it for us ?
No the definition is on wikipedia: 

"Apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person."

Notice what I bolded. Many people don't understand that part. 

Scholars are not unanimous on the punishment for apostasy.
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You said you as a human cannot accept anything illogical. 
Miracle:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:

So, either
A. using your logic, you should be an atheist. 
B. Your God is not all powerful, because (like you said) he can't do anything illogical. 
If you re-read the definition the answer as clear as day. Science and nature are not in the realm of logic. Science is many steps below logic. So of course, miracles can't be proven by science. 

So, God can defy logic, because in order to be all powerful by definition, you would have to create logic. 
God can defy logic. We can't accept it. I already explained my answer to the paradox of omnipotence

Then he isn't all powerful...........

Again, you can't say:
"God is all powerful."

and 

"God can only break the rules of physics and nature. Not logic."

Thats a direct contradiction into the nature of God. 
If you accept a God that can do illogical things, then you can't talk about contradictions. Contradictions only apply in the realm of logic.
A creation can limit the creators' abilities, based on the premise that they can't comprehend the creators' abilities?
Thats funny.
So God can kill himself? He can create a rock he can't lift? Because if you don't agree then you accept the impossible i.e the illogical. 
Then your God, isn't all powerful, if he can't do impossible things, period. 
Impossible does not mean very hard. It means it can't happen at all like contradictions
impossible(def in logic): not able to occur, exist, or be done.
Ok. I understand your argument, but your wording is very poor.

You're basically saying that God can himself defy logic, because he created it, but in order to be a fair God, he must represent only what we find logical as evidence for him and his teachings.

Thats fine to argue. 
I explained it very simply. I don't know how I can dumb it down even further. Also, even Christianity believes that God is fair or just. 

However, that doesn't contradict the fact that we humans are also triune in body, mind, and spirit. So why can't God? 
Also, what is illogical about God coming down to earth in a human body, claim to be God, and perform many supernatural miracles to prove it. 
Thats not illogical if you believe in the supernatural. There is an argument to be made about the logic of that if you're an atheist.
But if you believe in the supernatural, and a God that can do anything, it makes more sense for him to appear and do supernatural thing to prove himself rather than claim divinity from a man. 
Supernatural(def):  attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Supernatural and miracles fall in the same category. God can break the laws of nature and physics not logic. If you want to prove miracles scientifically then you have lost the plot and all philosophers are shaking in their graves right now.

You claim my faith is blind, yet you base your religion based on the fact that one man claimed to have a revelation from God and had others write down his revelation. That takes a lot of faith my friend. 
No I base my beliefs on correct reasoning. 

God can't be human and God at the same time. Morphinekid77 made the same argument talking about Gods essence not changing when he forms in union with the flesh. Which is contradictory because all creation is Gods essence plus their own material body, not God itself. If someone has my hand are they me? No. They are using my hand. Same reasoning. 

So, the miracle of God coming down in the body of a man isn't illogical then. 
Above. 
What happened to God appearing to us logically? 
Appear? Senses do not have to do with logic. 

What's more reasonable?
Taking the words of a man who describes Jesus 500 years after Jesus lived as truth. 
or
Taking the words of people who literally walked with Jesus, as truth
See above. 
So, in order to understand what parts of the Bible true and which parts are false, we need to line it up with the Qur'an, which was written 500 years after the Bible was completed, in order to understand what parts of the Bible are true?

And you are basing this off of the fact that a man said God told him? 
That is less reasonable by a long shot. 

So, we must read the bible, by first reading the Qur'an then read the Bible, but just throw out the other parts that don't agree with the Qur'an, based soley on the claim of a man, who lived 500 years after the Bible was finished, and claimed to have a revelation from God. 
That is not logical, I'm sorry.  
No we don't use Quran to prove God or prophethood, the argument becomes circular then. We arrive at these premises via rational thinking not books
1. God exists 
2. God is just 
3. Because God is just he would send messengers

That is when you start reading revelation. You don't abandon reason when you start reading revelation because you started your journey with reason. 

Then why:
Did Muhammed fight in or oversee many battles, many of which were offensive ones.
I already explained how offensive is not bad.
Did Muhammed order the execution and maiming of many people, including massacres.
And? Why is that bad? Lets all be pacifist then. The same thing is done now with diffrent methods. Humans find new ways to kill each other. Islam is a moderate religion. There are times when violence is allowed. 

Does the Qur’an teach Jihad as a means to spread the faith and there is no possible question that this Jihad is principally warfare.  Much of the Qur’an is advice for battle and conquest.
Proselytization is not endorsed by my school. Jihad is justifiable. Everyone spreads their ideology. Like America with their democracy in the ME. When you say "much" you have to put a quantifier because then you're just asserting. What were the crusades?

Does the Hadith agree with this and even expands on it.
Was Muhammad’s vision was put into practice and by AD 700 his followers created one of the largest empires in history.
Everyone creates empires, what's the problem? The Romans, the Persians, then the Arabs. It gave the Arabs standing ground against those two because they were always being colonized by the two major empires. America is the current world hegemony. Why do you not have a problem with them? Right, bias. 

Was Muhammed promised immediate access to heaven to those who died in war for Allah.
Martyrdom is honorable. Since God is the source of all good and goodness is intrinsic value, then dying for Gods cause is not bad. You don't get immediate access to heaven otherwise everyone would want to be a martyr you also have to be righteous. 

Based on the doctrine of abrogation, what is acknowledged as the last or nearly the last of the suras is Sura 9—the most violent of all the Suras.  In this one, Muslims are told to no longer compromise with Jews or Christians, but to attack and defeat them.
Right, and that's why Muslims lived with peace with Christians and Jews for the most of Islamic history. Makes sense. Christiantity had many violent adherents yet I don't make generlizations about them. 
Thats laughable:
«لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ الْيَهُودَ، فَيَقْتُلُهُمُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَتَّى يَخْتَبِىءَ الْيَهُودِيُّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ الْحَجَرِ وَالشَّجَرِ، فَيَقُولُ الْحَجَرُ وَالشَّجَرُ: يَامُسْلِمُ يَاعَبْدَاللهِ هَذَا يَهُودِيٌّ خَلْفِي فَتَعَالَ فَاقْتُلْهُ إِلَّا الْغَرْقَدَ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ شَجَرِ الْيَهُود»
(The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except Al-Gharqad, for it is a tree of the Jews
It's very easy to quote hadith. You are thinking like an extremist and taking literal interpretations. Extremist schools are only followed by <1% of Muslims (Salifism) When other people do the same for the Bible, do you also show them they are wrong about their interpretation? Ok, then lets be logically consistent.

From Wikipedia:


Within Sunni Islam, these narrations are understood as part of Sunni eschatology's description of a great war at the end times against the forces of Dajjal which should occur after the second coming Jesus according to Islam
Then, according to this eschatology, Jesus will lead an army of Muslims, some of whom are righteous Christians and righteous Jews converting to Islam in the eve of the battle, to fight the army of Dajjal consisted of Jews believing Dajjal is a god, and if a Jew of Dajjal's army hides behind a stone or a tree, this stone or tree will miraculously talk to Muslims to expose him unless it is a Gharqad tree, because it is "their tree".

Not all Muslims accept all hadith as reliable and may conclude somewhat different eschatology; most Shia Muslims reject Sunni hadith as unreliable and have their own hadith such as The Four Books.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Just answer the question Stephen [...............................]So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes?"

I did answer your question, but just so you cannot misunderstand, here is my answer again:

Yes I believe it to be wrong  for anyone or group to enforce their religious ideology onto others.




Stephen wrote: And what is the punishment for apostates in Islam?#151
aql_reason wrote? Depends on how you define apostasy 

So are you saying Muslims/Islam defines apostasy different to other religions?  Why don't you define it for us ?

No the definition is on wikipedia:   "Apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person."

Notice what I bolded. Many people don't understand that part. 

Yes. Formal means -  Official.  So what ?
So Wikipedia and the English dictionary are in agreement. Apostasy is the act of giving up your religious beliefs. OR leaving  a religion 


Scholars are not unanimous on the punishment for apostasy.

"Scholars"  I see. So those scholars that you believe are best informed on such matters and are the people that we [I]  should be turning to and approaching for wisdom on such matter, are not in agreement?  These will be the very same educated scholars that you insist that I should be listening to help me in  forming my own ideas and opinions . 
 Tell me how can anyone form a valid opinion on these schools of thought when these schools cannot even make their own fkn minds up after almost 1500 years!!?

Every Imam I have listened to and the few Islamic scholars that I have read, have all agreed, that the penalty for leaving the Islamic religion is  death.

How about this ISLAMIC scholar?
Muhammad al- Bukhari 
This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017)

So one has no CHOICE to leave the Islamic RELIGION unless he wishes to die. Which in turn means he  is FORCED to stay through fear of death. <<<That is barbaric.

And I rest my case. 
You of course have a right to appeal.




aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen

Yes. Formal means -  Official.  So what ?
So Wikipedia and the English dictionary are in agreement. Apostasy is the act of giving up your religious beliefs. OR leaving  a religion 
Yes the key part is official. Apostasy is not about belief. So if they leave Islam personally, they are only punished by God. However, if they leave officially, they are punished in society. Leaving officially means that this person in court has to testify with sane mind that they longer are muslim. If they stop practicing Islam that does not mean they are an apostate under Islamic guidelines. Which is why it is rarely carried out in Islamic states. 

"Scholars"  I see. So those scholars that you believe are best informed on such matters and are the people that we [I]  should be turning to and approaching for wisdom on such matter, are not in agreement?  These will be the very same educated scholars that you insist that I should be listening to help me in  forming my own ideas and opinions . 
You are making an assumption here. I only stated a fact that not all scholars are unanimous on the punishment. I never stated what position I took in the previous discussion. 

 Tell me how can anyone form a valid opinion on these schools of thought when these schools cannot even make their own fkn minds up after almost 1500 years!!?

Every Imam I have listened to and the few Islamic scholars that I have read, have all agreed, that the penalty for leaving the Islamic religion is  death.

How about this ISLAMIC scholar?
Muhammad al- Bukhari 
This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017)

So one has no CHOICE to leave the Islamic RELIGION unless he wishes to die. Which in turn means he  is FORCED to stay through fear of death. <<<That is barbaric.

And I rest my case. 
You of course have a right to appeal.
Call it barbaric and any other label you can give. Most of the arguments against apostasy are emotional appeals. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Muslim country Saudi Arabia has a practice of "honor killing".

"“This is the state of women’s rights in Saudi today,” her friend says. “And we’re talking about incidents that actually reach social media—think about all the other unreported incidents hidden behind gated compounds. Under MBS, everything is monitored. Our social media accounts are being suspended and our voices are being silenced for talking about anything from foreign policy to women's rights and religious reforms, where can we turn? Freedom for women and freedom of speech is not dying in Saudi Arabia, it’s dead already.”
After the younger sister was released, she tweeted again—this time saying that she was leaving the investigation to the authorities. Several social media users noted a change in her tone, prompting concerns that she was being silenced or coerced. But their bigger fear was that she would disappear altogether.
Since the older sister’s death, other disappearances across the Kingdom have followed. On February 17, 2021, Refa Al-Yemi, a 40-year old, single mother of four children, went missing from her home in Jeddah. #Where's _ Rafa _ Al Yami started circulating on Twitter. On May 8, 2021, Ayesha Mohammed, a women’s rights activist, shared a video detailing the death of Hadil al-Harthi, a young Saudi woman who was found dead; users on Twitter speculated she may have been killed for sharing photos of her face on her TikTok account. "

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
We can find more examples of honor killings from muslim countries.

In May 2021, a London-based film maker, 46-year-old Babak Khorramdin was stabbed to death by his 74 year old mother and 81 year old father in the middle of an argument after they found out that their son is still single at this age and that he doesn't want to be married. After the murder, Khorramdin's body was mutilated, chopped into pieces and were put in three separate bags. Furthermore, the same couple had also killed Babak's sister and brother-in-law prior to his death. The parents stated that they "were proud" and "showed no remorse".
In February 2022 a video circulated in Iran of a man (Sajjad Heydari), in Ahvaz, Khuzestan in Western Iran, smiling and carrying the severed head of his 17 year old wife (Mona Heydari). The IRNA news agency referred to the incident as the result of an "honor killing." The wife had fled to Turkey but was brought back to Iran and killed shortly after.[104] According to human rights lawyer Yonah Diamond, "the Iranian authorities enabled the barbaric beheading of Mona Heydari -- a child bride -- for seeking a divorce from a violently abusive marriage..."[105]

Two years earlier another high-profile "honor killing" involved a 14-year-old who was allegedly killed with a sickle by her father in northern Iran's Talesh County, after she ran away from her family home with a 29-year-old man.[104]
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
Yes. Formal means -  Official.  So what ?
So Wikipedia and the English dictionary are in agreement. Apostasy is the act of giving up your religious beliefs. OR leaving  a religion 
Yes the key part is official. Apostasy is not about belief. So if they leave Islam personally, they are only punished by God. However, if they leave officially, they are punished in society. Leaving officially means that this person in court has to testify with sane mind that they longer are muslim. If they stop practicing Islam that does not mean they are an apostate under Islamic guidelines. Which is why it is rarely carried out in Islamic states. 
Listen. It doesn't matter how much you attempt to apologise for this barbaric practice. It doesn't alter the stone cold fact that the punishment for leaving the ISLAMIC faith is death. So ISLAM is an enforced religious ideology.


"Scholars"  I see. So those scholars that you believe are best informed on such matters and are the people that we [I]  should be turning to and approaching for wisdom on such matter, are not in agreement?  These will be the very same educated scholars that you insist that I should be listening to help me in  forming my own ideas and opinions . 
You are making an assumption here. I only stated a fact that not all scholars are unanimous on the punishment. I never stated what position I took in the previous discussion. 
But again YOU are appealing to the "Scholars" that you have said to do such a thing is "fallacy".

Have you forgotten already our exchanges concerning appealing to scholars?  here you go, remind yourself.

You do like to contradict yourself, don't you. And often too.  I said Christians are fools or had been fooled, you disagreed citing  "famous scholars, scientists, philosophers" as sources as  a defence HERE  #84. I asked you why you were appealing do education because it doesn't mean anything HERE> #93
You then said categorically "Appealing to education does mean something. It means one values education which is not a invalid argument." HERE>#96 You als added further down that "It is up to the historians and Christians to interpret that. [The Bible] HERE #96.  I again asked you why HERE>  #105 .

 Again you appealed to scholars for your answer, saying " Who interprets science? Scientists? Who interprets History? Historians" adding "And if what they say makes sense, you take it." HERE> #108.  I pointed out that such academics and scholars do not always agree and gave you examples telling you that regardless of scholarly standing it doesn't make them arbiters of truth HERE? #113 You then said "I have been talking about logic and reason being main arbiter or truth". You has since contradicted all your earlier definitive statements by stating, amazingly! that 

"to appeal to authority is a fallacy".#128  <<<<< that is the position you did take!


 Tell me how can anyone form a valid opinion on these schools of thought when these schools cannot even make their own fkn minds up after almost 1500 years!!?

Every Imam I have listened to and the few Islamic scholars that I have read, have all agreed, that the penalty for leaving the Islamic religion is  death.

How about this ISLAMIC scholar?
Muhammad al- Bukhari 
This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017)

So one has no CHOICE to leave the Islamic RELIGION unless he wishes to die. Which in turn means he  is FORCED to stay through fear of death. <<<That is barbaric.

And I rest my case. 
You of course have a right to appeal.
Call it barbaric and any other label you can give. Most of the arguments against apostasy are emotional appeals. 


Well it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else calls it, does it? All that is irrelevant.   It doesn't alter the fact that the penalty for a Muslim  leavening Islam is DEATH!
Hence, to enforce a religious ideology onto someone that doesn't accept it is not a choice, is it?  It is fkn terrorism. And it is religious terrorism in the case of the Muslim apostate. ..... and anyone else that doesn't believe in Allah and that Mohammad was his prophet.  I have always maintained the the worst victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.

Terrorism:   the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
via  Violent action or the threat of Violent action.

Was Jesus the son of Allah?
Was it Jesus that died on the cross?



Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@aql_reason



.
aql_reason,

WOW! You are as Qur’an STUPID as as the Muslims Yassine and Path2Paradise, where you must be so proud in front of the membership!  LOL!


ANOTHER DUMBFOUNDED MUSLIM QUOTE OF YOURS: “What do Christians in the middle east call God? Allah, yes? What language did Jesus speak? Aramaic, yes? Whats the word for God in Aramaic? Elahi

Yes, we know, what did we expect from a camel-herder Muslim like YOU, whereas the Christian God is Jesus the Christ, and not some dreamt up god named Allah from the feeble mind of the illiterate goat-herder and disgusting pedophile prophet Muhammed!  GET IT MUSLIM FOOL?  As a JEW Jesus did speak Aramaic in the biblical era BEFORE the arrival of the sickening Islam faith that did the same, therefore, your statement goes wanting and meaningless as usual!



YOUR QUOTE LEAVING THE DOOR WIDE OPEN, WE THANK YOU! “What does Allah mean?”

Allah means that this sickening God says LITERALLY without any further comical Qur’an rewrites by you, that desert sweaty Muslim men can BEAT their wives (Qur’an 4:34), and in Allah’s name, Muhammad was a pedophile in marrying the innocent little girl named Aisha AT SIX YEARS OLD (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:), AND WAS FUCKING HER! (Sahih Bukhari 1:4:233),  and where Muhammad LAUGHED when others slapped his child bride Aisha! (Sahih Muslim (9:3506). ...............  I'll stop at this point to not embarrass you too much with actual FACTS about your disgusting Islamic faith, of which more is coming in the future!



YOUR CONTINUED EMBARRASSING AND IGNORANT QUOTE: “So you see Allah means "the God" as he is "the God" of the the Abrahmic religion. G is capital. Christians, Jews, and Muslims.” 

Barring your pre-school grammar of not being able to spell simple words correctly where you said “Abrahmic” instead of “Abrahamic,” and your camel-humper Allah god is NOT the god of Christians, nor the Jews, where again, the Christian God is Jesus the Christ, and Yahweh is the God of the Jews, period! Hopefully you will be able to understand these SIMPLE FACTS when your mind set enters a grade-school level in the future!  LOL!



YOUR STUPID MUSLIM USE OF SPELLING YOUR SATANIC WORDS OF ALLAH AS "QURAN:"  Your misuse of calling your word of the camel-humper Allah as the “Quran” is WRONG, where if you were actually a true Camel-Jockey Muslim you would state it as the “Qur’an” which is the correct pronunciation of the Arabic word transliterated using a glottal stop which is represented by the apostrophe!  BUT, what did we expect from a sweaty assed camel rider Muslim LIKE YOU in the first place, and especially where your biography is ZERO which in hence, represents your pitiful embarrassing religion of Islam!  LOL!



The outright "LITERAL MEANING" of a passage in the Qur'an:  O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Qur’an 5:51) 

Your laughable and pitiful REWRITE QUOTE to the specific LITERAL verse shown above:    “In the same Quran, it says that they are people of the book and will be rewarded. These are generalizations made by Quran. Not contradictions. This verse pertains to those that bash Islam from the Christians and Jews. They are not to be taken as friends. Would you take the one who is the enemy of Christianity as your friend? If you will, then you're the fool.” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10238/posts/419693

WTF DID YOU JUST SAY ABOVE? LOL!  The only fool is YOU, and Barring the EMBARRASSING FACT that you didn’t cite your perceived notions above, other than to RUN AWAY from them as usual, AND TO EASILY REFUTE YOU AGAIN where diaper-headed Muslims ARE NOT to make friends or allies with Jews and Christians, your camel-humper Allah LITERALLY stated:

"The believers may not take the unbelievers for their allies in preference to those who believe. Whoever does this has nothing to do with Allah unless he does so in order to protect himself from their wrong-doing. Allah warns you to beware of Him for it is to Allah that you will return.." (Qur’an 3:28)  

 Who are the unbelievers aql_reason? YES, Christians and Jews that deny your pitiful cess pool religion of Islam, GET IT? Huh? Maybe? Do you need further help with actual LITERAL passages AGAIN? Yes?



NEXT CARPET KISSER MUSLIM LIKE “AQL_REASON” THAT WANTS TO BE MORE OF A MUSLIM ISLAMIC FOOL THAN HE IS, WILL BE …?


.

aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
Listen. It doesn't matter how much you attempt to apologise for this barbaric practice. It doesn't alter the stone cold fact that the punishment for leaving the ISLAMIC faith is death. So ISLAM is an enforced religious ideology.
I'm not apologizing or an apologist. An apologetic is someone who denies it altogether and says things like it happened in the past and it shouldn't happen now. I am stating what the Islamic guidelines for an apostate is. The definition of apostate is formally leaving a religion. Do you disagree? 

I said there is no compulsion [in choosing] religion which means those who are not muslims can't be forced to convert to Islam. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you can't understand. I said in a state where there is Sharia, Islamic practices will be enforced on even those that do not like it (non-muslims or muslims) like Hijab Laws in Iran. This is different than forced conversions. Conversions have to do with changing belief not act. Understand this point. I won't discuss this further because you have called me intellectually dishonest many times. 

But again YOU are appealing to the "Scholars" that you have said to do such a thing is "fallacy".
For the last time, you can appeal to scholars (appeal to authority) if what they say makes reasonable sense. I am just stating a fact that not all Islamic scholars are unanimous on the punishment. Are you debating this fact with me? So all Islamic scholars believe its punishable? What are you disagreeing with here? 

Well it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else calls it, does it? All that is irrelevant.   It doesn't alter the fact that the penalty for a Muslim  leavening Islam is DEATH!
Hence, to enforce a religious ideology onto someone that doesn't accept it is not a choice, is it?  It is fkn terrorism. And it is religious terrorism in the case of the Muslim apostate. ..... and anyone else that doesn't believe in Allah and that Mohammad was his prophet.  I have always maintained the the worst victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims (source: wikipedia)

A lot of countries, organizations, and ideologies fall under this. If you are going to define something as terrorism anything that falls under it regardless of bias falls under it. The same logic should apply for countries like NATO who have used violence and fear in the name of democracy. You have to be logically consistent.




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
I said there is no compulsion [in choosing] religion which means those who are not muslims can't be forced to convert to Islam.

Then you are lacking education in your own subject. It is a fact that those that didn't convert to Islam have either been put to the sword or FORCED to pay Jizya if they live in Muslim lands. Which we have already discussed.

But again YOU are appealing to the "Scholars" that you have said to do such a thing is "fallacy".
For the last time, you can appeal to scholars (appeal to authority) if what they say makes reasonable sense.

We have covered this too. And I pointed out YOUR "IF"  is subjective. HERE> #113 .  That is to say, to some it may make sense while to others it doesn't.  And YOU have shown this to be the case because  you have said yourself that: "Scholars are not unanimous on the punishment for apostasy."#154 So when have undecided scholars that you say we should consult although they are undecided between themselves. and then turned around and called it "fallacy.  FFS at least  be honest enough to admit that your statement was wrong to begin with.


 it happened in the past and it shouldn't happen now.  I am stating what the Islamic guidelines for an apostate is
I know what the guidelines are. I have quoted one of those scholars of which there are many. 
And of course it shouldn't happen now. Are you saying it doesn't happen  now? 



The definition of apostate is formally leaving a religion. Do you disagree? 

I already ready respoded to that above HERE>> #156

 Formal means -  Official. 
So Wikipedia and the English dictionary are in agreement. Apostasy is the act of giving up your religious beliefs. OR leaving  a religion 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I.e OFICIALLY leaving a religion  is apostasy and in this case a Muslim officially leaving ISLAM.. Stop playing silly word games. 


Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims (source: wikipedia)

It can be local TERRORIST violence too. FFS! how old are you?  England  has suffered terrorist attacks carried out by "home grown " Muslim terrorists.

Iran, just today  have suffered  what they called a "terrorist" attack with two explosions near a cemetery. They don't know yet if they were "home grown"  resistance TERRORIST or foreign TERRORISTS. 


You swerved these two questions>>>   Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?




Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@aql_reason



.
aql_reason,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE ABOUT YOUR STINKING CESS POOL FAITH OF ISLAM!:  "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims (source: wikipedia)"

YOU ARE CORRECT, whereas in your Satanic Qur'an your  camel-humper Allah God says to follow these rules when TERRORIZING the unbelievers of your disgusting faith of Islam:

1. "Those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day- even though they were given the scriptures, and who do not hold as unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, and who do not follow the true religion - fight against them until they pay tribute out of their hand and are utterly subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)

2.  "The Jews say: "Ezra ('Uzayr) is Allah's son," and the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah." These are merely verbal assertions in imitation of the sayings of those unbelievers who preceded them. Say Allah ruin them. How do they turn away from the Truth?; fight them." (Qur’an 9:30) 

3.  "Remember, O Prophet,˺ when your Lord revealed to the angels, “I am with you. So make the believers stand firm. I will cast horror into the hearts of the disbelievers. SO STRIKE THEIR NECKS AND STRIKE THEIR FINGERTIPS.”(Qur’an 8:12)    This passage relates to the disbelievers of Islam as Jews and Christians!

4.  Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.” (Qur’an 2:65-66)

5.  "When you meet the unbelievers, SMITE THEIR NECKS UNTIL YOU HAVE CRUSHED THEM, then bind your captives firmly; thereafter (you are entitled to) set them free, either by an act of grace, or against ransom, until the war ends. That is for you to do.." (Qur’an 47:4)   Muslims are to TERRORIZE Christians and Jews since they are  unbelievers!

6.  "These two groups (the believers and unbelievers) are in dispute about their Lord. As for those that disbelieve, GARMENTS OF FIRE HAVE BEEN CUT OUT FOR THEM; boiling water shall be poured down over their heads,  causing (not only) their skins but all that is in their bellies as well to melt away.".  (Qur’an 22:19)  Who are the unbelievers of Islam, Christians and Jews!  


*****************  Now, get a Kleenex Box ready to wipe the tears of laughter because of "aql_reason" TRYING IN VAIN to once again insidiously REWRITE the Qur'an passages above into essentially saying, that their DIRECT LITERAL STATEMENTS, really does not say what it says!  ROFLOL!!!  *****************


WHO WANTS TO BECOME A MUSLIM TO DIRECTLY FOLLOW THE LITERAL WORDS OF ALLAH SHOWN ABOVE IN THE SATANIC QUR'AN TO "BRUTALLY KILL UNBELIEVERS" OF ISLAM AS SHOWN ABOVE,  WITHOUT ANY INSIDIOUS AND COMICAL REWRITES OF THE PASSAGES ABOVE BY THE MUSLIM FOOL "AQL_REASON," WILL BE ... ?

.
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
Then you are lacking education in your own subject. It is a fact that those that didn't convert to Islam have either been put to the sword or FORCED to pay Jizya if they live in Muslim lands. Which we have already discussed.
Yes there is no compulsion in choosing religion. In Islam, no one can put a knife against you and ask you to convert. That makes no logical sense and is not practical at all. If such a thing was even the case, Islam would not have even grown past the first generation. 

coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

Like I said there were few instances where forced conversions took place but for the most part in Islamic history the region gradually converted around 200-300 years.

"There are a number of historians who see the rule of the Umayyads as responsible for setting up the "dhimmah" to increase taxes from the dhimmis to benefit the Arab Muslim community financially and to discourage conversion" (source: wikipedia)

"Richard Bulliet's "conversion curve" shows a relatively low rate of conversion of non-Arab subjects during the Arab centric Umayyad period of 10%, in contrast with estimates for the more politically-multicultural Abbasid period, which saw the Muslim population grow from around 40% in the mid-9th century to close to 100% by the end of the 11th century" (source: wikipedia)

If an empire conquers another people (which all empires did if you are aware of history) and enforces a tax on citizens, to you that means they are forcing their ideology. Ok, sure. What happens when you don't pay taxes in USA? Like I said be realistic and logically consistent with what you are arguing. So although you don't have to pay taxes in USA you are coerced to otherwise you are jailed.

"Tax Evasion is a Felony and can be punished by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine." (source: wikipedia)

I already explained how jizya is quite beneficial. Non-muslims pay the tax so they don't have to serve in the army. It benefits the ones paying and the ones asking for payment, a win-win. Why would you want to serve a war that you have no interest in? The world doesn't work where everyone just gets along without getting something in return. Be realistic. 

We have covered this too. And I pointed out YOUR "IF"  is subjective. HERE> #113 .  That is to say, to some it may make sense while to others it doesn't.  And YOU have shown this to be the case because  you have said yourself that: "Scholars are not unanimous on the punishment for apostasy."#154 So when have undecided scholars that you say we should consult although they are undecided between themselves. and then turned around and called it "fallacy.  FFS at least  be honest enough to admit that your statement was wrong to begin with.
For the last time appeal to authority is a fallacy. I don't appeal to scholars because I like what they say or that they are scholars. If what they say is rational, we take their input on religious matters. The if is not subjective because I already explained the main arbiter of truth in epistemology is reason where morality and logic is objective. 

Reason is the capacity of applying logic consciously by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth (source:wikipedia)

There is nothing wrong with that statement. Everyone may believe what they think is logical but it depends on the premises and conclusions. For example, there was a debate between scholars on the nature of the Quran, some said it was uncreated and coeternal with God, others said not. The most logical position would be that Quran is created and not eternal so I take what those scholars say. Is there a fallacy or flaw here? If the premises are correct and the conclusion follow from those scholars thinking, there is no subjectivity.  All I was saying is the reality or fact that not everyone agrees on religious matters.  I agree with scholars that views are more logical. Do you want to keep debating this? 

I know what the guidelines are. I have quoted one of those scholars of which there are many. 
And of course it shouldn't happen now. Are you saying it doesn't happen  now? 
I never said it should't happen now. Neither did I say it doesn't happen now. What I said is this. Please read clearly: 

"Yes the key part is official. Apostasy is not about belief. So if they leave Islam personally, they are only punished by God. However, if they leave officially, they are punished in society. Leaving officially means that this person in court has to testify with sane mind that they longer are muslim. If they stop practicing Islam that does not mean they are an apostate under Islamic guidelines. Which is why it is rarely carried out in Islamic states. "

Since apostasy is formal, its not about belief but act. You can change your belief any second. You have to officially announce that you left. That does'nt mean you start eating pork or doing things that look like you're not Muslim. That's not an apostate. Read this carefully and try to understand what that means. I said (if you read above) it is rarely carried out because of the conditions. However you translated that as me saying it doesn't happen now. Do you understand what rare means? 

 already ready respoded to that above HERE>> #156

 Formal means -  Official. 
So Wikipedia and the English dictionary are in agreement. Apostasy is the act of giving up your religious beliefs. OR leaving  a religion 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I.e OFICIALLY leaving a religion  is apostasy and in this case a Muslim officially leaving ISLAM.. Stop playing silly word games. 
There are no silly word games. You are having trouble understanding. Read above. Apostasy is formally leaving religion nor informally leaving religion, by definition. 

It can be local TERRORIST violence too. FFS! how old are you?  England  has suffered terrorist attacks carried out by "home grown " Muslim terrorists.
Like I said anyone can be a terrorist. If not, you are being logically inconsistent with the word. 

Iran, just today  have suffered  what they called a "terrorist" attack with two explosions near a cemetery. They don't know yet if they were "home grown"  resistance TERRORIST or foreign TERRORISTS. 
Right, and what's the issue? If they are by definition a terrorist, then they are a terrorist. It doesn't matter what ideology or country they align with. Either you drop the loaded terrorist word or you drop being consistent. 

You swerved these two questions>>>   Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?
Well idk why you asked those obvious questions? Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the literal son of God? Do Muslims believe Jesus died on the cross. Google is your friend. 

You say you don't stay on forums because if arguments turn circular. If you are not able to understand something, just ask the question rather than going into a spiral of confusion and assumptions. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Here are some violent verses from Quran promoting hate against those who dont believe. Islam is a religion of hate.

[2:99] And certainly We have revealed to you clear communications and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors.

[2:161] Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all;

[2:162] Abiding in it; their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite.

[2:257] Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.

[3:10] (As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire.

[3:12] Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-place.

[3:22] Those are they whose works shall become null in this world as well as the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.

[3:56] Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.

[3:116] (As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah; and these are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.

[3:177] Surely those who have bought unbelief at the price of faith shall do no harm at all to Allah, and they shall have a painful chastisement.

[4:151] These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement.

[5:36] Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom them- selves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment.


With all these violent verses that come from muslim's holy book, can one really be surprised by violence committed by muslims?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"As for the example of Mohammed, Sahih Muslim, one of the six major authoritative Hadith collections, claims the Prophet Mohammed undertook no fewer than 19 military expeditions, personally fighting in eight of them. In the aftermath of the 627 Battle of the Trench, “Mohammed felt free to deal harshly with the Banu Qurayza, executing their men and selling their women and children into slavery,” according to Yale Professor of Religious Studies Gerhard Bowering in his book Islamic Political Thought. As the Princeton scholar Michael Cook observed in his book Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, “the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts” of Islam."

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
just ask the question rather than going into a spiral of confusion and assumptions. 

You are the one that keeps contradicting yourself, sunshine. And you are the one that keeps going around in circles trying to correct said contradictions.

"There are a number of historians who see the rule of the Umayyads as responsible for setting up the "dhimmah" to increase taxes from the dhimmis to benefit the Arab Muslim community financially and to discourage conversion"
And again you are appealing to authority , the authority that you now claim to be fallacy. <<<obviously a word you don't understand the meaning of.
Then what happens to those that refuse to pay this protection money that you call "tax". 


Just ask a question.

Why don't you fkn answer these questions?

You swerved these two questions>>>   Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?


Well idk why you asked those obvious questions? Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the literal son of God? Do Muslims believe Jesus died on the cross

And you are the one that has point blank on three occasions refused to answer these questions >>>Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?  Simple yes or no answers will do.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
With all these violent verses that come from muslim's holy book, can one really be surprised by violence committed by muslims?

Spot on.  And that has been my point, BK. It is that fkn vile demented book that causes Muslims to commit such terrible atrocities. And it cannot reform, it cannot be altered or rewritten, according to Muslims it is the last and final "perfect   unalterable word of Allah and his prophet". 

Isis are Muslims. Their book is the Quran. The Muslims of Isis take their instructions directly from the Quran. Muslims are waging perpetual Jihad because the Quran tells them to do so "until all religion is for Allah". <<< ALL fact.


aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
And again you are appealing to authority , the authority that you now claim to be fallacy. <<<obviously a word you don't understand the meaning of.
Then what happens to those that refuse to pay this protection money that you call "tax". 
Jews and Christians were required to pay the jizyah while others, depending on the different rulings of the four Madhhabs, might be required to accept Islam, pay the jizya, be exiled, or be killed.[11][12][13][14]


And you are the one that has point blank on three occasions refused to answer these questions >>>Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?  Simple yes or no answers will do.
No. No. 

After long time of back and forth, unfortunately, I really didn't learn anything new here. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Best.Korea
@aql_reason
There are various sub-classifications and variously sub-classified units of the species Homo-sapiens.

Though all essentially the same.

But conditioned variously according to regional data transfer, which includes regional ideological data formats.

All relative to previous/historical constraints, dictated by regional isolation.



So basically,

People VS People,

Relative to archaic Bullshit.

As ever.


What will out, relative to time, duration and material evolution is anyone's guess.

All good for the arms industry at the moment.

Though I'm suggesting that Homo-sapiens are slowly/rapidly? ...Evolving to be more globally integrated. Thanks in the main to technological evolution.



And so, we're caught up in a fleeting universal moment generally referred to as 2024.

So stay safe, and mumble any mantras that you find temporarily appropriate.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
And again you are appealing to authority , the authority that you now claim to be fallacy. <<<obviously a word you don't understand the meaning of.
Then what happens to those that refuse to pay this protection money that you call "tax". 
[...................................]might be required to accept Islam, pay the jizya, be exiled, or be killed.
So that is by "force".  Whereas you have repeatedly told us that" there is obligation to convert and accept Islam".

And you are the one that has point blank on three occasions refused to answer these questions >>>Was Jesus the son of Allah?  AND  Was it Jesus that died on the cross?  Simple yes or no answers will do.
No. No. 
See wasn't hard was it. Well It is obvious then that you have no intention of accepting what Christian scholars, historians and theologist have to say concerning their beliefs concerning Jesus called the Christ Messiah who's prophet John the Divine gave the last and only unalterable revelation to the world.



After long time of back and forth, unfortunately, I really didn't learn anything new here. 

Well that will be because (1) you have wasted much of time attempting to correct your contradictions. (2) swerving questions, {3}Simply denying facts. and [4}continually using Wikipedia for your  information and citations which is not always a good idea. i.e anyone can add to and edit Wikipedia. 

From Wikipedia

This page is about using Wikipedia as a citation for itself. For critiques of Wikipedia's reliability for readers, see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. For information on citing Wikipedia as a source in an academic setting, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia.


After long time of back and forth, unfortunately, I really didn't learn anything new here. 

Well if you expected Christians to accept what you have to say about the last  perfect unalterable revelation to Muhammad from his god Allah, then you are more  naïve as the ignorant Christians that Islam opposes.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I dont rely on reason as a source of knowledge. I think knowledge is derived from facts, as opposed to wishful thinking from reason.

But we can use basic laws of logic to make a conclusion.

P1. If following Islam means being morally best, then muslims would be morally best people.
P2. Muslims are not morally best people.
C. Following islam doesnt mean being morally best

P1 is, by law of identity or tautology, logically correct and impossible to refute, as muslims follow islam.

P2 is self evident truth, but we can support it with lots of examples, such as muslim countries abusing women and practicing forced marriages, as well as usually having poor life expectancy of women.

And conclusion then logically follows from premises, since premise 1 being logically irrefutable tautology leading to conclusion and premise 2 supporting premise 1, premise 2 itself being a fact that cannot be reasonably disproved by anyone. It may only be challenged on the basis of moral standard, but most of the civilized world would disagree with moral standards of Afghanistan.

Of course, I myself am not a fan of reason. I prefer facts, such as these:

"Overall, 92 percent of women in Afghanistan feel that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of these reasons: going out without telling the husband, neglecting the children, arguing with the husband, refusing sex, and burning the food. Seventy-eight percent of women believe that going out without telling the husband is justification for beating, while 31 percent think the same about burning the food."

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Extreme intolerance in "British"  Islamic School


Undercover Camera Exposes Hate Taught In Muslim Schools

The ex BBC 'go to'  pinup boy Muslim Mehdi Hasan when ever there is a Islamic terrorist attack.

"Anyone not Muslim is an animal . And are people that sleep with their mothers". But it gets worse. 
 This is how he talks when he is among his Muslim brothers.

if this is the face of Islamic tolerance then we are fkd. BK




Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
Sadly, now muslims must explain why islam, which they think is "best religion", is mostly followed by morally inferior people.

You would think that morally best religion would be followed by morally best people, or at least morally equal to other groups.

Sadly, followers  of islam are morally inferior, so islam is a religion is followed by morally inferior people.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Sadly, now muslims must explain why islam, which they think is "best religion", is mostly followed by morally inferior people.

That is a good question. 
But they can't.  They run the risk of blasphemy which can sometimes also carry a death sentence just for questioning the " perfect word of Allah".

 Then there is education.  Millions of Muslims cannot even read so have to rely on the Imams to read and interpret the Quran for them. And one has to keep in mind that this religious ideology always comes with threats. 
It appears that the non believer has more chance of the death penalty for blasphemy than a disbelieving Muslim.

But then again:
Iran has hanged two men convicted of blasphemy, according to authorities, carrying out rare death sentences for the crime as the number of executions soars across the Islamic Republic after months of unrest.
The country remains one of the world’s top executioners, having put to death at least 203 prisoners so far this year, according to the Oslo-based group Iran Human Rights. But executions for blasphemy remain rare, as in previous cases the sentences have been reduced by authorities.




Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@aql_reason



.
aql_reason, that is another RUNAWAY Muslim from his faith like Yassine and Path2Paradise,

YOUR DISGUSTING RELIGION OF ISLAM REGARDING YOUR CAMEL-HUMPER PEDOPHILE FALSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD:

In the 100 degree+ heat around Mecca in Saudi Arabia, which can make anyone “delusional,” as it obviously did with your false prophet camel-jockey pedophile Muhammed, where he was an ILLITERATE FOOL as shown herewith:

Envision this truthful laughable scenario, when Muhammad was 40 years old he began hearing voices in his head and seeing visions of divine angels,” huh? To better understand these visions, and why of course, he would go to Mount Hira located in the Jabal Al-Nour Mountain in Saudi Arabia and meditate in 100 degree plus heat in his desert land!  LOL!

On one such journey in 610AD, now get this, the desert sweaty Muhammed proffered that the Archangel Gabriel "appeared to him" and told him that there was only one god now named Allah, and he had chosen him as his prophet, therefore the diaper-headed desert stinky Muhammad believed HE was the last and greatest in a series of prophets along with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus!”


Therefore, the camel foul smelling pedophile Muhammed “dreamt up the faith of Islam” in the extreme heat of his desert surroundings, where even the Muslim clerics admitted that Muhammad was an ILLITERATE DUMB ASS that could not even read or write the “chicken scratches” of the ungodly Arabic language at 40 YEARS OF AGE, as shown in the links below!:  LOL!!!



WOW, what a great beginning for the revolting faith of Islam as explicitly shown relative to the illiterate Muhammad that liked to “fondle little preteen innocent girls!”   MUHAMMAD SAID:  "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.” (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:16)

NEXT CAMEL SWEATY MUSLIM LIKE “AQL-REASON,” THAT AS SHOWN THUS FAR, CANNNOT DEFEND HIS SICKENING FAITH OF ISLAM, WILL BE …?

.
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Why are you so triggered lol
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@aql_reason
Bro D ain't triggered.

Bro D is Bro D.

Bro.
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@zedvictor4
He pinged me like 3 times after I responded once. I ignored all of them. Clearly wants my attention.