Prophet Muhammad ( may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) mentioned in the Bible (9 Viewers)

[Ford Prefect]

Saladin was not an extremist, he was a genuinely good ruler who apllied his faith in a fair way.

I was using the crusades as an example, wanted to be balanced...couldnt be bothered to remember the others involved, i hate medieval history.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IrishZebra]

I was using the crusades as an example, wanted to be balanced...couldnt be bothered to remember the others involved, i hate medieval history.

It's no Concert of Europe that's for sure.


Anyway I'm out. Peace Nigs



There is no God

 

[X Æ A-12]

Agree, more or less.

However, you left out one crucial fact. Tell me this: who creates a divide between "us" and "them"? Do you know the answer? Religion does. Religion says "you can be a member of our group, but only if you renounce the other group you belong to". Religion creates divides where none exist. Of course this all gets mixed up and conflated with culture and heritage, but nevertheless religion DIVIDES. It creates the pretext upon which later fanatics can wage war on "the infidels".

I disagree that religion solely creates this divide, It no doubt increases the problem but is not the sole cause. If you compare myself to a Muslim from the middle east there are differences in skin color, culture, language, morals and more. This creates a divide between us that religion only increases. Without religion humans have plenty of other factors that divide and create hostility and we would be just as happy needlessly killing each other because some leader gave us a crap reason to hate one another

As for the second part of your post I have no idea what to say to it. It is quite an interesting proposition that could have different outcomes. If these two separate groups were suddenly introduced it is likely that the cultural differences would lead to the stronger group (weather militarily, economically or intellectually whatever gives them such an advantage) taking an imperialistic approach and attempting to exploit those who are viewed as weaker. The weaker would grow to resent the stronger and view them as occupiers. But overall the height would not be relevant except that it was what originally was used to divide them. What would be relevant is the cultural differences formed between them caused by this divide. I feel that I might have taken this a bit too far and I'm not sure if the answer you wanted was one similar to mine or a much simpler one

 

[X Æ A-12]

Saladin was not an extremist, he was a genuinely good ruler who apllied his faith in a fair way.

Saladin was a very respectable Islamic leader. He was far more civilized than his European counterparts at the time and was fighting to defend his homeland. Even after a horribly bloody conflict he was willing to talk peacefully with European leaders and after winning the crusades he was in support of allowing Christian pilgrims to freely visit Jerusalem

 

[Martin]

I disagree that religion solely creates this divide, It no doubt increases the problem but is not the sole cause. If you compare myself to a Muslim from the middle east there are differences in skin color, culture, language, morals and more. This creates a divide between us that religion only increases. Without religion humans have plenty of other factors that divide and create hostility and we would be just as happy needlessly killing each other because some leader gave us a crap reason to hate one another

As for the second part of your post I have no idea what to say to it. It is quite an interesting proposition that could have different outcomes. If these two separate groups were suddenly introduced it is likely that the cultural differences would lead to the stronger group (weather militarily, economically or intellectually whatever gives them such an advantage) taking an imperialistic approach and attempting to exploit those who are viewed as weaker. The weaker would grow to resent the stronger and view them as occupiers. But overall the height would not be relevant except that it was what originally was used to divide them. What would be relevant is the cultural differences formed between them caused by this divide. I feel that I might have taken this a bit too far and I'm not sure if the answer you wanted was one similar to mine or a much simpler one

Of course there are other reasons, but if there weren't any, we couldn't kill each other, could we? Because there's be no justification for it. And religion creates that divide. Yet another one. Completely unnecessary. And I refuse to pretend like that doesn't matter "because there are so many other reasons".

It is by definition exclusionary.

 

[Alen]

I was using the crusades as an example, wanted to be balanced...couldnt be bothered to remember the others involved, i hate medieval history.

Fuck you

 

[Fred]

Look, im not going to get anywhere in this debate so i think im going to give up. The reason i said that being a part of a faith makes you accountable is because....Without the massive followings that religions have, none of this stuff would happen, because no one would support it, its only because people feel supported that they do it. Of course people are insane and can be attributed to a faith when they are just insane, but that would happen in a world without religion. You are welcome to disagree with me, but i cant be bothered to talk about it, getting craxy nicotine withdrawal pangs.

So i am partly accountable for what happened in 9-11? Stupid statement to make.

If you create a poll in the Muslim World and ask them if they support what happened in 9-11, I'm making an educated guess that the majority would be against it.

This is completely irrelevant. Religion is not a matter of a clear definition where someone has to pass an exam to say they believe in the very specific creeds and nothing else. It's completely a matter of interpretation.

It's pointless to claim that Nazism is a creed of supremacy and religion isn't. Only in the eyes of the actual beholder does this distinction materialize or not. About which we know nothing.

Nazism explicitly states that it is a creed of supremacy. Islam doesn't. You can be a muslim whatever your ethnic, cultural etc background is. Nazism not so much.

 

[Martin]

Nazism explicitly states that it is a creed of supremacy. Islam doesn't. You can be a muslim whatever your ethnic, cultural etc background is. Nazism not so much.

The debate is centered around the presumption that people who commit crimes, claiming they are doing this in the name of Islam, are lying. In that case why not say everyone who does anything is lying about their motive?

That was my point.

 

[Fred]

Also the stupidest argument i have ever heard is, "X represents Islam because he\she\they said so"

Ya that proves a lot doesn't it?

 

[Fred]

The debate is centered around the presumption that people who commit crimes, claiming they are doing this in the name of Islam, are lying. In that case why not say everyone who does anything is lying about their motive?

That was my point.

That does not prove anything. I do not know if they are lying or not, i do know that just saying that you represent something is not enough.

Algeria calls itself a democratic country, is that enough for them to be regarded as one?

 

[Martin]

Also the stupidest argument i have ever heard is, "X represents Islam because he\she\they said so"

Ya that proves a lot doesn't it?

Okay then, so we never believe anyone who says they represent Islam. Fine. Does that include the clerics in your mosque who teach people what Islam is?

It's an interesting issue actually.

 

[X Æ A-12]

Of course there are other reasons, but if there weren't any, we couldn't kill each other, could we? Because there's be no justification for it. And religion creates that divide. Yet another one. Completely unnecessary. And I refuse to pretend like that doesn't matter "because there are so many other reasons".

It is by definition exclusionary.

I never said religion doesn't matter I just feel that humans as individuals are logical and kind but in a group are violent, misguided and look for excuses to kill eachother and if we lived in a world without even the faintest hint of religious thought it would be more peaceful but not by much. Many wars are started without justification and reasons are just added on to rationalize the killing

 

[Ford Prefect]

So i am partly accountable for what happened in 9-11? Stupid statement to make.

If you create a poll in the Muslim World and ask them if they support what happened in 9-11, I'm making an educated guess that the majority would be against it.

You missed the point of what i said, it doesnt matter whether you agree with it or not. Without the major support that religions garnish, these atrocities just wouldnt happen. I am not just blaming the muslim world, i think that the christians are far far far worse.

 

[Martin]

That does not prove anything. I do not know if they are lying or not, i do know that just saying that you represent something is not enough.

Algeria calls itself a democratic country, is that enough for them to be regarded as one?

The problem is much deeper than you let on. Who decides what democracy means? If some guy in Algeria told everyone that democracy is a system in which a dictator rules the people, and everyone accepted it, would they be wrong to believe that's what it meant? On what basis would "our" definition of democracy be more justified than theirs?

 

[Fred]

Okay then, so we never believe anyone who says they represent Islam. Fine. Does that include the clerics in your mosque who teach people what Islam is?

It's an interesting issue actually.

Thats not what i said, is it?


You have to understand Islam and know what it permits and what it doesn't permit before you jump and say that Ben Ladin represents Islam. I hate the guy more than anybody else, and it disgusts me to see his filthy name put in the same sentence as my religion.


If the cleric does not contradict the laws put forth in the Koran like Ben Laden blatantly does, then no it would not include him.

Btw, just for your information. Your everyday cleric does not encourage you to blow yourself up in front of hundreds of innocent citizens.

 

[Fred]

You missed the point of what i said, it doesnt matter whether you agree with it or not. Without the major support that religions garnish, these atrocities just wouldnt happen. I am not just blaming the muslim world, i think that the christians are far far far worse.

So explain to me the atrocities commited by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Btw, just for your information. Your everyday cleric does not encourage you to blow yourself up in front of hundreds of innocent citizens.

I know there are a lot of stupid people in the world, but i think we can assume that most people on here dont need to be patronised and realise that not all 2 billion muslims in the world want to blow themselves up. Dont bring this back into my arguement, its arbitrary, it means you've missed the point of what iv said and im not the mood for it either.

So explain to me the atrocities commited by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

Hitler had a lot of support for what he did, how much the german population knew is debatable, regardless, he got to where he was with the german public fully understanding what he stood for.

Stalin also had a lot of support for what he was doing amoungst the lowest classes in the Gulags, if he hadnt had that support, he wouldnt have been in a position to do what he did.

I dont know enough about Pol pot or Mao. But thee conclusion im kinda drawing is that mankind are just one big group of allowers, we allow people to do things, we could stop them, but we dont.

 

[Fred]

The problem is much deeper than you let on. Who decides what democracy means? If some guy in Algeria told everyone that democracy is a system in which a dictator rules the people, and everyone accepted it, would they be wrong to believe that's what it meant? On what basis would "our" definition of democracy be more justified than theirs?

Democracy does not have a universally agreed upon definition. But the basic idea of democracy that everyone can agree on, is that democracy includes equality and freedom. Both extremely scarce in Algeria. But hey as long as they call themselves a democracy, then thats enough, isn't it?

Who said that Israel was the only democracy in the middle east?

 

[Fred]

I know there are a lot of stupid people in the world, but i think we can assume that most people on here dont need to be patronised and realise that not all 2 billion muslims in the world want to blow themselves up. Dont bring this back into my arguement, its arbitrary, it means you've missed the point of what iv said and im not the mood for it either.

You said that being a part of a faith makes you accountable, do i need to quote you directly.

That means the 2 billion muslims are accountable. What else would it mean?

You also said that without religion atrocities wouldn't happen. But you still did not explain to me Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Last time i checked those were not muslims nor Christians.

 

[Hist]

religion is double edged and that is what makes it dangerous. You can do great good things motivated by religion like charity. But you can also do ugly stuff with it too. The problem originates from 2 main factors.
1) Faith: faith is blinding. It tells you do not think; this is beyond you. Take it to your heart. Your mind is incapable of comprehending the divine.

2) Scripture: its too general and open for interpretation. You can interpret it in more than a hundred ways and derive from it conclusions far from the initial intention of the writer.

The combination of scripture & having faith in whatever is revealed in it is what makes it dangerous.

We have Wahhabis like those who control saudi arabia who interpret the quran in a very strict manner regarding rules.
We also have liberals who interpret the quran to be very friendly and tolerant to people's differences.
We also have the Sufis who interpret the quran in a spiritual sense only.
We also have the terrorists who interpret the quran in a very violent sense.
... you get the point.. all of these are Muslims yet they are extremely different in almost everything they practice and how they view what should be done and what shouldn't.

Each and everyone of those thinks that he has the right understanding and that the others are wrong, not true Muslims who misunderstood the word of God. see its completely subjective.

Whilst regular muslims call the likes of Bin Laden Terrorist! he calls them cowards and not real muslims.
He thinks he is right.. they think they are right.
Even Sunnis VS Shi'ia.. each thinks he is right and the other will go to hell if not needs to be stopped by force.

There are 4 main Islamic Shari'a Law schools in Sunni Islam, each giving a different account on the contents of the law...They couldn't even all agree on whether coffee is forbidden or not.
They derive these laws from 4 sources:
1) Quran
2) Hadiths (prophets actions)
3) Quyas (analogy from past events to recent ones)
4) Ijmaa (Consensus using argumentation and reason)

Each school gives different weights to each source, however whats sick about it is that in all schools, Consensus (reason) comes last, that is if they fail to find reference in the other 3 sources (which they think are true because of FAITH).

Faith makes you fail to see the relativity and makes you act blindly. Scripture makes people with different faiths. As a consequence, conflict.. war.

Faith also makes you vulnerable to manipulation by whoever you trust to give you the 'right' interpretation. It gives the trusted religious leaders the opportunity to make people believe in anything regardless of it making sense or not. THAT IS TOO MUCH POWER.

Apply this on a greater scale across all religions within themselves as well as between one religion and another..... chaos!