Non-Believers and the Qur’an: An Atheist Examines a Stupid Meme | Kile Jones

Non-Believers and the Qur’an: An Atheist Examines a Stupid Meme | Kile Jones April 3, 2015

GUEST POST BY KILE JONES

As an avid practitioner of social media, I have come to accept the sharing of overly simplistic, naïve, and hateful memes as commonplace. The digital marketplace is not minus the vitriol of the real world. But as a former student of religious studies, and an atheist interested in working with religious persons, there are times when I have to stand up and say, “enough is enough!”

 

Recently I came across a meme comparing the Qur’an with hate speech. Apparently, according to this meme, the Qur’an says hateful things about “non-believers” 50 or so times. Including calling us “pigs,” “liars,” and “losers,” to name a few of the cacophony of slanders.

Many of these passages are cited more than once, so I won’t bother going over the same verses twice.

11111

 

 

So I decided to look up these verses and see for myself whether this meme should be taken to show the Qur’an as hostile to non-believers.

 

1) We “eat like beasts.” 

  • 47:12:“Indeed, Allah will admit those who have believed and done righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow, but those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as grazing livestock eat, and the Fire will be a residence for them.”

 

O.k. so those who disbelieve “enjoy themselves and eat as graving livestock eat.” Maybe I am being too nice, but I don’t see this verse saying, “You non-believers, you eat like beasts!” The verse appears to be juxtaposing the righteous—who have done righteous deeds—and not just any non-believers, but those who focus on carnal and fleshly pleasures. These non-believers are pictured as roaming around, illogically sucking up a hedonic fix. They are as dumb as livestock, because they only focus on “enjoying themselves.”

 

Many of us atheists, say the same things to the orgiastic-frenzied followers of Dionysus. They are set aside again two verses later, so notice what kind of non-believer is spoken of: “So is he who is on clear evidence from his Lord like him to whom the evil of his work has been made attractive and they follow their [own] desires?” [emphasis mine].

 

2) We “are apes.”

  • 7:166: “So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, “Be apes, despised.”

 

Us non-believers call them “common ancestors,” but calling someone an ape can be quite the insult. But we have to ask who “they” are? Are “they” non-believers in general? Nope. If you read Surah 7 you will realize that it is describing the story of Adam, all the way down to Moses and Noah. Verses 61-64 speak specifically about Noah and the deluge. In verse 163, you will find the people who are called “apes”—a group of people who disobeyed the Sabbath, not non-believers in general. Once again, context matters.

 

In Surah 5, you will see that Muslims were taking in ridicule for their prayers (57-58) amongst the various “People of the Book” (“′Ahl al-Kitāb,” usually thought of as early Jewish and Christian sects). Apparently the rabbis and religious scholars of the time were not forbidding certain speech and action (63), and they are being rebuked. Once again, this is not directed to all non-believers, but to religious persons. These verses call out Sabbath-breakers and those who worship false gods (“Taghut”), not your everyday non-believer.  It is the same with Surah 2. Notice how verse 65 mentions “those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath.”

 

3) We are “the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight.”

  • 8:55: “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe.”

 

So who are these people? They have “disbelieved,” that’s for sure. They appear to be connected to the people described in the next verse “whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time.” The verse before speaks of them as well: “[Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and of those before them.” The verses following 55 indicate that these are people who are breaking peace treaties with Muslims. If we strictly isolate “disbelievers,” and universalize Allah’s approach to them, then yes, this verse is problematic. But, once again, if this verse is about a specific kind of non-believer, then we must be careful not to generalize to all non-believers.

 

4) We are “losers.”

  • 2:27: “Who break the covenant of Allah after contracting it and sever that which Allah has ordered to be joined and cause corruption on earth. It is those who are the losers.”
  • 3:85: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

 

Far from the worst of insults, “loser” can still be quite offensive. So you break a contract, don’t believe in the Qur’an, and desire a different religion, and you lose. It would be strange to think of these verses as something other than basic religious doctrine—namely, there are tenets in Islam as there are in any other religion, tenets that prescribe one way of thinking and acting and condemn other ways of thinking and acting.

 

It would be foolish to think of this like that high-school friend who would say, “what a loser!” This is meant to convey a loss of cosmic proportions, not to name-call. All of the verses following 3:85 are about the eternal states of believers and non-believers, and yes, it looks like non-believers will be punished in the afterlife. And to be honest, you can easily find more grueling depictions of torment in certain forms of Buddhism, or Christianity for that matter.

 

5) We “have a disease in our hearts.”

  • 2:10: “In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.”
  • 5:52: “So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into [association with] them, saying, “We are afraid a misfortune may strike us.” But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.”
  • 24:50: “Is there disease in their hearts? Or have they doubted? Or do they fear that Allah will be unjust to them, or His Messenger? Rather, it is they who are the wrongdoers.”

 

In chapter 2, who is the Qur’an speaking of? Who are “they?” Well non-believers, I’m sure it’s not you. That is, unless you are “some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but they are not believers” (2:9). I doubt you do. Similarly, Surah 5 is more about the Jews and Christians of the time, than about those we think of as “non-believers.” 5:51 specifically mentions Jews and Christians, and 5:59 shows that this message is directed towards the “People of the Book.” This is more of a debate amongst Jews, Christians, and Muslims in 7th century Arabia than a diatribe against modern-day non-believers. That’s my opinion at least.

 

In Surah 24 the claim of disease is the same as Surah 2 or 5: it is directed at people who say they believe in Allah. Notice a few verses before: “But the hypocrites say, “We have believed in Allah and in the Messenger, and we obey”; then a party of them turns away after that. And those are not believers” (24:47).

 

Now, let’s just say, for sake of argument, that these verses are referring to people like me. I’m not quite sure how the Qur’an saying I have a disease in my heart is hate-speech. If this were the case, countless other texts would be hate-speech. So would anything calling believers “idiots,” “blind,” or “evil.”

 

6) We are “hard-hearted.”

  • 39:22: “So is one whose breast Allah has expanded to [accept] Islam and he is upon a light from his Lord [like one whose heart rejects it]? Then woe to those whose hearts are hardened against the remembrance of Allah. Those are in manifest error.”

 

Technically speaking, this verse is not saying non-believers have hard-hearts, it’s saying “woe to those whose hearts are hardened against the remembrance of Allah.” Once again, how is this hate-speech? Would it be hate-speech for a non-believer to say a Muslim is “stuck in his ways” or “unable to see the truth?” I don’t think so.

 

7) We are “impure of heart.”

  • 5:41: “O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, “We believe” with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying “If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware.” But he for whom Allah intends fitnah – never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah. Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

 

I’m not sure how the meme-maker saw this as saying non-believers were “impure of heart.” It is speaking to those who say they believe with their mouth “but their hearts believe not.” This does not sound like a non-believer to me. Also notice how this verse says, “Allah does not intend to purify their hearts.” If you are seeing some anti-Semitism in this verse, be careful to note the word “among.”

 

8) We are “deaf.”

  • 2:171: “The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries cattle or sheep – deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand.”

 

Verse 170 talks about those who reject this new message of Muhammad, and stick to what their fathers believed. And then the example of those who disbelieve being like cattle is given. I am not afraid to say that I find this comparison offensive—but I certainly don’t consider it hate-speech. Similarly, I can’t help but think of the people these verses are directed at and what Catholics refer to as its sitz im leben.

 

9) We are “blind.”

  • 6:25: “And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, “This is not but legends of the former peoples.”

 

I understand the sentiment expresses here. Sometimes I look at people and think, “they’ll never change.” And in this sense, I see the Qur’an communicating this struggle. Saying someone is “blind and deaf” to the truth has been going on since time immemorial, and it would be strange of me to consider this something shockingly novel. Us non-believers use that kind of language all the time.

 

10) We are “dumb.”

  • 11:29: “And O my people, I ask not of you for it any wealth. My reward is not but from Allah. And I am not one to drive away those who have believed. Indeed, they will meet their Lord, but I see that you are a people behaving ignorantly.”

 

I guess the person who created the meme meant to equate those “behaving ignorantly” with those who are “dumb.” You will also notice that Muhammad is talking to people who think he may be using his provisions incorrectly, or unduly elevating himself to a God-like status.

 

11) We are “niggardly.”

  • 4:37: “Who are stingy and enjoin upon [other] people stinginess and conceal what Allah has given them of His bounty – and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.”
  • 70:21: “And when good touches him, withholding [of it].”

 

First of all, who the hell uses the word “niggardly”? So non-believers are said to be stingy and miserly, right? In Surah 4 the word “disbeliever” is used—but once again it’s a certain kind of non-believer. If you read the verses surrounding verse 37, you will quickly notice that these non-believers show off their money and riches.

 

70:21 follows a list describing “mankind,” (who are “anxious” and “impatient”) not just non-believers. But verse 22 may imply that these people are those who are not praying—i.e. non-believers. All around, I see this Surah as more of a message on how to responsibly utilize your wealth than decrying the greedy mentality of all non-believers.

 

12)  Our “works shall be rendered ineffective.”

  • 2:217: “They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting therein. Say, “Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.” And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.”
  • 47:1: “Those who disbelieve and avert [people] from the way of Allah – He will waste their deeds.”
  • 47:8: “But those who disbelieve – for them is misery, and He will waste their deeds.”

 

The area around 2:217 spends quite a bit of time discussing issues relating to warfare—such as holidays from war, provisions, contacts and oaths, and the ethical ways to fight. Notice how the people this verse is directed to not only fight against them, but they try and make them turn their backs on their religion. It makes much more sense to view Qur’anic passages in historical context. It alleviates much of the burden of trying to shift the blame from all members of group x, to the particular people it has in mind.

 

Surah 47 provides glimpses of who these non-believers are: they “disliked what Allah revealed” (9), “travelled through the land” (10), and were driven out from Makkah (13). Sure, if you wish to interpret this passage as a metaphor for how future non-believers are considered, fine. But don’t act like these verses are not context-dependent.

 

13)  We are “impure.”

  • 8:37: “[This is] so that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good and place the wicked some of them upon others and heap them all together and put them into Hell. It is those who are the losers.”

 

More precisely, depending on translation, we are “wicked.” A few verses earlier you can see who these passages are speaking to, namely, those who were fighting against Muhammad. “And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners” (30). Remember how important it is to find out the identity of “those.”

 

14)  We are “scum.”

  • 13:17: “He sends down from the sky, rain, and valleys flow according to their capacity, and the torrent carries a rising foam. And from that [ore] which they heat in the fire, desiring adornments and utensils, is a foam like it. Thus Allah presents [the example of] truth and falsehood. As for the foam, it vanishes, [being] cast off; but as for that which benefits the people, it remains on the earth. Thus does Allah present examples.”

 

Foam. Yes, foam. This passage could be a metaphor for non-believers, especially since they are juxtaposed with believers in the next verse, but even if so, I fail to see how controversial this is. What do you expect from the Qur’an? That there is no difference between someone who believes in Allah and someone who does not? I could think of a lot worse things than “foam” to call those I disagree with.

 

15)  We are “inordinate.”

  • 5:68: “Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.”

 

Someone please tell me how this verse shows non-believers to be excessive or unrestrained. This should be a lesson to all of us on proof-texting.

 

16)  We are “transgressors.”

  • 9:8: “How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.”

 

I wish I didn’t have so little to say here. Read the verses before verse 8 and you will realize that polytheists are the ones being talked about. These verses are all about how to handle polytheists during wartime. And listen to how sickening verse 6 is: “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

 

17)  We are “unjust.”

  • 29:49: “Rather, the Qur’an is distinct verses [preserved] within the breasts of those who have been given knowledge. And none reject Our verses except the wrongdoers.”

 

Unjust, wrongdoer, gotcha. Let’s remember who this is addressed to. These “wrongdoers” were around at that time and are mentioned in the following verse: “they say, “Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?”

 

18)  We “make mischief.”

  • 16:88: “Those who disbelieved and averted [others] from the way of Allah – We will increase them in punishment over [their] punishment for what corruption they were causing.”

 

Notice how everything is in past-tense. It’s not saying “all future people who disbelieve”—rather, specifically looking at verse 86, this passage is speaking to the polytheists of the time.

 

19)  We “are the worst of men.”

  • 98:6: “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”

 

Remember, the “People of the Book” (′Ahl al-Kitāb) and polytheists are not non-believers in the way we understand them. Also, notice how these groups disbelieved at a certain time. Their disbelief was punctiliar—i.e. at a historical place in time.

 

20)  We “are in a state of confusion.”

  • 50:5: “But they denied the truth when it came to them, so they are in a confused condition.”

 

Does anyone else notice how low the bar has been placed for “hate speech?” Confused? Really? Given the context of the Surah, I can see this being addressed to all people, even future ones. It goes through an argument from design and a history of what Christians call “natural revelation.” The mountains, the rain, the starry skies—these all speak of Allah. But once again, being called “confused” is a far cry from hate speech. I am thoroughly offended.

 

21)  We “are the lowest of the low.”

  • 95:5: “Then We return him to the lowest of the low.”

 

This short Surah is primarily about reward and judgment in the afterlife. Verse 6 says, “those who believe and do righteous deeds, for they will have a reward uninterrupted.” So yes, at the time of judgment, non-believers may be “the lowest of the low.” But this certainly doesn’t indicate that, while living, we are “the lowest of the low.”

 

22)  We “focus only on outward appearance.”

  • 19:73-74: “And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who disbelieve say to those who believe, “Which of [our] two parties is best in position and best in association?” And how many a generation have We destroyed before them who were better in possessions and [outward] appearance?”

 

Here it is indicated that Allah destroyed many generations who were wealthy and privileged. These verses in no way indicate that all non-believers “focus only on outward appearance.” Of course, their were some who did back then, and some who still do, but certainly these passages don’t make the claim of the meme-maker.

 

23)  We are “sinful liars.”

  • 45:7: “Woe to every sinful liar.”

 

The sinful liars “Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment” (45:8). Here is a passage I find very problematic. Bare in mind that this “sinful liar” may also be someone who “ridicules” the Qur’an (see verse 9), but either way, both understandings bother me. Similarly, to Muslims, Allah is saying these things, not people. Does this verse mean Muslims should go around calling non-believers “sinful liars?” And if calling someone a “sinful liar” is hate speech, than innumerable people and groups have been doing this since time immemorial. If you’re really looking for condemnation, read Romans.

 

24)  “Allah does not love them.”

  • 3:32: “Say, “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” But if they turn away – then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.”

 

I don’t understand how Allah not loving non-believers is hate speech. If I said, “I don’t love you” would you consider it hate speech? The Sahih International translation that I have been quoting uses the word “like” instead of “love.” Many other translations use “love.” Either way, not liking or loving someone is nothing like hate speech. Also, I don’t like treacherous and ungrateful people as well.

 

In conclusion, it’s fair to say that proof-texting the Qur’an via meme is unwise. It ignores the textual and historical context in which these passages consist. Calling these passages “hate speech” towards non-believers is entirely unfounded. It’s a rhetorical ploy designed to rally non-believers against Muslims. Let’s also not forget the passages that are left out of the meme.

 

109:6, for instance, says, “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” This is a far cry from hate-speech.

 

*This was a guest post by Kile Jones. The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Quranalyze It.

Kile Jones is an atheist involved in inter-faith dialogue who works towards building bridges between non-believers and religious persons. He is also the founder of Interview an Atheist at Church Day and Claremont Journal of Religion. His twitter is @KileBJones

Enjoyed this piece?

1. Please SHARE it to promote our voice.

2. SUBSCRIBE to our blog (No spamming – promise!).

3. LIKE our Facebook page for more! 

 

"whats the very next verse after the compulsion one?.....exactlyyou know damn well abrogation exists in ..."

Yes, You Are Taking Those Verses ..."
"In most/all illiberal Muslim-majority countries, it is."

ISIS Has Something to do With ..."
"Does the Qur'an tell us to flay him, stone him, quarter him, boil him, or ..."

ISIS Has Something to do With ..."
"Ma sha Allah, thanks for summarizing the Surah. This is very helpful. I ll comeback ..."

A Short Summary & Chapter Notes ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Muslim
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Faraz Talat

    I was surprised at the bias because some of the verses are clearly not flattering, until I read the description at the end and boom…there it is.

    Yes, indeed, a billion Muslims with all its scholars, have it dead wrong. Only Progressive Muslim bloggers have successfully decoded the “true Islam” in the text which, oh what an excellent coincidence, perfectly matches their social and political worldview.

    Religion is, what its followers perceive. It’s a matter of faith, and personal interpretation. You cannot advertise your progressive version of Islam as any more objective than that of an average Wahabbi, Deobandi, Salafi, Sufi, Barelvi, Shia and any of the gazillion sub-sects I have not named.

    We need progressives to acknowledge and reform the weak spots in the ideology that serve as inspiration for bigoted attitudes and culture of violence in the Muslim worth. Denying them and making excuses, isn’t helping.

  • Nicklas Ben Rasmussen

    I couldn’t agree more. +1 Faraz 🙂

  • Joe

    yes the whole idea of ‘hate speech’ is silly. the Koran is not hate speech, it is just silly.

    but if you want to read how this and the hadiths lead to real hate, the killing of disbelievers, read the book of jihad by ibn nuhaas.

    download here:

    http://www.khilafahbooks.com/the-book-of-jihad/

    so what do you think of this hadith:

    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.

    again I wouldn’t call that hate speech. I would say it is the speech of a supremacist.

  • Tarik

    For the vast majority of christian history, christian authorites openly defended the rich and made policy decisons that benefited them, and stomped the poor. If somebody came to you (probably Bill O’Reilly) and told you that Jesus actually supported the rich, and that it was silly to say otherwise because most christian scholars within the Church feverently supported the rich, would you take him seriously, or would you laugh so hard that you’re entire life would be suspended in the newfound struggle for oxygen as you reeled yourself back off the floor? You might do the former

    What matters is the argument, not who makes it, besides where do you get “a billion muslims and all it’s scholars” can you provide a reference that a billion muslims and all their respective scholars agree with what this article intended to disprove?

  • Marcion

    If the quran doesn’t have a problem with unbelievers, how do you explain the sheer glee it takes in describing the sadistic punishments awaiting them? You do not fantasize about something like this:

    Some of them believed, and some of them averted their faces from him: And enough is Hell for a burning fire.Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
    4:55-56

    Happening to people you like. Also note how the only sin of the people who are being tortured forever is that they didn’t believe. You might still try to claim that these are only the unbelievers Muhammad has a problem with, but I’m not particularly impressed by the claims that the nastiest parts of the quran are only about particular groups and not meant to be generalizations. If these are only about Muhammad’s political opponents, why are they referred to exclusively in religious terms? Why not use their non-religious identities unless you’re trying to make a larger point about members of certain religions?

  • Faraz Talat

    When it comes to faith, the argument has little meaning.

    A theist may argue all day long that an angel has two wings, against another theist arguing that it has four; each fortifying his argument with references from the scripture that are wide open to interpretation.

    As a frustrated third-party, I’m rooting for the side whose interpretation is most attuned to modern times. But I cannot declare it the winner just because I *want* it to be right.

  • Bert Beukema

    A fine piece of apologetics

  • Hasan Ahmad

    The hilarity of this argument is mesmerizing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you believe in a God, you would believe in the punishment of hell. However if you don’t believe in God, you wouldnt believe heaven or hell exists. The question arisis, why are you offended at something that you think doesn’t exist. If you do think it exists, you would follow it considering the magnitude of Hell vs Heaven. Ridiculous hypocrisy by Islamophobes

  • Hasan Ahmad

    People who can’t find hate in Quran grasp their entire arguments on Hadith. Lesson for the people: A hadith is only legitimate if it does not contradict the Quran, considering Hadith were written in 10th century while Quran was revealed in 7th and to Muslims, Quran is the word of God and Hadith is based of memory of stories through the grapevine

  • Hasan Ahmad

    What you can do is read the Quran fully considering it is a holistic book and then come up conclusions, Any person looking at it holistically will know Quran and Islam does not promote hate to any people except those who attack muslims, are transgressors in all their affairs and are liars (replace Muslims with any other group and you will likely agree with that book ironically)

  • Marcion

    I’m not worried about gods, I’m worried about people who hold others in such contempt that they fantasize about them having their skin burned off forever. If someone wants people tortured for not holding the right religious beliefs, that’s hateful. Plain and simple.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    So what is your argument based on if you don’t believe. You would only be concerned if you DID believe. getting concerned over something you do not even believe in hilarious. No one fantasizes over burning off skin when if you have even attempted the read the Quran and history of Islam, Muslims are asked to pray for All people Muslims and non-Muslims praying they do not fall for Hell and are in fact good people in the end saving themselves. Its a haters and ironically stupid argument to be worried about something which is far from what you even consider to be the truth. If you had read the Quran as opposed to base your whole argument on cherry picking, you wouldnt have even have thought of the first comment you posted here,

  • Joe

    so how do you translate zina?

  • Marcion

    I’ve read the quran. Whole book, cover to cover. I have 30 pages of notes on the thing. And you’re missing my point:The quran talks about an entire group of people who deserve nothing but suffering due to their religious beliefs. This is hateful, just like it’s hateful when people fantasize about nuking mecca. If the quran doesn’t think unbelievers deserve suffering, why does it say they’ll have their skin burned off forever? There’s not a singe nice thing about unbelievers in the quran. We’re always referred to in some negative way. Before you say something about context, let me repeat myself:

    I’m not particularly impressed by the claims that the nastiest parts of the quran are only about particular groups in the 7th century and not meant to be generalizations. If these are only about Muhammad’s political opponents, why are they referred to exclusively in religious terms? Why not use their non-religious identities unless you’re trying to make a larger
    point about members of certain religions?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    I don’t think you have read the Quran. If you did you would know this: What does the Quran say about places of worship other than the Mosque. Who can go to heaven among non-Muslims. If you had read the Quran which I know for sure you are lying now, you would know it only prescribes punishment for those who transgress, act violently and reject Islam not in the sense of saying no to it, but acting against it in the form of acting against the religion and/or Muslims itself physically, for those who lie and the hypocrites who say they follow Islam but their actions are against the prescribed actions.

    I can smell a lie from a mile away because if you HAD read the Quran, you would know the above.

  • Hasan Ahmad
  • Joe

    dude I got no volume. why is it so hard to just answer the question?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    its a youtube video, you cant hear a youtube video which I am right now? you wanted the translation of Adultery and its punishment was the next question coming from you and I gave you the answer right into your lap. When you get YOUTUBE working for you, give it a listen. stop being in a hurry and listen when you get volume

  • Marcion

    So unless I conclude that the quran is wonderful, I can’t have read it? That’s arguing in good faith. Look, the religious tolerance of the quran is real but limited. Other abrahamic religions get a pass:

    Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
    2:62

    Except for when they don’t, like the poor trinitarian christians:
    They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allahis one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
    5:72-73

    Meanwhile, polytheism is the one unforgivable sin:
    Allah forgiveth not (The sin of)joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).
    4:116

    What happens to polytheists? Well, Moses orders the calf worshippers killed:
    And remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.” Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
    2:54

    It’s important to note that another term for calf-worship is religious pluralism. And what happens to the polytheists when they’re dead? We get right back to the verse that started all this:

    Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
    4:56

    None of this is particularly worse than the bible. But it’s not much better either. That’s the problem with the quran: It wasn’t bad for its time, but it’s hideously outdated in 2015.

    And nothing you’ve said responds to my original point, which is that it’s hateful to fantasize about others being tortured because they had the wrong religious beliefs.

  • Joe

    he forgot:
    9:30
    Sahih InternationalThe Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
    or 5:32-33 or 51.
    and what? shirk is the one UNFORGIVABLE sin? sharing divinity to aught but allah quarantines the hellfire.
    calling people liars with no proof should be poor adab, don’t you think?

  • Joe

    it has nothing to do with youtube. I have no speakers on this computer.
    I wanted the translation of zina. does it mean adultery or fornication? is it a broad term for ‘illegal’ sexual activity? does the 2nd verse of the 24th surah abrogate the ‘divine’ punishment of rajam.
    if you know what my next question is, why can’t you answer it?
    you have listen to it, right? tell me what it says. why is that difficult?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    This is going to be hilariously easy:

    just 5 verses after 5:73:

    Say, ‘O People of the Book! exceed not the limits in the matter of your religion unjustly, nor follow the evil inclinations of a people who went astray before and caused many to go astray, and who have strayed away from the right path.’

    Islam is seen as following after the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament very clearly saying: There is only One God with no partner. The followup, those who believe in Trinity going astray from the teachings of Jesus, built on the lie created 100s of years after Jesus believing in 3 Associations with God. Look at the Quran and Hadith, it clearly concludes that after Understanding your old testament which is the crux from which Christianity was Borne and Reading and Understanding Quran, if you still believe that despite the Book of God which came before you (Which says There is one God) and the Book after you (Which says There is one God), you still believe in the LIE that there are associations with one God, then you fall into the same trap of purposely believing a lie. It does not mean that if a person casually is a reader of Quran and has not gotten the knwoledge of Quran fully (like you) that he will go to hell, it is only for those who KNOWINGLY seek to still believe in partners with God in a faith which is Abrahamic and contends there is one God with no Partner

    This ironically is also clear in the next example YOU gave where if you read the verse RIGHT before it, it explains the above verse and the 2nd one:

    4:115 And as to him who opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows a way other than that of the believers, We shall let him pursue the way he is pursuing and shall cast him into Hell; and an evil destination it is.

    Thus proving , unless he gets a CLEAR guidance and knowledge of Islam and still opposes it, it will be for his own loss as he went for Associations with God knowing the clear guidance, they will know in the end if Islam is right that they are wrong in the end.

    then comes 2:54 where Moses wasnt talking to polytheists solely but Jews who took up worshipping an idol to which the words say ‘Slay yourselves’ Directly contradicting 2 verses of Quran and 1 from Torah which forbid suicide. the other Arabic word translation for the word AlNafs is soul, where Killing the soul is a total reformation of the soul (as Soul in Islam cannot be killed literally)

  • Hasan Ahmad

    this would only offend you if you were a believer of God and did not like these rules. All these punishments are in the afterlife, something YOU dont believe in, so we come full circle and ask, what do you care what happens in the afterlife you dont believe in. its a stupendous statement

  • Hasan Ahmad

    here is a gist:

    1. When you believe in Islam, you KNOW what the punishment for adultery is as a Muslim
    2. Islamic punishments can only be applied in an Islamic society which is Islamic in Character: doesnt hurt minorities, people dont lie, people dont murder, people dont cheat on their wives, people dont have affairs etc etc etc
    3. There is NO country in the world today which is Islamic in Character and there has been none as Muslims in 7th century were a tribe not a nation.
    4. If you as a Muslim know the punishment of adultery, being a Muslim, you by Proxy accept the punishment of adultery, logical conclusion correct?
    5. the witnesses needed for adultery are 4 , all 4 witness the act of penetration as it happens at the same time. how likely is it to happen in the above mentioned Islamic society?
    6. the tribe of Muslims in 7th century had such a high moral standard they came to the Holy Prophet themselves to confess and be punished rather than wait for 4 witnesses to catch them.
    7, the punishment for adultery is not death

  • Marcion

    So what you’re saying is that the quran contradicts itself. I agree. And you still haven’t explained why it’s not hateful to want people to suffer forever.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    No the Quran being a Holistic book has said clearly, when you see a contradiction, look for the conclusion which matches the message of the whole book, which is to establish peace.

    As the Quran says:

    3:8 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding. —

    those who understand rather than read will conclude it rightly

  • Marcion

    Wait, I’m reading your reply and I reread this:

    “then comes 2:54 where Moses wasnt talking to polytheists
    solely but Jews who took up worshipping an idol to which the words say ‘Slay yourselves’ Directly contradicting 2 verses of Quran and 1 from Torah which forbid suicide. the other Arabic word translation for the word AlNafs is soul, where Killing the soul is a total reformation of the soul (as Soul in Islam cannot be killed literally)”

    Are you saying that death is, at least in some circumstances, an acceptable punishment for “Idolatry”?

  • Joe

    I’m not offended. I find it hilarious. mostly because muslims claim their god to be merciful. don’t the surahs begin with that.
    I don’t care what happens in the afterlife. there is no afterlife. we are talking about the hypocrisy of islam. you can’t claim a god of mercy while saying he is a god that throws people in to a hellfire that is so painful that it is beyond description.
    but the question is for this life. does allah destroy them by muslim hands? and who is crucified for ‘spreading corruption’? I take it you didn’t down load my link to the book of jihad by ibn nuhaas?
    your name is ahmad? are you an ahmadi?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    oh God people read wrong in so many ways. lol. The one word says Slay Yourselves. the Meaning of the word is not literaly slay yourselves but slay your soul AKA reform yourself from scratch . How hard is that to understand.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Yes an Ahmadi. God is merciful in that he creates so many outlets of going to heaven and only a few to go to hell. Looking at it broadly, you can go to heaven by being a nice person, not knowing anything about religion but just being nice yet if you purposely lie, hurt people, the most obvious people, you go the hell which is not eternal mind you, it is a temporary phase where your soul is cleansed and everyone in the end will enter heaven. That is the mercy of God.

  • Marcion

    I’m skeptical. The bible story this is based on has the calf-worshipers slaughtered by believers, and I don’t see why the quran would be any different.

    And you still haven’t explained why it’s not hateful to want people to suffer forever.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Islam doesnt view hell as forever. forever maybe in this worlds time scale but Hell is a phase through will you pass eventually into heaven. like a Drug addict who gets the most hurt (through pain of withdrawls) in a 100% recovery hospital until they come out clean (their souls are cleansed) and they all enter heaven. in this case the drugs are sins of this world

  • Marcion

    Not according the the quran!

    And those who followed would say: “If only We had one more chance, We would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us.” Thus will Allah show them (The fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire.

    2:167

    As to those who reject Faith,- if they had everything on earth, and twice repeated, to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted of them, theirs would be a grievous penalty. Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their penalty will be one that endures.

    5:36-37

    It’s great that Muslims don’t view hell as eternal. You’re better than your holy book. But that doesn’t change the book itself.

  • Joe

    1. so what is the punishment?

    2. really, so why does Muhammad stone so many people to death?

    3. oh fuck. not the tired, there has to be a true Islamic state bullshit. well ISIL thinks they are a true Islamic state. the sultan of Brunei must think he is because he just implemented the hadd punishments. Saudi Arabia. iran. the Maldives. please.

    4. no you still haven’t even told me what the punishment is. and having read forward in 7, you still haven’t? why?

    5. but pregnancy can be a ‘witness’. I don’t think you have read you hadiths. you call others out as if they are liars. lol.

    6. lol. you are ‘cherry picking hadiths: Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid: While we were with the Prophet , a man stood up and said (to the Prophet ), “I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” Then the man’s opponent who was wiser than him, got up saying (to Allah’s Apostle) “Judge us according to Allah’s Law and kindly allow me (to speak).” The Prophet said, “‘Speak.” He said, “My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son’s sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man’s wife should be stoned to death.” The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.” Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.

    7. WHAT???????

  • Hasan Ahmad

    again, showing a complete lack of education on Islam. Read this from my colleague: http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/04/29/get-the-eternal-hell-out-of-islam/31857

  • Hasan Ahmad

    I think you are still misled by orientalist thinking, you might have to wait until you get a speak to listen to the youtube video. im sure you have a smartphone to do it. The Hadith of The Holy Prophet(saw) stoning anyone is of a corrupt source.

  • Joe

    dude, seriously. you are speaking for islam from a minority of a minority position. it would be like a Jehovah’s witness explaining Christianity. not even. there are less than 20 million ahmadiyya out of 1.5 billion mulsim.
    and don’t you claim a khalifah?
    please. and are you America? you heard of this qqusim rahsid guy, who wrote ‘the wrong kind of muslim’?

  • Marcion

    Going through this now, will post thoughts in a bit. But I can’t help but notice how much of this depends on arguing the meaning of words in Arabic. I have to ask: If the quran is god’s perfect, eternal message for all humanity, why is it in an archaic version of a language that 95% of the human race can’t understand?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Arabic is a very complex lexicon understanding, One word has multiple meanings. Thus Quran is considered Holistic in the sense that if you think a message of a verse is this, tally that against the whole Book and see if it is right, any doubt and it does not.

  • Joe

    no I don’t have smart phone. you assume too much. so what is the punishment for adultery. the more you duck the question the bigger the liar you look.
    these are simple questions.
    you say the early muslims came to confess against them selves, 4 times because they were so pious. so what punishment did they receive for their indiscretions?
    you speak in circles, hell they aren’t even circles. they are disconnected gibberish.
    either you know the punishment you believe in or you don’t.

  • Marcion

    How is this different from saying that the quran is vague, confusing, and difficult to understand, even if you understand arabic. Which 95% of humanity doesn’t.

  • Marcion

    Ok, done reading. I can’t comment on the arabic, but my big problem with their non-arabic argument is that nothing they cite actually refers to hell being a place of spiritual healing, or even that people are able to leave hell. All the descriptions of hell in the quran that I can remember off the top of my head involve some variation on:

    1. Fire burning your body
    2. Drinking some sort of foul liquid
    3. Being burned with scalding liquid
    4. Eating unpleasant fruit from the tree of zaqqum

    None of which lead to anything but more suffering for the unbelievers. Could be wrong though.That said, the fact that Muslims try so hard to work around the quran just reinforces my earlier point: Your average Muslim is a much better person than their god.

  • James Matthew

    Your claim that for “the vast majority of Christian history authorities openly defended the rich” is flat out false unless you mean they outlawed theft. For the first few hundred years of Christianity you find poor Christians being persecuted by pagans.

    For the first few hundred years of Islam, Muslims were using military force to conquer everyone around them taking rich parcels of land. For the first few hundred years of Islam you find poor Christians and pagans being persecuted by Muslims.

    I am not even a Christian but if you are going to try and make claims of moral equivalency you should be more careful in your wording.

  • Faraz Talat

    It’s a poor defense. Like I can’t condemn a Georgian politician’s tweet that “A husband is allowed to slap his woman, if it comes to that” without first reading all 6,000 tweets he’s sent.

    Unless the tweet was succeeded by a “JK!” or preceded by a “A misogynist might say:”, I don’t think I’m missing any context. It’s bad. Let’s not make excuses for it.

    P.S I have read the Quran. Twice.

  • Tarik

    No no, not trying to make some kind of moral equivalency, I’m just against the standard that just because something was doctrine for a very long time that it must therefore be the most true intrepretation of a religion, I’m not trying to say muslims were better than christians or something like that full stop, that would just be untrammled bigotry

  • Tarik

    Ahh I see what you mean, of course we must always demand to know the truth despite what we would prefer it to be, the reason I focus on what might be most true to the scripture is because it helps with understanding the situation, if it’s not most true to scripture, then where does the understanding come from and how do you then tackle that? Also, if it isn’t true to scripture then you would undermine yourself if you wanted muslims and others to say that it is as that would make their arguments and ability to reform weaker, On the flip side it’s important to know if it is true to scripture for similar reasons as well

  • Tarik

    I’ve edited the original comment to specify the Church and not christians in general

  • dave

    The issue is not how some might rationalise away the hate speech in the quran, but rather the observation that there are millions that embrace such words as literal truth and utilise it to justify intolerance, misogyney, violence, homophobia and murder – that is the key concern.

    The attempt to persuade non-believers that the quran is non-violent is to attempt to persuade the wrong people. This is a conversation that needs to be had with those that do embrace it all as truth.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    If the Quran says: Kill the idolators where they stand, You by your own biased volition think its a blanket statement. there is a thing called CONTEXT when the Quran then says until they stop attacking your faith combined with the other verses of the Quran which says only attack those who attack you, know the limits of your retalitation against those who wrong you, the punishment of those who attack you should be on the same level and yet still if they stop attacking you, you should forgive them, Always incline towards peace when it is offered to you by anyone.

    This just shows and proves the following verse

    3:8 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding. —

    Maybe as its a religion you should reflect and understand more than just claim to read it like a school book in matric

  • Hasan Ahmad

    The suffering in Hell is of the soul, a body is not in heaven or hell, its the soul. the Quran says we evolve our death into a form we know not or we cannot conceive of it, this also means the punishment and reward mentioned is something we cannot conceive of, so Quran describes the example of it as we see it in this life.

    the Fire Burning and Hot as Hell is a metaphor of what the soul goes through for those who kept believing in lies, transgress, lie, etc etc

    There is a great article of the philosophical explanation of Hell

    https://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000017.html

    Only those believe in Hell who believe in Heaven thus those who believe in Heaven. If you believe in a God, you are given a warning by God that if you do evil, you will not find solace in me despite believing in me, you will be cleansed in Hell. God in Quran warns those who disbelieve that those who don’t believe after they have clearly understood that God might exist AND then act on that disbelief by going against the believers, that you might enjoy that act of going against God in this world, but God will judge you for acting against people in the hereafter. Similarly, if a person does not believe but does good deeds and harms no ones, then God does not give the monopoly of heaven to only the believer, Heaven can and will find a way for the disbeliever in such a view as well. Quran says again and again that there are disbelievers who not only disbelieve but act against the believers, this does not stand in the eyes of God.

    the punishment of Hell thus is a warning to believers and disbelievers of those who do bad deeds overall, so if a disbeliever says the punishment of Hell is too much, well it is too much because the sin by the believer or disbeliever was an accumulation of his or her entire life of sin, you can only say its too much if you believe it exists, and when a believer believes he KNOWS how the punishment is and knowing it, he does good deeds to avoid hell altogether cleansing his soul in this world as a result.

  • Neurotic Knight

    So, as per you the quran says, you may or may not believe this book, it is your choice, whatever your beliefs might be, you are as respectable as any other person?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Do you give up when you don’t understand something ? Those who find the easy way out become the overtly liberal muslims or the overtly conservative muslims depending on how they read it

  • Joe

    so no word on what the punishment is?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    In a perfect islamic state where adultery is an extreme exception and the moral standards are high and the people with the highest level of morals see the act of penetration as it happens and then decide to tell the authorities in this perfect islamic society where adultery is the extreme exception rather than the norm, the punishment of the adulterer is 100 lashes where the lashes don’t leave a mark on the body of the adulterer who himself before he committed adultery knows that if he does commit adultery as a muslim in a perfect islamic society and seen doing the act of penetration by 4 muslims with the highest morals is this punishement. No one gets to see then this is unfair as he was a muslim and knew the punishment of being caught in a perfect islamic society with the highest morals by 4 muslims of the highest morals in the act of penetration.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    As per Islam, the only disbelievers that have a punishment in the afterlife who act on the hate of faith or who are evil in the sense of evil acts like violence against others, injustice against others, theft etc etc etc.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    You just applied the no true scotsman. The majority of Muslims believe in the the same non-voilence as Ahmadi Muslims do. The philosophy of Ahmadi Muslims is to reform Islam back to the fundamentals of Islamic belief of the 7th century, not the manufactured beliefs which crept in after the 10th. Our position is the OG position, not the sequels that followed.

  • Joe

    was that so hard. 100 lashes (with a million caveats). lots of ‘high morals’ and ‘perfection’ in there. dude your fiqh is funny. surprised you didn’t breakout the story of lot/lut lashing his wife with 100 blades of grass. but you say, “No one gets to see”? yet 24:2 or 3 by your count, says “let a group of believers witness their chastisement”.

    anyway, interesting that you mention the witnesses have to be muslim.

    so if under this perfect caliphate, with highest moral, only muslims get to be witnesses to ‘crimes’? so in this ‘perfect’ society, pious muslims hold a stature above all else. we lowly kufr hold what standing?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    punishment for adultery is applied only on muslims by muslims. Not that hard to understand and just as I predicted you focused on everything but the conditions. A non muslim does not get punished for adultery based on muslim law, that would be a direct conflict with the directive not to apply muslim religious laws on non muslims

  • Joe

    who said anything about apostasy?????

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Oops adultery, fixed

  • Joe

    so if under this perfect caliphate, with highest moral, only muslims get to be witnesses to ‘crimes’? so in this ‘perfect’ society, pious muslims hold a stature above all else. we lowly kufr hold what standing?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    How did you come to that conclusion, you are failing hilariously bad to find cause for concern. The punishment is for muslims only and the only witnesses that islam asks are muslims witnessing the act because the muslims will be the one ones involved. Your concern is another proof of the conditions because it’s notnsaying muslims have the monopoly on morality it’s saying if a non muslim sees the act he is exempt as a witness for an islamic law being applied even if his morality is higher than muslim witnesses . Thanks for making the conditions even tougher to apply I’ll use that when i discuss this same issue with someone else. Great example of how hard it is to meet conditions and this is only for witnessing adultery not for murder or theft which is a universal breaking of law not breaking of islamic code of conduct

  • Joe

    I didn’t come to any conclusion. I asked a question. sorry if my punctuation failed on one sentence, but it is a question.
    does this apply across all crimes?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    No, only breaking islamic rules of conduct like adultery of which the punishment is specific for the faithful not those who disbelieve and not universal rules like theft or murder etc etc

  • Joe

    holy fuck. a straight up answer. all praise is due to allah. lol.
    so under this perfect, high moral society, non-muslims are able to fornicate and commit adultery without concern for the Islamic law?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    In private, even here in US, if you have sex in public you get arrested due to public indecency laws but if your morals are so degraded that even in an islamic society you want to cheat on your wife then muslims won’t apply the law of islam on you

  • Joe

    no I didn’t apply the no true Scotsman. I said you speak from an extremely minority position. i don’t think we need to get into the ‘seal of the prophet; and the claims made by mizra ghulman ahmad. if he was the al-Mahdi or the second coming of jesus. you have heard of sunnism? the wahabists, salafist, deobandis? the shias out number you by a mile. hell the zaidi in yemen may outnumber y’all? certainly as an ahmadi you are familiar with ordinance XX in Pakistan?
    as Forrest Gump once said, islam is what islam does.

  • Joe

    so as a society we should have multiple laws according to everyone’s religion?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    that could be a way, in the time of the Holy Prophet (saw) jews were judged on the Torah, Christians were judged on old and New Testament and muslims were judged on torah for every situation until a verse was revealed for a situation then at the end they wrre judged on the Quran. In an even more diverse society islam suggests Democracy until there is a time when there are no sects and one true sect prevails and its morals are high only then a true islamic societu can come about and even in that time democratic process should be used for government which should be secular

  • Joe

    so now that the Koran has been ‘revealed’, (“until a verse was revealed for a situation then at the end they wrre judged on the Quran”) we are all to be judged by it? seems a direct contradiction of what you said earlier. I thought we made progress with your direct answer. you have run yourself into such a circle you are stepping on your own toes.
    which is it. the Koran is the ‘divine law’ of the earth, or not?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Christians were a heavy minority for 300 years after christ and then they slowly started to grow after 300 years.

    A great analogy is oil, a precious fuel we need in today’s world. For thousands of years people used to see oil bubbling on the surface and it was of no use to them, they didn’t care much about it doesn’t mean it wasn’t essential. If you apply your logic we can say what’s the use of the peaceful reformist Ahmadis who are so small in number when they could be precious for you . Similar to the precious metals which are essential and have made our lives better and even through we knew it existed in small numbers we thought of it as insignificant

    The ignorance of people about us doesn’t mean we have no value and in time people will know our value

  • Hasan Ahmad

    We are all judged by it as per Islam but what do you care if you are not a muslim. Quran is not supernatural it is the word of God and its up to man to spread it by education. A pew poll from 2 days ago projected islam is the fastest growing religion and will replace Christianity In numbers by 2050. Even if you are judged by God in islam it doesn’t mean there can’t be democracy

  • Joe

    fuck Christians. your analogies are of no concern. rare earth metals in electronics, gold, oil, what does that have to do with the non-sense that is the Koran. and that the majority of muslims interpret isalm much differently than you.
    here is the difference oil became useful. islam never will. it’s more like the guy in Pennsylvania who discovered oil and tried to make vodka out of it. didn’t work. I guess I’m being to impatient, it’s only been 1400 years and we still see the events of Kenya.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Language of a person of true moral good character lol. The analogy is that if a thing is not seen as precious now doesn’t mean it has no value if it is smaller in number. We are already growing and majority muslims have same views as Ahmadi muslims. Can’t stop the inevitable when you have to accept your own morality

  • Joe

    yes we all understand demographics. y’all breed like rabbits. people of reason in the industrialized world have come to understand that having 4,5 8, 10 kids is no longer necessary or good.

    “We are all judged by it as per Islam but what do you care if you are not a muslim.” now you have managed to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

    “Quran is not supernatural it is the word of God” jesus fucking Christ, you have done it again.

  • Chris Cooper

    I don’t really care about the “eat like beasts” bit, but its immediately followed by “The Fire shall be a residence for them.” How do you ignore that?

  • Joe

    yes we will all die. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china. yes I swear like a sailor. so that makes me of low moral standing? fuck Muhammad. fuck allah. for that I’m immoral? so a muslim who prays 5 times a day and uses no such language is more moral than me even if he kills for allah. especially if he kills for allah? I take it you didn’t download the book of jihad I posted?

  • Joe

    funny, didn’t your prophet jesus say, ‘judge not lest ye be judged’? so you judge me immoral by my language?

    “We are already growing and majority muslims have same views as Ahmadi muslims” bullshit. they kill you people all the time. great endorsement of your beliefs. lol.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDpJ1y8rgQ

  • Hasan Ahmad

    One can judge easily by your militant atheist attitude towards anything peaceful regarding islam and your non willingness to accept that islam can be peaceful becsuse that would undermine your whole philosophy of religion as useless. So Christians were killed in Collosiums in Rome in early Christianity, did they not grow after that ? Just because some people kill Ahmadi muslims doesn’t mean being muslim is bad and doesn’t mean islam is evil. It is as the Quran says in 3:8 that people who mislead and who are misled by a pervesion within themselves that they act like they . It doesn’t mean they can’t be reformed.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    The fact here is I respect your right to disbelieve and leave you at that but you don’t respect my right to believe because to be honest, if you did respect my right to believe you wouldn’t be trying to find and failing flaws and trying Nuanced gotcha statements which obviously don’t work. Your morality is judged by the fact that do you respect those who want peace. With you it doesn’t seem that way because when a peaceful movement is presented to you, you sweep it under the rug because your argument is built on the foundation of hatred. An example is if majority muslims want peace your focus is fixated on those who don’t, that is a bad character ststement and only a person who wants conflict would want that

  • Joe

    who said religion is useless. it is beneficial in regulating behavior of the fearful. or it can be beneficial in creating chaos. it can be useful in getting people to blow themselves up obviously.
    you call me a militant but I’ve never done anything militant. I’ve shot no one, killed on one, attacked no fort. unlike your prophet Muhammad. he was a true militant. fought in many battles.
    anything CAN be peaceful. but some things just aren’t. 1400 years an counting.
    your ‘perfection’ continues to look less than perfect. in fact extremely flawed.
    your claims don’t match reality.

  • Joe

    you can believe anything you want. I am a staunch supported of the first amendment. as that guarantees freedom of religion, it guarantees freedom of speech. I know your boy qasim Rashid wants to limit my freedom of speech, but I’m not having it.
    ‘a peaceful movement’ you may have been against violent revolt against the british but I emailed the ahmadiyya in London like 4 years ago. their website had doves on it and I thought, amazing some peaceful muslims. so I asked about the aftermath of the battle of trench. the beheading of the captured. guess what response I got……
    ‘they were pagans’.

  • James Matthew

    Again no, the entirety of Christianity was illegal and hunted under the Pagan Romans for around 300 years. By comparison when Islam reached 300 years old its armies had captured thousand of miles of territory and slain all who resisted their invasions.

    There is no vast period of time when any Christian Church had a “screw the poor for the betterment of the rich” policy.

    And I say this as someone who is not a fan of Christianity.

    Your argument should rest on logic not slander of others.

    You are entitled to make up your own opinion but not to make up your own facts.

  • Joe

    putting words in my mouth isn’t going to work. I respect your right to believe what you want. that doesn’t mean I have to respect your beliefs. it is sad to here you are and American, or at least in America, but don’t understand these concepts.
    so if I was a Satanist you would respect my beliefs?

  • James Matthew

    Again I point out there has never been such a doctrine in Christianity and your false claim that there was is just as silly as someone claiming that eating pork and drinking alcohol was okay for Muslims until recently – its just flatly false.

  • Tarik

    I really don’t think we’re seeing eye to eye here so I’ll say what I mean and I’ll be more specific.

    The reason I responded about history to the original comment was because I disagreed with the point Faraz made He said this:

    “Yes, indeed, a billion Muslims with all its scholars, have it dead wrong”

    I brought up the point that for the majority (not all) but for the majority of the Church’s history that it had supported the rich not to say that Muslims were better than Christians or something like that, but to clarify that just because many many people hold some opinon, that it dosen’t mean said opinon is correct. So in that case, I was bringing up the fact that just because a lot of church authorities historically supported the rich once they were in power, that dosen’t mean that it’s silly to say that Jesus or Christanity don’t support the rich, on the contrary I think the only relevant material is the scripture of the religion, when you are attempting to argue best for what that religion teaches

    So in sum, my argument is not “christians did bad things too! So the Qu’ran is okay!” My argument is that just because many people hold up a doctrine as descpritive of their faith does not mean it is so. To your point that for the first 300 years xtians were persecuted and for the first 300 years after Muhammad’s death many muslims fought and conquered. Yes I agree absolutely! I am NOT in any sense AT ALL saying that muslims are better than Christians or anything like that, I’m just pointing out that since the Church was in a position of heavy power, it largely took from the poor, which was the opposite of Christian theology, but just because that was an established opinon for hundreds of years dosen’t mean it’s one that’s true to Jesus’s message of Christanity. That’s what I meant to say

  • Tarik

    Maybe I phrased it a bit weirdly, I mean the general fact that the Church worked with and was a part of the state, which, like most countries for most of history, was ran in such a way as to largely benefit the rich and admonish the rest, the Church defended the governments that it was mostly a part of, who were often extremely rich compared to the rest of the population. I also want to make something extremely clear, I am NOT saying that violence by muslim authorites is overshadowed by this or something, my point was for most of it’s history, christian authorites acted in a way that was opposite to jesus’ message on income inequality, and yet nobody remotely suggests that they are right just because they insisted on those policies for so long.

  • Faraz Talat

    Hasan,
    Where did I talk about ‘kill the idolators where they stand’ verse? Just because some verses seem okay in their context (context being the 7th century behavioral model that, for humanity’s sake, ought not be emulated in the 21st century), doesn’t mean all are. Although, we were pretty upset with the “American Sniper” who called Iraqis “savages”, even in the context of war, don’t you think?

    Don’t latch on to the one verse you feel you can defend adequately. There’s a plethora of them.

    And please stop patronizing me like I’m a gora from Mobil, Alabama. I know my Islamiyat, thanks. You’re not doing yourself any favors pretending that you’re the only one who has successfully decoded Islam, and all those who disagree, simply haven’t “reflected” as you have.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    All verses need to be looked at holistically and all verses which are violent are either for disbelievers who attack muslims directly or muslim hypocrites who attack other muslims or those who perform treason. There is nowhere where the Quran asks muslims to initiate the violence in fact if repeatedly asks muslims to never be the transgressors

    I think you went to a Islamiyat class in a desi school and called it a day without a minute of understanding

  • Tarik

    I think by holistically he meant the verses that surround it, so the example you used about the senator and the tweet would apply, just my 2 cents

  • Joe

    I was just starting to have some respect for you. but now you run away. so sad.

    so what does this mean: (you know, not to cherry pick anything)

    [5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
    [5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
    [5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
    [5.35] O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness to Him and strive hard in His way that you may be successful.
    [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 themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment.
    [5.37] They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment.
    [5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
    [5.39] But whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms (himself), then surely Allah will turn to him (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
    [5.40] Do you not know that Allah– His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He chastises whom He pleases; and forgives whom He pleases and Allah has power over all things.
    [5.41] O Apostle! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.
    [5.42] (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.
    [5.43] And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.
    [5.44] Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.
    [5.45] And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.
    [5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
    [5.47] And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.
    [5.48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;
    [5.49] And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.
    [5.50] Is it then the judgment of (the times of) ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure?
    [5.51] 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.
    [5.52] But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.
    [5.53] And those who believe will say: Are these they who swore by Allah with the most forcible of their oaths that they were most surely with you? Their deeds shall go for nothing, so they shall become losers.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    are you Muslim? If you are then this is warning if you sin, if you are not, why be concerned about something which you dont believe in.

  • Joe

    because those that believe want to impose their nonsense on us.

  • Joe

    wtf, have you never heard of shirk?

  • Joe

    [9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
    [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
    [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
    [9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
    [9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
    [9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.
    [9.34] O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,
    [9.35] On the day when it shall be heated in the fire of hell, then their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded with it; this is what you hoarded up for yourselves, therefore taste what you hoarded

  • Hasan Ahmad

    there is life outside the internet too. on a Saturday no less, Anyway:

    5:32-5:53

    No one is allowed to put a man to death unless he has murdered someone or if he commits treason (the penalty of which is also death in the United States)

    The Punishment for those who attack Muslims in the name of religion or commit acts of treason in the name of religion, they should be fought against or they should be imprisoned UNLESS they stop attacking muslims in the name of religion. Then God asks muslims that your faith is your duty to this world and you have to strive hard to fullfill this duty which is being righteous, have upstanding morals and be truthful and fear God. God will punish those disbelievers who attack Muslims and dont stop fighting them that even if they have even a little bit of good in them, that good will not be accepted from them in the day of judgement and they have to be reformed first in hell before passing into heaven. Whoever steals without compulsion meaning stealing for pure greed and not through desperation, then the punishment for that has been described as amputating the hands (as proven by history and Hadith) or putting this criminal in jail (if there is doubt about pure greed) as the word used for severing is also used for putting someone out of circulation and thus in jail in Arabic Lexicon. This is PROVEN in the next verse which says UNLESS this thief repents and reforms himself. This is also interpreted by some (through history and Hadith) that even if someone steals out of pure greed and genuinely repents and promises to reform himself, his hands wont be cut off. Allah forgives those who you think wont be forgiven due to something only Allah knows (this persons secret) or punishment someone who you think wouldnt be punishemtn due to something only Allah knows (this persons secret). Then Allah talks about people and says unfortunately a few Jews have been misled into this as well, that they only listen to you so they can create a lie, What they do is they listen to your words (words from Holy Prophet, Muslims etc) and then twist the meaning of those words to their own people when they go back to them and tell them things the Holy Prophet and Muslims and Quran did not and do NOT mean in general. Then there are those who knowingly believe these lies and accept them as truth. God says it is HE who will punish these people in this world through hardships and in Hell. then Allah says these people build their entire argument on lies based on what you told them which was the truth, so when these such people come to you for help or a query, using your best judgement if it needed then help them if they really need righteous help or ignore them and Allah promises that if you ignore them, Allah will not put that as a negative on you on the day of judgement. Then God asks the Holy Prophet this question. Why would they honestly consider you a judge in matters to help them when they had the Torah in their hands (those few misled Jews) and instead of believing a word in it, they act like disbelievers. Then Allah repeats the messages in the Torah given to the Jews as a whole and how a few have gone astray from those teachings. Then God repeats that just like a few Jews went astray a few Christians went astray in their teachings and to such an extent that they started to act against you (Holy Prophet) and Islam in general. Allah says dont take SUCH jews and christians who act against you as friends because of their unjust ways towards you (talking to Holy Prophet) and Islam in general. Then Allah mentions at the end that the true believers will look at these few who have been misleading and misled and say, these people had the covenant and truth, and now they are of the losers meaning they lost their way and respect in the eyes of God due to their transgression and actions

  • Hasan Ahmad

    who is imposing. Quran says it clearly. Let him who disbelieves, disbelieve, let him who believes, believe.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Allah says the idolators who attack you are nothing but unclean in their hearts and assures Muslims they will not approach the sacred Mosque after this year. verse continues that fight these such Idolators who attack you until they pay Jizya in acknowledgement that they were defeated at the hands of the defending Muslims after they attacked Muslims for religious reasons. Then God says Jews say Uzair is son of God, Christians say Jesus is the Son of God, and because of this partnering with God when we taught these particular Jews and particular Christians that there is no partner with God and if they still partner someone with God KNOWING that God told Moses and Christ that there is no partner with God, then they will not be forgiven for this in the eyes of God. Then God says these are the same people who try to diminish the value of God as one but wil fail miserably in their actions. Then God says he has now sent Muhammad (Saw), the Holy Prophet with the religion of final truth even though these few Jews and Christians might not realize there is no new religion after Islam. then God says these misleading few jews and christians like to rob the people out of their money to support their causes of having someone partner with God and then he tells Muslims to tell them,if they keep on misleading people and getting their money knowing God told them no one can partner with God, they will be going to Hell. And then he tells Muslims that because you 1. partnered God with another, 2. Lie to other people that partnering is what real Judaism and Christianity is, 3. steal money from people by asking them to support their cause financially, that their punishement in Hell will be very severe as they did Shirk, Lied and Stole, all 3, the greatest Sins in the eyes of God as per the Quran.

  • Joe

    read the 2014 pew survey.

    or see the women lashed in Khartoum fro wearing trousers. the Norwegian woman who went to the UAE police to report a rape and was imprisoned for not producing the 4 pious male witnesses you are so fond of.

    “Quran says it clearly.” you aren’t serious. how about salmam rushdie? theo van gogh? the Swedish cartoonist? the Charlie heddo guys? should I continue?

    “who is imposing” the Islamic state. boko haram. JI in Indonesia. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Brunei. Bangladesh. Pakistan.
    again, you aren’t serious.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    If life was run by Polls. Al Gore would be President. on a serious note, many muslims nations and many clerics are clearly extremist, doesnt make the majority (90+%) of their victims who are muslims extremists too.

  • Joe

    so any one who says jesus is god is a liar?

  • Joe

    ok. what does that have to do with anything. you asked me “who is imposing.” and I told you.
    clearly the Koran isn’t so clear.
    don’t you think?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Anyone who knowing that Abrahamic sources clearly say there is no partner with God and still partners someone with God is lying as per Islam and that includes muslims

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Pretty clear to me. Which is why you have to understand a faith before believing it. If you believe just by reading it then you are not a true faithful

  • Joe

    I’ve already been to the beach today. that is the total of my non computer use. you are funny. here you are on the computer, but somehow I have no life, but you do. lol.

    “No one is allowed to put a man to death unless he has murdered someone or if he commits treason (the penalty of which is also death in the United States)” yet Islamic countries have tried to kill people for leaving islam and have killed people for sorcery.
    jesus fucking Christ I got down to THEN and then gave up. what the fuck are you talking about?
    were is the word SUCH jews in there?

  • Joe

    true, I am not a true faithful. I am a kafir. so why isn’t it clear to the muslim terrorist throughout the world?
    how is it you ignore those who are ‘imposing’ it. you asked a question and I answered it. yet you totally ignore it.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    yet islamic countries…….. are they Islamic because they tell you its Islamic or you know from Quran they are following Islam. please educate yourself on the faith before talking about it. lol

  • Joe

    so that is a yes?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    If it were clear to terrorists what I have been telling you, they would be drinking diet coke like I am in bed, not killing people.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Did I stutter? there are those who MISLEAD , they are lying, there are those who are MISLED, they are unfortunately living a lie according to OLD testament itself

  • Joe

    you didn’t say yes or no.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    those who MISLEAD, YES, those who are MISLED, their living a lie and can still go to heaven if God wills, your statements are too immature ‘ is that a yes or no,’ ‘ you didnt say yes or no’ debate on substance rather than gotcha debates.

  • Joe

    so many caveats. so a catholic priest MISLEADS, but a catholic person is MISLEAD. so the priest goes to hell, but the catholic person doesn’t?

  • Joe

    so it is not clear?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    facepalm

  • Hasan Ahmad

    facepalm. its still talking to a brick wall. as my faith says, if the other is willing to listen and comprehend rather than not understand, leave the conversation and pray and give the others time to understand

    my words are very simple and you seem to be purposely not understanding any of it and trying to create a question from an answer and when I answer that, you are creating a question which is already answered.

    I already have too much of that when debating right wing nutjobs

    Manufactured concern.

  • Joe

    I know, it is very frustrating.
    why speak in riddles like the Koran does.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    I think your manufactured concerns means this topic is done. you have the answer and now you are scraping for scraps which dont exist.

  • Joe

    how have you answered the question? does the priest mislead? the parishioner is mislead?

    “those who MISLEAD, YES, those who are MISLED, their living a lie and can still go to heaven if God wills”

    who are ‘those that mislead’ and who are ‘those that are mislead’?

  • Joe

    I have no concerns. I know islam and the Koran are silly. that was in my first post.
    you are the one concerned with defending islam.

  • James Matthew

    Seriously dude you just keep repeating the same statement that the Christian Church supported the rich over the poor when there are facts that it did not.

    Again I am not a Christian, nor a fan of that religion. I can list out dozens of arguments why the historical Jesus of Nazareth failed to fulfil the Jewish scriptures around the Messiah, I can further lay out arguments that the entire concept of Messiah in Judaism is foreign to the early stories of the Hebrew Bible and was read back into these scriptures after the Hebrews were being conquered by their neighbours and was not in the mind of the writers of Genesis, Exodus, etc.

    But one can not claim that Christianity or the hierarchy of any Christian Church favoured the rich over the poor. Most of the Christian heroes whom they call “Saints” like Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa worked directly with the poor. And those of their heroes who were born into royalty usually become heroic by aiding the poor, such as their saint Elizabeth of Hungary. People abusing their positions to make themselves rich have always been condemned by Christianity.

    Where are you getting your claim that its a “general fact that the Church . . . for most of history, was ran in such a way as to largely benefit the rich and admonish the rest”?

    There is zero support for this. There is in fact lots of proof that the opposite is true.

    What you are doing is the same as if a Christian was saying that throughout most of Islamic history Muslims ignored the teachings of Muhammed and got drunk all the time while they smeared their foreskins with pork grease, and only lately decided they should stop doing that – its not only false – the opposite can be easily proven to be true.

    All you have been doing is make a bold-faced assertion with no support and then rewording that assertion without changing your basic claim. A claim you offer no support for.

    If you have some historical facts that I am unaware of then present them, otherwise you should realize that you have been taught
    slander and lies about Christianity and are spreading them. I am not
    “for” Christianity but I am against slander and lies.

  • Tarik

    I have to do some stuff now, but I promise to give you a detailed response of what I mean later. Might be in a week or so as I have school

  • JimmyKhan007

    Are you sure you “know” Islam and Qur’an?

  • Joe

    I know they are silly. yes I’m sure.

  • lmntCrans

    “kill the infidels wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush” abrogates your “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” The confused gobelty-book contradicts itself so often that they had to invent an official excuse. If it had been written by an all knowing deity it shouldn’t look like it was made up as it went along.

    In case you haven’t noticed, between Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, and the local gentleman with a machete hacking innocent civilians to death on the street, or his dear friend using a rifle on cartoonists, claims about the peacefulness of Islam are failing to match the bloody reality. You can make all the pious mewling you want, the dead will not contradict you.

  • lmntCrans

    Muslims kill Muslims. Do you think this is news?

  • lmntCrans

    No, he asked a reasonable question. If that book of hate and instructions to murder were written by an all knowing deity, why does it keep contradicting itself?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Which verse is contradictory ?

  • lmntCrans

    I do not believe that I, on anyone else, will get 17 virgins in heaven for killing innocent people. BUT those who do believe your nonsense murdered nearly 3000 human beings. That is why I object to your foolishness

  • Hasan Ahmad

    So you are believing the word of radical muslims OVER the word of moderate muslims. What does that make you ? A radicalists sympathizer. Does Stalin or Pol Pot represent atheism ? Does hitler or Spanish inquisition represent Christianity ? Of course not , they represent the perversion of their true faith. It is foolish thinking that there cannot be a perversion of any true faith. Where does it say you get Virgins in heaven for killing people or hurting people ? Why did terrorism only begin from the 1960s? Why was there an islamic educational rennesaince before they went astray, doesn’t logic dictate it’s supposed to be the other way around ? Let the hate out of your head and you will think clearly and not like a radicalist who perverts their faith or world view

  • lmntCrans

    “when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” is in direct opposition to,”For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”

    The contradictions are so numerous that all sects of Islam speak of abrogation, which means, “Never mind what I said before and pretend it isn’t just made up as we go along”

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Qouted like a true Radicalist, just like they don’t you never even read the verses before it and after it

    [9:4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.

    Which means permission is only given when people fight you IN defense

    Or the verse after it

    [9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.

    And again

    [9:7] How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.

    And again

    [9:12] And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief — surely, they have no regard for their oaths — that they may desist.

    How many verses do you need

  • lmntCrans
  • Hasan Ahmad

    If that is the best response you can cone up with…..

  • lmntCrans

    None of Our revelations do We abrogate [nansakh] or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?—Q.2:106

    In plain language, “when we screw up and this hodgepodge of nonsense contradicts itself, don’t mention it or you will be killed”

    For a reasonable listing of examples;
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/by_name.html

  • lmntCrans
  • Hasan Ahmad

    This is hilarious. Did you even read the verse when you are quoting it ?

    https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=2&verse=106

    “There are no signs we remove or do we make people forget. Instead we bring people better signs or something similar

    Read the verse before it

    They who disbelieve from among the People of the Book, or from among those who associate gods with Allah, desire not that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord; but Allah chooses for His mercy whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is of exceeding bounty.

    Or 2 verses after it
    Would you question the Messenger sent to you as Moses was questioned before this? And whoever takes disbelief in exchange for belief has undoubtedly gone astray from the right path.

    And right after that

    Many of the People of the Book wish out of sheer envy from their own selves that, after you have believed, they could turn you again into disbelievers after the truth has become manifest to them. But forgive and turn away from them, till Allah brings about His decree. Surely, Allah has the power to do all that He wills.

    You should get the trend now. The verse says just like the people of the book or the Jews or Christians of early days wrre shown signs of God and true prophethood of Moses and Jesus, that those should not be forgotten but for this new religion, Islam we have given you new signs and proofs of it being true and the finality for Abrahamic faith

    How hard is that to understand

  • lmntCrans

    It seems clear enough, and your response suggests you have nothing to counter its truth.

  • lmntCrans

    None of the dead at the World Trade Center will disagree

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Faltering badly . Educate yourself rather than reading blogs https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

  • Hasan Ahmad

    If that is your best response you can come up with..

  • Hasan Ahmad

    If a comic is your response to a debate, you have already lost it. Where is the substance. Every single verse you present as violent is countered with knowledge. I think you need to educate yourself https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

  • lmntCrans

    You use an ahmadiyya website, which Pakistan has declared are non-Muslims. In another example of Muslim tolerance, Doctor Mehdi Ali Qamar was gunned down when he visited to teach medicine in an Islamic country. Perhaps you are familiar with the so-peaceful Muslims and the 2010 Lahore Attacks?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    And did we condemn muslims and islam for killing my Ahmadi brothers in faith ? NO. We are persecuted because we follow the Quran and Hadith just like with the only point of contention being there can be subordinate Prophets after Holy Prophet under Islam and Jesus died a natural death. That is it, apart from that 95% of muslims believe in the same interpretation as Ahmadi muslims. As I said, educate yourself before debating me you are only coming from a position of hate. And what does me being Ahmadi have anything to do with opinion, is my view any less valid than a non Ahmadi muslim ?

  • lmntCrans

    I think it rather conclusively demonstrates that the apologists trying to claim Islam is peaceful are liars. They squabbling sects of the ignorant murder each other and cry “islamaphobia” when anyone objects to the murder of cartoonists. http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-given-islamophobia-award-muslim-group-312392

  • Hasan Ahmad

    So the vast majority who are peaceful muslims are liars while the ones who are not peaceful are truthful. Think about that for a second. You are endorsing the message of ISIS and Al Qaeda who say the Americans who say they are for peace are liars and the ones who want war are the truthful.

    Disturbing. Remove your hatred from within you, stop thinking like an extremists and maybe you can help the 80-95% muslims who want peace to defeat the radical ideas. Isn’t that what you want? By your logic peace from a muslim doesn’t matter, that’s the same thinking as ISIS

    as I said your view is militant and disturbing

  • lmntCrans

    As a non-Muslim, which Pakistan and 95% of the Ummah consider you to be, your words have the same weight as that of any other kuffir. And the attempts by the true Muslims to wipe out your people should make you question your assertion that Islam is peaceful.

  • lmntCrans

    No, not liars, thankfully, most people don’t really care much about religion, or take it all that seriously. Apatheists is how most people regard the entire matter.

    Those who take the nonsense seriously .. well, again, we saw 19 devout Muslims fly airplanes into buildings and murder innocent people as part of their deep and sincere belief.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    It makes me question your intelligence that if you know history you would know the only reason we are considered non muslim is believing the subordinate prophet after Holy Prophet (saw) has come. Rest of the interpretation is 95-99% similar with all but the radical muslims and radical militant atheist thinking people like you

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Most people still do as the pew poll suggests atheists will fall in numbers while islam will be the biggest growing faith by 2050. Muslims are coming lolllll

  • lmntCrans

    Fall in percentages, not in absolute numbers. I suppose you can be pleased to belonging to a group that murders people for trying to leave, and has major actors arguing that the world is flat. Yes, hundreds of years ago Islam had a few scholars, their works have been eclipsed by modern scholarship, a thing that is foreign to the Islamic world.

  • lmntCrans
  • Hasan Ahmad

    Every point you gave is so hilariously bad and built on lies that the only response it. Stop reading from blogs and start reading the truth.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Did you even read. Atheism will rise in us and Europe but GLOBALLY islam will rise. Are you so western centric that yo forgot your geography ? Lol

    http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/pf_15-04-02_projectionsoverview_projectedchange640px/

  • lmntCrans

    do you understand the difference between absolute numbers and percentages?

  • lmntCrans

    Yes, there will be many more poor ignorant savages. We can expect them to behave in the manner that they have been brought up.

    Why do you suppose that it isn’t the Islamic countries that have an immigration problem? People seem to be willing to break every law to escape from governments designed by the Prophet. Then, once they have gotten out ot their hell holes, they want to recreate the failure they left in the country that was gracious enough to allow them to infest their shores.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Did you forget go see the whole chart ? http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/pf_15-04-02_projectionsoverview_projectedchange640px/

    If more people %wise become religious, even with the new people born between now and 2050, the percentage will rise. Do you forget the number of people being born between now and 2050 and how much population will increase. Let me give you a math lesson

    Say there are 100 people in a building, in 10 days there will be 200 people in the building

    Right now there are 80 muslims and 20 atheists, hypothetically speaking. Going by this stat when the population reaches 130 in days days there will be 170 Muslims and 30 atheists

    Percentage wise the influence will be even smaller with a growing population

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Lol now muslims are savages. Well played you showed your bigotry finally. First you got defeated on islamic verses then you got defeated in math and soon you will realise your militant logic will be over run by rationality and reason, I can’t debate with someone who finally shows such open bigotry of calling muslims in general savages

  • lmntCrans

    So why, in your peaceful imaginary Islam, do the majority sect of Muslims kill Qadian Muslims, as in the example I gave?

  • lmntCrans

    “atheists will fall in numbers”(your quote) vs “10% gain in numbers”(Pew Report). Again, do you understand the difference between real numbers and percentages?

    The poor countries, which have low levels of education, and are primarily Muslim, and yes, those two items are intimately tied together, will continue to outbreed civilized parts of the world.

  • it doesn’t really matter what unbelievers think the Qur’an says because they won’t live their life around that anyway. but it does matter that millions of Muslims believe the Qur’an says these things and act on those beliefs.

  • nawawi

    What is extremism, arent those killing people in the name democrazy extremist.

  • nawawi

    Enough for u

  • nawawi

    You need to understand the context, this unbelivers were ever in pusuit of the belivers to harm them hence the permission for the believers to respond to the threat.

  • nawawi

    Those that are truthful will never give unconditional support to any body,will not be selfish to hold wmd to himself but not to others even though others have never use such wmd on others,will not support some regimes bcse they benefit them,will not support injustice even to their enemy

  • lmntCrans

    When dealing with a codified set of belief, your “never give unconditional support” is apostasy, punishable by your death. When you try to speak reasonably you must betray the very thing you are trying to support.

  • lmntCrans

    But if you don’t have an advanced degree in fairy-ology you can’t hold a public opinion about fairies.

  • lmntCrans

    You are asking for a coherent, honest answer from someone who is only interested in calling you a ” right wing nutjob”. He is evasive and dishonest, and will, no doubt, tell others how he was able to refute the infidel’s lies… even though i could program up a better chatbot than him in an afternoon.

  • lmntCrans

    yes, dishonest and written to salve those who agree with his assertions. Exactly what you want in apologetics.

  • lmntCrans

    The cartoon is accurate, and visceral. Also, “Je Suis Charlie!”

  • Joe

    right, right. and if you read the Koran and don’t fall down crying and wanting to convert to islam, your heart is diseased. you are ignorant. if you don’t believe in beings made of smokeless fire, jinn, or giants you are clearly the one who is delusional.

  • lmntCrans

    So good to hear that you have seen the Truth !

  • Bert Beukema

    Please, abrogation alert! Apostasy in the quran is to punished, by chastisement. We look to the hadith to see what chastisement is, the answer is clear : death. Which is also the punishment in all Islamic countries. Thank you very much.

  • Joe

    not sure what ‘seen the Truth’ means?

  • lmntCrans

    I didn’t think the “/s” was needed 😉

  • Bert Beukema

    Well, the real answer is that mohammed couldn’t very well have jesus be the son of God. It would demean his own prophet status, seeing as he was neither born from a virgin or the son of God. So, the story was changed to fit his needs, as is all content in the quran. Thank you very much.

  • lmntCrans
  • Hasan Ahmad

    hmmmm

    Let us look at what the Holy Quran says:

    “Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher;
    Thou hast no authority to compel them.
    But whoever turns away and disbelieves,
    Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment (Hell)
    Unto Us surely is their return,
    Then, surely, it is for Us to call them to account.”— Surah Al-Ghashiya 22-27

    Does this suggest that anyone who disbelieves after believing will go to hell? That is not entirely the case. Here is how this is explained by the Quran:

    “Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the way.”— Surah Al-Nisa 138

    “Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed — save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith — but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment.”— Surah Al-Nahl 107

    The message to Muslims is that the punishment of Apostasy is not be applied by man, but by God himself. Here is what the Quran says in this respect:

    “We know best what they say; and thou hast not been appointed to compel them in any way. So admonish, by means of the Qur’an, him who fears My warning.”— Surah Al-Qaf 46

    “And as for those who take for themselves protectors beside Him, Allah watches over them; and thou art not a guardian over them.”— Surah Al-Shura 7

    “But if they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guardian over them. Thy duty is only to convey the Message. And truly when We cause man to taste of mercy from Us, he rejoices therein. But if an evil befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, then lo! man is ungrateful.”— Surah Al-Shura 49

    “Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ But if you turn away, then upon him is his burden, and upon you is your burden. And if you obey him, you will be rightly guided. And the messenger is not responsible but for the plain delivery of the Message.”— Surah Al-Nur 55

    “And say, ‘It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.’ Verily, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose flaming canopy shall enclose them. And if they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten lead which will burn the faces. How dreadful the drink, and how evil is the Fire as a resting place!”— Surah Al-Kahf 30

    “But if they turn away, then thou art responsible only for the plain delivery of the Message.”— Surah Al-Nahl 83

    These are just the few of the many examples proving that anyone who disbelieves is doing it on their own detriment in the eyes of God but the purpose for Muslims is only to deliver the message of God. One of the biggest and clearest verses of Man only following Islam and God being the punisher (not Man) is in the following verse

    “ And whether We make thee see the fulfilment of some of the things with which We threaten them or whether We make thee die, it makes little difference, for on thee lies only the delivery of the Message, and on Us the reckoning.”— Surah Al-Ra’d 41

    At this point the question you ask yourself, If Quran is this clear about how to treat apostates, where is the criticism coming from. The extremists who defy Allah, by choosing to follow suspect hadith over the word of God are the ones who set the example incorrectly. Ask yourself the question looking at it logically, from a Muslim perspective, Quran is the word of God and authentic Ahadith are a collection of words and actions of the Holy Prophet (saw), which takes precedent? The primary source of the incorrect tradition from Ahadith is explained here by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV in his book “Murder in the name of Allah”:

    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_7.html

    An Authentic ahadith is that which does not contradict the Quran especially considering that Ahadith were compiled 200-300 after the death of the Holy Prophet (saw)

    Here is a Powerpoint of how to distinguish between Authentic Ahadeeth and those which might be suspect

    http://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/Authenticity-of-Hadith.pptx

    This is usually the typical folly by people who blame Islam without even studying Islam. Your view is Quran abrogates verses , when you are given context to the verses you claim are abrogate you IGNORE that context and then claim Quran is contradicting itself. When the verses there defy your claim of contradiction you say Muslims are performing Taqiyya (or lying to protect faith) and that its in Quran, when Muslims ask for proof where is it in Quran and where is Taqiyyah in Islam they provide no proof because Taqiyya is an invention created 200 years AFTER Islam. This is the only defense for illterate folks. They go into an endless cycle of first claiming abrogation, then contradiction and finally Taqiyya and it goes into an endless loop. This is because if they even admit for one second that maybe its the perversion of faith and not faith itself, their entire argument against religion itself or Islam itself is evaporated, they have to concoct this lie to support their view even when they don’t know they are being dishonest with their own selves.

    now your homework for tonight is to find me verses from the QURAN which prescribe death for apostasy

  • Bert Beukema

    It’s not a holistic book, who invented that idea? The quran is a ‘made on the go’ scripture, many contradictions, faults in copying older scriptures, obtuse language, illogicalities and illegitable verses. It is the only religious scripture that can actually only be understood with exegesis and hadith. And even then there are so many conflicting opinions that it’s hard to take seriously. So much content is simply ridiculous in nature that it’s just unbelievable so many look at this for worship. Then again almost no Muslim actually reads it, let alone understands it, they just follow the motions from the imam. And to be honest, it’s arguably the religion of Muhammadanism, most Muslims seem to deify him and don’t really follow the deity Allah.

  • Bert Beukema

    Yes, very cool but as I said : abrogation, interpolation and conjecture. I’ve read it all, not uninformed here. And you have the audacity to declare all sharia laws, Islamic scholars and theologians wrong in their exegesis? The consensus is very, very clear. And actually, if you look at demographics, about 75% of Muslims in Islamic countries support the death penalty for apostasy. Yup. Please don’t make a fool of yourself.

  • Bert Beukema

    And of course, let’s not forget that Allah instructs, multiple times, to act out his punishment / command / ways as Muslim duty.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    The Shariah Law is based primarily on Quran. The so called Shariah law you quote are those of modern times. Are you going to take the dictators word for it and the radical clerics that this shariah law about Apostasy is what Islam suggests. There is not a SINGLE Quran verse about a worldy punishment for apostasy and at least a dozen verses about letting the apostate have their view and God will hold them accountable. the entire argument for death for apostasy rests on ONE hadith (which was written 300 years after Quran came to be) source which contradicts Quran. As I asked in the last post, thinking from the muslim point of view, which carries more weight, the Quran as the word of God or one hadith source compiled 300 years later. Think logically and without the template for hate and you will come to the same conclusion as not only me but millions of Muslims. THIS is the reform that is needed in Islam, the reform to make muslims think about their faith like it WAS 1400 years ago and not what many Muslims of modern day and age have invented to so called ‘protect their faith’. You have yet to show me a SINGLE Quranic verse which calls for death for Apostasy

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Where does it ask Muslims to kill Apostastes like it tells Muslims to punish a thief or someone who attacks Muslims or someone who attacks mosques or synagogues. Tell me ONE instance where Quran asks Muslims to punish apostates. That is your challenge. if you cant deliver on it, your argument is destroyed. I gave you 9 verses where it clearly says Muslims are asked to convey message and punishment is by God ONLY, you only have to provide me ONE where Quran asks Muslims to kill Apostates

    here I am telling you Quran is saying no death for apostasy and you are pleading the case for clerics that there is death. do you WANT apostates to die so badly that you cannot accept Islam doesnt prescribe death for apostasy?

    I would have assumed someone level headed would have said, I am not a muslim but I agree your view is what Islam should be, instead your argument is, no no this is what islam IS and your view is wrong. You are literally siding with extremists which is sad.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Since the beginning of time and recorded history we see there has been violence. We see that violence was there before religion and violence was there after religion. Even after religion, we saw that violence and corrupted ideologies were there where there was no religion. Before Moses we had violence by the Pharoahs and its followers towards the people who would become Jews. Before Christianity, there was violence against people from people who believed in Gods or A God. Before Islam there was violence all over Arabia before even the first verse was received by the Holy Prophet (saw).

    There are people who say Religion is the root of evil because it incites people to be violent. It is always a blanket statement where when we ask these people for details or examples of how religion uses violence they cite verses which they take out of context which don’t actually incite people to be violent or they say use examples like followers of extremist religious fundamentalists as an example. When they are told that the interpretation and translation of verses of Quran and the Hadith as they were 1400 years ago do NOT incite violence in any way and in fact condemn it in many ways, these people go with the argument that they are reading the same verses as you, so something in that text must incite them to be violent. So we get back to square one because despite the moderate Muslims saying and proving with their interpretations, the verses do not promote violence when you interpret or translate them, the people you are vehemently critical of Islam will still insist on the fact that Taliban is reading the same Quran as you and they use those verses to incite violence and we get back to square one.

    We see a trend in these arguments by these so called extreme critics. I say extreme because there is always a place for valid and fair critics which present the focus on both sides of the coin. They refuse to believe that the moderate version can be valid because if they believe that there is validity in the moderate version as it was 1400 years ago, their whole argument that religion is evil collapses. They block out all voices of reason that can and do exist in religion because if they accept that those very verses that Taliban cite for their violence are incorrectly translated by Taliban, then their whole concept of religion as evil and violent collapses. These so called extreme critics in fact need the Taliban (or ISIS etc) views as their proof. Instead of helping the moderates defeat fundamentalism, they will always ignore the moderate views. They will never help moderates defeat fundamentalism because if religious fundamentalists go extinct, their only excuse that religion is evil is go extinct and they will be forced by their own convictions to accept that they have to live in a world that religion exists. A much larger of people who are not religious are good atheists or agnostics, they believe that despite them not believing in a God or Gods, they can and should mutually exist with people who have a different opinion on why they are here.

    We now get to the second point. As we have seen that even without religion and with religion, people would be violent so the question posed to these extreme critics is, If you take away the religion from the hearts and minds of people who are evil and do bad deeds, will they suddenly become peaceful or will they find another excuse to exercise their violence. If you take religion away from a man who kills, who abducts and who rapes, will he suddenly stop killing, abducting and raping or will he find another excuse to do what is in his mind his evil conviction. His killing might get worse, he might kill everyone in his family because of his evil ways are still there. Why? Because being against religion does not mean you are for automatically for peace. The argument extremist atheists use is that when there is no religion people will focus more on helping humanity. They fail to realize that that is exactly what religion like Islam asks people to do as well after worshipping God, that you be good and focus on helping humanity. So the question becomes, that if evil people are told to help humanity after worshipping God, what will be the excuse when they don’t worship God, will they unleash themselves to only be evil without any ramifications of what God thinks? Is that not the natural course of a man who is evil that if you give him religion, an evil man will use religion as the excuse and if you take away religion, an evil man will find something else as an excuse. So we come to the conclusion that despite everything, the source of evil all things equal IS man, not God or religion like Islam.

    In the case of ISIS, Al Qaeda and groups like that in Africa and middle east, it is just a continuation of Tribal mentality, without religion, they would have a tribal mentality and find an excuse to do something that they think is good but the world thinks is evil while with religion they will find an excuse to do something which they think is religious when the world thinks its evil.

  • Bert Beukema

    Not entirely true, but I have no intention of running a theological debate as it would run for a long time. You ask me what carries more weight for a muslim. My honest answer, based on many talks with my Muslim friends in many countries, would be not the quran.

    Most just want to emulate Muhammad and never, ever read the quran on the fact that it’s unreadable. So many concentrate on the hadith and sunna. What they take in from the quran is minimal, mostly from the imam. In fact I’d say Islam is mostly about the deification and worship of Muhammad for many, many Muslims. And many just don’t care at all.

    Quranism isn’t a reform, it won’t solve the basic problems within the religious scripture. A rewrite would be necessary for that, or expulsion of certain verses. It’s happened before, but these days it would be heresy.

    It would solve all problems with contradictions, illogical verses, allegory where none is supposed to be (by divine order) and violent intent. A true religion of peace would remove any and all religious content pertaining to any violence in any circumstance.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    I asked for ONE verse and you failed. End of discussion, keep pulling a circular argument. only I am providing a source and you are basing your entire argument on hate. Quranism is a rejection of Hadith. 99% of muslims dont reject hadith, they view Hadith (written by people 300 years after Islam’s inception) as valid if it does not contradict the Quran. think for a second. hadith from memory compiled 300 years later from memory through the grapevine vs Quran compiled and memorized during the time of Holy Prophet (Saw). Most if not all theologians, even those opposing Quran accept that Quran as it was sent is what we have now, word for word, hadith came 200-300 years later based on passing down on generations from memory. Do you remember the qoute EXACTLY as it was said or done about your great great great grandfathers friend from 200-300 years ago when its not written down. Use your head please. maybe then hate is not the template for this discussion

  • Joe

    yeah I thought that might be sarcasm but then again I thought maybe you thought I was a Christian?

  • Bert Beukema

    Yeah perhaps, but not on this scale and not with God as their Guardian. These people kill in the name of God because they will be rewarded in heaven. Religious violence is always extremely hard to put down. Without all these motivators, violence would be much lower. And don’t forget that 99% of all Islamic violence is targeted at other Muslims in the fight for ‘who is the real Muslim’.

    And, don’t forget that Islamic countries score extremely high on murder, rape, infanticide, child deaths, wife molestation, etc. Much, much higher than in secular countries. If your moral system was guided by Allah, that would of course not be the case.

    Religion can quickly brainwash believers into doing horrible things they would otherwise never have done.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    By your own admittance muslims who perform extreme acts hardly read the Quran themselves and you expect them to act like Muslims? Do you know the poverty rate in Muslim countries? Do you know the literacy rate in Muslim countries? Do you know a single modern age predominantly muslim country which is doing well socially with free prescribed in the Quran? not a single one, and then you expect the society at large to be NOT the product of their nations? Why is it that the Renaissance of Education in Islam came at the advent of Islam and not now. logically speaking a corrupt faith starts as corrupt and then rots away into non existence of changes form into something better, then why is it that the science and education came at the advent and then faded away, does that indicate a truth of faith at beginning or the lack of faith in the beginning, think logically and rationally please.

    Highest rate of Homicides: North America is 1, Asia is last https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Highest Rate of Reported Rape: http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/ US # 1

    Highest rate of infantcide: India (secular democracy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Modern_times

    Countries with highest level of ALL sorts of crimes: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes

  • Bert Beukema

    009.066, 009.073 is enough for me. I don’t support your alliteration on divine punishment, so does no other scholar. As I said before, your alliteration is not considered tafsir.

    Now, answer me on my answer of your question about what is more important.

  • Bert Beukema

    And, as you may recall, I said that the quran calls for punishment. Not which punishment. And many hadith support a death penalty. Although the hadith is also questionable, it is sometimes undeniably true that it has explanations on otherwise unreadable verses, verses that without hadith make no sense whatsoever.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    You don’t believe the moderate view because you believe ISIS and Taliban view, it’s as simple as that. And I have to ask you if you are actually serious about 9:66 and 9:73 as they prove my point that God said he will punish, not man and you know what 9:73 uses as disbelievers and hypocrites, do you know what a hypocrite is ? A hypocrite is someone who is told islam stands for peace and he acts with violent. 9:73 is what I am doing with you. I am fighting to defend the faith against a disbeliever or if you were an ISIS member I would use the same arguments with him as I am with you . Oh the irony. Please educate yourself on Quran, Arabic lexicon and islam before quoting something you have not studied. Still waiting for verse that says punishmebt for apostasy should be death

  • Bert Beukema

    Deflection. Almost no one can read the quran, even my literate friends. It’s also not the religious focal point anymore, that’d be Muhammad. But then, Christians and Jews also don’t read their scripture, but still consider themselves believers. You don’t need to read to be pious or believer, then there’d be no Muslims left in the world.

    And in Muhammad’s time, you can bet 99% of his Muslims couldn’t read or write, besides those who helped write and compile the quran. Yet those people were considered Muslims of the finest level.

    Quranism isn’t an answer to these problems. Jihad, promise of bounty in heaven, dying for God, those the issues. And those things you very well can’t edit out of the quran.

    Rise in scientific research was around 1000 until 1250 so not at the advent, but after clear establishment. And at that time, the hadith were already ingrained. It all stopped and has never started again as religious doctrine would say that all knowledge was already in the quran. Effectively killing any progress, as we see today.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Are you going to ignore the 10 quran verses I qouted above where the punishement for an apostate who acts against islam is ? It’s hell . Read that long post again. Stop trying to mislead people into forgetting the post with 10 verses where the message was clear the job of a muslim is to convey the message the Allah will provide the reckoning

  • Bert Beukema

    As I said before, the quran does not talk about the death penalty, are you deaf? Three times now. But I don’t subscribe to your alliteration and not because I’m an extremist, but because I have a little bit more faith in what actual Islamic scholars tell me. No offense.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    Again using Quranism as if I believe all hadith are rejected. Now you are resorting to lying ? Your arguments have gone back full circle because of your extremely flawed logic

  • Hasan Ahmad

    So the discudsion is over. The Quran says clearly. No man can prescribe any punishment on an apostates. Read the verses again. “The task for a muslim is only to convey the message and the task of God is to deliver the reckoning” how many times are you going yo ignore the verse. Let me help you ignore another : “you are only an admonisher and God will deliver on them the ultimate punishment” . Now I want you to downplay these verses. This is reaching hilarious ignorance

  • Bert Beukema

    This is what you imply, either you accept the bukari / Muslim hadith collections or reject them. Those are later additions to your religion that couldn’t be the core idea of Muhammad. Seeing as he did not want to be idolized, which is exactly what the hadith do.

    Islam isn’t a believe in Allah anymore, but rather a mostly Muhammadedan faith. The prophet is the deity, Allah plays second fiddle. Just as in Christianity. It’s what I hear all the time and I work with many Muslims in many countries. I’m not some idiot who likes to shout around.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    And now you have reached the lunacy phase. So you are saying muslims are not following islam as prescribed but have moved away from original teaching. Lol

    Sounds like you have admitted defeat

  • Bert Beukema

    Look, I like having a normal talk, but seeing you’re utterly convinced of your own tafsir, what’s there to talk about? You can come over to my place and we can discuss in a normal way, not by throwing verses at each other. Please send me your exegesis and I will read it, but do understand that your thoughts are not the law, nor what others consider the correct exegesis. Okay?

  • lmntCrans

    We are deep in Poe’s law territory here, Kee-mo-sabe, there are many traps for the unwary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

  • Bert Beukema

    Then perhaps you should get out more, okay? Clearly you are far removed from normal Muslims. Actually I’m not even sure what it is you wish to convey, your points keep changing and revolving. You say you want reform, quranism is reform, by removing the additions to your religion. Which you lamented on, but then retracted. So, if all stays the same, what reform is possible?

  • Hasan Ahmad

    It’s above I’m on phone I’m not typing it all over again . The logic is clear . Quran is the final law and hadith which don’t contradict Quran are authentic

  • Bert Beukema

    Yes, as I said, no reform then.

  • Hasan Ahmad

    You have already lost the argument on this point because your point proves mine, that some muslims have moved away from islamic teachings and base on it on incorrect notions

  • Bert Beukema

    Lol. You don’t understand, that is the religion you created by adding the hadith and sunna. In doing so you created your jesus. And that will never go away unless you remove the additions. Mohammed is God in the eyes of millions of Muslims. To be pure again you must only use the quran.

  • Bert Beukema

    But, the church did extort those of faith, by having to pay for just about anything a clergyman would do. Literally everything was for sale. This was one of the reasons for the reformation.

    And the Pope, including the bishops and cardinals were deep into the pockets of the nobility. It was easy to buy a bishopry or a cardinality, just bring enough money. You seem to forget how absurdly rich the Church used to be.

    Faith in those days followed the money.

  • James Matthew

    By saying “the church” you over-generalize, sure there were people ignoring the rules about things like indulgences and selling them, but to act as if that was official policy is to use too broad a brush.

    It would be like a Catholic pointing to Protestant preacher Creflo Dollar’s campaign for people to donate 65 million dollars to him so he could buy a luxury private jet and say all Protestants care about is using religion to get rich. Examples of abuse are not the same as a policy enshrining abuse.

  • Bert Beukema

    No, this is no overstatement as it was 100% official decree from the papacy. The papacy was in constant need of money, to wage war, for political leverage and simply for enrichment of the higher clergy. To this end, absolutely anything that could be monetized was. Absolutely anything.

    You need to understand, in those times the Church was supremely corrupt. Popes were bought, papacies were bought, literally every element of power was based on either money, political gains or on furthering the dynasties of Popes, cardinals and bishops. Many bishops couldn’t even read Latin and thus not even read scripture. Popes were killed, expelled, homosexual, pedophile, you name it and a Pope did it. Arguably, the Italian maffia is styled on medieval papacy.

    You seem to think that religion was ascetic in those days, but it was very, very far from such notions. A Pope as we have today wouldn’t last a month in Rome in medieval times.

  • James Matthew

    You claim “it was 100% official decree from the papacy”.

    Please cite the document, that way you will avoid the appearance of repeating unfounded slander against people whose group you are not a part of.

    Any Catholic will tell you that there were individuals who used treachery to gain offices even to the papacy and used that position to fulfil worldly desires, they will also say these people didn’t affect the policies of their Church as they were too busy with their own worldly concerns.

    Again, individual examples of violation of a policy is not proof that there is no policy.

  • Bert Beukema

    I’m sorry, but are you a historian? If you have access to academic papers, I can point you towards the right ones. Otherwise I recommend reading ‘absolute monarchy, a history of the papacy’ as it is readable to most people.

    Furthermore, you seem to have a bias towards a positive view on the Church. The Church, as it exists today, is a relatively new invention. Mostly based on nation state development, which highly undermined the traditional powerbase of the church. The aftermath of the pestilence was another catalyst in erosion of traditional religious power. The explosion of monetary power from colonies and the Americas was a further empowering factor of both nation development as well as the merchant classes. Slowly but surely the Church lost power and money and had to redefine it’s place in society. Of course we’re talking about centuries of change.

    But again, I’d implore you to read up on history.

  • James Matthew

    So these academic papers you speak of don’t cite an original sources? I find that hard to believe.

    It would be like reading a paper about American law and they don’t cite the Constitution, any legal statute, or any court ruling.

    I am not for Catholicism or Christianity, I am against slander. Why would anyone take my position seriously if I base it on slander.

    Catholicism is a Church with tons of policy statements called papal Encyclicals and documents from Bishops’ synods and councils, and catechism books for the laity. Surely these academic papers you are talking actually cite some of those.

    I implore you to distinguish between legend and academic history. In this case all you have to do is present policy documents from the Church – its not like they hide them.

  • Bert Beukema

    Look, you obviously have an entrenched idea, but haven’t actually invested time or research into this topic. Like I said if you really want to read, start with the book I mentioned and work from there. This book also contains the references to the most important edicts.

    I can see you are from the USA, but over here in Europe you can just look at the documentation from churches, bishopries, cardinalities, monasteries for research purposes. These documents give us a wealth of information on church history and money streams. It’s not some secret that is hidden somewhere.

    I don’t understand where the idea for slander comes from. I will say again: the concept and execution of the church and Christian religion as you see it today is very, very different from medieval times. It is an innovation born out of necessity. And the Church in the USA is very, very different than the historical church in Europe.

    But I don’t think you’re actually interested in investing time into reading into this subject. It’s obviously easier to shout slander. So, please read up on the subject ok.

  • James Matthew

    Ok again no sources for your claim.
    You say “you can just look at the documentation from churches” but don’t name any of these documents.

    And you want to make an assertion and then put the burden of proof on me who is not making that claim.

    You say there are sources easily found to back up your position and yet offer none.

    The burden of proof isn’t on the person making the claim.

    So let me do so with my own claim:

    I am saying that Catholicism’s official policy is against making yourself rich by use of religion.

    For instance they say selling religious services for profit is an evil, they name this evil as “simony”.

    Here is a link to their Catholic Encyclopedia entry about it where they mention people ignoring the policy and actions taken against such people.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm

    I invite you to do the same.

  • Bert Beukema

    Look, I don’t know what more I can say to someone who quotes a bloody church run site / Wiki page and then says that is the truth. Are you a troll? Simony has always been one of the great corruptions within the Church. What notion you have, I can’t fathom, but it’s obviously not from an inquired mind.

    I’ve given you a book to read, it’s like a historic introduction to the Catholic Church. It’s an easy read, especially for those not versed in terminology and European history. In this book, you can find other books, historical references and papal references. Do you need me to reference you more books? Academic authors? Do I need to link to church records databases for you? What kind of person are you?

    Unless you pick up the book, or any academic church religion history book, then follow the trail, I consider you a troll.

  • James Matthew

    Really? You insert yourself into an ongoing discussion. Make assertions and refuse to offer any backing to anything you say. Then insult me for even asking you to do so.

    My position was that to make sweeping charges against Catholicism, so as to make some moral equivalency argument for the benefit of Islam, requires some kind of documentation rather than just repeating personal assertions.

    You have done nothing but repeat your assertions and now use insults.

    Its hard to believe you ever wanted a serious conversation here.

  • James Matthew

    I am not entrenched in some idea I just require facts.

    I am not even a theists as I recall that both you and I were trying to dissuade the incomprehensible Ashylan on a different page.

    What I am saying is that you can only hold a Church to the doctrines it proclaims.

    I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia because it was cleared by Catholic authorities before it was published so it has some authority when describing Catholicism.

    It is saying that simony is evil, it isn’t saying that no one in its hierarchy ever committed simony.

    So you can hold individuals guilty of not living up to the organizational standard but what the organization stands for remains what it stands for.

    The book you cite lists a few popes it doesn’t seem to indicate that every Pope failed to live up to the standards. Because if none ever had one could argue that its proclamations are just for show and aren’t real. That is not the case.

    I have found that if a person wishes to be taken seriously they must be willing to take their opponent’s position seriously.

    One can hold Catholicism accountable for teaching children that their are invisible demons out to get them as that is one of their doctrines, but to say that “The Church” is for exploiting the poor in order to benefit the rich is unfounded and as it casts them in a negative light they didn’t merit – it rises to the level of slander.

    I don’t think I would be persuasive in showing a person their thinking is off if I used slander.

    Also the question isn’t if the papal states were an absolute monarchy, there were lots of absolute monarchies until the beginning of the modern age. The question is did Catholicism ever sanction exploiting the poor to benefit the rich.

    All of Christianity is pretty much pro-monarchy if you think about it, Jesus is held to be the King of Kings not some dude elected by the people.

  • Bert Beukema

    Look troll, I’ve given you a book as an introduction to medieval church history. The book is a good introduction, especially for those not versed in European history. The book will give you references to other books and research, in order for you to expand knowledge. Have you read the book? No? Then stop arguing please, because it’s no use.

    Furthermore, you can easily do some stupid googling on medieval church, corruption, simony, patriarchy, worldy aspirations, etc. It will give you more than enough starting points. One question you could ask yourself, for instance, is: where did the Church get all the money from to build all those grand churches. How was the Grand and opulent lifestyle of the bishopry, cardinality and papacy funded?

    I really don’t understand what your plan is, as it is widely documented that the medieval church is nothing like clerical institutions of today. You want proof, go ahead and read the book (not some excerpt) and educate yourself. Otherwise, please troll someone else.

  • Bert Beukema

    Lastly, the concept of the poor and the rich didn’t exist in the middle ages as we know it today. Certainly not in church relationship.

    In the middle ages, the church was the single largest owner of land and property. It literally owned the people of its lands. These had to pay increasingly high amounts of money or produce to the church. And whenever the Church needed extra money, additional taxes were instituted. This is besides the tithe for the church.

    The Church was extremely hard on it’s owned people. If you couldn’t fulfill the payments, you were removed. If the father died, the widow had to pay special ‘death’ penalties. It was full on slavery, same as with the nobility.

    Only after the black death did some changes appear, because so little people survived. Seeing that their lands were quickly returning to nature, the people were able to get better working conditions, payments and abolishment of servitude. It was scarcity that empowered the people.

  • James Matthew

    The concept of rich and poor pre-exists the Bible so I don’t see how you can maintain it was only invented after the middle ages.

    The Church got its vast holdings from donations by wealthy landowners worried about their souls. While you or I might see this as stupidity. It isn’t an explotation of the poor.

    Serfdom/indentured servitude/debt bondage and slavery are found in the bible and were seen as part of the natural order. The Church’s operations with its serfs would follow the usual procedures of the day.

    I agree these are always evil so if your argument is that the Church if it claims to be connected to truth itself should’ve been better than everyone else that’s a good challenge to their supernatural claims.

    But if your trying to say that they exploited the serfs and slaves under their ownership, compared to who?

    Additionally as the other poster in this thread (who is trying to make the equivalency argument with Islam) is saying that its a question of policy.

    Since that’s his argument one would have to prove this was policiy and not just unreflective cultural continuation. (Again unrelflectively accepting evil is a good objection to claims of being connected to “truth itself” but isn’t the same thing as saying this was what the Chruch promoted.) What the Muslim apologist was saying is that the policy changed, they promoted one thing and then switched to another.

    I think you can make that argument about Catholic policies changing around Usury but not about some policy promoting exploiting the poor.

    Therefore I do not see how you or the original poster can claim that the violent past of Islam is just some phase like the Catholic Church’s supposed exploration of the poor. To be sure the violence in the name of Islam’s past comes from certain schools of Islamic interpretation and not all schools of Islam, but unlike Catholicism’s supposed endorsement of exploiting the poor, one can find actual documentation within these particular schools of Islamic interpretation that endorses violence in the name of Islam – making it a set policy for these schools of Islamic interpretation, which were carried out in history.

    If you want to make a moral equivalencey argument to defend Islam’s early violence by pointing out that Catholicism used to ban loans which charged interest and later lifted that ban – I would be interested in reading it.

  • Bert Beukema

    Okay look. You keep comparing modern day principles and morals with medieval realities. What was in the bible did not necessarily, and in most parts did not, have to be executed in daily life. The Church in the middle ages was first and foremost an economic and political player, ruling over (mostly) and ruling with (late middle ages) monarchs and nobility. Within this context, the Church had one extreme advantage: it was the only one to hold sway over the soul, heaven and hell. And i can tell you, in those days that was mighty important.

    When we talk about the poor today, we talk about people who are having a hard time economically. And whom the Church may provide help to. Perhaps even vagrants. But in the middle ages, the poor as a concept we know today simply did not exist. By our standards almost everybody was poor, being poor was a basic fact of life for most people. There were gradations into ‘poorness’ but generally speaking, many were toiling and simply scraping to get by. The people were seen as dirty by the nobility and clergy and were extorted by taxations, ‘services’ rendered and additional ‘war / defense taxes’. You need to understand that common folk were bled dry by those in power, keeping them down. These extortions provided ample breeding grounds for many peasant revolts during the middle ages, which all led to nothing.

    The Church itself didn’t get most of it’s lands (remember, they owned large parts of what now is Italy) through donation (although that did happen, but not very often as the King would generally grab the lands) but simply by monetary funds, war or by way of extortion through faith. You really need to understand how rich and powerful the Church was in the middle ages. And how far removed that institution was from what we have today. Secularization and the separation of Church and State was a totally unheard concept. The Church was actively involved in and steering politics, which it could by creed of faith but also because nations (as we know today) simply did not exist in the middle ages. The Church was the only strong hierarchy that existed as an administrative and controlling entity, the Kings and nobility were mostly a loosely associated political / administrative body. With a lot of infighting, scheming and warring, all at the expense of the commoners.

    Where you are talking about ‘exploiting the poor’, such a concept simply did not exist. It wasn’t even something those who exploited thought about, it was a fact of life. The peasantry were there to answer the beck and call of those above them, that was the decree of God. Whether it was the Church or the King or the Nobility doing the exploiting didn’t matter (although in reality they all exploited the peasantry at the same time through multiple taxation systems). Both the Church and the Nobility / King were greatly, greatly reviled by the people. But for them the problem was that they couldn’t get around the Church, seeing as their mostly short and miserable lives would end up in either heaven or hell. Therefor the Church didn’t have to shit to get these people into their Churches and paying for whatever they wanted. Didn’t mean the peasantry liked it though, but what could you do?

    Even after the French Revolution, where the lands of the Church were impounded and then given to the peasantry, the power of the Church was incredible. The clergy simply told the peasantry that, if they didn’t give back the lands, they would burn in hell for an eternity. So they all promptly gave back the lands. Such is the power of religion.

    As for the violence. Most people start on the crusades. But that isn’t in the remotest bit related to the Muslim violence at this moment. The crusades were of course sponsored by the Church, but most certainly not all started by the Church. The later crusades were mostly a political move by the nobility and the King of France, based on Chivalry. And the crusades in general were not about wiping out Muslims, but for territorial means and regaining lost territories of import (such as Jerusalem). It was very much a political inspiration, guided by a faith system, but not solely depending on that faith system. The concept of crusades is not at the heart of Christian doctrine.

    In Islam, the concept of Jihad IS at the core of the religious doctrine. We should not forget that most of the violence is not directed at Western societies but squarely at other muslims. Thousands upon thousands die each year because of sectarianism (who is the real Muslim) and violence against other religions. When violent concepts are at the heart of a religion, it is very difficult to stamp this out of it. And seeing that Islam doesn’t have a hierarchy like the western churches, to pick up arms is quite a lot easier by small groups or even persons.

    Lastly, I am not defending one faith system of another, I am trying to explain that the Christian Church, as seen today, is in it’s execution very much a modern invention. It’s come to be because of many factors, including the reformation, French Revolution, separation of church and state, hatred towards clergy (from years of exploitation), impounding and loss of lands, etc. All these factors forced the Church to continuously reinvent itself, to adapt to modern times. But it’s not a reinvention by choice, it is a reinvention stemming from necessity by external factors.

  • James Matthew

    The Muslim apologist isn’t talking about economic realities but about religious policies. If as you say that when it comes to “exploiting the poor, such a concept simply did not exist.” Then how could that have been an official stated policy?

    The question isn’t whether behavior is different but if policy is different, had he raised the official policy against religious freedom in Catholicism as you do, then yes that would be easy to prove – one can hold up the 1864 papal document the Syllabus of Errors (condemning religious liberty) and then contrast that to the Vatican II 1965 document Dignitatis humanae (celebrating religious liberty).

    Perhaps he is unaware of this change, or perhaps he doesn’t hold religious liberty as a good (famously Saudi Arabia and Iran do not hold a state should be secular).

    My argument wasn’t that Catholicism has never changed or that it has never endorsed things that I think are bad and then changed that position – but he puts forward that it was just as much official documented policy for Roman Catholicism to take advantage of the poor in the name of Jesus as it was for the Umayyad caliphs to cite jihad in the name of Allah while putting Spain to the sword in the 711 invasion.

    We can point to the Umayyad’s own documents to prove this was their official policy in the name of Allah, in contrast when there was exploitation of the poor by Catholics in the past there aren’t any documents from the Catholic Church declaring that this is endorsed by Jesus.

    No defender of the Umayyads can say that just certain bad actors held jihad allowed them to invade Spain in the name of Allah, because this was their official corporate policy. Likewise no defender of Catholicism can say that it was just certain bad actors who opposed religious liberty it was corporate policy. On the other hand there is no official policy endorsing exploiting the poor, so today’s Catholic can easily say that such events were not the Church but rather where individual bad actors.

    The Muslim apologist’s error in this thread lies in trying to make sweeping claims about all of Islam instead of defending his own school of interpretation.

    He could say it is as foolish to hold his own school of Islam as somehow responsible for interpretations and policies put forward by yesterday’s Umayyads, or today’s Salafis and Wahhabists as it would be to say Quakers had something to do with the Vatican’s alliance with Benito Mussolini before WW2.

    That would be a perfectly reasonable position.

    But as he is trying to make a moral equivalency argument (saying Catholicism’s treatment of the poor is different today than in the past just as Islam’s treatment of non-Muslims is different today than the past) the burden falls on him to prove this is a corporate position rather than individuals acting on their own.

    I get that he wants to say religions can change, but his problem is the drastic nature of what he is trying to say is its change – a corporate policy of killing “infidels” including Mohammed’s endorsing of the killing of the Qurayza Jews.

    So he appears to be saying that the change of exploiting the poor in Catholicism is just such a drastic change. Not only do I think if it were true it would not be as drastic, but he has failed to prove that it was a corporate policy.

    So to me it looks as if he is trying to make a moral equivalency argument not as the main thrust of his position but as a rhetorical maneuver.

    He appears to be saying “If Catholicism can go from exploiting the poor in the name of Jesus to championing them, than likewise Islam can go from killing infidels in the name of Allah to being an advocate of peaceful coexistence.”

    Regardless of how he brings up his argument, if the question is can a religion drastically change I would say obviously it can.

    But the real question on this topic should actually be who will win out among the schools of Islamic interpretation those endorsing peaceful coexistence or those opposing it. By not differentiating between one type of Islam with another the waters are just muddied.

  • Neurotic Knight

    If that is the case then there is no reason to specifically mention disbelievers, if your prayer, worship, respect of mohammed all are secondary aspects of Islam with morality being core tenet, then there would be more protests over poverty than on comics. In fact if it were so, there should have never been poverty in any Islamic states at all.

  • Ilpalazzo

    LOL

  • Ilpalazzo

    Exactly, let him disbelieve and let him suffer the fate that Alamamahhhallah has commanded, which is beheading, dismemberment, taking his daughter as a bride, etc…

  • Ilpalazzo

    Really? Because I’m pretty sure the deception of Islam’s stance is that only a Muslim can understand the Quran. Therefore it’s a “You have to convert to understand” con.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Yeah and if the Quran is by a god named Allah who is supposedly all knowing, why does he not understand the basic symbolism of the Holy Trinity? I mean, he’s on record for confusing that with polytheism. Not a very bright god.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Yes, ‘educate’ as in read ALL the rantings of a con man until your brain turns into a beautiful beautiful blob of beautiful beautiful butter and not a blog pointing out the nasty bits outright.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Saw II was just ok, but the first Saw was definitely more interesting.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Islam is about confusion and deception. That IS its religion. The Quran says Allah is the greatest deceiver, thus so is his religion. It uses the women to make outsiders think Muslims are all peaceful while young men are used to kill. There are contradictory lines – and also why Arabic is laden with ‘double-meanings’ and ‘roots’ to alter based on who they are talking to. It’s also extremely about projection since the first page basically says everyone who isn’t a muslim is a liar.

  • Ilpalazzo

    You’d think a ‘perfect book’ written by a ‘perfect deity’ wouldn’t need ‘context’ to be understood.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Kinda creates its own Catch-22. Not to mention this is written by a guy impersonating a God, and apparently it is God who is generalizing people and saying that most Christians won’t accept Muslims, because Christians are bitter.

    It’s ALL BS and psychological projection! It’s all about deception and infiltration.

  • Ilpalazzo

    So you’re embracing slavery?

  • Ilpalazzo

    LOL a muslim calling someone a bigot. Priceless.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Abrahamic sources.. like the ones that say that ishmael was a donkey of a man who will always rise his hand against man?

  • Ilpalazzo

    Note, however, that in Mo’s revised version of Abrahamic lore, he boasts that Allah will have Jesus’s mom as one of his wives to bang for eternity.

  • Ilpalazzo

    LOL criticizing a cartoon response as if it weren’t credible retaliation to a guy who fantasized about being God ‘s number one guy and conned people using thugs and extortion. Nice.

  • Ilpalazzo

    And why wouldn’t God say “Oh hey, since this is a ‘perfect book’ that I want everyone to read from now until the end of time, maybe I should mention context…”

  • Ilpalazzo

    “I can smell a lie from a mile away because”

    because you were trained to believe all non-Muslims are liars, and a Muslim wouldn’t be critical of the Quran. Being a trained dog doesn’t mean you have extra special senses.

  • Ilpalazzo

    Oh.. cavemen.. got it. Excuse us while the rest of the world exist in the 21st century.

  • ∩⌂∫⅓∂Ψ

    1.You are conditioned to believe that there has been Violence, but that is not true. Parts of the world having lack of wisdom & scarcity of resources frequently turn violent. Many parts of the world have remained in peace.

    2. Most of the time “Extreme” is the cause of violence, same for extreme religion.

    3. It is the “software” that is installed by the society and the “false religion” in its people is the root cause of evil and not the man. Who makes the man evil? mostly the environment by which the man learns.

  • lmntCrans