Turn on thread page Beta

Sexually depraved ISIS offers slave girls as prizes in Koran memorising contest. watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    N u r exactly what ur username says

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    ISIS must be drawing in all the paedophiles across the globe. True to form, the passages chosen for memorising are among the most violent ones in the Koran.
    http://www.rt.com/news/269668-isis-islamic-contest-sex/ God help these poor girls going through hell on earth while the world would rather not hear or talk about such things. But only from awareness of the truth, will such evil ever begin to be annihilated.
    This makes me sad.

    I feel like more of the Muslim population need to speak out against ISIS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phoenixsilver)
    The whole post is made up. Islam is a religion of peace. Peace and joy. >_>

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Who made it up?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    You called me a nutter for condemning slavery and rape. You refrained from calling a nutter those who enslave and rape, and those who support the ideology that enables enslavement and rape. If there is twisting of your words, then please clarify



    Usual response of Muslim defeated in a debate; to run away
    Do youhave anythin better to do?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Why can't you take the Old Testament at face value, but the implication being that you can take the New Testament at face value? Genuinely curious. From where I'm sitting, that seems like the cherry picking that has become typical of the Christian faith.
    The difference here is that this 'cherry picking' is within the bounds of permission of the Christian faith, as the Bible is to be taken both as a historical recounting of certain historical periods and of Jesus' own life. It's supposed to be a 'revelation' and a book bringing together both history and teachings. The Qu'ran is taken by the Islamic faith to be the literal word of Allah, recounted Muhammed him through the angel Gabriel. That is far less flexible. (Not my own opinion). Besides, this 'what-aboutery' is becoming increasingly popular rhetoric amongst some groups when discussing Islam, and doesn't actually do anything to argue against the criticisms levelled at Islam, with this thread detailing one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    lol.

    ISIS= NOT ISLAMIC according to nearly every reputable scholar of Islam.

    this is indeed a political cause.
    whether you like it or not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard it all now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How dare you condemn the religion of peace!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by couragesuccess)
    Do youhave anythin better to do?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, do you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by couragesuccess)
    There is no such thing as islamic slavery only slavery in the name of islam which is wrong. Because it puts the religion in a bad light which sickens me. ISIS however are the worst type of people - no justification to their actions but not all muslims are like that

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Islam permits slavery, indeed Mohammad kept slaves, and some of his companions kept female slaves which they had sex with (without being married), which Mohammad didn't disapprove of
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    There can be an actual distinction between muslimophobia and islamophobia;
    muslimophobia, against Muslims
    islamophobia, against the ideology or principles of Islam.
    in my view, this distinction is essential.

    We should have no qualms in denouncing Islam for what it is : an intolerant, reactionary ideology, which is in total opposition with our basic freedoms, our principle of equality before the law, as well as with representative democracy and separation between religion and State

    On the other hand, "average" Muslims are just normal people. Few of them take the Islamic political agenda to heart (many don't even know much about it, many interpret the "holy text" in a creative, sanitised way, many are just "cultural" Muslims)

    I also believe that Islam will go through many changes in the future : however, this will take not decades, but centuries. In Islam, you cannot simply do away with verses of the Quran like Christians have quietly done away with most of the Old Testament... in Islam, the Quran is considered the "literal word of God", not just some God-inspired text, (like the Bible for Christians)

    In other words: the Quran says that you can beat your wife, so you can of course do some "damage limitation" (yes, you can beat her, but only lightly, not on the face, just symbolically, with a toothbrush) but you cannot simply sweep the verse under the carpet

    and, since the Quran says that sex with female captives is Ok, "modernists" will have to quibble on specifics and limitative conditions (it's OK, but only in a legitimate jihad, led by a legitimate Caliph, and in any case "Islamic " slavery has nothing to do with "Western" slavery etc etc) while the verses will stand, as a vivid inspiration for the ISISes and Boko Harams of tomorrow

    same for flogging fornicators, cutting off limbs on opposite sides for those who "make war on God and his messenger", subjecting non-Muslims to a special tax, forbidding male non-Muslims from marrying Muslim women etc etc

    so, while I have a lot of sympathy for the difficult position of "modernists", I doubt they will have much success in the near future


    in other words : for Muslims, parts of the Quran (and hadith) are, by now, a huge embarrassment : an elephant in the living room, and it won't go away anytime soon
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by couragesuccess)
    I agree 100%

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    Who made it up?
    I was being sarcastic. It's not a religion of peace lol.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Submitters manage without the Hadith. It just requires a bit of imagination to conceptualise other possible theological structures for Islam. Am sure in the Middle Ages, it would have been difficult for many people to imagine Christianity so detached from the Old Testament, but it was achieved.
    Most Muslims see submitters are heretical and same for anything similar such as Quranists, anyone well versed in Isalmic scripture can easily point out their 'heresy'. And yes, it would have been difficult but the basis for it was not from an outside source as these days (western culture and values influencing muslims) but from the Christian doctrine itself.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    That is absolutely the case with the Bible as well. And the Qur'an has the Tafsirs as supporting literature. Like I said you seem to lack an imagination to how things could be.
    Tafsirs are usually found in Hadith, if you disregard all Hadith, then why should tafsirs stay? I think ou are disregarding how much Islam relies on the Hadith, like I said, even he basic prayer ritual and four of the five pillars of Islam are only found in hadith, you do away with A LOT of the core of Islam without Hadith, people will notice.


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Indeed, and Islam has the "historical context" line to try and manage the evil parts of the Qur'an, just as Christians managed to remove the evil parts of the Bible with the whole "OT is now redundant".
    The historical conext line is clearly a big lie, especially when you read the hadith, and how can you decide what stays in context? Do you do away with all the nasty verses such as a wife's inheritance even when it is clearly commanding it should be done this way for all times?


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    It absolutely was not!
    For its time it was, more so than Islam.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Erm, the people of the Americas were massively mistreated with various clerical support. Same goes for the transatlantic slavery trade, and Apartheid and Segregation in South Africa and the US respectively.
    They were initially totally enslaved, but when priests saw this they questioned their treatment after 1524 or so I believe they could no longer be enslaved. Sure this wasn't perfect but they were given some rights and some were able to prosper aswell as some black and mixed people too. This all came down to Chrisian beliefs, in contrast to Islam allowing slaves, slaves still exised in the christian world but not because of Vhristian beliefs, but rather greek thought, which was justified by dehumanising the africans. Again, not great but many Christians would go on to campaign against slavery.


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    There was a huge amount more than this "fluff" you mention (and I imagine victims of the Inquisition would be a little hurt to have it referred to as inanely and benignly as "fluff"). You seem to have a very sanitised view of Christendom in the Middle Ages, and seem to believe that the Reformation improved Christianity; in some way it did not! It was the Enlightenment that truly washed away so much of the evil of Christianity from Europe[
    All I'm saying is the key message of Christianity had alwasys been good but it was blurred an altered through the years, it is the reformation and the enlightenment that brought it back but conversel it is christian thoguht that gave way to the englightenment and allowed it to flourish in the first place. Contrast this to Islam which shunned such thought.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    You do seem to suffer from poverty of imagination.
    I do not suffer from a lack of imagination, I just see that Islams 'reformation' requires rewriting the whole religion, hell, even creating a new one! This is not something that will happen overnigh, its like someone else here said, it will take centuries! The quran without Hadith is still a prettty mean piece of work and it is not like the bible that is clearly split into parts and gospels, its one long continous stream of verse after verse after verse. Even worse, it all suposedly comes from one source and that is THE BIGGEST SOURCE, ALLAH HIM BLOODY SELF. It is also so perfect and Muhammad is so perfect (all stated in Quran) that it is for all times. How do you segregate the appicable perfect verses from the bad ones in a theological way and not a 'we are trying to sanitise the religion for the modern world because the original is a load of bs' ? You have to understand I am not seeing this from a logical point of view but from the point of view from a society that is totally entrenched in this religion that has completely formed its cultural, spiritual and political views on said religion. Most Muslims see the west as strange, alien and even hostile, why would they implant the west's values into their most beloved religion that basically created their cultural identity? They won't and theyll easily denounce reformers as traitors.

    You just cannot compare Islams possible development to Christianity's past development, there are tooo many differences in each religions dogma and their circumstances and cultural backgrounds, Islam was made to be as reformist resistance as possible, the scripture is very clear cut and Muhammad was the last prophet, changing his teachings is easily blasphemy. This isnt even taking into account about how heavily Islam employs indoctrination, Islam is more than a religion, it is a culture, a way of life, a spiritual nation. At the very centre of this is just the inconveniant truth that Islams main message is evil and Muhammad was not a good person, far from it, it takes too many theological gymnadtics to change this, wheras Christianity alwas had the base to 'liberalise' it.

    I think you are far too optimistic, I believe Islams change will be to complex a change and why keep a religion in the name of someone so clearl evil anyway? Also what if it is reformed but then people dig up the true Islam again some way away in the future? You cannot erase fact, especially in this digital age, the threat of Islam could easily resurface.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    Most Muslims see submitters are heretical and same for anything similar such as Quranists, anyone well versed in Isalmic scripture can easily point out their 'heresy'. And yes, it would have been difficult but the basis for it was not from an outside source as these days (western culture and values influencing muslims) but from the Christian doctrine itself.
    Firstly, there is reasonable rationale for Submitters/Quranists to reject the Hadith. Just as there was reasonable Middle Ages reformers' rationale in rejecting the OT

    And secondly, yes Quranists/Submitters are denounced as heretics, just as Christian reformers were (and burnt at the stake)

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    Tafsirs are usually found in Hadith, if you disregard all Hadith, then why should tafsirs stay? I think ou are disregarding how much Islam relies on the Hadith, like I said, even he basic prayer ritual and four of the five pillars of Islam are only found in hadith, you do away with A LOT of the core of Islam without Hadith, people will notice.
    The Tafsirs are a totally separate canonical body from the Hadith. And just as Christian theology selectively dip into the OT for moral guidance, there is no reason that such selective dipping cannot become routine within Islamic theology.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    The historical conext line is clearly a big lie, especially when you read the hadith, and how can you decide what stays in context? Do you do away with all the nasty verses such as a wife's inheritance even when it is clearly commanding it should be done this way for all times?
    And some argue that the ignoring of the OT because x,y,z is a big lie. Obviously to you, brought up in OT rejecting theology, it feels normal. In the Middle Ages it was not.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    For its time it was, more so than Islam.
    Er no. Christian treatment of heresy was as brutal as Islamic treatment of today's heresy. The Inquisition, the 30 year wars, the regular practice of burning heretics at the stake.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    They were initially totally enslaved, but when priests saw this they questioned their treatment after 1524 or so I believe they could no longer be enslaved.
    Sure this wasn't perfect but they were given some rights and some were able to prosper aswell as some black and mixed people too.
    This is a ridiculously whitewashed view of history. The Spanish undertook a campaign of extermination of Aztec, Mayan and various other people of the Americas. The toleration came much much later, after the vast majority of the indigenous population was dead

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    This all came down to Chrisian beliefs, in contrast to Islam allowing slaves, slaves still exised in the christian world but not because of Vhristian beliefs, but rather greek thought, which was justified by dehumanising the africans. Again, not great but many Christians would go on to campaign against slavery.
    Rubbish. Christians used the Bible to endorse the slave trade. Just as ISIS today use the Qur'an and Hadith to endorse slavery

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    All I'm saying is the key message of Christianity had alwasys been good but it was blurred an altered through the years, it is the reformation and the enlightenment that brought it back but conversel it is christian thoguht that gave way to the englightenment and allowed it to flourish in the first place.
    Nonsense. The lovely soft and cuddly Christianity is a new thing of the last few centuries. This came about through a process of reformation and enlightenment. Whilst the reformation in some ways made the immediate situation worse (becoming more puritanical and persecutory), the process of revisiting Christian theology opened the doors to revisiting theism itself, which gave birth to the Enlightenment

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    Contrast this to Islam which shunned such thought.
    There was a time long ago, when Islamic theology was much less puritanical. This variation across time demonstrates that all religions possess and ability to be fluid and change. You are just looking at this from a very narrow point of view, mostly from your own immediate perceptions.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    I do not suffer from a lack of imagination, I just see that Islams 'reformation' requires rewriting the whole religion, hell, even creating a new one!
    Am sure these thoughts may have been felt by those struggling for the Enlightenment several centuries ago. They couldn't conceive of a Christianity that didn't dominate institutions of power, restricting free thought and speech and persecuting deviation. But in the end, Christianity crumbled away, replaced by something very watered down. Some may say that Christianity of today is a whole new religion compared to Christianity of the Middle Ages.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    This is not something that will happen overnigh, its like someone else here said, it will take centuries! The quran without Hadith is still a prettty mean piece of work and it is not like the bible that is clearly split into parts and gospels, its one long continous stream of verse after verse after verse. Even worse, it all suposedly comes from one source and that is THE BIGGEST SOURCE, ALLAH HIM BLOODY SELF. It is also so perfect and Muhammad is so perfect (all stated in Quran) that it is for all times. How do you segregate the appicable perfect verses from the bad ones in a theological way and not a 'we are trying to sanitise the religion for the modern world because the original is a load of bs' ? You have to understand I am not seeing this from a logical point of view but from the point of view from a society that is totally entrenched in this religion that has completely formed its cultural, spiritual and political views on said religion. Most Muslims see the west as strange, alien and even hostile, why would they implant the west's values into their most beloved religion that basically created their cultural identity? They won't and theyll easily denounce reformers as traitors.
    And Christianity went through all this.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    You just cannot compare Islams possible development to Christianity's past development, there are tooo many differences in each religions dogma and their circumstances and cultural backgrounds, Islam was made to be as reformist resistance as possible, the scripture is very clear cut and Muhammad was the last prophet, changing his teachings is easily blasphemy. This isnt even taking into account about how heavily Islam employs indoctrination, Islam is more than a religion, it is a culture, a way of life, a spiritual nation. At the very centre of this is just the inconveniant truth that Islams main message is evil and Muhammad was not a good person, far from it, it takes too many theological gymnadtics to change this, wheras Christianity alwas had the base to 'liberalise' it.
    Now it is rarely accepted outside evangelical groups that the Bible is the word of God and without error. This belief was mainstream in the Middle Ages.

    Yes Islam's main message is evil, but so is Christanity's. Christianity has never been a liberating force, this is revisionism.

    (Original post by EmperorPowerMan)
    I think you are far too optimistic, I believe Islams change will be to complex a change and why keep a religion in the name of someone so clearl evil anyway? Also what if it is reformed but then people dig up the true Islam again some way away in the future? You cannot erase fact, especially in this digital age, the threat of Islam could easily resurface.
    And the threat of Christianity could resurface. All the established moderate churches are in decline, with a wave of puritanical and fundamentalist Christianity sweeping all corners of the globe.

    The fact that Islamic theology is so diverse, with such diverse practice is evidence of lack of central clarity and cohesivenes of the Qur'an and scripture, which will be its weakness and source of decline.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    ......religion of?

    Oh and the top comment on the article...

    "The Quran is against sex with girls before their menses and that is the highest authority on Islam. How can ISIS be servants of a good and merciful God?"

    ...so his problem is that the girls might not have started puberty...but doesn't actually condemn the idea of sex slaves as a whole, many girls start puberty at 11 so...fair game after that I suppose.

    **** this though, why is the rest of the world such pussies? We'll go invade a country on made up BS but we have literal monsters in Syria and surrounding areas and we'll do sweet **** all. Where's Nato, the UN? The west should pool it\s armies, steamroll, kick ass and take names. A million "Allah akbars!" won't do much against a wall of the kind of heavy artillery that makes their weapons look like potato guns. Now collateral damage is a big concern of course, so I'd be sending troops on the ground to directly take out ISIS targets, it'll take along time, we'll be fighting town by town, but the Kurds are brave enough to try, why aren't we? All we do is show them that we're too afraid to fight them and just bomb them now and then with drones. If you polled the local populations of Syrians running for their life'\s from this depravity I'm pretty confident they'd like the European nations they flee to to come in and wipe these cockroaches out.

    This is the true face of religion, it warps people into things worse than animals, having a blast raping little girls who don't follow your brand of religion and considering them worth nothing due to it. Literally so warped they'd actually justify it as a good thing and I bet some of them really do believe they're doing absolutely nothing wrong because boss man told them Allah says sex slaves in war is fine and dandy.
    Nato are allied with the Saudis who bankroll ISIS to spread Wahhabism. We sell arms to ISIS. We are largely on their side.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Why can't you take the Old Testament at face value, but the implication being that you can take the New Testament at face value? Genuinely curious. From where I'm sitting, that seems like the cherry picking that has become typical of the Christian faith.
    Are you serious? That is fundamentalism. When you read an allegory, a myth or a polemic, for example, do you just take it literally. There are times for literal interpretation, allegorical, interpretation, anagogical interpretation. Scripture need s to be studied not memorised. To read the Bible one has to switch on one's brain and recognise context. Not Cherry picking at all. Every thing in the Bible cannon has been included for valid reasons. To read it all in a literal sense, is to miss the point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Nato are allied with the Saudis
    NATO is not allied to Saudi Arabia. There isn't even a memorandum of understanding.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    who bankroll ISIS to spread Wahhabism.
    There is no evidence that the Saudi state finances ISIS. Indeed Saudi Arabia have designated ISIS a terrorist organisation. Individuals within Saudi Arabia may finance ISIS, but that funding can't be ascribed to the Saudi state anymore than British mosques and individuals Muslims funding the Taliban being ascribed as the British state funding the Taliban.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    We sell arms to ISIS.
    Where is your evidence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Firstly, there is reasonable rationale for Submitters/Quranists to reject the Hadith. Just as there was reasonable Middle Ages reformers' rationale in rejecting the OT

    And secondly, yes Quranists/Submitters are denounced as heretics, just as Christian reformers were (and burnt at the stake)
    Not really , if Hadith are rejectable or just interpretations, why doesnt this apply to the Quran itself? How can you trust language especially when the Quran was written in old Arabic, surely you can't? The meaning MUST have changed and it probably did as much as Muslims like to deny it, but in mainstream Islam, the Quran is perfect. Quranits and such have a clear flaw in their beliefs, they cannot hold the Quran as the ONLY word from only from God, especially when the Quran is so vague, it leads to different inerpretations by everyone. ou cant have your cake and eat it too! Right butt my point is the basis for the reformers new line of thought was ALWAYS their in front of them, in the most importan scripture, it was not done to modernise Christianity until mabe later but the basis was there. In Islamic doctrine any Scholar can call these guys heretics easily because the scripture is so damn clear, the fact is Christianity, even at its most conservative allows for far more flexbility than Islam ever could, hence why yhe Muslim world enever evolved and denied science.


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    The Tafsirs are a totally separate canonical body from the Hadith. And just as Christian theology selectively dip into the OT for moral guidance, there is no reason that such selective dipping cannot become routine within Islamic theology.
    It is much harder to legitimately pick and choose in Islam as it is now, this could change but the dogma is so damn concise, dont expect it to happen so easily.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    And some argue that the ignoring of the OT because x,y,z is a big lie. Obviously to you, brought up in OT rejecting theology, it feels normal. In the Middle Ages it was not.
    But again the had a good ground for that argument, in Islam there is no ground to do that, rejecting hadith ultimately leads to rejecting the whole of the Quran , especially with the amount of Scientific errors in there. Christinaity has more inherent flexibility than Islam.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Er no. Christian treatment of heresy was as brutal as Islamic treatment of today's heresy. The Inquisition, the 30 year wars, the regular practice of burning heretics at the stake.

    And yet in the whole 300 or so years the inquistion existed , only 5000 people were ever killed. Sure, this aint good but it was clearly on a small scale and done against those who seemed like demons at the time. The witch hunts all across Eurpope killed maybe 50,000 people and this is over 300 years, again not such a high number and many secular institutions took part, this isnt something key in Christianity , just a fad, unlike the heretic killing found in Quran, Hadith and Sharia. The 30 years war was a war amnd since ancient times all rules go out the window during war, the religion is only used to justify further.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    This is a ridiculously whitewashed view of history. The Spanish undertook a campaign of extermination of Aztec, Mayan and various other people of the Americas. The toleration came much much later, after the vast majority of the indigenous population was dead
    No, it's a fairer view of history, the fact is the native Americans in Latin America still exist today in large numbers, they weren't all wiped and many mixed with the Spanish. Yes,they were NOT treated perfectly but the point is many Catholics complained about their treatment, based on CHRISTIAN DOGMA, even the Queen of Spain complained but realistically the could do nothing when the atrocities came down to individuals who held power in the new world and yes some of them were priests, but just because someone is a priest or a crusader does not mean they reflect the true idealogy and clearly the teachings of love in Christianity created a cognitive dissonance in man believers in these times. I could even go farther and argue the initial enslavement and conversion of the natives was a tactic picked from the muslims in Islamic Spain, one of the wonderfull achievments of Islamic Spain the bbc wont mention, the muslims did this so much in Spain and to good affect that it could easily be argued the Spanish picked this up in their reconquista against them. This is the key difference in Islam and Christianity, while the new testament is easily peacefull, the hadith is the opposite but even worse, as I've said before, Hadith contains around 70% of Islam, scrapping them involves scrapping the five pillars of Islam, suff like zakat and other key facts,

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Rubbish. Christians used the Bible to endorse the slave trade. Just as ISIS today use the Qur'an and Hadith to endorse slavery
    Picking and choosing unlike Islam, ISIS have far more backing theologicall speaking than Christians ever did, this is fact, stop trying to equate Christianity to Islam so much, despite the fasle or shallow similarities Islam and Christianity are ver different, the comparison doesnt work.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Nonsense. The lovely soft and cuddly Christianity is a new thing of the last few centuries. This came about through a process of reformation and enlightenment. Whilst the reformation in some ways made the immediate situation worse (becoming more puritanical and persecutory), the process of revisiting Christian theology opened the doors to revisiting theism itself, which gave birth to the Enlightenment
    I never said it was always lovely and soft, clearly the message was always distorted by the powers at the time but even then we see the Christian line of compassion popping up here and there in the brutal histor, based on the original message,.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    There was a time long ago, when Islamic theology was much less puritanical. This variation across time demonstrates that all religions possess and ability to be fluid and change. You are just looking at this from a very narrow point of view, mostly from your own immediate perceptions.
    And what happend to that more liberal view of Islam? Stamped out, the cycle repeats itself, whether it be the shortlived acceptance of Cordoba, the Mughal of India,or the Iran of the 60s, it always loses because the scripture is far too clear.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Am sure these thoughts may have been felt by those struggling for the Enlightenment several centuries ago. They couldn't conceive of a Christianity that didn't dominate institutions of power, restricting free thought and speech and persecuting deviation. But in the end, Christianity crumbled away, replaced by something very watered down. Some may say that Christianity of today is a whole new religion compared to Christianity of the Middle Ages.
    It is different but the mediveal variet was clearly a different beast to the original, scripture all points to such, it is why reformers though so in the first place, the thoguh came from within Christianit not the outside as we have now wih Islam. Ultimately the key message of love your neighbour is unchanged.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    And Christianity went through all this.
    Yes but you canot compare the two just because the are religions, you are painting them with the same brush, but their circumstances and context are much too different and it should lead to different paths of evolution.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Now it is rarely accepted outside evangelical groups that the Bible is the word of God and without error. This belief was mainstream in the Middle Ages.

    Yes Islam's main message is evil, but so is Christanity's. Christianity has never been a liberating force, this is revisionism.
    How is Christianitys main message evil? The initial Christians were down trodden people who were largely prosecuted and had no nation or army, the were simple people, and Jesus' teachings were clearly not evil. Now it is you making stuff up. Just necause Islam is evil doesnt mean all religions are. Fact is the founder of Islam preached and bathed in violence and conquest, you cannot say the same for Christ, and the only way you could even reach this conclusion is from stories in the and laww in the OT that Jesus clearly disregards in Mark's gospel. Bad things were certainly done in Christianitys name but it has never ever coincided with Chrits teachings, just obvious pick and choose.



    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    And the threat of Christianity could resurface. All the established moderate churches are in decline, with a wave of puritanical and fundamentalist Christianity sweeping all corners of the globe.

    The fact that Islamic theology is so diverse, with such diverse practice is evidence of lack of central clarity and cohesivenes of the Qur'an and scripture, which will be its weakness and source of decline.
    Please, Christian fundamentals are mostly not violent, just damning, they are a none issue. People in the fuure can look back and see Muhammads most likely true story, looking back into Jesus' and NOT christianitys story doesnt show us a violent lunatic, the way to judge a religion is by its dogma and creator not the actions of the followers. A muslim who drinks and eats pork is clearly not a good Muslim. Christianitys violent past does not coincide with Jesus, most of it was caused due to the ambitions of empire and wealth with some pciking and choosing to vaguely support their actions, with Islam you can EASILY justify all ISIS does with the entire canon, nevermind a few cherry picked verses

    Islamic theology is diverse BUT 90% of Muslims are sunni, so this diverse theology is found in the few and Sunnis clearly see themselves as the most correct and they have the scripture to back it whcih is apparantly god given unlike Quranists who clearly are not being guided by God because (ultimatel because Allah doesn exist) they have no contact with Allah besides thier own flawed individual interpretations of the Quran, they do not have as much cklaim to divine revelation as Sunnis, and I agree with you THIS COULD CHANGE but it will most likel be a far more turbulent road than Christianity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    ......religion of?

    Oh and the top comment on the article...

    "The Quran is against sex with girls before their menses and that is the highest authority on Islam. How can ISIS be servants of a good and merciful God?"

    ...so his problem is that the girls might not have started puberty...but doesn't actually condemn the idea of sex slaves as a whole, many girls start puberty at 11 so...fair game after that I suppose.

    **** this though, why is the rest of the world such pussies? We'll go invade a country on made up BS but we have literal monsters in Syria and surrounding areas and we'll do sweet **** all. Where's Nato, the UN? The west should pool it\s armies, steamroll, kick ass and take names. A million "Allah akbars!" won't do much against a wall of the kind of heavy artillery that makes their weapons look like potato guns. Now collateral damage is a big concern of course, so I'd be sending troops on the ground to directly take out ISIS targets, it'll take along time, we'll be fighting town by town, but the Kurds are brave enough to try, why aren't we? All we do is show them that we're too afraid to fight them and just bomb them now and then with drones. If you polled the local populations of Syrians running for their life'\s from this depravity I'm pretty confident they'd like the European nations they flee to to come in and wipe these cockroaches out.

    This is the true face of religion, it warps people into things worse than animals, having a blast raping little girls who don't follow your brand of religion and considering them worth nothing due to it. Literally so warped they'd actually justify it as a good thing and I bet some of them really do believe they're doing absolutely nothing wrong because boss man told them Allah says sex slaves in war is fine and dandy.
    An ideology is infinitely more dangerous and powerful than people. Executing every single member of ISIS will not necessarily eradicate this particular brand of thinking as it can survive in the minds of others and just resurface. It's the ideology that must be directly rooted out.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by couragesuccess)
    I agree 100%

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lmao, you do realise that the person who said this was being sarcastic, right?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 15, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.