Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its mostly because of stuff like ISIS, they ruin the name of Islam people like Trump don't help either if people just put aside their childish behaviour towards Muslims and actually got to know them they would realise they are just like any other person in the world.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)
    You're missing the point though. If 5% of the U.S population is Muslim and 99% of mass shootings are carried out by non muslims, then what sense is there to be fearful of the muslims? It's pure probability, you are more likely to be killed by a non muslim, end of story.

    Well there is evidence to suggest that your husband can discipline you physically if you are missing prayers or being disobedient but it is a last measure and even then he is not to use such force as to mark her. I will tell my husband that if he hits I will divorce him. You seem to think that women have no say in a marriage? My husband will obey everything I tell him to though so it's all good

    You made a big assumption

    You post big responses and it's time consuming to reply to every detail so I just reply to the most relevant / important parts. Sorry if this is not sufficient for you.
    But I'm talking about Europe. I've already said that the US vetting process is broadly adequate; I agree with making it more stringent from countries with a high terrorist presence, like Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but overall it's okay. So in general, yes in the US Muslims don't commit many terrorist attacks. But in Europe, there is a clear trend of terrorism that is originating solely from Islamic circles, and this cannot be denied. Mass shootings, or lorry ploughing, is practically unheard of among native citizens here. Firearms being illegal is irrelevant, because that makes them just as hard to obtain for Muslim extremists as it does for non-Muslim would-be terrorists, so if natives do commit mass shootings more often than Muslims, then the trend should be the same. But it isn't. And many Muslims are directly inspired by their beliefs to do the attacks, whereas non-Muslim shooters are inspired by a variety of reasons (such as mental illness). So it is clear that there is a problem within Islamic ideology itself that needs fixing.

    So it's okay to be beaten as long as it doesn't leave marks? And this is justified if you miss prayers or 'disobey'? Well, to many in the West this is called domestic abuse. And aren't you lucky that you have the law on your side because you live in Britain, somehow I don't think you'd be saying that if you lived in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - countries which base their legal system on Islamic law.

    And fantastic, thank goodness! I'm glad that the assumption was wrong, obviously. The wording just seemed to imply other things, that's all. And yes, my responses are long because I try to put a lot of effort into debates and provide justification and sources, like you suggested me to. I don't expect you to respond to every sentence, but you left out quite a lot of the key arguments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    however, by default, the divorced mother loses custody, even of a small child, if she re-marries. The father does not. For me, this discrimination is simply a residue of a strongly patriarchal society : inadequate in our times.
    and in the western world by default the father loses custody, what's your point exactly? Both can't get custody... Someone HAS to have custody.

    Islam says it's the mother if she does not remarry or if father is not fit to care for it and in the western world the mother gets custody even if the father is perfectly suitable of looking after the child.

    You act like Islams ruling is worse...

    The reason the father gets the child if the mother remarries is because the new man she remarries to may neglect the child or just not care for it much.

    This is less likely to happen if the father takes the child to his new wife as women are more compassionate and caring in general.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Your angle was that Jesus encouraged violence, I was only demonstrating this was not the case.
    That was not my angle. The point I was trying to make was that verses from both religions can be manipulated and hence "taken out of context". Obviously, the verses challenged in the Qur'an may be more subtle in describing what a verse really means... or some of them may really be violent. But there are several occasions when "so-called critics" do interpret a verse wrongly and draw a wrong conclusion, like I did with the Bible.

    (Original post by Onde)
    ...Although I believe the account of Jesus's life in the New Testament is largely if not entirely fiction...but you should understand that Jesus, or those who fabricated his life's story, did things a certain way because he/they believed Jesus was fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, including for example Isaiah 53:


    This is why you get instances such as Jesus's betrayal where one of his followers cuts off the ear off the servant of the high priest - Jesus famously chastises the follower and says: "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” - Matthew 26:52-54.

    And then:
    In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” - Matthew 26:55-56
    Hmmm I should have used this one then ^^^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dislike islam because:
    1) it is distinctly socially intolerant compared to other cultues, creeds, movements, etc
    2) it is a religion and puts blind belief in obvious fables and lies.
    but the first point is far more relevant. I dislike islam mostly because it is homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, paedophilic, etc. these are just facts. I can quote all the verses that vindicate this. I don't dislike people of different *skin colours*. I dislike hurtful *ideologies*. i.e.: I don't dislike indian people, but I dislike their caste system that still seems to be existent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.olk)
    I agree with most of your points however don't you think there is a sense of hypocrisy amongst westerners in general? They usually turn a blind eye to atrocities which their own governments/people have committed ie. The Iraq War, The Afghanistan War, even the KKK who also acted in the name of Christianity. Also let's not forget what the Bible preaches about gay rights, womens rights and non-believers also.

    I also think it is unfair to say most atrocities have been committed by Muslims-I don't believe you can be of ANY religion and commit such atrocities, as it is a complete oxymoron. I do think Islamophobia is a rational fear to have, however it has massively been blown out of proportion by the media.
    To some extent, some of the responses even on this website to the recent shooting in Canada demonstrate that some people turn a blind eye to white terrorism, which is wrong, of course. But I think comparing Islamic terrorism - which targets innocent civilians with the express purpose of causing fear and disorder in the name of religion - are not comparable to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. The West didn't barge into Iraq simply to kill innocent civilians; they went there to depose a government that they believed possessed WMDs (flawed intelligence that needed better verification, that I do not deny, but the reason for attack is completely different to Islamic terrorism). As has been stated in this thread already, many of the deaths were actually due to sectarian fighting afterwards (i.e. Muslim vs Muslim), so although it is clear that the West caused a power vacuum which led to this fighting, it's far from the same situation as terrorism.

    Although, I agree that America should stop trying to 'nation build' in these places with military force. They should encourage liberal reforms using soft power, like trade or diplomacy, only getting involved militarily if asked to by governments or whatever. However, it's very much a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't", because the West gets criticised for not doing enough to help if they decide not to step in.

    Groups like the KKK are, of course, despicable, and should be treated with the same contempt as Islamic terrorists rightly are. Don't mistake my criticism of Islam as support for Christianity though, since I'm an atheist and very much dislike all of the Abrahamic religions.

    And it's not unfair to say most atrocities have been committed by Muslims, because they have in recent times (in Europe, which I thought was pretty clear by now...)
    And you don't believe that you can be of any religion and commit an atrocity? All that is required to be a member of a religion is to identify with it and believe in its basic tenets and supreme being(s); the terrorists clearly do believe in it (they're even kind enough to let us know this before they act, with a loud "Allahu Ackbar!" on most occasions!) To say that Islamic terrorists aren't religious is an absurd statement to make. Just as it's absurd to say that the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, or anyone else that you can think of, aren't Christians (they clearly are!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    So it's okay to be beaten as long as it doesn't leave marks? And this is justified if you miss prayers or 'disobey'? Well, to many in the West this is called domestic abuse. And aren't you lucky that you have the law on your side because you live in Britain, somehow I don't think you'd be saying that if you lived in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - countries which base their legal system on Islamic law.
    "Beaten" is not the right word... It is not meant to harm her or make her fear you. It is to shock her and make her realise her wrong. Again it's a last resort.


    And fantastic, thank goodness! I'm glad that the assumption was wrong, obviously. The wording just seemed to imply other things, that's all. And yes, my responses are long because I try to put a lot of effort into debates and provide justification and sources, like you suggested me to. I don't expect you to respond to every sentence, but you left out quite a lot of the key arguments.
    You've probably noticed a pattern in my posts by now. If I completely edit out part of your post it's either because I do not have much to contribute to what you said or that I just don't think it's important enough to reply to.

    Sorry my answers are not adequate enough for you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    I quite admire the new testament and think the poetry within is beautiful but what about when Jesus said "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
    Yes, but he didn't LITERALLY bring a sword. He was speaking metaphorically. Like cutting away at all the sin. Just like when the Bible says, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; for it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven with just one hand than to be cast into the fires of Hell for all eternity", [or whatever the exact words were.] He didn't literally mean to go around cutting yours or someone else's hands off if they are tempted to masturbate. The same with plucking your eyes out if you find cause to covet thy neighbour's wife. It means do your utmost to change your ways and your thinking, not gouge your own eyes out.!!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    Yes, but he didn't LITERALLY bring a sword. He was speaking metaphorically. Like cutting away at all the sin. Just like when the Bible says, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; for it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven with just one hand than to be cast into the fires of Hell for all eternity", [or whatever the exact words were.] He didn't literally mean to go around cutting yours or someone else's hands off if they are tempted to masturbate. The same with plucking your eyes out if you find cause to covet thy neighbour's wife. It means do your utmost to change your ways and your thinking, not gouge your own eyes out.!!
    Read my responses after that post mate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)
    "Beaten" is not the right word... It is not meant to harm her or make her fear you. It is to shock her and make her realise her wrong. Again it's a last resort.

    You've probably noticed a pattern in my posts by now. If I completely edit out part of your post it's either because I do not have much to contribute to what you said or that I just don't think it's important enough to reply to.

    Sorry my answers are not adequate enough for you.
    Last resort or not, I'm not really sure disobedience to another human being can really be considered wrong, but if that makes you happy then whatever. But you must be able to see why this is strongly condemned in Western nations?

    Yes, but from the point of view of a debate it looks like you're just ignoring points that you can't provide an argument against. Even just an acknowledgement that you have no more to add would solve that issue, but I get the feeling that you don't want to continue this conversation, so I'll leave you be and part without saying any more :hand:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)

    You act like Islams ruling is worse...

    The reason the father gets the child if the mother remarries is because the new man she remarries to may neglect the child or just not care for it much.

    This is less likely to happen if the father takes the child to his new wife as women are more compassionate and caring in general.
    as the legendary examples of stepmothers all through history clearly illustrate....

    more seriously :

    you are divorced. You have the custody of your child. if you remarry, you lose custody. If you are male, you re-marry and, if you have custody, you keep it.

    How is that just ?

    and, let's avoid whataboutery: keep Kuffariq justice out of this.

    Islam and Sharia should stand on their own feet, not simply in comparison to the decadent kuffar and the "rotten fruits" of their system

    Best
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    Yes, but he didn't LITERALLY bring a sword. He was speaking metaphorically. Like cutting away at all the sin. Just like when the Bible says, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; for it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven with just one hand than to be cast into the fires of Hell for all eternity", [or whatever the exact words were.] He didn't literally mean to go around cutting yours or someone else's hands off if they are tempted to masturbate. The same with plucking your eyes out if you find cause to covet thy neighbour's wife. It means do your utmost to change your ways and your thinking, not gouge your own eyes out.!!
    Interesting. I recently discussed with a Muslim who considered that the Quran's ruling on theft (cutting the hand of the thief) should be interpreted as "put the thief in a situation where he cannot steal anymore"

    This is very positive in my view, but few Muslims would follow this sort of creative thinking: they are afraid of pushing "interpretation" too far, ending up in "innovation".

    But, where exactly lies the limit ? Christians are much more flexible on this, and this -in my view - is their strength. But Muslims see it as a weakness.

    Best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    Interesting. I recently discussed with a Muslim who considered that the Quran's ruling on theft (cutting the hand of the thief) should be interpreted as "put the thief in a situation where he cannot steal anymore"

    This is very positive in my view, but few Muslims would follow this sort of creative thinking: they are afraid of pushing "interpretation" too far, ending up in "innovation".

    But, where exactly lies the limit ? Christians are much more flexible on this, and this -in my view - is their strength. But Muslims see it as a weakness.

    Best
    The ruling on removing of the hand for theft is quite clear although there are instances where the hand will not be removed. For example if the thief stole food in order to survive or he is not an adult. There are other exceptions but I'm not certain what they are.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=DeHumanisation;69901610]Propaganda? Where do you start? Virtually the whole of the media, Youtube, google, education - all of it is controlled by the zionist banking cartels and multinationals. Nevertheless there are people still out there that believe the Iraq war was justified and that Paris, Berlin, Lee Rigby and all the others were genuine events.

    With regard to morality, anyone that endures some degree of suffering to attain a long term goal is widely regarded as being more moral. Any individual that puts the interest of the community before their own hedonistic impulses would widely be considered moral. However morality is completely dead in this country, marriage is vilified, promiscuity is approved and subsidised, alcohol is encouraged.....[/Q Then go and live somewhere else then. You see folks, this.... THIS is why there is Islamophobia. Because Muslims think they are better than everyone else. They think everyone else is immoral, not as good as them. They are bigoted racists who don't belong in the West, end of.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)
    The ruling on removing of the hand for theft is quite clear although there are instances where the hand will not be removed. For example if the thief stole food in order to survive or he is not an adult. There are other exceptions but I'm not certain what they are.
    no one is certain

    this is why you have so many brands of Islam : because no one knows for sure how exactly to interpret many verses, ahadith, etc and how to implement them in practice

    what seems "clear" to you is not clear for the next person. And this is why many Muslims are obsessed with the idea of sinning, even in very minute details

    With some effort, there is no limit to the possibilities for interpretation : however, those who have invested years and years in studies (mujtahidun) claim that they have the monopoly of "interpretation" (one should understand them: it's their bread and butter, after all)

    In any case, many claim that the "gates of ijtihad" (possibility of independent legal reasoning and interpretation) were closed in the 10th century, so, no luck for them

    best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    no one is certain

    this is why you have so many brands of Islam : because no one knows for sure how exactly to interpret many verses, ahadith, etc and how to implement them in practice

    what seems "clear" to you is not clear for the next person. And this is why many Muslims are obsessed with the idea of sinning, even in very minute details

    With some effort, there is no limit to the possibilities for interpretation : however, those who have invested years and years in studies (mujtahidun) claim that they have the monopoly of "interpretation" (one should understand them: it's their bread and butter, after all)

    In any case, many claim that the "gates of ijtihad" (possibility of independent legal reasoning and interpretation) were closed in the 10th century, so, no luck for them

    best
    Imam shafi'i (may allah be pleased with him) studied the religion of 20+ years. The problem today is you can go to university and after 3 years studying Islam you're under the illusion you've studied the religion.

    That is why we have scholars and people of knowledge, to educate, but people prefer to ask on forums and use Google until they eventually find an answer that reaffirms their opinion.

    Scholars agree on MOST things, not everything is crystal clear because language is always open to interpretation but if 95% or more of scholars say ISIS are not representing Islam then you better believe them.

    If you Google and find a random forum where abdullah the online scholar says ISIS is legit then that's just bad research.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    whataboutery

    Best
    In the cases where a married couple can no longer stay together. Custody preference is always given to the mother, and the child will stay with the mother till they reach an age where they can freely chose which parent to live with.
    At that stage the child gets to choose who to stay with. While the child is being look after by the mother and till the child reaches adulthood the father is to pay for its maintenance (ie food, clothing, education..etc). The father always has visitation rights and the rights to see his child.
    The mother loses the custody of the child if:
    -She is found to be abusive
    - Leaves the city where the father/rest of the family is without notice
    -Marries**

    **Generally if the mother does lose custody for any reason the next in line to custody is the maternal aunt, maternal mother, maternal uncle. And the maternal relatives are always given preference.
    A mother might lose legal custody of the child if she remarries, due to her new responsibilities as a wife and fears that the stepfather might not be as kind or caring to the child. But that is not the case every time as it depends on the man she marries.Even if it is found it is best that the custody of the child is removed form the mother, the next legal custodian of the child will either be the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt.
    On the other other hand there are many cases (used by classical scholars) that demonstrate mothers remarrying and keeping custody.
    Therefore the scholarly consensus has been the first and foremost concern of shari'ah is the well being and state of the child and that custody will be given to the party that gives the child its fullest rights and shows most kindness and love.
    AishaGirl
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aminxv)
    This isn't a matter of religion. I don't want to argue if our belief is true or not, you have your own opinion on that.

    You are quite factually incorrect here. I am a Muslim and I completely disassociate myself from groups such as ISIS and so do the vast majority of Muslims. They take scripture out of context, and justify their actions (which are fundamentally non islamic) by doing so. We believe that taking an innocent life is a massive sin, as with rape, and everything these groups do.

    I will never be apologetic of their actions, why should I be apologetic for something terrible someone calming to have something in common with me does. Its stupid.

    It's true that if they take verses out of context and spray them in the media it looks shocking, but anyone that has properly studied the text will not share this view, hence why many NON-MUSLIM scholars of oriental religions and cultures are often defending Islam. A lot of the verses which seem shocking to most people cannot justifiably be applied today. Islam was brought to the arab people at a time of war and suffering, hence some mentions of violence etc.

    "But it is also undeniable that violence seems to be far more prevalent amongst Muslims too."

    Find my statistical data to prove this. How much violence occurs in the name of Christianity over the years, and nobody says all Jews are more violent because of the massacres being made daily in Palestine by the Zionists. Nobody speaks of the drone killings of thousands of people each day by the Americans in the middle east, does this make all who support the US millitary more violent?

    A great verse that Muslims often forget and people who have prejudice against a peaceful religion probably have never heard is:

    "Him to his religion, and me to mine"

    99% of us don't care what you do, walk around naked for all we care (in your own country), I have no interest in coverting you all to Islam or "creeping in Sharia law to the UK". As long as I can practice my beliefs, I'm happy.

    "I also find it deeply unsettling that Muslims believe that all non-Muslims are going to burn in hell for eternity, and apparently are fine with this and think it is deserved"

    Entirely untrue, again a radical view not held by every muslim. We believe we are not to judge, God will judge, and anyone who is a good person will have potential to go to heaven, we cannot judge at all. God is merciful.

    Most people must educate themselves, I mean have you seen the education level vs. brexit vote graph?

    I don't care if non-muslims never learn about islam- do what you want, but if you want to argue or condemn something we do, at least read something not published in the daily mail.
    However I do care about muslims educating themselves. Many have no clue about the religious scripture and give terrible arguments, which further fuels prejudice.
    See? Exactly what I said in the post you were quoting: the typical, "not real Muslim," "taken out of context," response. I'm not being factually incorrect. ISIS clearly are Muslims - that is to say, a very extreme interpretation of Islam - but to deny that they are Muslims is ludicrous and is only adding tinder to the fire that Muslims refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with radicalisation in the community. There are explicit parts of the Qur'an, i.e. the call to jihad, that can be used to justify it. An extreme interpretation? Sure. But that doesn't make it any more or less valid than your own interpretation, because there is no ultimate arbiter of what is or is not true when it comes to interpretive text. You believe taking a life is a massive sin, there are clearly those who don't believe that, who also seem to be not-insignificant in number.

    I never said that you personally had to be apologetic, just to acknowledge that there is a problem in the Islamic community with radicalisation and to appreciate why a lot of Westerners are therefore hostile towards Islam, when the numerate terrorist attacks are coupled with a number of quite backward beliefs.

    Oh and yes, ISIS haven't studied the text properly. Of course. Then they'd understand that they were wrong. (I'm fairly confident in saying that I'm sure at least one of them will have fully read the Qur'an before, most likely quite a large portion of them!) Stop denying that there is a problem, you're just contributing to the feelings of hostility between the West and Islam. Oh, and can you provide sources for non-Muslim scholars defending Islam? Just curious.

    Data? Okay: Since 9/11, of the 8 major terrorist attacks in Europe (that is, those that killed more than 10 people), 7 of them have been perpetrated by Islamic extremists. These attacks are: the Madrid train bombings, the London 7/7 bombings, the Charlie Hebdo shootings, the 2015 Paris shootings (Bataclan and the others), the Brussels suicide bombings, the Nice truck attack, and the Berlin Christmas market attack. The 8th major attack was by Anders Breivik, which was an attack targeted specifically at Muslims. So as you can see, Islamic extremism makes up the vast majority of recent terror attacks in Europe (and the last one was still to do with Islam). There's a big table of it on this page:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe

    Oh, and if you care to turn on the news, looks like there's been another one at Le Louvre whilst we've been debating. But I'm sure you'll say that the man who shouted "Allahu Ackbar" isn't a real Muslim.

    Yes, Christianity has been responsible for thousands of deaths over the years (as have most major religions). But I'm talking about right now, in the modern era, not hundreds of years ago. And right now, radical Islam (and the odd attack aimed at Muslims) is practically the sole cause of terrorism. If you look at one of my previous posts, I make it plainly clear that the wars that America are involved in are not even vaguely comparable to terrorism, so don't even try to pull that card out. The Americans didn't go to the ME with the express purpose of indiscriminately killing civilians just for having different beliefs to them. Rightly or wrongly, they went to depose dictators like Saddam Hussein, and attacked military targets. Many of the civilian deaths are a result of the sectarian conflicts that resulted afterwards, i.e. by other Muslims. The Israel situation is somewhat unique, however they are surrounded by a number of states that don't even believe they should exist. The Israeli situation is more a matter of state survival, but yes too many citizens do get caught in the crossfire.

    And 99% of Westerners don't care what you do, but they are concerned with bringing such cultural practises over here. That's why people are resistant to Islamic immigration.

    No, the Qur'an states that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity. I hardly call this a just punishment for people who didn't have the 'good fortune' to be born into an Islamic country. It's not a radical view, it's literally the word of your God. It's the same in Christianity as well, apparently simply being gay is enough to land you in the inferno. Although, the teachings of Jesus do somewhat contradict this with the omnipresent features of love and forgiveness. God of the Old Testament though... he's a malevolent creature.

    I'm not reading trash like the Daily Mail. There are numerous quotes in your own scripture that back up my arguments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aminxv)
    "Data? Okay: Since 9/11, of the 8 major terrorist attacks in Europe..."

    Great data! As I mentioned in my response where is Palestine, or the middle east in here? Where was the massacre of the muslims in Serbia? You data proves nothing, and you wasted your time googling it this morning. How about we takes these deaths (even in Europe because its the whole world according to you) and divide them by the total murders and deaths caused in these ways. It will be a tiny percentage, because there are messed up people of any faith.

    ISIS kill more muslims than non muslims - FACT.

    There are over 1 billion muslims, how many muslims took part in these attacks, lets say for arguments sake in these 8 attacks 1000 muslims where in on it (very optimistic for people like you, its more likely less than 100). Divide this by a billion and what do you get?

    Let me do the maths, from your arguments it seems you may not be capable: 0.000001 of all the muslims on earth.

    You've made the exact same arguments again. You've added nothing to the debate and I'm sure you will continue doing so.

    "No, the Qur'an states that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity. I hardly call this a just punishment for people who didn't have the 'good fortune' to be born into an Islamic country. It's not a radical view, it's literally the word of your God. It's the same in Christianity as well, apparently simply being gay is enough to land you in the inferno. Although, the teachings of Jesus do somewhat contradict this with the omnipresent features of love and forgiveness. God of the Old Testament though... he's a malevolent creature."

    How dare you assume what I believe. Give me the verse in context where this is said. We are told off as kids for saying "that man murder someone he will go to hell". The "non muslims" mentioned in the Qu'ran to be punished are mostly those of the Quraish tribe who committed atrocities.

    Educate yourself before responding

    I'm not as eloquent as this man:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0
    ISIS don't consider the Muslims they kill as Muslims because they don't follow the same interpretation. Ironically you are doing exactly what ISIS does: denouncing those who don't agree with your interpretation as "not true Muslims". The leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic studies so are you still going to say he knows nothing about Islam?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aminxv)

    How dare you assume what I believe. Give me the verse in context where this is said. We are told off as kids for saying "that man murder someone he will go to hell". The "non muslims" mentioned in the Qu'ran to be punished are mostly those of the Quraish tribe who committed atrocities.

    Educate yourself before responding
    Oh dear, looks like you've never read the Quran. Here are some of the verses that say unbelievers will go to hell that has nothing to do with the Quraish:

    3:56 "And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers."

    40:70-72 "Those who deny the Book and that with which We sent Our messengers - they are going to know, When the shackles are around their necks and the chains; they will be dragged In boiling water; then in the Fire they will be filled [with flame]."

    4:56 "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise."
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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