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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't you look at the threads on the debating forum, I'm sure there are loads of threads like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TRStemporaryusername)
    Look at warfare today and talk about what is civilised or not. We have nuclear weapons capable of causing mass deaths among civilians and incredibly painful radiation sickness amongst many. That is just one example amongst many.

    The cutting off of heads was to ensure that enemy combatants were dead - nothing wrong with that in warfare at all.

    The cutting off of fingers was to ensure that they cannot use their weapons - much nicer than killing them.

    In rules of engagement, even up to today, Islam has the upper hand. Torture is strictly prohibited, aggression and pre-emptive strikes are also prohibited. If the enemy has surrendered, you are not allowed to kill them. Chasing retreating armies is not the same thing. I think that you are very ignorant in the field of military warfare - When an army retreats, they are retreating to fight another battle another day. The best thing to do is to stop them and finish them off. They are retreating because they are weak, providing the best opportunity for finishing the enemies off. (ok. Sometimes it can be a trap so it is best to use extreme caution).
    Well, the fact that those weapons exist does not condone what could be considered moderate violence in comparison, it is still not a peaceful thing to do. Further to this most Islamic states have expressed a desire to own, or already own, nuclear weapons, and Iran in particular has expressed a desire to use these to wipe Israel off the map.

    If it was a peaceful religion it would take captives and treat them humanely, once they are disarmed it is unneccessary to kill them or amputate their fingers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TRStemporaryusername)
    Tap her shoulder with a toothbrush? Have you gone crazy? What on earth is that going to do against a disobedient wife? She'll just laugh in your face. Well, I would (if i were a female)
    Well of course you would, because its not a normal thing to do these days. But in Arabia back then, they didn't have toothbrushes, they had little pieces of wood about the size of my finger.

    What is that going to do to a disobedient wife? Well physically, it isn't going to do anything. But it communicates an expression of disapproval over her actions. If a one year old child does something wrong, his mother might smack him. It probably won't hurt, she's not trying to hospitalise him. The point is just to communicate to the child that she is aware that he has done something wrong.
    This is what the Arabic word واضربوهن tells us. It is 'to hit someone in a manner which expresses recognition of their wrongdoings' rather than to hurt them.

    But you're right, in many cases, the wife might not even care, and just laugh back in his face. If you read the next few verses of the Qur'an, this is where it starts talking about seeking a divorce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Just because something happened in the past here does not mean you should condone it happening it somewhere else. Why did such practices disappear? Progress is not achieved by empathizing with something that disgusts you, purely to be tolerant. Be intolerant of intolerence if you want it to disappear, not accept it with open arms :p: . I know, that sounds hypocritical, but meh, i'm a hypocrite and proud

    As an atheist i have no duty to be accepting of religion. I can tolerate sure, but you wrongly equate tolerance with acceptance (in my opinion) and this is the key failing of western liberalism - equating tolerance of intolerance, bigotism and religious supremacy with acceptance (to the extent of allowing schools that teach this).


    Well, Islam specifically states that every man is duty bound to spread the faith. However, if the majority contributes in some way (the 2% tax thing), then it can be left to a minority to spread the faith.

    And even so, it's been estimated that upto 20% of muslims form this minority. No doubt it was by a fairly right wing think tank, but considering how extreme muslims *i* know are, it seems a bit erm .. underestimated :p:
    Whilst you make perfect sense, I still don't think its at all fair to judge another faith simply because it doesn't adhere to rules of Christianity or whatever faith you happen to be (I, like you, am Athiest, although I've stated my annoyance at being called Athiest when I am simply against conventions of religion, not religion itself. IF that makes sense (which it probably doesn't :p:))

    I agree that Christianity has come along way in its teachings and methods, but surely that's down to the struggle between Protestant and Catholicism for generations? Depending on the Monarch (starting with Henry VIII obviously) from there on in, the religion was constantly changing and thus our country suffered huge religious unrest for a long time. Do you not think that because of the opposing views of both Catholoism and Protestantism, that allowed room for change and led to tolerance of both? That's not to say that both are at peace with one another today; look at Ireland, aren't they still divided between the two factions? Maybe it's a case of Islam not having this choice and therefore stick to their generations and generations of teachings. I'm not really saying I tolerate it or think its acceptable, my only disagreements with certain people's posts is that they seem to simply neglect the hypocrisy of their own religion.

    FYI, I'm a proud hypocrite too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    While I do believe that some aspects of Islam do teach peace, this is just to mask the darker more sinister side of it. I am an atheist, but not a strong atheist, so if there is a God and a Devil then

    I'm almost certainly going to get neg repped for this but before you do just remember that this is a valid argument which deserves thought.
    Dude, you state your beliefs which are not so beautifully worded but they are completely baseless.

    Ok. There is a base and it is as follows. "I believe that the Qu'ran was the work of the devil as we have free will and therefore God will not stop Muslims in following an evil religion." WTF WTF WTF!!!

    Please elaborate on this. I cannot understand what you are trying to convey.
    Or can somebody else decipher this work of brilliance.

    Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    The implications of the whole post have seemed to imply, perhaps not evil, but that all muslims have an innate desire to be violent towards others, which simply isn't the case. Just because something is seemingly more documented in the media or on the internet etc, doesn't mean it can be taken for gospel. All religions have extremists, it's not really fair of anyone to target Islam when their own religions are far from perfect.

    As for the sentence I emboldened...haha! Are you for real? Being "of faith" has no direct correlation to how much you give to charity! I myself am not religious, I guess I'm an Athiest (although I don't really think it's fair to call myself Athiest when I simply don't believe in the conventions of Church and how they dictate to us what God wants/thinks/say/does) and I give plenty to charity, and so do a hell of a lot of other Athiests. Being moral and humane, like I said before, has nothing to do with being religious or having faith at all.
    (Original post by http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0465008216-about.asp)
    Here are just a few facts that came from Brooks’ research:

    • People raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not.
    • People who practice their faiths regularly are America’s big givers: They are 38% more likely to give money charitably each year than people who do not practice a faith, and 52% more likely to volunteer their time.
    • Religious households donate three and a half times as much money each year to charity as secular households do.
    • Religious faith is the most important explanation for why some Americans give so much, while others give so little. If the United States continues to split into two nations—one religious, and the other secular—we will also be two nations when it comes to giving—one charitable, the other uncharitable.
    • If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.
    • Religious people give away four times more money each year than secular people and are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities.
    • People who give money charitably are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than non-givers and 25 percent more likely than non-givers to say their health is excellent or very good.




    So you see, the religious, in particular Christians, are more likely to give and to give more than atheists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No it isn't. If anyone thinks it is they have deluded themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    [/SIZE][/FONT]
    So you see, the religious, in particular Christians, are more likely to give and to give more than atheists.
    That's fair enought, but that's American Christians. Which, if you take into consideration the sheer size of the bible belt states its no wonder. I would be very interested in seeing the results for the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TRStemporaryusername)
    Well, good for you. The only reason why I created this thread was to promote discussion and debate on a very important topic. If you don't like it, why don't you f*** off to another thread.

    Thank you for visiting.
    Very important? LOL
    The same issues are dealt with in similar threads anyway, no need to get all rude.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "then I believe that the Qu'ran was the work of the devil"
    please explain this as it makes no sense to me... and is quite offensive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by faith90)
    Jihad is the inner fighting against the temptations to do wrong, unfortunately people misinterpreted and do suicide bombing which I think is ridiculous!- they blatantly deserve hell by taking away a life that God has given.
    Why did we see celebrations throughout Islamic states when 9/11 and 7/7 happened? Please can you show me the part of the Quaran that states that Jihad is the fight against temptation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "then I believe that the Qu'ran was the work of the devil"
    please explain this as it makes no sense to me... and is quite offensive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well of course you would, because its not a normal thing to do these days. But in Arabia back then, they didn't have toothbrushes, they had little pieces of wood about the size of my finger.

    What is that going to do to a disobedient wife? Well physically, it isn't going to do anything. But it communicates an expression of disapproval over her actions. If a one year old child does something wrong, his mother might smack him. It probably won't hurt, she's not trying to hospitalise him. The point is just to communicate to the child that she is aware that he has done something wrong.
    This is what the Arabic word واضربوهن tells us. It is 'to hit someone in a manner which expresses recognition of their wrongdoings' rather than to hurt them.

    But you're right, in many cases, the wife might not even care, and just laugh back in his face. If you read the next few verses of the Qur'an, this is where it starts talking about seeking a divorce.
    Cool. Well, that verse obviously allows room for change as society advances. Nowdays, it will probably be replaced by a few harsh words of disapproval.

    However, what I do not understand is why it cannot be the other way around. What makes the man able to express disapproval but not the woman. Or am I just ignorant? (I have not read all of the Quran)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TRStemporaryusername)
    Yes I have, actually. I am a Muslim myself
    LOL OF THE MONTH!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Why did we see celebrations throughout Islamic states when 9/11 and 7/7 happened? Please can you show me the part of the Quaran that states that Jihad is the fight against temptation?
    There are 2 kinds of Jihad. Greater Jihad is within yourself, Lesser Jihad is the struggle to turn to whole world Muslim, basically.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    Whilst you make perfect sense, I still don't think its at all fair to judge another faith simply because it doesn't adhere to rules of Christianity or whatever faith you happen to be (I, like you, am Athiest, although I've stated my annoyance at being called Athiest when I am simply against conventions of religion, not religion itself. IF that makes sense (which it probably doesn't :p:))

    I agree that Christianity has come along way in its teachings and methods, but surely that's down to the struggle between Protestant and Catholicism for generations? Depending on the Monarch (starting with Henry VIII obviously) from there on in, the religion was constantly changing and thus our country suffered huge religious unrest for a long time. Do you not think that because of the opposing views of both Catholoism and Protestantism, that allowed room for change and led to tolerance of both? That's not to say that both are at peace with one another today; look at Ireland, aren't they still divided between the two factions? Maybe it's a case of Islam not having this choice and therefore stick to their generations and generations of teachings. I'm not really saying I tolerate it or think its acceptable, my only disagreements with certain people's posts is that they seem to simply neglect the hypocrisy of their own religion.

    FYI, I'm a proud hypocrite too
    Well, theres a reason for this. Most religious teachings are full of contradictions that allow tonnes of different interpretations and thus different from "the truth" isn't that big of a deal.

    In Islam, there is only one "word of god", totally uncontradictory, clear, coherent and written at once. There is no room for disagreement or debate.

    While Islam certainly DID have its period of tolerance and culture did flourish upto the 12th century AD, after this they seemed to have hit a rut and gone back to religious intolerance of the 8th century (probably because after the 12th century Islam had consolidated and did not need to appear accepting or tolerant in an effort to placate the conquered populations, who were by now converted to Islam). Also, after the 12th century, Islam didn't grow all that much, so they didn't really need to be tolerant to accept conquered populations (although the Ottoman Empire was extremely liberal at the time, and far more tolerant in many ways than almost all contemporary western kingdoms).

    And islam certainly had its various faiths. There's many different schools: Ibadi, Shiite, Sunni are just three i can think off the top of my head. I don't really know how they tick in terms of tolerance of other schools though (although it doesn't seem they like each other all that much! Look at Iraq and the sickening sectarian violence of the 5/6/7 years).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    That's fair enought, but that's American Christians. Which, if you take into consideration the sheer size of the bible belt states its no wonder. I would be very interested in seeing the results for the UK.
    There are no other studies that exist. However, it seems I am validated in my view that Christians give more in like for like scenarios. The study does not say that Christians give far more as a whole, it states that it's more in like for like scenarios. Surely your claim that Atheists are just as giving in like for like scenarios has been reputed by this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Why did we see celebrations throughout Islamic states when 9/11 and 7/7 happened? Please can you show me the part of the Quaran that states that Jihad is the fight against temptation?
    We saw celebrations because many Muslims, most probably not the majority but a sizable minority, are a lot like sheep. They follow the teachings of radical extremists like Osama Bin Laden and they are the people you saw celebrating. Most Muslims I know are disgusted by the acts of terrorists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TRStemporaryusername)
    Hi.

    I just cannot get my head around why so many Muslims believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Everybody you ask would so simplistically reply when asked this question by saying yes. This is in blatant contradiction to the numerous verses in the Quran and Hadith that state that homosexuals should be killed, adulterers stoned to death, wives beaten if they are disobedient, apostasy within Islam should be punished by death and so on.

    What kind of 'peaceful' religion would feature all of the oppressive acts mentioned above. And do not, for once, try to argue that women are not oppressed within Islam. They are very oppressed. Many Muslims point to the fact that Islam was less repressive towards women 1400 years ago than Arab society. Well, surely it should also be, 1400 years later, less repressive than society towards women. It clearly is not. I am not talking about rules regarding things such as headscarves here but the order for husbands to beat their wives for disobedience.

    Anyway, I'm done with ranting. Now it's your turn.
    Lmao check the hadith or quranic verses on how muslims shuold treat prisoners. I think that will answer your question. By the way im a muslim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just have to say that I find this thread to be quite offensive. I am a Muslim and have lived in Saudi Arabia for most of my life (although I am not Saudi, I am Lebanese). One of the things I have noticed while growing up is how easy it is to stereotype Islam as a religion raising terrorists and violent people. BUT IT IS NOT.

    I admit that many Muslims have committed terrible crimes, but it is also true that many Christians, Jews and people of other religions have acted similarly. So why is Islam the religion stained with this reputation?

    Islam, Judaism and Christianity are actually very similar.

    Firstly, one of the main things that Islam teaches Muslims are the five pillars. These "pillars" are basically 5 things that a human must do to be a good Muslim. I guess you could say it is similar to the 10 commandments in Christianity. These 5 "Pillars" are:

    1) Shahada: The belief that there is only one God.
    2) Salat: Praying 5 times a day.
    3) Zakat: Which basically requires Muslims to be charitable and to help those with economic difficulties.
    4) Saum: which involves fasting during Ramadan, and
    5) Hajj: which is a pilgrimage that Muslims must make at least once in their lifetime.

    NOWHERE in these basic 5 pillars does Islam teach its followers to be violent. It teaches them to be charitable, emphatic and faithful.

    I'll move on to the concept of Jihad which is commonly misunderstood. Unfortunately, many extremists claim that when they commit terrorist acts, they are doing Jihad (which is in the Qu'ran). But they are MISTAKEN. Jihad means "Striving" NOT "Holy War". Holy War actually originated with the European Crusaders during the 11th century.

    Also, I will say that many extremists have become this way, not because of Islam, but because of the conditions and situations they were brought up in. A man raised in a constant war will grow up to be belligerent. This is unfortunate but is true and has caused the stereotyping of Muslims to be terrorists, which I find very offensive.

    Another fact is that most Muslims are located in Asia and NOT the Middle East. So why are Muslims in the Middle East seen as violent? It is because of the conditioning (wars, political battles) that we live in and NOT what our religion teaches us. I would like to stress this point.

    Islam teaches the opposite, it condemns murder, tells Muslims to accept and RESPECT other religions. Also, regarding the treatment of women. In Islam, there is no difference between men and women's relationship to God; they receive identical rewards and punishments for their conduct. The Qu'ran STATES THIS.

    Therefore I find arguments against Islam groundless, when I have been raised as a Muslim. I have NOT been taught to hate Jews or people of any other religion EVEN if they disrespect mine. I HAVE been taught to treat women without ANY discrimination and I have been taught to resolve my problems without the use of violence.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.