Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You mean apostasy laws & blasphemy laws In Europe?
I think RM and I both are referring to censorship in the Quran.
- Any particulars?
In America, there is not a single person in jail for political speech.
- That's of course a fictitious delusion. The US has never stopped persecuting people for political views, wether be it the Irish, or the Chinese, or the catholics after them, or the Japanese in WWII, or the communists in the Red Scare, or the muslims in the War on Terror... or now for so many things I can't even count: white-nationalism, nazism, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia...etc.
- Americans often forget that the way they are perceived in the world is quite different from the way they perceive themselves. For instance, the talk about rape & violence earlier. If you think Afghanistan has a bad reputation of violence in the US, I assure you the US has a worse reputation of violence & rape in much of the world; because as much as your news media are keen on reporting the occasional weird incidents from the Muslim (or non-Muslim) world, local news medias in these countries are even keener on reporting an endless stream of vile incidents from the US... & there are PLENTY. This, of course, let alone the atrocities committed by Americans elsewhere...
In western countries other than the US, free speech is more restricted, but generally freer than the Islamic world I think.
- Propaganda. The State, by design, must terminate what or who undermines it, otherwise endangering itself. Free Speech is a hoax. The US has great intellectuals, the likes of Naom Chomsky, yet Americans rather be indoctrinated by faux feel-good preachers. The State, by design, can not allow speech which undermines its authority or the public order. It is true that overall the US has less restriction on speech today than in most European countries, but not because it's "Freer" (whatever that means), rather because the country is more stable & less prone to disorder. During the communist crisis in the US, thousands of people were jailed & speech was significantly restricted, because the country was much less stable. You are only allowed to say things so far as they do not undermine the authority of the state. I can say things in Saudi Arabia & nobody would care, but if I say them in the US they would likely throw me in jail. The opposite is true as well. Every country has its own sensitivities & boundaries.
The west is the most pro free speech civilization in the world.
- On the complete contrary. The modern western state is the most dominant & pervasive state in human history. The state is ubiquitous in everyone's lives & in society. You are indoctrinated since early age to sanctify democracy & liberty & freedom of speech, yet you are delighted about it. At least Europeans back then knew they were indoctrinated by the Church even when they couldn't do anything about it, & had much more economic freedom too. Indonesia's tax/GDP's is ~10%, it's over 50% in France & close to 30% in the US. That means the state is much more involved in the French's & the Americans' business than it is in the Indonesian's. Free Speech in the West is only allowed when it's inconsequential, that is, non-institutional & non-systematic. If I try to open a new college in Arizona to teach Sharia, it will shut down the next day & I'll be thrown in jail. Try opening a new course in an American university to teach Sharia, you will be fired & penalized. This was not true in much of Islamic History, where peoples of different beliefs could establish their own schools or join the major universities to spread their ideas without issue. The most compelling ideas should prevail.
In Islam, I heard the penalty for disbelieving in God was death.
- I don't know what that means, but that's of course not true.
In the EU on the other hand, there is not a single crime that is punishable by death.
- That's not a good thing. At least the US is keeping the death penalty for capital crimes. Abolishing the death penalty is a mercy to the criminal at the expense of the victim. A society which shows mercy to the oppressor and takes justice from the oppressed is a pretentious failing society.
I understand putting someone for death for murder or rape (this isn't my belief, but it is a belief I understand). The Quran doesn't stop with the death penalty there.
- The only death penalty sanctioned in the Quran is for Haraba (terrorism, piracy...).
The Quran advocates for killing atheists.
- Clearly that is not the case, rather this is what the Quran advocates for:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" (2:256)
"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29)
"Whoever disbelieves - upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does righteousness - they are for themselves preparing" (19:44)
"So remind, [O Muḥammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not ˹there˺ to compel them ˹to believe˺." (88:21)
Bukhari[52:260] "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ".
- That's a hadith. A hadith is saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). You find them in the many collections of hadith, the most notable of which being Bukhari.
1. As to the text, that's a bad translation, the proper translation "he who changes his Deen (religion), kill him". As you can see, the universal nature of the text confused Muslim jurists, thus resulting in drastically different opinions on the matter across different schools of jurisprudence. Is a Christian who changed his religion to Islam also subject to this? Or a Jew who changed his faith to Christianity? Especially since the Prophet (pbuh) himself & his companions did not punish apostates in their rule.
2. Although most schools do think this hadith refers to apostasy, the Awzai school does not, as they understood the word 'Deen' to mean allegiance. The Hanafi school interpret the word as allegiance in religion, for the Prophet (pbuh) specifies in a different hadith "those who abandon their faith & desert the community" (providing a more restrictive definition): thus they sanction death for militant apostasy. The Maliki school, on the other hand, take the view that this applies to any apostate who knowingly & willingly came into religion then left it.
3. It must be noted that the above assumes a Muslim society under an Islamic state, where allegiance to the state & inviolability of person extends from the individual's faith in Islam itself. Renouncing your faith means renouncing your allegiance & your community. In the West where communitarianism is virtually nonexistent, leaving your faith is inconsequential. In a community based society where different communities adopt different faiths, leaving your faith or even your sect is a pretty big move. In that context, for instance, leaving the Armenian orthodox church to join the Greek orthodox church means leaving your country & your family to join another.
3. Historically, apostasy was always perceived as a political offense rather than a criminal one. Thus, the opinions of jurists weren't that much relevant, where the opinions of political theorists dominated instead. Political theorists only view apostasy in light of Outlawry (man'a), that is when a group of apostates have the will or the capacity to defect from the state or undermine its integrity. They don't care about individual apostasy. That's why countless public apostates across Islamic History critical of Islam have had no penalty brought against the, such as al-Maari, Abu Bakr Razi, al-Mutanabi...etc. In fact, I know of no incident of individual apostasy recording in Islamic history.
4. Today, apostasy laws in the Muslim world are much more identifiable with the general treason laws. The traitor to one country is not necessarily the same to another. The man who slapped the French president was tried for assault, yet the man who fired blanks at the queen alarming her was tried for treason. What Saudi Arabia, or any other country, considers treason should not necessarily coincide with American expectations. A Snowden from another country might have been celebrated there as a hero, while in the US he is deemed a traitor. Then again, they have been talking about abolishing apostasy laws in Saudi lately, but I can assure you even if that happens, nothing will change, Saudi will not stop pursuing her opponents -nor will the US let go of hers.
This is why you see many Muslim countries killing people for being atheists.
- No such thing. Apostates =/= atheists. There is probably a 0.1% to 1% atheists in the Muslim world, that's millions of people... That does not mean apostates are killed either. In practice, apostasy punishment in the Muslim world is very rare. There are two ways an apostate might get in serious trouble with the state: 1. publicly criticize the state, or 2. really push the envelope, like insult the Prophet (pbuh) or burn the Quran or something like that. Those cases are quite rare indeed. In contrast, law abiding & nice apostates are just like everyone else, left alone. In fact, a popular format in the Arab world TV is "conversation with an apostate" where they bring a sheikh & an apostate to argue or discuss, such as the Egyptian program "dialogue with an atheist" featuring the Yemeni scholar Habib Jefri.
- In Islamic Law, atheists/agnostics/non-religious, or as they are called: dahriah (naturalists, i.e. believers in nature) are one of the 11 categories of peoples (christians, jews...) who are granted protection (dhimmah), thus inviolable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes. Within the context of the OP its not a general question.
- I am much more interested in debate. But discussion is ok too.
How do you define God and why do you believe that;
- God is the singular absolute necessary transcendent being. I believe in God, because without qidam (pre-existence, necessity, first principal, ultimate reality...) there can be nothing. There is no world in which there is no qidam.
or more precisely - why should I believe what you do?
- To attain truth, peace & salvation. To believe in the absoluteness of nature is to make associates with God; & to believe in the arbitrariness in the universe is to deny reason itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yassine is Muslim. I don't know too much about Islam. Maybe Yassine can clear some details up since he knows more about the faith than I do.
- By all means, I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. If you don't quote me in your reply I don't get notified.
a rape requires 3 male witnesses in order to be declared as valid in most Sharia nations
- I'm not sure what that sentence exactly?! But I will answer as concisely as I can.
1. According to the Islamic Tradition, Sharia abides by the Four Pillars: Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Benefit for the purpose of preserving the Six Universals: Religion, Self, Reason, Family, Property & Honor. That is why Sharia penalizes major transgressions against any these universals. For instance, apostasy is a transgression against religion, murder is a transgression against Self, intoxication is a transgression against Reason, adultery is a transgression against Family, theft is a transgression against Property, defamation is a transgression against honor... etc.
2. Rape in Islamic Law (aka Fiqh) is a complex crime, for it is defined as a *coercive and dispossessive act of fornication (/adultery)*, thus a transgression against Self, Family & Property; hence penalized accordingly:
i. For coercion, such as under the threat of an offensive weapon, the penalty can go up to severing one arm and one leg.
ii. For fornication, the penalty is a hundred lashes (or stoning if the rapist is an adulterer, i.e. already married).
iii. For dispossession, such as taking the virginity of the victim, the penalty is a compensation of at least 50 dinars ($12k) or a settlement.
3. Of course, in practice it is hard to implement the maximum penalty (Hadd) for lack of conclusive evidence. For instance, establishing conclusively the act of fornication requires 4 reliable witnesses, quite the implausible thing to achieve. Thus the judge must ascertain the evidence as to whether the accused is guilty in order to issue the appropriate sentence (Taazir).
4. This applies equally to man or woman. It is important to note that once the act of fornication is established, proving coercion automatically absolves the victim from any punishment.
5. The above rules relate to Islamic Law. However, since 1909 no Muslim nation has actually implemented them. Penal codes across Muslim nations today have a mix bag of Islamic, customary & civil (sometimes common) laws. For instance, traditionally, in Islamic Law prison sentences can not exceed one year. This rule is not applied in any nation today.
Are these witnesses easy to come by? If a woman gets raped in the streets, there will be so many witnesses available that can testify against the rapist.
- A scream while in act is sufficient to establish the woman's (or man's) innocence, if not then the apparent aftermath (if she run out for instance), if not then the physical or psychological effects thereafter, if not then the circumstances (it's easier to establish rape if he is in her bed than if she is in his bed), if not then character judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
Talk to him about apostacy and blasphemy laws and realise the level of dishonesty you had when denying what he said earlier.
- You mean apostasy laws & blasphemy laws In Europe?
- Why block me if you so keen on replying to me... LOL!
Created:
Your outlook actually disgusts me.
- Same! This does not address anything I said.
The nun has more initial reason to lie about a rape than a sex worker. Think about what's at stake for both if they admit they consented vs make a fuss.
- Your devotion to your nonsense is making you think backwards, rational madman indeed... The nun indeed has a lot more at stake putting her dignity & her fate at risk just to expose her rapist, the whore in a whorehouse has none. I'm in awe of your bass-ackwardness.
That said, I wouldn't hold either as a liar. Nice try at your vile propaganda though.
- Are you a child?! Such a perfect defense, award winning lawyer over here boys... Have you tried joining the Supreme Court?
If you ever sexually assault anyone, you are to blame and need to assess yourself.
- I doubt them dudes would be eager to think that in front of the judge, but I'm sure if you tell them "assess yourself" they'll immediately weep in confession.
Did you know women lust too and men and women both can seek to attract them? Is that an alien concept to you?
- Glad you admit they can all be perverse. For a moment there I thought you assumed only men are perverse...
Imagine saying Allah made an entire body just for the foreskin to be ripped away and the entire body covered.
- You are referring to male genital mutilation right? Damn those vile Americans...
I assume you know of female genital mutilation (almost always done by Muslims) and are against that.
- Don't be alarmed by the label, they call those procedures female genital rejuvenation in America. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, apparently the US has the largest global market share (over 40%). The new anniversary gift trend.
Belong with or to?
- With, through consensual relationship (aka contract). To, through family relationship (aka blood or such).
Who the fuck decides who a grown woman belongs with other than herself?
- That's indeed a sound question. You should join the petition to abolish monogamous laws & statutory rape laws.
Nude art is a real thing and wearing a dress doesn't make someone a nymphomaniac.
- You should create a petition to abolish biology too.
A woman enjoying sex and seeking it out isn't immoral just because she's a woman.
- With & from those she belongs with of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your the relative Muslim expert on DART. Are the "antagonists" wrong about what Islam advocates for and why?
- Generally, yes. Most people here are Americans, largely Christian or non-religious. Islam is naturally an alien religion to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have heard some bad things about Islam like if you leave Islam, you get put to death.
- What else do you expect to hear from antagonists to Islam other than bad things...
Other than that I don't know too much about Islam.
- Maybe you should start learning. Islam is a beautiful religion, for eternal peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As I said earlier, I'm still trying to discover what your position is. Its possible I may agree with you in which case there would be nothing to debate.
- We can give that a shot too. My position regarding what exactly?
We can continue with 'what you believe AND why?' as the OP laid out... or not. Its totally your decision, friend.
- I believe a lot of things. That's a wildly general question. Anything in particular?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
There is no need to be patronizing.
- On the contrary.
A syllogism's premise to conclude a 100% response requires an all. I could say some men are mortal and that too would be true. Yet, that could only lead me to conclude that perhaps Socrates is mortal. And even with that I could be 100% confident that might be mortal, but I want to know that he is mortal. And therefore I need an all.Your suggestion of martians however was not based on anything of reasonable confidence. It was created by you to try and refute my logic. Yet you did not achieve what you wanted because you were unable to do more than try and compare apples with oranges. You needed to provide an example to allow you to compare apples with apples.
- You postulate that "all martians are immortal" is obviously a false statement. The negation of a false statement is of course a true statement, following the law of excluded middle. Let me ask you then, what is the negation of "all martians are immortal"? It is of course "some martians are immortal", which according to what you postulate must be a true statement; but is it though? Something to think about.
Your suggestion about me attending a logic class is like water of a ducks back because it is you who appears to have a problem with understanding logic. But that is ok.
- You are entitled to be wrong, of course.
If you are a teachable person and humble then perhaps your god or someone's god will enable you to learn some logic.
- Sometimes we inquire when we don't know. There is no fault in that. If you went & did your research instead of rebutting me we wouldn't be here arguing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I guess there's nothing left to discover?
- Do you have a different resolution in mind you want to debate instead?
From here, a debate is looking like a timesink. The questions I'm asking are pretty basic and you're trying to kick the conversation down the road.
- What's the point of defending my premises here if we are having a debate?? Unless of course you don't wish to debate, which would be a shame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Maybe. Once I know more about what your position is (that's what I'm trying to discover now), we can have a debate.
- The resolution would be something like 'the Quran is true' or 'the Quran is a revelation from God' or 'Muhammed is a prophet' or something to that affect.
Indeed. Why would you mention P2, say it is defensible, and not defend it? Unsubstantiated claims have no value.
- Indeed, why would I! You can find out in the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
- Honest question, have you ever taken a Logic class? I reckon you haven't. I am not arguing with you, I am merely pointing something out to you that might seriously undermine your syllogisms if you don't pay attention. The moment you say "all" you are are generalizing on all members of your subject class, thus assuming the existence of at least one member of said subject class. "all men are mortal" assumes the existence of 'men' members in the mortal set, which isn't an issue since that assumption happens to be true. This is not always the case however...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
- I have no idea what you are saying. Do you got any actual points to make? Any actual objections?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Whether the words were preserved perfectly from 14 centuries ago is irrelevant if we can't establish the words were given by a deity.
- Indeed, absolutely.
I see no way to establish (P2) Mohammed had anything revealed to him other than the fact he said so, or more precisely, it was written that he said so.
- Oh, but there are ways. Let us have a formal debate over this. I'll be Pro & you be Con. You can prove me wrong there. What say you?
In short, the provided syllogism doesn't address what I'm challenging. Regardless, continuing from here or not, I appreciate your efforts.
- You are making a lot of assumptions... The syllogism perfectly answers the question, that much is obvious. You are assuming the premises can not be proven! Why would I mention P1 & P2 if they are unprovable!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Me - non theist.I am a reasonably new member. Just a couple of months really.
- Welcome to the forums. You'll have a good time.
So why did you leave and why have you come back?
- Life I guess. I like to argue when I'm bored, that's why I'm here.
Muslim? Are you hard core or just living the dream? Would you be considered fundamentalist or nominal? Is there a difference?
- I am a traditional Muslim. I follow the Maliki school of jurisprudence, the Ashari school of theology & the Junaidi school of sufism.
Were you born into a Muslim family or did you come to it at a later stage in your life?
- I am as Muslim as they come in lineage. I am a descendent of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
Were you born into the West or has your family moved to the West? Or even do you live in the West now?
- I lived in many places since childhood, including few European countries, mainly France though.
Do you take the view that a person's religion is individual or rather than it is put on them by family, culture, and heritage?
- A person's religiosity is largely social indeed, but a person's faith is an individual path. After all, we face God in the hereafter individually. In Islam we don't believe in collective salvation or collective damnation.
Do you think that the West is identical with christianity or with secularism? Or do you think they are both the same?
- The West has experienced more changes the past 30 to 40 years than it did the previous 2000 years, it's shocking! But I would say the Western Tradition rests on few obvious pillars, among which is obviously Secularism & Christianism, but also Liberalism, Egalitarianism, Democracy, Exceptionalism, Nationalism, Modernism, Scientism, Capitalism & Universalism.
Is it possible to be a muslim Christian? Or a secular Muslim?
- Clearly one can not be a Muslim Christian, these are exclusive doctrines. Christianity is about the belief in the Trinity, Islam is about the belief in Tawhid, absolute strict monotheism. You can't mix the two. A secular Muslim is a Muslim who adheres to secular principals in policy & administration, not in legislation.
I am asking lots of questions - I hope you don't mind. If you would prefer to answer them privately - pm me.
- My pleasure. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
education???I am not your student. You are not my teacher.
- Indeed. We don't have to be students to learn a thing or two.
Yes, you really are a funny one. Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits.
- I am actually a sincere person, at least most of the time.
A syllogism is perfectly true if its premises are perfectly true. That is the point. Anything else is not able to demonstrate the soundness of the same.Your reasoning in relation to Martians was not a good syllogism because it was in error in its premises.
- The syllogism I provided is perfectly sound, but it's invalid. A sound syllogism can be invalid if it lacks existential import. Something to watch out for...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This translates to 'the Quran is true because the author claimed to speak for God'. ...its 'true because someone said its true'.
- False. It translates to:
P1. The Recited Quran is the Conveyed Quran
P2. The Conveyed Quran is the Revealed Quran.
C. Therefore, the Recited Quran is the Revealed Quran. [that is to say, the Quran is true]
- For which it is sufficient to establish premises P1 & P2 to realize the natural conclusion C. If you wish to argue this, we can have a formal debate.
Ok. If you say so. ;-)
- if you don't understand, & you clearly don't, let me make it simple for you:
Muslims today––––––the Prophet––––––––––God–––––––––
–––––||–––––––––––––––––||––––––––––––––––||––––––––––
Recited Quran = ? = Conveyed Quran = ? = Revealed Quran
––––––––––––––P1–––––––––––––––––P2–––––––––––––––
- Of course establishing P1 & P2 is not evident. To establish P1 we need to prove that the Quran we have today was preserved *verbatim* as it was first taught by the Prophet 14 centuries ago. To establish P2 we have to prove that the Prophet is actually a *true* prophet who indeed received his revelation from God not a false prophet who made up his own "revelation".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I think logic is necessary to prove anything - not necessarily its subjects. god is a nebulas construct. And there is no consensus. So it is pointless to begin with the construct. Hence why the logic to me is a first place of call.
- God is a square circle, therefore God does not exist. God is me, therefore God exists. Definition of God is a prerequisite, you can not argue for or against undefined things.
That is a double negative. Scientific proof is 100%. It is providing a syllogism - and meetings its criteria.
- It is a double negative, exactly! "scientific proof is 100%" is a nonsensical statement, this is not a motivational speech.
No scientific proof is deductive. It might well use induction in relation to its premises. But scientific method is not inductive.
- Scientific method/"proof" is by definition *inductive*, called abductive reasoning.
It uses powers or deduction to reduce the hypothesis to a particular point,
- That's the structure of reasoning. The structure of a formal reasoning, any formal reasoning (whether in science or law or linguistics...) is always deductive.
But that is the point isn't? The sun does not rise. The earth turns. My experience is not reliable.
- My bad! I thought the sun had wings... The answer is, no you have *inductive* certainty the sun will rise tomorrow from the East & not from the West. Inductive does not necessarily imply uncertain.
Sorry that does not even make sense. We have no evidence for the existence of martians. We do have evidence of humans not of martians.
- Exactly! A sound syllogism does not necessarily imply a valid conclusion.
It is true when it is rational. that is its definition.
- Scientific results, conclusions, findings..., can only be more or less *accurate* if quantitative, or more or less *plausible* if qualitative, they can not be *true*. 'Truth' or 'Falsehood' is a quality of deduction, such as when I say "unmarried bachelors" is a true statement.
Not sure that I understand what you mean. Can you give an example?
- The question of which precedes which, God or Good? Is Good good because God does it, or regardless. In the first sense, whatever God does, that is Good. In the latter sense, God does only Good & does not do Evil, that is Good is independent from God.
What do you mean the invasions of the americas should be stopped?
- You mentioned the Holocaust, I was merely pointing out the fact that the invasion of the Americas being of significantly worse degree of damage is more deserving of prevention. That is, you don't always have to mention the Holocaust every time you need to make this point. There are many more devastating events in history.
Then you would be making assumptions about what people think. That is not reason. That is speculation.
- You assume a purely materialistic outcome, which the religion you object to does not even condone. I am assuming the very teleological view adopted by said religion.
What do you mean fetch those premises first?
- Where are the premises of your argument?
Well you have not proved me wrong. You have commented on some of my points. Indeed you have made assertions contradicting me. But an assertion is not proof. It is not argument. It does not even get the level of refutation. Thanks for your input though.
- It was not meant as a refutation, I don't adhere to most of this anyways. It was meant as education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't feel that answers the question - why should a non-Muslim recognize the Quran as truth?
- That's a different question. Answer: because it's the truth, or more precisely, the Quran is revealed by God to Prophet Muhammed.
- To establish that, let's first consider the following designations of the Quran:
i. Recited Quran: the recitation we have today with us.
ii. Conveyed Quran: the recitation taught by the Prophet.
iii. Revealed Quran: the recitation revealed to the Prophet by God.
- The argument thus becomes:
P1. The Recited Quran is the Conveyed Quran
P2. The Conveyed Quran is the Revealed Quran.
C. Therefore, the Recited Quran is the Revealed Quran.
- It is thus sufficient to establish premises P1 & P2 to realize the conclusion, not an easy feat, but achievable.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because the only reason to show skin of the arm would be to entitle men to fuck the absolute shit out of you since they can't control themselves right?
- Sometimes showing skin can be revolting... So you are postulating that women should unclothe themselves in front of men, while men should clothe them in their minds once they look at them? There seems to me a lot of pretense in this...
The men should be taught self-control,
- So should the women.
the human body is beautiful and to be enjoyedand expressed
- Absolutely, with those you belong with not strangers.
without people who can't control their perversions dictating others to 'hold it in' to appease them.
- So men are perverse when they lust over exposed women, but women are not perverse when they seek men's lust? LOL!
When a woman has to be scared shit to show some arm and leg, let alone other stuff and curves due to sheer terror of being raped
- What does this have to do with rape?! Nothing.
and the society blames the woman instead of the abuser, that society is one I have 0 sympathy for and want fuck all to do with.
- A whore in a whorehouse and a nun in a church, who would the judge suspect of lying if they stand in court accusing a man of rape?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
You're quite a funny person Yassine.
- I try to be, I'm rather a serious person in person.
So what is your background?
- Long story. Old member, maybe I'll make a comeback.
Are you religious?Muslim? Or something else? I am intrigued.
- I am Muslim, yes. You?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
As long as they cover up literally every beautiful part of their body that is Allah's creation, in fear of arousing men who would be entitled to act on said lust according to Sharia Law.
- Of course it is much more sensible to uncover every sexual part of your body to arouse strange men with whom you will not mate. That is less conducive to unlawful mating! I'm being sarcastic of course! LOL!
- Point? I see all this is propaganda nonsense. No substance whatsoever. It is a statistical fact that Muslim countries have, overall, some of the lowest rates of rape & suicide. For instance, the country where I am staying now, Turkey has 2.3 suicides per 100k compared to 14.5 in the United States, & also has 1.5 rapes per 100k compared to 59 in Sweden. Now that's quite a difference... But of course you care nothing for facts, you only love to project your country's dire shortcomings!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
- I disagree with most of that, but I am more interested in your ideas for India?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
- Depends of what you mean by religion. If you mean it as a way of life, a philosophy, a worldview, an ideology or a community, then Sincerity is your criterion. Most of these "founders" & their ideas were insincere, they don't last.
- In case you mean by religion the Faith & the Book, that is a message & a messenger from God, such as the case for the world's great religions. Then, knowing the true from the fake necessarily entails ascertaining the truth of the message & of the messenger. A man claiming to come from God must show power only God can bestow sans humans -that is miracles, & knowledge only God can grant -that is prophecies; the same way a man claiming to come from the future must show things only those who have been to the future can know or can do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Why should a non-Muslim accept the Quran as authoritative here?
- That's his choice, wether he wants to pursue Truth or not. But you asked, and now you understand that the God Muslims believe in is the singular absolute necessary & transcendent being. Do you have any objections?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie is to understand what proof is.
- I would say the first thing is to know what God is, but that works too.
Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable.
- No scientific "proof" is not not probable...
For example - many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.
- Scientific "proof" is inductive...
For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.
- Do you have any doubts as to wether the sun will rise from the East tomorrow?
What we need is rational proof. For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.
- How about this. All Marsians are immortal. Zod is a Marsian. Therefore, Zod is immortal.
Not probable but true.
- No scientific "proof" is ever true.
It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true.
- Indeed.
The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -
- I can see the issue, but only if you hold the belief that God does what is Good, as opposed to what God does is Good.
because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.
- If anything, the invasion of the americas should've been stopped.
Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.
- If you look at it from a pure materialistic view it does cause confusion... What if the oppressed end up in Heaven & the oppressors end up in Hell. I reckon the oppressed wouldn't mind suffering a short while to gain eternal Paradise. Maybe then, they wouldn't want the "evil" to be stopped, so that's probably a good thing rather than an evil thing.
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.
- Fetch those premises first, then we can check wether they are correct.
Please proceed to prove me wrong.
- Was hard not to.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
- You should replace 'God' with 'Christianity'. In Islam, Lust is desire towards who is not yours, like say your neighboor's wife, which is sinful. Desire towards who you belong with & who belongs to you is quite encouraged & rewarded.
Created:
-->
@Nevets
The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of these Canaanite peoples and their cultures through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.[90][91][92][93][94][95]
- This is not History. This is a story, a fantastic tale just as fantastic as the Jewish story. Literature. Presumablism nonsense.
- As to your question. All religions share a common theme & a common story, thus originating from a single source, but with different interpretations.: The Absolute Being (i.e. God), then some other helper deities, angels, devils, messengers from God, a first man, a flood, a bunch of commandments, an underworld & a hereafter.
- The problem with atheist historians dealing with such past is that they bend archeological evidence to fit their presumptions. For instance, they assume that people necessarily worship gods they portrayed, when this is a dumb assumption. The Greeks believed in the First Being, yet they did not portray Him. The Arabs believed in Allah (the absolute being), yet they did not portray Him, & the gods they portrayed they believed to be only intercessors to Allah. If pre-Islamic Arab literature & Greek literature were not preserved, the dumb archeologist would've easily jumped to the conclusion that the Greeks & Arabs did not believe...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you define "God"...
- God is the singular absolute necessary transcendent being.
...and how did you come to this definition?
- Quran surah 112:
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only | – singular
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute | – absolute
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten | – necessary
4. And there is none like unto Him | – transcendent
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
- Denying the Old Testament is an old heresy denounced by early Church Fathers called Marcionism. So you would be deemed an apostate by the Church if you said “The New Testament erases the Old Testament” anyways.
Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity. Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.
- Have you tried Islam? It's exactly what you are looking for.
The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers. The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews. If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.
- Indeed, I agree. "No soul shall bear the burden of another" (Quran 35:18).
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I am an Arab Muslim, I can confirm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I remember you yes. Wow this Forum is still bustling! Maybe I'll make a comeback.
Created:
- Some 250 mass shootings so far in 2019, that's almost one mass shooting per day. Yesterday, a white-nationalist terrorist opened fire on Hispanics in El Paso after posting his manifesto online ; 12 hours later a second mass shooting occurs in Dayton, Ohio. Authorities brush these off as "mental health" cases, but clearly there is much more to it than that.
Comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Give me one claim that I denied something,please
- Everything I mentioned & refuted you deny without evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Evidence of what?
- All the claims & denials you keep making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Very rude :(
- It's an expression... You make a lot of claims & deny proofs when presented to you, so where your evidence though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Citation needed
- Exactly! Mr. Ostrich burying his head in the sand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nah, I don't want to debate, I prefer forum talk, anyway it also ended with you giving no evidence
- Dude, burying your head in the sand pretending all the evidence I provided doesn't exist does not actually make it so...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is going nowhere, agree to disagree
- But it is, & it ended with your concession. Now, how about that debate though? You seem to have a lot of things to say about Islam & the Quran.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have also repeatedly told you that Rome, Russia, any secular government does not represent the Church, which is very intentionally not a worldly government.
- I'm sure you believe that, but the Church's authorities then thought otherwise. Take it up with their patriarchs.
Spreading the faith militarily is definitely not our way.
- Sure. I was merely referring to history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Citation needed
- Check previous posts...
No
- You are scared of debating?
- Concession then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet Christ says,"For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."This reward Christ speaks of is not friendship.
- Friendship is not a reward, it's an outcome... Jesus (pbuh)'s teachings are the Prophet's teachings, for they are God's teachings. It is reported in the Hadith that Jesus (pbuh) said: "Virtuous action does notconsist in doing good to someone whohas done good to you—that is merelyreturning a favor. Virtuous action consistsin doing good to those who have wrongedyou" -"Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better". The Prophet (pbuh) said: "He will enter Paradise only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind", "The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens", "Be merciful to others and you will receive mercy. Forgive others and Allah will forgive you"...etc.
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.""Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."Whereas Mohammed doesn't just say to not be friends with them, but to not deal with them kindly or justly.
- The verse does not say that, don't make stuff up. The verse prohibits Muslims only from befriending & allying themselves with the oppressors, not from dealing with them justly & kindly, for that is commanded for everyone: "Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion", "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient" (16:126) ; Justice & Mercy.
This is very different from Jesus who says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you", and this is understood to also and even in particular apply to religious persecution.
- Similar to what the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Forgive those who transgress against you, keep ties of kinship with those who severe them, be good to those who wrong you and speak the truth even against yourself". But we also believe in fighting against oppressors & persecutors, defending the weak & defending the rights. Submitting to persecution & allowing it is not a good thing, it's as bad as doing the persecution yourself.
I am not sure that the way Mohammed behaved after moving to Medina really shows that.
- Yet, it's a fact. The Prophet (pbuh) was an absolute pacifist in Mecca. That didn't suddenly change in Medina! He was just as pacifist when it came to himself, though not so when it came to his people, for once in Medina he became the head of state & the leader of his nation, responsible for their security & wellbeing, internal & external. He enforced the law & established defense. If Jesus (pbuh) took leadership, he would do the same. Many many people have persecuted the Prophet (pbuh), insulted him, harmed him & even attempted to assassinate him, yet he forgave all of them, except that they were treated justly. Uqbah Ib Abi Waqqas, Malik Ibn Sinan & Abdulallh Ibn Qamiah injured the Prophet & cracked his skull & broke his jaw, the Prophet (pbuh) then says: "My Lord, forgive my people for they do not know", the first survived & when Muhammad conquered Mecca he pardoned him, the second became a muslim, & the third died of disease. In fact, upon the conquest of Mecca, after 20 years of persecution & invasions & expulsions & torture that the Meccans did to Muslims, the Prophet (pbuh) pardons them all & says: "No blame upon you today. Allah will forgive you, for he is the most merciful of the merciful. Go, for you are free".
They certainly warred against their persecutors. Certainly, you could make a case that this was justified, and you could even make the case that Mohammed was more merciful than he could have been. However, it is not the same way Jesus Christ taught.
- What Jesus (pbuh) taught is what the Prophet (pbuh) & all the prophets. Jesus (pbuh) was never leader of a nation or head of state. If he was, he would certainly enforce the Law & defend his people, as he would do at the end of time. Or do you disagree? Do you believe that if Jesus (pbuh) was the sovereign he will allow the persecutors to massacre & annihilate his people?
Created:
Posted in:
But it'll take a while for the schism to fully be healed. As I said though, we get along great, and we do share our churches with them. They are now training their clergy at our seminaries.
- That sounds like good news.
I don't really think the Spanish are entitled to give back any mosques, because Muslims invaded their country. Just as they invaded south Eastern Europe. Just as they invaded India.
- False. First, that's not their country. It was the northern Spanish who invaded Andalusia (southern Spain) purging the Muslims who settled there for 9 centuries -without just cause, killing 7 million in their infamous Reconquista & expelling millions others! This is like Scotland invading Britain & killing & expelling its people claiming it's taking their land back. LOL! Second, Muslims went into Spain upon the request of the count of Ceuta & his ally the lord of Seville to depose the tyrannical Visigoth king who raped the former's 14 year daughter Florinda when she was sent to the palace court for cultivation ; they crossed the sea & deposed the king in Toledo conquering the land in 6 months with minimal resistance & casualties.
- As to the Balkans, I will concede the Ottomans took the offensive in many instances, but most times it was the European side that instigated the warfare, which ended in Ottoman favor & the expansion of their lands. The root conflict between the Ottomans & the Byzantine was that of supremacy, which the Ottomans won with Mehmet II who adopted the title Emperor of Rome under the recognition of the Eastern Church & appointed the Byzantine royal family to his court. The Ottomans considered themselves legacy of the Roman Empire & protectors of its land.
- As for India, it was the Hindu king Jayapala who provoked the Muslims & instigated war against them by invading Ghazni (the capital of Ghaznavid dynasty), which resulted in Muslim retaliation & his eventual defeat & the fall of his kingdom to Muslims.
And spreading the faith militarily is not our way, as it is written.. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
- False. Rome, Byzantine, Rus... to name a few.
But spreading the faith militarily is a precedent started even by the one you call prophet, who took his revenge on his persecuters.
- False. One, the faith was not spread militarily ; Muslim political dominion was indeed spread either by military or treaty -like any other expansion, Muslim religious dominion was not. In fact, Egypt & the Levant only became Muslim majority nations 3 centuries after the Arab Conquest. Half the Muslim world today (Southeast Asia & West/East Africa) adopted Islam through trade & proselytization.
- Two, prophets are delegates of God to His people, some are granted secular authority while others are not. Noah, Abraham... (pbut) were given authority to only guide their people. Jesus (pbuh) was granted authority to guide in his first mission & rule in his advent at the end of time. Just & just like Moses, David, Solomon... (pbut), Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was granted authority to both guide & rule his people, for he is the Seal of Prophets.
- Three, the Prophet (pbuh) never took revenge on his persecutors. On the contrary, he pardoned them -even the worst of them. Habbar Ibn Aswad attacked the Prophet's pregnant daughter causing her miscarriage & death shortly after, who the Prophet (pbuh) pardoned him after he repented & asked for forgiveness even though he killed his own daughter & her unborn child. When the Prophet (pbuh) was in Mecca he was an absolute pacifist, even though him & his companions tortured & blockaded & killed, just like Prophet Jesus (pbuh) just like all other prophets. When he was made to lead the nation of Muslims, he acted accordingly & enacted Law.
Yet Jesus Christ said, "That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Beautiful passage, similar passages in the Quran:
"Those who defend themselves when they are oppressed. Let harm be requited by an equal harm, though anyone who forgives and puts things right will have his reward from God Himself"
"Though if a person is patient and forgives, this is one of the greatest things."
"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant"
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
- From the Hadith:
"By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil"
"Jibril kept recommending me to treat my neighbor well until I thought that he would tell me to make him one of my heirs"
"He is not a believer who eats his fill whilst his neighbor beside him goes hungry"
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend"
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok?
- You asked...
AHH, the peoples crusade, not the actual crusade
- It's the Fourth Crusade. Unsurprisingly you are utterly clueless...
It is terrible, your religion is terrible
- Yet all 'evidence' you bring proves the opposite. Why don't we debate this?
Would you like to name some
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is interesting.What we see in the news is clearly sample biased.Even where these laws are rarely implemented, they can still lead to fines and imprisonment in some countries, such as Italy and Greece. Moving beyond strict EU borders, into Russia or Turkey, the sentences become harsher and more frequent. [LINK]
- There are blasphemy laws still in France, they just dropped the name for a different laws. & people do get fined & sent to prison for that too, all the time.
Al-Qaeda still commands double-digit support despite its mass killings of Muslims and widespread conspiracy theories that it is a puppet of the CIA and Mossad. Altogether, 13% of Muslims in these countries have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda and 57% have an unfavorable view. [LINK]I'm not personally convinced that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups, but Al-Qaeda seems pretty clear-cut. Let me know if these numbers sound reasonable to you or if you have alternative sources that contradict them.
- I read the Pew Research report on this. Their data is generally reliable, but their method is often un-meaningful. Like their study on religious diversity, which failed spectacularly to showcase religious diversity in favor of irreligious diversity. In this case, these statistics do not convey in any meaningful way the true inclinations of Muslims in these country. Hamas is not classified as a terrorist group in much of the Muslim world (except in the axis of evil: Saudi, UAE & Egypt), on the contrary, it is seen as a resistance group -so is Hizbullah. Why are Sunni Muslims supporting Hizbullah (a Shia group) & why are Shia Muslims supporting Hamas (a Sunni group)?! One word: Israel. If North Korea decided to oppose Israel, the next day most Muslims will support it. Al-Qaeda's support does not stem from their ideology, it stems from their opposition to the US. If the Christian IRA opposes the US, a lot of Muslims would support it too. This is why Boko Haram has virtually no support, because it does not oppose the US. & this is the same reason why ISIS enjoyed immense support from Muslims at its beginnings, until it started butchering fellow Muslims. The issue of suicide bombing is just as irrelevant, when Muslims in the ME are asked about suicide bombing they are thinking about the kind designed to kill American soldiers or Israelis -NOT civilians, for that is the effective discourse there. According to this Gallup poll OIC countries (Muslim majority countries) are much less likely to see targeting civilians as justifiable than non-OIC countries. In particular, 13% in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable while 79% believe it's never justifiable, in contrast to 47% in North America believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable. This trend is similarly observed within the US itself, 78% American Muslims believe military attacking civilians is never justifiable, whereas most (58%) Christians believe it is sometimes justifiable. Further, American Muslims are also the least likely with 11% to think targeting civilians is sometimes justifiable & 89% believe it's never justifiable, whereas American Christians are the most likely to think so: 27% believe it's sometimes justifiable & only 71% believe it's never justifiable.
Sam Harris does seem slightly more reasonable than Stephen though
- I don't doubt his intelligence, just his qualification. He should stick to his domain & leave things he is clueless about to those qualified.
Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships. [LINK]
- More accurately this relates to their definition of Accountability, in that the Hanafis differentiate two types of accountability: legislative (Shariya) & universal (Kawnya). Legislative accountability relates to secular Justice in this life, while universal accountability relates to divine Justice in the next life. They postulate that jurists & judges can only concern themselves with secular Justice, only God has jurisdiction over divine Justice. In contrast to this, the Malikis consider legislative accountability to be part of universal accountability, for the basis of right & wrong is the same in both accounts -& that is Sharia. Historically, the Hanafi school has been -by far- the most adopted by the various Islamic empires & states, especially the major ones like the Abbasid Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Mamluk Sultanat...etc. The Maliki school has flourished mostly in the Maghreb, in Andalusia (Islamic Spain) & Almoravids Empire & other dynasties of the west. The Hanafi school has proven to be best suited for multi-nation empires, the great Hanafi legal theorist as-Sarakhsi (died 1096) says:
“This, for the fact that when Allah (swt) created humans to bear al-Amana (the Charge), he bestowed them with Intellect & Accountability, so that they may be eligible to assume the rights of God on them. He (swt), then, established for them: Inviolability, Liberty & Ownership so that they may be able to fulfil the Charge they have been assigned with. Further, this Liberty, Inviolability & Ownership is firmly established for all human beings from their birth, the discerning among them or the non-discerning alike.” - Usul as-Sarakhsi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You are either naive or disengenuous. You have to ask who was behind the twisting of the facts and for inlaming the people's emotions - and why.
- I don't know. These things tend to get out of control pretty easily.
People like you and Stephen seem to think all the hawks are on one side and all the doves on the other and that problem scan be solved by finger pointing. In the meantime the body count just goes up and up.
- Vainly dismissing the facts & ignoring the realities of the situation from your cloud bubble is a senseless exercise. There is a difference between "pointing fingers" & pointing to the root causes & realities of the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Citation needed
Are you joking-
- No:
"the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors."
"Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle."An observer describes the scene:"Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle. People frightened by the shouting ran out of their houses and were cut down by the sword before they knew what was happening. And some were massacred in their houses where they tried to hide, and some in churches where they sought refuge.
- That's terrible, though much of it is ahistorical & also un-Islamic. Battle =/= massacre. The Turks & Romans were fighting for two months. The casualties among the Romans numbered 4,000 in total, including those who fell during the siege & the following executions, plus 30,000 POW. The casualties among the Turks were much much higher -among which 260 captured Turks during siege were executed by the Romans. The pillaging took place in the morning when the city fell in the midst of battle. It was not a systematic event. Once Mehmet II entered the city gates the afternoon, he was saddened by the sight he saw & put an end to it giving amnesty & safety to its people. He then reinstated the Eastern Church & gave Christians free reign, & appointed their leaders in his court. He also made the heirs of the deceased Roman Emperor state secretaries & generals.
I like to, but I have noting to defend
- The atrocities it purports?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You do realise that Muslims sometimes do things that are not Islamic and Christians sometimes do what is not Christian? Realpolitik often requires a 'flexible' view of religion.
- I'd say most times -people more often than not do what they shouldn't. This has nothing to do with religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Citation needed
- You seem to be absolutely clueless of what the Crusades were about. LOL!
Are you talking about what the Ottoman MUSLIMS did.
- The Crusaders to Constantinople. The Ottomans saved the persecuted Christians of Constantinople.
Citation needed
- If you need a citation, then you really are clueless. Why don't we debate this?
Wrong
- Yes you are.
I don't like to talk about it either
- Aren't going to defend your book?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Citation needed
- It's not like they could've know, since they indiscriminately massacred everyone, wether Muslim, Jew or Christian, man, woman or child. The crusaders massacred fellow Christians in Europe too, not just the Middle East...
It was carried by the Pope first and byzantines
- They sacked Constantinople too & massacred its people...
Both
- Why are you trying to defend such atrocious actions?
Because I'm proving it's violent and washed up
- So far you proved the opposite.
I'd like to hear what you have first
- As I said, I don't like quoting the Bible. But you know exactly what I'm referring to.
Created: