Donkey dicks: i.e. they were hung like horses and virile. Big deal.
baby smashing: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill." is one of the most famous quotations from the bible, and is specifically cited as evidence of the continuous and historic connection of the Jewish people to Israel and Jerusalem, compared to the Muslims for whom this isn't the case. Is Jerusalem ever even mentioned in the Koran? I don't think it is. Regardless, the point is that the Jews were slaughtered and forced to flee the homeland that their God had given them. They wished death and worse upon their enemies. That is not that strange, especially back in those days. And AGAIN, I will emphasize that this is not an exhortation to Jews or Christians to be violent, and it is not interpreted as such.
killing men and taking slaves: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTERS. This is under a section called "Going to war". Remember that the Old Testament comes from a time when people sacrificed their children to their gods, and the Old Testament specifically put an end to that (with Abraham). It's an ancient way of thinking, and that was normal in the ancient days. Please don't be like the Leftists who judge ancient people by modern standards. As time went on Jews and Christians did not see this as a literal injunction to be followed out. Please find examples in anything like modern history where Jews or Christians have done this.
Here's from the Koran:
First of all Islam literally got spread as "the Koran or the sword", meaning you had to either convert or be killed..
For example: "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
Did I mention that Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, still played with dolls, and was (therefore) prepubescent, and that it is used practically as rationale for many Muslims to marry and have sex with children?
More important than all this is how it is actually applied. Do I need to go into examples of all the terrorist groups that are Muslim, and how they specifically cite the Koran as their guide, and pray to Allah when they kill people?
Or how something like 70% of Muslims in most Muslim countries approve of these terrorists, of killing non-believers, and sharia law (according to MANY polls)?
Or how there are currently THOUSANDS of honor killings where family members like fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, kill their daughters because they were raped?
Or how many girls are genitally mutilated, often by their mothers or grandmothers, in the name of Islam?
How much farther do you want me to keep going?
If you really want to educate yourself, look into the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, Robert Spencer, and Islamic scholar, and Tommy Robinson who wrote a book with Peter McLoughlin called "Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam". That's just the beginning.
Donkey dicks: i.e. they were hung like horses and virile. Big deal.
Dismissal being used as a defense mechanism because of bias. Check your ego.
baby smashing: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill." is one of the most famous quotations from the bible, and is specifically cited as evidence of the continuous and historic connection of the Jewish people to Israel and Jerusalem, compared to the Muslims for whom this isn't the case. Is Jerusalem ever even mentioned in the Koran? I don't think it is. Regardless, the point is that the Jews were slaughtered and forced to flee the homeland that their God had given them. They wished death and worse upon their enemies. That is not that strange, especially back in those days. And AGAIN, I will emphasize that this is not an exhortation to Jews or Christians to be violent, and it is not interpreted as such.
killing men and taking slaves: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTERS. This is under a section called "Going to war". Remember that the Old Testament comes from a time when people sacrificed their children to their gods, and the Old Testament specifically put an end to that (with Abraham). It's an ancient way of thinking, and that was normal in the ancient days. Please don't be like the Leftists who judge ancient people by modern standards. As time went on Jews and Christians did not see this as a literal injunction to be followed out. Please find examples in anything like modern history where Jews or Christians have done this.
Muslims are a religious group, not an ethno-religious group like Jews. If you're using the excuse of "their book says that they live in the middle east", then you should also know that the Philistines, whom are mentioned in the same texts, are the same group as the Palestinians of today (hence why the etymology of the word "Palestine" & "Palestinian" sound near identical to the word "Philistine" when you trace it back and look at other languages too). Now here is the thing—the Philistines were in the region before the Jews were. This alone demolishes the argument that this is "their land". But if that's not enough, the Tanakh itself states that the Holy Land is supposed to be brought about by the Messiah himself when he comes, NOT before. This is why Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist.
You're making excuses for smashing babies heads against rocks by saying that they were angry for getting slaughtered and how it's reasonable given the time period it was written (which, btw, implies that the Holy Spirit isn't timeless, or that it was written by a man not guided by the Holy Spirit...). Yet for some reason, you aren't applying the same justification to Islam. This can only mean 2 things: you either have a strong personal bias against Islam/for Israel that is clouding your judgement, or you simply lack knowledge about the context regarding those "violent" verses in the Qur'an. Or possibly both. You have to apply equal scrutiny to both sides, not just one or the other because the media says "bearded man bad" like "orange man bad", it's ridiculous.
Here's from the Koran:
First of all Islam literally got spread as "the Koran or the sword", meaning you had to either convert or be killed..
There is STILL forced conversion to Islam.
Modern verses of violence in the Koran
More violence in the Koran.
Advocates killing disbelievers wherever you find them.
Instructs men to beat their wives.
This is exactly what I'm talking about; you said to me to read the whole chapter of Deuteronomy 20 because it explains the context of those verses slightly better, yet didn't do that with the "violent" verses of the Qur'an you tried sending me in the links above. From what I read, they were talking about for those who break their treaties against them, for those who attacked them first, for criminals, etc. You didn't apply scrutiny fairly. That's intellectually dishonest. The only thing that you have that could be remotely considered as "immoral" by standard Western values (which are being completely diluted btw) is the wifebeating thing, but upon further reading we find that it was addressed by Muhammad SAW in which it was explicitly stated not to cause pain or hurt them, and apparently it was allowed specifically with a toothbrush (source, scroll down to the heading "to beat them (iḍribūhunna)") and this is what all the religious scholars are saying. But yet I am supposed to believe Omnes_Omnibus over the people who literally study this their whole lives? Come on bro.
That is just the Koran, but you also have to look at what the Hadith says, which Muslims consider to be almost as holy as the Koran.
Technically no, the only holy thing there is, is the Qur'an because that's directly directly from God; the hadiths are just written texts of what someone said. There is historicity that must be applied here because not all hadith are legitimate. For example, you might find a hadith that says XYZ but was said by some dude named Tyrone. Tyrone isn't even a name that existed back then, so stuff like that is disregarded. Others are deemed to be false because someone was known to be a liar in reporting hadiths. Then there are some, like you alluded to, that are missing context in the same way you said I did. Trust me bro, I used to look at exMuslim forums for hours at a time and even went to a sheikh at a mosque to debate this stuff, it's not as simple as you think.
Did I mention that Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, still played with dolls, and was (therefore) prepubescent, and that it is used practically as rationale for many Muslims to marry and have sex with children?
I used to bring this up too, but upon studying the historicity, I can tell you that she was 16, not 6. Various reasons for this, mostly other hadith that allow us to triangulate her age, but also because of issues with Shi'a (Iranians) trying to discredit her for petty things.
More important than all this is how it is actually applied. Do I need to go into examples of all the terrorist groups that are Muslim, and how they specifically cite the Koran as their guide, and pray to Allah when they kill people?
I mean they can interpret it like how the Crusaders interpreted the Bible, doesn't mean it's true lol. But that aside, Operation Cyclone is the more likely culprit here, it just doesn't make sense that ISIS had M1A2 Abrams tanks, an American tank that no other country in the world has unless we sell it to them in a weakened state. False flag galore, 9/11 was an inside job based on Operation Northwoods, and the rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. But let's not digress too much.
Or how something like 70% of Muslims in most Muslim countries approve of these terrorists, of killing non-believers, and sharia law (according to MANY polls)?
Most polls I've come across state the opposite actually but okay.
Or how there are currently THOUSANDS of honor killings where family members like fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, kill their daughters because they were raped?
I've been to Syria like 15 years ago, and my parents to Saudi Arabia about 10. It's about as common as an American redneck who fucks his sister. Both are stereotypes of the people who live there, but it doesn't really mean it's true lol
Or how many girls are genitally mutilated, often by their mothers or grandmothers, in the name of Islam?
Yup, I remember arguing this too. It turns out that this practiced by atheists, Jews, and Christians who live in that same region (somewhere in east Africa) and has been practiced there for almost a millennia before Islam came. Even more, the movement to ban FGM was led by Muslim sheikhs, and opposed by women. So much for oppressing women lol. Funnily enough, FGM happens in Western nations at potentially even higher rates than the Middle East, but they just call it a labiaplasty rather than FGM even though it's quite literally the same exact procedure. People don't know about this though, or rather, don't like their own hypocrisy being pointed out, I suppose.
How much farther do you want me to keep going?
I can go the distance bro. I went so deep with questioning religion and theology as a whole that I ended up coming full circle. I don't believe in evolution anymore, that's how far I went. It's a lot more than most people. I even went to a mosque on several different occasions to air my grievances a little. I don't think you've done this.
If you really want to educate yourself, look into the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, Robert Spencer, and Islamic scholar, and Tommy Robinson who wrote a book with Peter McLoughlin called "Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam". That's just the beginning.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has immense psychological trauma from having a shitty family and pins that on Islam because they used that to justify their abuse in much the same way priests justified their molestation of altar boys with the Bible; Robert Spencer has literally no credentials and has been debunked time and time again, and even contradicts what other ACTUAL exMuslims have said about Islam; and Tommy Robinson is a political activist far more than he is any authority on religion, that's just laughable. These are all the cliche figures in the anti-Islam community dude, you can't expect me to take you seriously here (especially after posting about Robert Spencer, that guy is a joke even by standard human metrics). Since you're only on this level right now, there is one guy who makes short and concise videos debunking all this stuff. His YouTube channel is called Farid Responds. Since anti-Islam activists always use the same arguments, there is a lot of crossover between the people he refuted and those you mentioned. Enjoy.
Dismissal being used as a defense mechanism because of bias. Check your ego.
You're just dismissing me too. I don't see how the bible saying that women were excited by men who were well hung and virile is a shocking thing.
Philistines, whom are mentioned in the same texts, are the same group as the Palestinians of today
The Philistines are NOT the same group as the Palestinians, despite the name. That would be like saying that antifa is anti-fascist because of the name. Do some research and you will see that this is true. Palestinians come from nomadic Arabs who were in the Middle East, I don't know where. But reports of Israel show it being mostly deserted, and the Palestinians were NOT there. Even Mark Twain wrote about this. It IS true that the very Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist for the reasons you give. The question of "who has rights to land" are complex. We certainly have our ideas and preferences, but I think ultimately a lot of it comes down to might makes right and possession being 9/10 of the law. That's another story though, I don't know why you're bringing that up. I only brought up the part about Jerusalem to say that the chapter you cite is well known and is not some kooky bit of scripture.
You're making excuses for smashing babies heads against rocks
I do make excuses for how people acted in different time periods, and how people evolved over time. I don't judge Greeks based on the Spartan tradition of leaving weak babies on hilltops to die. Granted, the Greek culture has changed a lot. But I don't judge Muslims based on how barbaric they were in 700 AD, but based on the fact that they continue to be that barbaric today, in a continuous line, while other cultures have moderated. By the way, in war all peoples have killed babies. When we bombed Dresden lots of babies were burned to a crisp. Likewise Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe that isn't as intimate as bashing a baby's head against a rock, I'll agree. But there is a reason for the saying "war is hell", and again, I DO judge ancient cultures differently.
and apparently it was allowed specifically with a toothbrush
But yet I am supposed to believe Omnes_Omnibus over the people who literally study this their whole lives
Believe all the women who are beaten in Islamic cultures. Remember that practice is more important than theory. I also do not agree that the theory is to beat a woman without hurting her according to the scripture, but that's just me.
I grant you that I am not going to do a dissertation on Islamic theology. I am trying to give you a common sense response to a point that you initially brought up. I want you to educate yourself. But I am not trying to wage an ideological battle with you here. I don't gain much from that. I want you to have access to both sides and be able to make up your own mind. If you and I disagree at the end of that, so be it. I don't think there is much I could do to convince you.
Technically no, the only holy thing there is, is the Qur'an because that's directly directly from God
The original point was a comparison of some ideologies like Islam vs others like Christianity. So from my point of view since the Hadith is influential throughout Islam, I think it's fair game. It may not be as simple as I think, but the proof is in the pudding and the culture from all Islamic countries is more violent overall than Christian countries, and it's directly because of Islam and how it is taught.
I can tell you that she was 16, not 6
Since I'm not an expert all I can say is that I'll take that under consideration as one point of view in the future
False flag galore, 9/11 was an inside job based on Operation Northwoods
I'm not convinced by those ideas, but I agree, let's not digress.
Both are stereotypes of the people who live there, but it doesn't really mean it's true lol
It turns out that this practiced by atheists, Jews, and Christians who live in that same region
I'll have to look into that, though I do believe it possible that it could be an African thing rather than a Muslim thing. But from my conversations with ex-Muslims I do know that Islam is very oppressive to women generally, so maybe it fit in well. Labiaplasty does not remove the ability to have sensation in the genitals while FGM does, from what I understand.
I can go the distance bro.
Maybe you can, but I can't. I'm not here to just fight with you as I said. I want to put out the other side for you and anybody interested to see. If you do your own homework and come to a different conclusion than me, and maybe we haven't seen the same things are interpreted them the same way, well, that's a shame, but that's about as far as I'll go with it. I don't need to try to make you agree with me.
having a shitty family and pins that on Islam because they used that to justify their abuse
I think the point is that there is a lot of that going around, and that it is directly caused by Islam, the Imams, and the culture. I don't think the bible teaches or advocates for the sick things the priests did, but I do agree that it damaged the Catholic religion, probably beyond repair. I have always thought it was super weird and wrong for them not to be able to marry, and that it gives incentive for people with weird problems to become priests instead of getting married and having families.
His YouTube channel is called Farid Responds.
Thanks for the reference, I'll try to look into it some time. I don't agree with your dismissal of the other sources, but that's fine. Like I say, I put out a few points about Islam, which is just what I can remember off the top of my head. If you've already considered everything and still came to the conclusions you did, so be it, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Hey sorry I'm responding super late, I started my reply but just got sidetracked the last several days due to other reasons...
You're just dismissing me too. I don't see how the bible saying that women were excited by men who were well hung and virile is a shocking thing.
I'm not trying to, really, I was just trying to show that it's hypocritical to complain about Islam having bothersome verses when without applying the same measure of criticism to Christianity/Judaism as well. Also because you can't expect me to believe that the Holy Spirit guided someone to write this verse, like that was ALL human right there. Sounds like erotica to me.
The Philistines are NOT the same group as the Palestinians, despite the name. That would be like saying that antifa is anti-fascist because of the name. Palestinians come from nomadic Arabs who were in the Middle East, I don't know where. But reports of Israel show it being mostly deserted, and the Palestinians were NOT there. Even Mark Twain wrote about this. It IS true that the very Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist for the reasons you give. The question of "who has rights to land" are complex. We certainly have our ideas and preferences, but I think ultimately a lot of it comes down to might makes right and possession being 9/10 of the law. That's another story though, I don't know why you're bringing that up. I only brought up the part about Jerusalem to say that the chapter you cite is well known and is not some kooky bit of scripture.
Oh I thought it was just a general attack on Islam/Muslims. I do disagree with the Palestinian sentiment though. While it's true that Arabs came and settled in the region, that does not mean the Palestinians of today aren't descendants of the Philistines. (Some) Arabs simply intermarried with them just as they did with Jews. The etymology for the word "Palestine" came from the Greeks, specifically in Mycenaean Greek. The Greeks (directly across the sea from them) began calling the region as Palestine ("Philistia") once the Philistines had 5 city-states. The word "Palestine" matches "Philistia" in nearly all ancient languages, denoting that they're the exact same people. The etymology for the word itself is what gives us the historical evidence that they're the same people. Antifa really was antifascist once, for example. But you disagree with this, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do make excuses for how people acted in different time periods, and how people evolved over time. I don't judge Muslims based on how barbaric they were in 700 AD, but based on the fact that they continue to be that barbaric today, in a continuous line, while other cultures have moderated. By the way, in war all peoples have killed babies. When we bombed Dresden lots of babies were burned to a crisp. Likewise Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe that isn't as intimate as bashing a baby's head against a rock, I'll agree. But there is a reason for the saying "war is hell", and again, I DO judge ancient cultures differently.
Not trying to get all liberal here, but isn't this indicative of a superiority complex? You're imposing your sense of cultural superiority onto others and are saying "they bad, me good", which is only due to Western hegemony making you think Western principles are greater than others; in other words, your looking at it from a modern Western lens but fail to see how these aren't modern Western people. The first thing you must realize is that because the Deep State hates them, they're going to use negative propaganda about them, even if its Fake News. This by itself is skewing your perception since it occurred before you woke up to mass media dissemination operations. Secondly, you aren't applying fair criticism to Islam as you are others. You just think you are. If there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world (20-25% of the world population), and all of them are following Islam in the way you say they do, then why aren't there more acts of terrorism? This could only mean 1 of 2 things: either the modern Muslim is simply just not following Islam as prescribed (which would mean your criticisms are unfair since, under your own personal beliefs, you don't judge a religion based on what they did during ancient times), or you don't really understand Islam (which would ALSO mean your criticisms are unfair). This is what I mean by hypocrisy. And it's nothing against you personally, but many people do it and try to justify the cognitive dissonance with extreme mental gymnastics.
Believe all the women who are beaten in Islamic cultures. Remember that practice is more important than theory. I also do not agree that the theory is to beat a woman without hurting her according to the scripture, but that's just me.
I am trying to give you a common sense response to a point that you initially brought up. I want you to educate yourself. But I am not trying to wage an ideological battle with you here. I don't gain much from that. I want you to have access to both sides and be able to make up your own mind. If you and I disagree at the end of that, so be it. I don't think there is much I could do to convince you.
In practice the women hit their men more than the reverse lol. But that exists everywhere tbh, it's just not reported (women actually commit domestic violence more than men do, but people don't know about it due to skewed media/societal narratives). But as for it being a toothbrush and not to hurt her, etc., I showed you a source for it and you still refuse to accept it. That's what I meant when I said to check your ego. You aren't being objective because it means you would have to admit to yourself that perhaps you were wrong. If you ever want to be sure to come to the truth, always show some skepticism and critical analysis, but also always be willing to admit that you're wrong, too. The Qur'an itself isn't taken alone as the sole source of Islamic jurisprudence, hadith literature is as well. The way we know that Muslims are told not to beat their wives (don't strike the face, don't leave a mark, no pain, etc.) comes form the hadith literature; according to several hadiths, some Muslims came to Prophet Muhammad SAW when the verse was revealed with same concerns you stated, and this was what they were told. It's not just me making this up out of thin air to "ease the blow" or anything like that. if you go to a mosque and ask about this, they'll tell you the same thing. Go to several, in fact, and you'll be told this.
The original point was a comparison of some ideologies like Islam vs others like Christianity. So from my point of view since the Hadith is influential throughout Islam, I think it's fair game. It may not be as simple as I think, but the proof is in the pudding and the culture from all Islamic countries is more violent overall than Christian countries, and it's directly because of Islam and how it is taught.
I gotchu, just making the distinction between what is and isn't considered holy.
As for what you were saying, I disagree that it's because of Islam. The reason being—why did terrorism never even exist before 9/11? Why did it never exist before there were political motivations for it to exist? Why would "terrorism" occur now that there is no infrastructure that would allow it to even develop in the first place? Islamic countries are completely destroyed right now and are less religious than they were 50+ years ago when they weren't destroyed; yet why are these "terrorist" attacks occurring now when they have less ability to conduct attacks and don't even have the means to teach Islam as well as they used to AND are less religious overall than they used to be? These things don't add up.
You are trying to look for reasons to prove a point rather than see the facts as they are.
I'm not convinced by those ideas, but I agree, let's not digress.
Which was banned by Prophet Muhammad SAW. But of course, people like you don't know that. And like FGM, it's practiced by non-Muslims just as much (or higher) than Muslims in those regions. But, people don't know that either...
I'll have to look into that, though I do believe it possible that it could be an African thing rather than a Muslim thing. But from my conversations with ex-Muslims I do know that Islam is very oppressive to women generally, so maybe it fit in well. Labiaplasty does not remove the ability to have sensation in the genitals while FGM does, from what I understand.
It's not practiced by Muslims everywhere, and many Muslims don't even know it exists. That's how you know it's lcalized to a specific region rather than a doctrine of Islam. Also, Islam isn't oppressive towards women lol they just were made to feel that way because of either familial trauma or liberalism/feminism infecting their minds like here in the West (the latter of which, btw, was meant as a way to destabilize the West so that communism can take over; that's why first-wave and second-wave feminism along with the push towards liberalism during both those eras coincided with the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare).
But that aside, labiplasty is the same procedure as FGM. It's just that there are different levels to it, and labiaplasty typically only refers to the first level. But you can still ask a plastic/cosmetic/gynecologist surgeon to do it and they will; some in the West may be against it but I'm fairly certain most wouldn't mind, considering that transgenderism exists....
Maybe you can, but I can't. I'm not here to just fight with you as I said. I want to put out the other side for you and anybody interested to see. If you do your own homework and come to a different conclusion than me, and maybe we haven't seen the same things are interpreted them the same way, well, that's a shame, but that's about as far as I'll go with it. I don't need to try to make you agree with me.
That's the thing—you aren't presenting the other side. I am. Everything you've stated thus far is apart of the standard narrative and can be easily found by mere surface-level digging. Everything that I've said on the other hand have been things you either refused to believe were true, were in complete denial about, or simply just didn't know (usually some combination of all 3). The stuff I've mentioned goes much deeper than the stuff you've read about. It's akin to thinking Orange Man = bad, and then once you start doing your own research, you realize that Orange Man = good. And now that you've realized that I've done my homework on this matter (on theology and science overall), you now claim that you don't want to continue to argue whereas before you were somewhat overconfident. This is an ego defense mechanism because you've invested a part of your pride into this belief of yours, for whatever reason. Like I said, if you want to come to the truth, you'll need to be willing to admit that you're wrong.
.
As for your other comments (running out of space), I don't believe that this trauma is caused by Islam because I know many men who suffered more than their sisters did due to the parents using Islam as an excuse. Shitty families are gonna be shitty regardless of religion bro, it's just the way it is. My dismissal of "other sources", as you put it, comes from the fact that everything they've said has been refuted before. It's not me dismissing their arguments, it's me noting that all their arguments are the same. I've considered everything you've said and more, but you haven't considered everything that I've said. This is where our differences lie.
Do check out Farid Responds, he addresses everything you mention and more.
That's not a serious response.
Donkey dicks: i.e. they were hung like horses and virile. Big deal.
baby smashing: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill." is one of the most famous quotations from the bible, and is specifically cited as evidence of the continuous and historic connection of the Jewish people to Israel and Jerusalem, compared to the Muslims for whom this isn't the case. Is Jerusalem ever even mentioned in the Koran? I don't think it is. Regardless, the point is that the Jews were slaughtered and forced to flee the homeland that their God had given them. They wished death and worse upon their enemies. That is not that strange, especially back in those days. And AGAIN, I will emphasize that this is not an exhortation to Jews or Christians to be violent, and it is not interpreted as such.
killing men and taking slaves: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTERS. This is under a section called "Going to war". Remember that the Old Testament comes from a time when people sacrificed their children to their gods, and the Old Testament specifically put an end to that (with Abraham). It's an ancient way of thinking, and that was normal in the ancient days. Please don't be like the Leftists who judge ancient people by modern standards. As time went on Jews and Christians did not see this as a literal injunction to be followed out. Please find examples in anything like modern history where Jews or Christians have done this.
Here's from the Koran:
First of all Islam literally got spread as "the Koran or the sword", meaning you had to either convert or be killed..
There is STILL forced conversion to Islam.
Modern verses of violence in the Koran
More violence in the Koran.
- Advocates killing disbelievers wherever you find them.
- Instructs men to beat their wives.
That is just the Koran, but you also have to look at what the Hadith says, which Muslims consider to be almost as holy as the Koran.
For example: "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
Did I mention that Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, still played with dolls, and was (therefore) prepubescent, and that it is used practically as rationale for many Muslims to marry and have sex with children?
More important than all this is how it is actually applied. Do I need to go into examples of all the terrorist groups that are Muslim, and how they specifically cite the Koran as their guide, and pray to Allah when they kill people?
Or how something like 70% of Muslims in most Muslim countries approve of these terrorists, of killing non-believers, and sharia law (according to MANY polls)?
Or how there are currently THOUSANDS of honor killings where family members like fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, kill their daughters because they were raped?
Or how many girls are genitally mutilated, often by their mothers or grandmothers, in the name of Islam?
How much farther do you want me to keep going?
If you really want to educate yourself, look into the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, Robert Spencer, and Islamic scholar, and Tommy Robinson who wrote a book with Peter McLoughlin called "Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam". That's just the beginning.
Dismissal being used as a defense mechanism because of bias. Check your ego.
Muslims are a religious group, not an ethno-religious group like Jews. If you're using the excuse of "their book says that they live in the middle east", then you should also know that the Philistines, whom are mentioned in the same texts, are the same group as the Palestinians of today (hence why the etymology of the word "Palestine" & "Palestinian" sound near identical to the word "Philistine" when you trace it back and look at other languages too). Now here is the thing—the Philistines were in the region before the Jews were. This alone demolishes the argument that this is "their land". But if that's not enough, the Tanakh itself states that the Holy Land is supposed to be brought about by the Messiah himself when he comes, NOT before. This is why Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist.
You're making excuses for smashing babies heads against rocks by saying that they were angry for getting slaughtered and how it's reasonable given the time period it was written (which, btw, implies that the Holy Spirit isn't timeless, or that it was written by a man not guided by the Holy Spirit...). Yet for some reason, you aren't applying the same justification to Islam. This can only mean 2 things: you either have a strong personal bias against Islam/for Israel that is clouding your judgement, or you simply lack knowledge about the context regarding those "violent" verses in the Qur'an. Or possibly both. You have to apply equal scrutiny to both sides, not just one or the other because the media says "bearded man bad" like "orange man bad", it's ridiculous.
This is exactly what I'm talking about; you said to me to read the whole chapter of Deuteronomy 20 because it explains the context of those verses slightly better, yet didn't do that with the "violent" verses of the Qur'an you tried sending me in the links above. From what I read, they were talking about for those who break their treaties against them, for those who attacked them first, for criminals, etc. You didn't apply scrutiny fairly. That's intellectually dishonest. The only thing that you have that could be remotely considered as "immoral" by standard Western values (which are being completely diluted btw) is the wifebeating thing, but upon further reading we find that it was addressed by Muhammad SAW in which it was explicitly stated not to cause pain or hurt them, and apparently it was allowed specifically with a toothbrush (source, scroll down to the heading "to beat them (iḍribūhunna)") and this is what all the religious scholars are saying. But yet I am supposed to believe Omnes_Omnibus over the people who literally study this their whole lives? Come on bro.
Technically no, the only holy thing there is, is the Qur'an because that's directly directly from God; the hadiths are just written texts of what someone said. There is historicity that must be applied here because not all hadith are legitimate. For example, you might find a hadith that says XYZ but was said by some dude named Tyrone. Tyrone isn't even a name that existed back then, so stuff like that is disregarded. Others are deemed to be false because someone was known to be a liar in reporting hadiths. Then there are some, like you alluded to, that are missing context in the same way you said I did. Trust me bro, I used to look at exMuslim forums for hours at a time and even went to a sheikh at a mosque to debate this stuff, it's not as simple as you think.
I used to bring this up too, but upon studying the historicity, I can tell you that she was 16, not 6. Various reasons for this, mostly other hadith that allow us to triangulate her age, but also because of issues with Shi'a (Iranians) trying to discredit her for petty things.
I mean they can interpret it like how the Crusaders interpreted the Bible, doesn't mean it's true lol. But that aside, Operation Cyclone is the more likely culprit here, it just doesn't make sense that ISIS had M1A2 Abrams tanks, an American tank that no other country in the world has unless we sell it to them in a weakened state. False flag galore, 9/11 was an inside job based on Operation Northwoods, and the rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. But let's not digress too much.
Most polls I've come across state the opposite actually but okay.
I've been to Syria like 15 years ago, and my parents to Saudi Arabia about 10. It's about as common as an American redneck who fucks his sister. Both are stereotypes of the people who live there, but it doesn't really mean it's true lol
Yup, I remember arguing this too. It turns out that this practiced by atheists, Jews, and Christians who live in that same region (somewhere in east Africa) and has been practiced there for almost a millennia before Islam came. Even more, the movement to ban FGM was led by Muslim sheikhs, and opposed by women. So much for oppressing women lol. Funnily enough, FGM happens in Western nations at potentially even higher rates than the Middle East, but they just call it a labiaplasty rather than FGM even though it's quite literally the same exact procedure. People don't know about this though, or rather, don't like their own hypocrisy being pointed out, I suppose.
I can go the distance bro. I went so deep with questioning religion and theology as a whole that I ended up coming full circle. I don't believe in evolution anymore, that's how far I went. It's a lot more than most people. I even went to a mosque on several different occasions to air my grievances a little. I don't think you've done this.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has immense psychological trauma from having a shitty family and pins that on Islam because they used that to justify their abuse in much the same way priests justified their molestation of altar boys with the Bible; Robert Spencer has literally no credentials and has been debunked time and time again, and even contradicts what other ACTUAL exMuslims have said about Islam; and Tommy Robinson is a political activist far more than he is any authority on religion, that's just laughable. These are all the cliche figures in the anti-Islam community dude, you can't expect me to take you seriously here (especially after posting about Robert Spencer, that guy is a joke even by standard human metrics). Since you're only on this level right now, there is one guy who makes short and concise videos debunking all this stuff. His YouTube channel is called Farid Responds. Since anti-Islam activists always use the same arguments, there is a lot of crossover between the people he refuted and those you mentioned. Enjoy.
You're just dismissing me too. I don't see how the bible saying that women were excited by men who were well hung and virile is a shocking thing.
The Philistines are NOT the same group as the Palestinians, despite the name. That would be like saying that antifa is anti-fascist because of the name. Do some research and you will see that this is true. Palestinians come from nomadic Arabs who were in the Middle East, I don't know where. But reports of Israel show it being mostly deserted, and the Palestinians were NOT there. Even Mark Twain wrote about this. It IS true that the very Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist for the reasons you give. The question of "who has rights to land" are complex. We certainly have our ideas and preferences, but I think ultimately a lot of it comes down to might makes right and possession being 9/10 of the law. That's another story though, I don't know why you're bringing that up. I only brought up the part about Jerusalem to say that the chapter you cite is well known and is not some kooky bit of scripture.
I do make excuses for how people acted in different time periods, and how people evolved over time. I don't judge Greeks based on the Spartan tradition of leaving weak babies on hilltops to die. Granted, the Greek culture has changed a lot. But I don't judge Muslims based on how barbaric they were in 700 AD, but based on the fact that they continue to be that barbaric today, in a continuous line, while other cultures have moderated. By the way, in war all peoples have killed babies. When we bombed Dresden lots of babies were burned to a crisp. Likewise Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe that isn't as intimate as bashing a baby's head against a rock, I'll agree. But there is a reason for the saying "war is hell", and again, I DO judge ancient cultures differently.
Believe all the women who are beaten in Islamic cultures. Remember that practice is more important than theory. I also do not agree that the theory is to beat a woman without hurting her according to the scripture, but that's just me.
I grant you that I am not going to do a dissertation on Islamic theology. I am trying to give you a common sense response to a point that you initially brought up. I want you to educate yourself. But I am not trying to wage an ideological battle with you here. I don't gain much from that. I want you to have access to both sides and be able to make up your own mind. If you and I disagree at the end of that, so be it. I don't think there is much I could do to convince you.
The original point was a comparison of some ideologies like Islam vs others like Christianity. So from my point of view since the Hadith is influential throughout Islam, I think it's fair game. It may not be as simple as I think, but the proof is in the pudding and the culture from all Islamic countries is more violent overall than Christian countries, and it's directly because of Islam and how it is taught.
Since I'm not an expert all I can say is that I'll take that under consideration as one point of view in the future
I'm not convinced by those ideas, but I agree, let's not digress.
Supposedly there are over 5,000 honor killings a year, possibly much higher https://www.cbsnews.com/news/honor-killing-under-growing-scrutiny-in-the-us/
I'll have to look into that, though I do believe it possible that it could be an African thing rather than a Muslim thing. But from my conversations with ex-Muslims I do know that Islam is very oppressive to women generally, so maybe it fit in well. Labiaplasty does not remove the ability to have sensation in the genitals while FGM does, from what I understand.
Maybe you can, but I can't. I'm not here to just fight with you as I said. I want to put out the other side for you and anybody interested to see. If you do your own homework and come to a different conclusion than me, and maybe we haven't seen the same things are interpreted them the same way, well, that's a shame, but that's about as far as I'll go with it. I don't need to try to make you agree with me.
I think the point is that there is a lot of that going around, and that it is directly caused by Islam, the Imams, and the culture. I don't think the bible teaches or advocates for the sick things the priests did, but I do agree that it damaged the Catholic religion, probably beyond repair. I have always thought it was super weird and wrong for them not to be able to marry, and that it gives incentive for people with weird problems to become priests instead of getting married and having families.
Thanks for the reference, I'll try to look into it some time. I don't agree with your dismissal of the other sources, but that's fine. Like I say, I put out a few points about Islam, which is just what I can remember off the top of my head. If you've already considered everything and still came to the conclusions you did, so be it, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Hey sorry I'm responding super late, I started my reply but just got sidetracked the last several days due to other reasons...
I'm not trying to, really, I was just trying to show that it's hypocritical to complain about Islam having bothersome verses when without applying the same measure of criticism to Christianity/Judaism as well. Also because you can't expect me to believe that the Holy Spirit guided someone to write this verse, like that was ALL human right there. Sounds like erotica to me.
Oh I thought it was just a general attack on Islam/Muslims. I do disagree with the Palestinian sentiment though. While it's true that Arabs came and settled in the region, that does not mean the Palestinians of today aren't descendants of the Philistines. (Some) Arabs simply intermarried with them just as they did with Jews. The etymology for the word "Palestine" came from the Greeks, specifically in Mycenaean Greek. The Greeks (directly across the sea from them) began calling the region as Palestine ("Philistia") once the Philistines had 5 city-states. The word "Palestine" matches "Philistia" in nearly all ancient languages, denoting that they're the exact same people. The etymology for the word itself is what gives us the historical evidence that they're the same people. Antifa really was antifascist once, for example. But you disagree with this, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Not trying to get all liberal here, but isn't this indicative of a superiority complex? You're imposing your sense of cultural superiority onto others and are saying "they bad, me good", which is only due to Western hegemony making you think Western principles are greater than others; in other words, your looking at it from a modern Western lens but fail to see how these aren't modern Western people. The first thing you must realize is that because the Deep State hates them, they're going to use negative propaganda about them, even if its Fake News. This by itself is skewing your perception since it occurred before you woke up to mass media dissemination operations. Secondly, you aren't applying fair criticism to Islam as you are others. You just think you are. If there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world (20-25% of the world population), and all of them are following Islam in the way you say they do, then why aren't there more acts of terrorism? This could only mean 1 of 2 things: either the modern Muslim is simply just not following Islam as prescribed (which would mean your criticisms are unfair since, under your own personal beliefs, you don't judge a religion based on what they did during ancient times), or you don't really understand Islam (which would ALSO mean your criticisms are unfair). This is what I mean by hypocrisy. And it's nothing against you personally, but many people do it and try to justify the cognitive dissonance with extreme mental gymnastics.
In practice the women hit their men more than the reverse lol. But that exists everywhere tbh, it's just not reported (women actually commit domestic violence more than men do, but people don't know about it due to skewed media/societal narratives). But as for it being a toothbrush and not to hurt her, etc., I showed you a source for it and you still refuse to accept it. That's what I meant when I said to check your ego. You aren't being objective because it means you would have to admit to yourself that perhaps you were wrong. If you ever want to be sure to come to the truth, always show some skepticism and critical analysis, but also always be willing to admit that you're wrong, too. The Qur'an itself isn't taken alone as the sole source of Islamic jurisprudence, hadith literature is as well. The way we know that Muslims are told not to beat their wives (don't strike the face, don't leave a mark, no pain, etc.) comes form the hadith literature; according to several hadiths, some Muslims came to Prophet Muhammad SAW when the verse was revealed with same concerns you stated, and this was what they were told. It's not just me making this up out of thin air to "ease the blow" or anything like that. if you go to a mosque and ask about this, they'll tell you the same thing. Go to several, in fact, and you'll be told this.
I gotchu, just making the distinction between what is and isn't considered holy.
As for what you were saying, I disagree that it's because of Islam. The reason being—why did terrorism never even exist before 9/11? Why did it never exist before there were political motivations for it to exist? Why would "terrorism" occur now that there is no infrastructure that would allow it to even develop in the first place? Islamic countries are completely destroyed right now and are less religious than they were 50+ years ago when they weren't destroyed; yet why are these "terrorist" attacks occurring now when they have less ability to conduct attacks and don't even have the means to teach Islam as well as they used to AND are less religious overall than they used to be? These things don't add up.
You are trying to look for reasons to prove a point rather than see the facts as they are.
Are you convinced now?
Which was banned by Prophet Muhammad SAW. But of course, people like you don't know that. And like FGM, it's practiced by non-Muslims just as much (or higher) than Muslims in those regions. But, people don't know that either...
It's not practiced by Muslims everywhere, and many Muslims don't even know it exists. That's how you know it's lcalized to a specific region rather than a doctrine of Islam. Also, Islam isn't oppressive towards women lol they just were made to feel that way because of either familial trauma or liberalism/feminism infecting their minds like here in the West (the latter of which, btw, was meant as a way to destabilize the West so that communism can take over; that's why first-wave and second-wave feminism along with the push towards liberalism during both those eras coincided with the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare).
But that aside, labiplasty is the same procedure as FGM. It's just that there are different levels to it, and labiaplasty typically only refers to the first level. But you can still ask a plastic/cosmetic/gynecologist surgeon to do it and they will; some in the West may be against it but I'm fairly certain most wouldn't mind, considering that transgenderism exists....
That's the thing—you aren't presenting the other side. I am. Everything you've stated thus far is apart of the standard narrative and can be easily found by mere surface-level digging. Everything that I've said on the other hand have been things you either refused to believe were true, were in complete denial about, or simply just didn't know (usually some combination of all 3). The stuff I've mentioned goes much deeper than the stuff you've read about. It's akin to thinking Orange Man = bad, and then once you start doing your own research, you realize that Orange Man = good. And now that you've realized that I've done my homework on this matter (on theology and science overall), you now claim that you don't want to continue to argue whereas before you were somewhat overconfident. This is an ego defense mechanism because you've invested a part of your pride into this belief of yours, for whatever reason. Like I said, if you want to come to the truth, you'll need to be willing to admit that you're wrong.
As for your other comments (running out of space), I don't believe that this trauma is caused by Islam because I know many men who suffered more than their sisters did due to the parents using Islam as an excuse. Shitty families are gonna be shitty regardless of religion bro, it's just the way it is. My dismissal of "other sources", as you put it, comes from the fact that everything they've said has been refuted before. It's not me dismissing their arguments, it's me noting that all their arguments are the same. I've considered everything you've said and more, but you haven't considered everything that I've said. This is where our differences lie.
Do check out Farid Responds, he addresses everything you mention and more.