@SexyLesGirl13 A bit like a lot of self-styled Christians then...
(I should add I follow no religion, but do try to understand at least their basics, though I admit I have not read the Q'ran and the Torah and it has been years since I read the Bible, though I often hear readings from it.)
@ArishMell im very good when it comes to islam. its not ""May peace be upon in him" its Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam - ALLAH PRAY ON HIM AND SALUTE HIM (QURAN 33,56) islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith. muhammad stole from everyone hindus,christian,jews .... islam is a a mix of everything around muh He had 13 "wives" but there is no marriage in islam its a fucking contract. the arabic word use for marriage in islam is nikkah means FUCKING
I am as concerned at the behaviour of some Muslims as you are, but few if any of the major religions are entirely innocent. Essentially, religious fervour offers a ready excuse for inhumane behaviour; irrespective of whatever the religion and its theory. For example, Christian male-led institutions spent centuries being just as nasty towards women, children, "wrong" sexualities, apostates and heretics as some Muslim men are now; and a minority still are to some degree.
I had quoted what is often spoken by Muslims including theologians and Imans, at least in the UK, though I accept it may differ (in translation) in the Islamic countries.
Judaism and Christianity are not single-source faiths either, but most theologians I have heard describing the Abrahamic faiths include Islam. Their source material is the ancient Hebrew faith described by the Torah and Old Testament, but that drew on Zoroastrianism and no doubt assorted other ideas and myths of now-lost origins. Even the writers are unknown beyond their names.
That poster is probably intended as wilfully and virulently anti-Islamic, so I looked up "Iphone Conservative". That did not reveal any specific topics but clearly showed the phrase is the brand-name of an American, hard-line political campaign tool hosted or created by Apple. So I attach little importance to it, as it is allied to one side of (to me) a foreign country's domestic party-politics; but further, much of the Muslim world has at best an uneasy relationship with, and at worst positive hatred of, the USA; and the feelings are probably mutual!
Its claim about the area of the Muslim conquests is probably highly exaggerated. The dominant religion of most of Europe was by then the Roman Catholic sect of Christianity; covering a vast area. I don't know if the Russians were Christian by then, at least in the West of that land, but theirs became the Orthodox sect, The Muslims had taken parts of Spain but little else. The Christian footprint in the Middle East was quite small, mainly Palestine including the region carved out by 20C Jews and Christians as "Israel": Jerusalem is significant to all three faiths, so delicately that it should have remained [i]not[/i] Israel's capital.
The Crusades were intended not only to push Islam out of Europe but also out of what the Church of Rome saw as its theological fiefdom in the Middle East; and they took place in a time of intense Church-run cruelty at home too, against "heresy".
Besides, who colonised the American and African continents, later taking untold numbers of slaves across the Atlantic, and oppressing the indigenous cultures and religions? It was not Muslims from the Middle East (though Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans were involved in that slave trade), but Christians from the NW European nations including Spain, Italy, France and Britain!
[i]All[/i] the major religions have blood-stained histories....
@hippyjoe1955 No religion likes to be too truthful but given that none are based on anything provable there is no point trying to campaign against the assumed existence of The Prophet Mohammed. ]
Were Moses and Abraham, Paul and John, real people? Jews and Christians believe they were.
Apart from it seeming trying to be gratuitously offensive to all Muslims - Shia, Sunni and Ba'hai - it only raises the question of who wrote the Koran and invented the Islamic faith, if it were not him.
There is no archaeological evidence proving the existence of any of the [i]people[/i] named in the Torah and Bible, though some cited towns still exist and there are possible traces of others long since abandoned. We can't actually "prove" anything even in the Dead Sea Scrolls; but they are still important as foundation works for their religion.
Nor is there any archaeological evidence for most people who have ever lived in the distant past, beyond whatever works they leave. We can date and describe an early artefact but we've no idea who made it or how he or she thought.
What is the point of trying to suggest Mohammed was fictitious? Even if that is correct historically it might not matter outside of Islam but the claim would be extremely disrespectful to it and its followers who do believe he was real. Is that the point of the exercise?
@ArishMell what foul language? translating is foul language? by learning Islam i do know some arabic all i did was translate. 1. those Christian males are/were not following Christianity the Muslim males are that's the difference. 2, those who include islam in the Abrahamic faiths are dumbasses A the father is aramaic. mother hagar= egyption. how is the son the father of the arabs? when even muslim sources claim he married from jurhum tribe of arabia 3. you never heard of the muslim involvement in the slave trade? muhammad was a slave trader. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEUGdMjmBhE https://youtu.be/qfNgfYIqk3I https://youtu.be/xhdAadYVgsg
@SexyLesGirl13 Bad language? Your gratuitous F- word.
Questions of nationality: you raised them. I didn't - I know what is now Saudi Arabia regards itself as the centre of Islam but I did not know the family background of Mohammed, and though it is interesting historically it is not really relevant here.
Slave trading? I didn't know that, but it does not surprise me. It was a very common and lucrative trade in the Mediterranean and Arabic countries then; reached perhaps its nadir with the European colonists; and even lingers today.
Slavery is an extremely serious criminal offence in UK law and cases do occur occasionally. That has nothing to do with religion, but rather, is a social problem.
I do not find Islam, or at least its modern form, to be a very attractive faith at all. That's largely because with no central authority to moderate it, it is easy to manipulate by small-minded, mysoginist, frightened little men with guns into religion-based fascism.
However, the OP seemed trying to say Islam evil, Christianity good.
NO. [i]Both[/i] faiths have good in them, at heart; but[i] both [/i]have appalling histories of cruelty - slave-trading, racism, oppressions of indigenous-cultures and other religions generally, women, non-heterosexuals, heretics or apostates.... etc.
Are those acts, sins in the eyes of God / Allah? Probably but all religions were invented, and are still, used and abused by humans. Only, humans are not infallible so the weak too easily fall into using their gods or man-written scriptures to excuse their own self-righteous, selfish beastliness; at national, school or home level.
@ArishMell what you want me to lie its translated as fucking. nikkah means fucking
"I do not find Islam, or at least its modern form, to be a very attractive faith at all." SAME EVIL CULT IT NEVER CHANGED name one good thing about islam islam kills apostates where in the bible is that?
as for the F WORD 4:3 وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا۟ فِى ٱلْيَتَٰمَىٰ فَٱنكِحُوا۟ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَٰثَ وَرُبَٰعَ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟ فَوَٰحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا۟
" فَٱنكِحُوا۟ " https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D9%81%D9%8E%D9%B1%D9%86%D9%83%D9%90%D8%AD%D9%8F%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%9F/ SEE IT SAYS GENERAL- SHAGGING? IT ONLY MEANS MARRIGE IN ISLAM BECAUSE ITS A CONTRACT TO SHAG LOL-FUCK. NEED MORE?
@SexyLesGirl13 I don't expect or want you to lie; but people of different religions or even sects within one religion have been at each other's throats as it is without sites like this encouraging more nastiness and division.
Some factions of Islam now, in the 21C, are descending into the sort of grim death-cultism of Reformation-era Christianity, and there are political as well as theological factors involved; but I don't excuse any followers of any faith for doing evil unto others.
And whilst you may view marriage as no more than a licence to copulate, that has always been so under Christianity too - the same male-led Christianity that invented, for example, the Holy Inquisition and the Magdalen Laundries, and helped Switzerland's anti-Romany pogrom in the 1940s and '50s.
(The Swiss did not murder anyone, as the Nazi regime led by the nominally-Catholic Hitler had done. Instead it kidnapped the gypsy children and farmed them out under new, approved identities via Church-run orphanages to approved non-Romany families. Their elders were allowed to live on to die out naturally - or to leave the country. The UK had a slightly similar scheme in the same era, supposed to give children from very poor and/or illegitimate backgrounds a new start in Canada or Australia. Most ended up, with similar Church help, as little more than poorly-educated agricultural slaves because no-one in authority in all three nations and the Church had the wit, competence or moral courage to monitor the scheme properly.)
So attacking Islam's extremist side is all very well, but let's not kid ourselves that any other faith has ever been much better.
Nor does crude language impress me even if supposedly a direct translation from the Q'ran. If it is it would reflect the social mores of Mohammed's place and times anyway - but that is true of any religion's "holy scripture". Leviticus even places relative monetary values on men and woman - I don't know why but guess which sex is worth the less!
@ArishMell this verse give muslims the right to kill each other QURAN 49.9And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them; but >>>if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command; <<<<then if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves those who act equitably.
he Holy Inquisition.... Where is that stuff according to the bible?
Catholic Hitler? you never heard what adolf said about islam and christianity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt_o1k26mF4
anyone trying to defend or soften says islam is bad but...HINDUISM OR CHRISTIANITY....... I never do so i let each stand on its own
@SexyLesGirl13 The encouragement do do evil acts does not need explicitly be in an ancient book - all it needs is later readers to find interpretations to help them justify their own actions.
Of course the Inquisition was not foretold in the Bible, but the sort of people who ran that organisation are the same sort of people are cruel and selfish in other ways - domestically or nationally - in the name of their deity in any faith. Always so, whether in Old Testament, Mediaeval or the present times.
They excuse themselves in combining over-enthusiastic belief with a lust for power by selective reading of their scriptures and the debate-closing attitude that it's what their god wants.
If the instructions to engage in what the law would call "coercive and controlling behaviour" even if not actually calling for violence is enshrined in the books - whether the Torah, Bible or Q'ran or any other - it makes the matter worse; but all religious texts were written by men not gods, and they all reflect their writers' own attitudes and societies.
Neither you nor I wish to support a faith that encourages violence and oppression, but let's not use that as a meretricious attack on just one religion. For all that is bad among Muslims, is not unique to Islam except perhaps in degree.
Hitler was certainly no Christian in his acts, but he was from a Catholic background in a largely Lutheran country; and he came to a sort of arrangement of acquiescence with the Church.
Incidentally much of what I know of modern religions does not come from propaganda videos made by American para-Christian groups and cults, but from reading and listening to what clergy and theologians of many faiths say about matters of the day. One of the wisest I can name is Edinburgh University's Professor* of comparative theology, Dr. Mona Siddiqi - a woman and a Muslim.
I live in a country that hosts all faiths and none in largely peaceful, even sometimes ecumenical ways - and though from a mildly Anglican background I am personally agnostic. I simply oppose gratuitous control and oppression of others on feeble grounds like differing religious ideas; at home or at state level.
[i]Agnostic[/i] - one who doubts - a word that rarely appears on this all-too-binary chat-site that encourages ignorantly dividing the world's population into "Christians [good] and atheists [bad]"!
It is wrong to single out any one faith for its bad side: all deist faiths and non-faith beliefs have good and bad associations - because all such philosophies were devised and are run or followed by humans not gods, and some humans are good, some are bad.
'''
*A Professor being one acknowledged for her or his published, original research in the subject, and oversees PhD students' projects as well as any tutoring of undergraduates. May also chair a university's school in that field. Someone who simply teaches undergraduates the established facts needed for a Degree, is a Lecturer, not a Professor.
