The Truth Behind Islam

[Adama]

..... the preaching of Christianity in many Muslim nations is forbidden. The religion of peace won't allow for other religions within their confines.

I often think, Islam is not really a religion, but more or less a political system.
ANY religion and atheism are strongly restricted or even outlawed in Islamic Republics.
It's not only about Christianity.

I am an atheist, I don't care about religion, but this does not mean that I am in any way supportive to any religion which tries to erase any other religion with restrictions and using threats.

If you are a Muslim, I am OK with that, but why do you want me also to be a Muslim and calling me an infidel?

Blasphemy laws, which are threatening any person of other faith who is critical about Islam, are totally unacceptable in any advanced society.

Apostasy laws - to threaten anybody who left the Islamic faith for another religion or atheism - are totally unacceptable too.

Except Islam I do not know about any other religion which has such regulations in their scripts.

A prison for the mind. It's a mental Berlin wall. Don't dare cross it if you want to live, is what's implied.

[MrPeabody]

You prove my point. First, she was able to leave Islam. You say people cant leave Islam. Also, she essentially said she left Islam because it conflicted with her feminist views.

She is in a Non-Muslim Country you Idiot!
Meanwhile in Muslim Countries
In Islamic law (sharia), the view among the majority of jurists was that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 13.SVG.png

If people weren't allowed to leave Islam, being in a non-Muslim country wouldn't stop them - idiot. And people can leave Islam in Turkey. The key is having a secular state. Countries like Iran were secular until the West interfered and killed their secular leader. The same with Saddam who was a secular leader. It is the West that radicalized Islam.

[MrPeabody]

There has been much news describing the destruction of the ancient historical city Palmyra by ISIS. But, before ISIS, Palymra was also destroyed by the Christians who did even more damage.

Here is a description of the Christian destruction of Palymra in 385 AD:

"The destroyers came from out of the desert. Palmyra must have been expecting them: for years, marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots, armed with little more than stones, iron bars and an iron sense of righteousness had been terrorizing the east of the Roman Empire. Their attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective. These men moved in packs – later in swarms of as many as five hundred – and when they descended utter destruction followed. Their targets were the temples and the attacks could be astonishingly swift. Great stone columns that had stood for centuries collapsed in an afternoon; statues that had stood for half a millennium had their faces mutilated in a moment; temples that had seen the rise of the Roman Empire fell in a single day.

This was violent work, but it was by no means solemn. The zealots roared with laughter as they smashed the ‘evil’, ‘idolatrous’ statues; the faithful jeered as they tore down temples, stripped roofs and defaced tombs. Chants appeared, immortalizing these glorious moments. ‘Those shameful things,’ sang pilgrims, proudly; the ‘demons and idols . . . our good Saviour trampled down all together.’1 Zealotry rarely makes for good poetry."

Catherine Nixey. The Darkening Age (Kindle Locations 89-93). Pan Macmillan UK. Kindle Edition.

So what is the difference between these Christians and ISIS?

It is also important to note that Islam has controlled Palmyra, which is in Syria, for over a thousand years, and preserved this historical site without damaging it. It has remained untouched until ISIS. But where did ISIS come from? George Bush bombed Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein, who was a running a secular state. Then the US pulls out after destabilizing Iraq. This allowed the rise of ISIS as a response. So, once again, the responsibility for the destruction of Palymra lies at the door of the Christian West, and not Islam which preserved Palmyra for over a thousand years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2J6IFljEuA

[Yohan]

Here is a description of the Christian destruction of Palymra in 385 AD:

So what is the difference between these Christians and ISIS?

The difference is that ISIS exists in 2017, while those fightings in Palymra took place 385 AD.

It shows that Islam is now about on the same level as Christianity more than 1500 years ago.

Islam which preserved Palmyra for over a thousand years...

It should be noticed that ISIS destroyed much of the remains of Palymra during the last years.

[Jonny Law]

There has been much news describing the destruction of the ancient historical city Palmyra by ISIS. But, before ISIS, Palymra was also destroyed by the Christians who did even more damage.

Here is a description of the Christian destruction of Palymra in 385 AD:

"The destroyers came from out of the desert. Palmyra must have been expecting them: for years, marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots, armed with little more than stones, iron bars and an iron sense of righteousness had been terrorizing the east of the Roman Empire. Their attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective. These men moved in packs – later in swarms of as many as five hundred – and when they descended utter destruction followed. Their targets were the temples and the attacks could be astonishingly swift. Great stone columns that had stood for centuries collapsed in an afternoon; statues that had stood for half a millennium had their faces mutilated in a moment; temples that had seen the rise of the Roman Empire fell in a single day.

This was violent work, but it was by no means solemn. The zealots roared with laughter as they smashed the ‘evil’, ‘idolatrous’ statues; the faithful jeered as they tore down temples, stripped roofs and defaced tombs. Chants appeared, immortalizing these glorious moments. ‘Those shameful things,’ sang pilgrims, proudly; the ‘demons and idols . . . our good Saviour trampled down all together.’1 Zealotry rarely makes for good poetry."

Catherine Nixey. The Darkening Age (Kindle Locations 89-93). Pan Macmillan UK. Kindle Edition.

So what is the difference between these Christians and ISIS?

It is also important to note that Islam has controlled Palmyra, which is in Syria, for over a thousand years, and preserved this historical site without damaging it. It has remained untouched until ISIS. But where did ISIS come from? George Bush bombed Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein, who was a running a secular state. Then the US pulls out after destabilizing Iraq. This allowed the rise of ISIS as a response. So, once again, the responsibility for the destruction of Palymra lies at the door of the Christian West, and not Islam which preserved Palmyra for over a thousand years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2J6IFljEuA

NEWSFLASH!
Syria is not a theocracy (Islamic)
It is run by: The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party!
Its motto, "Unity, Liberty, Socialism", refers to Arab unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference!
Islam does not preserve shit!

[Adama]

I find MrPeabody's arguments to be filled with red herrings. Christians from 400 AD are compared to the terrorists of 2017? And that is a valid comparison in his mind. No further argument is necessary, if he can't even see this comparison is fallacious.

[MrPeabody]

Here is a description of the Christian destruction of Palymra in 385 AD:

So what is the difference between these Christians and ISIS?

The difference is that ISIS exists in 2017, while those fightings in Palymra took place 385 AD.

It shows that Islam is now about on the same level as Christianity more than 1500 years ago.

Islam which preserved Palmyra for over a thousand years...

It should be noticed that ISIS destroyed much of the remains of Palymra during the last years.

Islam is on the same level as Christianity. The Muslims don't like the ISIS thugs either. These thugs came about because the US destroyed Iraq based on what we now know was a lie. What George Bush did was even worse.

[Adama]

Islam is a bastardized version of Christianity. Anyone can see this. Islam has just borrowed a little from Christianity for its foundation. But most of it is straight from demons through their possessed, reprobate prophet. Even their most holy book is filled with errors. It has to state that the most recent is correct. Meaning their god in Islam has unrighteousness, is not the perfect God, because the word of their god is not perfect. God's Word is perfect. And the same doctrines taught in the New are the same as the Old. The only difference is that Jesus clarified the meaning for the commandments for them. He didn't expand it. He showed them the depth of it.

So Islam and Christianity are in no way on the same level.

Also, Christians are saved through the work of Christ. He kept all the commandments and plus died for our sins. Therefore Christianity is simply by faith in Him. Islam on the other hand demands that you believe and do the works, and if you aren't doing the works in Islam, you're condemned. Meaning every man is his own savior in Islam. The god of Islam doesn't even do the work to save his children. They'll die and burn if they are mistaken (and they are).

Christianity is the truth faith of God, by believing in Christ. Islam is one of the many false ways, leading to sheol.

[Misko_Varesanovic]

..... the preaching of Christianity in many Muslim nations is forbidden. The religion of peace won't allow for other religions within their confines.

I often think, Islam is not really a religion, but more or less a political system.
ANY religion and atheism are strongly restricted or even outlawed in Islamic Republics.
It's not only about Christianity.

I am an atheist, I don't care about religion, but this does not mean that I am in any way supportive to any religion which tries to erase any other religion with restrictions and using threats.

If you are a Muslim, I am OK with that, but why do you want me also to be a Muslim and calling me an infidel?

Blasphemy laws, which are threatening any person of other faith who is critical about Islam, are totally unacceptable in any advanced society.

Apostasy laws - to threaten anybody who left the Islamic faith for another religion or atheism - are totally unacceptable too.

Except Islam I do not know about any other religion which has such regulations in their scripts.

Firstly, you're using the term 'infidel' inaccurately. The Koran defines Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book', and says that their places of worship are to be protected.

Secondly, you have obviously never read the Bible or the Torah in any great depth, because if you had, then you would know that there extraordinary punishments for apostasy in both texts - unlike the Koran, which does not prescribe any such punishment, and which explicitly states that 'There is no compulsion in religion' [2:256].

Thirdly, on the point about Islamic republics, up until the mid-20th century not a single one of these existed, and even to this day, most Muslim countries have a secular system of governance. Nevertheless, although Islamic republics are generally repressive on religious matters (and not just to religious minorities), it is definitely not the case that other religions always face restrictions of the kind that you might imagine. For example, in Iran, religious minorities are guaranteed seats in parliament; Iran's national soccer team has even had a Christian captain, Andranik Teymourian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andranik_Teymourian). And in the Islamic world more generally, Christian and Buddhist minorities are generally richer than their Muslim counterparts - which again, shows that while they may face certain problems, these problems are obviously not large enough to stop them doing very well economically.

[Misko_Varesanovic]

Islam is a bastardized version of Christianity. Anyone can see this. Islam has just borrowed a little from Christianity for its foundation. But most of it is straight from demons through their possessed, reprobate prophet. Even their most holy book is filled with errors. It has to state that the most recent is correct. Meaning their god in Islam has unrighteousness, is not the perfect God, because the word of their god is not perfect. God's Word is perfect. And the same doctrines taught in the New are the same as the Old. The only difference is that Jesus clarified the meaning for the commandments for them. He didn't expand it. He showed them the depth of it.

So Islam and Christianity are in no way on the same level.

Also, Christians are saved through the work of Christ. He kept all the commandments and plus died for our sins. Therefore Christianity is simply by faith in Him. Islam on the other hand demands that you believe and do the works, and if you aren't doing the works in Islam, you're condemned. Meaning every man is his own savior in Islam. The god of Islam doesn't even do the work to save his children. They'll die and burn if they are mistaken (and they are).

Christianity is the truth faith of God, by believing in Christ. Islam is one of the many false ways, leading to sheol.

Dude, a word of advice: if you are ever in a debate with a Muslim concerning the textual integrity of the Bible vis à vis the Koran, then get out while you can, because on that score at least there is no contest. The Bible is a very beautiful and great book, but there is no escaping the fact that it has been changed so many times that it's a miracle that something broadly coherent and inspired even exists today.

[Misko_Varesanovic]

I find MrPeabody's arguments to be filled with red herrings. Christians from 400 AD are compared to the terrorists of 2017? And that is a valid comparison in his mind. No further argument is necessary, if he can't even see this comparison is fallacious.

There is no need whatsoever to go back to 400 AD. In the 2000s, you can find an American president willing to kill a number of civilians estimated in the millions - because God told him to do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Plus, you are aware that the United States has materially supported so-called Islamic fundamentalists almost everywhere they have a significant presence?

'Zbigniew Brzezinski, Godfather of al Qaeda and Taliban, Dead at 89'

https://28pages.org/2017/05/28/zbigniew ... ead-at-89/

[Adama]

Islam is a bastardized version of Christianity. Anyone can see this. Islam has just borrowed a little from Christianity for its foundation. But most of it is straight from demons through their possessed, reprobate prophet. Even their most holy book is filled with errors. It has to state that the most recent is correct. Meaning their god in Islam has unrighteousness, is not the perfect God, because the word of their god is not perfect. God's Word is perfect. And the same doctrines taught in the New are the same as the Old. The only difference is that Jesus clarified the meaning for the commandments for them. He didn't expand it. He showed them the depth of it.

So Islam and Christianity are in no way on the same level.

Also, Christians are saved through the work of Christ. He kept all the commandments and plus died for our sins. Therefore Christianity is simply by faith in Him. Islam on the other hand demands that you believe and do the works, and if you aren't doing the works in Islam, you're condemned. Meaning every man is his own savior in Islam. The god of Islam doesn't even do the work to save his children. They'll die and burn if they are mistaken (and they are).

Christianity is the truth faith of God, by believing in Christ. Islam is one of the many false ways, leading to sheol.

Dude, a word of advice: if you are ever in a debate with a Muslim concerning the textual integrity of the Bible vis à vis the Koran, then get out while you can, because on that score at least there is no contest. The Bible is a very beautiful and great book, but there is no escaping the fact that it has been changed so many times that it's a miracle that something broadly coherent and inspired even exists today.

I made no such boasts of being a mighty man in a contest or a debate. I merely stated the fact that Koran itself admits to its own fallibility. The word of the god of Islam is not perfect, and neither are his words, and his word even breaks it down and spells it out for you.

As for the integrity of the Bible, Bible "scholars" who are not saved and do not know God are the ones who make such claims. Those who are saved, who are the children of God, know that His Word is true.

There is no sense in practicing a religion if the words of the god of that religion are false. The god of Islam outright tells it to you.

And if Islam puts the Bible in doubt, then Islam must therefore go out with it. Because Islam borrows from Christianity for credibility, using the names of Moses, Christ and Mary to help establish itself as a religion.

[Adama]

I find MrPeabody's arguments to be filled with red herrings. Christians from 400 AD are compared to the terrorists of 2017? And that is a valid comparison in his mind. No further argument is necessary, if he can't even see this comparison is fallacious.

There is no need whatsoever to go back to 400 AD. In the 2000s, you can find an American president willing to kill a number of civilians estimated in the millions - because God told him to do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Plus, you are aware that the United States has materially supported so-called Islamic fundamentalists almost everywhere they have a significant presence?

'Zbigniew Brzezinski, Godfather of al Qaeda and Taliban, Dead at 89'

https://28pages.org/2017/05/28/zbigniew ... ead-at-89/

These American presidents are about as Christian as you are. They have not found Christ or the true God. All you have to do is look at what they do. Those things which they do are not the works that Christ preaches. They serve another god, but merely give lip service to Christ to deceive the people into thinking that they are the same as them. When they are the elitist rules and we are just the peasants.

Don't be deceived. The world is run by Satan worshipers and Islam is just another false way to heaven, works based, false religion that leads to sheol.

[Yohan]

I am an atheist, I don't care about religion, but this does not mean that I am in any way supportive to any religion which tries to erase any other religion with restrictions and using threats.

If you are a Muslim, I am OK with that, but why do you want me also to be a Muslim and calling me an infidel?

Blasphemy laws, which are threatening any person of other faith who is critical about Islam, are totally unacceptable in any advanced society.

Apostasy laws - to threaten anybody who left the Islamic faith for another religion or atheism - are totally unacceptable too.

Firstly, you're using the term 'infidel' inaccurately. The Koran defines Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book', and says that their places of worship are to be protected.

As Adama correctly said, 'All you have to do is look at what they do' -

Muslims refer to Christians and Jews as 'infidels' (KAFIR in Arabic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

KAFIR - It is used as a derogatory term

Kafir, and its plural kafirun, is used directly 134 times in Quran, its verbal noun "kufr" is used 37 times, and the verbal cognates of kafir are used about 250 times
.....
Another group that was "distinguished from the mass of kafirun" were the murtad, or apostate ex-Muslims, which were considered renegades and traitors, the concept of freedom of religion not being accepted. Their traditional punishment was death, even, according to some scholars, if they recanted their abandonment of Islam.

Pagans are treated even worse - Hindus, Buddhists... called Mushrik

https://www.politicalislam.com/kafir/

Normative Islam is based on the juridical decisions of Shari’a law which contains two separate laws: one for the Moslem and one for the Kafir. We would say that Islam has a double ethical standard. “Do as we say, not as we do.”

There is a further dualism, that of types of kafirs, broadly divided into People of the Book and the various “polytheists” such as Hindus, who have in inferior status.

For instance, in Saudi Arabia, the “blood money” paid for the unintentional death of Moslem man is 100,000 riyals, 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman, 50,000 riyals if a Christian man, 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman, 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man, 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

A Moslem man is worth 33 times more than a Hindu woman.

Anyway, whatever, any religion which is supportive to apostasy and blasphemy laws is for me outdated, a part of the past.

I noticed you avoid to talk about apostasy and blasphemy laws, you cannot deny that they exist.

[Yohan]

And if Islam puts the Bible in doubt, then Islam must therefore go out with it. Because Islam borrows from Christianity for credibility, using the names of Moses, Christ and Mary to help establish itself as a religion.

This is a very good argument, the Quran contains a lot which could be considered as nothing but a copy/paste from the Thora and Bible.

However Muslims are quarrelling among themselves, too. They are divided in various groups, often against each other more hateful than against the infidels and pagans.

Misko_Varesanovic
it is definitely not the case that other religions always face restrictions of the kind that you might imagine. For example, in Iran, religious minorities are guaranteed seats in parliament...

This is really an interesting comment -

IRAN = SHIA - this is a fairly large group of Islam, rejected by the huge majority of other followers of Islam (Sunni, Wahabi etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Rejected are also the followers of Ahmadiyya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

....and always when Misko_Varesanovic is running out of arguments, he brings up these two 'model' groups - away from the huge majority of Islam followers - to show how open-minded Islam is towards other religions.

For example
as a political system in an Islamic Republic:

Ahmadiyya in Pakistan is not recognized as 'Islam'.
Shia in Iran is not supportive to the Afghanistan Taliban and not a best-friend of the Saudis.

purely out of religious reason:
A Sunni Muslim man can marry a Jewish woman, and she needs not to convert.
A Sunni Muslim man can marry a Hindu woman, and she MUST convert. (Why she and not he?)
A Hindu man can marry a Wahabi Muslim woman, but he MUST convert. (Why he and not she? Women have no soul in Islam)
but
A Sunni Muslim man or woman CANNOT marry any Shia MUSLIM man or woman, as 'irreconcilable difference'

All these teachings are based on strange double standards, one Muslim group is of less value than the other, one non-Muslim religion is of less value than the other, one gender is of less value than the other, and often in Islam poor is by far of less value than rich. - Rich people pay a small fine, while poor people facing the sharia will be beaten and even killed.

Sorry, but this does not make any sense to me...