FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why to blame Islam if some bad ones do things in the name of Islam,
don't you see that Muslims are fighting them as well?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is wrong with Islam?
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
Why to blame Islam if some bad ones do things in the name of Islam,
don't you see that Muslims are fighting them as well?
Because a few people doing bad things in the name of a religion is one thing; thousands of people doing bad things, consistently, in the name of a religion makes the religion look suspicious. Judaism doesn't produce these kinds of terror groups, neither Christianity or Buddhism or Vaisnaivsm...Islam consistently produces intolerant, backwards societies and fundamentalist lunatics. So it probably has something to do with Islam.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Only Muslims terrify apostates with threats of death. Only Muslims teach that men can beat their wives. Only Muslims follow a prophet who raped a 9 year old. Only Muslims want to die in jihad because it's the only surefire way to know they are going straight to Jannah. The list goes on, man.Only Muslims kill and make wars.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Not true, you're fooled by the media.
No, I'm fooled by the Qur'an and Muhammad.
Where does this 'fooled by media' argument come from anyway? Western media grovels at Islam's feet. They haven't a bad word to say about Muslims. They like to tell us all about the joys of multiculturalism and interfaith co-operation and how 'Islam means peace' and how those gun-toting maniacs had 'nothing to do with Islam'.
Actually the Quran is tame toward women compared to the Bible. Quran doesnt really blame Eve for the original sin which I think makes a big difference. They aren't defaulted evil serpents like the Bible alludes to.
I'm not really sure either says anything about beating women but I may have missed it.
Where is the OT worse on women? The NT is very good towards them and asks husbands to treat wives as themselves.
4:34 seems to be the clearest place where the quran instructs husbands to hit their disobedient wives.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
According to some interpretation which is utterly wrong, the prophet last words before death was
be kind to your women and treat them well.
How that means beating them?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yes. I do. The problem is is that neither side can claim to be more right than the other. They're both drawing from the same books, and no two other religions books, both dedicated to the same gods and prophets, have caused such a wake of misery and torment in their existence. They contain many science and mathematical errors, they are not good moral guides as they do permit slavery, genocide, and terrible violence, and they come from cultures that long died out for a reason. You let either one run the show, and heads will literally roll, often for he most trivial and horrible of reasons. Nothing else has ever inspired such widespread hatred and violence, and both the Quran and Bible indeed have verses either side can turn quote to support their claims. But there is no way of saying which side is right, especially when it can be understood that yes, some probably do see a legitimate war against Islam. They are willing to kill and be killed over it. And the overwhelming majority of them are coming from the same exact places, centering around the Middle East, Northern Africa, and South/East Asia, where we find Muslims killing Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and also Christians killing Muslims and Jews, and the Jews often get condemned for retaliating. These are pretty much the only places still letting religion totally run the show, and though there are a number of reasons for such violence, Islam is the only one that says to fight until the entire world is Muslim. Muslims are the global threat, not Christians or Jews. The other two pretty much stay put and kill off each other, and Muslims, over their centuries-old tribal warfares that are massively fueled by foreign intervention.
A "lite" version of this we see in America, we it is often argued religion is a good enough reason to allow bullying and discrimination, define science, teach total lies about sex, and learn how to say "it's just a theory" instead saying "this is why it's a theory..." We don't have state-sanctioned executions of homosexuals, but sodomy was illegal in many until not really that long ago. Many are alive still who were around when being openly homosexual or transgender was illegal.
All of these problems, and many woes that practically define all but Europe's very most recent history, come from the same general sources. History pretty much proves that rights are eroded and people wrongly killed when religion is allowed to run the show. Much like racism or illiteracy, it's a public policy that should not be pursued.
Yikes that one doesn't sound great.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Not true; I'm pretty sure there are Christians out there who say it's okay for men to beat & otherwise control their wives through coercion.
I think there are Christians out there who'd be willing martyrs to get to Heaven. Remember, both Catholic & Orthodox Churches venerate sainted martyrs.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
1. No, not that I know of. Violence is severely looked down upon. Wives are told to be submissive, but husbands are not allowed to beat them. I think of 1 Peter 3:7
3. In Islam the only way to know you are going to heaven is by dying in battle. Christians know they will go to heaven, so they do not actively seek to die in battle. Big difference.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
If you are aggressive because of the heat, then buy an air conditioner.
Last edited:
interminable
منتظر
As I promised
Existence which it is assumed intellectually can be either necessary or possible. intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent can't be assumed to be a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause. If all causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being. In other words an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore an infinite series of causes must be compelled to terminate in an existent that isn't an effect of any other existent for example necessary existent.
More explanation
Possibility and necessity
All propositions whether simple or complex have two fundamental concepts (subject and predicate) for example in the following axiom ""the sun shines"" which establishes shining for the sun the sun is the subject and shining is the predicate. The establishment of a predicate for a subject has no more than three states: it could be impossible such as the number three is greater than the number four or it could be necessary such as the number two is half of the number four or it could be neither impossible nor necessary for instance the sun is above our heads.
In the terminology of logic the first proposition has the state of impossibility , the second proposition is given the attribute of necessity and the third state is considered as possible.
However in philosophy only existence is discussed and those things that are incapable of being ,of occurring and are impossible will never exist in the external world. For this reason philosophy regards existence from an intellectual respective as being either necessary or possible existence.
Necessary existence is known as an existence which exists in itself and doesn't depend upon another existent. Naturally such an existent will have no beginning and no end, because the non existence of something in a particular time is an indication that its existence isn't from itself. In order for it to come into existence it would need another existent which would be the cause or the condition for its realization. The absence of this condition or cause would be the reason for its annihilation.
Possible existence is known as an existent which doesn't exist in itself and depend on another existent in order for it to be realized.
These divisions which have been made through intellectual perception essentially disregard impossible existence , but they don't indicate whether a particular existent is a possible or necessary existent.
In other words the principles of this point of view can be conceptualized in three essential forms:
1 every existent is a necessary existent
2 every existent is a possible existent
3 some are necessary and some are possible existents.
On the basis of the first and third assumptions , the existence of a necessary existent is established
therefore the assumption that should be reviewed would be whether or not all existents are possible existents.
However by disproving this assumption (that all existents are possible existents) the existence of the necessary existent would be definitely and conclusively proven. The establishment of unity and other attributes must be proven with other arguments.
Therefore in order to disprove the second assumption we can say that
Every possible existent needs a cause and it's impossible to have an endless chain of causes. Thus the endless chain of causes is compelled to terminate at an existent that isn't in need of a cause for example the necessary existent.
This argument introduces other philosophical concepts which need a brief description.
Cause and effect
If an existent requires another existent and depends upon that other existent for its existence, then in philosophical terminology the caused existent is known as the effect and the other causative existent is known as cause. However it's possible that a cause can also be an effect and be a dependent existent that isn't absolutely free from need. If a cause is absolutely free from need and doesn't depend upon any other existent then it will be the absolute cause.
Possible existent doesn't exist in itself and has no alternative other than to depend upon another existent. Thus every predicate recognized for the subject is either established by itself or by means of other than itself. For example everything either shines in and of itself or requires something else for its illumination or everybody is oily in itself or needs oil for becoming oily. It's impossible for something in itself to not be illuminating or oily and not receive light or oil from something else while at the same time being oily and illuminating!
Hence the establishment of existence for a subject is either through its essence or by means other than itself and when it's not through its essence then it has to be by means of other than itself. Therefore every possible existent that is not realized through its essence is bound to be realized by means of other than itself which implies that it is an effect. This provides us with the fundamental intellectual principle that every possible existent needs a cause.
Very important point
Some imagine that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is the existent in the possible sense and its effect Not in the existent in the absolute sense. Not all existents need a cause , only those which are dependable and are in need.
Proving that the first cause is unlimited and immaterial needs other arguments
For more information about infinit regress see
http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa4182
Last edited: