#exmuslimbecause
Share your story at:
y @CEMO_ forkert f
Mush Be
going {me on 10. 12. 2015
t) Council OF Ex; -Muslims Britain
y @CEMO_ forkert f
Mush Be
going {me on 10. 12. 2015
t) Council OF Ex; -Muslims Britain
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
179 comments displayed.
#2
-
praemium (11/21/2015) [+] (6 replies)
stickied by crixuz
Cannot wait for SJWs and regressive-Leftists dismissing these people as Uncle Toms, Porch monkeys and self-loathing wannabe whites...
Keep going Maryam, you are a real Westerner ...
Keep going Maryam, you are a real Westerner ...
#18
-
xsap (11/21/2015) [+] (43 replies)
I still can't comprehend European logic.
They claim they want to "progress" by importing the most backwards and barbaric people who are the complete opposite of progress.
people who lynch gays, actually oppress woman by taking away all their rights and keeping them on lock like a prisoner and wish death on anyone who isn't them...
and these progressive SJW feminists support these people.
they they call white man, the man who gave them freedom "oppressive misogynist rapists" and call Muslim man "innocent people of color"
same goes by importing Somalians who literally have no laws.
Europe, if you want "cultural enrichment" and "progress" at least encourage immigration from civilized country's with more advanced cultures like Japan, South Korea or Hong Kong... but than again when a white person tried to be "culturally enriched" the people that claim they want "cultural enrichment" all that person a "racist" and "cultural appropriation"
there is no wining with retards
stickied by crixuz
They claim they want to "progress" by importing the most backwards and barbaric people who are the complete opposite of progress.
people who lynch gays, actually oppress woman by taking away all their rights and keeping them on lock like a prisoner and wish death on anyone who isn't them...
and these progressive SJW feminists support these people.
they they call white man, the man who gave them freedom "oppressive misogynist rapists" and call Muslim man "innocent people of color"
same goes by importing Somalians who literally have no laws.
Europe, if you want "cultural enrichment" and "progress" at least encourage immigration from civilized country's with more advanced cultures like Japan, South Korea or Hong Kong... but than again when a white person tried to be "culturally enriched" the people that claim they want "cultural enrichment" all that person a "racist" and "cultural appropriation"
there is no wining with retards
#356 to #4
-
enlightednatzie (11/22/2015) [-] 
Huh, so that is why permavirgins convert to islam. Here's a 14 year old boy converting to islam so he can shag sexy somali girls like pic related all day long.
Huh, so that is why permavirgins convert to islam. Here's a 14 year old boy converting to islam so he can shag sexy somali girls like pic related all day long.
#61 to #60
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] no. because they red the whole thing and found something different than what you found. nothing to do with ignorance. different people different interpretations and different understandings. surely not every Muslims red the quran thought is was peaceful and not every Muslims red the quran found it barbaric either. "shamed/murdered." not in all countries. there are Muslims who are peaceful who red the whole thing and live in the US. they have No reason to still believe. no family, no connections , yet they are still Muslims. because they understood the quran differently.
#65 to #61
-
KBD (11/22/2015) [-] When you're taught from a certain age that this certain book was the top **** and that anything against it would alienate you from everyone and everything you loved, even to the point where you would get murdered or raped or sometimes even both for anything against what you're taught, you adopt a willing ignorance to the fallacies of that book and the controversies it holds in order for your own self preservation.
Pretty sure it's rather clear how the book wants it to be interpreted when it outright calls to stone gays to death, smack your bitch when you suspect infidelity, and so on so forth. Peaceful they may be, but they're still ignorant.
Pretty sure it's rather clear how the book wants it to be interpreted when it outright calls to stone gays to death, smack your bitch when you suspect infidelity, and so on so forth. Peaceful they may be, but they're still ignorant.
#68 to #65
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] and than there are the people than never heard islam even existed and than joined when they are over their 30s.
i guess thous have down syndrom?
you can claim that Muslims never red their book. but once a man reads it, than you cant claim that hes not understanding it correctly because you didnt understand it the way you want him to.
i guess thous have down syndrom?
you can claim that Muslims never red their book. but once a man reads it, than you cant claim that hes not understanding it correctly because you didnt understand it the way you want him to.
#279 to #68
-
haroldsaxon ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Every single case of people joining Islam that I'm aware off is by people with some sort of issue.
For instance: There's a guy that has tried to get a driver license for several vehicles many times, and failed each one. Not the brightest guy and too proud to admit he can't do something. He traveled down and converted to Islam, and there he got to drive big trucks as much as he wanted. He died a few months after, don't remember how.
There are a lot of peaceful Muslims, and there might be some wisdom in their teachings. This does not change the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE that converts over the age of 30 is someone who is dumb and think they aren't.
One of the best things that happened to Christianity was all the criticism and ridiculing that happened some decades ago. It made them more humble, and stopped a lot of persecution. When a church preached immoral things, society wouldn't accept that. This should happen to Islam as well. But god forbid we criticize them at all.
For instance: There's a guy that has tried to get a driver license for several vehicles many times, and failed each one. Not the brightest guy and too proud to admit he can't do something. He traveled down and converted to Islam, and there he got to drive big trucks as much as he wanted. He died a few months after, don't remember how.
There are a lot of peaceful Muslims, and there might be some wisdom in their teachings. This does not change the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE that converts over the age of 30 is someone who is dumb and think they aren't.
One of the best things that happened to Christianity was all the criticism and ridiculing that happened some decades ago. It made them more humble, and stopped a lot of persecution. When a church preached immoral things, society wouldn't accept that. This should happen to Islam as well. But god forbid we criticize them at all.
#126 to #68
-
theblackhorntail ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] And what do you say about all those celebrities who joined Scientology? And those white kids I heard about who joined ISIS? Stupid people exist. Welcome to the real world.
#123 to #68
-
KBD (11/22/2015) [-] They probably do, but there's no argument to be made towards 'how they understand it' because it just goes into the fact that they're taught to be ignorant to those fallacies. I'm not specifying a specific religion either, I'm stating for the vast majority of those that exist. Once you 'accept' and join the religion, or even if you're out of it, any time you bring up one of the fallacies they're lightning quick to say "Oh that's not what that means you don't understand!" and that's what I mean by taught ignorance.
Kill 'x' means Kill 'x'. Rape 'x' means Rape 'x'. There's no in-between or context, there's no 'deeper' understanding for declaring acts of violence and intolerance. The books are archaic means of ruling a population, and they bank on the fear of a greater being inflicting punishment or giving rights to others of the same religion to inflict punishment against them, some more 'just' than others, but many simply being the ramblings of an intolerant old fool writing for his current age and the idiots of -our- current age are taking them for literal meaning today.
Read: Stoning gays
Read: Group-rape ordered by elders to punish
Kill 'x' means Kill 'x'. Rape 'x' means Rape 'x'. There's no in-between or context, there's no 'deeper' understanding for declaring acts of violence and intolerance. The books are archaic means of ruling a population, and they bank on the fear of a greater being inflicting punishment or giving rights to others of the same religion to inflict punishment against them, some more 'just' than others, but many simply being the ramblings of an intolerant old fool writing for his current age and the idiots of -our- current age are taking them for literal meaning today.
Read: Stoning gays
Read: Group-rape ordered by elders to punish
#210 to #55
-
schnizel ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Islam never had a Martin Luther to reform it, there are "moderate" muslims out there, but those muslims are nothing but regular citizenry or plebs that will serve the "radical muslims". It's not a matter of interpretation, the Quran holds commandments on what muslims should do and if they refuse to do it they are to be punished for their lack of will. The religion was started as a raiders cult by an arabic warlord while christianity was started by a jew who got nailed on a stick.
#357 to #55
-
enlightednatzie (11/22/2015) [-] Nah, the real reason is because they cant read and convert so they wont get beheaded.
#223 to #55
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] There are apparently a lot of people who are ok with it, which says a lot about humanity.
#154 to #1
-
sandmantaxman (11/22/2015) [-] Aren't you that ultra-progressive who bitches people out for being intolerant to Muslim views?
You really will do anything for thumbs, huh?
You really will do anything for thumbs, huh?
#41
-
shadowkingdr (11/21/2015) [-] equality, science and galactic conquest is the way to go and religion should be thrown out a window
#155 to #41
-
itskennyandjosh ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Exactly what i'm saying, if we banned religion then we'd live a way better life, less ******* crazy religions and more people actually being logical
#224 to #41
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Religion should be kept in a glass case so we can show schoolchildren the horrors of the ancient world.
#49
-
kombee (11/22/2015) [-] I'm not one to tell you what to do in your life nor will I try to force anyone into staying a muslim ort anything really. Killing someone because of that is out of the question as far as the Quran is concerned. The particular text mentioned above about Muhammed SAW allegedly saying apostasy was punishable by death, stems from a hadith with a very poor source background, meaning that the hadith is likely at best someones else's thoughts on the matter written in as if it was the prophet saw whom has said it. Extremists and the like though, have sadly adopted that thought still instead of actually reading the Quran and going from that, which is why you find this kind of thought-process residing with muslims whoms' knowledge of Islam really only stem from more unfortunate places. Here's more on the subject if people anyone's interested: www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php/al-islam/understaningalislam/61-death-for-apostasy-is-un-islamic-and-not-in-the-quran
More importantly, the Quran quote above (4:34) is grossly mistranslated.
Here's a more thourough and translation:
From Chapter 4, Women
Verse 34: "Husbands should take good care of their wives, with (the bounties) God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in their husbands' absence. If you fear high-handedness[1] from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then percuss them (i.e. tap them lightly, a hit that doesn't hurt, meant to communicate urgency/frustration) If they adhere to/understand you, you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great."
[1] Note: The verb nashaza (high handedness) from which nushuz is derived means 'to become high', 'to rise'. See also verse 128, where the same word is applied to husbands. It applies to a situation where one partner assumes superiority to the other and behaves accordingly. This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship, and that as far the Quran is concerned
Verse 128:" If a wife fears high-handedness or alienation from her husband,
neither of them will be blamed if they come to a peaceful settlement,
for peace is best. Although human souls are prone to selfishness, if
you do good and are mindful of God, He is well aware of all that you do."
This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship i.e. that both sexes can act as if they were the superior in the relationship. As far as the Quran is concerned neither of them should. Rather the Quran urges both to act as equals but with different roles, painting men as being the facilitators/leaders/outer shell in a familiy and women as being the caretakers/bearers/inner core of the familiy.
![I'm not one to tell you what to do in your life nor will I try to force anyone into staying a muslim ort anything really. Killing someone because of that is out of the question as far as the Quran is concerned. The particular text mentioned above about Muhammed SAW allegedly saying apostasy was punishable by death, stems from a hadith with a very poor source background, meaning that the hadith is likely at best someones else's thoughts on the matter written in as if it was the prophet saw whom has said it. Extremists and the like though, have sadly adopted that thought still instead of actually reading the Quran and going from that, which is why you find this kind of thought-process residing with muslims whoms' knowledge of Islam really only stem from more unfortunate places. Here's more on the subject if people anyone's interested: www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php/al-islam/understaningalislam/61-death-for-apostasy-is-un-islamic-and-not-in-the-quran
More importantly, the Quran quote above (4:34) is grossly mistranslated.
Here's a more thourough and translation:
From Chapter 4, Women
Verse 34: "Husbands should take good care of their wives, with (the bounties) God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in their husbands' absence. If you fear high-handedness[1] from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then percuss them (i.e. tap them lightly, a hit that doesn't hurt, meant to communicate urgency/frustration) If they adhere to/understand you, you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great."
[1] Note: The verb nashaza (high handedness) from which nushuz is derived means 'to become high', 'to rise'. See also verse 128, where the same word is applied to husbands. It applies to a situation where one partner assumes superiority to the other and behaves accordingly. This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship, and that as far the Quran is concerned
Verse 128:" If a wife fears high-handedness or alienation from her husband,
neither of them will be blamed if they come to a peaceful settlement,
for peace is best. Although human souls are prone to selfishness, if
you do good and are mindful of God, He is well aware of all that you do."
This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship i.e. that both sexes can act as if they were the superior in the relationship. As far as the Quran is concerned neither of them should. Rather the Quran urges both to act as equals but with different roles, painting men as being the facilitators/leaders/outer shell in a familiy and women as being the caretakers/bearers/inner core of the familiy.](http://2static2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+m+not+one+to+tell+you+what+to+do+in+_29fcd295835412bb57f97562d1a5fc49.png)
More importantly, the Quran quote above (4:34) is grossly mistranslated.
Here's a more thourough and translation:
From Chapter 4, Women
Verse 34: "Husbands should take good care of their wives, with (the bounties) God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in their husbands' absence. If you fear high-handedness[1] from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then percuss them (i.e. tap them lightly, a hit that doesn't hurt, meant to communicate urgency/frustration) If they adhere to/understand you, you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great."
[1] Note: The verb nashaza (high handedness) from which nushuz is derived means 'to become high', 'to rise'. See also verse 128, where the same word is applied to husbands. It applies to a situation where one partner assumes superiority to the other and behaves accordingly. This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship, and that as far the Quran is concerned
Verse 128:" If a wife fears high-handedness or alienation from her husband,
neither of them will be blamed if they come to a peaceful settlement,
for peace is best. Although human souls are prone to selfishness, if
you do good and are mindful of God, He is well aware of all that you do."
This implies that both men and women can act highhanded in a relationship i.e. that both sexes can act as if they were the superior in the relationship. As far as the Quran is concerned neither of them should. Rather the Quran urges both to act as equals but with different roles, painting men as being the facilitators/leaders/outer shell in a familiy and women as being the caretakers/bearers/inner core of the familiy.
#367 to #49
-
ciacheczko (11/22/2015) [-] I don't get it though.
One quote says that if man doesn't like what his woman is doing, he should do a step-by-step guide on how to coerce her, starting from psychological passively aggressive behaviour to physical action. I don't know about you, but these are the opposites of solutions to marital problems.
Another quote explains what women should do if they fear being mistreated. And the only solution is "peaceful settlement" meaning that basically she can be mistreated for as long as it takes for her to obey, and after she does, it's suddenly water under the bridge and "neither will be blamed". My my, how convenient.
And then you give quote where word high-handed is specifically applied to husbands, and say it implies it can also be applied to wives. But I don't see any proof of that. There's "husbands" and there's neutral "one partner" but nothing says that a woman could possibly be the dominant one.
So yeah. Sorry if I sound mean or something, but all this sounds to me like the exact same ******** , just put into nicer words to fool people stupid enough to fall for that.
It reminds me of that house violence hotline, where there were two separate lines. One for women who were afraid of abuse and allowed them to report their husbads, and then there was another one for men, that was basically "call us if you fear you will be abusive". See the connection? It's the same thing, but reversed - putting one side of marriage at the side if initial blame basing on their gender. This doesn't sound okay either way.
One quote says that if man doesn't like what his woman is doing, he should do a step-by-step guide on how to coerce her, starting from psychological passively aggressive behaviour to physical action. I don't know about you, but these are the opposites of solutions to marital problems.
Another quote explains what women should do if they fear being mistreated. And the only solution is "peaceful settlement" meaning that basically she can be mistreated for as long as it takes for her to obey, and after she does, it's suddenly water under the bridge and "neither will be blamed". My my, how convenient.
And then you give quote where word high-handed is specifically applied to husbands, and say it implies it can also be applied to wives. But I don't see any proof of that. There's "husbands" and there's neutral "one partner" but nothing says that a woman could possibly be the dominant one.
So yeah. Sorry if I sound mean or something, but all this sounds to me like the exact same ******** , just put into nicer words to fool people stupid enough to fall for that.
It reminds me of that house violence hotline, where there were two separate lines. One for women who were afraid of abuse and allowed them to report their husbads, and then there was another one for men, that was basically "call us if you fear you will be abusive". See the connection? It's the same thing, but reversed - putting one side of marriage at the side if initial blame basing on their gender. This doesn't sound okay either way.
#438 to #367
-
kombee (11/22/2015) [-] I understand how you feel, and I appreciate your honesty so I ask of you to have patience with me trying to explain. It's not about putting it in nice words, it's about showing the true nature of the Quran. There's a big difference between a husband being able to control a wife, without any say from her, and the husband merely having to actively act as a manager while a wife acts as a co-manager.
From the way it's written though, coercion and psychological passive aggresive behaviour is definitely not implied. Furthermore, these actions shouldn't be taken if the wife does something a husband "doesn't like", rather it's when the wife actively does anything that's increasingly bad. Examples of this could be verbal and physical abuse aginst the husband or other people (which never should be reciprocated), cheating, lying or anything ill-bearing to an extended extend. The actions a husband should take in these situations, according to the Quran, is to
1. Remind them [of the teachings of God, in life and from the Quran] "...hey listen, I know you've been stressed out lately, but you need to calm down and relax instead of letting your anger go out on me. You know" as an example,
2. Retreat from them in bed. This is pretty self-explanatory. Having an extremely loving, passionate and close moment while your wife is being abusive or negligent and prideful in atleast assuming guilt and asking for forgiveness (to the one who requires it, assuming she has done something extremely bad) sends mixed signals and tends to complicate things more often than not. This is not to say you can't comfort your wife, and an understandijg posture as well as a calm and positive demeanor towards wnyone is not only encouraged in the Quran, it's required to the extend that the husband (or anyone really) is able to do so. Sex is not a weapon to be used, but rather the "ignoring in bed" is meant so as for the mixed signals and lack of consequence not to complicate things.
3. Percusing lightly, i.e. a tap that doesn't hurt. This is meant for the husband to show his frustration, which is why it's written as the last step of the three. As I said, it's a means of communication that shows the urgency of the situation.
Does that mean only husbands have to follow this guideline? No, however this is specifically communicated to the men of the relationship becaus ethey need to where the limit is. Women already do these steps in general (if theyre able to), men given free toils though tend to go overboard and want to control any means possible psychologfical or otherwise (evidenced by how 3rd world women are treated). It's also a limit.
You also need to understand that the Quran is for the whole world. It's also to make men understand (in 1st and 3rd world countries) that they can't simply beat a wife to death if she's done something exceedingly bad, or humiliate her, reciprocate with the same ill-bearing actions or anything of the sort (as some muslims and humans sadly still do). It's to limit and guide a managers role in the family between the two top parties, husband and wife.
Furthermore, and most importantly, it's not like wives can't also do the same as the husband is adviced to, if the wife is in such a situation. You need to understand that these rules are generally speaking, and exceptions do apply if they make sense (the Quran advicates using your moral compass as God describes aevery person to be born with). If you read carefully, the Quran never says that wives can't act as managers in relationship if the situation pertains for that to happen, the Quran just assumes men as managers because as a general rule they are for most parts of the world, especially so because they're born to be that way from a biological standpoint. That's also why "a peaceful settlement" is fine as a response for most wives (although it's meant for the husbands as well), as most (naturally) just need an ability to be able to advice, ot to divorce a husband in the extreme.
![I understand how you feel, and I appreciate your honesty so I ask of you to have patience with me trying to explain. It's not about putting it in nice words, it's about showing the true nature of the Quran. There's a big difference between a husband being able to control a wife, without any say from her, and the husband merely having to actively act as a manager while a wife acts as a co-manager.
From the way it's written though, coercion and psychological passive aggresive behaviour is definitely not implied. Furthermore, these actions shouldn't be taken if the wife does something a husband "doesn't like", rather it's when the wife actively does anything that's increasingly bad. Examples of this could be verbal and physical abuse aginst the husband or other people (which never should be reciprocated), cheating, lying or anything ill-bearing to an extended extend. The actions a husband should take in these situations, according to the Quran, is to
1. Remind them [of the teachings of God, in life and from the Quran] "...hey listen, I know you've been stressed out lately, but you need to calm down and relax instead of letting your anger go out on me. You know" as an example,
2. Retreat from them in bed. This is pretty self-explanatory. Having an extremely loving, passionate and close moment while your wife is being abusive or negligent and prideful in atleast assuming guilt and asking for forgiveness (to the one who requires it, assuming she has done something extremely bad) sends mixed signals and tends to complicate things more often than not. This is not to say you can't comfort your wife, and an understandijg posture as well as a calm and positive demeanor towards wnyone is not only encouraged in the Quran, it's required to the extend that the husband (or anyone really) is able to do so. Sex is not a weapon to be used, but rather the "ignoring in bed" is meant so as for the mixed signals and lack of consequence not to complicate things.
3. Percusing lightly, i.e. a tap that doesn't hurt. This is meant for the husband to show his frustration, which is why it's written as the last step of the three. As I said, it's a means of communication that shows the urgency of the situation.
Does that mean only husbands have to follow this guideline? No, however this is specifically communicated to the men of the relationship becaus ethey need to where the limit is. Women already do these steps in general (if theyre able to), men given free toils though tend to go overboard and want to control any means possible psychologfical or otherwise (evidenced by how 3rd world women are treated). It's also a limit.
You also need to understand that the Quran is for the whole world. It's also to make men understand (in 1st and 3rd world countries) that they can't simply beat a wife to death if she's done something exceedingly bad, or humiliate her, reciprocate with the same ill-bearing actions or anything of the sort (as some muslims and humans sadly still do). It's to limit and guide a managers role in the family between the two top parties, husband and wife.
Furthermore, and most importantly, it's not like wives can't also do the same as the husband is adviced to, if the wife is in such a situation. You need to understand that these rules are generally speaking, and exceptions do apply if they make sense (the Quran advicates using your moral compass as God describes aevery person to be born with). If you read carefully, the Quran never says that wives can't act as managers in relationship if the situation pertains for that to happen, the Quran just assumes men as managers because as a general rule they are for most parts of the world, especially so because they're born to be that way from a biological standpoint. That's also why "a peaceful settlement" is fine as a response for most wives (although it's meant for the husbands as well), as most (naturally) just need an ability to be able to advice, ot to divorce a husband in the extreme.](http://2static2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+understand+how+you+feel+and+i+appreciate+your+honesty+_ed9e5468a1b270346c767c3ac73e8c30.jpg)
From the way it's written though, coercion and psychological passive aggresive behaviour is definitely not implied. Furthermore, these actions shouldn't be taken if the wife does something a husband "doesn't like", rather it's when the wife actively does anything that's increasingly bad. Examples of this could be verbal and physical abuse aginst the husband or other people (which never should be reciprocated), cheating, lying or anything ill-bearing to an extended extend. The actions a husband should take in these situations, according to the Quran, is to
1. Remind them [of the teachings of God, in life and from the Quran] "...hey listen, I know you've been stressed out lately, but you need to calm down and relax instead of letting your anger go out on me. You know" as an example,
2. Retreat from them in bed. This is pretty self-explanatory. Having an extremely loving, passionate and close moment while your wife is being abusive or negligent and prideful in atleast assuming guilt and asking for forgiveness (to the one who requires it, assuming she has done something extremely bad) sends mixed signals and tends to complicate things more often than not. This is not to say you can't comfort your wife, and an understandijg posture as well as a calm and positive demeanor towards wnyone is not only encouraged in the Quran, it's required to the extend that the husband (or anyone really) is able to do so. Sex is not a weapon to be used, but rather the "ignoring in bed" is meant so as for the mixed signals and lack of consequence not to complicate things.
3. Percusing lightly, i.e. a tap that doesn't hurt. This is meant for the husband to show his frustration, which is why it's written as the last step of the three. As I said, it's a means of communication that shows the urgency of the situation.
Does that mean only husbands have to follow this guideline? No, however this is specifically communicated to the men of the relationship becaus ethey need to where the limit is. Women already do these steps in general (if theyre able to), men given free toils though tend to go overboard and want to control any means possible psychologfical or otherwise (evidenced by how 3rd world women are treated). It's also a limit.
You also need to understand that the Quran is for the whole world. It's also to make men understand (in 1st and 3rd world countries) that they can't simply beat a wife to death if she's done something exceedingly bad, or humiliate her, reciprocate with the same ill-bearing actions or anything of the sort (as some muslims and humans sadly still do). It's to limit and guide a managers role in the family between the two top parties, husband and wife.
Furthermore, and most importantly, it's not like wives can't also do the same as the husband is adviced to, if the wife is in such a situation. You need to understand that these rules are generally speaking, and exceptions do apply if they make sense (the Quran advicates using your moral compass as God describes aevery person to be born with). If you read carefully, the Quran never says that wives can't act as managers in relationship if the situation pertains for that to happen, the Quran just assumes men as managers because as a general rule they are for most parts of the world, especially so because they're born to be that way from a biological standpoint. That's also why "a peaceful settlement" is fine as a response for most wives (although it's meant for the husbands as well), as most (naturally) just need an ability to be able to advice, ot to divorce a husband in the extreme.
#74 to #49
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] Considering that there is no evidence for Muhammad actually talking to an angel, why would you believe that story?
#287 to #200
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] I do indeed "get it". What I'm saying is that regardless of how one translates or interprets these passages from the Koran, or any other holy book for that matter, there is still no evidence to support them as being true. That said, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to accept the book as being divine at all.
#293 to #291
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] The harm comes from people that believe in irrational things going on to make irrational decisions. People that support things like Sharia are staunchly against Western values and work against the life that I and many others cherish.
It harms us when people make political decisions based upon mythology and untruths. If you think that people should die for insulting your prophet then can't you see how many Westerners are going to have a problem with that?
It is harmful when people think that free speech is something that can be silenced just because someone holds a religious belief that says that they cannot be questioned.
We know as a fact that the Koran is not the word of any god and it should have no place in rational discussion in the 21st century.
It harms us when people make political decisions based upon mythology and untruths. If you think that people should die for insulting your prophet then can't you see how many Westerners are going to have a problem with that?
It is harmful when people think that free speech is something that can be silenced just because someone holds a religious belief that says that they cannot be questioned.
We know as a fact that the Koran is not the word of any god and it should have no place in rational discussion in the 21st century.
#251
-
theoldfritz (11/22/2015) [-] What if i tell you that you can be a muslim and not be a dick about it
#277 to #251
-
improbable (11/22/2015) [-] im assuming you mean identifying as part of a religion and ignore the scripture which would mean they arent really part of that religion but rather just using it to gain popularity among certain members of that religion which isnt uncommon
#278 to #277
-
theoldfritz (11/22/2015) [-] i mean going the ataturk way
"i wont/will do that, not becouse god says so but becouse i have morals myself"
ataturk did nothing wrong, you dont need to be 100% orthodox for being part of a religion. somtimes its even better to question the morals of a certain religion, just look at my homeboy luther
Click to show spoiler
"i wont/will do that, not becouse god says so but becouse i have morals myself"
ataturk did nothing wrong, you dont need to be 100% orthodox for being part of a religion. somtimes its even better to question the morals of a certain religion, just look at my homeboy luther
#284 to #278
-
improbable (11/22/2015) [-] he exposes the catholic church for practicing idolatry and a bunch of unbiblical things. i think thats different.
#288 to #284
-
theoldfritz (11/22/2015) [-] yea, but what about the removing of the confession and alowing the common people to read the bible on their own way
i know that a lot of **** came through that, from wars, goddamn evangelist and all the mikro religions in the US, but the idea is kinda neat and only lacks organisation
i know that a lot of **** came through that, from wars, goddamn evangelist and all the mikro religions in the US, but the idea is kinda neat and only lacks organisation
#171
-
totallytito (11/22/2015) [-] This makes me wonder a new thought:
What if ISIS is the true muslims, while our peaceful 'muslims' follow their religion so leniently that it's hardly following the code anymore? So maybe Islam is a religion of war and terror after all, and the lenient friendly 'muslims' that we have here are just sane people partially following a belief?
I mean think about it, Christianity required people to wear only one piece of clothing, stoning people, and supported incest, yet few to no christians follow these oldschool rules anymore. Can these people still be called christians then?
Maybe I'm confusing myself unnecessarily, but I'm starting to wonder if the answer is simply the other way around. Maybe religion as a whole is pretty much fading into obscurity since more and more people of various religions are becoming less and less loyal to their religion's outdated morals and ideals.
Instead, more and more religious groups seem to be following more modern ideals that are not dictated by the book. I've met a surprising amount of "christians" who simply use the bible as a guide, but remain agnostic when acknowledging who their 'god' is, and cherry-pick which rules to follow as they fit with their lifestyles.
So maybe the widespread moderation of religion is creating peaceful people from every religion, while people who are using thousand-year-old logic in a modern world are having a clash with modern society and reality as a whole.
What if ISIS is the true muslims, while our peaceful 'muslims' follow their religion so leniently that it's hardly following the code anymore? So maybe Islam is a religion of war and terror after all, and the lenient friendly 'muslims' that we have here are just sane people partially following a belief?
I mean think about it, Christianity required people to wear only one piece of clothing, stoning people, and supported incest, yet few to no christians follow these oldschool rules anymore. Can these people still be called christians then?
Maybe I'm confusing myself unnecessarily, but I'm starting to wonder if the answer is simply the other way around. Maybe religion as a whole is pretty much fading into obscurity since more and more people of various religions are becoming less and less loyal to their religion's outdated morals and ideals.
Instead, more and more religious groups seem to be following more modern ideals that are not dictated by the book. I've met a surprising amount of "christians" who simply use the bible as a guide, but remain agnostic when acknowledging who their 'god' is, and cherry-pick which rules to follow as they fit with their lifestyles.
So maybe the widespread moderation of religion is creating peaceful people from every religion, while people who are using thousand-year-old logic in a modern world are having a clash with modern society and reality as a whole.
#184 to #171
-
terranrollerskates (11/22/2015) [-] Hm, its more prompt to say that the world is becoming less dogmatic in its thinking & values. I don't necessarily think humanity will do away with religion, after all, there's one quality that religious-minded people who fight all have in common, & that's sheer willpower in the face of steep odds. Its more apparent in boxers, because they can get lamped out of it, next to falling over, & keep on going, all due to feeling that God is on their side. People can look up, respect, & understand a religion in a personal sense, but outside of churches & such that can give a **** about their community & not shove **** down people's throats (there are few, but they exist) the organised side of churhes & places of belief, if not for helping people to help themselves, are dying out, because their fundamentalism is stagnant, static, unnmoving. And in the laws of physics & the animal kingdom, if you stop moving, you die.
#189 to #184
-
terranrollerskates (11/22/2015) [-] And that's why ISIS will die eventually. Like any cornered, wounded animal, it'll take what it can with it, but no one will allow them to go to ground again.
#192 to #171
-
Ruspanic (11/22/2015) [-] If you are not a believer, then there is no "true" version of Islam or Christianity or Hinduism, etc. No version of it is true and no version is more authentic than any other version practiced by professed believers. Islam, from any non-Muslim's perspective, is not literal Quranic doctrine as it was meant to be interpreted, but rather how actual Muslims interpret their own religion, collectively or as individuals.
Yes, modern Islam isn't the same as the Islam of the historical prophet Muhammad, just as your average American's Christianity isn't the same as the Christianity of the Pilgrims or of Martin Luther or of St. Augustine or of Jesus Christ. But it's still Christianity. Religion evolves over time and varies from person to person, and from culture to culture. People don't usually learn to be Christians purely by reading and following the Bible, they learn from what their parents and peers and priests and Sunday school teachers tell them, and that colors their interpretation of the Bible (if they even read the whole book themselves, which many Christians do not).
Same goes for Islam. That's why there are multiple sects in Islam, and why even the same sect can lead to different beliefs and practices depending on the country and family you were raised in.
Yes, modern Islam isn't the same as the Islam of the historical prophet Muhammad, just as your average American's Christianity isn't the same as the Christianity of the Pilgrims or of Martin Luther or of St. Augustine or of Jesus Christ. But it's still Christianity. Religion evolves over time and varies from person to person, and from culture to culture. People don't usually learn to be Christians purely by reading and following the Bible, they learn from what their parents and peers and priests and Sunday school teachers tell them, and that colors their interpretation of the Bible (if they even read the whole book themselves, which many Christians do not).
Same goes for Islam. That's why there are multiple sects in Islam, and why even the same sect can lead to different beliefs and practices depending on the country and family you were raised in.
#226 to #171
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] What if there is no such thing as a "true" follower, and anyone claiming to follow something should be classed as a follower.
#237 to #171
-
anon (11/22/2015) [-]
I'm a muslim, and I completely agree! IS is trying to bring back the original version of Islam into rule, unmodified, as-is. If Islam is really the true religion, and its teachings are actually the teachings of God (I don't even know why people see it as far fetched that if God exists, and heaven and hell exist, and that he will burn people for eternity, then it can not possibly be adulterers, thieves, murderers, gays and people who refuse to believe there is only one god - the texts say specifically that this world was created to test us, so there must be rules that we have to follow, and it's unreasonable to assume those rules have got to be strictly to our liking), then IS will inevitably prevail. In fact, we will witness events unfold in the same scenario as foretold by the prophet of Islam:
"In Islamic eschatology, it is believed that Dabiq is one of two possible locations for an epic battle between invading Christians and the defending Muslims which will result in a Muslim victory and mark the beginning of the end of the world. The Islamic State believes Dabiq is where an epic and decisive battle will take place with Christian forces of the West, and have named their magazine after the village."
So sit tight, and observe. We will either witness the fall of IS, or the wonders of God's assistance to the group that is truly committed to the true religion.
"In Islamic eschatology, it is believed that Dabiq is one of two possible locations for an epic battle between invading Christians and the defending Muslims which will result in a Muslim victory and mark the beginning of the end of the world. The Islamic State believes Dabiq is where an epic and decisive battle will take place with Christian forces of the West, and have named their magazine after the village."
So sit tight, and observe. We will either witness the fall of IS, or the wonders of God's assistance to the group that is truly committed to the true religion.
#292 to #171
-
haroldsaxon ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] I'm gonna correct you on several points:
ISIS is know known as IS, but for the purpose of clarity I use ISIS on this website
ISIS breaks more islamic rules than common non-believers. They cannot be the "most muslim" out there in any shape or form.
While it's true that most in ISIS are truly muslim twisted or not, that's another discussion , the question remains how many of the leaders truly are and aren't just using Islam as a means of control. Look at Catholism's history for something similar in Christianity. They were more a business than religion. Even changed religious texts such as the Bible, to fit their rule.
Jesus died for our sins, as in the original/ancestral sin, the sin you were born with. When Jesus died, the old contract with God was no longer valid and most in the Old Testament is no more than stories, maybe with some wisdom at times. This is just one (good) interpretation.
Lastly, the Bible has been edited numerous times, and we're not exactly sure about everything that was original. Besides, we don't know how much authority we should give to any of the other people than Jesus. Thus, the ONLY thing that is certain is the core of Christianity; the teachings of Christ. It is, in my mind, acceptable to only follow his words and still be a full Christian. In fact, I would argue that is the purest form.
I do agree with your conclusion, however, and you do raise some good points.
People are too obsessed with getting in to heaven they forget to make one here.
And to support some of your statements:
"If you just close your eyes and shut your ears, to the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years, then morally guess what, you're off the hook, and thank god you only have to read one book" -Tim Minchin, The Good Book
ISIS is know known as IS, but for the purpose of clarity I use ISIS on this website
ISIS breaks more islamic rules than common non-believers. They cannot be the "most muslim" out there in any shape or form.
While it's true that most in ISIS are truly muslim twisted or not, that's another discussion , the question remains how many of the leaders truly are and aren't just using Islam as a means of control. Look at Catholism's history for something similar in Christianity. They were more a business than religion. Even changed religious texts such as the Bible, to fit their rule.
Jesus died for our sins, as in the original/ancestral sin, the sin you were born with. When Jesus died, the old contract with God was no longer valid and most in the Old Testament is no more than stories, maybe with some wisdom at times. This is just one (good) interpretation.
Lastly, the Bible has been edited numerous times, and we're not exactly sure about everything that was original. Besides, we don't know how much authority we should give to any of the other people than Jesus. Thus, the ONLY thing that is certain is the core of Christianity; the teachings of Christ. It is, in my mind, acceptable to only follow his words and still be a full Christian. In fact, I would argue that is the purest form.
I do agree with your conclusion, however, and you do raise some good points.
People are too obsessed with getting in to heaven they forget to make one here.
And to support some of your statements:
"If you just close your eyes and shut your ears, to the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years, then morally guess what, you're off the hook, and thank god you only have to read one book" -Tim Minchin, The Good Book
#15
-
anon (11/21/2015) [-] i'm always happy to see someone make positive change in their life
leaving a religion takes courage, because generally you also sacrefice a lot of ties to people in your life, as you do it.
all the better for those that do it, whom had it so bad they were willing to do that.
leaving a religion takes courage, because generally you also sacrefice a lot of ties to people in your life, as you do it.
all the better for those that do it, whom had it so bad they were willing to do that.
#53
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-]
there are men who are fighting against some of these ideologies that are Still Muslims and still living in the middle of Saudi Arabia. they didn't hide behind mask. they are Fighting it head first instead of attention whoring in the Internet. if you think Islamic countries suck? than go back to your country to fix it instead of tweeting about it. i know some fear for their life, but you cant overthrow a government and you cant remove toxic ideas by tweeting about it.
there are Muslims who live in Saudi Arabia fighting and be imprisoned for speaking out, and you guys come here and glorify some random tweeters.
yes im a little mad. they are cowards who left their country and removed them selfs from their country and family entirely instead of standing strong and fighting to fix it. if everyman who see whats wrong with his country just stood up and left and pretended that he was never part of their community to begin with, than who is left to fix things? who still change the country to the better!?
there are men who are fighting against some of these ideologies that are Still Muslims and still living in the middle of Saudi Arabia. they didn't hide behind mask. they are Fighting it head first instead of attention whoring in the Internet. if you think Islamic countries suck? than go back to your country to fix it instead of tweeting about it. i know some fear for their life, but you cant overthrow a government and you cant remove toxic ideas by tweeting about it.
there are Muslims who live in Saudi Arabia fighting and be imprisoned for speaking out, and you guys come here and glorify some random tweeters.
yes im a little mad. they are cowards who left their country and removed them selfs from their country and family entirely instead of standing strong and fighting to fix it. if everyman who see whats wrong with his country just stood up and left and pretended that he was never part of their community to begin with, than who is left to fix things? who still change the country to the better!?
#238 to #67
-
therealtjthemedic (11/22/2015) [-] Funny how the exact opposite is said when people insist that all the refugees are 'pussies' and 'cowards' for leaving syria instead of fighting.
#71 to #53
-
theluppijackal (11/22/2015) [-] >you cant remove toxic ideas by tweeting about it.
People better not tell you about the twitter revolutions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
People better not tell you about the twitter revolutions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
#139 to #53
-
Abortedwafflez (11/22/2015) [-] There was already a bunch of people fighting. Problem is, you have a bunch of separate rebel factions who all want to reform their government in certain ways. So, they are fighting other rebels and their own government/ war group. Gets kinda hectic when you don't know who is good and who is bad and probably the people fighting don't know. All this confusion makes sense as to why many probably didn't join to fight.
#182 to #53
-
kalendric (11/22/2015) [-]
I'm with you on the attention-whoring part. A hashtag has never changed anything ever. But it's not as simple as going home and "fixing it". There is no separation between religion and law in an Islamic country. And trying overthrow an entire system of law, especially one that's been around for so long, takes a lot of blood. And what would they get in return, even if they won? A bunch of dirt and what few goats haven't been ****** to death?
#188 to #182
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] they get a country. they get their family and friends. its not about the bunch of dirts. its about saving a religion called Islam and saving their homeland from toxic ideology that crushed it. they out of all people should know. if anything, they are the ones that should be fighting because they claim that the country are in a bad state while many of thous living in it are in the illusion thats not. they broke free of the illusion, and left instead of waking the rest of the people.
they wouldn't be getting some dirt, they would be saving future victims from an unjust government.
they wouldn't be getting some dirt, they would be saving future victims from an unjust government.
#194 to #191
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] " but not everybody has that fight in them. "
true, but they didnt leave and just kept silent. they went to social media and started criticizing. they have a fight in them, they just don't want to do it themselves. they want **** to hit the fan while they drink their tea somewhere safe.
true, but they didnt leave and just kept silent. they went to social media and started criticizing. they have a fight in them, they just don't want to do it themselves. they want **** to hit the fan while they drink their tea somewhere safe.
#225 to #53
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] A snake can bite it's own tail, but it is still a part of the problem. Islam, even in it's most peaceable forms is still a stain on humanity.
Every action of defiance, no matter how small, contributes to a global effort. And I don't see you doing anything.
They aren't cowards, they're just not interested in dying. And they left their families to come here and work to get money to feed their children, who are most likely in turkey.
Every action of defiance, no matter how small, contributes to a global effort. And I don't see you doing anything.
They aren't cowards, they're just not interested in dying. And they left their families to come here and work to get money to feed their children, who are most likely in turkey.
#233 to #225
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] "A snake can bite it's own tail, but it is still a part of the problem. Islam, even in it's most peaceable forms is still a stain on humanity. "
disgaree, but we both know even a 100 years discussion wont change your opinion or mine.
"They aren't cowards, they're just not interested in dying. And they left their families to come here and work to get money to feed their children, who are most likely in turkey."
no. they are actively criticizing, but they are not willing to fight when its needed.they want **** to happen, but they don't want to fix anything.
they left, and they want these that are still there to fix things. its kind like this
" im better than you because i left your backwards religion and you should be ashamed! but i still want you to fix the country for me"
i bet they will all go back to their country if its fixed with the blood of the people they are now looking down on. if everyone abandon their country when it needs them the most, there will be no change.
stop and think what would happen if every time a feminist started silencing a writer or a producer or a scientist, said person would leave the country. there would be no one left but feminists and the country will NOT change to the better.
disgaree, but we both know even a 100 years discussion wont change your opinion or mine.
"They aren't cowards, they're just not interested in dying. And they left their families to come here and work to get money to feed their children, who are most likely in turkey."
no. they are actively criticizing, but they are not willing to fight when its needed.they want **** to happen, but they don't want to fix anything.
they left, and they want these that are still there to fix things. its kind like this
" im better than you because i left your backwards religion and you should be ashamed! but i still want you to fix the country for me"
i bet they will all go back to their country if its fixed with the blood of the people they are now looking down on. if everyone abandon their country when it needs them the most, there will be no change.
stop and think what would happen if every time a feminist started silencing a writer or a producer or a scientist, said person would leave the country. there would be no one left but feminists and the country will NOT change to the better.
#235 to #233
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Not everyone is a soldier, but at least they're being more useful than you.
Maybe they left because if they stay they will be killed in the ******* streets.
Maybe they left because if they stay they will be killed in the ******* streets.
#241 to #235
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] "but at least they're being more useful than you."
tweeting is NOT doing anything but attention whoring. its like saying the guy who tweeted , "terrorism is bad" is helping society to stop terrorism.
"Maybe they left because if they stay they will be killed in the ******* streets."
highly doubt it. as i said, there are people who alive and well that are fighting in they country. they face harassments from the government but thats to be expected if you are going against it.
tweeting is NOT doing anything but attention whoring. its like saying the guy who tweeted , "terrorism is bad" is helping society to stop terrorism.
"Maybe they left because if they stay they will be killed in the ******* streets."
highly doubt it. as i said, there are people who alive and well that are fighting in they country. they face harassments from the government but thats to be expected if you are going against it.
#249 to #243
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] "Tweeting shows disapproval. "
i disapprove of you. do yo care? did that effect you? do you fear the feminist that yell at you in twitter? or outside your house? their government doesn't give a damn if they disprove.
"You doubt that apostates are to be killed? Well get on a ******* plane."
the thing is , you can pretend that you didn't leave the religion until you overthrow the government. something that is easy to figure out. but they didn't want to fight. they just wanted to leave. and they didn't just leave because they want nothing to do with this anymore, they left and then started throwing rocks. thats what a guy who wants the war to happen but don't want to fight the battle would do. it really seems that way to me.
i could be wrong.
i disapprove of you. do yo care? did that effect you? do you fear the feminist that yell at you in twitter? or outside your house? their government doesn't give a damn if they disprove.
"You doubt that apostates are to be killed? Well get on a ******* plane."
the thing is , you can pretend that you didn't leave the religion until you overthrow the government. something that is easy to figure out. but they didn't want to fight. they just wanted to leave. and they didn't just leave because they want nothing to do with this anymore, they left and then started throwing rocks. thats what a guy who wants the war to happen but don't want to fight the battle would do. it really seems that way to me.
i could be wrong.
#59 to #58
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] i might. who knows. but will speak out against ******** . im still a Muslim. but i believe that the religion has been used for power and profit.
its my belief. which is shared by man other Muslims as well. obvious misinterpretations of Quran and lies are still being thrown around because its beneficial for thous using them. its became like a racial conflict in a way aswell.
its my belief. which is shared by man other Muslims as well. obvious misinterpretations of Quran and lies are still being thrown around because its beneficial for thous using them. its became like a racial conflict in a way aswell.
#76 to #75
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] first, their family will NOT kill them for it. the government might. fathers killing their son for things like this really is just an extreme case. thats why you hear about it. because its too extreme. secondly, if you hide behind a mask you achieve nothing. people have to know that its you, the sons and daughters of this country that disagree. not some guy from somewhere else. if the US was a third world country, you think you or your father would be willing to change to fit the views of a random guy claiming to be from the US? would you take your ideas from a hash-tag?
#77 to #76
-
stifflimb (11/22/2015) [-] And fleeing your country away from everything you know is not extreme?
People can show they are against it as a mass without exposing their faces, telling that they are ex-muslims would be a better way of showing they are the sons/daughters/people of the country/religon instead of showing their faces since the ones in control likely have never seen them before.
Take the idea no. Express it through a hash-tag, yes that could be a part of how I'd do it.
People can show they are against it as a mass without exposing their faces, telling that they are ex-muslims would be a better way of showing they are the sons/daughters/people of the country/religon instead of showing their faces since the ones in control likely have never seen them before.
Take the idea no. Express it through a hash-tag, yes that could be a part of how I'd do it.
#80 to #77
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] masses in the Internet changes nothing. are you going to change because of the massive amount of feminists in twitter? or the ones rallying out side your house? secondly, you are dealing with people that dont care what you think. thats a fact. you think the governments in the Islamic world care if you group in twitter? you have to overthrow them physically. tweeting is like slapping them on the wrist.
#73 to #59
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] Why would you even believe the story of Muhammad speaking with an angel in a cave is true when there is no evidence for it at all?
#78 to #73
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] thats a long ass topic that require a **** ton of history and reading to answer. but in short. his personalty and what he did for the people around him at that time is what made some people believe in him. plus, the quran is very very well written than many at the time believe that there is no way a human can come up with it. he was known for his ridicules amount of honesty and love to other people even before he became a prophet but yeah, it require some faith to believe. just like any other religion.
#79 to #78
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] That still doesn't count as evidence though. The Koran even says that Adam and Eve existed and we know through science now that that is not true at all.
#82 to #81
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] Debate can help people to think about why they believe in certain things and help them to change their mind when they are wrong.
#84 to #83
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] I'm not a fan of shouting but I am a fan of rational discourse. If we know that the Koran contains scientific errors, such as the ones about Adam and Eve, it is therefore not rational to think that the book was divinely inspired but is just another religion like 100s that have come before it.
#86 to #84
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] well there have been times where people with belief , namely Muslims. have been laughed at for clinging to their belief when science proved them wrong. only for a few years late to discover that the quran was right all along.
im not saying we listen to the Quran and thats it, But in the grand scheme of things, this arguments really doesn't work. because most will probably believe that science is wrong its just that people just don't know it yet. thats because it actually happened before.
this argument doesn't work because science is not a constant. it changes. thats why people still believe regardless of what science thinks as of today. because it might change tomorrow, or the day after it. than it might go back the original theory? what then? thous who left their belief should go back?
most people don't cling to the science part of the verses to that reason. instead they focus of things like morality and such.
thats My opinion . i cant speak for other people.
im not saying we listen to the Quran and thats it, But in the grand scheme of things, this arguments really doesn't work. because most will probably believe that science is wrong its just that people just don't know it yet. thats because it actually happened before.
this argument doesn't work because science is not a constant. it changes. thats why people still believe regardless of what science thinks as of today. because it might change tomorrow, or the day after it. than it might go back the original theory? what then? thous who left their belief should go back?
most people don't cling to the science part of the verses to that reason. instead they focus of things like morality and such.
thats My opinion . i cant speak for other people.
#91 to #86
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] Science changes when new information becomes available whereas religion seldom does. Things like the Theory of Evolution are fact and are extremely unlikely to change based on the giant amount of evidence for it as well as its amazing predictive power.
Modern biology is based on evolution and does not make sense without it.
Religions do not have predictive powers and in general are not based on evidence at all. Believing in a religion is a surrender of the intellect in that you accept things as being true when there is no reason at all to believe that those things are true.
You're right when you say that people don't cling to the "science" parts of religions because they are so woefully wrong in most cases and instead focus on more of the morals. But what sort of morality do we get from the Koran? There is so much killing, rape and general fascism in the Koran and other books like the Bible that it's pretty obvious we can have a more moral and functioning society by working out for ourselves what we want from society.
Looking at the Muslim world at large shows clearly a set of outdated teaching that do not lead to the prosperity that we experience in the West.
Using our brains leads to far better outcomes than relying on any stories from the ancient world.
Modern biology is based on evolution and does not make sense without it.
Religions do not have predictive powers and in general are not based on evidence at all. Believing in a religion is a surrender of the intellect in that you accept things as being true when there is no reason at all to believe that those things are true.
You're right when you say that people don't cling to the "science" parts of religions because they are so woefully wrong in most cases and instead focus on more of the morals. But what sort of morality do we get from the Koran? There is so much killing, rape and general fascism in the Koran and other books like the Bible that it's pretty obvious we can have a more moral and functioning society by working out for ourselves what we want from society.
Looking at the Muslim world at large shows clearly a set of outdated teaching that do not lead to the prosperity that we experience in the West.
Using our brains leads to far better outcomes than relying on any stories from the ancient world.
#105 to #91
-
vortix (11/22/2015) [-] last part i disagree. i aswell as many others believe that the quran and mohammed wanted the best for people . they preached for a society that is just as good as the west today and maybe better.
that if you read the quran with historical context. there are more verses preaching for peace than violence. Muslims not following that is Muslims fault. the violence is sometimes necessary since Muslims lived in a really dark times. you either do some of this violence or you are dead. it was not favored but it was something that had to be done. and still, quran verses are almost never taken as face value.
in order to reach the real meaning it requires a really solid knowledge of Arabic language as it was at that time, history and the ability to find which part of history is a lie and which is not because there have been many times were tyrants ruled Muslims after Mohamed, so history could easily be distorted. you also have to be able to put your self in the mind set of thous living there 1400 years ago. not the mindset of today.
what most people dont really understand is that some of these violent verses are Temporary. it was for an extreme situation that needs an immediate solution.
now i understand, seeing the Islamic world today , its easy to say that they are violent because of the verse that their book have. but it is really not the case. and many people proved that using history and strong Arabic language.
the real problem is dictatorship. religion is a strong tool. the government used it well. they preached for their version and interpretations even thought thats not real because they know the average Muslims wont be reading that much. and even for thous that read a little, they have almost an army of imams that are ready to lie and distort at well. they have millions to spread that kind of ideas aswell. that why when they are asked about verses in the qur'an, they dont give an honest answer. instead they give the answer that benefits them the most.
i honesty believe that if you change the governments and the system, with time the Islamic world will go back to normal.
also, the quran was never meant to be followed 100% percent, instead it suppose to be the quran + your ******* brain. that is Not me *********** . there are many people who actually red hundreds of religious books and reached this conclusion. but again, that conclusion does not make governments happy therefore , they shut it down .
that if you read the quran with historical context. there are more verses preaching for peace than violence. Muslims not following that is Muslims fault. the violence is sometimes necessary since Muslims lived in a really dark times. you either do some of this violence or you are dead. it was not favored but it was something that had to be done. and still, quran verses are almost never taken as face value.
in order to reach the real meaning it requires a really solid knowledge of Arabic language as it was at that time, history and the ability to find which part of history is a lie and which is not because there have been many times were tyrants ruled Muslims after Mohamed, so history could easily be distorted. you also have to be able to put your self in the mind set of thous living there 1400 years ago. not the mindset of today.
what most people dont really understand is that some of these violent verses are Temporary. it was for an extreme situation that needs an immediate solution.
now i understand, seeing the Islamic world today , its easy to say that they are violent because of the verse that their book have. but it is really not the case. and many people proved that using history and strong Arabic language.
the real problem is dictatorship. religion is a strong tool. the government used it well. they preached for their version and interpretations even thought thats not real because they know the average Muslims wont be reading that much. and even for thous that read a little, they have almost an army of imams that are ready to lie and distort at well. they have millions to spread that kind of ideas aswell. that why when they are asked about verses in the qur'an, they dont give an honest answer. instead they give the answer that benefits them the most.
i honesty believe that if you change the governments and the system, with time the Islamic world will go back to normal.
also, the quran was never meant to be followed 100% percent, instead it suppose to be the quran + your ******* brain. that is Not me *********** . there are many people who actually red hundreds of religious books and reached this conclusion. but again, that conclusion does not make governments happy therefore , they shut it down .
#124 to #105
-
popeflatus (11/22/2015) [-] You're right that religion is a powerful tool and that it is used to control people. That has happened throughout all of human history. the fact that Muslim countries are often the worst when it comes to human rights is no coincidence though. When you have a book that says to kill unbelievers it is no surprise that verses like that get used to assert control.
Muhammad himself was a pdf file: not exactly something that we accept these days. If he was truly a perfect human then all we can say is that God thinks that this sort of disgusting behavior is acceptable.
My point originally was that there is no reason to believe the Koran is special in any way as there is absolutely no evidence for it being true at all. This fact coupled with the scientific inaccuracies show that it is indeed false.
As education increases the West is moving away from religion and the irrational way of thinking that it promotes and in turn our societies that are rid of it will flourish even further.
Muhammad himself was a pdf file: not exactly something that we accept these days. If he was truly a perfect human then all we can say is that God thinks that this sort of disgusting behavior is acceptable.
My point originally was that there is no reason to believe the Koran is special in any way as there is absolutely no evidence for it being true at all. This fact coupled with the scientific inaccuracies show that it is indeed false.
As education increases the West is moving away from religion and the irrational way of thinking that it promotes and in turn our societies that are rid of it will flourish even further.
#283
-
vladi (11/22/2015) [-]
You know what? I'm starting to like these towelheads, they seem to know how to properly treat a woman.
#281
-
motherfuckingkenji (11/22/2015) [-] Somehow I don't think a ex-muslim using the term "bomb af" is the best choice of words.
#276
-
improbable (11/22/2015) [-] "religion of peace. religion of peace. they are just trying to decieve you. dont listen to them"
#176
-
mytwocents (11/22/2015) [-] they could sent ALL muslims back to their home arab desert or straight into the concentration camps - i do not care. to hell with this retarded cult.
#228 to #176
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Right, better kill people who were indoctrinated into a belief, because deep down it's actually their fault.
#246 to #245
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] No one is beyond saving, and no life is worth less than another.
#300 to #246
-
onefuckingskurut (11/22/2015) [-] Yes, but some people just take too much effort to turn to good side to make it really worth our time. There are 7 bilion people on this planet. Nobody likes these kind of socipaths so they want them to dissappear. Seems normal to me.
#301 to #300
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] You can't start killing everyone you don't like.
#306 to #301
-
onefuckingskurut (11/22/2015) [-] I don't necesarrly mean killing. These people are not cooperative once indocrinated. They take too much effort to correct. Their crazy parenting is nout our fault. We don't deserve our citizens to be pushed around on the behalf of their crazy religion/tradions. When people are this thickheaded, they don't really fit to travel to other countries. They fail as tourists and guests in other civilized countries. Its only natural for minority to adapt to majority. Current tourists system with muslims is backwards like that.
People who refuse to adapt to local rules, simply don't deserve our hospitality and should be left outside the state borders. And when these people start doing crimes, they should be judged more strictly exactly because they are not even citizens of that country.
People who refuse to adapt to local rules, simply don't deserve our hospitality and should be left outside the state borders. And when these people start doing crimes, they should be judged more strictly exactly because they are not even citizens of that country.
#264 to #246
-
testaburger (11/22/2015) [-] lel
Do you honestly believe that?
Have you ever talked to a muslim about their beliefs? Tried to question it? Then you'll see that it is indeed a lost cause for the vast majority of them.
Do you honestly believe that?
Have you ever talked to a muslim about their beliefs? Tried to question it? Then you'll see that it is indeed a lost cause for the vast majority of them.
#266 to #264
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Actually yes I have, and they are surprisingly cooperative.
#268 to #267
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Well both my ex-muslim friends are now atheists.
#269 to #268
-
testaburger (11/22/2015) [-] Amazing.
I dare say you got to talk to the lucky few.
9/10 of the muslims I've talked to have been the brainwashed "Islam is true, what you're saying is blasphemy" type.
I dare say you got to talk to the lucky few.
9/10 of the muslims I've talked to have been the brainwashed "Islam is true, what you're saying is blasphemy" type.
#270 to #269
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (11/22/2015) [-] Well that goes for most religious people, and non religious people. People don't like to be told they're wrong.
#271 to #270
-
testaburger (11/22/2015) [-] (In my own experience)
Christians tend to be much more open-minded about being challenged on their beliefs.
Muslims tend to shut off any discussion.
(This has happened with christians as well, but not often)
Christians tend to be much more open-minded about being challenged on their beliefs.
Muslims tend to shut off any discussion.
(This has happened with christians as well, but not often)
#153
-
sandmantaxman (11/22/2015) [-] "And fight with them until there is no more fitnah and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do" [Quran 8:39]
They mean the same thing.
Liberals (once again) on Suicide-Watch
!["And fight with them until there is no more fitnah and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do" [Quran 8:39]
They mean the same thing.
Liberals (once again) on Suicide-Watch](http://2static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Quot+and+fight+with+them+until+there+is+no+more+fitnah+_b8a91f50bd9659a9fb7d4ff2f6637a3d.jpg)
They mean the same thing.
Liberals (once again) on Suicide-Watch
#136
-
Abortedwafflez (11/22/2015) [-] I can't help but feel like this is anti-muslim. Of course, it's okay to criticize it and not follow it. But with the direction it's going in the comments, people here seem to genuinely believe that all followers of Islam are savages, or at least a strong majority of them are with recent events.
#183 to #136
-
anon (11/22/2015) [-]
Not necessarily a strong majority, but there is a lot of radicals, and a lot of moderates who don't do anything to stop it. I don't think there's anything wrong with being anti-muslim either, they've earned their reputation with incessant violence and human rights abuses.
