Remember when "they hate us for our freedom" was mocked?

[hillelslovak87]

Non- muslims were exempted from the zakat tax, which all muslims had to pay. So its not like they only taxed the christians and jews. Second, the dhimmi were exempted from military service, and any dhimmi who served in the army were exempted from the jizya tax. So quit trying to create a false dilemma.

Being slaughtered by muslims? What? Now you're arguing a completely different point. Their quran says don't do that unless they attack you first and stop once they stop. So theoretically and legally you are safe. Now if you're arguing that Muslims will be shitty and ignore that part of the quran then thats different.

And again, youre acting like this is exclusive to Islam. Christianity had even less choices: convert or die.





Ive heard the argument that if the quran says to be modest, and a woman truly wants to follow the religion and be faithful, she will choose for herself to wear it. The hijab allowed a woman to be in the presence of men in public without violating the rules.

When the Muslim hordes rampaged westward through Europe, everywhere they went, they subjected those who did not die or convert to the jizya. Your assertion that people dont have to pay this within a strictly sharia, muslim dominated society, is absurd. Suggesting that if I only join the army, and slaughter alongside barbarians, I wont have to pay the taxes, bores my point out even more.

The Quran, and Muslim scholarship, leave just about any action performed by a non believer that Islam deems impure as a grounds for offensive actions. The idea of Muslims living in a sinful land like America, forced to assimilate into a wicked land, is typically enough. Listen to some of the tapes from successful or would be suicide bombers. They quote verse after verse as to why they do these things, and their knowledge of the Quran and Hadith are not usually bettered.

Here's a few verses from the Quran that demonstrate the Muslim attitude towards the grounds for violence.

Quran 5:32
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Sounds pretty peaceful, right? But then we find out what corruption means in the next verse, which Muslim apologists conveniently leave out every time.

Quran 5:33-34

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, (Quran 5:33)
Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Quranic scholars, from Bukhari down, have made it quite clear, corruption in Islamic lands (any land taken by Islam can never be rescinded) is anything not following the Sharia.

Refusing to become a Muslim without paying the taxes and being a holy subject? Death

 

[Vagitarian]

Quran 5:32
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Sounds pretty peaceful, right? But then we find out what corruption means in the next verse, which Muslim apologists conveniently leave out every time.

Quran 5:33-34

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, (Quran 5:33)
Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
/QUOTE]
.

First, I just wanna say good job on wrecking that christian in the other thread.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is a much better way to quote the quran. It is a point I constantly argue with muslims and one I mentioned before in this thread. Muslims are taught to respond to attack and injustice but any muslim scholar or warlord can define something as an attack on Islam. THAT's the danger of the quran.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/qurana...ext-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/

this article is a great example of more proper quoting of the quran.
“The reality is, religious moderates take their scripture “out of context” more than they’d like to think. Islamic apologists, for instance, like to quote the verse 2:256, which says there is “no compulsion in religion.” They won’t tell you (and many don’t know themselves) that the very next verse, 2:257, says that those who do choose to disbelieve will be ‘companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.’”

This what I find wrong with Islam. But this isnt a declaration of war. This is saying we're all going to hell for not worshiping a pedophile and uncle Allah.

At this point you're not arguing anything I disagree with. My main point is simply dont quote "kill them all" without including "when they attack" and "stop when they beg for mercy"
And regarding the occupation of Europe by Muslims it happened in Spain where Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens but did have legal protection from violence (and scriptural protection) in exchange for the jizya. But I fail to see how that is worse than Spain expelling all Muslims and Jews who refused the force conversion in 1492, or Charlemagne subjugating the Anglo Saxons and declaring that ""If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."

Your argument rests on the fact that this is in any way unique to islam. It isnt and you failed to prove it because it is simply incorrect

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Yes, and you retards responded by giving up your freedoms. In other words the terrorists achieved exactly what they intended to. America really are the worst strategists in the world, they're the only people in history that lost a war where they had every conceivable advantage so it's not shocking that they would play exactly into the hand s of their enemy and hope they can muscle themselves out with technology

 

[D3THRONED]

Mr. Garrison said it best; if you were forced to not have sex, not to do drugs an alcohol, and probably have sand in your vagina and asshole. Youd be pissed off too.

 

[hillelslovak87]

First, I just wanna say good job on wrecking that christian in the other thread.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is a much better way to quote the quran. It is a point I constantly argue with muslims and one I mentioned before in this thread. Muslims are taught to respond to attack and injustice but any muslim scholar or warlord can define something as an attack on Islam. THAT's the danger of the quran.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/qurana...ext-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/

this article is a great example of more proper quoting of the quran.
“The reality is, religious moderates take their scripture “out of context” more than they’d like to think. Islamic apologists, for instance, like to quote the verse 2:256, which says there is “no compulsion in religion.” They won’t tell you (and many don’t know themselves) that the very next verse, 2:257, says that those who do choose to disbelieve will be ‘companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.’”

This what I find wrong with Islam. But this isnt a declaration of war. This is saying we're all going to hell for not worshiping a pedophile and uncle Allah.

At this point you're not arguing anything I disagree with. My main point is simply dont quote "kill them all" without including "when they attack" and "stop when they beg for mercy"
And regarding the occupation of Europe by Muslims it happened in Spain where Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens but did have legal protection from violence (and scriptural protection) in exchange for the jizya. But I fail to see how that is worse than Spain expelling all Muslims and Jews who refused the force conversion in 1492, or Charlemagne subjugating the Anglo Saxons and declaring that ""If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."

Your argument rests on the fact that this is in any way unique to islam. It isnt and you failed to prove it because it is simply incorrect

My argument relies upon the truth. There are aspects of Islamic doctrine that make it especially dangerous. No other religion claims to be the last and final revelation, and no other religion has it's method of spreading the faith be explicitly, principally stated as warfare.

 

[Vagitarian]

There are aspects of Islamic doctrine that make it especially dangerous.

Not in question at all. You and I already drew the same conclusion. You're just projecting that same line of thinking into areas where it just isn't true, using islamic history as proof of the scripture being evil. Circular logic there. The scripture is bad and your evidence is the muslim conquest. But the muslim conquest was fueled by the scripture.

No other religion claims to be the last and final revelation

Incorrect.
Matthew 24:24 - For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Christianity says Jesus is the messiah and anyone after is a false prophet. So they believe they are the last revelation. Christianity had also believed that Jesus superseded the old testament and rendered it obsolete. As such, the jews are considered to be going backwards instead of following the lord.

no other religion has it's method of spreading the faith be explicitly, principally stated as warfare.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.


Samuel 15:18
And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’

Deuteronomy
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

20:19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:

20:20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

Only religion you say?

 

[uppercutbus]

.

Quoting the Old Testament as if it's equivalent, Christianity went through a reformation. And even Jews ignore parts of the OT.

Islam won't be able to go through a reformation easily or at all.

Someone here posted that explained why Christianity was able to go through a reformation when they looked back at the New Testament text, and this simply might not be possible with Islam. Skip to 4:45, but really watch the whole video:

 

[Vagitarian]

Quoting the Old Testament as if it's equivalent, Christianity went through a reformation. And even Jews ignore parts of the OT.

Islam won't be able to go through a reformation easily or at all.

Someone here posted that explained why Christianity was able to go through a reformation when they looked back at the New Testament text, and this simply might not be possible with Islam. Skip to 4:45, but really watch the whole video:

Did the jews have a reformation? No, they just stopped taking what you called the old testament seriously. I see lots of Jews eating shell fish, wear mixed fabrics, a majority of my jewish friends dont keep kosher and a bunch even eat bacon and pork. If the old testament is so hateful to command its subjects to kill and destroy other people for not believing, why don't we condemn their script? If they are able to pick and choose what to follow and adapt their beliefs to the modern world, why do you assume Muslims can't?

 

[uppercutbus]

Did the jews have a reformation? No, they just stopped taking what you called the old testament seriously. I see lots of Jews eating shell fish, wear mixed fabrics, a majority of my jewish friends dont keep kosher and a bunch even eat bacon and pork. If the old testament is so hateful to command its subjects to kill and destroy other people for not believing, why don't we condemn their script? If they are able to pick and choose what to follow and adapt their beliefs to the modern world, why do you assume Muslims can't?

Are you saying the guy in the video doesn't know what he's talking about? His argument is arguing that Islam can't go through a reformation scrtipturally. I only bought up the Jews as a side comment. You're trying to make it mutually exclusive to the video.

 

[Vagitarian]

Are you saying the guy in the video doesn't know what he's talking about? His argument is arguing that Islam can't go through a reformation scrtipturally.

1) He blatantly misrepresented a few islamic beliefs when he was talking about Islam rewriting history. One thing, when they say Abraham and Moses were muslims, they mean muslim in the arabic defintion of the word (a man who submits to god) so they retroactively conclude all the characters in the old testament were Muslim. This is like saying its blasphemy for Arab Christians to call their god Allah. and the quran doesnt say women and men are unequal, the hadiths do. And the hadith are quotes retroactively attributed to Mohammed and his disciples. You really wanna see some fucked up stuff, read the hadiths.

2) You missed my point entirely. He says Muslims cant reform their religion because of a lack of scriptural basis. But the jews of today didnt have scriptural basis for ignoring the old testament. Yet here they are, eating pork, not practicing shabat, and not keeping kosher. His point is moot when you consider the jews didnt need to back to their scripture in order to stop being a bunch of old world pricks. The christians of today live in complete violation of christian religion and simply pick and choose which rules to follow or leave the faith entirely. Like how most of germany is christian yet not everyone goes to church, they have divorce, and gay marriage is legal.

 

[uppercutbus]

the quran doesnt say women and men are unequal, the hadiths do. And the hadith are quotes retroactively attributed to Mohammed and his disciples. You really wanna see some fucked up stuff, read the hadiths.

It's not the Quran it's the Hadiths!

Apologists like you will have to learn that civilized people don't care about the devil in the details, whether it's interpreted or not, vague texts and so on. They care about reality. Why is the most moderate version of Islam the Real Islam? What does that mean? There comes a point in no longer saying 'extreme Muslims' when the ideology is fundamentally extreme.

This argument boils down to "It's not real Islam, Islam is a religion of peace so therefore we can't attribute anything negative to Islam." It's amazing how ideas can avoid scrutiny once placed under the category of Religion.

It's a backwards, trash religion. The only reason why we give it respect is because of the number of followers it has. If it was just a few hundred people that believed it we'd all shit on them daily without reservation.

 

[Vagitarian]

It's not the Quran it's the Hadiths!

Apologists like you will have to learn that civilized people don't care about the devil in the details, whether it's interpreted or not, vague texts and so on. They care about reality. Why is the most moderate version of Islam the Real Islam? What does that mean? There comes a point in no longer saying 'extreme Muslims' when the ideology is fundamentally extreme.



This argument boils down to "It's not real Islam, Islam is a religion of peace so therefore we can't attribute anything negative to Islam." It's amazing how ideas can avoid scrutiny once placed under the category of Religion.

It's a backwards, trash religion. The only reason why we give it respect is because of the number of followers it has. If it was just a few hundred people that believed it we'd all shit on them daily without reservation.

Dafuq are you talking about? I hate islam too. I never said it was a religion of peace. Why dont you go scroll up and read the discussion. If you truly come to that conclusion, then you are monumentally retarded.
By your logic, I shouldnt care whether a quote comes from the old testament or the new testament. the devil in the details. Basically gives you a free pass to be ignorant.

I also notice you have no rebuttal whatsoever to my point about the jews. I guess I can safely say you have no argument.

 

[uppercutbus]

The christians of today live in complete violation of christian religion and simply pick and choose which rules to follow or leave the faith entirely. Like how most of germany is christian yet not everyone goes to church, they have divorce, and gay marriage is legal.

But it's ok for you to say who are "real muslims" and who are not because of interpretations and hadith's not quran.

Not sure where you are going with some Jews and Christians not being "real". "Going to church" is not written anywhere as a rule, divorce is allowed within the religion (most protestant faiths do allow for remarriage after divorce), gay marriage is not being forced to be performed by Churches and priests. As for the Jews, are you sure those Jews even identify as practicing Jews?

By your logic, I shouldnt care whether a quote comes from the old testament or the new testament. the devil in the details. Basically gives you a free pass to be ignorant.

You can care all you want, my argument was civilized people don't care about the minutia of Islamic scripture when reality gives a different picture.

The original video describes why Islam can't go through a reformation. You're saying Jews didn't go through one therefore Islam doesn't need to. The guy explains that Muslims interpret the Quran as final and Mohammed was perfect and should be emulated.

There is no evidence muslims are going the route you suggest Jews and Christians will as presented by the stats posted.

 

[Vagitarian]

But it's ok for you to say who are "real muslims" and who are not because of interpretations and hadith's not quran.

Not sure where you are going with some Jews and Christians not being "real". "Going to church" is not written anywhere as a rule, divorce is allowed within the religion (most protestant faiths do allow for remarriage after divorce), gay marriage is not being forced to be performed by Churches and priests. As for the Jews, are you sure those Jews even identify as practicing Jews?


Weren't you the idiot who was holding up the "hadiths not quran" argument.

I dont make value judgements on whether someone is a real muslim or not. To me, once you start praying, growing a beard, saying anything about the hajj, or in any way trying to tell me not to do something, youre the type of muslim i dont associate with. Given how you keep going with this, you havent read the discussion between me and slovak, but its ok continue to be ignorant.

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Corinthians 6:9-10
"Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

What kind of christian nations allows no fault divorce and gays to do lechery with men?

Just more picking and choosing what rules to follow. Which is again, my point. Christians simply give up parts of their religion that have scriptural basis to conform with modern societal thinking.

They identify as jews in name and take various practices that they can manage to follow. A lot of jews dont keep kosher but avoid things like pork. Just like a lot of Muslims. Their parents practice the faith and they celebrate the jewish holidays. They pick and choose which rules to follow.

You have no right to call anyone an idiot, you've already exposed your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking. It seems you literally got triggered at the word hadith, ignored the rest of the post because you thought you had me. Just laughable.

 

[uppercutbus]

What kind of christian nations allows no fault divorce and gays to do lechery with men?

Just more picking and choosing what rules to follow.

Christianity went through a reformation.

It's absolutely a fact divorce is allowed. Seems like you need to do more research. Read my edit to the post you're quoting. Also anti-homosexuality is not meant to be "interpreted into law" in Christianity like a lot of things Islam seems to have a penchant for with laws.

You seem a real stickler to scripture text, but claim you're not/don't care.

They identify as jews in name and take various practices that they can manage to follow. A lot of jews dont keep kosher but avoid things like pork. Just like a lot of Muslims. Their parents practice the faith and they celebrate the jewish holidays. They pick and choose which rules to follow.

Yes but what's your point with this. Most jews behave this way? Read my edit to the post you're quoting.

I dont make value judgements on whether someone is a real muslim or not. To me, once you start praying, growing a beard, saying anything about the hajj, or in any way trying to tell me not to do something, youre the type of muslim i dont associate with. Given how you keep going with this, you havent read the discussion between me and slovak, but its ok continue to be ignorant.

You used the difference between hadith's and quran to make a point that some bad stuff is "not Real Islam". Or was that not your point?

 

[Vagitarian]

Christianity went through a reformation.

It's absolutely a fact divorce is allowed. Seems like you need to do more research. Read my edit to the post you're quoting. Also anti-homosexuality is not meant to be "interpreted into law" in Christianity like a lot of things Islam seems to have a penchant for with laws.

The protestant church like the baptists strongly condemn divorce, they simply do not have the power to enforce their beliefs because of the separation of the church and state. Some denominations take away church membership for divorcing. But they cant alienate you from the broader secular society.

You seem a real stickler to scripture text, but claim you're not/don't care.

What?

Yes but what's your point with this. Most jews behave this way? Read my edit to the post you're quoting.

My point is despite the Jews not having a reformation, they integrate their violent and oppressive religion with the modern world. I cant understand how you fail to grasp that.

You used the difference between hadith's and quran to make a point that some bad stuff is "not Real Islam". Or was that not your point?

Not even close. You're so blinded by your hate you cant even reason properly.

Here is what I said

1) the quran doesnt say women and men are unequal, the hadiths do.

How did you manage to come up with that? I simply said the quran doesnt confirm women's inequality. The quran is infallible according to muslims. The hadiths aren't. They're supposed to evaluated for authenticity (pretty poorly done and even the authentic ones are pretty shit) and are not direct commandments of god. this implies you can challenge hadiths. You cant challenge the quran. But it is still a part of islam and is absolutely despicable. It serves as the basis for muslims mistreating women and imposing sharia and waging aggressive war. And until muslim scholars strike down those hadiths and every muslim understands those hadiths are wrong, it will continue to be a part of their religion whether they want to admit or not.

Which is why I dont see islam reforming, I can only Muslims taking islam less seriously as the difficulties of the modern world and evolution of our secular society human rights make traditional beliefs incompatible with daily life.

My muslim friends drink because not drinking and being a cunt about it leaves you out of a lot celebrations and social circles. A lot of plans interfere with daily salah (prayers) and in general is annoying so my friends dont do it.

You keep going that way until Islam becomes an impotent, neutered version of itself, that has no power over people anymore. Now is it gonna happen overnight in the middle east? Hell no. They were starting to get there much earlier but some nice helping of american democracy and arms dealing gave power and a voice to the pure evil and allowed them to influence the sheep (vast majority of muslims) to double down on their stupid religion.

But irreligion is happening to Muslims in America. It happened in about 8 muslim countries.

 

[uppercutbus]

The protestant church like the baptists strongly condemn divorce, they simply do not have the power to enforce their beliefs because of the separation of the church and state. Some denominations take away church membership for divorcing. But they cant alienate you from the broader secular society.

Divorce is not as offensive to Christians as you think. Even Catholics have a 28 percent divorce rate. There is no widespread practice of excommunication or thereabouts. Divorce is allowed within most sects of the religion (most protestant faiths do allow for remarriage after divorce).

Also Islam has a love affair with the laws of the land becoming representative of Islam in their own muslim majority countries. We know Christianity will let a lot of things slide.

My point is despite the Jews not having a reformation, they integrate their violent and oppressive religion with the modern world. I cant understand how you fail to grasp that.

Jews may not have had a reformation and be better than muslims in some/most aspects, but that is not necessarily a template to follow (not having a reformation). The way Muslims behave we can see they need a reformation more than the Jews.

Also Jews been a violent and oppressive religion? Sounds like Christianity where you have to go back to find the correct era. Things you mentioned like eating pork has nothing to do with violence or oppression either. How do you know many Jews behave this way?

How did you manage to come up with that? I simply said the quran doesnt confirm women's inequality. The quran is infallible according to muslims. The hadiths aren't. They're supposed to evaluated for authenticity (pretty poorly done and even the authentic ones are pretty shit) and are not direct commandments of god. this implies you can challenge hadiths. You cant challenge the quran. But it is still a part of islam and is absolutely despicable. It serves as the basis for muslims mistreating women and imposing sharia and waging aggressive war. And until muslim scholars strike down those hadiths and every muslim understands those hadiths are wrong, it will continue to be a part of their religion whether they want to admit or not.

Which is why I dont see islam reforming.

Ok I see, a reformation could happen by targeting the Hadiths. Does that mean the Quran by itself would make Islam a "religion of peace" I don't know. I always hear about Mohammed being a pedo warlord and quotes taken from the Quran not just the hadiths.

Reformation - I don't see it happening anytime soon and neither do you so I guess we can agree there. In the end the video was wrong on details (maybe, I'll take your word on it) but correct in the conclusion

 

[Vagitarian]

Divorce is not as offensive to Christians as you think. Even Catholics have a 28 percent divorce rate. There is no widespread practice of excommunication or thereabouts. Divorce is allowed within most sects of the religion (most protestant faiths do allow for remarriage after divorce).

This is becoming an issue where there is no broadly defined authority that protestant churches have outside of their followers. The official stance is they strongly condemn it. Theres biblical scripture on their side. the protestant reformation didnt say the churches deem divorce to be ok. They simply said marriage is a worldly affair.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-blankley/how-protestantism-redefined-marriage_b_1510654.html

Also Islam has a love affair with the laws of the land becoming representative of Islam in their own muslim majority countries. We know Christianity will let a lot of things slide.

Because the hadiths provide perfect justification for it.

Also in the middle east, yes. But 8 muslim majority countries have a secular government and some of those 8 crack down (sometimes violently) on Muslims getting uppity. So its not simply because they are muslim.

Jews may not have had a reformation and be better than muslims in some/most aspects, but that is not necessarily a template to follow (not having a reformation). The way Muslims behave we can see they need a reformation more than the Jews.

I def agree but I dont see it happening. I just think that given how fast the world is evolving and people are embracing ideals of equality, secularism, and pacifism that it'd be more likely for muslims to stop taking the faith seriously (which they did for a brief period) than to do a bottom up reformation that involves Muslims Scholars and leaders losing their justifications of power.

Also Jews been a violent and oppressive religion? Sounds like Christianity where you have to go back to find the correct era. Things you mentioned like eating pork has nothing to do with violence or oppression either. How do you know many Jews behave this way?

Their scripture is horrible. Put to death any homos, kill disobedient children, commanding his disciples to level entire cities. I just brought along those points to say they dont take the faith as seriously. Once you give up a few religious practices you begin to question the bigger things, and it sets precedent that if you can ignore one religious rule, you can ignore more.

Ok I see, a reformation could happen by targeting the Hadiths. Does that mean the Quran by itself would make Islam a "religion of peace" I don't know. I always hear about Mohammed being a pedo warlord and quotes taken from the Quran not just the hadiths.

The answer to that is a big fat NO. Because structurally, there is one big problem with the quran that I always point to.
Out of context quotes that say kill them all ignore the next one that says stop when they give up. They ignore the one before it that says fight back when they attack you.

But what the hell constitutes an attack? A declaration of war? a terrorist act? Drawing a pic of mohammed and violating other tenets in a muslim country? Whats the statute for these things?

The point with all those questions is, any muslim ruler can rally people to attack anyone and find scriptural basis for it. Because he is merely fighting back against the infidels when they did something horrific a hundred or two hundred years ago, or he is defending the sanctity of islam. The crazies latch on to any chance to further their sick agenda, the sheep will blindly follow cuz they have no convictions, and the good ones will get called kafirs and driven out.

Reformation - I don't see it happening anytime soon and neither do you so I guess we can agree there. In the end the video was wrong on details (maybe, I'll take your word on it) but correct in the conclusion

I just pointed to those because he had an obvious bias to misrepresent islam. I hate islam but what I also hate is bullshit arguments that attempt to discredit it. We have plenty of ammo to condemn it, making shit up only makes it more difficult to address because we all get painted as retarded islamaphobes.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Not in question at all. You and I already drew the same conclusion. You're just projecting that same line of thinking into areas where it just isn't true, using islamic history as proof of the scripture being evil. Circular logic there. The scripture is bad and your evidence is the muslim conquest. But the muslim conquest was fueled by the scripture.



Incorrect.
Matthew 24:24 - For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Christianity says Jesus is the messiah and anyone after is a false prophet. So they believe they are the last revelation. Christianity had also believed that Jesus superseded the old testament and rendered it obsolete. As such, the jews are considered to be going backwards instead of following the lord.


Deuteronomy 20:16-17
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.


Samuel 15:18
And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’

Deuteronomy
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

20:19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:

20:20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

Only religion you say?

I'm not projecting anything. Muhammed and the warlords made it crystal clear. Convert, subjugate or kill anyone who gets in the way of the spread of Islam. Anyone refusing Islam or not living by the Sharia has committed corruption in the land, and must be subject to one of the three. The fact that the conquests were driven by the scriptures bores is obvious, because of what the scriptures themselves say.

On the old testament. Once again, thankfully these genocides never happened. But unlike the Quran, the bible is recounting the mad words of someone who though the Jews took Canaan. It was not a direct summons to conquest wherever Judaism does not hold sway.

The Old Testament says "God told the Jews to slaughter these people, and they dutifully did."

The Quran says "Convert subjugate or kill every kafir you can find until fitnah is no more."

Quite distinct, no?

Christianity can proclaim Jesus all they want, but at no point does Jesus call for the conquest of other peoples in order to spread the faith, because christianity is a missionary religion, unlike Islam as envisioned by it's founder, his followers, and all the most reliable muslim scholars.

The Muslim scholars were quite clear as to what the Quran meant, and you seem to disagree with even them.