Which religion is the most Violent?

[Frank Todd]

It's as the title says, I want your opinion and/or healthy debate on which religion has been the most violent throughout history.

[Frank Todd]

Islam by far.

Islam has been violent from the very outset.

Christianity takes second and Judaism takes third.

Care to give examples as to how Islam beats out Christianity?

[Frank Todd]

In Islam, you are taught that it is your moral duty to slay the oppressors of the innocent and the sinful. However, it also says that only Muslims can be innocent, and all non-believers are sinners. Therefor it is your moral duty to convert or kill anyone that is not a Muslim.

You see, there are multiple passages in the Quran that teach peace, tolerance, and love. Unfortunately, they're at the beginning of the book. And Islam's policy of abrogation means that they are overruled by what Mohammed teaches later in life; which is that slavery is just, a woman is worth half that of a man, rape is justified, murder and genocide is justified, torture is justified, razing cities is justified, and Sharia is the only law of the land.

There's a reason these terror groups gain so much traction, and that's because they literally take their excuses from the pages of the Quran.

 

Meanwhile, the New Testament is solely there to teach love and tolerance. However, the Romans weaponized the religion to combat militant Judaism, and put a violent streak inside. The Crusades were mostly a defensive operation that got a little out of hand, while the wars in Europe weren't solely because of religion (though they played a large part).

 

Christianity is about tolerance and cooperation. While Islam is about dominance and submission.

Yet you find that Christianity's history is littered with "Great" crusades where they swathed a path of death across the Middle east... or the fact that they conscripted a private force of people to go into one of their crusades to pilfer treasure and wealth off another people under the guise of "slaying the non-believers" and when the forced knights got back, they were burned at the stake as heritics.. Oh yes, they have such a peaceful history. And that wasn't by a group of the clergy, that was by one of the pope(s) (since Christianity and catholicism were basically one and the same back then). Additionally I have a multitude of Muslim and Islamic friends (and co-workers) and kinda odd how not one of them has called me a hell-bound sinner... Oh that's right, it was the christian/catholic people I know luls. Silly me.

 

Also like to note that while current events are by Radical Muslims, the past has shown that Christ-based religions of yesteryear were the ones who instigated wars, and then murder thousands of Muslims and Jews.

 

For that matter, why aren't the jews pissed? Their religion/people have been being slaughtered for like... Ever now.

[Rozalia]

With that title it's going to either one of two possibilities. One of those tends to be quite obvious as the OP for such things will be very obvious on where they stand, after all even if they weren't it'd be obvious. The other the OP will mask it as a neutral affair while ready to pounce on anyone who presents the obvious response they're looking for. 

 

Anyway your tripe has been spoken many times before, it's not new. The Crusades against Muslims were even if ill actions occurred here and there mostly positive affairs, as positive as religious wars can be anyway. Muslims had taken over large parts of Iberia and the Byzantine Empire and outside a few stronger than average actors Europe was mostly a group of weak small kingdoms ripe for the picking. I don't like Catholisism but I am thankful it held back the disease that is Islam.

The crusades against Pagans were "Muslim-like" and the ones against the "heretics" were simply vile... however those crusades aren't the ones attacked, instead as you say it's the ones that "swathed a path of death across the Middle east". In short you know little on the matter and are virtue signaling as such people always are on this subject as not only are the Middle Eastern ones minor in their "evilness", but Muslims did much worse to the Hindus and Sikhs (why do people not talk about that? Odd). 

 

Your anecdote of knowing nice Muslims and mean Christians is in essence the Ivory Tower experience. To explain it's based on the mass immigration loving Ivory Tower dwellers whose experience with immigrants consists of knowing their foreign housekeeper/gardner/shopkeeper and perhaps a small group in their mostly white area, and as they are right nice chaps and as all those brown people are alike (apparently) then that must mean they're all nice chaps. Who would not want those sort of people filling up entire cities they cry. 

 

Your claim that supposedly only Christianity started war/terror/whatever in the past is also hogwash and likely based on your ignorance on the matter. Your type tend to have been fed all the evils of Christianity and none of Islam so they assume based on that, that Islam must have been pretty darn peaceful, I mean they'd know if they hadn't been.... Islamic history/nations have not been peaceful, far from it. Currently the ones doing that are the "Progressives"/Liberals who are in some sort of odd alliance with the Islamists... cuckoldry is all I can call it as it's just so darn stupid. 

[tenk]

You see, there are multiple passages in the Quran that teach peace, tolerance, and love. Unfortunately, they're at the beginning of the book. And Islam's policy of abrogation means that they are overruled by what Mohammed teaches later in life.

You do know that the Qur'an is not arranged in the order of revelation right? And you do know that the majority of the ayaat (verses) of jihaad are found near the beginning? surah Ali imraan chapter 3, Nisa 4, Anfal 8, Tawba 9?

 

I always find it funny to read the misconceptions non muslims have of what is naasikh and what is mansookh (abrogater and abrogated ).

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ibnar

[Olivert Reise Arnor]

Religions are not violent. People are violent.

[Frank Todd]

With that title it's going to either one of two possibilities. One of those tends to be quite obvious as the OP for such things will be very obvious on where they stand, after all even if they weren't it'd be obvious. The other the OP will mask it as a neutral affair while ready to pounce on anyone who presents the obvious response they're looking for. 

 

Anyway your tripe has been spoken many times before, it's not new. The Crusades against Muslims were even if ill actions occurred here and there mostly positive affairs, as positive as religious wars can be anyway. Muslims had taken over large parts of Iberia and the Byzantine Empire and outside a few stronger than average actors Europe was mostly a group of weak small kingdoms ripe for the picking. I don't like Catholisism but I am thankful it held back the disease that is Islam.

The crusades against Pagans were "Muslim-like" and the ones against the "heretics" were simply vile... however those crusades aren't the ones attacked, instead as you say it's the ones that "swathed a path of death across the Middle east". In short you know little on the matter and are virtue signaling as such people always are on this subject as not only are the Middle Eastern ones minor in their "evilness", but Muslims did much worse to the Hindus and Sikhs (why do people not talk about that? Odd). 

 

Your anecdote of knowing nice Muslims and mean Christians is in essence the Ivory Tower experience. To explain it's based on the mass immigration loving Ivory Tower dwellers whose experience with immigrants consists of knowing their foreign housekeeper/gardner/shopkeeper and perhaps a small group in their mostly white area, and as they are right nice chaps and as all those brown people are alike (apparently) then that must mean they're all nice chaps. Who would not want those sort of people filling up entire cities they cry. 

 

Your claim that supposedly only Christianity started war/terror/whatever in the past is also hogwash and likely based on your ignorance on the matter. Your type tend to have been fed all the evils of Christianity and none of Islam so they assume based on that, that Islam must have been pretty darn peaceful, I mean they'd know if they hadn't been.... Islamic history/nations have not been peaceful, far from it. Currently the ones doing that are the "Progressives"/Liberals who are in some sort of odd alliance with the Islamists... cuckoldry is all I can call it as it's just so darn stupid. 

I could care less about either two all religion does is make stupid people (who feel they should worship an unseen entity) do stupid things. It's even dumber to think that at the base of it all, most of the "Violent" religions worship the same god. It makes no sense to me, I mainly made this to see how many people would say that it was either Christ based religions or Muslims, while I was 75% sure it would be an attack on Muslims and about 12% sure that it would be about some weird "Pagan" bash. Hell, I would have chuckled if it was a Dragon Faith bash just because of my position.

 

Humorous any way you shake a stick at it. Damned if it didn't deliver.

[Thalmor]

I mainly made this to see how many people would say that it was either Christ based religions or Muslims, while I was 75% sure it would be an attack on Muslims and about 12% sure that it would be about some weird "Pagan" bash. Hell, I would have chuckled if it was a Dragon Faith bash just because of my position.

 

Humorous any way you shake a stick at it. Damned if it didn't deliver.

 

Hahaha! I called it!

 

We can go back and forth all day about which religion is the bloodiest. Yes, a lot of bloodshed can be attributed both Christianity and Islam (although the latter committed a lot more). However, when discussing how to solve modern issues, it's worth mentioning that there are far more massacres and human rights abuses committed from Islam than Christianity. It's also worth noting that it's the Christian-majority countries that are the most advanced and most progressive, where the Islamic countries are more regressive and backwards.

[Frank Todd]

Religions are not violent. People are violent.

 

More so the misinterpretation of Religion. I've seen both Muslims and Christian be extremely kind to one another and to stranger (or even supposed sinners). But as I stated in the post before this, this was to see who would jump at the chance first, and can't say that I'm disappointed at the result.

[Rozalia]

Religions are not violent. People are violent.

 

Relativism which is what that viewpoint derives from is pure bunkum. There are such things as violent, barbaric, and whatever other negative religions as they are simply not all created equal. Compare Buddhism and the Aztec religion for one example. 

 

You do know that the Qur'an is not arranged in the order of revelation right? And you do know that the majority of the ayaat (verses) of jihaad are found near the beginning? surah Ali imraan chapter 3, Nisa 4, Anfal 8, Tawba 9?

 

I always find it funny to read the misconceptions non muslims have of what is naasikh and what is mansookh (abrogater and abrogated ).

 

So much misinformation is out there on that it's hard to say on a lot of things. What is quite clear however is a lot of the "positive" parts are in fact negatives that are taken out of context. 

The biggest problems with the Qur'an is not it's terrible arrangement, but the existence of the Hadith and of course the belief that it is perfect (which I think is contradicted with the existence of the Hadiths as Quranists might say but whatever).

 

I could care less about either two all religion does is make stupid people (who feel they should worship an unseen entity) do stupid things. It's even dumber to think that at the base of it all, most of the "Violent" religions worship the same god. It makes no sense to me, I mainly made this to see how many people would say that it was either Christ based religions or Muslims, while I was 75% sure it would be an attack on Muslims and about 12% sure that it would be about some weird "Pagan" bash. Hell, I would have chuckled if it was a Dragon Faith bash just because of my position.

 

Humorous any way you shake a stick at it. Damned if it didn't deliver.

 

Except we've all seen your type before and know you're speaking poppycock. Were it as simple as all religion is stupid you would not have bothered to try to defend Islam by trying to push that Christianity is worse. 

 

Now the "same god" bit is something that isn't often challenged so I'll have a go. Such talk depends on how things are looked upon and there are people out there (Muslims on the defense for example) who will use that line as all 3 religions being related means they worship the same god, and if so they can surely be nice to whoever is the minority in the area (not true). 

 

All 3 religions for all the Relativism that goes on discredit each other and their gods likewise if one clearly has some sort of disorder. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim gods are all drastically different to each other. Some heretic Christians even called the Jewish god the devil for how bad he was. Even in the mainstream the Jews and Christians cannot have the same god due to Jesus who Jews deny and as Jesus is divine... that doesn't apply to all sects of course but we're just using blanket terms here. In short it's quite as simple as that.

 

More so the misinterpretation of Religion. I've seen both Muslims and Christian be extremely kind to one another and to stranger (or even supposed sinners). But as I stated in the post before this, this was to see who would jump at the chance first, and can't say that I'm disappointed at the result.

 

There were good Nazis. Do tell me about the misinterpretation of Nazism. 

[tenk]

Yeah I don't intend to get into an argument here so I've chopped out contentious bits. I'm just here to fact check some basic info about Islam.

 

So much misinformation is out there on that it's hard to say on a lot of things.

That is not the case here. He is simply factually wrong. Other non Muslims I discuss these issues with all know this.

 

The biggest problems with the Qur'an is not it's terrible arrangement,

 

Just FYI I disagree. It's arrangement and structure is meticulous. I recommend Professor Raymond Farrins book on the topic. My point for raising this is not to hear your rebuttal but simply to inform you there are those among non Muslim's who disagree with you on this point. No doubt I'll be getting a 'rebuttal' anyway.

[Rozalia]

Yeah I don't intend to get into an argument here so I've chopped out contentious bits. I'm just here to fact check some basic info about Islam.

 

 

That is not the case here. He is simply factually wrong. Other non Muslims I discuss these issues with all know this.

 

 

Just FYI I disagree. It's arrangement and structure is meticulous. I recommend Professor Raymond Farrins book on the topic. My point for raising this is not to hear your rebuttal but simply to inform you there are those among non Muslim's who disagree with you on this point. No doubt I'll be getting a 'rebuttal' anyway.

 

There is no "rebuttal" to make when you've already set down the rule that any disagreement with you means you have attained victory. I'd say you just can't cut the mustard on the matter and are trying to avoid having to try, which is fine if it means you'll be on your way, less effort involved. Ta-ta. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Rozalia

[Nadir Aminu]

Religions are not violent. People are violent.

This completely. The religion does not teach you to murder. Your family and fellow followers of any religion teaches to murder. Humans are conscious and self aware, so we should be able to make our own choices. They choose to murder. The religion doesn't murder. Unless, you're talking about someone named religion, then I wouldn't know.

[Big Brother]

This completely. The religion does not teach you to murder. Your family and fellow followers of any religion teaches to murder. Humans are conscious and self aware, so we should be able to make our own choices. They choose to murder. The religion doesn't murder. Unless, you're talking about someone named religion, then I wouldn't know.

 

I would argue that religion can actually be used to teach murder. Religion is a tool used by your fellow human beings to make personal gains and to control people's actions, one way or another. It can just as easily be used (by human beings) to teach and justify murder as it can be used to teach understanding and tolerance. However, these days we don't actually need religion to teach people understanding, tolerance and to be good people in general. We can do that through other means, through other tools. From my point of view, religion as a driving force for the creation of "good" is redundant while as a force of "evil", it's still very much alive. If this is the case and religion as a tool for the creation of good is truly obsolete then what remains is the evil it causes which means that in the end it does more harm than good.

[tenk]

There is no "rebuttal" to make when you've already set down the rule that any disagreement with you means you have attained victory. I'd say you just can't cut the mustard on the matter and are trying to avoid having to try, which is fine if it means you'll be on your way, less effort involved. Ta-ta.

Attained victory? That would be correct if I was making a point to be debated and discussed but as I previously stated I have not.

 

But yeah. Go with whatever you want to delude yourself into thinking.

 

I made 2 points:

1. Harms is factually incorrect about stating that the 'violent verses are later in the Qur'an and thus abrogate.

2. Informing you that some amongst non Muslim scholars consider the Qur'an to be coherent and we'll structured.

 

Would you like me to bring evidence for both points?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ibnar

[Ivan the Red]

If we measure the violence by what is written in their respective Books, judaism is the most violent by far. The Old Testament is full of edifying stories about rape, incest, kinslaying, mass murder of children, cities razed to the ground, and a vengeful God who will smite the !@#$ out of his own people for the smallest slight.

 

If we go by what their practitioners do, right now the salafist version of Islam seems to be the most violent one. But for some reason the westerners have not closed down all those Saudi-paid mosques yet. Though in the latter decades the zionist branch of judaism has a proud tradition of setting the bar of violence very high. There are fundamentalist branches of Christianity in Africa doing very well also.

 

If we measure the violence for total historical record, the followers of Civilization are the true champions of this contest. From the classical greeks to our present times past the Roman Empire and the colonial era, nothing feels better than smoking entire populations to bring them the benefits of your superior culture.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Throughout all of history?  The Aztec religion comes to mind.

[Rozalia]

Attained victory? That would be correct if I was making a point to be debated and discussed but as I previously stated I have not.

 

But yeah. Go with whatever you want to delude yourself into thinking.

 

I made 2 points:

1. Harms is factually incorrect about stating that the 'violent verses are later in the Qur'an and thus abrogate.

2. Informing you that some amongst non Muslim scholars consider the Qur'an to be coherent and we'll structured.

 

Would you like me to bring evidence for both points?

 

And now suddenly you want a "rebuttal"? Seems for all your talk in that first sentence I called it exactly correct if this is now your response. As for the rest, sorry, but you already turned up your nose at anyone who might question you so I'd just expect more of the same if we expanded on the subject, don't lead with that next time. What I will say is I don't have to argue for Lord Floof Floof and what Muslim scholars think has as much worth as, well being a Muslim scholar. I've seen the drooling fetishism of those so called experts before who proclaim Mohammad the greatest man who ever lived and other such rubbish, I really could not care less what they think. 

 

This completely. The religion does not teach you to murder. Your family and fellow followers of any religion teaches to murder. Humans are conscious and self aware, so we should be able to make our own choices. They choose to murder. The religion doesn't murder. Unless, you're talking about someone named religion, then I wouldn't know.

 

Aztec religion. You know the religion that asks for a great many human sacrifices where people get their hearts ripped out. Was that extremism? Was the Aztec faith the religion of peace too? Religion is just like politics, it's a set of ideas, being a religion doesn't give it some holy immunity.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Rozalia

[Nadir Aminu]

Aztec religion. You know the religion that asks for a great many human sacrifices where people get their hearts ripped out. Was that extremism? Was the Aztec faith the religion of peace too? Religion is just like politics, it's a set of ideas, being a religion doesn't give it some holy immunity.

People are violent. They create the religions. Religion is a man made construct, so therefore a religion can not be necessarily violent withouh the followers of such religion. Religion is a set of beliefs. Beliefs can be violent, but they are not all shared by the followers. So those beliefs not shares can't be the beliefs of a religion. I'm sure that every religion has a few dissenters. And if people have free will, then wouldn't they choose whether or not the religion was violent or not? So wouldn't that be whether the human is violent or not? The creator of the religion would be the violent, not the religion itself? The debate should be what prophet, or leader of religion is the most violent.

The Quran literally has 109 verses specifically telling you to kill.

Religions don't create themselves. Edited July 7, 2016 by Mahmoud Al-emin

[tenk]

Rozalia, on 07 Jul 2016 - 3:10 PM, said:

 

And now suddenly you want a "rebuttal"?

Errrm. No?

Seems for all your talk in that first sentence I called it exactly correct if this is now your response.

Would you mind taking your head out of the clouds to answer what exactly it is you think I want a rebuttal for?

As for the rest, sorry, but you already turned up your nose at anyone who might question you

No I turned it up at the actions of those who would attempt to drag me into a debate about topics that I have no interest in debating.

so I'd just expect more of the same if we expanded on the subject

You assume incorrectly. I'm more than happy to school you and LordFloofFloof on;

1. Varying non muslim opinions on the structure of the Quran.

2. The way the Quran is ordered.

don't lead with that next time.

Given you've been so kind as to give me advice allow me to reciprocate and advise you to

 

1. Improve your comprehension skills

2. Avoid attributing to the individual you quote a position that he or she does not hold.

What I will say is I don't have to argue for Lord Floof Floof

That right, you don't.

and what Muslim scholars think has as much worth as, well being a Muslim scholar. I've seen the drooling fetishism of those so called experts before who proclaim Mohammad the greatest man who ever lived and other such rubbish, I really could not care less what they think.

I'm going to circle back to my previous advices and add to it, learn how to read. Did you see me clearly state "Non-Muslim"?

 

So to make it easy for you I'll re-iterate

 

1. I have no interest in discussing the issues you have raised pertaining to a) Violence, b )The existence of Ahadeeth

2. My interest is in correcting factual errors and maybe to inform you of differing opinions on a subject so that if you wish to look in to it yourself you'll have some objective (non-muslim) sources to look in to.

 

So to achieve the objectives that I came here for I'll say the following.

 

To LordFloofFloof

 

The order of the Quran is not chronological, it was ordered by the companions of the Prophet after his death. If you'd like to read more into this issue from a muslim point of view I recommend Dr. Mustafa al-Azamis book on the Quranic Text, if you'd like to read from a non muslim view then I'd recommend some of the writings of Goldziher and Schacht.

 

To prove what I stated earlier about the "violent" verses being from the surah arranged earlier in the Quran, (but revealed later on) one needs only to take a gander at Wikipedia which shows that the second, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth chapter of the Quran have the majority of the verses which individuals like yourself quote to show that Islam is a "violent" religion though yes, they were revealed later on as you correctly stated

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba

 

Abrogation is taking what is written later as truth. It doesn't matter where it's placed in the book, it matters WHEN it was written.

Simple enough, I was just correcting the following factual mistake, I'm glad that is sorted.

 

 

You see, there are multiple passages in the Quran that teach peace, tolerance, and love. Unfortunately, they're at the beginning of the book. And Islam's policy of abrogation means that they are overruled by what Mohammed teaches later in life.

To Rozalia

 

If you'd like to read about the coherence of the Quran from a non-muslim point of view I'd recommend Discovering the Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text by Neal Robinson, other interesting writings are those found in the The Koran: Critical Concepts in Islamic studies journal. I'd wager there are also some interesting writings in the SOAS Journal of Quranic Studies.

 

Anywho, feel free to ignore everything I've written here and continue with your tirade.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ibnar

[Frank Todd]

. 

There were good Nazis. Do tell me about the misinterpretation of Nazism

You might not want to misinterpret a political party/form of fascism as a religious one. Nazi's were the National Socialist German Workers' Party that practiced a fascist political form. 

Granted you could say that they were like Religious nuts, but at a base.. They weren't.

 

I believe it is much like when people say that Trump is the God-send to the united states (A bunch of stupid hicks whom are racist and contribute anything that hates the same stuff as a holy message).

 

I can't tell where you are coming from, First I bash religion (you attack me in some way) then I support it (then you attack, granted in a curve ball sort of way). It is especially humorous in that you are trying to label me as something, when all I did was try to start some random debate/ test to see how P&W peeps think on here. So really I'm just an !@#$ trying to start a fight under the guise of a Debate.

 

So keep at it, I'm soooo tuned into what it is your trying to do *Wanders off after a shiny rock*

[Frank Todd]

*Plan succeeds*

 

[Zenmaster HippieNerd]

Odinisim. It literally preaches going out and conquering for honor. And dying in combat is how to get to Valhalla. Im not saying its most violent but it makes Christianity look mild. 

[Rozalia]

People are violent. They create the religions. Religion is a man made construct, so therefore a religion can not be necessarily violent withouh the followers of such religion. Religion is a set of beliefs. Beliefs can be violent, but they are not all shared by the followers. So those beliefs not shares can't be the beliefs of a religion. I'm sure that every religion has a few dissenters. And if people have free will, then wouldn't they choose whether or not the religion was violent or not? So wouldn't that be whether the human is violent or not? The creator of the religion would be the violent, not the religion itself? The debate should be what prophet, or leader of religion is the most violent.

 

Absolute twaddle. You've essentially disavowed religion, the set of ideas from responsibly. So lets get this straight... the followers of the religion could be violent, heck even the founder could be violent... but the religion itself isn't because, uh... it's a religion? 

 

Also the Aztec religion was barbaric and violent, still waiting for you to say it wasn't. If you can't then your claim is disproved.

 

You might not want to misinterpret a political party/form of fascism as a religious one. Nazi's were the National Socialist German Workers' Party that practiced a fascist political form. 

Granted you could say that they were like Religious nuts, but at a base.. They weren't.

 

I believe it is much like when people say that Trump is the God-send to the united states (A bunch of stupid hicks whom are racist and contribute anything that hates the same stuff as a holy message).

 

I can't tell where you are coming from, First I bash religion (you attack me in some way) then I support it (then you attack, granted in a curve ball sort of way). It is especially humorous in that you are trying to label me as something, when all I did was try to start some random debate/ test to see how P&W peeps think on here. So really I'm just an !@#$ trying to start a fight under the guise of a Debate.

 

So keep at it, I'm soooo tuned into what it is your trying to do *Wanders off after a shiny rock*

 

I did no such thing. Religion and politics are very similar though religion cowardly hides behind talk of divinity to shield itself. Your argument is there are good Muslims, so I have countered with there were good Nazis. In short your defense is crap, find a new one. 

 

??? You're having a hard time out here, don't think you've read what I've put down. I'd agree and say you're a troll, but being a troll implies you don't quite believe in such a thing when you have stated that you do. You knew Islam would be what was mentioned as you've said and you set out to protect it. Many here have dealt with enough "progressive" hacks to know such things when they see 'em.

 

 

Errrm. No?

Would you mind taking your head out of the clouds to answer what exactly it is you think I want a rebuttal for?

No I turned it up at the actions of those who would attempt to drag me into a debate about topics that I have no interest in debating.

You assume incorrectly. I'm more than happy to school you and LordFloofFloof on;

1. Varying non muslim opinions on the structure of the Quran.

2. The way the Quran is ordered.

Given you've been so kind as to give me advice allow me to reciprocate and advise you to

 

1. Improve your comprehension skills

2. Avoid attributing to the individual you quote a position that he or she does not hold.

That right, you don't.

I'm going to circle back to my previous advices and add to it, learn how to read. Did you see me clearly state "Non-Muslim"?

 

So to make it easy for you I'll re-iterate

 

1. I have no interest in discussing the issues you have raised pertaining to a) Violence, b )The existence of Ahadeeth

2. My interest is in correcting factual errors and maybe to inform you of differing opinions on a subject so that if you wish to look in to it yourself you'll have some objective (non-muslim) sources to look in to.

 

So to achieve the objectives that I came here for I'll say the following.

 

To LordFloofFloof

 

The order of the Quran is not chronological, it was ordered by the companions of the Prophet after his death. If you'd like to read more into this issue from a muslim point of view I recommend Dr. Mustafa al-Azamis book on the Quranic Text, if you'd like to read from a non muslim view then I'd recommend some of the writings of Goldziher and Schacht.

 

To prove what I stated earlier about the "violent" verses being from the surah arranged earlier in the Quran, (but revealed later on) one needs only to take a gander at Wikipedia which shows that the second, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth chapter of the Quran have the majority of the verses which individuals like yourself quote to show that Islam is a "violent" religion though yes, they were revealed later on as you correctly stated

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba

 

Simple enough, I was just correcting the following factual mistake, I'm glad that is sorted.

 

 

To Rozalia

 

If you'd like to read about the coherence of the Quran from a non-muslim point of view I'd recommend Discovering the Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text by Neal Robinson, other interesting writings are those found in the The Koran: Critical Concepts in Islamic studies journal. I'd wager there are also some interesting writings in the SOAS Journal of Quranic Studies.

 

Anywho, feel free to ignore everything I've written here and continue with your tirade.

 

What I think you want a rebuttal on? Uh... read your own post. You didn't want a rebuttal to avoid having to debate your point, that was your own words. 

 

Now that I've called you out on it you're more than willing suddenly yes, however I don't feel it worth my time. I gave you a chance and you turned your nose up at it. Too bad.

 

I don't think advice from you is very valuable. You could for all I know actually be very proficient in the matter but I'll never know because after that opener from you I don't care to give you time on the matter.

 

You keep coming with the insults while being the one committing those errors yourself. Let me give you a hint. Why would I use the term "drooling fetishism"? Because quite clearly I was referring to non Muslim Scholars who fetish over Islam. Otherwise I would not have used such a term.

 

Yes you've decided discussing the really weak bits isn't worth your time so you'll go after the easy stuff, thats usually how things go yes. 

[Frank Todd]

Absolute twaddle. You've essentially disavowed religion, the set of ideas from responsibly. So lets get this straight... the followers of the religion could be violent, heck even the founder could be violent... but the religion itself isn't because, uh... it's a religion? 

 

Also the Aztec religion was barbaric and violent, still waiting for you to say it wasn't. If you can't then your claim is disproved.

 

 

I did no such thing. Religion and politics are very similar though religion cowardly hides behind talk of divinity to shield itself. Your argument is there are good Muslims, so I have countered with there were good Nazis. In short your defense is crap, find a new one. 

 

??? You're having a hard time out here, don't think you've read what I've put down. I'd agree and say you're a troll, but being a troll implies you don't quite believe in such a thing when you have stated that you do. You knew Islam would be what was mentioned as you've said and you set out to protect it. Many here have dealt with enough "progressive" hacks to know such things when they see 'em.

 

 

 

What I think you want a rebuttal on? Uh... read your own post. You didn't want a rebuttal to avoid having to debate your point, that was your own words. 

 

Now that I've called you out on it you're more than willing suddenly yes, however I don't feel it worth my time. I gave you a chance and you turned your nose up at it. Too bad.

 

I don't think advice from you is very valuable. You could for all I know actually be very proficient in the matter but I'll never know because after that opener from you I don't care to give you time on the matter.

 

You keep coming with the insults while being the one committing those errors yourself. Let me give you a hint. Why would I use the term "drooling fetishism"? Because quite clearly I was referring to non Muslim Scholars who fetish over Islam. Otherwise I would not have used such a term.

 

Yes you've decided discussing the really weak bits isn't worth your time so you'll go after the easy stuff, thats usually how things go yes. 

Much like the Wrestler you apparently themed yourself after, it seems you like the attention and drama. :3