Islam for dummies!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Username, May 28, 2013.

  1. Username Registered Senior Member

    Islam for dummies!
    You have to be a idiot to follow Islam.
    The all comprehensive guide for those with severe mental disabilities.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arauca Banned Banned


    Don't say that , Islam is a very disciplined religion , and kind religion . What makes it bad are the sons of B***s mula ( leaders ) who are very opportunistic for their livelihood , they mislead the unfortunate followers who are majority illiterate , as it was up to 1954 among Catholics. who were not allowed to read the bibble.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    I agree. Islam does have many positives. Unfortunately, like all religions, it does have its negatives as well. But these are mainly due to the small minority that tend to use their religion as an excuse for violence and hatred.


    And to the OP: You need to have more respect for the religion. You may not agree with it personally, but that's not to say that it is wrong just because it is wrong for you. Islam, like any other religion, can be and IS the driving force for many people. Religion in general can be a used a reminder to its followers to do good and to live in compassion. You don't NEED religion to be good, but it can and does serve as major influence for good in people.

    I have met many Muslims in my lifetime that are extremely intelligent - some even were/are scientists. You cannot judge the character or intelligence of a person based on the religion they follow.

    So, by all means, grow up and be more respectful. It will serve you, and everyone around you, well.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    The point is not if Islam is disciplined. Nazis were disciplined. What makes Islam hard to control in a peaceful manner is the fact that the principle person was not peaceful. Jesus never hurt a soul. Buddha never hurt a soul.

    Let us look at Mohammad.
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well we know precious little about Jesus. Most of what we know of Jesus comes from second or third hand sources. And Christianity has had more than its fair share of violence in the name of religion too (e.g. Jonestown, Salem witch burnings, inquisitions, crusades, etc.). Religion, any religion, can be used to foment violence because for the most part they all rely on faith and irrationality – beliefs that cannot be proven. That makes their adherents vulnerable to abuse.
  9. IncogNegro Banned Banned

    Cheezle... I'm lost for words at this truth and this truth alone... It brings me to tears realizing how misunderstandings can end in death of art. How men of powerful words are treated worse than a common man just for having power. I have to say this of Jesus... Like socrates he accepted his death for only reasons he knows. They both knew society not one man held the power to convict and kill them... despite the order of what to do coming from a single person. To die for beliefs or to kill for art? What a question even I am ignorant to face head on... Sir I know my own destiny, have seen my own death! Have had the spikes of the cross driven through me on several occasions!!!! To Truly UNderstand a murderer one must not fear death. To stop him from killing you he must see his own in your eyes. Not of his body but of his soul. He must know how weak he would become by not standing at your side. And I speak this at the age of 23 of experience... My ignorance has lead me to bliss and it is just now I see.
  10. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Don't get me wrong. I am not a Christian, or a member of any religion. I don't really want to defend Christianity because I agree with you that a lot of terrible things have been done in it's name. Christianity has moderated in the last few hundred years. IMO that is because Protestants ditched the practice of reading the latin version of the Bible. Now that the story of Jesus can be read by all (though few actually do) it is by comparison a very mild religion. The Koran also suffers from this problem as it is supposed to be read in arabic whether you speak that language or not. There are lots of people across the world that have to recite the Koran in a language they do not understand.

    As far as what we actually know about Jesus, that is not important. The only thing that has any bearing on the issue is what the believers believe. So best way to compare religions is to compare their books and the stories of the lives of their founders. This is because the believers will look at those stories as a model of how to live their lives. They will emulate the founders. I think the most violent thing Jesus did was cut off the ear of one of his apostiles. Mostly he was (portrayed as) a very peaceful person. Mohammad on the other had had people killed just for insulting him. And that is why some (most?) Muslims become outraged and issue death threats because someone drew a cartoon. On the other hand artists have immersed images of Jesus in urine and feces and don't have to have body guards and live in fear.

    I think that religions are going to be with us for a long time. It seems to be part of human nature. So while we can't get rid of religion, we should at least encourage the peaceful ones and discourage the violent ones. Every religion can go bad in the future and turn violent. But a religion with a violent bible is more likely to turn violent. Read both books and see what you think.

  11. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Absolute pacifism is impractical.
    Penal systems are not immoral or evil.
    Propaganda can be as damaging as physical attacks. Otherwise Anwar al-Awlaki wouldn't have been blown up by the US government for writing in a magazine.
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Hate speech and stereotyping
    6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

    eg : You have to be a idiot to follow Islam.

    21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).

    Needless to say, insulting people on the basis of their culture doesn't have a brilliant track record for securing peace.


    The irony is that the author of the OP could probably get an education if he read the book (which would of course involve them losing their morbid fear of getting converted ... so its probably not likely to happen any time soon)
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    What scifes - neither a militant nor an extremist, in fact - is saying is that group conflict is reasonable and appropriate, punishing alternate lifestyles is proper and good, and speaking out against Islamic conservatism is hurtful.

    (That argument about al-Awlaki was studious turd.)
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    This has to be what in England we call a "wind-up" - so preposterous and offensive to reason that it belongs on Fox.

    Islam has over a billion followers.
  16. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    As long as people follow islam, and they resonated of there free will there, i see nothing wrong with it, like any other religion.

    I call myself half catholic, and half buddhist.

    Catholic priests and buddhist monks are very similar, and very similar outlook to me. I always said i could probably have been at least a bishop if i went that way, but i never wanted to be a priest as i do not really like people. So being a catholic priest was a no go for me, as standing there preaching to people whom are all criminals, and hate each other is not my thing. I just do not like others. A priest needs to like people a little to care about preaching to them, and understanding them.

    Me is me, and i am not you. Like everyone else is there unique selves.

    But people whom resonate to islam, thats their bag, so what, let them.
  17. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    I have never understood this idea that belief, conviction, etc are somehow off limits for criticism. Of those groups you mentioned, most are things that people can't change about themselves, and denigrating a person for being an unintentional member of that group really poor judgement. But religion and political affiliation are just ideas. If there is one thing that a person should be held responsible for it is that. Ideas. Esp. because by their very nature, religion and politics are very often intolerant of outsiders. I grew up in a Mormon area where I was an outsider. Some kids in my neighborhood were forbidden by their parent to have me as their friend. As an outsider it can be hard to find work because most business owners were Mormons and preferred to hire other Mormons. But I like Mormons. They are mostly good people. But when they knock on my door and want to convert me, I tell them what I think of their beliefs. I know a few Muslims and they seem to be good people. But I know that they think of me as an infidel and therefore a lesser person. It is their belief. I feel completely justified to have and express my own ideas about their beliefs.
  18. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I agree that many Muslims do strive to make Islam into a religion of discipline. But I'm less convinced that the sort of discipline that they espouse is anything that I'd ever want to call kind.

    For example according to Shariah, if a Muslim dares to convert to a different religion (or to reject religion entirely) the punishment is declared (by God, supposedly) to be death. That's the penalty for many transgressions that some of us might find rather trivial, such as daughters who have premarital sex and for adulterers.

    In Egypt, according to a recent Pew poll, 74% of Egyptian Muslims support making Shariah the law of the land. Of these, 86% support the death penalty for apostates. That's 64% of Egyptian Muslims who support killing any Muslim who tries to leave Islam.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: Username has been banned from sciforums for 2 days.

    Hopefully, the reason is obvious enough. If not, please review our site rules, which are available in the Announcement at the top of every subforum list.
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I agree. Blair's UK government tried to pass a law outlawing criticism of religion but it was, quite rightly, kicked out and never took effect. It is important that belief systems are open to challenge and debate.

    However, to claim that over a billion people must be idiots because they follow Islam, as the OP does, makes no critique of the beliefs. It is simply an imbecilic and gratuitously rude remark, designed to annoy.

    (Confusing simple abuse with argument - not that I'm accusing you of this - is what comes of watching Fox too often

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    That's probably good advice for anyone. But here on Sciforums, it does sound hypocritical.

    I mean this board almost continuously has atheist threads going that are very hostile to and dismissive of Christianity and of Biblical faith. That's ok with me, and sometimes I join in that criticism.

    The thing is, Islam isn't any different than Christianity in that regard. Islam doesn't have any immunity from criticism (as much as the politically-correct left, especially in Europe, would like that to be the case).

    The only way that I can see to not be hypocritical in these matters is to either avoid any criticism of any religious faith whatsoever (which would include Christianity and silence our atheists) or else treat all religious faiths the same way where all of them are exposed to criticism.

    Criticism of both Christianity and Islam might be ill-informed on occasion. At other times the criticism might be intentionally insulting and over-the-top. But I do think that criticism of religion is justified in many cases and it does seem to fall within the bounds of free-speech.
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Isn't it hypocritical to criticize "imbecilic and gratuitously rude" remarks, "designed to annoy"... and then cap that excellent sentiment off with an imbecilic and gratuitously rude remark about Fox News and those who watch it (I'm one of them), designed only to annoy?
  23. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    I am not so sure that there is safety in numbers when it comes to idiocy. Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." He liked to go around and ask people questions that challenged their views of reality, and that included religion. He was convicted and sentenced to death for corrupting the youth by questioning religion and other things. Now we hold him in pretty high regards. Even an atheist should question his belief system. Lazy people just go with the flow.

Share This Page