Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[Regina]

I take issue with that "there's no compulsion in Islam" quote apologists love throwing around.

Many people are inducted into Islam as babies before they have a say in it, in countries where it is illegal to leave the religion. That is compulsion in Islam

Like the other Abrahamic faiths, there is a belief that non-believers will go to Jahannam (Hell). That is compulsion in Islam, really, if the alternative is something so horrible you'd feel no choice but to be part of it.

So I don't buy it.

[WinterHold]

I take issue with that "there's no compulsion in Islam" quote apologists love throwing around.

Many people are inducted into Islam as babies before they have a say in it, in countries where it is illegal to leave the religion. That is compulsion in Islam

Like the other Abrahamic faiths, there is a belief that non-believers will go to Jahannam (Hell). That is compulsion in Islam, really, if the alternative is something so horrible you'd feel no choice but to be part of it.

So I don't buy it.

You did exactly what I told Amine not to do : blamed the acts of Muslims on Mohammed and the Quran.

Can't you see that they're contradicting their own holy book ? 


In terms of compulsion, they "forced people"; even though their holy book itself didn't order them to do so.

[Regina]

I said nothing about "Muslims" or about the Quran. You're the one saying I said it's "all Muslims".

I don't care about Muhammad or the Quran. In the Islamic regime of Iran (to name just one of a few countries where this happens) the punishment for leaving Islam is death. That happens, today, whatever Muhammad did or did not do or whatever is or is not in the Quran, and that is "compulsion in Islam".

Am I saying "all Muslims" believe that to be fair or right? No. Am I saying it's in the Quran? No, I don't know if it is. What I know is that this shit happens and that it is "compulsion in Islam".

And if you were genuine about your belief that people shouldn't be forced into Islam, I'd love to see this same fire and outrage at countries that enforce it. But alas, you want to sit here arguing with me on an internet forum. How productive.

[Amine]

Also, there is a massive difference between "WWJD" and "WWMD". I'm not sure Christianity doesn't have a capacity to be reformed that Islam simply lacks. Jesus would never have called for the crusades. That was an actual case of religious people not really following their religion. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a guy who went around committing atrocities. The Muslims who don't spread Islam by the sword are the ones not really following their religion.

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same shitty sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

Where can I run from it? Uh, all the really violent verses? Everyone knows about the "no compulsion" verse. That there are contradictions by itself would not even be surprising. But if you read it closely it is talking about acceptance of the religion, i.e. whether or not someone believes in it, whether or not they are sincere. It's saying you can't actually believe it if you only believe it because you are forced to. You have to actually accept the truth because you genuinely accept it. Then the belief is true belief.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, later verses abrogate earlier ones. As the Quran was "revealed to" Muhammad over a period of years, as the situation changed so did the message. As events unfolded and Muhammad gained more power it seems that he had no hesitation about forcing other religions to convert, forcing them to do all sorts of things, killing them, whatever.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Also, there is a massive difference between "WWJD" and "WWMD". I'm not sure Christianity doesn't have a capacity to be reformed that Islam simply lacks. Jesus would never have called for the crusades. That was an actual case of religious people not really following their religion. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a guy who went around committing atrocities. The Muslims who don't spread Islam by the sword are the ones not really following their religion.

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

Oh...fuck it, why bother being fair with you? It must be that it isn't the religion, that it's a race thing instead, because the sunnis and shias began with sand-up-their-ass Arabs, Persians, and Turks.

[WinterHold]

I said nothing about "Muslims" or about the Quran. You're the one saying I said it's "all Muslims".

I don't care about Muhammad or the Quran. In the Islamic regime of Iran (to name just one of a few countries where this happens) the punishment for leaving Islam is death. That happens, today, whatever Muhammad did or did not do or whatever is or is not in the Quran, and that is "compulsion in Islam".

Am I saying "all Muslims" believe that to be fair or right? No. Am I saying it's in the Quran? No, I don't know if it is. What I know is that this shit happens and that it is "compulsion in Islam".

And if you were genuine about your belief that people shouldn't be forced into Islam, I'd love to see this same fire and outrage at countries that enforce it. But alas, you want to sit here arguing with me on an internet forum. How productive.

Actually, coming from you, I understand that you don't know me enough. I'm against those regimes to the bone, I even try my best here in AF to carry on the exposing of Sunni/Shia regimes and the amount of crimes they practice.

And if we would turn this political, those regimes are so supported by the west and the east, Iran is being armed by Russia, Saudi Arabia is being armed by the U.S, Egypt is armed by NATO, U.S and Russia. In other words; this form of Islam would've never survived without the support of "secular states".

Please, be genuine too about your belief and "hate for the compulsion", by asking the world to stop supporting those fucks.

and errr, I live in the Middle East, actually under a state that watches the internet and can actually chop my head for the stuff I write here  chopping heads is their capital punishment but the "seculars" still don't see it an issue, they make deals with them by trillion.

[WinterHold]

Where can I run from it? Uh, all the really violent verses? Everyone knows about the "no compulsion" verse. That there are contradictions by itself would not even be surprising. But if you read it closely it is talking about acceptance of the religion, i.e. whether or not someone believes in it, whether or not they are sincere. It's saying you can't actually believe it if you only believe it because you are forced to. You have to actually accept the truth because you genuinely accept it. Then the belief is true belief.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, later verses abrogate earlier ones. As the Quran was "revealed to" Muhammad over a period of years, as the situation changed so did the message. As events unfolded and Muhammad gained more power it seems that he had no hesitation about forcing other religions to convert, forcing them to do all sorts of things, killing them, whatever.

 it talked about compulsion, and compulsion has many forms, and yes you have to accept it by "believing yourself that it's the truth", in other words this verse stands as a strong pillar in the face of anybody claiming that Islam calls for "forcing people by the sword to accept the faith".

About what you call "violent verses", it's something called "self defense". or would you like us to stand still while being butchered ?

Since the earliest days of Islam, one corner rule was that "an eye for an eye, though forgiveness is highly appreciated by God". 
I see it clearly, that if somebody declared war against me, it will be so allowed and valid for me to do the same.

[WinterHold]

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

Oh...fuck it, why bother being fair with you? It must be that it isn't the religion, that it's a race thing instead, because the sunnis and shias began with sand-up-their-ass Arabs, Persians, and Turks.

I'm an Arab. So I don't appreciate your racism.

Though you are correct. One reason for the hatred between Sunnies and Shia, is that Shia are mostly persian, while sunnies are mostly Arabs. Lots of hate between the two.

[Amine]

Where can I run from it? Uh, all the really violent verses? Everyone knows about the "no compulsion" verse. That there are contradictions by itself would not even be surprising. But if you read it closely it is talking about acceptance of the religion, i.e. whether or not someone believes in it, whether or not they are sincere. It's saying you can't actually believe it if you only believe it because you are forced to. You have to actually accept the truth because you genuinely accept it. Then the belief is true belief.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, later verses abrogate earlier ones. As the Quran was "revealed to" Muhammad over a period of years, as the situation changed so did the message. As events unfolded and Muhammad gained more power it seems that he had no hesitation about forcing other religions to convert, forcing them to do all sorts of things, killing them, whatever.

 it talked about compulsion, and compulsion has many forms, and yes you have to accept it by "believing yourself that it's the truth", in other words this verse stands as a strong pillar in the face of anybody claiming that Islam calls for "forcing people by the sword to accept the faith".

About what you call "violent verses", it's something called "self defense". or would you like us to stand still while being butchered ?

Since the earliest days of Islam, one corner rule was that "an eye for an eye, though forgiveness is highly appreciated by God". 
I see it clearly, that if somebody declared war against me, it will be so allowed and valid for me to do the same.

Even if I totally accepted your self-defense defense, that still wouldn't even touch things like the horrible attitude toward women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus didn't go around saying men should rape their wives and their sex slaves when they please. Things like that.

[WinterHold]

Even if I totally accepted your self-defense defense, that still wouldn't even touch things like the horrible attitude toward women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus didn't go around saying men should rape their wives and their sex slaves when they please. Things like that.

Tribal acts. All are backed by Hadiths (which I don't believe in).
Instead, there is this one verse in the Quran that actually give men the right to not have sex with their wives.

And slavery is forbidden anyhow in the Quran. You can't take slaves because it's not authorized (not even in one verse).