RE: Why do Atheists defend Islam?
December 14, 2015 at 12:22 am
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 12:25 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(December 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm)Amine Wrote:(December 13, 2015 at 10:22 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: 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.
The cherry-picking that must take place in following a book which contradicts itself seems to partially undercut the thesis that the religion itself is the cause of the violence.
I don't doubt at all that some iterations picking the ugly verses have much blame to shoulder for radical Muslim violence, but others, not so much.
It's like blaming Protestants for the Inquisition.