Agnostic.com

10 3

I challenge any theologian of Islam or any apologetic Muslim to convince me with any interpretation which goes against the apparent plain and straightforward meaning of the following verse of the Quran : Chapter 8, verse 55:
" Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe!"

By mufassil5
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Why ask on here, especially as you never reply? Like any of us gives a shit what koran says. I prefered the satanic verses, great story, twisted ending just how I like it.

Savage Level 7 Apr 3, 2019
0

To hell with all religions!

I can agree with this...

2

It is a book that engages in a considerable amount of demonisation and dehumanisation in order to incite murder and deter people from being anything other than Muslim. That is why it has been so successful. Hitler used exactly the same techniques, but fortunately people stood up to his hate instead of endorsing it and calling it peaceful.

As does the bible and as has christianity. As vast swathes of Islam are committed to anti-violence it is disingenuous to bucket all of Islam in this way

Indeed, the Bible is also responsible for generating genocides, and all those who fail to condemn its hate are also culpable. But the commitment to anti-violence that you speak of is incompatible with endorsement of a religion which makes violence so heavily a part of its nature in its holy text which bombards the reader with death threats and incitements to violence. It is no accident that Islam keeps generating genocides when the Qur'an directly calls for them.

0

I think if we look at it from a 7th century Muslim perspective, the apostate was also returning to the enemy, making himself a traitor.

It's a moot point who condemns you. It is a Muslim who will kill you.

brentan Level 8 Apr 2, 2019

Or a Christian. Or a white supremacist.

No, not for apostacy.

1

I challenge you not to be such a hater. Get some nuance. Get some space and open your head up a bit.

Why just Islam? Do you think we couldn't find equally horrible or worse verses from any other global religion?

He is an ex-Muslim who has had his life threatened by a lot of devout Muslims. In the country where he comes from, many such ex-Muslims have been murdered recently.

@David_Cooper I understand. Doesn’t make it OK to brand all Muslims in the way he does.

And interacting when he is called on it would help. Just reposting his horseshit is no better than the hatred the other way.

@Beerandwine. And we could find many such in most holy books too. Thankfully for all of us most religious adherents don’t actually believe that stuff or carry it out.

@OwlInASack His hatred the other way is secondary hatred generated by the primary hate being flung at him. It's the same when people express hatred of Nazis - we don't equate their secondary hate with the primary hate from the people who started it.

@David_Cooper I understand. Except that it's misguided and his views are abhorrent. Not all Muslims fit his neat categeory - and bucketing them is - philosophicaly - as bad them targeting him. He might have decided that violence is not a great thing. That's terrific. But his rhetoric fits right in with a deeply violent theme which floods the internet and spills over into lone wolf killers taking semi automatics to Mosques.

So he needs to do an awful lot better. Grouping all Muslims together is crass and lazy: it ignores the millions who are not jihadi haters.

I'm also willing to bet that his narrative is not the full story.

What is abhorrent here is your condemnation of a victim of this viciousness and your failure to condemn the people who propagate the vicious hate that drives all the violence (and who call that vicious hate "peaceful" ). Unlike you, he comes from a place where he has lived it first hand; a place where lynch mobs can be whipped up in a moment to go and kill someone who's been accused of insulting god.

Grouping all Muslims together is not in the least bit crazy - for sure, there's a wide range of behaviour and intention amongst them, but they have all endorsed the container of the hate which causes all the problems and they refuse to strip that hate out of it to render it benign. Those who refuse to condemn hate are endorsing that hate, maintaining it's power to keep infecting vulnerable minds and to turn them into killers. When someone holds up a copy of Mein Kampf and claims it's peaceful while denying that it had any role in driving the Holocaust, civilised people universally regard that person as vile, and yet some of them are sincere and don't believe it is hateful. Should we declare that there are good Nazis and that their interpretation of Nazi literature makes it respectable? No. We tell them they've bought into something vile and ask them to sort themselves out.

@David_Cooper well that’s one unbalanced fascist view I suppose. Good luck with that

If you pop down to NZ quickly you can get your semi automatic before they ban them.

I don't do unbalanced views or fascist ones. I just give the neutral position on things, but extremists like you don't recognise the middle because you think you're in it while you endorse one side's hate and condemn others for condemning that hate.

@David_Cooper Nothing vaguely neutral about your position. That's hilarious! And yes - it aligns engtirely with the new global fascism. Hey ho. Quite a few of you folks on this board at the moment.

Tell me about this hate I condone. I'm fascinated...

My position is entirely neutral. I condemn all the primary hate in all the holy texts of religion (and other religious literature) and all the primary hate in all the manifestos of ideologies (and other related literature) without exception. That is being 100% neutral. You, however, endorse the vicious hate in (at least some of) these religions because you refuse to condemn it and instead you condemn me for condemning it, making out that I hate the people who inadvertently propagate that hate when the reality is that I don't even condemn the terrorists - I condemn their actions, but they are merely victims of the hate.

I've heard a number of Islamist terrorists talking about how they got involved in groups like Al Qa'ida. One of them described how he spent a few years working in a facility in Afghanistan where they were experimenting with poisons, but they were deeply devout people who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. They tested the poisons on rabbits, and every time they killed one, it upset them - they prayed a lot and held special ceremonies for them. These were caring people, but they were blinded by hate that had been programmed into them. After one of their attacks hit the wrong target and killed children, he had a realisation that everything they'd been doing was wrong, and he ended up working for GCHQ, alerting them to attacks that were being planned, but he was very clear about the fact that the people he was working with were not evil murderers - they were simply deeply misguided people who meant well.

That is in no way a unique case. Someone who lived near me went to fight for ISIS, and he was a well-respected person too who was acting on sincerely held religious beliefs. He was killed in a drone strike and we have no idea whether he killed anyone or not first, but this is the thing - there are doubtless many bastards out there who just love violence, but there are many others with them who don't, but who are trying to do what they believe is right. They have been misled by the hate in the holy texts that they revere. That hate has been given a high status by the status of its container, and that status if further magnified by all the people who endorse that container. That is the mechanism by which the holy hate has so much power to suck people in and make them act on it. The fix for this is to get rid of all the hate of people and for everyone to turn their ire against the real cause of the violence, and that's the holy hate itself. The terrorists are just hapless victims like everyone else.

@David_Cooper no your position isn’t neutral because

A) you play the ‘with me or against me’ game based in deeply flawed and simplistic categories; and
B) you fail to recognise that there are millions of Muslims whose religion has none of the characteristics you so desperately want to hate.

Suggesting I endorse ‘vicious hate’ (of all the fuck wittery) because I don’t bucket all muslims into your hate bucket... why are you fascists so utterly unimaginatively homogenous.

Here’s a thing: the fella who opened fire in the NZ mosque believed all the same shit you do. Thatbwont touch you because you’re determined to hate and convinced of yourself. But the world’s nuanced and varied. And Muslims are not all jihadis or close

@OwlInASack The NZ shooter had bought into ideologies with vicious hate in their literature and is just the same as the terrorists on the other side. I condemn all that hate just as much as I condemn the hate that you admire. I am 100% neutral, condemning all the hate while you fail to do the same. Your judgement is dismally poor, but that's no surprise given that you defend hate. There are no Muslims who don't endorse the Qur'an which contains some of the vicious hate in question - they are all propagating that hate, however unwitting they may be. I don't put anyone in a hate bucket, but you clearly have one and you want to put decent people who stand against all hate into it. You are an extremist, and you try to cover that up by calling me a fascist. No - you are the fascist here, just like your Nazi friend who shot 50 Muslims. He endorsed hate just as you do.

@David_Cooper

My position is entirely neutral

Whatever that might mean anyway. And repeating it doesn't make it true. You realise that right?

I condemn all the primary hate in all the holy texts of religion (and other religious literature) and all the primary hate in all the manifestos of ideologies (and other related literature) without exception

How very good of you. The world feels better already.

That is being 100% neutral

No - that's lacking nunce and subtelty. And stepping right into swamp that bred the NZ shooter.

You, however, endorse the vicious hate in (at least some of) these religions because you refuse to condemn it

Do I?

and instead you condemn me for condemning it

No - that's got nothing to do with what I said. Clearly so. It''s almost like you're determined to misunderstand me or something. That can't be can it?

making out that I hate the people who inadvertently propagate that hate when the reality is that I don't even condemn the terrorists - I condemn their actions, but they are merely victims of the hate

Right. Whatever that might mean. Again

I don't put anyone in a hate bucket

Well - I judge that you do. Your colleciton of all Muslims into one big group you can post hatred about... well done.

but you clearly have one and you want to put decent people who stand against all hate into it. You are an extremist, and you try to cover that up by calling me a fascist. No - you are the fascist here, just like your Nazi friend who shot 50 Muslims. He endorsed hate just as you do

Ahh the old - try to deflect attention from what you are by accusing others of being it. Congratulations.

Doesn't change what you are though does it? I argue for nuance, recognition of differences. And apparently I'm a fascist! Blimey. No ahrd right wing hater has ever tried that before. Such originality!

Here's a thing. Get out. Go and meet some of the massive diversity of Muslims in the world. Meet some for whom their religion is genuionely a religion of peace (mind blowing I realise). The OP could do with doing the same thing I think. There are horrific Islamic societies in this world - particularly the Wahhabis. And there are others which are just notthing like that. It's quite important to distinguish.

Don't suppose you'll care.

It's also helpful to recognise that there's nothing vaguely unique about the Q'ran in it's offensiveness. The bible is right up there too. Fixating on one is part of the problem which allows whole communities to suffer terrible persecution. Which is what is happening to some Muslim groups all over the world right now. This lump them all together hate speech feeds it.

@OwlInASack My position is entirely neutral. That is a fact, and no amount of questioning it will stop it being a fact. I don't bias myself in the direction of Muslims, Christians, Nazis, Atheist groups that kill, or any others - I condemn all the hate that these groups produce where they try to incite the murder of innocent people. Where is the bias there? Who am I discriminating against and in whose favour? Is it biased to stand for harmless people against those who want to harm them? No - anyone who wants to can become harmless by rejecting the hate and turning good.

"No - that's lacking nunce and subtelty. And stepping right into swamp that bred the NZ shooter." ----> Condemning ALL the hate in direct proportion to its viciousness is exactly what all neutral people should do. You should not be arguing against this.

"No - that's got nothing to do with what I said. Clearly so. It''s almost like you're determined to misunderstand me or something. That can't be can it?" ----> You are condemning me for condemning all the hate, and that's just plain perverse.

"Well - I judge that you do [put anyone in a hate bucket]. Your colleciton of all Muslims into one big group you can post hatred about... well done." ----> I have posted no hatred about them or anyone else at all. I have merely condemned the hate they endorse and their endorsement of it. You are simply projecting your own hate onto me because you assume that everyone else's mind works like yours.

"Ahh the old - try to deflect attention from what you are by accusing others of being it. Congratulations." ----> You're the one that's been doing that, trying to make out that I'm a Nazi because I condemn hate that you endorse. You're the one endorsing hate, and that makes you the one who should be recognised as a Nazi.

"Doesn't change what you are though does it? I argue for nuance, recognition of differences. And apparently I'm a fascist! Blimey. No ahrd right wing hater has ever tried that before. Such originality!" ----> You are an apologist for hate, trying to excuse people's endorsement of it. That isn't doing any superior analysis involving nuance, but is mere game play where you try to muddy the waters. The reality is plain simple: the holy hate drives atrocities and those who endorse the hate are culpable. Failing to condemn the hate and to strip it out is an endorsement of that hate.

"Here's a thing. Get out. Go and meet some of the massive diversity of Muslims in the world. Meet some for whom their religion is genuionely a religion of peace (mind blowing I realise). The OP could do with doing the same thing I think. There are horrific Islamic societies in this world - particularly the Wahhabis. And there are others which are just notthing like that. It's quite important to distinguish." ----> It is not a religion of peace and never has been. It endorses the extreme viciousness and refuses to strip it out. The same applies to other "peaceful" religions which also generate genocides and all manner of other abuses.

"Don't suppose you'll care." ----> I call out the hate precisely because I care. Millions of murdered people may mean nothing to you, but I want to stop more being added to their number.

"It's also helpful to recognise that there's nothing vaguely unique about the Q'ran in it's offensiveness. The bible is right up there too. Fixating on one is part of the problem which allows whole communities to suffer terrible persecution. Which is what is happening to some Muslim groups all over the world right now. This lump them all together hate speech feeds it." ----> I don't fixate on any of them - I lump the whole lot of them in together regardless of which hateful religion or ideology the are from: if they're endorsing hate in holy texts, manifestos and other ideological literature, they are ALL drivers of atrocities. All of them need to strip out that hate to make their religions/ideologies benign. But you defend some of them (while condemning others), and that makes you one of the drivers of atrocities. You are the extremist here because you are the one who refuses to condemn hate.

@David_Cooper

My position is entirely neutral. That is a fact, and no amount of questioning it will stop it being a fact

And no reptition of it will make it true

Ta dah!

1

Will you ferpetessake Stop "cherry-picking" the Quaran in your miserable racist way? Because I can So easily do that with the Babble, and it all proves....NOTHING,

@BeerAndWine Anybody can go to Any "religious" work and pick out phrases/idea/parables that are Obviously nasty......why would you do that, exactly?

@BeerAndWine ‘the religion’ is no more a single thing than Christianity is

This is the hating: the pretence that all of Islam is a single thing sonhaters can hate with impunity. It’s bullshit and leads to The NZ massacre

@BeerAndWine you sound totally ignorant

@BeerAndWine your Nazi example is perfect. They were a single thing with a single unifying ideology which was pursued.

Islam 100% is no such. And yes - the calling for ‘any Muslim’ Which the OP does buckets them all. This is what the NZ shooter thinks too. It’s dangerous and false

@BeerAndWine I can only disagree.

The old man who stood by my land rover in Southern Morrocco, waiting till we got up - for over an hour - so he could give us a bucket of figs from his farm, belongs to a version of Islam which is just not like that. There are tens of millions like him. He is a Muslim. He is not a Wahhabi. Why should he be forced to use a different name?

All over Africa Christians are doing their best to bring in death to the gays laws. In uganda they very nearly succeeded. Thats absolutely in line with the Bible. Should all Christians be forced to get a new name for themselves as a result?

The error you are making is here:

To point out general group think flaws of the group

Effectively there is no group. So it is not simply stating a fact at all. It is confusing multiple groups under one convenient but deeply misleading heading.

@BeerAndWine

I’m not expressing any opinion on the Koran to satisfy your ‘gotcha’ requirement. I know close to nothing about it and support me or you’re the enemy type questions just get my back up. What does my opinion about a verse in the Koran matter? Seriously? What matters is that crass lumping of all Muslims into one bucket very recently ended up with someone who would agree with much of what has been said here, gleaned largely from the internet, going into a mosque in NZ and murdering 50 people.

Let’s do the same with any holy book. Take a verse and demand that people support or agree with it. It’s a crass and stupid request. It’s division for the sake of division. It is black and white where massive nuance exists - not in the verse (who cares?) - but in those who follow that religion.

My objections are clear: the demonising of all Muslims is terrible and massively unfair. And it leads to people murdering innocents. I’m pretty unhappy with that whoever is doing the murdering. And I’m massively unhappy with the swamp that crassly produces the murderers but doesn’t take responsibility for it.

@OwlInASack perfectly stated! This OP is a nasty rabble-rouser!

@BeerAndWine

Errr...

I challenge any theologian of Islam or any apologetic Muslim

And he's got form too: he makes 'Islam is' and 'Muslims are' statements all over his massively self indulgent posts. It's hopeless and no better than any other hateful generalisation.

The problem is inside you and your fear

Is it? Actually the problem is people with no nuance hating all Muslims and out of that slime pit climes a man with a semi-automatic who murders 50 people in a mosque. That is actually the problem.

You can't even acknowledge the simple fact that the scriptures of Islam promote horrible things

Sure I can. They do. As does - for the balance I was looking for - every single holy book I've ever read. Including the Karma Sutra by the way.

It's the demonising Islam which freaks me out given the stupidity of the generalisations, the wide net to catch them all, and the murderous intent that this feeds.

@BeerAndWine yeah, because of course the babble is all sweetness & light? Not! "My fears"....only fears I have is of nastiness such as the OP is promoting.

@BeerAndWine, @OwlInASack well said!

3

The bible seems not much more tolerant--John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Wallace Level 6 Apr 2, 2019

Being an Atheist is punishable by death in 13 predominately Islamic countries.

@cava This is very true. Do you think Pence would have it any other way if he could?

The Bible is no better than the Koran. It is a vicious and hateful book. The only thing keeping Xtianity going is fear, inertia, peer pressure, apathy and the fact that most of the flock are too lazy to actually read the Bible. The Bible creates more atheists than a million Satans.

1

Umm, yeah. Good luck with this.

1

Fuck Quran and Allah! Who has time to read this BS?

zesty Level 7 Apr 1, 2019
0

You are in the wrong place if you think there are theologians or religious apologists here.

icolan Level 7 Apr 1, 2019

Not all Theologians got to that designation based on belief. Plenty got that degree(s) to vehemently disagree with believers.

@SeaGreenEyez Good point. Rereading the post I think he may have meant theist instead of theologian.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:322595'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • Agnostic.com is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!