4 ms·

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is t

by Shihan 11y ago

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries and is only seen by a fringe group as the direct word of god. What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."

DanBC 11y ago
Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.
madeofpalk 11y ago
I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.
  - acqq 11y ago
    > Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza "All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded" Directly from the holy texts: "No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords." (The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.) The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.
- acqq 11y ago
  > I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so, the problems will remain. But suggesting them not to declare that is probably worse than suggesting to the Catholics to give up having the Pope. They surely need some kind of reformation. Unfortunately, "back to the original texts" can't be the basis of reformation as they are really filled with violence and intolerance. The only reformation that isn't disastrous for humanity can only be "don't take these original texts too seriously." Other Abrahamic religions managed to move in that direction, for Islam it's going to be much harder. What I don't understand is that effectively not a single person of those who claim that there is equivalence in the holy texts of different religions try to read them themselves, because once they'd read they would not be able to even say such sentences like "if looking hard enough."

by Shihan 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.

madeofpalk 11y ago

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.

DanBC 11y ago
The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.
- acqq 11y ago
  > Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza "All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded" Directly from the holy texts: "No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords." (The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.) The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.
acqq 11y ago
> I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so, the problems will remain. But suggesting them not to declare that is probably worse than suggesting to the Catholics to give up having the Pope. They surely need some kind of reformation. Unfortunately, "back to the original texts" can't be the basis of reformation as they are really filled with violence and intolerance. The only reformation that isn't disastrous for humanity can only be "don't take these original texts too seriously." Other Abrahamic religions managed to move in that direction, for Islam it's going to be much harder. What I don't understand is that effectively not a single person of those who claim that there is equivalence in the holy texts of different religions try to read them themselves, because once they'd read they would not be able to even say such sentences like "if looking hard enough."