How dangerous is Islam compared to most other major religions? There seems to be quite a lot of conflicting views, and as I have yet to sit down and read the Quran myself, I'd like to ask this question here.
How dangerous is Islam compared to most other major religions? There seems to be quite a lot of conflicting views...
no more dangerous than Christianity
it's in a cycle spot similar to Christianity in the 1500s
Other religions have their own flaws, and a lot of bad has been done in their names.
However, Islam is unique in the fact that both its founder, and its credo, are rotten to the core. Rather than needing to do mental gymnastics to scripturally/philosophically justify being a dick with other religions, in Islam, you need to do mental gymnastics to scripturally/philosophically condemn being a dick and make others stop doing bad things. The entire tradition is garbage all the way to the foundation.
It is more dangerous because of the imitation they do of the founders of the religion.
Its a militant religion because it's founder and holy figures were militant people who advocated aggressive measures. It's saints like Abu Khalid al wayid were generals who led jihad and warfare against the Persians and won.
It's kind of like the pagan tribal religions of the Germanic people which advocated warfare and raiding and all that kind of stuff for personal glory
Dangerous by what metric? Impossible to give a meaningful answer before you elaborate on what you mean by that. Do you mean dangerous to people who don't share that faith being killed by zealots, dangerous to believers because of sectarian violence, dangerous to society because of an overly conservative nature?
I will say one fundamental difference between Islam and other major religions is that with many other faiths you can make the claim that the prophet was pure but his followers corrupted his message for their own ends. For instance you could find a great deal of beauty and meaning in Jesus Christ's message of universal brotherhood, yet that message seems to have nothing to do with The Crusades, or innumerable attacks on Jewish communities as "revenge". Jesus would certainly not have endorsed killing in his name, yet those who did it thought they were being good Christians. The same could be said for The Buddha, Moses, Confucius, The Guru Nanak, etc.
For Islam you cannot say this because The Prophet Mohamed either personally led or ordered at least 80 raids that we are aware of. He was both a holy man and a warlord. What kind of foundation is that for a religion?
sounds pretty based and redpilled
Dangerous for disingenuous people like you.
>What kind of foundation is that for a religion?
Not really. A lot of prophets before Muhammad were warlords too. You sound like some pussy ass liberal Christian.
>The entire tradition is garbage all the way to the foundation.
I can't entirely agree with this. Have you ever participated in Muslim temple rituals? Though I'm not a Muslim I've participated in their daily prayers before and I must say it is quite an experience to be part of a mass of men prostrating themselves to god all as one. For me I felt as though I was taking part in a truly ancient tradition that had been going on long before I was born and will remain long after I'm gone. I must say I found it much more moving than the rites I've experienced in Christianity and Judaism (though I do like that one Jewish ritual where they take the Torah scrolls out and unfurl them all around the temple).
Additionally I have a considerable admiration for the Muslim obligation to pray 5 times every single day. I find that in practical terms this means that a practicing muslim will be constantly reminded of their faith throughout the day and will be a more pious individual than a practicing catholic for instance.
LARPing materialist, you don't even know what faith is
>A lot of prophets before Muhammad were warlords too
what? name one
What? A lot of prophets like David were warlords too. He was a king, even. Your head is already too much into this shitty liberal hippie narrative (universal brotherhood, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Christianity is French Revolution then?). Unlike Christianity, Islam is still uncucked by Liberalism, which is why it's seen as 'violent' from the viewpoint of those 'enlightened' Western human rights defenders.
Not to mention every other non-Muslim on the planet that interacts with them.
More dangerous than current Christianty and less dangerous than current Judaism
>universal brotherhood, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Christianity is French Revolution then?
All men are born to their father, but they have another father too: God. Therefore all men are brothers. Is that a concept that's too hard for you?
Also in what way is David a prophet?
Good post
I respectfully disagree.
Yeah. It's clearly stated in the quaran that the goal of Islam is to dominate the world.
David and Solomon.
>All men are born to their father, but they have another father too: God. Therefore all men are brothers. Is that a concept that's too hard for you?
Yeah, except that's what I was hinting out. It's total nonsense from a historical-existential point of view, the way you Christians perceived your 'world' back then. There are two types of people according to Christians (before they were cucked by Liberalism): Those who are saved (us), and those who have to be saved or destroyed, namely heathens. All men's father are God, including Muslims, therefore Muslims are your brothers, i.e. Muslims are Christians too.
Not just dumb, it's also totally dishonest. The previous pope was even clear on making that kind of distinction, since he was supposed to be a hardliner or something. Universal brotherhood yes, except for heathens.
Go on, let out all those famous Thomistic mental gymnastics that you all are so proud of.
>Also in what way is David a prophet?
Because God revealed Himself to him and made him His messenger. Really, now?
Solomon
where?
>God revealed Himself to him and made him His messenger.
prove that this happened
>Not just dumb, it's also totally dishonest.
and yet you don't say why
David is Gods vicegerent on Earth as the King of Israel. He leads numerous raids and battles all throughout his life.
>inb4 David is a flawed human being
Yes but he was never criticised for his wars. Only his decision to kill a fellow Jew reasonlessly and commit adultery.
This is also the goal of Christianity. And communism. And secularism. And capitalism. And democracy. Essentially any philosophy that makes a claim to be an objective philosophy.
There are several problems with this claim. Namely that this assumes the Prophets are the only moral actors in the world when this is false. The simple fact of the matter is that these people had no real way of enforcing their laws. Take Confucius who has no problem waging war against someone who lacks virtue.
The Chi family patriarch had grown wealthier than Duke Chou himself, and still Jan Ch'iu kept gathering taxes for him, adding greatly to his wealth.
The Master said: "He's no follower of mine. If you sounded the drums and attacked him, my little ones, it wouldn't be such a bad thing." (11.17)
Or Moses who while himself doesn't kill finds his God compensating him by killing the Pharoah and sending terrible calamities on the Egyptians. Or Jesus who endorsed the Old Law which supports killing for many offences.
>but Jesus reformed the Old Law
Not entirely true. While he emphasised certain values like forgiveness over revenge he still very much prioritised the Old Law. There are often excuses used by more liberal minded Christians who claim he also abolished the punishment of adultery. Yet this doesn't makes sense since if he literally meant those without sin he would have stoned her himself. However, what he meant by this was show the witness in the trial that the Rabbis claimed took place.
Buddha himself is trickier because there are many versions of his own stories many portraying him as an active king and the various Gods such as the God of compassion appearing to fight wars.
If Islam is indeed dangerous then it is not in the way that boomers perceive it. Islam doesn't seek to wipe out your women and children and kill everyone who doesn't believe in Islam. Historically Muslim communities extended the dhimmi status even to pagans as Muhammad himself did to Zoroastrianism whom he claimed were idolators and how Muslim rulers in India did to Hindus. These people don't even have to follow Islamic Shariah. But if Muslims rule then it is emphasised that they dominate all political power and create circumstances where dhimmi are encouraged to convert. So while boomers may be right about Islams endgame (namely its domination on Earth through offensive warfare if necessary) their delusion of tiny all inclusively genocidal terror cells doing this is dumb.
I think ancient Chinese divided religion into two types. Wholesome religions advocated all the good and peaceful stuff that contributes to well-being of people and society. And then there's evil cults. Islam is one of those.
>There seems to be quite a lot of conflicting views
No, there's just Taqiya and gullible retards.
more like Confucian scholars grouped religion into 2 groups. Confucian (good), not Confucian (bad).
Muh taqiyah
>Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet, said: “There was no behavior more hateful to the Messenger of Allah than dishonesty. A man would lie when narrating something in the presence of the Prophet and he would not be satisfied until he knew that he had repented.”
>islamqa.info
>This corrupt belief has nothing to do with the beliefs (‘aqeedah) of Ahl as-Sunnah. According to Ahl as-Sunnah, lying is one of the attributes of the hypocrites. A person may keep on lying and persist in lying until he is recorded with Allah as a liar. These people tell lies and persist in lying in all things, then they regard that as part of their beliefs and religion.
This is a Wahabi website by the way. Formerly endorsed by Saudi Arabia. Hardliners are literally the people most against Taqiyya.
It was founded by a pedophiliac warlord. That should tell you enough.
>warlord
Based and redpilled
>pedophilia
Retarded concept that only exists post enlightenment. If she bleed she can breed.
>Retarded concept that only exists post enlightenment. If she bleed she can breed.
And you inbred goatfuckers still wonder why all islamic nations are terror-ridden shitholes. When you rape your children, nothing good will come out of it. But I guess that's a muslimic speciality, fucking themselves up. We should nuke all pedos.
Reminder this was alright in all societies pre the Cucklighenment
>In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven.
>no you have to accept our morals in current year or you'll have terrorists
Dilate and get shot by in Walmart.
Be it so. This child raping is your custom; prepare the child marriage. But my nation has also a custom. When men rape children we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the child is raped. Let us all act according to national customs.
islam is shit
To cite just one example:
There are dozens of muslim doctors all over the world trying to scientifically prove that camel urine is beneficial for you.
Then you have millions of other muslims calling these doctors infidels exactly because they use science to try to validate something mohamad said. Apparently this is blasphemous since all muslims are supposed to accept everything mohamad said at face value without trying to prove or disprove the hadith via science, reason, or logic.
This is how shit islam is.
Plus, it is not possible to reform it Ever.
If you reform islam - you destroy islam.
You're not in our nation are you now. If I come your place sure I'll wait till 18 or whatever. But I have the freedom to rule my nation as I please. If you deny me this right then you have no reason to complain about terrorist attacks you Britfag LARPer.
it's in the hadith which is the same as the quran
meforum.org
Muslims constantly try to use science to validate the Quran or in this case a throwaway Hadith. Even if they are wrong this is not taboo in the Muslim world whatsoever. Christfags have their global flood and Young Earth theorists. I fail to see how this is any different.
>if you reform it it is destroyed
This is true for every religion but the followers of reformed versions won't admit it. Case in point the Vatican 2 and the progressive Prot denominations.
You rape children, you don't deserve any consideration.
This brings us to another vital aspect about jihad in Islam: who may be fought? Are Muslims required to wage jihad against disbelievers due to their disbelief (kufr)? Imam Ibn Taymiyyah takes up the issue, stating: “The disbelievers, they are only to be fought on condition of them waging war first—as is the view of the majority of scholars, and as is proven by the Book and the Sunnah.”[32] Which is to say, Islam permits fighting disbelievers, not because of their disbelief, but only if they initiate war against Muslim societies, or manifest belligerence towards them. The Qur’an [2:190] says: “Fight for God’s sake those that fight against you, but do not transgress the limits.” Along similar lines, Ibn al-Qayyim, another medieval jurist, held that: “Fighting is only a duty in response to being fought against, not in response to disbelief. This is why women, children, the elderly and infirm, the blind, and monks who stay out of the fighting are not fought. Instead, we only fight those who wage war against us.”
You kill children almost at birth and pump them full of hormones. Neither do you.
Damn, gotem...
You cannot refute me. A society that kills children and actively stunts their growth on shallow diagnoses has no right to cry "but muh children". If they do so it is laughable.
Ibn Taymiyyah once wrote: “The Prophet ﷺ was the most perfect in terms of this bravery—which is appropriate for commanders in war. He did not kill anyone [in war] save Ubayy b. Khalaf, killing him on the day of Uhud. He didn’t kill anyone else before or after this.”[40] Of the twenty-seven battles (ghazwat, sing. ghazwah) that took place in his life, the Prophet ﷺ participated in nine.[41] The total number of deaths on both sides was one thousand and eighteen persons. Of those, seven-hundred and fifty-nine were enemy deaths; two-hundred and fifty-nine were Muslims. In fact, the number of enemy fatalities drops to three-hundred and fifty-nine when limited to those killed on the actual battlefield.[42] Such were the pious restraints that infused the spirit of jihad of the Prophet ﷺ. What’s remarkable, Gai Eaton wrote, isn’t just the rapid pace with which Islam spread across the then known world, but “the fact that no rivers flowed with blood, no fields were enriched with the corpses of the vanquished … they were on a leash. There were no massacres, no rapes, no cities burned. These men feared God to a degree scarcely imaginable in our time and were in awe of His all-seeing presence, aware of it in the wind and the trees, behind every rock and in every valley… [T]here had never been a conquest like this.”[43] The historical record belies the bloodthirsty image that ISIS-like extremists, on the one hand, and Islamophobes on the other, continue to portray of Islam and the Prophet.
>The disbelievers, they are only to be fought on condition of them waging war first
This has NEVER been the case. islam has always been the aggressor. There hasn't been one instance where islam was on the defensive. Not one case. islam was born in the Gulf, and it aggressively expanded over the course several centuries. If islam's stance was purely defensive, muslims would have never left the Gulf, since no one attacked or besieged mecca or medina.
case in point:
Are you saying the Spaniards waged a war against islam, and that was the reason muslims fought their way from the Gulf to the Iberian peninsula and conquered it?
Most qualified jurists and recognized fatwa committees of our age hold—and their word in shari‘ah affairs is authoritative and represents orthodoxy—that a state of war shall not exist between Muslims and others unless hostility against a Muslim land is initiated or barriers to da‘wah erected. Al-Khallaf wrote: “The legislated jihad is there to carry the Islamic call and to defend the Muslims against any belligerency. Whoever does not respond to the call, nor resists its taking place, nor initiates hostilities against Muslim polities, then it is not permissible to fight them. A state of security cannot be altered for that of fear … A state of war will not exist between the Muslims and others except in cases where hostility towards Muslims is initiated, or barriers to da‘wah are erected, or harm is perpetrated towards the callers or the call.”[38] Inarguably, in an age of the Internet and social media, as well as global movement or displacement, it’s nearly impossible for countries to erect barriers to prevent da‘wah to Islam. Being a double-edged sword, it is precisely the same social media that also allow the alarming growth of Islamophobia and anti-Islam sentiments to gain wider and wider societal traction.
>The Byzantines were reoccupying territory following the peace accord between Emperor Heraclius and the Sasanid general Shahrbaraz in July 629.[14] The Byzantine sakellarios Theodore,[15] was placed in command of the army, and while in the area of Balqa, Arab tribes were also employed.[14]
>Meanwhile, Muhammad had sent his emissary to the ruler of Bosra.[16] While on his way to Bosra, he was executed in the village of Mu'tah by the orders of a Ghassanid official.[16]
>Muhammad dispatched 3,000 of his troops to Jumada al-Awwal in 629, for a quick expedition to attack and punish the tribes for the murder of his emissary by the Ghassanids.[16] The army was led by Zayd ibn Harithah; the second-in-command was Ja'far ibn Abi Talib and the third-in-command was 'Abd Allah ibn Rawahah. When the Muslim troops arrived at the area to the east of Jordan and learned of the size of the Byzantine army, they wanted to wait and send for reinforcements from Medina. 'Abdullah ibn Rawahah reminded them about their desire for martyrdom and questioned the move to wait when what they desire was awaiting them, so they continued marching towards the waiting army.
>In light of the above, how do we explain jihad talab—”offensive” war? Classical law manuals almost invariably include the likes of the following statement in their martial codes: “Jihad in Allah’s path [is to be waged] every year.”[35] Also: “It is a communal duty once each year.”[36] So how does this square with what’s previously been stated? Well, jihad doctrines were based on defense, not only in terms of actual hostilities launched against Muslims, but also preemptively in cases of likely aggression. This doctrine was devised at a time when the Islamic state was surrounded by other states with whom there was no peace treaty, or who were openly belligerent. In such a dog-eat-dog world, one either attacked first, or else was attacked. Such was the state of affairs throughout the pre-modern world. The twentieth century, however, changed all that. The U.N. Peace Charter effectively made peace the default between nation states—at least in theory. As such, Muslim juristic voices began to reflect this new reality: “It is essential to note that the world today is united under a single organization where each member [state] adheres to its terms and conditions. The Islamic ruling in this case is that it is obliged to fulfill all agreements and treaties that the Islamic lands commit themselves to, as is stipulated by the law of fulfilling treaties endorsed by the Qur’an. Based on this, those non-Muslim countries that are members of this world organization are not deemed as the Abode of War (dar al-harb). Instead, they should be seen as Abodes of Truce (dar al-‘ahd).”[37] It is worth stating that Islamic jurisprudence isn’t only shaped by ideals, but also by realities. That is to say, if non-aggression or peace between countries is only honored in the breach, rather than the actual observance, there is no reason why Muslim juristic voices should not reflect the reality on the ground.
Since day 1 islam has been at war with ALL non-muslims in the world.
muslims never had to defend themselves from an outside invasion into the Gulf.
pic is the Gulf. No army ever invaded and besieged any cities in the Gulf.
So, mohamad waged a war against the ERE. Thanks for proving my point.
>preemptively in cases of likely aggression
preemptively attack as means of defense
proves my statement that islam is by definition aggressive and has actually never defended itself but exclusively attacked others.
>In Islamic historical sources, the battle is usually described as the Muslims' attempt to take retribution against a Ghassanid chief for taking the life of an emissary
>Ghassanids were vassals of the Byzantines
>Islam exlcusicely attacked others
Incorrect.
>Islamic defense against Crusader raids into the Gulf
>Islamic defence against Sassanid counterattacks
>Islamic defence against the Mongol hordes
The insistence on never indulging inpreemptive strikes is a fantasy that never existed. I could point out the Christian destruction of Mayan civilisation and its conquest of Africa.
hadeeths are the result of lying faggots
or did the prophet really allow to fuck animals?
>>was alright in all societies
yeah! WAS right but it isn't anymore only to mudslimes
>Whoever copulates with an animal, kill him and kill the animal.
Abu Daud, Ibn Majah, Tirmizi
Note: Kill the animal applies mainly to livestock since they can no longer be eaten and therefore are useless.
>new moral=good moral
Bugman opinion.
The most dangerous; intolerable in the danger that it poses, desu
The West hasn't faced any real danger since the collapse of communism. The Islamic boogeyman is an 18th century meme which still continues to the point that Westerners unironically think some Muslim dictator or militia in Iraq will destroy the West.
>muh crusades
1st crusade was more that 400 years after the muslim occupation of the Iberian peninsula faggot
>Sassanid counterattacks
>counterattacks
oh so you're actually saying that muslims attacked first...
If islam functioned on the basis of a purely defensive doctrine (i.e. exclusively defend a limited area and never leave that area to conquer more land) it would have been literally impossible for islam to expand beyond the Gulf (arabian peninsula).
Fucking inbred mudslime shit.
It's like me buying a shotgun purely as means to defend my house, and ending up breaking in, stealing, and occupying every house in my neighborhood, and killing all my neighbors in the process.
I guess you mean that no non-muslim army invaded cities after it became muslim. Because the cities of the gulf have been invaded by outsiders.
>Moses
Moses was literally a warlord you retard. He led armies numbering tens of thousands of soldiers. I guess using memes and pop-culture as facts doesn’t work huh?
>>keep fuckin' ur goats and sheeps mudslime
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4450
>islamic boogeyman
it's true that islam is shit and is not a danger to the west since the west could wipe out all muslims in a few weeks if it came to that.
The problem is the IDEOLOGICAL danger islam poses to the west. Especially considering the muslim immigrant invasion of the west over the last 20 years or so.
islam is shit
islam has absolutely nothing of value to offer to the west. it's 100% a liability.
If a woman inserts (in her vagina) an animal's penis she must wash, and if she inserts a detached penis (thakaran maktu-an, lit. “a severed male member”) there are two opinions; the most correct is that she must wash.
Sahih Muslim - Book of Menstruation - hadith #525 - Commentary
Sassanids already occupied the Persian gulf multiple times. The Lakhmid vassals their conquest of Yemen and their kings denial of a peace or cordial relations with the Prophet on being sent an emissary.
>If islam functioned on the basis of a purely defensive doctrine (i.e. exclusively defend a limited area and never leave that area to conquer more land) it would have been literally impossible for islam to expand beyond the Gulf (arabian peninsula).
No one does this. No one has EVER done this.
>no you can't think like that kill them
Super peaceful buddy
>Islamic invasion
Literally an invitation. At some point you'll have to come to terms with the fact that any ideological purity of the West is a fantasy and your leaders only care for cheap labour.
I severely doubt this is real or Sahih. Post a link from an Islamic website.
>prescribed punishment
This means a Hadd punishment which is a fixed universal punishment. Regardless of the fact that this literally contradicts my hadith a Tazir punishment is obligatory on the the judge which is devised based on his own discretion. but not a Hadd.
islam is truly enlightened!
has the answers for all the questions no one asked.
>No one does this. No one has EVER done this.
So, you're saying islam is shit - and no muslim has ever followed the tenets of islam, that according to you only allows defensive war.
Unless you want to claim that islam's conquest from the arabian to the Iberian peninsula was a desperate attempt of the muslims to defend themselves.
What about the siege of Vienna? A bit strange for the turks to march all the way to Vienna to defend themselves, after they had created an empire via waging purely defensive wars for centuries.
go lick a camel's ass already
Bit weird the Brits and Russians are defending themselves in the Caucasus and India. Also in the Americas and Africa. The American defensive war in Iraq is also quite strange.
>you claimed Islamic jihad is purely defensive
No I said it can't be carried out against a state whom you have agreed to peace with. If there is a state without a treaty or good relations it can be attacked.
It's mainly dangerous as a threat to other religions. It doesn't advocate murder, human sacrifice and stuff like that, not even aggressive wars. Although, it's okay with taking women of your enemies as sex slaves. It's got some values that are relevant to having a civilised society, and it's okay with scientific progress, despite Quran making unscientific claims. Most of the Middle East retardation comes from Arabs themselves being retarded, rather than Islam itself.
Reading the Quran won't tell you all that much, since it's a confusing compilation of Muhammad's public rants that aren't even ordered chronologically. Also, the hadiths are a part of the whole Islamic canon, not just the Quran alone, and the interpretations of various Islamic scholars are what ultimately determines what Muslims believe and practice, and given the ambiguity of many Islamic texts, there's a lot of wiggle room for interpreting things however they suit you.
Muslims claim that the Quran is perfectly clear and reasonably written, and that's where Islam fucks itself up, by claiming that the Quran is not merely divinely inspired, but a collection of word by word quotes of what God said to Muhammad.
As a religion, Islam is badly constructed, though. It takes what it wants from Judaism and Christianity, but doesn't bother coming up with rational arguments against the things it rejects from Judaism and Christianity. If you have relatively decent knowledge about Abrahamic faiths and history, then Islam really sticks out as a transparent pile of bullshit. Many religions are well-constructed so they're somewhat believable, but Islam reads like really shitty fan-fiction. Its claims and arguments are extremely weak and don't fit into the Abrahamic tradition.
That is where some danger can be found, because in a society that encourages rational thought and critical thinking, Islam will be rejected, so Islam will not want those.
>What about the siege of Vienna?
Turks had boy harems and boy prostitutes, it's pretty obvious that religiosity wasn't the first thing on their mind.
Concentrated volumes of foreign peoples is dangerous anywhere. Muslim or not.
Except christians grew out of the large scale religious violence and torture 500 years ago unlike Islam
I hope you don't believe this. Russia was waging religious wars all the way into the 1800s and the entire way Brits justified their colonialism was bringing "Christian civilisation" to the Indians.
>Bit weird the Brits and Russians are defending themselves in the Caucasus and India. Also in the Americas and Africa. The American defensive war in Iraq is also quite strange.
>goalposts: moved
>whataboutism: accomplished
Even a more dangerous aspect of islam is that it claims dominance over ALL people (muslims and non-muslims) alike.
It is the only religion that preoccupies itself with the question of how non-muslims should be treated and/or governed in this life. It is a system of finance, law, faith, and politics all in one.
Can you name a few cases of religious violence in Christianity?
And where in the canonical Christian scripture are any of these actions justified?
>justified their colonialism
>justified
which means religion was used an an excuse and it wasn't not the actual reason
and it wasn't the actual reason
Purely defensive war is illogical. No other civilisation has done it because of this. My examples seek to justify that and show that even your civilised societies do it and this is nothing unique to Islam.
The Inquisition all the Holy wars in the Protestant reformation the Crusaders and Teutonic Knights constant attempted conquest and conversion of the Orthodox etc.
>where does the canonical scripture ever support this
This is an irrelevant point since regardless if this was "true Christianity" the motive was still highly Christian. As for Biblical proof
The Old Testament which speaks of wars fought by Israel and Jews against various gentiles as well as the various prophecies of warrior prophets in Arabia and tons of other places. Then there's the opinion of the various Church fathers and the sainthood of many warriors and conquerors.
The colonialism thing is obviously just a justification and Russia did not wage religious wars in the 18th century
>Moses
yeah but that's Old Testament.
>Taqiya
How to spot a deranged Jow Forums tard. You have to go back
This is not true. It wasn't just dumbfuck hillibilies buying this but high ranking diplomats and official said who wrote about this in their memoirs frequently. They even talked about how despite their rivalry with Russia it would be better for the Muslim buffer states to be Christianised. Russia was constantly trying to siege down Constantinople as a religious Prise from the Turks and almost always sold this as an endeavour for the Christian faith.
It was stated in the Bible that David wouldn't be the one to build the Temple dedicated to God because his hands had been too tainted by the numerous wars he lead in his lifetime, which is why Solomon was the one to do it.
These were literally just legalistic justifications for war, everyone and their mother has claimed to be descendants of Byzantines and tried to capture constantinople.
Also I would hardly call wanting your buffer states to be christian religious violence especially given the fact the religious violence was bought to the Caucasus by Islam and under Russian control, they would become Orthodox
Davids hands had been tainted by murder and adultery. Not war. Solomon himself established various outposts and colonies.
No they weren't. These were essentially classified document said exchanged between the government and officials. They were only declassified later and therefore had no reason to appeal to public sentiment. And by Christianised I don't mean through missionaries. I mean total conquest and conversion by Russia.
>This is an irrelevant point
This is actually the only point that matters.
Anyone can claim any reason for waging a war or committing a crime.
Our job is to see whether his claim actually holds up to scrutiny.
If someone claims he raped a 9 year old because he was following mohamads example then we can outright blame islam because we know for a fact that mohamad raped a 9 year old.
We can say with the same certainty that the inquisition was not Christian because it is not something Christ did or commanded others to do. It is ridiculously easy to figure out which actions are motivated and justified by faith and which are motivated and justified by greed, ambition etc while using faith as an excuse/cover.
>Purely defensive war is illogical
then you have one more reason to consider islam illogical and shit
since on the one hand it has killed dozens millions of people over the last 1400 years, and on the other islam claims it is a peaceful religion that only defends itself.
>Old Testament which speaks of wars
correct
the OT mentions wars
No Christian religious text outright commands Christians to wage a never ending war against all non-Christians like the quran does for muslims.
read:
meforum.org
>Russia did not wage religious wars in the 18th century
>immediate no true Scotsman defense
Why do you even come to this board?
>Davids hands are tainted by murder and adultery. Not war.
You could have just said you haven't read the bible, user.
This claim is religious though. They weren't just claiming to be the Third Tome but the defenders of Orthodox Christianity who would evict the Turks and destroy the Islamic presence.
This is a dumb argument
>Our role models wage war against disbelievers and wiped out their civilisation but that doesn't we should
THis religion of peace label is literally a random term Obama made up. Islam has never claimed war has never benn waged preemptively nor do scholars claim Islam is some sort of uber pacifist doctrine.
>he can justify raping a 9 year old
There is no rape. Forced marriages are forbidden and a female rejection cannot be overrided as per the majority of scholars. And the Inquisition can be justified as purging foreign tribes with heathen religions just as David did,
Fucking nigger he engaged aisha when she was 6 and married her when she was 18. Do the math nigger. Fucking christ cuck nigger. Stop believing everything you see without looking into something. Nigger spotted
Not as bloodthirsty as liberal democracy
It isn't comparable at all
I became a Muslim yesterday and this is nonsense
The Prophet, peace be upon him, wasn't a pacifist but he was not particularly militant. He made peace easily unless the enemy broke their word
Raiding in wartime is just, and calling him a warlord implies he was some out of control marauder when in fact there was no central government to control anyone until he established it, it was every tribe for itself.
Moses, peace be upon him, is depicted as an extremely ruthless warlord in the Bible (actually more ruthless than the Qur'an depicts him, which shows him repenting for shedding the Egyptian's blood, and the plague which kills the firstborn is not present).
Joshua, peace be upon him
God, Glorious and Exalted, is not anyone's "father". He will wipe out sinners without blinking and torture them in hell for a thousand years. Is He an turtle's father? No, but he created and cares for his turtles and if you senselessly hurt one He will punish you.
Inshallah
Taqiyyah is a Shia practice
Sunnis call it hitmen/kitmen.
What dumb fuck came up with this?
Joshua led the army, not Moses.
>God, Glorious and Exalted, is not anyone's "father". He will wipe out sinners without blinking and torture them in hell for a thousand years.
why create sinners just to place them in some arbitrary state of suffering? This does not seem like a god worthy of my worship.
Okay, this is not epic.
most dangerous sect ever.
the quoran is pure brainwashing to kill all non belivers.
they hate gay and like loli so they are ok with me
It's NPC religion 101
this is what i have learned hanging out with the based religion, i am worth dirt and stealing my money is just and women non converts are whores