Last edited by Machismo; 2016-07-25 at 11:08 AM.
I have read and memorized most part of the Quran from how much I have read it. Those violent parts are taken out of contexts when dealing with traitors. Which every country in the world is executing.
Watch this video for clarification/source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9b9RPg4F7k
Yes you are correct. I misunderstood you.
Which Qur'an? The one you read in a crusader website? Or the one that is translated by Islamic scholars?
i would call this crowd the "Social Justice Warriors" and pseudo liberals or to simply put it, as Maajid said, "the regressives" that defend Islam no matter what because they have this assumption that "ALL" Muslims are brown and they could do no wrong, and this fallacious belief that everything is white peoples fault and those Muslims face oppression by the whites. and of course some of these regressives haven't read the Quran but they haven't read the bible either. They are not interested in dialog when it comes to attacking the Quaran but really interested when it is the bible that is being attacked. They would go batshit crazy over some Christians refusing to bake a gay wedding Cake but goes silent about honor killings and when gay people are thrown off of buildings.
it is not they are defending the Quran because they haven't read it, however, it is because of this false assumption that "ALL" Muslims are brown skinned and they must fight for this "oppressed" Minority.
They can believe what they want, but all three religions happen to believe that their god is the God of Abraham. I didn't say that they agreed they were worshiping the same God, only that the major religions are worshiping the same God... whether they want to recognize it or not.
Of course, maybe three completely different Gods revealed themselves to Abraham.
I've read most of the Hafs Qur'an, and most of the Christian Bible (both KJV and NIV versions) - but in the typical run of things I usually only defend either book when people misquote or quote them out of context. Both books are full a vile things completely within a valid context, but regardless people tend to either completely make up quotes or incompletely quote the books to back a narrative in their own head (or one they're parroting from their rage-inducing news source of choice). I'm not a religious person by nature, but I like to know things and I like to understand the position of those who would try to make the laws I'm forced to live under.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
No religious text I've had the joys of reading does well if you scrutinize it, especially on comparing it's morality to our current morality. Ancient times, ancient views on ancient topics, even in Christian churches they skip entire books of the bible as their messages are not going to help them spread the word of a loving god who wants to save you from your sins. Probably hard to look at David the same way after his whole killing 200 Philistines for their foreskins in order to marry King Saul's daughter Michal, true the entire thing was a plot to have David die in battle as Saul was getting a tad jealous of the fellow at this point.
When people speak of the bloodbath which is game of thrones, I ponder how closely they read the bible.. it's got a pretty hefty death count. Only one fellow actually doesn't die in it, carried off to heaven cause God felt they were such a good man they did not deserve the pain of death.
Last edited by Felnoire; 2016-07-25 at 11:29 AM.