https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance or just shit poor reading comprehension combined with a healthy dose of stupidity. But mostly stupidity.
Most religious folk don't actually spend much time either studying the whole text or the philosophical and historical context. They study passages and out of context interpretation. Or even skip the passages and go straight for the out of context interpretation either through preachers, or through religious publications that spin, doctor and reframe ideas to fit certain narratives.
This is one area where I give the Catholic Church some props. They doctrinally hold that the Scripture is a largely metaphorical text and isn't meant to be taken literally. It took them a couple of thousand years to get to this point, but hey... it's something. This will allow them in the long run to simply adapt their message to whatever the cultural zeitgeist dictates. We already see this with the current wildly popular Pope and his fairly moderate and sometimes progressive positions, that resonate much better with the public than those of the previous hardline conservative Pope.
Perhaps as the majority following those beliefs are not a threat then it isn't the Quran that is the problem, but how some opt to use it as a tool to further their own agenda.
That is simply a scapegoat.
There are plenty of people who committed an act "in the name of god".
The lack of a book does not stop it happening.
As far as I know there is no complete version of the bible, the version most people read and that I grew up with was heavily edited by the catholic church, kings and powers that be at the time not to mention what was lost in translation. On my path to becoming agnostic it was one of the things I found out quite early on, you should do some research if you are curious the missing texts change the narrative quite a bit.
Cause burning them would set a poor precedence? Well ok as much as the texts are ancient and hold many examples of poor behavior compared to our modern views. I still find they are a good read, and you can pick up a fair few lessons to learn to better one's life. But then the text's themselves aren't to blame for people's actions nor their interpretations. Not when the true intent of each word is only in the heads of the person who committed them to paper/stone/etc, which is always the joys of such things. But I'd still read a Bible/Torah/Quran over the Da Vinci Code.. and as before, no, I don't like remaining completely serious for long.
We don't need to read it. We already know there is a lot of shit written in it, just like the bible.
You have to consider that those books contain the ideas and ideals of men thousands of years dead.
It's not the word of god, even if there was a god noone has ever heard of them and those guys didn't either.
When you don't have power and influence you invoke god and for some reason you are the chosen one to do his bidding and therefore everyone has to listen to you and do what you say.
Sounds great, doesn't it?!
Sort of, but historically is bit more complicated as he changed the teachings - and the Jews don't agree with that. There are historic roots - but one could also claim it is "religious appropriation" - taking a God and changing the teachings - and the roots of Christianity is not just the Jewish faith.
Same is true of the Bible. Most defenders have never really read it. Their only exposure is the cherry-picked passages that are read to them on Sundays.
The reality is that both the Bible and the Quran have plenty of passages of love and hate. Taken as a whole, neither book is consistent, so you can cherry-pick anything you really want. The Westboro Baptist Church cherry picks as much as your local church; yet the vast majority of Christians in the US would clearly state that their views do not align with them. The same is true with the hateful groups of Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims clearly state that their views do not align with them.
Heck, the same is true with most of the political debates on these boards. Most people have never even read the official reports on anything. They just pull whatever from their favorite news site and accept it uncritically because it says what they want to believe is true...not what is actually true.
Everyone wants to talk about muslims, but no one wants to see to talk about the very major issue of American Evangelicals injecting themselves into African politics causing horror to the gay community there. The killings, the jail, the newspaper witch hunts, which all can be tracked back to American Evangelicals spreading their message.
It's like trying to defend Christianity and Judaism without reading the scriptures. Unless they read the books no one truly understands the reasoning for the actions done. Btw jihad is really more of a struggle of life then a simple I kill anyone.
The thing the Jews don't really agree with, is mostly the idea of Jesus being the Messiah. And yes, the roots of Christianity is the Jewish Faith and how Jesus interpreted it.
- - - Updated - - -
I've read the books, and I don't understand the reasoning, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone who isn't a shepherd living 2-6000 years ago.
Amazing sig, done by mighty Lokann
One does not need to claim this, its pretty well documented that Christianity has appropriated various other things to its religious holidays.
As far as the historic roots go, the Abrahamic God is the genesis of the three main monotheistic religions and so regardless of claiming this one is different than that one as they share the same historical origin for all practical purposes they are at best different interpretations of the same entity. At the end of the day it all came from the same place, bickering over difference or insisting yours is some entirely new and different and better being is a moot point (see also: all religious conflict).
You use the term "scientific opinion" rather loosely.
Yes, Islam does offer Redemption.
In overly simple terms according to Islam, being a Muslim is not something you just are, but something you have to do, to be. Essentially to be a Muslim you must be consciously working in it, you must not deny your faith (that would make you an apostate), your faith must be sincere (believe in what you practice).
But as all men are men and we aren't perfect, if you do screw up, you must repent to God (confession is unnecessary) and you must do good deeds, as in pray and do charity work.
This is actually very similar to Christian Pelagianism. Mormons essentially follow the same practices. Among Catholics there is a pervasive misinterpretation of Catholic Dogma which does encourage "Good deeds" as it being a way to atone for one's sins, although the Church doesn't actually require it.
Now regarding Muslim martyrdom, martyrdom is somewhat complicated. The word Jihad can and does have multiple interpretations, it can refer to the "armed defense or propagation of the faith" (which are often the same thing according to some interpretations), or could even refer to non violent defense of the faith, or could possibly refer to the internal struggle of being a faithful Muslim (the struggle against sin).
Those who die in this struggle would be considered a Martyr.
Now the bigger question is what forms of Jihad are acceptable and thus can lead to Martyrdom.
A real example.
At the Charlie Hebdo shootings the perpetrator believed that he was doing Jihad by killing cartoonists who offended his prophet. Some interpretation of Islam agrees that his death was Martyrdom.
But at the same shooting one of the dead was a French Muslim police officer, who died trying to do his duty as a good Muslim and protect the innocent, according to many (most) Muslims that man was a Martyr who gave his life in the Jihad prescribed by his faith.
The role of Jesus Christ in Christianity is sort of central, combined with the idea that the faith is open for everyone - which is also different from the Jewish faith.
Yes, one of the roots.
Some weren't shepherds, but still thought about sheep: "Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them."
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
There's just the same kind of shit in the bible too.
What you choose to do with it afterwards matters far more than the words themselves, which should largely be seen as a product of the times in 7th century, and not something applicable to modern times. Modern christianity have already had that reform hundreds of years ago and largely ignore the old testament now.
Islam did not, which is a more major difference more so than what's actually written in the quran.
Stop.
Every post you saying something stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism
There are rules for conversion, but conversion is open to anyone. There is only one denomination of Judaism that doesn't accept converts, namely Syrian Judaism, there are about 80000 of them in Israel and 75000 in the US. Every other form of Judaism accepts converts.
All Abrahamic religions have violence and hatred on their books. Why? Because it's partly historical and partly propagandistic.
That's the power of written words, it leads to multiple interpretations. Do you know which other books led to violence and hatred? The Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and Mein Kampf (although this last one was kinda explicit).
I'm unclear on the specific rules, but on principle yes. If you sincerely repent and you atone for it, yes. I think the only sin in Islam that is completely forbidden (rather ironically) and you can't atone for is suicide. Which is not really dissimilar to how Christians treat suicide. Those promoting suicide bombings and such circumvent this rule, by conflating atonement via Jihad with death by Jihad.
This is what I keep saying that, people will always find ways to interpret a religion to suit their specific agenda.