What % of your neighbors would be dead now if Mohammad's law had been in effect?

Question: if we'd lived under Mohammad's law (Islamic Sharia Law, ie. Mohammad's Law) the last 100 years, what % of your neighbors would be dead by now? In other words, what % of your neighbors would you estimate have committed the following, all of which garner the death penalty under Mohammad's Law?
1. Had sex outside marriage. (What, 75%?)
2. Left Islam.
3. Stood up to the implementation of Sharia Law (ie were members of the US Military, which has been the biggest thing standing in the way of implementing Sharia law throughout the world.)
4. Was gay, or bi-sexual.
5. Mocked any of the prophets of Islam (Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Abraham, etc.)
6. Strongly criticized Islam.
7. Strongly criticized Mohammad.
8. Drew pictures of Mohammad.
9. Tried to convert Muslims to their own belief system.
10. Were a black dog (Mohammad ordered all black dogs killed.) I guess he was bigoted against blacks...black dog's lives matter! Ok, I'm not really including pets in this, but still.
11. Baghy: the intentional and forceful overthrow, or attempted overthrow, of the leader of an Islamic state (such as those trying to remove ISIS.)
12. Ta'zir crimes, such as sorcery. (Yes, magic is real, apparently.)
13. Heresy.
14. Selling drugs.
15. Having sex with 9 year-old girls. [Edit: actually, WAIT, that's arguably encouraged, as aren't Muslims encouraged to behave like Mohammad? Sorry.]
16. Burned a Qur'an.
17. Strongly criticized the Islamic government (atheist bloggers in Saudi Arabia, etc.)

Personally I think about 80% of your neighbors and family and friends would be dead under Mohammad's Law, for doing things that most people consider not crimes at all (sex outside marriage or being gay or dealing drugs.....99% of Hollywood would have to be stoned to death!)
But what about you?

 

If you and your parents and their parents lived under Muslim law for 100 years, your neighbors would all be alive because they would also have been living under it for the past 3 or 4 generations.

Not much of a hypothetical, but then getting one's hate on doesn't require all that much, does it?

 

No, I love the world so I want people to see the truth that MSH is the best way to do (versus ancient diabolical belief systems that are too immoral to remove slavery/kill gays from their barbaric texts.)

Obviously the hate comes from Jesus/Mohammad and their followers who are fine with you and your family (say you don't believe like they do) burning in eternity if you simply don't defy lotter-like odds and pick the wrong super-hero out of the thousands and thousands on offer, through no fault of your own (well, it's your fault you dared to believe in the science that their god allegedly created.) I assume you love your family enough to condemn any people who are fine with your family being harmed (assuming that you love your family like I love my family.) This is just common sense.

 

The true hatred comes from, say, people who are ok with a book that says that women are so dumb that TWICE as many female witnesses are needed in a court of law than male witnesses (because women are thought to be inferior to men.)

 

About the same number as would be dead if we lived under Christian law.

 

Yes, the bible still says to kill people who have sex outside of marriage, and Christians don't have the moral fortitude to create daily versions of the Bible that they use that didn't bring that forward. That's intellectual cowardice. The Abrhamic faiths, just peas in a pod.

 

In creating our government the founders rejected Christianity as the basis for government because Christianity had historically demonstrated it was just as tyrannical as all other religions. That's why we have a secular and not a sectarian government in the United States. One of the greatest problems historically for America has been the influence of Christianity in our government and that problem remains with us today.

 

Excellent points.

I blame Jesus for not being smart enough to take 20 seconds out of his life to tell his followers "write this down, citizens voting, a representative republic (democracy I call it), is better than the totalitarian monarchies that my dad advocates - my dad got that wrong".

 

Jesus never wrote anything down and we don't even know what he really had to say about anything. That of course leads us to the question of whether Jesus was literate as most during that era were not (which would be strange for someone supposed to be a god). All we have are the recollections of those that may or may not have quoted him accurately and we can assume that much of what he actually said was lost. Perhaps he did address these subjects but his followers simply failed to mention it. In the end we really don't know what Jesus had to say about anything.

Jesus is very much like Socrates where we only have the writings of students Plato and Xenophon and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes to provide information on what he may or may not have said and the accuracy of students Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes in recounting what Soprates said will always be questionable.

 

I absolutely don't give a crap if some people think both I and my family will be condemned to burning in eternity.
Afterall, I am definitely a "sinner" in their eyes worthy only for damnation, but not in mine. Since I haven't got a shred of belief in such metaphysical nonsense, they can verbally condemn me all they like. Of course if that condemnation becomes physical or impacts me in any real or even perceived sense, then I also have no compunction about skewering their self righteous nonsense.


I can and do object to the "god fearing" trying to impose their belief system on me, my community and my nation. Whether its a Christian holy roller or an Islamist nutcase or some other "person of faith" (regardless of their dogmatic beliefs). OTOH, while I respect their right to believe whatever the hell they want to, I do not have to respect the object(dogma) of their belief.

going out of one's way to excoriate those of faith for no other reason than a general animosity is exactly the same as some of our resident haters condemning <insert object of their hatred here> and spouting off about how bad/evil/greedy/stupid/ignorant/subhuman others may be.

 

probably half the people in the u.s. would be dead..end of the idiot liberal movement...

 

Excellent.
I'm more impressed with you than I am with Jesus or Mohammad.

 

You don't care about bigotry then. Christian/Muslim bigotry towards non-believers is just as bad, if not worse, than bigotry against black people, for example. So apparently you DON'T think that "black lives matter", and their protests are against people like you, arguably, seeing how you don't care about bigotry.
Jesus/Mohammad were outright bigots.

 

Yes, about half....maybe even more.
So you are saying that only about HALF of Americans during their lifetime have had sex outside marriage? So I argue it might be around 75%, so by a 3:1 ratio we'd be dead vs. not dead (under Mohammad's Sharia.) Stoned to death, like the Islamic texts say.

 

awesome. don't you wish it was true!

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to approximate the actual percentage of people who, in a contemporary society, would be condemned to death according to the strictures of an ancient religious text. I can't imagine a worse use of my time and energy, but whatever gets your rocks off, dude.

 

You don't get it - we are in WWIII, with no end in sight, against a belief system that believes said "the scriptures of an ancient religious text", that had those scriptures been implemented years ago, is so vile that a good chunk of us would have been KILLED over the decades! Sure, keep your head in the sand, my friend. You don't seem to understand the horrors in the Islamic texts. Could you name THREE of those horrors?....I doubt it, but maybe you'll prove me wrong on that.
Have a great day.

- - - Updated - - -

So doesn't that make Islam potentially more dangerous than, say, Nazism, arguably?

 

First off, man: take five seconds and google "stricture" before you edit my spelling. Your bizarre assumption that stricture just wasn't a word because you've never seen it is symptomatic of the fact that you're unwilling to consider any viewpoint that disagrees with the assumptions you've already made, despite the ready availability of facts that would immediately demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to demonize Islam, just grow a pair and actually write that you hate Muslims rather than posing these insincere, idiotic hypothetical questions about how historical religious strictures (that's S-T-R-I-C-T-U-R-E-S) would apply in contemporary society and a completely different cultural context.

Oh, and you want me to name three horrors of ancient religious doctrine? Sure, here you go:

"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand."

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy."

Dude, you are terrified of just saying what you think.

 

A thought worth remembering....

The last time religion and politics were mixed in America people were burned at the stake.​

 

How many leaps in reasoning, can you make in a single post, bounding from one ridiculous unprovable assertion to another, then another, and still advocate for reason itself? Modern secular humanism needs better advocacy than it is getting in this forum. This post is so irrational it should be embarrassing!

 

....100 %....

 

In point of fact we know what Mohammad had to say because he wrote things down but we don't know what Jesus had to say because there are no recorded texts written by Jesus. To condemn or condone what Jesus "said" is based exclusively upon second-party hearsay. Not even Christians deny this.

 

Strawman.

I care a lot about bigotry. In fact bigots are a class of people I am extremely bigoted against.

And like I said, I don't give a crap that some people think I will burn for all eternity. they are free to believe in any nonsense they want to.
Now if, said holy rollers were to forcibly insist that I change my lifestyle, belief system, morality or ethics to conform to their religious dogma, in order to "save my soul", then I would give a serious crap all over them. that was my point.

 

Can we at least agree that Jesus/Mohammad were bigots (bigoted against non-believers, that is)?

 

Can we at least agree that for secular humanists to promote their vision of a humanity that embraces reason over a theistic faith- based alternative , it is best if they not make silly and desperate reaches past what they can assert for evidence, about the nature and character of posters they engage?