If YOUR religion lead the world (by far) in terrorism, would you work to improve it?

Question: if YOUR religion (or overall belief system, such as Modern Secular Humanism) lead the world (by far) in terrorism, would you work to improve its core texts?

Me, I can't imagine caring about the world so LITTLE that if my belief system (MSH) lead the world (by far) in terrorism that I would not work very very hard to improve its texts, and get better role models into those texts than the current role model(s) that were causing all the troubles. I believe in myself enough that I know I could do better than the role model(s) that got us to that vile point in the first place.

What about you?

 

This is just plain stupid.

It's like asking whether the crimes if the KKK will cause Christians to "fix" Christianity.

It's like asking whether the terrorism of the IRA will cause Catholics to change catholicism.

The only thing your post demonstrates is a yotal misunderstanding of what motivates terrorism and who is working against it.

 

You can't condemn Mohammad for saying "I have been made victorious through terror", can you? I'm not terribly confident about your reply.

 

Can we AT LEAST, for once, agree that Muslims should take a full look at all the Islamic texts, and JUST SEE if anything could potentially be used to justify terrorism? In this I'm NOT even saying that any parts do justify terrorism, but that they should at least do the exercise of checking their texts closely for possible justification of terrorism. Can we at least agree on that, my friend? That obviously couldn't hurt to recommend that they at least EXAMINE those texts, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Will you Readmore of the Qur'an, to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about in regards to Islam justifying violence against non-believers?

- - - Updated - - -

Jihadist use direct quotes that extol followers to violence, from the Islamic texts. Those same texts reward them with 72 hottie re-virginating virgins when they kill infidels, as well - so lots of incentive to slaughter in the name of their invisible friend in the sky.

 

No. Again, that just plain makes no sense.

It's still the same as asking Catholics to examine the Bible in light of Irish terrorism.

Remember that Islam is founded on the Bible, with the Qur'an being a later revelation that is not contradictory. And, the Bible includes mass murder and terrorism by those following God. So, your comments should include Christians questioning the Bible. Do you really see that as likely or important?

Beyond that, Islam has declared ISIS and other such groups to be heritical.

And, the majority of those actively opposing ISIS are Muslim.

BTW, the 72 virgins thing is a gross misinterpretation. It comes as part of passages discribing the bliss of heaven in earthly terms. It is not a promise of virgins, as anyone knowing about Islam is well aware.

 

I can't possibly believe secular humanism would cause people to use terror. That is for mythical books and takes centuries of brainwashing.

 

For an important part of his life Mohammad was at war, as those of his own region violently opposed him on religious grounds.

Islam doesn't interpret his statements as advocating the use of violence to force people to change their religion, etc.

 

Two words: French Revolution.

Two more words: Russian Revolution.

Three more words: Chinese Revolution.

A simple fact: Atheists are the most bloody minded people in history.

 

He said he wanted to clear the peninsula of infidels! Clearly a man of war.

 

We can at least agree that if you had Allah's supposed magic superpowers, and if you cared for Muslims like Allah does, that over the last 1400 years you'd have clearly educated (divinely, like with an angel like he did with Mohammad) Muslims that this interpretation is dead wrong (apparently)....right? I would have, of course, because I care about Muslims. What about you, do you care about Muslim enough to have done this if you had Allah's alleged super-powers?

- - - Updated - - -

"kill the infidels wherever you find them"....the world would be a better place if this was not brought forward in the Islamic texts, can we at least agree on that? That way, no one can "mis-interepret" it and kill people, right? Can we at least agree on that?

 

It would be stupid if Muslim terrorists are acting against what their religion requires them to do. They aren't. They act very much in line to what the Quran states.

 

No. ISIS is a miniscule percent of Islam - a percent so small pollsters couldn't detect their existence.

And, Islam states ISIS is heretical.

Then, you come along and suggest ISIS is RIGHT?

What sold you on ISIS?

 

Nice question. I'm no expert on Islam, but I've read that one main explanation for the seeming discrepancy between what you and I as products of modern Judaic-Christian societies feel should be done, and what an average Muslim would feel about this issue is the fact that our Judaic-Christian views were heavily influenced by the western European Renaissance, while the Muslim world never experienced a Renaissance. Their thinking is still deeply rooted in the early Middle Ages (Medieval), and retains the harshness and intolerance of that age of history.

 

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Ignoring the fact that Humanism doesn’t really have any core texts, I’d suggest that if there were people committing violent acts and justifying it based on their interpretation of fundamental principles of Humanism, you wouldn’t respond by seeking to change those principles, you’d challenge their interpretation of them. Just like moderate Muslims do in relation to Islamist terrorists.

When you talk about a religion “improving its core texts” you’re really thinking of a fundamental change in their beliefs. Even if they could do that, why would the extremists accept the change? They just dismiss those trying to change anything as heretics and spin it as proof that their own interpretations are the true faith. It is much better to deny them their claims ownership of their religion, focus on the vast majority of followers to don’t adhere to the extreme or violent interpretations.

 

Yep, ME wars, all waged by soldiers who mostly are formally Christian, kill Muslims at a ratio of 100 for each Christian killed. Since you care so much for the world, I am sure you condemn those wars and you do everything humanly possible in your power to prevent such wars waged by Christians on Muslims from happening.

Or did you vote for GWB twice and cheered his efforts to illegally attack a nation that had never attacked us? So, your faux outrage about Muslim morals is just that, faux. If you advocated for the Iraq war, you are just as immoral as the Muslim terrorists, and less moral than the 99.9% of Muslims who are peaceful and do not engage in terrorism or support it.

 

To alter religious texts is tantamount to blasphemy.
That's not to say it hasn't been done... but anyway - if you altered the texts, there would be a group, probably a large group, that would break away as the "true" religion and hold fast to the unaltered texts.

The correct questions should be:
If someone hijacks your texts and what you believe in, should you change how it is written because of them?

I would argue it wouldn't matter.
The leader in terrorism and their "choice" of texts is partly related to membership opportunities.
1) Choose a religion.
2) Perform terrorism.
3) The world starts to hate that religion.
4) Terrorists point to this hate of religion to evoke emotions and to encourage membership.

 

There is nothing in the bible to support the actions of the KKK or IRA. While ISIS and the likes are closely following a literal interpretation of the Koran and hadiths.


[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

 

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Essentially, convert or die.

 

Born and raised Catholic, but I left the church because of how they handled the pedo priest issues. So basically I wont stand for any of that crap, and if they started terror attacks across the globe like Islam has of course I would walk out on them for that , and be as vehemently against them as I am against Islam.

 

No, no, no, no!!! You Islamophobe!!! All Muslims are peace-loving, so I'm pretty sure they've all removed this evil part from the Qur'ans they give their impressionable young children because they care about their children so very very much!!!

 

This is false. The kkk saw dark skin as being of a depricated line of heridity as (they claimed) is indicated in the bible.

And, yes, Mohammed was attacked by those who rejected his religious views, and he was thus at war. Mainline Islam does not accept that as a call to continued violence.

 

Again, how YOU interpret some verse taken out if context is irrelevant.

The issue is how Islam interprets their relkgious texrs. And, mainline Islam does not accept your notion that your fragment calls for continued violence.

 

I said nothing supports their ACTIONS. Their beliefs don't harm anyone.

They are commanded to fight UNTIL religion is only for Allah. Religion is not yet only for Allah

 

It doesn't matter how I interpret their doctrine. It is how they interpret it. "then slay the idolaters wherever you find them,", interpreted literally means to kill them. UNLESS "they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate".

 

That is YOUR interpretation.

Nobody in all of Islam is likely to follow you.

Well, you might find acceptance from ISIS. Is that what you are trying for?