The word of god.

[Cheetos007]

Since your english isn't really at an average level yet, i'm not utterly surprised.

my Question Still Stands

[Empire]

my Question Still Stands

It wasn't a question, and I have know idea what you were trying to say.

[vaporak10]

Oh like promoting peace and then violence?

If you wanna debate that brah, I'm ready for any of the copy and paste you've got ready from TROP.com.

[Empire]

If you wanna debate that brah, I'm ready for any of the copy and paste you've got ready from TROP.com.

I don't really need to copy and paste, and its not much of a debate.

Islam can claim peace all it wants, i see no reason to believe such when its leader/founder had a military campaign.


I guess its more of a question: Do you believe war is justified through god?

Because that essentially is what it leads down to. Whatever I say will have little impact if you hold the belief that war is ok as long as god says it is. I could site how there were offensive attacks, how there were raids, or how that assuming any military role outside of defensive is hypocritical to the cause of peace.

But it all boils down to if you believe that war is justified if god gives the ok. Because if you believe war in its entirety is ok if God says so the debate is pointless to continue as it will just lead down to you repeating "but god said it was ok".

[Cheetos007]

It wasn't a question, and I have know idea what you were trying to say.

why do you think that English Quran Does have the exactly meaning of the Arabic version ?

[Lehsyrus]

The point of this thread is that of any man can write the "word of god" and turn it into a religion. Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't mean it is true. The entire worlds population believed the Eartg was flat at one time, according to how do e of you perceive a religion to e I guess that means it is true. See where I'm goin with this?

[vaporak10]

I don't really need to copy and paste, and its not much of a debate.

Islam can claim peace all it wants, i see no reason to believe such when its leader/founder had a military campaign.


I guess its more of a question: Do you believe war is justified through god?

Because that essentially is what it leads down to. Whatever I say will have little impact if you hold the belief that war is ok as long as god says it is. I could site how there were offensive attacks, how there were raids, or how that assuming any military role outside of defensive is hypocritical to the cause of peace.

But it all boils down to if you believe that war is justified if god gives the ok. Because if you believe war in its entirety is ok if God says so the debate is pointless to continue as it will just lead down to you repeating "but god said it was ok".

1. Your simplifying the situation. Going "oh there were raids and stuff" doesn't mean anything.
2. I believe war is justified in self-defense. I never said nor do I know anyone who says "Well God said so".

[robinvanpersie]

In Islam it says the only time you the right to fight and be muslim is to defend yourself and Islam.
Empire talking from his ass as usual.

[ShunnyBun]

The anti-christ will rise, jesus will be reborn
/end of discussion

[Empire]

The point of this thread is that of any man can write the "word of god" and turn it into a religion. Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't mean it is true. The entire worlds population believed the Eartg was flat at one time, according to how do e of you perceive a religion to e I guess that means it is true. See where I'm goin with this?

Pretty much.

In Islam it says the only time you the right to fight and be muslim is to defend yourself and Islam.
Empire talking from his ass as usual.

Except for raids, capture of cities, and looting right?(as muhammed commanded). Come back when you read up on the subject you are talking about.

1. Your simplifying the situation. Going "oh there were raids and stuff" doesn't mean anything.
2. I believe war is justified in self-defense. I never said nor do I know anyone who says "Well God said so".

1. Here. Military career of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Oh really? I believe the "self defense" for raids and such was the "persecution of muslims" by mecca.(even though they attacked mecca after they fled to medina, heh, hypocrites.).
Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look there, in specified cases: No one but slaves were killed. Not to condone slavery(event though Islam was ok with it at the time), but slaves lives at the time were 100% controlled by their master. Just because they were muslims doesn't mean they somehow were persecuted abnormally.

In the end, there was no "self defense" in muhammeds military campaign.

When you capture cities/perform raids, its impossible to say its in "self defense".(i.e. guerrilla warfare isn't self defense).

[Bengali]

Hahaha I love how Empire always sources Wikipedia. Wikipedia IS NOT a legible source for debates like this.

[Empire]

Hahaha I love how Empire always sources Wikipedia. Wikipedia IS NOT a legible source for debates like this.

:/ Please do explain how wikipedia isn't a legit source in this case. I just linked wiki since its the fastest link i could find for what i already knew, but even more so since its history and the sources themselves are linked in the wiki article, or even the fact that they are basics of history and not even debating the motives or such, it is kind of odd to call out the sources.

But then again, you are the guy who can't even read a pie chart, so maybe i wasted too much time on that.

[robinvanpersie]

:/ Please do explain how wikipedia isn't a legit source in this case. I just linked wiki since its the fastest link i could find for what i already knew, but even more so since its history and the sources themselves are linked in the wiki article, or even the fact that they are basics of history and not even debating the motives or such, it is kind of odd to call out the sources.

But then again, you are the guy who can't even read a pie chart, so maybe i wasted too much time on that.

Wikipedia isnt a reliable source. My lecturers said it because ANYONE can change the information and edit which is why it is not accepted as sources in writing papers and will lead to you getting low grades.

You also said "When you capture cities/perform raids, its impossible to say its in "self defense".(i.e. guerrilla warfare isn't self defense)."
Muhammed was the leader of Islam. How is raiding a city where muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs not in defending the religion and its people. Like I said fighting is only tolerable in Islam when to defend.

[Empire]

Wikipedia isnt a reliable source. My lecturers said it because ANYONE can change the information and edit which is why it is not accepted as sources in writing papers and will lead to you getting low grades.

You also said "When you capture cities/perform raids, its impossible to say its in "self defense".(i.e. guerrilla warfare isn't self defense)."
Muhammed was the leader of Islam. How is raiding a city where muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs not in defending the religion and its people. Like I said fighting is only tolerable in Islam when to defend.

Ok well go search the information on non-wiki, same shit.

How is raiding a city not in defense?...........really? Do I have to explain basic "this is offense" and "this is defense" to you?


But anyway it wasn't a raid of a city, it was a raid on caravans...there is no defense of anyone at all by killing caravan leaders. They just outright besieged a city as well.

Anyway the debate is with vaporak, not you. S

[Bengali]

Get the point? How do you prove that the word of a man is the word of god?

This should be in the general religion section.