Al-Rāzī was a Muslim theologian that argued against the validity of prophets and revealed holy books. He reasoned that a perfectly good God would make knowledge available, that all knowledge from of how to live and how the universe was formed could be figured out rationally. It wouldn't make sense for God to conceal this information and restrict it to only a few prophets and their followers. He also observed that prophets and holy books create war and strive as people endlessly fight over who has the "right prophet" without end which could not be the work of well intoned God.
Is there any theological argument against this?
>>335590
Of course
>listening to disgusting iranian
They exist only to corrupt Islam.
>>335650
>Satan made the Jew to corrupt the Nazarenes and the Persians to corrupt the Muslims
>>335661
>Jews
To fight against Islam
>Turks
To lead Islam
>Arabs
To found, interpret, and spread Islam
>Persians
To pretend to be muslims and corrupt it from the inside with their pagan attitudes
Disgusting people.
>>335590
Was he beheaded for it?
Seems to be the problem innit?
>>335667
>Muslims
>calling anything disgusting
I'd take food out a starving muslim kids mouth and feed it to my dog. The fact they hate dogs automatically make them worse than shit tier
>>335683
Dogs are dirty animals but we don;t hate them for existing, we just don't keep them as pets. Same goes for pigs. Pro-tip: putting a pig or a dog in front of a muslim isn't kryptonite, we just don't eat them or sleep with them in beds like you mongrels.
Don't worry about the food, I have faith in Allah and knowledge in sciences and humanity. I don't need your donation, I can grow or raise or purchase my own.
>>335683
>le islamic dog meme
wew lad
Absolutely based
This guy had balls.
>>335650
>>335667
>Islamic "morality"
>>335590
>Is there any theological argument against this?
The general one used by Christians is that if that were the case then faith would be meaningless
>>335900
Oh wait, most people who buy Bukhari's BS are Arabs!
>>335650
>yfw this will probably be accepted by religionuts as a proper theological argument
>>335870
I never understood these ''challenges'' by Muhammad (pbuh), had he not heard of the Iliad or Odyssey or something? People reproduced more impressive shit than the Qur'an by memory all the time.
>>335900
>Now that I think of it most of the really shitty Hadiths were assembled by Persians (al-Bukhari for instance)
What? Bukhari and Muslim are two of the main Hadith compilers out there. You're full of it.
>>335900
>shitty
>>335997
They're also the worst. Funny thing that.
>>335590
>Al-Rāzī was a Muslim theologian that argued against the validity of prophets and revealed holy books
>He reasoned that a perfectly good God would make knowledge available
And a God can through communication. Books are manufactured primarily to preserve knowledge, for reference and guidance in this subject; since reasonably, it would be illogical for God to keep repeating Himself over and over for every new generation that comes into the World.
>that all knowledge from of how to live and how the universe was formed could be figured out rationally.
Yes. It's called your eyes. Through observation and analysis, you can understand and percieve how naturals laws affect the universe. Like how Arabic astronomers were able navigate the courses of the stars, calculate the Lunar months for example.
>It wouldn't make sense for God to conceal this information and restrict it to only a few prophets and their followers.
How? Any scripture and holy book is publicly available to anyone. It depends on whether the individual has the desire/motivation to learn from them.
Also, as a continuation on the matter of communication as I stated above: if YHWH was to give information to any culture, God would then translate this knowledge into that particular culture's language, which in turn (as I said before) will be preserved and made accessible to others. One important factor that one must consider is if the culture is capable of comprehending the true intention of God's will, and most importantly, whether they are trustworthy in maintaining it's original interpretation which a language's perspective can skew; so revealing it simultaneously to every nation would actually be counter-productive/conflictive in the long run.
>>336037
[citation needed]
>>336042
>it would be illogical for God to keep repeating Himself over and over for every new generation that comes into the World.
Why exactly? He knows humans will doubt, He knows there will be imitators, etc. If God is outside of time and space, then He is not ''logically'' bound not to repeat himself, we should be born with intimate knowledge of the Will of God.
>Yes. It's called your eyes. Through observation and analysis, you can understand and percieve how naturals laws affect the universe.
Except sense perception is incredibly limited and fallible.
>How? Any scripture and holy book is publicly available to anyone. It depends on whether the individual has the desire/motivation to learn from them.
>there are hundreds of thousands of churches, Holy Books, etc.
>all claim to be 100% right
>quite a few promise eternal suffering if you don't follow exactly what they say
>geographically bound to be predisposed to certain religions
>well, it's your own fault if you didn't pick the right one! God made it so obvious, just look around, mayn..
Why did muslims reach their hight around the ~13th century and then stagnate forever?
>>336053
the mongols
>>335650
>They exist only to corrupt Islam
Clearly
Its not like this Al-Razi fella or the rest of those pesky persians contributed to any of the science, medicine or math that made up the golden age.
>>336060
I did not say that they are unintelligent or untalented people, just subversive and evil. It is in their nature to mock and hate Islam.
>>336065
So arabs would have been better of without them or their contributions towards islam completely?
>>336065
Saudi pls go, you are the cause of all this shit.
>>336053
Genghis "The Second Coming of Attila" Khan put them in their place.
>>336075
And then some of his descendants became them kek
>>336077
Shame on them for actually accepting that poison.
>>336072
>Islam would have been better off if it conquered the world so that we'd have no use for them in the first place
And I am sure that would have gone just fine without them.
>>336082
Those Arabs could've conquered anyone
>>336089
Which is why we all type in arabic today on this moe islamic kaffir board on a Xinjiang website.
>>336042
Honestly you're hurting your own position more than you're helping it, you've basically said "well fuck it if these people grow up on the other side of the planet and spend their lives without any chance at salvation its their fault"
>>336049
>all claim to be 100% right
Not all can.
>quite a few promise eternal suffering if you don't follow exactly what they say
Scared of a little fire are you?
>geographically bound to be predisposed to certain religions
All religions note that a Divine Entity was responsible for the Creation of the Human Race (whether Monotheistic or Polytheistic). What you have to consider with this "geographically-bound" argument is that it stems from what we were discussing before, the interpretation of information; polytheistically for example, Zeus, Seth, Hadad, Thor and Indra are all Gods of Lightning, however, due to lingual differences each will develop their own cultural definitions even though its over a "common objectifible subject".
>well, it's your own fault if you didn't pick the right one! God made it so obvious, just look around, mayn.
Are you saying that people cannot make their own personal investigations and distinctions between religions to ascertain whether they are true or false?
>>336149
>well fuck it if these people grow up on the other side of the planet and spend their lives without any chance at salvation its their fault"
Not really. The centralization of information is to prevent contamination and corruption of the original concept and acts a preserving mechanism. I said in my first statment is that knowledge is first heard, then preserved and will eventually spread in some cases (e.g which is why people have access to the Bible and the Quran worldwide today for example). Where it originates from doesn't matter but rather what it advocates for and whether people (despite lingual and cultural background) accept it or not.
>>335650
Well yeah, its not a surprise that the Muslim Golden Age happened during a time that persian influence in the caliphate was enormous
>>336320
>The Quran is disgusting to begin with.
Nice bias from someone who hasn't read it. What's disgusting about it? Let me guess, violent verses? Well if you'd read it you'd see how they actually fit into the narrative.
>The narrative doesn't even make sense in relation to the Old Testament.
That's because it tries to make sense of the OT stories.
>>336334
It's disgusting because of the people who have acted on its teachings over the centuries. It doesn't 'make sense' of that narrative St all, it explicitly contradicts it at several points and just says 'But the Jews were deceived, unlike the Muslims.' It's literally revisionist history. The OT is Israelites revisionism of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite history, but the Quran was written so much later that there's no excuse.
>>335590
>most intelligent Muslim in history
>an Iranian
TOP
KEK
>>336348
People who act on the Qurans teachings won't do those disgusting things, they are following hadith or the goals of themselves. Yes of course it's revisionism, that doesn't make it inherently bad. Especially when you're revising some ultra jumbled book as the OT.
>>336373
>People who act on the Qurans teachings won't do those disgusting things
Like conquer significant portions of the ancient world? Are you saying none of Muhammad's contemporaries were violent?
>Yes of course it's revisionism, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
No, but that doesn't make it right. You're like a Marxist distinguishing between dialectical materialist theory and capitalist ideology. The argument can only be made from within your ideology and it doesn't even seem rational to outsiders.
>Especially when you're revising some ultra jumbled book as the OT.
Those revisions didn't bring the narrative any closer to alignment with archaeological evidence. Does the Quran mention the Hyksos? Does it give detailed information about the historical events surrounding the time period in which Exodus occurred? Of not, the revisions made the narrative less accurate.
Think of the best way to control a population. Take away the rights of women (maybe so you can sleep with as many as you like and keep them as property, or maybe to deem behavior that may make you feel less of a man as a Sin punishable by death), create a text that blames all of the worlds problems on everyone who doesnt believe in what you believe, create societal norms that ties every aspect of live to a central belief system, inspire fear or hostility on any cultural group that is different than you and make them pay taxes... The Quran is a piece of horse shit picked up by a power hungry self proclaimed prophet .
>>336405
>Like conquer significant portions of the ancient world? Are you saying none of Muhammad's contemporaries were violent?
I'm saying that just because people are a certain religion doesn't mean all their actions are because of that religion. Empires have expanded, conquered and fought wars for all of history, yet somehow if an empire where the leading class are Muslim its because of Islam? I don't buy it.
I'm saying that revisionism isn't inherently bad and you're calling me a Marxist. It probably does make it closer to archaeology though as it doesn't give time periods like the Bible, so it could have happened in any period before Islam.
>>336422
Mohammed himself conquered vast territories citing Allah's ordained Jihad as justification.
If you are seriously claiming that Jihad (interpreted as "holy war") is not one of the central tenets of Islam and that people who interpret it that way are not real muslims, then I'm afraid that your beloved prophet is not a real muslim either.
>>336422
>Empires
I'm talking about religion, not government. The people who fought under Muhammad to spread the word of Allah were devout Muslims fighting under the man you believe to be the last prophet. If you're incapable of distinguishing between state and umma, I can see why many Westerners dislime your ilk.
>I'm saying that revisionism isn't inherently bad and you're calling me a Marxist.
Because you're reminding me of Marxists.
>It probably does make it closer to archaeology though as it doesn't give time periods like the Bible, so it could have happened in any period before Islam.
Not my point. My point was that it's presented as absolute truth when there's no evidence it happened at all, and when other sources (written by the Israelites themselves!) Claim it happened differenrly from the Quran. Revisionism is only acceptable when there's evidence to support the revision. There is none, in this case.
>>336440
>Mohammed himself conquered vast territories citing Allah's ordained Jihad as justification.
No, he conquered the lands of his enemies who declared war on him and violated several peace treaties. Brush up on your early Islamic history.
>If you are seriously claiming that Jihad (interpreted as "holy war") is not one of the central tenets of Islam
Jihad is not one of the central tenants of Islam. The central tenants of Islam are
Monotheism
Prayer
Charity
Ramadan
Pilgrimage
>and that people who interpret it that way are not real muslims, then I'm afraid that your beloved prophet is not a real muslim either.
People who believe in one single God and lead a good life are Muslims, as defined by the Quran. I don't like the no true scotsman argument but it's pretty hard to consider someone who violates core rules of Islam as a Muslim.
>>336453
>The people who fought under Muhammad to spread the word of Allah were devout Muslims fighting under the man you believe to be the last prophet.
See above
>Not my point. My point was that it's presented as absolute truth when there's no evidence it happened at all, and when other sources (written by the Israelites themselves!) Claim it happened differenrly from the Quran.
None of the sources are correct according to science, they're religious books, neither the OT nor the Quran are backed up by archeoligy for things like the exodus. However, the Quran still has marginally more archaeological support than the OT, for example it claims that many civilisations of Arabia were destroyed by God. There are many ruins of large cities in Arabia which seem to have been abandoned very quickly.
>>336469
>No, he conquered the lands of his enemies who declared war on him and violated several peace treaties
There is no proof that the Banu Qurayza violated any peace treaty.
Anyways you didn't answer my question. Was Mohammed a good muslim or not?
>>335590
Pretty cool dude.
>>336469
>See above
See where? I didn't use the word 'jihad' once, so listing the Pillars isn't an adequate reply to me. I'm aware that it means 'struggle' and not 'holy war.'
>However, the Quran still has marginally more archaeological support than the OT, for example it claims that many civilisations of Arabia were destroyed by God. There are many ruins of large cities in Arabia which seem to have been abandoned very quickly.
A lot of Arabs left the peninsula pretty quickly around the time the Quran was written, I wonder if there's a connection. Anyway, I'm still not sure what this is supposed to have to do with my argument about the fact that the Quran is factually incorrect about events that occurred in and around Egypt and the Sinai around the time of the Exodus. No, the OT isn't factually correct either, but I don't claim it is. Besides, compared to Christianity, Islam is less open to scientific inquiry into the archaeological record relating to this area.
>>336472
>There is no proof that the Banu Qurayza violated any peace treaty.
They quite literally betrayed the Muslims during a battle, they were guarding the rear and changed sides. The Muslims still won the battle, then besieged the Qurayza and won. They were a Jewish tribe, and were judged according to the laws of the Torah. The Torah states that execution is the punishment for such a betrayal, so all the men were executed.
>Was Mohammed a good muslim or not?
He did his best, he was not a perfect man.
>>336484
The OT is factually incorrect, the Quran is factually ambiguous.
>>336493
How so? I admit that I haven't studied it in depth, but I'd like to know what you think the difference here is.
>>336498
It's vague on events and doesn't give specific dates. It's more about the meaning then the details.
>>335870
Are they more iranian like him as butthurt about islam?
>>337947
The edgy teen version of an Iranian is a rabid anti muslim who hates Arabs. Pic related
You'll encounter them sometimes.
>>337954
Sure thing, Hakim.
>>337947
He wasn't butthurt about Islam, he was butthurt about certain theologians and philosophers who posit that the Quran is itself a miracle. Here he's talking about the Quran's unsuitability as a source of mythopoeia despite referring to myths. He wasn't using myth disparagingly, as they're important for his own views on creation and philosophy, but that the Quran doesn't fulfill its role as a miracle.
To him, proper mythology > theology
>>338138
He didn't know about 19 though.
>>336509
Fair enough, but doesn't that mean it can't be literally true or inerrant?
>>335965
then why does a supposedly all knowing perfect and omnibenevolent god deliberately obscurificate his existence then only reveal it to a select few, and have them worship him and squabble over the particulars of what he said to them?
>>338227
Why cant something be true just because its vague?
>>335650
>hating on base persians
Nigga, they are the only reason why middle east had and still has some value opposed to the Arab barbarians.
Also Persian women are top tier
Shame that the British and Amerilards Had to blow it all up, Persia would be secular as fuck by now, even now they produce some of the finest writers and movie makers.
>>338814
I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying it can't be inerrantly or literally true if it's vague.
>>336348
>the Bible is disgusting because people fought in God's name
This is literally your reasoning, and I don't know about you but I don't think that Muslims as a whole ever went into a jihad, unlike Christians, who basically sent men from everywhere into a country to kill all heretics and nonbelievers, and not only once but about 7 times.
>>339106
I never used the word 'jihad' in my argument.
>>339120
But you are gladly collecting every atrocity fulfilled under the pretext of the Quran as "the crime of Muslims against humanity" (if I am not completely mistaken)
I don't like these kind of blanket statements, because they are over simplifying stuff that you regard as one homogenous mass, while in actually it isn't even comparable to German war crimes for example, which a lot of people always tend to revise on and be apologetic about, like " Not all Nazis were bad, SS was the real evil" and shit like that, which again simplifies complex stuff in an ignorant manner. Good and evil belongs to religion like it does to life itself.
>>339153
You are completely mistaken. Read the string of posts following that one. Muhammad was a literal warloed and his followers were literal conquerors who brought Islam to the lands they literally conquered by force, even if it was in retaliation after their enemies broke peace treaties. If you want to deny that there have been Muslims who were both authentically devout and violent, you'll have to deny that Muhammad and his most devoted followers were authentically devout Muslims. Christianity and Judaism hav have violent tendencies, too, and I'm not going to try to argue otherwise.
>>335870
What's funny is that this is still the state of muslim apologetics today. The argument is barely coherent. The Quran is a miracle because there's nothing else like it? Completely arbitrary.
>>335692
Food doesn't grow in sand you goatfucker
>>335590
so basically he was an atheist, or deist?
>>335590
>He also observed that prophets and holy books create war and strive as people endlessly fight over who has the "right prophet" without end which could not be the work of well intoned God.
To be fair these people certainly made war because they liked the idea of war (at least for the aristocracy)
>>339179
>Muhammad was a literal warloed
Nope
>and his followers were literal conquerors who brought Islam to the lands they literally conquered by force, even if it was in retaliation after their enemies broke peace treaties.
The Even if being quite important
>If you want to deny that there have been Muslims who were both authentically devout and violent, you'll have to deny that Muhammad and his most devoted followers were authentically devout Muslims. Christianity and Judaism hav have violent tendencies, too, and I'm not going to try to argue otherwise.
People do not have black and white personalities. People who are muslim kill, people who are not muslim kill.
>>339213
What it does is prove that Muhammad was real and made the Quran. Read between the lands
>Muhammad, you say you're a fucking prophet, but where in the camel piss are your miracles? Walk on water or something!
>sheeeeiiiit... uh, this book is my miracle. Seriously, i bet you guys can't do it!
To be fair you must understand that poetry was a big thing in Arabia at the time and the Quran was very impressive to them.
>>339351
>Nope
You can't deny that, though. He was a prophet, but he was also a warlord. He meets the definition.
The 'Even if' isn't that important. A pacifistic religion wouldn't have conquered its enemies and maintained control over their land for centuries to come. I'm really not sure how you can argue that Muhammad didn't conquer territory.
>People do not have black and white personalities. People who are muslim kill, people who are not muslim kill.
Again, I wouldn't contest this, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this obvious fact.
>What it does is prove that Muhammad was real and made the Quran
Nobody would argue against that, though. Whether or not the Quran is the verbatim word of God is a different story.
>To be fair you must understand that poetry was a big thing in Arabia at the time and the Quran was very impressive to them.
That doesn't mean I have to agree that it is literally the best work of literature of all time.
>>335590
>m'khanum
>tips turbant
>>339351
Yes but people who are muslim have a greater justification and reason to kill without remorse, if it is stated in the Quran.
People with no belief doesn't get that external justification, only internal, which could stem from both a religious and not religious person.
And your right Muhammed wasn't a warloed. He was however a 'Warlord' in his own right, no denying that.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
And when you're done fucking that goat, I suggest you come out of your paranoia induced docility and present an non straw man argument.
>>339329
Probably a Deist. Atheists never really existed until Darwin destroyed religion.
>>339398
Or religious in general for that matter
>>339383
>You can't deny that, though. He was a prophet, but he was also a warlord. He meets the definition.
I can because he literally doesn't meet the definition of a Warlord. Islam isn't a pacifist religion, pacifism is pretty silly. Islam lays out clear rules for war. I never denied Muhammad conquered territory, i said he conquered the territory of those who declared war on him, primarily the Meccans.
>>339398
People will find justification somewhere if they want to kill someone, i don't think its any easier for a Muslim than a Christian, a Christian would just have to look to the OT which is much more violent. You may say Jesus invalidated the OT and i agree but there are plenty of Christians who can look past that or deny it. If people want to kill and not feel bad about it they will find a way.
And no he wasn't a warlord. You should look up what warlord means and what Muhammad was before i have to spoonfeed it to you.
Of course i know about his expeditions, i know almost everything about his life, he was a very interesting character.
>>339411
>Following your own rules makes you not a warlord
Since when?
>i said he conquered the territory of those who declared war on him,
Which I don't contest, and I don't see how that disqualifies him from being a warlord.
>>339411
>A warlord is a person who has both military and civil[1] control over a subnational area due to the presence of armed forces who are loyal to the warlord rather than to a central authority.
That applies to Muhammad.
>>339428
Oh fine.
Warlord - A man who has a personal army loyal to him, outside of a state
>warlord
>ˈwɔːlɔːd/
>noun
>noun: warlord; plural noun: warlords
>a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy.
Muhammad - The head of the Medina state, he was invited to that position, with a majority Muslim population, with an army loyal to the state and concept of Islam, not towards Muhammad. If he were to die they would have continued.
That is not a warlord, that is a leader.
>>339442
No it doesn't because they were Loyal to the central authority of Islam. Muhammad was not a dictator, his state had a small government.
>>339329
He probably called himself a muslim, albeit not an orthodox one.
Between atheist and deist, I think deist is the correct one, he is not denying the existance of God or attacking religion, he is attacking prophets and holy scriptures.
>>339179
Great meme you have there, I guess judging is easier than thinking or at least reading
>According to Ibn Saad, opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that condemned idol worship and the polytheism practiced by the Meccan forefathers.[...]Muhammad became a threat to the local tribes and rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Ka'aba, the focal point of Meccan religious life that Muhammad threatened to overthrow. [...]
>Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment towards Muhammad and his followers,[...] In June 622, warned of a plot to assassinate him, Muhammad secretly slipped out of Mecca and moved his followers to Medina
When all Muslims left Mecca for Medina and the Meccans, who before that, we're plotting to assassinate Muhammad, seized the Muslim's land, Muhammad told the disowned and angry followers of his to raid and pillage Meccan land, which should serve as a stepping stone to ultimate destruction of Mecca.
Can you really blame him? I mean he had his followers, what would you do if you think God spoke through you? Just be like: Nah, sorry God those Meccans don't want you man, you gotta get someone else, maybe take the Muslims , already have here and give them to some guy.
His only choice was basically waging war against his arch enemies, Christians were not in that position, they couldn't take on the Roman Empire anyway, and their presumed God was a God of peace.
>>339456
What do you mean you don't see a reason to accept an official definition?
Muhammad was literally not a warlord by definition as he was the leader of a state with a government, not the madman running around with troops like everyone seems to think. He had a court and ambassadors even.
>>339449
Stop equating state and community. Muhammad was a warlord opposing the established political order in Mecca, Medina, and the Greater Middle East and Mediterranean world. Islam is only arguably a central authority.
>>339462
>official
From where? Mine is from Wikipedia. He wasn't leading a state until he had established his ideology's hegemony. In most cases, this happened by force.
But this is all beside the point. Muhammad spread Islam by the sword, as did his successors.
>>339459
He is like a Persian Martin Luther, only not about splitting as much as criticizing and condemning mislead people and religious figures.
>>339411
Thats again the internal justification.
The external justification comes from an approval by a higher power or form of government that allows said action to be performed. You have just repeated my statement from before.
Yes you are right about people looking to the old testament for faith oriented advice, we often refer to these people as Jews.
The pacifist backwards scumbag who follow the new testament are called Christians.
And though I don't support any of the judea originated beliefs, I do however hold a strong conviction that Islam is the more incompatible one with current society values in the western world.
There is a death penalty for apostasy in Islam that I doubt even your frail and gullible mind could possibly justify, which also goes against the human declarations article 16, which again proves that our ideologies are not compatible.
There is further death penalty for homosexuality and adultery, and what we would consider a crime not fit for it's punishment; rape.
Even though the Quran is contradictory in it's many passages, it hasn't abolished previous written laws like the new testament in fact has.
It is clearly stated in the NT that the previous religious traditions and norms should no longer serve because of the narrative of Jesus Christs crucifixion.
>trying to justify a stone-age ideologies and behaviors in present day
>>339463
>Stop equating state and community.
I'm not, you are.
>Muhammad was a warlord
Nope
>opposing the established political order in Mecca
Yes
>Medina
No, he was the leader of Medina, and he was invited to be the leader, he never took over through military conquest, or a coup, he was asked to lead by the Medina citizens.
>and the Greater Middle East and Mediterranean world.
What the fuck are you talking about, Muhammad never ever got outside of Arabia. You clearly don't know Islamic history then.
>Islam is only arguably a central authority.
It was a caliphate, the Caliph is not a warlord, Muhammad was not a warlord, quit grasping at straws to justify your petty little insult.
>>339475
>He wasn't leading a state until he had established his ideology's hegemony. In most cases, this happened by force.
This is incorrect. It was not until after he was settled in Medina that he went to war.
>>339411
Statehood implies international recognition, which Muhammad didn't have very often, tbqh.
>>339475
Retarded argument, Christians spread their belief by the sword too, only because you want to believe in the Holy martyrdom bullshit. There were "martyrs" like that for Muslims too, Muhammad had followers and he didn't spread his belief by the sword rather defended it from people who wanted him dead.
Just because you like to think of Christians as those poor oppressed people who died in the colosseums doesn't mean you can project your ignorance onto other matters.
>>339480
I agree with you but i believe most of what you say about Islam stems from the hadith and sunnah which are corruptions of Islam and absolutely full of shit, and they are what the majority of Sunni jurisprudence is built upon.
>stone age
Oh i see
>>339490
You mean other than the Arab tribes which recognised him and hated the Meccans for the dominance of trade?
>>339490
Medina was a recognised state throughout Arabia, it existed before Muhammad. He did not create it, he just became the new ruler and most of the population converted to Islam, peacefully too I'll add.
>>339482
You're literally failig to differentiate between Muslims living under Muhammad and the state Muhammad led. You aren't worth arguing with.
>he was asked to lead by the Medina citizens.
So he was the head of a city. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been a warlord.
I don't even care about the term that much. Again, whether or not his Wars were justified, he spread his religion by the sword. So did his successors.
>>339494
I didn't mention Christianity. The Crusades were justified.
>>339511
>You're literally failig to differentiate between Muslims living under Muhammad and the state Muhammad led. You aren't worth arguing with.
No I'm not.
>So he was the head of a city. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been a warlord.
Yes, it does. If you have a state, government, recognition, laws, etc, then you are not a warlord, you are a general. Muhammad had these. He is called a general in all scholarly discussion, only a warlord by the obvious anti islamists.
>>339536
Fine, he was a general. Did he conquer land?
>anti islamists
Well, I'm not an Islamist.
>>339511
Citation needed
>>339536
I'll add that there was even a fucking constitution.
I need to sleep, I'll reply in the morning if this is still here.
>>339530
Please enlighten me about this justification you have for the crusades? Where in the NT does it say God wants Christians to slaughter infidels? I was of the impression that Jesus would not have wanted that, sorry, I meant Jesus/God/Holy Ghost, or as I say Catholic revisionist bullshit.
>>339546
>>339543
>>339536
He was a Lord Of War
>>339546
I don't even like Islam, yet I don't try to bullshit myself with stupid /pol/ tier memes, like Muhammad was a pedo and a warlord, it's to me a bad thing that for example Iran, which was so secular, was forced back into an extremist belief system.
>>339578
I'm Catholic. The Pope, rightly, called for a response to centuries of Muslim attacks on Christian land.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
>>339600
Yeah, that was rather obvious, you're probably the same guy who constantly refers to Muhammad as warlord, because it wouldn't fit in your narrow view. 4chan christians like you are literally bottom of the barrel, dense, ignorant and only open to affirmation.
Tell me, aside from your Wikipedia entry, being a Catholic, after all you should know, where in the new testament does it say that infidels should be killed, innocents too, not warriors, citizens, children, women, people who surrender. I am waiting.
Al-Razi, Avicenna and Averroes and maybe the Mu'tazila are the only muslim providers of worthwhile thoughts and ideas from a philosphical standpoint.
Everything else descends into negotiation of dogmas, it's utterly boring and frankly I can't understand why Arabs are so arrogant because of it.
>>339657
You should read that article.
>Romans 13:4New International Version (NIV)
>4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
There you go. Besides, it stands to reason that Christianity, as the only path to Salvation, is worth defending. I bet you take issue with the use of reason, though.
>muh back and forth of scripture quotes
Please stop.
>>339600
>The Pope, rightly, called for a response to centuries of Muslim attacks on Christian land.
No, he called for a response to a decade of Turkish attacks on Eastern Christians, and then subsequent popes called for a subjugation of infidels, heretics, and other designated enemies of the Church to the Latin rite.
>>339707
>North Africa, Spain, Palestine, Syria, Anatolia
>>339702
Welcome to religious debates
Where technicalities of quotes, tu quoque and passive agressivity keeps the ball in play.
>>336348
>says its disgusting
>didn't even read at least 15 pages if not 1
>>339713
He mentioned no long campaign at Clermont, only the depredations of the Turks, who only recently showed up in the Middle East. The First Crusade went to Constantinople and fought across Anatolia for a reason rather than go to Sicily and help conquer North Africa for the Normans.
>>335650
>They exist only to corrupt Islam.
but islam is corrupted from conception. You cant pour more shit in sewage and call it water.
>>339767
Egypt was pretty much entirely Coptic Christian before the Muslims came and took it by force.
>>339777
And that had no bearing on anything preached by Urban II at Clermont. The reasons for the First Crusade are pretty clear at this point, there's absolutely no reason to start making up reasons for it.
>>336042
>Also, as a continuation on the matter of communication as I stated above: if YHWH was to give information to any culture, God would then translate this knowledge into that particular culture's language, which in turn (as I said before) will be preserved and made accessible to others.
Basically what all scientists and philosophers did but with more rationality in mind than some desert sky god.
>>339798
Oh, boo hoo. It was still justified. Islam is Satanic.
>>336065
>just subversive and evil
Sounds like muhammad mate(May his followers all burn.)
>>339805
This has nothing to do with moral right or wrong. I'm only pointing out that:
>The Pope, rightly, called for a response to centuries of Muslim attacks on Christian land.
Is factually incorrect. You can believe whatever you want, but if you're gonna spout bullshit history then just get out of my face.
>Islam
lmao
>>339824
The Pope did call for a response to Muslim attacks. It was after centuries of Muslims conquering land that was once under Christian rule. How else did Islam spread to Spain?
>>335650
>corrupt Islam
Gulf States and Sunnis do that on their own.
>>339842
A response to a specific campaign by a specific invasion of the ERE. The First Crusade was in no way a response to anything that transpired between the 7th and 10th centuries. There were already plenty of wars and raids between Mediterranean Muslim and Christian principalities before the First Crusade.
>>339861
All those Wars were just, too. Again, I don't care. The First Crusade was justified.
Can we not even have a thread on a philosopher without devolving into /pol/ bullshit and dank /int/ memes? Jesus Christ.
>>339865
Like I said, believe whatever you want, but don't spout bullshit history along the way.
>>339883
You're the one spouting bullshit. I've been trying to get you to admit that Islam was used to justify conquest and you've refused to concede the fact. Even once you admitted Muhammad was a general, you continue to act like it's a religion of peace.
>>339870
Kinda hard when the first poster shits on an entire ethnical group while saying they didnt do jack shit for said religion in debate cause of one persons opinion.
Kinda makes /pol/ look right, sadly
Who is he to say what a perfectly good god would do?
Especially when we tie in "perfectly wise" which God must necessarily be. We cannot comprehend the actions or decisions of such a being
>>339899
What are you talking about, my first post was >>339707
But frankly, you haven't impressed me to assume any historical argument you can make is worthwhile. But if you want to play with me, too, then: Islam was used to justify conquests made by secular aristocrats, just like Christianity. Muhammad was not a general, he was a Biblical Judge, something like a President but with more judicial than executive powers.
>>339938
That wasn't clear to me, and that's your fault for jumping into an argument.
>>339901
Like I said, either /pol/ polemic or /int/ shitposting.
>>339948
It's an anonymous imageboard, and I was pointing at a specific error which, even if I was the same person, doesn't magically change the fact that it's an error. If you can't handle not bringing in ego into a debate, then just get a trip and save us all the trouble.
>>339963
Get a grip on your own ego. Yes, this is an anonymous imageboard, you should expect that kind of thing to co fuse people. It happens all the time.
>>339973
Yeah, to newfags who can't handle anonymous posting.
>>339990
Wahhh
>>339950
What I ment is the thread was lost from the get go, ese.
>>340035
Only because a Muslim threw a hissy fit over Persians.
>>340039
Just follow the reply chains, it was the catalysis for this clusterfuck.
>>335590
I like this guy.
*tips mother fucking head thingy*
muhammed was a bit mean tbph
>>335590
Just because the truth is rationally accessible doesn't mean that people won't muck it up by being too undisciplined, misguided, or plain stupid to be able to figure it out. Not to mention that most people don't have time to do complex philosophy. Without revealed truths all these people would be left in the dark. Faith and revelation is God's gift to humanity so to help them understand him apart if they fail to understand him intellectually.
>>341938
His point is that a good God would make it so how to live one's life would be understood by reasoning (ie you could use philosophy to figure out how what it means to be a good person). He would make humans with the braisn to figure things out for themself.
What you are argueing is God intentionally made humans stupid, so that they couldn't figure out anything on their own, and that the only way to have guidance is to follow the words of some prophet or holy book. But there's dozens of prophets and holy books and you've already ruled out humans using reason to figure out the truth....
There's an old Deist argument that goes like this
"Does the creator know what is good by his reason or is it arbitrary? If he knows it by reason than we humans too possess reason and can know what is good by our mental facility and there is no reason to follow him. If he speaks arbtiarly than there is no reason to follow him as reason is superior."
I'll also tell you that during the Muslim Scholastics there was a huge argument that reason was "wrong" and the only way to know anything was blind faith in the Koran, because they knew that it was a battle of reason vs faith to decide how humans would understand the world. According your your very standards of putting 'faith above reason' the Muslims are GOOD for having faith in Allah....after all they arn't allowed to use reasoning to say why the Koran is bullshit, that what Al-Razi would do.
>>339309
>what is mud
>>339399
>darwin & not Nietzsche
>>>/reddit/
