Does God exist? (5 Viewers)

[dan964]

It is interesting the wikipedia section, which is disputed says...

"Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history [citation needed] to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment—for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)"

 

[StudiousStudent]

I know for sure Angels exist. I'm not sure about God, though.

 

[Drsoccerball]

It is interesting the wikipedia section, which is disputed says...

lel

"Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history [citation needed] to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

Here's the citation of rules:
1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)

3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)

4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)

5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)

8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)

9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).

10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment—for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.

"Whoever enters the house of abu sufyan is safe, whoever locks his door shall be safe. Whoever remains in the mosque shall be safe."
This was upon the conquest of Mecca doesn't fit with what the bolded statement says...

Well obviously they have to pay tax for military protection... We do that here in Aus.

Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)"

They didn't wage war to propagate the religion. There is no compulsion in religion. The underlined part is right along with self defence. It doesn't look right the way the author put jihad and war together... Jihad means to struggle against obstacles (You probably know this but just want to emphasise). Surah furqan it says jihadhoom bihi kabira which means strive with the greatest (or greater) striving and this was revealed in the Mecan period in which there were no wars or battles but meant for the inner struggle of patience.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I get the suggestion that is underlying... My point was not on religious factions, even though they are concerning; which every religion/non-religion even Islam has. (Yes God will bring to account the false teachers)

Mohammed was more than just the religious leader was my point... and so the argument over who would be his successor, while primarily had to do with religion; it has implications for political conflict. Islam as a religion has always been tied in with politics, in most cases.

It is just an interesting to note, that this same conflict still causes a lot of bitter tension in the middle east; politically.
(That is not saying the same doesn't happen in other religions; same happened around the time of the Reformation with the Counter Reformation and all that).

The conclusion is people have used religion for their political gain. Whether they actually held to that religion, is disputable. But everyone knows of the common examples...

None of the companions would've done something for personal gain. They would reject taking positions of superiority because it comes with great spiritual dangers and an even greater responsibility which if they did not fulfil correctly, they could be held accounted for in the next life. Well of course people have used religion for political gain and they will be judged based on their intentions. Inamal aamalu biniyat. (Actions are judged based on intentions). Just because someone says there Muslim doesn't mean they follow its teachings as you said they could use this alias in order to gain personal/political power.

 

[dan964]

None of the companions would've done something for personal gain. They would reject taking positions of superiority because it comes with great spiritual dangers and an even greater responsibility which if they did not fulfil correctly, they could be held accounted for in the next life. Well of course people have used religion for political gain and they will be judged based on their intentions. Inamal aamalu biniyat. (Actions are judged based on intentions). Just because someone says there Muslim doesn't mean they follow its teachings as you said they could use this alias in order to gain personal/political power.

Yeah I understand, but don't see what ends you are trying to say. I am making the claim that early Islam that there was a political motive interwined with the religious, even with Mohammed.

None of the companions would've done something for personal gain.

That is disputed may I add.

 

[dan964]

"Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error" (Sura 2.256).
Really? Does the Quran consistently hold this.
1. What you would find is verse is abrogated (or as I call it superceded) by 9:73, 9:123, 48:16
2. There are many opinions on what the revelation actually is (i.e. the context in which the revelation was given).
3. Some apply this verse only after the "unbelievers" have payed the jizyah tax. Others don't.

Historically, while in principle, Christians and Jews were never "forced"* (*by the sword) to convert, in most cases, the same cannot be said of the pagan pre-Islamic Arabs.

(Unsuprisingly Surah 9 still seems to be a challenge passage)

 

[Drsoccerball]

I know for sure Angels exist. I'm not sure about God, though.

How can you believe that angels exist when God doesn't? Angels are like messengers and servant's of a king. In order to preserve the king's majesty they act as a veil.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Yeah I understand, but don't see what ends you are trying to say. I am making the claim that early Islam that there was a political motive interwined with the religious, even with Mohammed.

Can you present some political motives please?

That is disputed may I add.

No it isn't. Diving into Islam in it's earliest age meant abandoning all your wealth and diving into a life of torture and pain inflicted by the pagans of the time. Look up all the misfortunes the Muslim's would suffer by the hands of polytheists and ask yourself again if there would be any other reason to join the religion besides it being the truth. However, further down the line some people may have been hypocrites in order to gain political power when Muslim's were becoming stronger but this would be a long time after.

 

[Drsoccerball]

"Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error" (Sura 2.256).
Really? Does the Quran consistently hold this.
1. What you would find is verse is abrogated (or as I call it superceded) by 9:73, 9:123, 48:16
2. There are many opinions on what the revelation actually is (i.e. the context in which the revelation was given).
3. Some apply this verse only after the "unbelievers" have payed the jizyah tax. Others don't.

Historically, while in principle, Christians and Jews were never "forced"* (*by the sword) to convert, in most cases, the same cannot be said of the pagan pre-Islamic Arabs.

(Unsuprisingly Surah 9 still seems to be a challenge passage)

It depends on the context as you stated. If the context is among the treaty context then we have to pay especial attention to the verses revealed then. We don't look at the Medina verses which were among the verses where the pagans were coming and attacking the Muslim's they were allowed to fight back. But if our context at the moment is one such as Mecca (When Muslims were being tortured and no fighting was allowed) we don't just go fight because it says it in the Quran. Context is very important Also you seem very obsessed with surah 9 which is quoted regularly out of context... Have you read any others?

 

[dan964]

It depends on the context as you stated. If the context is among the treaty context then we have to pay especial attention to the verses revealed then. We don't look at the Medina verses which were among the verses where the pagans were coming and attacking the Muslim's they were allowed to fight back. But if our context at the moment is one such as Mecca (When Muslims were being tortured and no fighting was allowed) we don't just go fight because it says it in the Quran. Context is very important Also you seem very obsessed with surah 9 which is quoted regularly out of context... Have you read any others?

No i am not obsessed with Surah 9... it just happens to be a problematic surah. We have already discussed how this Surah does not represent the People of the Book faith. Tell that underlined to the groups like ISIS, that abuse the Quran then...

Surah 2:190-193,216; 4:74, 89, 95; 8:60, 8:65 and of esp. 9:29-30; 61:4

In terms of political motives, I think I will quote the Haddith:
Omar Ibn al-Khatab said: “I heard the prophet of Allah saying: ‘I will cast Jews and Christians out of the peninsula and I won’t leave any one in it but Muslims.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, No. 28, from the Muhaddith program)

I infer indirectly that his motivation for a unified Arabia under Allah, namely a caliphate.

===

From Bukhari, the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an...
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.’" (vol. 4, p. 55)
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)
"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land…" (vol. 4, p. 161)

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (vol. 9, p. 45)

I will not go to the effort of listing every case.

 

[dan964]

1. May I also add it is not Muslims who are being tortured and that.
2. If self defense is a justifiable reason for the actions taken (then I have seen, not that I necessary agree with, the same justification used for the Crusades)... You have to be careful about your justification...

e.g. The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his Companions participated in. The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of Caravans financed by the Quraysh, (such retaliation was explained as being legitimate by saying many Muslims possessions and wealth left behind when they migrated from Mecca were stolen). The Muslims declared that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' "persecution" of Muslims.

Note: Confirmation bias does not confirm anything.

Jihad is certainly a loaded word.

 

[braintic]

Yeah I don't disagree entirely. But only 7% (4% Islam, 3% other) are the causes of wars. Atheism itself, especially if you take Darwin himself said what he believed is an equally dangerous tool:

The full title of Darwin's book in 1859 was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed this up more explicitly in his later book The Descent of Man as follows..
"The western nations of Europe ... now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilisation ... The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races through the world. (Vol II, pp. 796-797)

I hardly think that it is an issue that is limited to religion; atheism can be very much "dogmatic" and ideological as much as religious thought, the only difference is the absence of God in atheism. I would argue that atheism has its own belief/value system, quite possibly in the lack/antithesis thereof, or in opposition.

Firstly, atheism is NOT evolution.

Secondly, you are mixing up a conjectured effect of evolution itself that is not caused by belief in evolution, with an effect that IS caused by a mere belief in a system (religion). The problems of religion are caused by the BELIEF, not by the "existence" of a god.

Thirdly, you are only quoting Darwin. The science of evolution has progressed WAY beyond those personal musings. His concept of a "savage race" was influenced by the societal beliefs of the day. The "evolution of civilisation" is a concept that stands apart from biological evolution (though according to many peoples opinions, influenced by it.)

Fourthly, INDIVIDUALS who are atheist have their own varied belief systems which are drawn in part from the culture in which they were brought up. There is NO unified atheistic belief system.

 

[dan964]

Firstly, atheism is NOT evolution.

I am well aware of that. No need to get upset.

Secondly, you are mixing up a conjectured effect of evolution itself that is not caused by belief in evolution, with an effect that IS caused by a mere belief in a system (religion). The problems of religion are caused by the BELIEF, not by the "existence" of a god.

Thirdly, you are only quoting Darwin. His concept of a "savage race" was influenced by the societal beliefs of the day. The "evolution of civilisation" is a concept that stands apart from biological evolution (though according to many peoples opinions, influenced by it.)


The science of evolution has progressed *WAY* beyond those personal musings.

Fourthly, *INDIVIDUALS* who are atheist have their own varied belief systems which are drawn in part from the
culture in which they were brought up. There is *NO* unified atheistic belief system.

We could generalise your last statement in red; and replace "religion" with ideology (a more broader category) and you'll understand the point I am making kind of.

[1] To answer your fourth charge, I am well aware of that. The same can be said for most of the world's major religions. One's worldview is indeed shaped by more than just their belief in the existence or non-existence in God, although it is an important factor.
[2] To answer that the science of evolution has progressed. I wouldn't necessarily dispute that either. A similar argument, that I don't necessarily personally agree with, has been used for certain religious groups as well. It doesn't actually prove that history didn't happen. BUT I hardly think that science has been conducted neutrally though (which is an interesting thing to note), and the science itself is influenced as you even allude to, but underlying factors. It is these underlying factors, that in the time of Enlightenment are influenced to a growing disillusion with theistic belief generally speaking; and indeed new views on "natural selection" which Darwin championed.

[3] I am quoting Darwin as a specific case, considering he championed views on natural selection, which form the backbone for evolution. In fact Darwin's works are pivotal for atheism, even if atheism has progressed beyond his "personal musings" (if they were just limited to him, you're argument does not seem to be consistent on that). I could quote other cases, but it just happens it is the one that is most poignant in my mind.

[4] But I will dispute your statement "...mixing up a conjectured effect of evolution itself that is not caused by belief in evolution". I think it is the latter that holds (now of course you will continue to disagree)...

>>>{4.1} Note that firstly, my argument is mainly not concerned whether belief is the cause, because even that is not your original argument, and I am not even focusing on that. It is whether a belief is used as a justification; and in that case your charge does not stand; because even as you admit they drawn in part from their society.
>>> {4.2} Secondly, even if it was; I will still disagree and say that it was the very foundation "belief" in natural selection that is used to justify at least in part such views held not just by Darwin, but also by political regimes. >>> {4.3} Yes, you can cop it out and say it was societal factors, but then that hints at the attitudes held because of growing godless/secular society. (I am not saying the religious haven't be at fault either).

The crux of the matter is that a belief in biological evolution has been used (granted in part*) to justify a corollary belief in the evolution of civilisation. So your counter argument historically does not really hold. And there are the cases for instance in Australia, Russia and South Africa. (*debated to how much).
[aside: Well you say that evolution is not atheism; but atheism depends very much on evolution because of its supposed rebuttal of theistic religion].

Generally speaking it is a case, of where an atheistic belief has been used to justify practice which would consider horrendous in our society. (Can we really claim that? is a interesting topic to discuss)

Summary:
My point was more so that atheism can be and has been historically used as the justification for the exact same problems you claim religion causes. My case study was focusing on Darwin for instance as a historical example. Atheism still stands (although yes not united) as an ideology, a "belief" system, obviously not in God; but more so in a naturalistic worldview. Such a worldview will always shape individuals, in the same manner as a religion, in sometimes ways, for instance in Darwin's case. I could focus on other case studies if I had the time, and I was more academic.

While atheism has somewhat progressed (note also a similar argument is postulated, by members of specific religions, which I will not put forward). It remains the fact that most worldviews, atheism, Christian, Islamic, have had people use their ideology to propagate things we would consider horrendous; and some still do today. It makes no comment on whether they actually adhere to the belief in question, and whether hence the named belief is actually the cause.

 

[Drsoccerball]

No i am not obsessed with Surah 9... it just happens to be a problematic surah. We have already discussed how this Surah does not represent the People of the Book faith. Tell that underlined to the groups like ISIS, that abuse the Quran then...

Surah 2:190-193,216; 4:74, 89, 95; 8:60, 8:65 and of esp. 9:29-30; 61:4

I'm pretty sure the whole world is trying to emphasis this...
Take a look at this:

In terms of political motives, I think I will quote the Haddith:
Omar Ibn al-Khatab said: “I heard the prophet of Allah saying: ‘I will cast Jews and Christians out of the peninsula and I won’t leave any one in it but Muslims.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, No. 28, from the Muhaddith program)

I infer indirectly that his motivation for a unified Arabia under Allah, namely a caliphate.

Answeringislam.org lel... Looks like you're looking at Islam very objectively. I can't even find this hadith anywhere besides answering Islam can you provide me a link of the hadith please then maybe I can answer objectively.
===

From Bukhari, the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an...
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.’" (vol. 4, p. 55)

Well of course. In a time of war you need to motivate your army... So saying that paradise is under the shades of swords gives people a better incentive to fight because they get a mighty reward in return for protecting they're people and religion.

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)

Would you like to quote the next few words? "except for Islamic law." Nice try but no. Islamic law allows others to practice faith freely.

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land…" (vol. 4, p. 161)

8:67. It is not for a Prophet to have captives until he has widely exhausted the enemies in the land. You (o believers) seek the fleeting gains of the present, worldly life, but God wills that the Hereafter will be yours. God is All-Glorious with irresistible might, All-wise.
I think you meant this verse? Well obviously... It would be unwise to release a POV when the war just started as that would just increase the military power of the opponent... I can't believe you don't see the logic in these or maybe you refuse to ?

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (vol. 9, p. 45)

I will not go to the effort of listing every case.

1. The crime for treason is death. (Or was but in some countries it is still the case).
2. At the time the pagans where trying to make Islam look very unappealing by all joining and then leaving the next day so people on the outside would comment on how bad the religion was as people were joining and leaving the next day so after this ruling how many people do you reckon continued this scheme?

I would like to request something please don't get offended. I would like you to stop getting all your information about Islam from AnsweringIslam and all hate pages about Islam because that's not an objective way of gaining knowledge. I haven't said anything till now but you do it so often I have to speak about it. That's the difference between how you looked at Islam and how I looked at Christianity... I read the bible without anyone telling me what's right and what's wrong while you go straight to these hate sites... Just some food for thought... But it's up to you in the end I can't force you to see something if your eyes are closed.

 

[Drsoccerball]

1. May I also add it is not Muslims who are being tortured and that.

I don't know if you're joking right now...?

2. If self defense is a justifiable reason for the actions taken (then I have seen, not that I necessary agree with, the same justification used for the Crusades)... You have to be careful about your justification...

Of course self defence is allowed. If someone invades australia and start killing innocent people you're saying fighting isn't justified? I wonder in which universe that would be logical.

e.g. The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his Companions participated in. The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of Caravans financed by the Quraysh, (such retaliation was explained as being legitimate by saying many Muslims possessions and wealth left behind when they migrated from Mecca were stolen). The Muslims declared that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' "persecution" of Muslims.

Someone stole all your property and you have a chance of taking it back (especially now that they were 2 different nations Mecca vs Medina) so it is not only justified because its your stuff but also because it's a time of war.

Note: Confirmation bias does not confirm anything.

Agreed.

Jihad is certainly a loaded word.

Of course because of all the negative connotations it has gained over the past 100's of years.

 

[leehuan]

From taking SOR:

(A few references taken out of Cambridge Studies of Religion, due to my memories being cloudy on the topic)

The negative connotations of the word "Jihad" in Muslim culture (or, depending on how you perceive it, "Muslim" culture) can be defined by first acknowledging a split in two types of Jihad. We refer to them as the Greater Jihad, and the Lesser Jihad.

Note, that the term Jihad appears as a supposed 6th pillar of faith. Core to every Muslim's belief, however, are 5. We shall not discuss them here for now.

In very broad terms, the Greater Jihad focuses on adding positives to within their own Muslim life. One may say, it is an intention to live their lives to the best of their ability. This may include Qu'ran study, working for social justice and simple acts such as forgiveness.

The Lesser Jihad, on the other hand, refers more to ridding the world of evil. Whilst it may seem natural to state that a devout Muslim (note, the religion is INTENDED to be PEACEFUL) would want to confront the evil in the world, this is the main thing relevant to misjudgement of acts and thus, the scars placed on the word.

As demonstrated in certain 'Muslim' parties (note: the specific group I talk about are not true Muslims in my eyes), the definition of Lesser Jihad becomes seemingly allowing for the execution of violence and warfare. Effectively, this assumes that killing is morally just, if it is with the intention to eliminate evil.

(One may question, then, how these certain parties are viewing "evil" in their eyes? Because when Muslims are tagged with the word "jihadist" in contemporary society, it's now referred to the groups that seek to kill for their own reasons. The advent of terrorism in 9-11 does indeed reflect the deal with Bin-Laden's actions - there is a story behind his ways.)

Just like words such as "gay" have come to refer to homosexuality, "jihad" has now come to refer to a specific bunch, who in my opinion, taint the Muslim community with actions they normally forbid, due to their own misjudged view of the world.

 

[mamehapumpkin]

I haven't read anything in this thread tbh but just going to say it's plain obvious "god" doesn't exist. If you were born anywhere else you'd be defending the existence of some other god than the one you already are. You might have never even heard of the god you believe in now. That's because gods are man-made. That's why there are thousands of religions, many with their own religious texts and things they use to "prove" the existence of their god. What makes your god the right one?

the reason there is "no end" to the argument of god's existence is BECAUSE he doesn't exist. There is no solid proof. But plenty of things that go against his existence. But of course when you mention these things, people start making up their own ideas and interpretations. For example, from memory, in the bible god creates night and day. We all know night and day needs the sun to occur. But days later, god creates the sun and moon. Not possible. We would be in complete darkness without the sun. But there will be christians saying things like, "oh, the night and day is metaphorical!" or something like that. They will look for any way to change the meaning of the words to try and make it make sense. Which is just another reason why I don't believe in god or any gods: people have to constantly change the meaning of the text in order to make it make sense with modern knowledge.

“Every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along.” —Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Drsoccerball]

I haven't read anything in this thread tbh but just going to say it's plain obvious "god" doesn't exist. If you were born anywhere else you'd be defending the existence of some other god than the one you already are. You might have never even heard of the god you believe in now. That's because gods are man-made. That's why there are thousands of religions, many with their own religious texts and things they use to "prove" the existence of their god. What makes your god the right one?

the reason there is "no end" to the argument of god's existence is BECAUSE he doesn't exist. There is no solid proof. But plenty of things that go against his existence. But of course when you mention these things, people start making up their own ideas and interpretations. For example, from memory, in the bible god creates night and day. We all know night and day needs the sun to occur. But days later, god creates the sun and moon. Not possible. We would be in complete darkness without the sun. But there will be christians saying things like, "oh, the night and day is metaphorical!" or something like that. They will look for any way to change the meaning of the words to try and make it make sense. Which is just another reason why I don't believe in god or any gods: people have to constantly change the meaning of the text in order to make it make sense with modern knowledge.

“Every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along.” —Neil deGrasse Tyson

I think I looked at religion objectively before I choose which one I thought was the right one. Have you seen the 12 proofs I have posted it's pretty lengthy but it's good. I'm Muslim btw if you were wondering. By the way the photo you posted God can do anything within his nature. (Like he cannot do something which reduces his omnipotence). Judging from my belief where the Quran is God's eternal word he should be able to say hi ... But why would he? Also you can't force God to do anything he acts based on His own Will.

 

[porcupinetree]

I haven't read anything in this thread tbh but just going to say it's plain obvious "god" doesn't exist. If you were born anywhere else you'd be defending the existence of some other god than the one you already are. You might have never even heard of the god you believe in now. That's because gods are man-made. That's why there are thousands of religions, many with their own religious texts and things they use to "prove" the existence of their god. What makes your god the right one?

Trying to explain away someone's belief in God because it may or may not have evolved from context does nothing to disprove the existence of that particular God.

 

[dan964]

I don't know if you're joking right now...?

In most countries, you would find that it is not Muslims being oppressed. And certainly not in the west.
What you find is people using the name of Islam in countries like Pakistan to oppress other religious groups, particular minorities. Same happens in India; with Hinduism. Same happens in CAR with a "Christian" Anti-Balaka.

Of course self defence is allowed. If someone invades australia and start killing innocent people you're saying fighting isn't justified? I wonder in which universe that would be logical.

Someone stole all your property and you have a chance of taking it back (especially now that they were 2 different nations Mecca vs Medina) so it is not only justified because its your stuff but also because it's a time of war.

But it doesn't justify the actions as moral. With the bold, it is disputed, whether that was a reason given after the that to justify actions.

No additional comment needed.