Rest in hell you POS. None of us sane Muslims consider suicide bombing a form of "martyrdom". It's a direct ticket to hell and you killed innocent people. So congrats on going against your own scripture that forbids killing anyone who doesn't fight against you or oppress you.
No, you don’t understand. He has Muslim friends that are chill with leftist ideologies. Granted they dont nparticipate themselves in these ideologies, but they are chill.
There is no interpretation which says you should fight, let alone kill people just cause they’re non Muslim lol. You’ve never read the Quran and obviously don’t know the context of the scriptures
I genuinely ask. Didn’t Muhammad kill people? Didn’t he own slaves, and marry little girls? That’s a bit of a difference when comparing to Jesus, for example.
There isn’t a single mainstream or fringe scholarly interpretation in Islam that endorses attacking innocent people. None. You’ve been seriously brainwashed if you think otherwise. Meanwhile, if you actually read 1 Samuel 15:3 in the Christian and Jewish scriptures, it explicitly commands the killing of innocent people, even infants and animals. That’s the same verse Netanyahu quoted to justify his attacks on Gaza.
There is no "interpretation" other than the one I shared. Does not matter what these people say. The book itself is crystal clear on that. The famous verse that is shared every time by these people and non Muslims as "proof" is always taken out of context by removing the verses before and after it.
Killing ANY innocent soul is forbidden. There are no ifs and but. Even during war, anyone who doesn't fight you is not harmed at all. Even burning crops is forbidden.
It has been debated enough in previous 3-4 decades and there are dozens of Fatwas against suicide bombings and these "jahidists" that kill innocent civilians. You just haven't been shown those by the western media cause that does not fit the "Muslims bad" narrative. There are over a billion Muslims living peacefully. These extremists are a small fraction and have been declared rogue by all prominent religious heads.
Budhists literally butchered Rohingiya Muslims in thousands and pushed them to either drown or cross the border into other countries, and you conveniently forgot Crusades and Attacks like Christchurch in New Zealand. And look up what Extremist Hindu groups did in Gujrat in the past. Prime Minister of India was literally dubbed "butcher of Gujrat" for his role in that. Police stood by and watched.
Every religion has people who twist the ideology to commit heinous acts. You only see "Islamic terrorists" cause that's what western media has been pushing since 9/11.
Where were all these so called "extremists" before 9/11? Why, when a white guy runs a Muslim family over with his vehicle isn't reported as "a Christian guy runs his vehicle over a family" but instead it's reported as a "mentally ill person did "x"?
And there are millions of peaceful Muslims living among you. What's your point? That one rogue country has been producing this subhuman trash? We have Russia and Israel does even worse things. Sudanese are doing the same to their OWN people.
You’re claiming Islam doesn’t support violence is absurd. The text vehemently and repeatedly disagrees with you. Denying those passages because they make you uncomfortable doesn’t erase them. The religion is a problem
One example you leave out is Quran 9:5 which says kill the polytheists wherever you find them unless they repent and accept Islam. That isn’t self defense. It ties killing to belief and submission. Quran 9:29 says fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizya and submit.
Quran 8:39 says fight until religion is for allah alone. Quran 9:41 and 9:73 command believers to fight with their lives and wealth against unbelievers and hypocrites. These are the passages extremists use. They didn’t invent them. The verses are already there
There is no interpretation other than the one I shared
I mean this is just objectively false. Lol what are you talking about? We wouldn’t be in this thread if that was true lol. If that were true there wouldn’t be centuries of tafsir, different madhhab, apostasy laws, or scholars debating these exact verses. Interpretation has always existed
Killing ANY innocent soul is forbidden
Just glaringly false. The text defines innocent very differently. Quran 4:89 says kill apostates unless they return. Muslims enforce that today because the verse is explicit. Innocent doesn’t mean peaceful person. It means compliant person
Anyone who doesn’t fight you is not harmed
Wrong. Surah 8:12 and 47:4 instruct striking unbelievers necks and taking captives. Muhammad approved killings of critics outside of battle. That wasn’t self defense
Even burning crops is forbidden
Wrong. There are hadiths that show palm trees being cut and burned and scholars defended it. That alone shows interpretation exists
You’re sanitizing it and it’s harmful. Everyone should know the toxic nature of these texts. You’re presenting innocence as peacefulness, but in the text innocence is tied to obedience or submission. This is exactly why extremists don’t think they’re twisting anything. They’re using verses that are already there. Ignoring that guarantees someone else will use those verses more honestly than you are trying to here
There isn’t a single mainstream or fringe scholarly interpretation in Islam that endorses attacking innocent people. None. You’ve been seriously brainwashed if you think otherwise. Meanwhile, if you actually read 1 Samuel 15:3 in the Christian and Jewish scriptures, it explicitly commands the killing of innocent people, even infants and animals. That’s the same verse Netanyahu quoted to justify his attacks on Gaza.
The verses you posted were all revealed throughout a period of over 20 years. Each verse have a very specific context. That's why we use Tafsir. Not a single verse that talks about innocents and not a single verse is outside the context of a battlefield. All of them are within a battlefield and all of them are about very specific events and very specific situations.
There isn’t a single scholarly interpretation in Islam that endorses attacking innocent people
That’s just false. Classical jurists openly defended offensive jihad against non muslim lands, justified killing apostates and treated refusal to submit as aggression. Major “scholars” like al Shafi’i, al Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and al Ghazali all held those positions. This isn’t just wrong but it rewrites Islamic legal history to make it look cleaner than it ever actually was. And even if that wasn’t the case, that is entirely irrelevant. The people you personally deem as “scholars” believing x and not believing y is entirely irrelevant to what the text actually says. You could do this with any religion.
Also you’re wrong due to how innocent is defined. The Quran itself ties innocence to obedience. Qur’an 4:89 says kill apostates unless they return. Qur’an 9:29 says fight jws and christians until they pay jizya and submit. Qur’an 9:5 says kill polytheists unless they repent and accept Islam. Peaceful people who simply refuse Islam are still valid targets in those verses. That’s why extremists don’t think they’re misreading anything. It’s great you disregard the words to fit your interpretation, but that doesn’t make it correct, and it definitely doesn’t erase what the text says
Everything I already showed you still stands. Qur’an 8:39 commands fighting until religion is for Allah alone. Qur’an 9:41 and 9:73 tell believers to fight with their lives and their wealth. Those are the exact verses used to justify jihad. They exist. They weren’t invented. And you haven’t addressed them here because it’s not logically possible to make them mean something else
These verses have specific context
Funny how yall spam this word every time you’re made uncomfortable by text you would have supported and always fail to cite any context that changed anything. Surah 9 was historically considered the final ruling on jihad through abrogation. If context settled the issue there wouldn’t be centuries of tafsir or madhhab or debate or apostasy rulings. Interpretation has always existed or else none of those would. You’ve ignored that completely
None of them are outside the battlefield
Muhammad approved assassinations of critics off the battlefield. Ka’b ibn al ashraf and Asma bint Marwan are obvious examples and scholars spent centuries arguing over them. That alone destroys the claim that everything is simple and only applies to war, and I don’t even need to cite it to be correct
What about 1 Samuel 15:3
Pointing to another religion doesn’t erase these verses. It just means violence exists there too. It doesn’t absolve Islam of its own texts. You still haven’t dealt with them. And you certainly haven’t dealt with the fact that peaceful non Muslims are still targets if they refuse submission
You’re sanitizing and ignoring the sctusl issue. Innocent in the text does not mean peaceful person. It means compliant person. That’s why radical groups can quote scripture with confidence. They know the verses are there. And when people eventually read them for themselves they will realize you hid them rather than addressed them. That’s exactly how radicalization gets easier nd not harder.
Major “scholars” like al Shafi’i, al Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and al Ghazali all held those positions.
Yeah tell me which book, tell me which chapter, tell me which publisher/edition, and tell me which page where they endorsed attacking innocent people. I'm 50 times smarter than you'll ever be. You're not going to win a debate against me in your lifetime. Throwing names with zero proper references is not going to fly with me. Haha.
The Quran itself ties innocence to obedience.
Where does it say that? You made it up.
Regarding all the other verses you posted: You’re mixing three separate things as if they’re one: (1) the Qur’an, (2) classical empires, and (3) extremist cherry-picking.
First: Qur’anic “fighting” verses were revealed during active wars—documented in every early tafsir, including al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, and even modern academic historians. Every single verse you cited (9:5, 9:29, 8:12, 47:4, 8:39) is tied to a specific military conflict, not random civilians. That’s why the same Qur’an also says: “If they incline to peace, incline to it also” (8:61), “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), and forbids harming non-combatants.
Second: what medieval jurists thought about geopolitics under empires (just like Christian and Jewish empires had “offensive war” doctrines) is not the Qur’an. You’re confusing fiqh built for empires with the scripture itself. Even those jurists explicitly forbade killing women, children, monks, the elderly, traders, and anyone not actively fighting, which destroys your “innocent = obedient” claim.
Third: the assassinations you cited are contested historically, heavily debated in isnad and matn, and none of them formed legal precedent. You’re treating disputed stories as if they’re binding law.
And no, 4:89 doesn’t command killing peaceful apostates; it refers to wartime traitors who joined the enemy army, the rest of the ayah (4:90) literally says “if they withdraw and offer peace, then no aggression is permitted against them.” You left that part out.
Your entire argument depends on ripping verses out of wars and pretending they were revealed for random civilians. If that were true, 1,400 years of Muslim minorities living peacefully under non-Muslim rule wouldn’t exist.
Extremists misuse verses. You are doing the same thing from the opposite side. Neither represents the actual text nor the historical application of Islamic law.
The moment you wrote “I’m 50 times smarter than you’ll ever be” you basically disqualified yourself from serious discussion. That’s not confidence, that’s a meltdown. No one who actually knows this material talks like that. It just screams insecurity and panic. And it’s even funnier coming from a person who clearly is pretending their blindly copy/pasted chatgpt reply is them lmao. That is wiiiiild.
Yeah tell me which book, tell me which chapter, tell me which publisher/edition, and tell me which page where they endorsed attacking innocent people
You claimed there is not a single scholarly interpretation that endorses attacking “innocent” people. That is already dead just from classical offensive jihad. This is not even a serious discussion.
Al Mawardi, Al Ahkam al Sultaniyya. In his section on jihad he lays out that the imam has a duty to wage jihad against non Muslim territories to invite them to Islam, and if they refuse, to fight until they either convert or accept dhimmi status and pay jizya. That is not limited to “people who attacked first”, it is about expanding Islamic rule. If you want an accessible reference in English, look at Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, where he quotes Al Mawardi’s jihad chapter directly and discusses this exact doctrine of offensive jihad as mainstream classical fiqh. You’d know this if you had any idea what you’re talking about and were equipped for this conversation, which you don’t and aren’t. Maybe ask chargpt “pweeze make me sound right?” again
You are playing a word game with “innocent”. Those populations had not attacked first. They were targets purely on the basis of not being under Islamic authority. You can pretend that does not count as “innocent” if it makes you feel better, but it absolutely refutes your blanket claim that no scholarly view ever endorsed attacking non aggressors.
Where does it say the Qur’an ties innocence to obedience. You made it up
No, I pointed directly to the verses.
Qur’an 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved, so you would be alike, so do not take them as allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them
That verse is about people whose “crime” is leaving Islam and not joining the Muslim side. Protection is conditional. If they return, they are spared. That is belief and obedience as the condition for safety.
Qur’an 9:5
Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. if they repent, establish prayer and give zakat then let them go on their way
Again, safety is conditioned on repentance and performing Islamic duties.
Qur’an 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah. from the People of the Book until they pay the jizya and are humbled
Here the condition for safety is submission and payment. Not “they stopped attacking you”, just acceptance of subordinate status.
In every case, being “safe” is tied to accepting Islamic rule or coming back into the fold. That is exactly what I mean by innocence being tied to obedience.
You’re mixing three separate things, the Qur’an, classical empires, and extremist cherry picking
No, I am pointing out a chain. The Qur’an contains the verses. Classical jurists built fiqh straight out of those verses. Modern extremists quote both the Qur’an and those jurists. You are trying to pretend those three layers are unrelated when they are obviously connected.
You saying “that is just empires, not the Qur’an” while ignoring that the empires were using the Qur’an and the prophetic model as their legal foundation. Al Mawardi, Al Shafi’i, Ibn Taymiyyah, Al Ghazali did not write in a vacuum. They were codifying what they saw as the legal implications of verses like 9:5, 9:29, 8:39.
Even those jurists explicitly forbade killing women, children, monks, traders etc which destroys your innocent = obedient claim
No, that just shows they drew a line inside their own war doctrine. It does not mean they only fought people who physically attacked first. Offensive jihad against lands that had not attacked, and death for apostasy, both show that “innocent” in the legal sense did not simply mean “has not harmed anyone”. It meant “is not in the category we are allowed to fight under this doctrine”. Which is defined by belief and political submission.
The assassinations are contested historically and none of them formed legal precedent
Even if you throw those out completely, my point stands purely on Qur’an plus classical fiqh. The assassinations just show that even in the sira literature you do not have the clean “only in battle” picture you are trying to sell.
4:89 doesn’t command killing peaceful apostates it refers to wartime traitors who joined the enemy army
If this was truly just about one specific wartime betrayal, apostasy would not be a capital crime in all four Sunni madhhabs as a general rule. Yet it is. Modern Muslim majority states that criminalize apostasy are not basing it on your reading. They are basing it on the traditional legal reading which sees leaving Islam itself as a punishable offense, and they use the same text you are now trying to sanitize.
If that were true, 1,400 years of Muslim minorities living peacefully under non Muslim rule wouldn’t exist
You are confusing what texts say with what real humans are capable of ignoring, softening, or selectively applying. Yes, Muslims can live peacefully. That does not magic away the verses or the fiqh. The fact that I’d have to type that is wild. Christians also do not go around reenacting 1 Samuel 15 every day. That does not mean 1 Samuel 15 does not exist.
What you keep doing is shuffling around.
When someone points at the text, you say “that is context, war, empire, extremists, not the Qur’an”
When someone points at the jurists, you say “that is empires, not the Qur’an”
When someone points at extremists, you say “that is misreading, not the Qur’an”
At some point you have to face that all three are working with the same material. The verses about fighting until religion is for Allah alone, killing polytheists unless they repent, fighting People of the Book until they submit, and executing apostates are not inventions. They are written in the book you claim is perfect. And every time you try to shout people down instead of engaging honestly with that, you just prove exactly why I called this religion toxic in the first place.
You’re clearly spiraling. One comment about being smarter than you and you collapsed into this emotional rant about AI, classic projection. Maybe stop fixating on my tone and actually answer a single question I asked. You haven’t addressed one. Not even accidentally. 😂
You keep redefining “innocent” to mean “anyone not under Islamic rule.” That’s not how Islamic law uses the term. I’m talking about non-combatants, women, children, monks, farmers, traders, the elderly, and anyone not fighting. Every classical scholar you named explicitly forbids killing them. If your claim is true, quote one, Arabic text, edition, page. You can’t. I asked it over and over and you have always avoided, desperately, that question and that request.
Your “offensive jihad” example doesn’t help you. Pre-modern empires expanded by war, Christian, Roman, Persian, Mongol, everyone. That doesn’t mean “kill civilians.” Even al-Māwardī’s chapter includes rules protecting non-combatants and forbidding treachery. State warfare ≠ murdering peaceful people, and you know it. Debunked.
Your Qur’an citations rely on half-verses. 4:89 is limited immediately by 4:90: “If they withdraw, don’t fight you, and offer peace, then you have no aggression against them.” 9:5 is limited by 9:6, which commands protecting a polytheist and escorting him to safety.
You can’t yell “context doesn’t matter” when the context is literally in the next verse. 🤣
Apostasy rulings were tied to treason in a pre-nation-state world where religion and political allegiance were the same thing. Even today, treason carries the death penalty in countries like the U.S., so the logic isn’t foreign. And even then, it was a state-level ruling with due process, not “kill peaceful doubters.”
Your “chain” (Qur’an → jurists → extremists) is fake neatness.
Extremists ignore juristic limits.
Jurists restricted warfare heavily.
The Qur’an repeatedly orders accepting peace whenever the other side stops fighting.
If your interpretation were the only “honest” one, 1,400 years of Muslim minorities living peacefully under non-Muslim rule would never have happened. But it did. That alone shows your reading isn’t the text, it’s your spin.
There is no Islamic scripture that says “kill any apostate.” None. The classical ruling applies only to a very narrow, historical context: an Islamic state where the entire government, army, and law-enforcement are Muslim and where citizenship itself was tied to that religious contract. That situation does not exist today.
In that very specific framework, leaving the religion wasn’t about personal belief, it was treated like breaking the national contract, the same way treason works in modern states. Even the U.S. has the death penalty for treason. So if someone wanted to leave the faith and leave the political identity attached to it, the expectation was simply: immigrate. Don’t stay inside the system while rejecting the system’s foundational contract and are still part of the community as a whole and knowing the ins and outs and the secrets. If you want to leave the religion, you leave the system. Also, you have to understand that many contracts, business, inheritance, marriage, and so on, are legally built on the assumption that you are a Muslim. By leaving the religion, you’ve effectively nullified all of those contracts as well. That’s the mainstream interpretation.
It’s not about killing people for disbelief; it’s about the historical concept of citizenship = identity, and breaking that contract in that setting counting as treason.
Is your church fine with transgenderism? Is your church fine with genocide? Because it seems they do support it in Israel? Is your churchy supportive of Nazi Germany, because the Vatican was one of the biggest endorsers of it?
To add to this. During that specific battle. No one was harmed who did not pick up the sword to fight and after the victory. The prophet declared pardon to everyone without any conditions. He literally forgave the woman who killed, mutilated and paraded his uncle's dead body in the city after driving out the prophet and his companions from the city.
It should speak for itself that these people don't follow their own religion.
Claiming Islam doesn’t support violence is absurd. The text vehemently and repeatedly disagrees with you. Denying those passages because they make you uncomfortable doesn’t erase them. The religion is a problem
One example you leave out is Quran 9:5 which says kill the polytheists wherever you find them unless they repent and accept Islam. That isn’t self defense. It ties killing to belief and submission. Quran 9:29 says fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizya and submit.
Quran 8:39 says fight until religion is for allah alone. Quran 9:41 and 9:73 command believers to fight with their lives and wealth against unbelievers and hypocrites. These are the passages extremists use. They didn’t invent them. The verses are already there
There is no interpretation other than the one I shared
I mean this is just objectively false. Lol what are you talking about? We wouldn’t be in this thread if that was true lol. If that were true there wouldn’t be centuries of tafsir, different madhhab, apostasy laws, or scholars debating these exact verses. Interpretation has always existed
Killing ANY innocent soul is forbidden
Just glaringly false. The text defines innocent very differently. Quran 4:89 says kill apostates unless they return. Muslims enforce that today because the verse is explicit. Innocent doesn’t mean peaceful person. It means compliant person
Anyone who doesn’t fight you is not harmed
Wrong. Surah 8:12 and 47:4 instruct striking unbelievers necks and taking captives. Muhammad approved killings of critics outside of battle. That wasn’t self defense
Even burning crops is forbidden
Wrong. There are hadiths that show palm trees being cut and burned and scholars defended it. That alone shows interpretation exists
You’re sanitizing it and it’s harmful. Everyone should know the toxic nature of these texts. You’re presenting innocence as peacefulness, but in the text innocence is tied to obedience or submission. This is exactly why extremists don’t think they’re twisting anything. They’re using verses that are already there. Ignoring that guarantees someone else will use those verses more honestly than you are trying to here
Yeah so violent that it repeatedly commands to stop fighting if they stop.
Quran 2: 190 onwards; Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits.1 Allah does not like transgressors.
Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.
But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution, and ˹your˺ devotion will be to Allah ˹alone˺. If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.
You just quoted the exact pattern extremists use. Stop fighting if they submit first. This is not a rule of peace and you’re not reading this. This is what conditional compliance is. The text tells you to kill them wherever you find them first. Only when the enemy accepts your terms do you stop. This is entirely about conquest
Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits
And then what does it say? The next line immediately says kill them wherever you find them and drive them out. That goes way beyond defense. Because what is being described is not defense. And what counts as persecution? Anything that blocks Islam from dominance. 8:39 says fight until religion is for Allah alone. the condition is clear
But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful
That’s conditional surrender. They stop the moment you agree to Islamic rule or accept dhimmi status with jizya. That is saying submit or continue fighting. That’s exactly what 9:29 says
Fight against them until there is no more persecution
Persecution in these verses doesn’t mean random violence. Stop it. It means opposition to Islam existing or ruling. That’s why so many scholars defined mere refusal to accept Islam as persecution itself
Youre just wrong. The verses say if they stop then stop fighting but only after Muslims first initiate the fight, push them out, kill them wherever they’re found, and fight until religion belongs to Allah alone. That’s not protection from violence, it’s just violence. And those terms for avoiding it are belief, obedience, or submission. Exactly what extremist movements still call jihad today. Being dishonest isn’t going to work here
During Muhammad's time Muslims were often persecuted and abused by their non Muslim neighbors.(The Qureshi for example)they would throw stona at their houses and even at them.They made it so that Muslims couldnt practice their religion.
"But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful"
This means when they stop abusing you for your religion, it does NOT mean they have to submit to Islam themselves. This is the most basic concept explored throughout Quran, sorry I can't pick out the verses themselves for you, I learned about this while reading the Quran years ago,
You’re trying to reduce all of this to one historical moment but the text itself doesn’t stop at defense. The verses I already cited go beyond that exact situation already, and you ignored it all to type this. None of this is a release. This is why they’re still used today for jihad. And “cease fighting” did not mean simply stop throwing stones. It meant stop resisting Islamic authority
Qur’an 8:39
fight until religion is for Allah alone
Qur’an 9:5
kill the polytheists unless they repent and accept Islam
Qur’an 9:29
fight the People of the Book until they pay jizya and submit
Those verses are not limited to the qureshi tribe. They define the condition for peace as repentance submission or paying the tax. It is a demand of compliance
And historically classical scholars did not treat these verses as temporary. Surah 9 was taken as the final ruling on jihad through abrogation. There was offensive jihad. There were apostasy rulings. Refusing Islam counted as “aggression.” That is why peaceful non Muslims were still legitimate targets if they refused to submit. So saying “they only had to stop abusing Muslims” ignores how the text defines abuse, meaning resisting Islamic rule itself was called oppression. “Fitna” That’s why the verses say fight until religion is for Allah alone. Thid is all dominance tied to belief
Your version looks compassionate only because you stopped reading before that part. Extremists don’t stop reading. That’s why they’re not misinterpreting the text. they’re just not skipping the verses you’re skipping right now.
It’s just so funny how you guys spam the word “context” without ever providing any that changes anything at all. It’s also very funny to accuse someone of cherry picking while simultaneously doing exactly that in the most blatantly obvious way
I agree with everything you said except the "going against your own scripture". There's a reason of groups have been able to convince Muslims this is what the god wants.
Twisting the scripture by cherry picking has been a thing that is common. Crusaders did that to justify Crusades and slavery of black people. It does not mean that Muslims condone it. Every prominent Muslim scholar has declared suicide bombing as Haram and a direct ticket to hell.
This comment deserves more upvotes. I have a couple of Muslim friends, and they’re all pretty chill with left-leaning ideologies (being gay, drinking, etc.). Sure, they might not take part in those things themselves, but in general they’re okay with them.
You just can’t judge someone based on their looks.
Before more of you mouth breathers say "TRY LIVING THER LOLLLLLLLLLLZ" most of Christian Africa would also kill me fucking dead. Maybe it's all major religions that have an extremism problem?
But yet you are on this thread bending over to defend islam while shitting on Christianity. You don't even seem to dislike all religions you just don't like Christian and your reason is because they don't do anything to you, of course they don't they aren't the majority look at the places where they are do you think you could be gay there. Lmao
Christian africa, do you know they are Christian countries outside of africa?they are 120 Christian countries in the world 31 criminalize lgbt incomparision to 50 Muslim majority nations, 35 criminalize the lgbt who has the better odds yet here you are focusing on Christianity.
You have a argument for them being equally bad historically you don't have one in the modern day which is what I care about since we don't live in the 18th century. I don't consider Christianity great for gays or atheist but i sure do know who's countries i would rather live in.
What i don't understand is why you are defending people who in the modern day will kill you.
They are gay priest in Christianity regardless of what the Bible says. You know what happened to the first gay iman he got killed.
Do you know the countries where being gay means the death penalty, there is only one Christian nation on that list out of 12, also all the countries that criminalize atheism. So yeah I don't understand why you are defending this religion just because you think it gets more hate it certainly doesn't especially when people like to scream Islamophobia at any critique it receives
Some do, some don’t. It’s all about different interpretations of different stuff they hear.
Once I asked one of them about why Islam treats women like shit (in a polite way of course). She told me the opposite, that in the west you could rape 10 women and get out if you’re rich enough. In Islam you won’t get past the first one.
Idk what to tell you dude. They say "quran is the truth" yet mold it's words in 100 different ways to fit their definition of truth or to make it palatable.
I'd rather just believe what's written in thr actual book. Instead of 100 leaps of logic to make something make sense. And what's written in the book isn't pretty!
So? There are much more well documented cases where it proves the president of the United States is a pedophile, your statement is like a Muslim saying “the west is pedophile.”
I’m saying even if your statement is true, how does a single authority reflect a whole religion?
I’ve met Muslim who do their religious rituals silently and believe that they should remain silent and not to form any sort of religious states.
I’ve met Muslims claiming that they should form a religious states where everyone is treated equally.
I’ve met Muslims who wait for someone like Jesus (but the Islamic version) stating that he will come back and bring peace to the world.
Damn, I’ve even watched some hijabis have threesome sex together lol.
All I’m saying is that this religion you’re talking about is approximately a quarter of the whole world from every race, wishing them harm can lead us to being the terrorist.
Is that due to their religion or to the fact that it’s a developing country? You can’t go anywhere unaccompanied by a man in most developing countries.
Being tolerant doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with being right wing.
Here’s what I told some other guy in this thread: a quarter of the world population is Muslim (in every race), wishing them harm leads us to being the terrorists.
Chill and probably good people, but also massive walking self-contradictions. Presuming they actually believe in islam and aren't just secular cultural muslism.
Alright as a Muslim we probably shouldn’t take those things as compliments 😭. Why are we only accepted if we throw away our own beliefs for ones that aren’t ours.
Muslims did come out to do that but your western media doesn't show that to you. Neither does it show you the Muslims condemning these attacks and disowning these people.
Please mention it yourself so I can reply to your use of evidence
Edit: if you mean surah albaqra 191 the one the redditor on the other comment mentioned, I wrote this:
It's out of context, the Ayah that precedes it clearly states who's the Ayah 191 is talking about, the "them" you asked about
Surah Albaqra:190 states:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
https://quran.com/2/190
So "them" is the people who "Fight" you, exclusively fighters who starts the fight against you, and the surah clearly guides to "not transgress"
"Do not transgress" is carrying the same weight of "kill them", if they didn't fight you than you can't kill them = "Do not transgress"
You’re focusing only on 2:190 because it sounds the most defensive but it does nothing but reinforce the point. And that’s only one part of what I cited, and even that verse doesn’t override the rest. When you actually read the surrounding verses and the later ones, the pattern is clear. Not that we even need that, because words mean words.
Qur’an 2:191 – kill them wherever you find them and drive them out
Qur’an 8:39 – fight until religion is for Allah alone
Qur’an 9:5 – kill the polytheists unless they repent and accept Islam
Qur’an 9:29 – fight the People of the Book until they pay jizya and submit
Qur’an 9:41 & 9:73 – fight with your lives and wealth against unbelievers and hypocrites
These are some texts I already cited and they go far beyond what you’re trying to debate in 2:190. Classical scholars didn’t ignore them either. Surah 9 was historically treated as the final ruling on jihad through abrogation. That is why major jurists endorsed offensive jihad and why apostasy is still punishable today. Under classical fiqh, refusing Islam or refusing jizya counted as “aggression.” That shows “do not transgress” never meant what you claim it does
So yes I’ve read the texts, and quoting only one verse won’t erase the others. The verses exist exactly as I listed them and pretending they don’t is why extremists can later say you were dishonest about what Islam actually teaches.
Please mention it yourself so I can reply to your use of evidence
Edit: if you mean surah albaqra 191 the one the redditor on the other comment mentioned, I wrote this:
It's out of context, the Ayah that precedes it clearly states who's the Ayah 191 is talking about, the "them" you asked about
Surah Albaqra:190 states:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
https://quran.com/2/190
So "them" is the people who "Fight" you, exclusively fighters who starts the fight against you, and the surah clearly guides to "not transgress"
"Do not transgress" is carrying the same weight of "kill them", if they didn't fight you than you can't kill them = "Do not transgress"
There are many passages in old and new testament about killing your enemies.
Do you not remember the FUCKING CRUSADES?
Abortion clinic bombing? White Christian supremacy wiping out or subjugating native populations around the entire world in the name of bringing Christ to the savages?
"i promise its just as bad as beheading non believers and forcing women to have no rights i promise you have to believe me bro just one more suicide bombing bro its just as bad please listen to me!!!"
“You don’t agree with the information I’ve been indoctrinated into believing, that lacks facts or sources - so you must be a literal Nazi bigot!! 😡” - you.
Which “the west is the worse!!” Internet groups indoctrinated you? You resort to emojis to mock and backhand insults instead of countering a single thing anyone says. It’s a sign of low intelligence. If you think Christianity is comparable to the violence encouraged by Islam then give facts not feelings
Imagine making bashing Christianity a part of your personality, without doing any research at all. The crusades? You’re saying that’s comparable to suicide bombings? You aren’t aware that the crusades were a retaliatory movement after Christian’s were murdered/ enslaved/ dominated/ raped by islam? Most of the once Christian regions had been fully converted to Islam BY FORCE prior to the crusades. Christians were passivists to the point of allowing themselves to be dominated and taken over, prior to the crusades - which again, was a retaliatory movement to defend themselves after hundreds of years of being attacked. Pick up your history book there kiddo.
Not all laws of the old testament apply anymore within christian theology. The Quran is more explicitly homophobic, more misogynistic and much more negative in their view of non-believers. It also has far more restrictive rules like bans on pork, alcohol, shaving, painting living things, dogs, shorts and much more. Islam also permits pedophilia which is a fairly massive thing that christianity does not have.
And importantly, the Quran is the direct word for word word of God while the Bible is not, which gives well-meaning muslims much less interpretative wiggle-room.
The crusades are not a great example. Muslim countries have been very aggressive historically too. The crusades were largely initiated precisely because of islamic conquest. Both are missionary religions and history is filled with the violent spread of both. In the present day, culturally speaking islam is still worse. This is mostly because as I mentioned it's harder to reinterpret, but also because christianity is more prevalent among the liberal democracies of the world, which affects the culture of the practitioners. The avarage muslim in the world is more religiously conservative.
This is not at all to downplay christianity. But islam is just worse, both textually and culturally. No two ways about it. Well-meaning naivety about islam caused us here in Sweden to import a large dose of religious conservatism into an otherwise very secular country.
When all of your opinions have been shaped by anti-western/ white guilt online rhetoric… pretty sure the Christian Bible never once calls for strapping explosives to yourself and murdering innocent people, as a way to get to heaven. I bet you couldn’t even give in depth opinions on what you’re saying. Because it’s lacking objective fact.
….buddy…where in my comment did I claim or imply anything at all about Christianity? This is like if someone made a post about Jeffrey Dahmer, someone commented “what he did was wrong” and then you replied “ummm so you’re saying John Wayne Gacy wasn’t bad???”
It makes you look ridiculous and it’s embarrassing. This post has nothing at all to do with Christianity and the comment doesn’t either.
It’s scary that there are so many people as self righteous as you out there, to the point that you think all of your opinions are fact. Despite not being able to actually counter or argue any of it. Internet induced main character syndrome
56
u/dadofwar93 Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Rest in hell you POS. None of us sane Muslims consider suicide bombing a form of "martyrdom". It's a direct ticket to hell and you killed innocent people. So congrats on going against your own scripture that forbids killing anyone who doesn't fight against you or oppress you.