Quantum Raiders Forum

[PrinceLabuta]

Monotheism sucks!


Although I hate all religion (they are the biggest evidence of human stupidity), there is something about Monotheism that strikes a nerve in me somewhere. The fact that these religions (Christianity, Islam Judaism, etc.) claim that their god is the one true god, and only those who believe in their gof will be saved. and everyone else is a sinner. what a bunch of self centered jack-asses.

Let's take it into perspective, as long as there has been a religion that claims only one god there has been killing in his name. the Hebrews displaced the Canaanites, The Christians killed the Muslims and vice versa during the crusades, and the Muslim idiots kill everyone that contradicts them. Yet these religions claim that their god is a god of peace. yeah right, and the universe is made of custard pie!

lets disect the monotheism problem. first off the Jews.

If there was ever a god, he must have hated the jews so bad. No race has ever been so hated by everyone ecept the jews. the The Romans dispersed the, the Spanish tortured them during the inquisition, The Germans killed a lot of them During the Holocaust. yet they claim to be the chosen people of god. yeah, chosen to die and suffer. They have this stupid food laws, laws that even specify a day of the week to be set aside to do absolutely nothing. lazyness if you ask me. The most exclusive of the three major Monotheistic religions, you cannot be converted to become a jew, you are born a jew. the most tortured among the three, and the oldest, judaism survives today because of the sentiment created for them by that stupid slob Hitler. Ladies and Gentlemen, Judaism.


Next, The religion that everyone loves to hate, Islam.

Founded by a guy who fried his brain in the desert, Islam, depicts a religion in which you are recieve a gift of a thousand virgins as wives in the afterlife. that just shows how horny Muhammad was. Islam is the most violence prone among the BIG 3. In their Holy book, the Koran, or quoran, or whatever these stupid arabs write, the followers of islam are taught a number of things including, "it is right to beat your wife if he disobeys you" and "you must kill anyone who turns his back on islam, even your parents". Islam also pioneered the Religios war or Jihad and the spreading of religion by conquest (they beat the European Christians by 200 years). Recently, Islam has become the best method in spreading death carnage and murder in the world. Every troublespot in the world is due to Muslims. you dont believe me? let me enumerate, Chechnya, Kosovo, Thailand, Indonesia, The Philippines, Pakistan, India, Israel, the UK, The People's Republic of China, Iraq, Iran, France, The US, Did i name all?
Islam, the best choice for Horny males and women abuse cum slavery, the best religion if you want yourself to be blown to bits. Ladies and Gentlemen, Islam.


The last and the most hypocritical of them all, Christianity.

Christianity was started by a carpenter who had nothing to do, so he decided to piss the Jews (he is a jew himself) and the jews in turn handed him over to their Roman Overlords. The Romans Crucified him, and the rest is as they say, history.
Constantine the great hypocrite made Christianity the Roman state religion, although he was a pagan himself and didnt convert until he was on his deathbed.
Christianity is divided into 3 sects, Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox and Protestantism. well Roman Universal or Greek Standard, they can Protest all they want. The most populous of the big 3, christianity is the most peacefull of the lot. at least in theory. their books and doctrines call murder, rape and jealousy a sin and advocates to love thy neighbor as thyself but in reality, murderd the Aztecs, raped the Incas, and got jealous of each other. They love the Jews when it benifits them most, and Absolutely hates Muslims to the core. Headed by a "celibate" *cough*gay*cough* priesthood christiany has infected alomost 1/3 of the world's population. The religion based on a very farfetched story, Chrstianity Ladies and Gentlemen.


Monotheism sucks and i just proved it. if you have a problem, you can suck the pope's balls. and he will say, Bless you child.

[Elk]

(This might belong in Rant? Maybe <_<?)

Religion corrupts alot of people...but its saves others. It's a good and bad thing, without the bad we will not appreciate the good. It's sad to see such terrible things caused by peoples beliefs(Boycotting Books(Harry Potter, Golden Compass), Gay Bashing, etc). Religion is too big, and people twist it so much to the point were it becomes just...horrible.

I really think people can believe what they want. I just DO NOT like it when People bash others because of their beliefs, especially if its for something serious, Like love.

My Religion, I don't know what to call it. But I believe there is a "God" well.. Actually I think its a Goddess, Mother Earth if you will. But she isn't the Only God/dess. I do believe there is someplace like heaven we go after we die. I mean heck I've seen a Ghost so I think there has to be someplace we go.

Anyway good rant. I'm not sure anyone else on QR will like it though.

I mean heck, did you see that one thread that CM had to close?

[Pendragon]

It was actually the catholics who started the crusades.

catholisism =/= christianity.

[Hagios]

First off, I would like to apologize for all the self-centered jackasses you've met that call themselves ________ (fill in the blank)


But unfortunately, you have proven nothing about those particular religions (fulfilled prophecy, archeological discoveries validating the existence of these lands, logical fallacies of these religions, whether God even could exist, and the list goes on)

You have proven one thing, that man is an adulterer, a hypocrite, a murder, warmonger, prideful, lustful, and doesn't understand how to deal with other people not like him.

You believe that Judaism exists today because of the Holocaust? Nay, friend, it exists in spite of the holocaust. And if you were to argue that the land does/does not belong to them, you would then have to argue the validity of the Torah, however, that is for another place and time. Finally, about the constant persecution of the Jew? I would say that the existence of the Jew today, proves there is a God, how can a nation persist so many centuries of war, death and destruction, except by the will of an almighty power? They are persecuted by men, may I remind you, not God.

I have no desire to defend Islam, as I believe it is a misguided religion founded by a man who received God's revelation all in a cave, miraculously...

As for Christianity? I shall leave you with an excerpt from the apologist J.P. Moreland.



by J.P. Moreland
True for You but Not for Me

Hey, I gotta question!" yelled a student from the back of the room. I was sharing the claims of Christ at a University of Massachusetts fraternity house when he interrupted me. "Yes, what is it?" I queried. "I think Jesus is great for you, but I know Buddhists and Muslims, and they're just as sincere as you are. And they think their views are true just like you do. There's no way a person can know his religion is the 'right' one, so the best thing to do is to just believe everyone's religion is true for them and not judge anyone."

Ever heard something like this? It's hard to believe you haven't. What should we make of these ideas? How should we respond? I think there is a good response to this viewpoint and I hope to provide it in what follows. But before I do, we should carefully note what seems to underlie such a claim. The student was assuming that there are no objective principles that, if applied to one's religious quest, would help one make the best, most rational choice of religious options. In the absence of such principles, any choice is either purely arbitrary or totally based on emotion or upbringing. In either case, such a choice would in no way put a person in a position to judge someone else's choice as being wrong.

Are there objective principles to guide one in choosing a religion? Indeed there are. I believe the following four principles should be used to guide one in choosing which religion he or she will follow and, if properly applied, I believe they will point to Christianity as the most rational choice.

Facts About Creation
Principle 1: A religion's concept of God should harmonize with what we can know about God from creation.1

I will not develop the argument here — I want you to look into the matter for yourself — but a powerful intellectual case can be made from facts about the creation that a single personal God exists.2 This case claims that the existence of one personal God is the best explanation for (1) the existence and beginning of a finite universe, (2) the beauty and order of the universe, including the existence of biological information, (3) the existence of finite minds such as our own, and (4) the existence of objective moral law and the equality of human rights.

Please note that Principle 1 points to monotheism, not because the Bible requires it, but because monotheism is the best explanation of these facts about creation. Principle 1 leaves Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the running.

Miracles
Principle 2: An adequate explanation of a religion's origin and success should have to appeal to divine activity.

One should not be able to explain a religion's origin and success simply as a result of brilliant human insight or philosophical wisdom. As important as these factors are, by themselves they do not indicate whether the religion is a human invention or a divinely sanctioned revelation. For example, Mohammed claimed that he received most of the Koran in a cave. Clearly, there is nothing about this aspect of the origins of Islam that escapes naturalistic explanation.

By contrast, at least two factors indicate that Christianity has supernatural origins. First, there is fulfilled prophecy. Jesus fulfilled numerous centuries-old prophecies and this fact cannot simply be the result of human wisdom. Such a fact defies naturalistic explanation. Again, I will not develop the argument here, but one should familiarize oneself with some of the Old Testament prophesies Jesus fulfilled, along with the evidence that he really did fulfill them.3 Second, based on the historical evidence that the New Testament documents are reliable, one can argue that Christianity is based on real miracles done by Jesus and his disciples, including his resurrection from the dead.4

If Jesus really fulfilled numerous prophecies, and if he really performed miracles and rose from the dead like the New Testament claims, then we need supernatural explanations for the origins and continued success of the Christian faith in a way that we do not need them to explain the origins of Islam and other world religions.

I believe Principle 2 leaves only Christianity and Judaism in the running.

The Human Condition
Principle 3: A religion's diagnosis of and solution for the human condition should be more profound than its rivals.

A student of mine came from India to study at Talbot School of Theology. Having been raised a Hindu, he began an intense search for religious truth as a teenager. His search led him to study the religious texts of the world's leading religions. His search also led him to Jesus Christ. Why? He said that, by comparison, the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament towered over the others for their depth, profundity and power. While all religions have some truths in them, one should choose a religion that does the best job of diagnosing what is wrong with human beings and how their condition can be solved.

When one does a cross-cultural study of the human condition, one finds the following universal human experiences and desires: All humans (1) experience threefold alienation — they feel alienated from God, from other people (including those they love), and from themselves; (2) experience deep and abiding shame and guilt; (3) desire personal life after death in which their loves and ideals may continue to be a part of their experience; (4) desire that their individual lives have meaning and purpose; (5) desire a life of beauty and drama, to be a part of something big and important, to be part of the struggle between good and evil; and (6) experience the need for help and empowerment to live a life of virtue and character.

I believe that if one carefully compares the New Testament with other religious approaches (including atheism), like my student, one will discover that the religion of Jesus of Nazareth provides the deepest, most penetrating analysis of these six factors, along with the richest solution to these longings of the human heart.

Principle 3 points straight to Christianity.

Jesus
Principle 4: Pick a religion in which one gets all of Jesus and not just a watered-down, distorted part of him.

This principle may seem to stack the decks in favor of Christianity, so let me explain. Have you noticed that all religions, including some sects of Judaism, want to claim Jesus as one of their own? For New Agers, he is a channeler, for Muslims he is the greatest prophet, and so on. Now why is this so? I believe this is because Jesus is easily recognized as the greatest figure in human history. Given that most people do not want to line up against Jesus, why not pick a religion that has the best chance of presenting an accurate account of who he really was, what he actually did, and what he really taught?

Find Out for Yourself
To review, I believe Principle 1 limits the choices to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Principle 2 limits the choices to Judaism and Christianity, and Principles 3 and 4 point directly to Christianity itself. But don't take my word for it. I have refrained from including the arguments here so that you can find out where these principles lead.

If you agree that they are good principles for selecting a religion — and what makes them good is an interesting question in its own right — then start reading and studying so you can fill in the gaps I've left here. If you do this, not only will you gain a greater understanding of your own faith, you will be able help people see that choosing one's religion need not be an arbitrary step in the dark.

J.P. Moreland is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and director of Eidos Christian Center. He has contributed to over 40 books, including Love Your God With All Your Mind (NavPress), and over 60 journal articles. Dr. Moreland also co-authored the 2006 release, The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life (NavPress, 2006).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Some readers will object that all we can know about God is what he has revealed to us through the Bible. The Bible, however, makes it clear that, from creation alone, even those who have never read the Bible should know certain things about God (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-23). This means that when one begins to search for God by reading the various "Holy Books" of different religious traditions, one does not begin with a blank slate. One has had the opportunity to "read a book" — the book of creation — every day of one's life before one picks up the Bible, the Koran or anything else.
2 For a good place to start learning how to make this case, see Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, eds., To Everyone an Answer (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
3 See Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), chapter 10.
4 Strobel, The Case for Christ.









anyways, yes copy pasting, but this is put way better than i could have ever said it.


thank you for reading


will you join us on qrRO labuta?

[Nevahku]

To be completely honest, I have siding towards agnosticism as of late (which basically states that I, nor anyone else, will ever be able to prove that a God exists / doesn't exist). However, you are forgetting one important thing: religions themselves are not inherently evil, it's the people who manifest them and use them as facades for their deeds. Yes, even Islam. Sure, there are the hypocrites, there were things like the Crusades, there are countless instances that appear to show the fallacies of religion, let alone monotheistic ones. However, I hardly believe that's enough to despise religion.

Now, to be fair, you are a self-proclaimed atheist/communist, and that pretty much states that you go against every organized...thing to date. You may, or may not, already have attributable disgust for things such as religion, and perhaps your reason of being atheist/communist stems from your...uh...aversion to said religions.

So, let's assume I'm right. Let's say that there is no "wrong" organized, monotheistic religion. Then...which one is right? Which one does a religious seeker pick? Well, I believe Hagios hit the nail on the head. While Islam, Judaism, and Christianity aren't "wrong" in any means, I believe only Christianity has the foundations for the things that are most plausible and "right." You're probably going to say that "wrong" and "right" are subjective terms, and can't possibly apply to the viewpoints of everyone. Well, that's incorrect. From an objective/factual point of view, as per Hagios's copy/pasted...seminar...thing...one can see that Christianity has the most going for it. There is no opinion involved.

This wall of text probably made most readers not want to even look at this, so I'll stop here. I'll reply as needed. Let me just end by saying this: "Not all religions were created equally. BUT, all religions stem from morality and kindness."

[Magna Tiger]

Whoever made this topic was an idiot...I'm sorry, but honestly...who gives a shit? People have a right to believe what they want to believe (at least here in the states they do) so why do you go ahead and start to provoke people to attack you? Poor pathetic creature.

[Hagios]

Actually, so far, the debate has been rather calm.

At least I believe so. And if no tempers are exploding, then why shouldn't we discuss important things, like religion and why we exist?

We all wonder, at some point in our life, what our purpose is.


-stumps-
At anyrate (offtopic), may all those who post, join the game community as well!

[PrinceLabuta]

I applaud everyone who expressed their opinions on this thread with civility and tackled the issue presented on the academic level. as for those who are quick to flame and rant, i believe we have a general rant section in this forum.


replies, replies replies. oh where do i start?

How can I say that Monotheistic religions are hypocrites and self serving? well for one, all three claim that their god is the one true god, and it is only their faith that can save humanity, with the exception of the Jews who believe that only they will be saved by Yaweh.


All monotheistic religions are based on moral issues? i dont know, among the three, none are organized, all will point you to their holy book as the source of the truth, and are quick to condem anyone who disagrees with them (another proof to the shalowness of the human mind).

I mean Virgin Birth (christianity), really? how dumb can that be? there is no biological basis for it (except in-vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood). An unmaried woman pregnant, and claims it as a miracle? and if i say this, I AM A BLASPHEMER, to who? to you? so anyway the baby grows up and is crucified. coincidentaly, it is the time for an Annular Solar Eclipse. Another miracle of god! God is angry and has blotted out the sun! Gravitational imbalances created by the passing of the moon triger earthquakes. Another miracle. Should i continue?


Judaism speaks for itself. it isnt a religion, its a lifestyle.


Now Islam, the most morally corrupt among the three.

Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.

However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.

In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.

The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran.

You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain ?who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.? And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Ezra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Now that is Morallity in action. whoooheee!

Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the "you have quoted out of context defense"What do they mean by ?You have quoted out of context?? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.

For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32:Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind

Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!

Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does "context"
The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:

Sura IV.34: As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them

This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:

Sura IV.34: Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.

If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word ?lightly ?in brackets after ?beat ?even though there is no "lightly" in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.

Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: ?O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.? In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning ?fighting? for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: ?Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.?

How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that ?make war ?in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: ?Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them ?? These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, ?and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.? Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, ?If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.? Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.

First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). ?It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.? (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 ?O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.? In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.

The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:

IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ?March in the cause of God ?, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.

The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight ?especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as ?endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.?

As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 ?35:

?Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
?The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
?They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!?.
?It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it.
?O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom ??

The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.

there you have it people, my defense. At the moment i only have material agaisnt Islam. i'll do my research on Judaism and Christianity

[Rizzy886]

I'm not even going to read any of these posts because I'm sure they're all full of ignorance and liquid stupidity and I'de get a better use out of my time debating theology with a rock. I back this statement with the fact that PrinceLabuta cannot actually formulate ideas of his own, but simply copypastas them from other sources. So instead of posing here, I'm going after the original posters. Bye.