Religion

[konsta]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

[Mr.SkarKasm]

I agree with the post above me, its sometimes comes down to the matter of human greed, when people are too illiterate to know which is from the bible and which is not. which is what makes a good point about the qur'an, everybody was instructed to memorize it by heart so it wouldn't get lost or edited, which also helped with kinda forcing people to learn how to read, dropping illiteracy rates down.

The post above me now is not the same post that was above me while writing, oh well [EDIT]

[_Enzyme_]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

Regarding Islam, the second largest religion on eath, you are wrong.

To comprehend whether brutality is inalienable in the principle of Islam, it is imperative to take a gander at the case of the establishing father of Islam, Mohammed, and the sections in the Quran and Islamic statute used to legitimize the viciousness we as of now observe in such a large number of parts of the Muslim world. In Mecca, Mohammed lectured his individual tribesmen to desert their divine beings and acknowledge his. He lectured about philanthropy and the states of widows and vagrants. (This technique for converting or influence, called dawa in Arabic, remains an essential segment of Islam right up 'til the present time.) However, amid his time in Mecca, Mohammed and his little band of adherents had little accomplishment in changing over others to this new religion. Along these lines, 10 years after Mohammed initially started lecturing, he fled to Medina. After some time he cobbled together a volunteer army and started to take up arms. 

Anybody looking for help for outfitted jihad for the sake of Allah will discover sufficient help in the entries in the Quran and Hadith that identify with Mohammed's Medina period. For instance, Q4:95 states, "Allah hath conceded a review higher to the individuals who endeavor and battle with their products and people than to the individuals who sit (at home)." Q8:60 prompts Muslims "to strike fear into (the hearts of) the foes, of Allah and your adversaries, and others in addition, whom ye may not know, but rather whom Allah doth know." Finally, Q9:29 educates Muslims: "Battle the individuals who accept not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that prohibited which hath been illegal by Allah and His Messenger, nor recognize the religion of Truth, (regardless of whether they are) of the People of the Book, until the point when they pay the Jizya with willing accommodation, and feel themselves stifled."

Standard Islamic law keeps on keeping up that the alleged "sword refrains" (9:5 and 9:29) have "revoked, dropped, and supplanted" those sections in the Quran that call for "resistance, sympathy, and harmony." 

With respect to the case of Mohammed, Sahih Muslim, one of the six noteworthy definitive Hadith accumulations, guarantees the Prophet Mohammed embraced no less than 19 military endeavors, expressly battling in eight of them. In the consequence of the 627 Battle of the Trench, "Mohammed not hesitated to bargain cruelly with the Banu Qurayza, executing their men and offering their ladies and youngsters into bondage," as per Yale Professor of Religious Studies Gerhard Bowering in his book Islamic Political Thought. As the Princeton researcher Michael Cook saw in his book Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, "the recorded striking nature of fighting against unbelievers … was along these lines composed into the essential writings" of Islam. 

There untruths the duality inside Islam. It's conceivable to guarantee, following Mohammed's precedent in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of harmony. But on the other hand it's conceivable to guarantee, as the Islamic State does, that a disclosure was sent to Mohammed directing Muslims to wage jihad until the point when each person on the planet acknowledges Islam or a condition of subservience, based on his inheritance in Medina. The key inquiry isn't whether Islam is a religion of harmony, yet rather, whether Muslims pursue the Mohammed of Medina, paying little heed to whether they are Sunni or Shiite.

[Eclipze]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

I can agree with you there. It’s was a way for them to justify the wars they were fighting and I believe it its the same today just not in a large scale like it was back in the day.

Religion isn’t the direct cause of war, if you are truly religious you know that these acts are not okay.

[Archer]

I agree with the post above me, its sometimes comes down to the matter of human greed, when people are too illiterate to know which is from the bible and which is not. which is what makes a good point about the qur'an, everybody was instructed to memorize it by heart so it wouldn't get lost or edited, which also helped with kinda forcing people to learn how to read, dropping illiteracy rates down.

The post above me now is not the same post that was above me while writing, oh well [EDIT]

For all I care, literacy in Turkey increase after we dropped the Arabic script.
"Dropping illiteracy rates down", how exactly?By marrying 9 year olds off instead of sending them to school?

[konsta]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

I can agree with you there. It’s was a way for them to justify the wars they were fighting and I believe it its the same today just not in a large scale like it was back in the day.

Religion isn’t the direct cause of war, if you are truly religious you know that these acts are not okay.

It is indeed the same today in the Middle East with the terrorist organizations. There's a good reason why their leaders are filthy rich that some of them own mansions, yachts and private jets somewhere in Qatar or Dubai. They recruit the desperate and weak people with a lot of personal issues, they exploit them and use religion to manipulate them into carrying out terrorist attacks.

[Eclipze]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

I can agree with you there. It’s was a way for them to justify the wars they were fighting and I believe it its the same today just not in a large scale like it was back in the day.

Religion isn’t the direct cause of war, if you are truly religious you know that these acts are not okay.

It is indeed the same today in the Middle East with the terrorist organizations. There's a good reason why their leaders are filthy rich that some of them own mansions, yachts and private jets somewhere in Qatar or Dubai. They recruit the desperate and weak people with a lot of personal issues, they exploit them and use religion to manipulate them into carrying out terrorist attacks.

Never actually realized the connection between the sheiks and the islamists, thanks for telling me that. I can agree with you there but not only is it middle easterners who earn on the muslims it’s also western companies who invest in the oil industry, even mom Muslims can manipulate them. Sad how it’s come to this

[Agorith]

Who wants to play some Overwatch?

[_Enzyme_]

Religion is the cause of so many wars and conflicts, it's bullshit.

So is money yet noone critices it, mayor recent conflicts have had money and power more involved than religion.

Money and greed is involved in almost every religious war and often the cause. Many kings and emperors in the past justified their wars using religion and used their divine rights to have people on their side so they can safely know that there won't be a revolt and have soldiers to fight for them. Crusades for example, "holy war to protect Christians" and they looted Constantinople, a Christian city and of course every city and villages in their path.

I can agree with you there. It’s was a way for them to justify the wars they were fighting and I believe it its the same today just not in a large scale like it was back in the day.

Religion isn’t the direct cause of war, if you are truly religious you know that these acts are not okay.

It is indeed the same today in the Middle East with the terrorist organizations. There's a good reason why their leaders are filthy rich that some of them own mansions, yachts and private jets somewhere in Qatar or Dubai. They recruit the desperate and weak people with a lot of personal issues, they exploit them and use religion to manipulate them into carrying out terrorist attacks.

War against unbelievers is made reference to in the Quran; in any case, taking a gander at the total of the Quran, it turns out to be evident that war is just satisfactory inside specific conditions. 

For instance, take the well known section which alludes to the decapitation of unbelievers (surah 47, stanza 4), which is as per the following: 

So when you meet the individuals who distrust [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have dispensed butcher upon them, at that point secure their bonds, and either [confer] support a short time later or emancipate [them] until the point that the war sets out its weights. That [is the command]. What's more, if Allah had willed, He could have gotten revenge upon them [Himself], however [He requested outfitted struggle] to test some of you by methods for other people. Also, the individuals who are murdered in the reason for Allah - never will He squander their deeds. 

(Sahih International interpretation of the first Arabic) 

The reason this stanza doesn't legitimize fear based oppression is that it plainly alludes to meeting unbelievers in wartime, not simply whenever. This is evident in light of the piece of the refrain which says: 

"… until the point that the war sets out its weights." 

(Sahih International interpretation of the first Arabic) 

This clarifies the stanza is just alluding to times of war, an extraordinary arbitrary gathering with an unbeliever. It doesn't state to calmly stroll up to non-Muslims in the city and decapitate them for reasons unknown; rather, it discloses to us that when we are occupied with war with non-Muslims, we should battle to win. 

It likewise expresses that hostages ought to be either discharged promptly after the battling has ceased, or recovered until the battling closes. It doesn't state to slaughter them. 

Furthermore, this refrain, similarly as with the majority of the war stanzas in the Quran, must be taken with regards to the whole surah it is a piece of, and in addition whatever is left of the Quran. For instance, see different sections, for example, 

Surah 2, stanza 190: 

Battle in the method for Allah the individuals who battle you however don't transgress. In fact. Allah dislikes transgressors. 

This clarifies if the non-Muslims are tranquil towards the Muslims, and don't battle or assault them, they ought not be executed. It likewise clarifies that when we battle unbelievers, we are not to transgress the points of confinement of war. The Islamic furthest reaches of war, as executed by the early Muslims and broadly outlined by Abu Bakr (may Allah be satisfied with him), include: 

Not slaughtering ladies, youngsters, or elderly people men. 

Not murdering or annoying priests. 

Not consuming or harming trees. 

Not ravaging carcasses. 

Not murdering foe runs (with the exception of what is required for nourishment). 

What's more, there are different principles. See references for sources on Islamic breaking points in war.[1][2] 

Surah 22, refrains 39– 40: 

Authorization [to fight] has been given to the individuals who are being battled, on the grounds that they were wronged. Furthermore, without a doubt, Allah is equipped to give them triumph. [They are] the individuals who have been removed from their homes without right - simply because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the general population, some by methods for other people, there would have been decimated religious communities, places of worship, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is greatly made reference to. What's more, Allah will most likely help the individuals who bolster Him. Without a doubt, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. 

This stanza clarifies when it is worthy to battle. Moreover, the surah that this stanza is a piece of was uncovered late; it was the 103rd surah to be uncovered, as indicated by the customary account.[3] So these conditions were set up despite the fact that the Muslims were at that point great by this point. 

Surah 8, section 61: 

What's more, on the off chance that they grade to harmony, at that point slope to it [also] and depend upon Allah. Without a doubt, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. 

This refrain clarifies that if the adversary offers harmony, it ought to be acknowledged. 

Surah 9, section 6: 

What's more, if any of the polytheists looks for your security, at that point allow him assurance so he may hear the expressions of Allah. At that point convey him to his place of security. That is on account of they are a people who don't have a clue. 

This stanza, which quickly pursues the celebrated "sword verse",[4] clears up that if the polytheists surrender battling and look for the insurance of the Muslims, they ought to be secured with the goal that they can hear the Quran and be presented to Islam; at that point they are to be escorted to a protected place. 

Surah 109, whole surah: 

Say, "O doubters, I don't love what you adore. Nor are you admirers of what I venerate. Nor will I be a love for every of what you venerate. Nor will you be admirers of what I love. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." 

This surah outlines the right state of mind to be taken towards those non-devotees who don't battle, oppress, or assault Muslims. 

Along these lines, considering the setting of the stanza, and additionally alternate stanzas of the Quran, it tends to be securely expressed that fear based oppression has no premise in Islamic principle.

[Mr.SkarKasm]

I agree with the post above me, its sometimes comes down to the matter of human greed, when people are too illiterate to know which is from the bible and which is not. which is what makes a good point about the qur'an, everybody was instructed to memorize it by heart so it wouldn't get lost or edited, which also helped with kinda forcing people to learn how to read, dropping illiteracy rates down.

The post above me now is not the same post that was above me while writing, oh well [EDIT]

For all I care, literacy in Turkey increase after we dropped the Arabic script.
"Dropping illiteracy rates down", how exactly?By marrying 9 year olds off instead of sending them to school?

Ey, in the words of Hitman, Fuck off.

Illiteracy back then lmao.

also what does that have to do with anything? oh and btw even if muhammed married a 9 year old in the hizaji desert it would be the equivalent of marrying a 16 year old now, back then they matured much faster due to the arid conditions that they lived in, and they didn't have the same schools as we do now, obviously

Anyways, even if my points are wrong, There is research that the prophet married a'isha at the age of 16, and then consumated 3 years later at the age of 19, by compating her age to that of her older sister and supposed birth dates.

Also, it doesn't matter anyways, its a person that has been dead for 1400 years, nobody needs to care about her age anymore, rather what she did to Islam.