Ask Anything on Sidechat | I don’t understand the Islamic relgion, someone explain to me how it is not a religion of conquest and forceful conversion. I don’t want to be hateful but the things I’m reading are hard to not notice

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

Ask Anything 1d

I don’t understand the Islamic relgion, someone explain to me how it is not a religion of conquest and forceful conversion. I don’t want to be hateful but the things I’m reading are hard to not notice

Anonymous 1d

I mean, look what Christianity did to like every indigenous culture. Including the people whose land you’re on right now.

Anonymous 1d

Islam actually means “submission.” When we think of submission, we think of domination; however, Islam requires a different form of thought in how we perceive the relationship between God (Muslims call Allah meaning “The God”) and the believer (or Muslim, meaning “one who submits.”). In this way, a Muslim submits to Allah, God, by entrusting himself in his care (or rehm which in its broadest form means “mercy” but in multiple versions can mean “womb,” “care,” and “trust.”

Anonymous 1d

Christianity has just as much violence and conquest in its past, but when you hear about Christianity today, you generally don't think of any of that unless you're a historian. While it's true that Islam is the dominant religion in many regions currently experiencing violent conflict, that's not nearly universal. As for scriptural passages commanding violence, well... take a glance at the Old Testament for comparison.

Anonymous 19h

imma start off with this from the quran, “Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction.” Quran 4:82 simply put, if there are any contradictions/errors in the quran then, by its own definition, it cannot be from allah

Anonymous

#1 1d

If I’m looking for the people doing the conquering and the forceful conversion, Islam is not the first place I’m looking

Anonymous

#1 1d

I’m talking about the religion’s teachings today, not atrocities committed by people claiming Christianity centuries ago. I agree that conquest and forced conversion have happened across many religions. But modern Christianity doesn’t teach forced conversion or conquest.

Anonymous

OP 1d

My question is how Muslims reconcile passages in the Quran and Islamic tradition concerning conquest, killing unbelievers, and captives with modern Islam, especially when religion and political authority have historically been intertwined.

Anonymous

#2 1d

I offer this understanding so you can first understand the pure philosophy of Islam as a religion. It’s important to understand why believers of all faith find Islam as a credible religion. The reason why Islam, as well as Christianity, has often been concocted as religions of conquest and forceful conversion is due to the egos of men who have used religion to inflict their will on people. Instead of thinking of it as religion doing this, think of this as men using religion as a tool to…

Anonymous

#2 1d

justify their control and effectively control the populace. And as you may know, literacy rates back then were supremely lower compared to today’s figures. By using religion as the tool to enforce order and control, it allows a certain few to take advantage of the many. Education and the power of critical thinking has shown how religion, in its purest form, can help us become more pluralistic, open-minded peoples. Religion, as a tool, shows the might of “what is right” that a certain few want to

Anonymous

OP 1d

Have you ever really talked to a Muslim? They’re good people. They’re our neighbors. Some of them are also dictators, who use the rhetoric of Islam to make their atrocities divine and good. No one is immune to propaganda. Not me, not you.

Anonymous

#2 1d

control. If you look at today’s sects in Christianity in modern day US, you’ll notice how pastors are working fundamentally with politicians and billionaires to influence the populace on religion. You’ll find that men like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who have not once took a second to learn anything about Christianity, are claiming they are just to inflict their control on the populace. They think of religion as a tool. That is what history doesn’t exactly show. Now you do.

Anonymous

OP 1d

I can actually answer this for you. The Qu’ran, or the Koran in English, is actually really strict in English. However, in its Arabic form, it is interpreted in more than 4 ways because each word has 4 different connotations of that word. As shown above, the word “rehm” in direct English translation mean “mercy.” However, in Arabic, it means three other meanings such as “womb,” “care,” and “trust.” The verses were said at a time to mean what to do at the “most worst” but not exactly…

Anonymous

#2 1d

what you should really be doing. This opens anyone, especially an objective person, to take things at a surface level. However, the Qu’ran inspires one to use critical thinking to understand the inner and outer meanings of the verses in the book, much like how the Bible and the Torah does. I inquire you to read and understand the history and reasonings behind the way it’s written than to just take it at surface level.

Anonymous

#2 1d

This is very well said

Anonymous

#1 1d

The abrahamic beliefs are all rooted in a violent mythology, but all interpret the same bullshit in different ways. A lot of cognitive dissonance is required to believe in the shit and still try to make it seem positive. There are a lot of really amazing people who have sadly been lead to believe these heinous things are real. They’re victims to a shitty system.

Anonymous

#1 22h

Christians don’t conquer anymore. Islam still does and they are far more conservative than Christian’s yet Christian’s get all the hate.

-2

Anonymous

#6 21h

I’m sorry, did you not hear Pete Hegseth misquote the bible before killing a whole bunch of brown people?

Anonymous

#7 19h

And just like every other religious text, there are contradictions.

Anonymous

#7 19h

surah 4:11-12 tells of what to do with the shares given to daughters, sons, etc; but then, in 4:175, a sister gets a different share in a childless, parentless scenario. nothing crazy on its own but, for an all-knowing god like allah to make such basic arithmetic errors which result in less - or more than - 100% getting distributed, it’s pretty laughable

Anonymous

#5 19h

not the bible

Anonymous

#5 19h

i’ll get back to you on that tho

Anonymous

#7 19h

The bible absolutely does have contradictions.

Anonymous

#7 19h

in addition,, the islamic narrative for the creation differs significantly. 41:9-12 talks about a sequence which leaves the impression of it having taken 8 days while others (7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59) point towards the “abrahamnic” standard of 6 days

Anonymous

#5 19h

wrong

Anonymous

#7 19h

Not at all. 😂 Your book isn’t any more special than any other no matter what you try to cherry pick out of it.

Anonymous

#7 19h

a personal favorite of mine is that their book says that semen comes from the spine. an omniscient god wouldn't make that mistake. the authors of the quran are using old folklore here. (86:6-7)

Anonymous

#5 19h

so give me a contradiction

Anonymous

#7 19h

Here are a good few.

Anonymous

#7 19h

apparently, the authors of the quran also seemed unable to get basic familial ties correctly. in 19:28, they refer to the Virgin Mary, mother to Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as a sister of aaron. in the Bible, aaron’s sister is miriam and they lived around 1400 years before Christ.

Anonymous

#2 19h

actually very well said

Anonymous

#7 19h

Thank you!

Anonymous

#7 19h

Jesus’ ancestry isn’t even the same between accounts.

Anonymous

#5 19h

Anonymous

#5 19h

alrighty, i’m at work but i gotchu

Anonymous

#7 19h

https://youtu.be/j9ge1onMAFc?si=mh-fLVuB8Xuwr7N- Here’s a former pastor who knows a lot more than you do calling it out.

Anonymous

#5 19h

bold of you to assume what i know and don’t know. i’ll watch the video later but wdym by pastor? as in one of those new-age christians or some protestant? just for context

-1

Anonymous

#7 19h

You can try to pretend different sects aren’t “really christian”, but they are. The very fact that there are different sects shows your book isn’t infallible or divinely inspired.

Anonymous

#7 19h

the narrative for creation differs within Genesis too

Anonymous

#5 19h

i was asking because of the fact you said “pastor.” also, wrong. the fact there are sects is solely off of human desire and not an error on God’s part.

Anonymous

#7 19h

Your god is just as real as any of the thousands of others. They exist in your mind and nowhere else. And I said “former pastor”. Someone who studied this far more than you and thought about it longer than 10 seconds.!

Anonymous

#7 19h

If your book was divinely inspired or guided by some mythical being, there wouldn’t be any varying way to interpret it. That’s because it’s manmade.

Anonymous

#3 19h

you mean the part about the creation of man ?

Anonymous

#5 19h

not to sound like a “cultist,” but, wrong. compare the creation according to the Bible as opposed to the creation of other, actual, mythologies.

Anonymous

#5 19h

also wrong. think about it; the reason there are so many ways to interpret it is solely due to our flaws as humans. the One behind it has His own truth in those words. if we can understand and apply that truth is a different issue altogether.

Anonymous

#5 18h

ex 20:5 / prov 6:34 cannot be compared. proverbs is talking about a husband’s jealousy while exodus is talking about the covenant that existed between God and the israelites gen 22:1 / james 1:13 better but error in train of thought. james is explicitly addressing the differences between be tested to strengthen your faith (as gen 22:1 is discussing) while james 1:13 is clarifying that God never entices us to moral evil.

Anonymous

#7 18h

None of you even agree with one another and yet you want to pretend you have some divine “truth”. You don’t. 😂

Anonymous

#7 18h

Nope, read it in context.

Anonymous

#5 18h

num 23:19 / 1 Sam 15:10-11 this one is a little more theological but you’re smart so i’m sure you’ll be able to follow along. God’s nature and essential will (being that He is GOD) are unchanging. the use of the terms “change His mind,” and “regret,” is anthropomorphic language being used to convey God’s consistent response to human actions from our temporal perspective. His dealings with us change in accordance to our actions but His will and essence are the same. Think of it like this:

Anonymous

#7 18h

the same volume will fill different shaped containers. the will and nature are unchanging.

Anonymous

#5 18h

i did. that’s the context 🫪

Anonymous

#7 18h

and the overall timelines

Anonymous

#5 18h

#4 no contradiction with Trinitarian theology there. john is referring to the functional subordination of the Son on earth to comply with His mission. the Father’s role is different during the incarnation to that of the Son

Anonymous

#7 18h

#5 different context. the two statements address different times and aspects of His work (first coming to provide salvation and, therefore, those who reject Him do so of their own volition; ie, judging and condemning themselves)

Anonymous

#3 18h

elaborate, if you don’t mind

Anonymous

#5 18h

#6 Job was “blameless and upright,” not perfect. meaning he was a man of virtue and integrity who feared God and avoided known evils - meaning he had relative righteousness, not absolute sinlessness. here, romans is quoting the psalms and asserting that universal original sin applies to everyone. Job himself acknowledges his need for a mediator and his own impurity in God’s eyes.

Anonymous

#7 18h

It’s really funny watching you try to make these contradictions mesh when they don’t. Who carried the cross? It wasn’t both. The text doesn’t support that. How many were counted in the census? They’re wildly different numbers. Who started the census? Satan or god? Can’t be both, but the text claims each one did. Your book isn’t perfect. Just accept that.

Anonymous

#7 18h

It’s really not anthropomorphic nor is it metaphorical. It’s descriptive language. The texts are absolutely certain in their claims. 😂

Anonymous

#7 18h

Can’t see God’s face but Moses did. God is all good but created evil. Constantly commits heinous genocides, is angry and vengeful, jealous, enjoys sacrifices… and you think that’s good and worthy of worship? Think critically about any of it. For once.

Anonymous

#7 18h

You were lied to and mislead. That’s not your fault. You still have a whole life ahead of you that can be made much brighter without the burdens of fiction placed on your shoulders. Read the book as it is. ALL of it. Not just the select readings from the pulpit. Then look at history. Science. Data. Wake up. You deserve better.

Anonymous

#5 17h

it… is…. by giving God human qualities, and trying to describe these instances, we are using anthropomorphic terms.

Anonymous

#5 17h

i do and i understand where you’re coming from. to assume, again, that i haven’t thought critically about any of it is just ignorant. i had my doubts and spewed heresies when i was younger and “edgy,” but that’s changed. you’ve got the ability to stand for what you believe but you’re being misled. idk if it’s because you’re angry with God but make sure to direct that in the right direction. in truth, God did not create evil. evil is what’s present in the absence of God.