Cartman, I replied to this in another one of our disputes.

If you check your notifications, you would find it.

However, for the sake of the other viewers who don't wanna go around chasing our tails, I'll state it again.

In the Quran, people were given the right to fight those that fight them, in a way of self defense. These are one of the only cases where man is permitted to kill.

I did not speak of atheists as a whole, Cartman.

I stated that "if an atheist" does as such, then I would consider it a religion.

This leaves room for many opinions, and many rights as well.

It appears you may have only skimmed through what I said, instead of actually reading through it. I stated clearly that killing may be used in self defense, for the Muslims were being killed and tortured in their homeland.

In all honesty, I must thank you, for you brought one of the ayat that state this very thing.

First, it is taken out of context, but if one reads on they will find the true meaning. It states, "for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter", and this refers to the time when the kufar were killing, torturing, and oppressing the Muslims. God is saying that it is in their right to kill those oppressors.

"But fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them"

This is also another portrayal of my meaning. God states that fighting in the Mosque is forbidden, for it is a place of prayer. And again, he goes over how if they fight first, then you fight back. I don't see where you were disputing my point.

There is a section in the Quran that tells you if any part of the Quran contradicts itself use the later portion.

Show me this "section".

If one has in his mind that he would like to know how biological processes work in a specific manner so that he can create modern medicine, he will avoid the vague Quran.

You are speaking of looking through the Quran for the creation of modern medicine, through a biological process, in a specific manner. If the Quran were to list every possible way of surgery and medicine and healing, as well as every minute detail of every single aspect of our lives, it would be an encyclopedia and not a Holy Book stating not how to do every little thing in our lives, but the morals and laws we should live by.

You are using books that are supposed to help you be a better person, not to deliver the truth. You are using it wrong.

Firstly, who are you to tell me how to use books, let alone Holy ones?

Second, why can't being a better person be part of truth? Are you saying that being a better person is only related to "fiction", and that rational people are not good people, and don't strive to be better?

The Quran never says to kill all non-Muslims.

This is a surah, or chapter, of the Quran:

"Say (to them), O you who reject faith, I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, and I shall not worship that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, to you your own religion, and to me my own religion."

This is a surah of religious tolerance. Nowhere here does it state that we who follow Islam should kill those who don't. On the contrary, it tells us to accept whatever religion the others follow. I'm surprised that even with all the repetition in this surah, Muslims mess it up.

No, you do not understand the etymology and true meaning of the words "pursuit" and "devotion".

One does not shape his/her life and thoughts completely on masturbating.

One does not shape his/her life and thoughts completely on stamp collecting.

And, if they do, they are considered out-of-the-ordinary, and usually mentally unhealthy.

And it is not my definition, but the official definition of both Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, although the latter phrased it differently.

And yet it does not say, "May the humans who anoint themselves as those who do the work of Allah destroy them!"

That is because humans are not to kill one another in hatred and ignorance, just as what's happening today with ISIS and Taliban and such.

Islam is a religion of peace, in and of itself. It prohibits any killing of innocents, and states clearly that only God may give and take lives. It is only permitted for people to kill if it is in self defense, as were the Prophet's ghazawat (for the kufar were killing and torturing Muslims), or if the subject has agreed to live under the Muslim shari'a. For example, Islam never, ever states that we must kill those of another religion. In fact, we have a chapter (sura) that says:

"Say (to them), O you who reject faith, I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, and I shall not worship that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, to you your own religion, and to me my own religion."

This sura is all about religious tolerance, especially where it says, "to you your own religion, and to me my own religion". This clearly states that everyone has the freedom to follow whatever religion they please.

What many people don't bother look into is the specifics of this marriage. I was unsettled, as anyone would be, when I first heard of it. Therefore, I looked into it.

It turned out that while they did officiate their marriage - legally - when Aisha was at the age of nine, she stayed at her parents house until she came of age, years later, then moved to the Prophet's house, and that's when they consummated their marriage.

You are right about how they usually got married at around twelve, for that's when they came of age. People pin pedophilia down on the Prophet (PBUH), and forget that age gaps, as well as getting married at the time of blooming, was the norm at the time.

I believe that ISIS is not Islam, but humans who wrongly take it on themselves to attempt to "do God's work" on Earth.

Firstly, it is a sin in Islam to attempt to "play God" in any way, meaning only God takes and gives life. To take a life, one must be doing it in self defense, or if the subject agrees to have Muslim laws set upon them.

Not only that, but God has always stated in the Quran that peoples' reward or punishment is for him to give, and nobody else.

Therefore, the whole idea of ISIS is against the idea of Islam.

One of the definitions of religion is:

"A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."

If an atheist is pursuing the topic, searching for more depth and shaping his/her life upon it, then it is a religion.

Er, no.

Before I go to sleep, I do not utter, "Dear me, please grant me a long and healthy life, and bless my mother,..." etc. I do not pray to myself, nor do I pray to "Rocky" (myself also).

I pray to God meaning the Almighty, I pray to the One who can make anything happen.

I completely understand, and find your viewpoint completely respectable. Had I been in your position, I would have undoubtedly had the same opinion. I mean to tell you that I am a human of rationality.

However, having looked into the Quran, I found that there are no contradictions, no vile thoughts or views. Not only that, but I found that it contained scientific breakthroughs that had only been discovered recently, while the Book had been written 1400 years back.

People may complain that the scientific knowledge in the Book are too "vague", but if one has it in his mind to disbelieve, he will.

One must look upon the Books (Bible, Torah, Quran) in search of truth, not anything else.

But the question of the debate is whether or not ISIS is Islam.

Meaning, is this what Islam is about? A religion of killing those who do not follow it?

Why is this under NSFW?

Is religion NSFW now?

It's quite a disappointment, really. I mean, here we are talking of the real Allah, not the Allah portrayed in the media, the one who "commands" people to die and kill others.

Not necessarily. If you were banned because they tried to silence you on account of your raising points they cannot refute, then sure.

However, most people get banned for rude behavior, a crude one, or your denial to be rational.

Why would you suppose that we were "quick to say that God exists without a doubt"? You do not know what went through our minds, sir.

You do not know about the journey we have been on to reach this point, sir.

So, please, try and think of the other as a person who thinks before you assume.

And keep in mind that your assuming is supposing something is the case without proof, without thinking.

The thing about God is that we cannot find any proof that he is not there.

And if one has it in their heads that they will not ever even try to believe or understand, they will not, even if they have all the proof they need around them.

In truth, there is only one God. There is no "Christian God" nor "Muslim God" nor any other specific religion-related God. If there is a God, he is one.

She is not conscious, thus she cannot consent.

Sex with no consent is rape.

But on this, the lines are blurred, I have to say.

It is only rape if she's so drunk she has no idea what's going on.

I have two questions. Didn't Jesus pray to God, on multiple occasions? Then, he couldn't have been praying to himself, right?

Jesus is God's MESSENGER, who was sent to guide his people to know that there is only one God. He is not His son, and he is not God.

One cannot possibly look at the universe around them and claim that it was a mere coincidence, or that nobody created this beautiful system.

I don't understand why people are hell bent on believing that science and religion cannot ever agree. I will not vouch for all religions, but I know that they can definitely coexist. And, for those who argue that the more you study science the less you believe, I would like to raise them the words of Albert Einstein:

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what it is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.