Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core - should we declare war against it?


Okay so after 300 years the Romans Hijacked Christianity as a State Religion but the sect that I mostly stem from was never violent and always allowed full religious liberty to even Muslims. Only the Catholics lauched Crusades, the ones in Europe were unjustifed, the ones in the middle east were reasonable. And these happened 1200 YEARS after Christ.

Most of the Middle East and the Roman Empire converted peacefully as a badly treated minority which clearly grew popular with the poorer subjects. It was more commonly pagan kings and nobles with christian subjects.

Islam however was founded as a violent state religion. I cannot think of one area that it didnt spread to until after they conquered it. Jihad happened DAY 1 of the Islamic Prophets reign.

Sikhs literally started carrying their blades because of Muslims.

"The relationship between the Sikhs and the Mughals further deteriorated following the execution of the ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur by Aurengzeb, who was highly intolerant of Sikhs, partially driven by his desire to impose Islamic law.

Following the executions of their leaders and facing increasing
persecution, the Sikhs officially adopted militarization for
self-protection by creating the Khalsa; the executions also prompted formalization of various aspects of the Sikh faith. The tenth and final guru, Guru Gobind Singh formally included the kirpan as a mandatory article of faith for all baptised Sikhs,[7] making it a duty for Sikhs to be able to defend themselves and others from oppression."


I do not believe most religions can be changed so eaisly by mass media which they reject as being worldly. And then by cultures which they reject and would rather have their own wealthy micronation.

I do not believe people have the right to violate the rights of others. Even if they vote for it, it does not make it morally right or acceptable by any standards.


This isn’t a good argument, as the Mughals themselves weren’t consistent on their treatment of religious minorities. See the example of emperor Akbar I.


Tell me, how many Christians think the media and much of western culture is “worldly,” yet still celebrate the commercial holidays of Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving and Easter? They may have religious undertones in some of these, but the secular media has definitely firmly entrenched itself into the practice as well. Also middle eastern younger generational Muslims tend to be a lot less anti-western than their parents. They would be fantastic targets for western media infiltration.

All countries inflict their values upon their subjects. You think the US doesn’t do the same? Tell me, how many polygamists there are here legally, or how many people practice animal sacrifice in the United States?


Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting this. The Christianization of Northern Europe was definitely a top down conversion.



For your Crusade files my friend. It seems to me that the Crusades were the West of that day exercising self defence.


We were talking about religious freedom in context of whether or not someone would convert to Islam just because they liked it. Whether or not it was comparatively free to other societies at the time has next to nothing to do with that.

Ah, is that why Western countries are turning atheist? Because I’m pretty sure it has almost everything to do with making life harder for non-believers at the political, economic and cultural level.

I don’t see how this is relevant. The Mormons replacing it with their own text has nothing to do with how much Islam disregards Christian theology and replaces it with their own. Unless you’re saying Mormon text are similar to Muslim texts.

…again, what moral imperative is there to force you to have to trade with another country? I don’t think that just because we sanction North Korea that they have a moral right to conduct raids on South Korean towns- maybe you do, I don’t know.

It doesn’t matter why the vikings started raiding for my argument. It was an escalation of conflict from both sides, fine, whatever.

The point is that the subsequent forced conversions were an effort to make sure it stopped.

Good luck. The death toll of the 30 years war was staggering.

That’s not the direction that most Islamic countries are going at the moment. Turkey, for example. Younger Muslims throughout the West also tend to survey as more radical than their immigrant parents.


Most western countries don’t have as large a percentage of Atheists as the Ottoman Empire did Muslims. Making things harder for nonbelievers was probably a factor, but to say it was the only reason is mere speculation. Christians have a tendency to take pride in being persecuted for their beliefs out of assurance that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. And honestly, if I really believe that the Supreme Deity of the Universe is judging me according to my faith in Christ and none other, will punish me with eternal damnation for going against His will and will reward me with eternal bliss for doing as he says, well, “if God be for me, who can be against me?”

They didn’t replace it. They believe it to be corrupt, yet treat it as valid scripture nonetheless, just like the Muslims.

North Korea is able to sustain itself fairly well on it’s own. The Norse were not. If we take the macro down to micro, while there may be no moral incentive for you to make bargains with a man, if you cut off his only supply of food by convincing everyone else to refuse helping him and he isn’t able to get sustenance any other way, it’s merely murder with a few more steps when he dies. It’s absolutely a violent, immoral measure.

While that may have been a small factor, even those who posed no threat to the Christians were treated the same, which leads me to believe it wasn’t the main reason they were forcefully converted.

This doesn’t necessarily need to be the exact template for the Muslim Enlightenment. I said “similar” for a reason.

That is indeed unfortunate. It doesn’t destroy the possibility of a better future though.


I would respectfully say the secular media do not reflect the beliefs of many or most people in America when it comes to Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving and Easter. The vast majority know Christmas is about Jesus.

I don’t see how we could secularize the month of Ramadan for instance. Though I would agree there are certain historical similiarities between Mormons and Muslims on a very base level of having a Prophet and then having their be a split afterwards with who would succede him.(though in Mormonism the current LDS church is 99% of the movement so they were obviously successful in the short struggle.)

I don’t disagree with you in theory at all. However I question if it is possible.

For instance no amount of media will change that Sikhs will grow beards(Kesh). Even if every single person was clean shaven, as long as they remain Sikhs then they will simply not conform.

Can religious groups be forced to abandon certain practices? Absolutely.
But I do not like the premise of doing that to one minority faith because it sets up a dangerous legal precedent that I do not want. Hence why I would rather avoid massive debates over their conflicting cultural habits by not bringing them in in mass numbers. If they are poor and unable to work they sap the system, and if they are able to work they give native born citizens more competition.

American WFPR is already at its lowest since the 1970s, we already have to much unskilled labour. And I’ve personally seen family taken out of their jobs due to HB1 Visas. Where corps bring in people to be indebted to their corp, to replace Americans so they can pay them way less and work them harder. Thus forcing Americans to train their own replacements.

We need to look out for our own peoples first. So let me phrase it in a way of how that helps them at all. If we steal away all the most educated and best from poor countries across the world. Then it becomes less likely that those nations will ever improve themselves. We can improve the conditions worldwide by improving economic circumstances on the ground in those nations. As you noted, once these countries are modernized their cultures will advance.

However if you simply take in lets say 50k from a certain culture into a foriegn culture. They more often than not form not just a community but a Micronation within the host nation. They put another Nationality word before their host nations nationality.


duh, I was talking about the growth of atheism in Christian-majority countries- the majority of which have very strong religious freedom.

How is this helping your argument? This is just all the more reason that someone wouldn’t convert just because they “like the other religion a bit more”.

Muslims don’t treat the bible as “valid scripture” in the same way that Mormons do. That’s just a false comparison.

What are you talking about?
lol did you miss the part where tons of people starve to death in N Korea?

Why is it morally imperative that you feed another nation?

There is no reasonable scenario in which Shia and Sunni Muslims resolve their differences without some sort of cataclysmic event.

It does mean that you’re wrong about the course of Islam for the foreseeable future.


No, it’s all the more reason they wouldn’t convert because of lower class status, since they find it to be a virtue to be persecuted and yet hold to their beliefs. It supports a scenario where those who converted either didn’t really believe in their religion and so converted to keep things easy, or really just found that they believed in Islam more.

In what way? Because when I talk theology with Muslims, they bring up the New Testament all the time because I’m more familiar with it. And there are a few parts in the Quran specifically expounding upon the teachings of the New Testament. When I talk theology with Mormons, they bring up the New Testament often as well. There are also a few parts in the Book of Mormon which specifically expound upon the teachings of the New Testament. From what I see, the two religions use both their unique books and it’s the New Testament very similarly.

The conditions of North Korea are unique in that it’s authoritarian leaders are the ones cutting off trade to their people, as well as mismanaging its agricultural systems. Essentially if they were smarter about their management they could get by, but it’s spending too many resources in nonessential things and refusing food help from other countries as of 2002.

It’s not, when you’re not the only source. If you lock a man up and just never feed him, then it becomes immoral, which is essentially what the Catholic Church did with the Norse peoples. And it wasn’t just handouts either. They were known to have products from all over Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, Jordanes even describing their furs that they traded as “sappherine” and “famed for [their] dark beauty.” No, the boycott was vicious and immoral.

Apparently there has already been glimmer of a light at the end of this tunnel.

However I am aware of the fact that those who split up the Ottoman Empire specifically split the country lines in ways that put historical enemies in the same country. Perhaps a redrawing of the borders would be in order some day in the same vein that India split with East and West Pakistan. While that certainly wouldn’t solve all conflict, it would certainly help to keep one side from oppressing the other with it’s laws and policies.

Not necessarily. Like I said, the younger generation of Middle Easterners seem to be more liberal. This makes for a murky vision at most, one where perhaps we’ll have to be more wary about our western Islamic relations than our eastern ones in the future, but as the young muslims are a minority in the West and a majority in the East, I would assume that the effects of the Middle Eastern future generations would be more pronounced.


Because Mohammad overrules whatever Jesus said.

fine- the poverty induced by sanctions on Iraq, on Iran, on any country.

They weren’t locked up in a cell. In the medieval warm period there was farmland in Scandinavia. The increasing population simply grew beyond their means.

That neither resolves their differences or changes their theological disagreements.

They simply don’t poll that way.


And Mohammad said a lot of conflicting things. The kind of Muslim you are depends on what things you take as literal, what things you take as metaphorical, what things are only meant for that time, and what things are strictly temporal or spiritual. Just like in Christianity, there are many conflicting viewpoints on these things. Most don’t believe that Mohammad didn’t “overrule” anything that Christ said, just like Christ didn’t really abolish the Mosaic Law, but merely clarified it.

Poverty isn’t death. They still have ways to survive, though they may not be comfortable.

They were already a poor people. The land wasn’t fit for much farmland, especially in Norway, which is totally mountainous. They survived mostly on trade, and when it wasn’t given them, the life capacity of the area dropped significantly.

Not totally, though it helps. Notice I said it “wouldn’t solve all conflict.” The theological disagreements don’t need to be resolved, they just need to not affect each other. Generally the conflict comes when one group has power over the other and enforces strict, oppressive laws on the opposing populace. Split them up and they both govern themselves, which was the reasoning behind the split of the Pakistans and India, which did reduce violence.

I don’t know what polls you’re looking at, but here’s an article I found talking about the younger generation of Muslims:


We meet again sadly, but this time you are targeting my religion, now let me tell you something to end your moment of glory, if you as a youth has not studied every single religion to its core, every single fact you are stating is false, you are the result of what the media is looking for. You have been manipulated and brainwashed by the media. Now let me tell you one last thing before proving you that Islam is not immoral, I believe you are an atheist, which I conclude you believe that science shaped our universe, so you defensively must admire Albert Einstein. I hope that what I am about to tell you would stay marked in your memory, Albert Einstein himself admired Islam, he found out that his theory of gravity is actually explained in the Muslim’s holly book. Now the only difference is that he discovered it in the mid 1900s while the Muslim’s already had that knowledge.


Thank you I actually admire your skill in arguing. If the world is able to educate every single youth like you, I guess we won’t even be facing any issues in the future.


Just to clarify the situation, there is a lot of misinterpretation in the society towards this religion. Now I have read the Quraan several times in 4 different languages; Arabic, French, English and even Spanish. But I could assure you that I have never read any verses that promotes violence acts. They oftenely say that women are oppressed by men in Islam. If we go back into time, during the time of the Muslim messenger Mohamed (Peace Be Upon him), his wife was actually a business women, and she made a big amount of money. Society also thinks that the Muslim covering (Hijab) is some sort of prison, just to clarify everything, the hijab is a symbol of modesty, the women who wears the hijab only allows her loved ones to see what is under it. It is not an obligation in our religion, the God simply asks women to show self respect and modesty when in public. Islam is also a really scientifcal religion, in the book several scientifical concepts are described; how babies develop, the explanation of the seven layers of the sky, what happens to a star when it dies (gives birth to a black hole), ect…
I also suggest that you have a look at these two videos; first one talking about the birth of Muslim extremist terrorist group, second how islam actually has a moral concept.


All you have is lies as Islam has a policy of murdering apostates.

They are.

Quran (5:6) - “And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it” Men are to rub dirt on their hands, if there is no water to purify them, following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).

Quran (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye. (To be fair, men are told to do the same thing in the prior verse).

Quran (2:223) - “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…” A man has dominion over his wives’ bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse. If this is what Muhammad meant, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).

Quran (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four” Inequality by numbers.

Quran (53:27) - “Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.” Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.

Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage. Note that the verse distinguishes wives from captives (those whom they right hand possesses).

Sahih Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet said: “‘The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women’s) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).’” In other words, the most important thing a woman brings to marriage is between her legs.

Sahih Muslim (4:1039) - "A’isha said [to Muhammad]: ‘You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses’"These are the words of Muhammad’s favorite wife, complaining of the role assigned to women under Islam.Ishaq 593 - "As for Ali, he said, ‘Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.’"Ali was raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammad’s presence without a word of rebuke from him.

Ishaq 593 - “From the captives of Hunayn, Allah’s Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another.” - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out enslaved women to his cronies for sex.Tabari VIII:117 - The fate of more captured farm wives, whom the Muslims distributed amongst themselves as sex slaves: “Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.”

Quran (2:228) - “and the men are a degree above them [women]”

Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (see also verse 4:176). In Islam, sexism is mathematically established.
Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.” Muslim apologists offer creative explanations to explain why Allah felt that a man’s testimony in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman’s, but studies consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they make more reliable witnesses.

Quran (2:228) - “and the men are a degree above them [women]”


Well aren’t you just a big bloated bag of imperialist propaganda. The “Free World” acting as world police is terrible immoral itself. Even though I am atheistic I think Islam is fine and dont mind it. All islam is not radical islam.


I agree but cannot tell one radical person from all those Muslims who fund his religion and consequently the radical.


50 Stars. As if anyone could be to the right of PragerU.