INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on May 01, 2007, 09:51:44 AM
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public orderâ€. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by lawâ€.
-
Fucking infidels! :grrr:
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public order”. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by law”.
Denmark will now be bombed, by cowardly scum wearing bombs under their clothes and walking among the general population. :litigious:
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public orderâ€. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by lawâ€.
Denmark will now be bombed, by cowardly scum wearing bombs under their clothes and walking among the general population.
Nonsense! They are the divine prelates of our lord and saviour! Our Creator, Allah, the All-Merciful!
-
(http://taylorsiluwe.typepad.com/taylor_siluwe/images/iranburndanishflag01.jpg)
:laugh:
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public orderâ€. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by lawâ€.
Denmark will now be bombed, by cowardly scum wearing bombs under their clothes and walking among the general population. :litigious:
The Danes are brave. It's time to put an end to Muslim "demands" on European legislation etc. If I can't move to the US, Denmark would be a good first choice, considering how near it is geographically.
-
Good thing the Danes got it right. I think I'll drop by Solvang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvang,_California) and thank the nearest Dane. ;) :laugh:
-
Good thing the Danes got it right. I think I'll drop by Solvang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvang,_California) and thank the nearest Dane. ;) :laugh:
Buy them some beer. Danes love good beer. 8)
-
Good thing the Danes got it right. I think I'll drop by Solvang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvang,_California) and thank the nearest Dane. ;) :laugh:
Buy them some beer. Danes love good beer. 8)
Well, the Firestone (http://www.firestonebeer.com/) Brewery is nearby. Its owned by a grandson of Harvey Firestone the Tire maker.
-
By the way, Scrap, Danish women are known to be very horny and kinky in bed. ;)
-
By the way, Scrap, Danish women are known to be very horny and kinky in bed. ;)
The Danes in Solvang have been there for several generations. one can only hope that the hornyness hasn't worn off. I never fucked a girl from Solvang when I lived in the area. I had no idea I was missing out on something!! :o
-
By the way, Scrap, Danish women are known to be very horny and kinky in bed. ;)
The Danes in Solvang have been there for several generations. one can only hope that the hornyness hasn't worn off. I never fucked a girl from Solvang when I lived in the area. I had no idea I was missing out on something!! :o
Denmark is great, much better than Sweden. They even get whores to come to the senior homes in Denmark, so that the old guys can get some sex (no, I'm not kidding!!!). 8)
-
By the way, Scrap, Danish women are known to be very horny and kinky in bed. ;)
The Danes in Solvang have been there for several generations. one can only hope that the hornyness hasn't worn off. I never fucked a girl from Solvang when I lived in the area. I had no idea I was missing out on something!! :o
Denmark is great, much better than Sweden. They even get whores to come to the senior homes in Denmark, so that the old guys can get some sex (no, I'm not kidding!!!). 8)
i will not move to arizona or florida when i reti8re, NO!
i am moving to Denmark.
-
On that basis the bible (well the old testament at least) should be banned also
(lego versions for those who can't be arsed to read:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_13.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/gang_rape_and_dismemberment/jg19_21.html )
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
--
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
...
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
--
Judges 19:
21So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
-
On that basis the bible (well the old testament at least) should be banned also
This fine gentleman is already on it: http://www.le-monde-pluriel.eu/109/english/who_am_i?_/means_of_action.html
I gradually understood that the most efficient way to oppose cults was
through legal action.
Religious books (like the Bible and the Koran) that contain religious
doctrines are full of sexist, homophobic and sectarian comments.
Yet several laws around the world ban those kinds of comments... This
is the flaw we should take advantage of.
-
ah interesting.
Well i don't really think either should be banned but I think it's funny how religious types will go on about how the bible justifies their actions when they don't really follow it to the letter. Why do some christians who oppose homosexuality not rant equally against seafood restaurants since both are equally treated in the bible.
i wonder if there's an animated/lego version of the koran. would be interesting to read it as I'm sure there's equal hypocrisy there but can't be bothered to read the text
-
By the way, Scrap, Danish women are known to be very horny and kinky in bed. ;)
The Danes in Solvang have been there for several generations. one can only hope that the hornyness hasn't worn off. I never fucked a girl from Solvang when I lived in the area. I had no idea I was missing out on something!! :o
Denmark is great, much better than Sweden. They even get whores to come to the senior homes in Denmark, so that the old guys can get some sex (no, I'm not kidding!!!). 8)
i will not move to arizona or florida when i reti8re, NO!
i am moving to Denmark.
If there's enough pure-blooded Danes in Solvang, you cold move there. It's closer.
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public orderâ€. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by lawâ€.
Denmark will now be bombed, by cowardly scum wearing bombs under their clothes and walking among the general population. :litigious:
The Danes are brave. It's time to put an end to Muslim "demands" on European legislation etc. If I can't move to the US, Denmark would be a good first choice, considering how near it is geographically.
Weren't the Danes trying to ban the Koran, in this case? Where are the Muslim demands in this? ???
Oh, I get it, that comes when they plead against the ban.
-
The danes ought to just launch another series of
Viking Raids. They can make it into the East Med
by now.
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
It talks about banning the Koran in Denmark since it violates Danish law.
The danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution
SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2. SIAD also demands that all koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the DanishConstitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which states that “Citizens have theright to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public orderâ€. Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by lawâ€.
What are the other positions this political party takes? Are they Right wing, Left wing, Centrist, or Nationalist?
-
Their Danish name is "Stop Islamisation of Denmark", and the name of the paper that the link comes from literally means "The resistance news paper", so I guess it's pretty to the right. ;D
-
If Denmark doesn't want the Koran, the Muslims should either put up with it or go back Arabia or wherever. IMO. Well done Danish for standing your ground. Why should they put up with a violent holy book?
. Why do some christians who oppose homosexuality not rant equally against seafood restaurants since both are equally treated in the bible.
Because the New Testament says that non-Jewish christians do not have to keep Kosher, but continues to condem homosexuality. They're not treated equally thoughout the bible - homosexuality is condemmed in both Testaments unlike non-kosher food.
-
Aren't homosexual's non-kosher food?
-
Aren't homosexual's non-kosher food?
That's probably only a problem if you swallow. ;)
-
Aren't homosexual's non-kosher food?
That's probably only a problem if you swallow. ;)
You gonna chew them up, and not swallow?
-
Remember I'm keeping them for my 'huged' penis army. :laugh:
-
You like hugging them?
They must be rather large,
or else you are very
tiny.
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
'huged' sounds like it makes them larger.
Mines kind of snoozy right now.
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
What is this? I'm the only one in the Aspie Elite that isn't part of the Worldwide Mad Deadly Lowest Communist Gangster Computer God's gangsterisation through Frankenstein controls. :'(
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
'huged' sounds like it makes them larger.
Mines kind of snoozy right now.
Well I didn't pick you out as a victim, I need some standards for what I can work with :P
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
What is this? I'm the only one in the Aspie Elite that isn't part of the Worldwide Mad Deadly Lowest Communist Gangster Computer God's gangsterisation through Frankenstein controls. :'(
Gee, I thought you said you were fluent in English?
Well I didn't pick you out as a victim, I need some standards for what I can work with :P
Ah, and mine's certainly non-standard.
That, and I'm not gay. Oh well.
-
Ah, and mine's certainly sub-standard.
That, and I'm not gay. Oh well.
Fixed.
-
Not hugged. "huged"- its a process I invented in my struggle to take over the world.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=3580.msg148906#msg148906)
What is this? I'm the only one in the Aspie Elite that isn't part of the Worldwide Mad Deadly Lowest Communist Gangster Computer God's gangsterisation through Frankenstein controls. :'(
Gee, I thought you said you were fluent in English?
???
-
You have a much better standard of English than some native English speakers Lit, imo anyway.
-
You have a much better standard of English than some native English speakers Lit, imo anyway.
I know. Shima once told me that my English is about better than 90% of the English Americans write. :laugh:
-
Ah, and mine's certainly sub-standard.
That, and I'm not gay. Oh well.
Fixed.
Oh no, I've been neutered.
-
If Denmark doesn't want the Koran, the Muslims should either put up with it or go back Arabia or wherever. IMO. Well done Danish for standing your ground. Why should they put up with a violent holy book?
You're right. If only those dastardly Muslims would pick a more peaceful holy book, like, say, the Bible. Hey, I know, let's FORCE them!
-
I don't think a lot of Danes are mad on the bible either, no? I think Muslims should be forced to live by the rules of a country, if they want to live in that country. Wouldn't a western be forced to live by their rules if they emigreated to a Muslim country?
-
I don't think a lot of Danes are mad on the bible either, no? I think Muslims should be forced to live by the rules of a country, if they want to live in that country. Wouldn't a western be forced to live by their rules if they emigreated to a Muslim country?
They would actually be free to be Christian in most Arab countries, but they would have no chance whatsoever to impose western values or legislation upon the country in question.
-
I don't think a lot of Danes are mad on the bible either, no? I think Muslims should be forced to live by the rules of a country, if they want to live in that country. Wouldn't a western be forced to live by their rules if they emigreated to a Muslim country?
The Muslims are forced to live by their rules. The same ones as the Danes follow.
The question here wasn't about some Muslims trying to dodge the Danish law, it was about some Islamobobics in Denmark trying to outlaw the Koran. I wonder if most Danes even know about the violence in the Old Testament... ::)
-
The Old Testament actually is more of a sum-up of the Jewish laws and history before Christianity than some kind of law book or guideline for Christians.
-
I don't think a lot of Danes are mad on the bible either, no? I think Muslims should be forced to live by the rules of a country, if they want to live in that country. Wouldn't a western be forced to live by their rules if they emigreated to a Muslim country?
The Muslims are forced to live by their rules. The same ones as the Danes follow.
The question here wasn't about some Muslims trying to dodge the Danish law, it was about some Islamobobics in Denmark trying to outlaw the Koran. I wonder if most Danes even know about the violence in the Old Testament... ::)
As violent as the bible is, it's protected under the Danish constitution, since it's part of Danish culture, whereas the Koran is not. As an atheist, I'd like to see all religious texts and speech treated in the same way as any other text and speech, but I have no problem with the Danes enforcing their laws. The Muslims aren't entitled to anything, and if a country prohibits their religion, they should either suck it up or not move there in the first place.
-
Actually, I believe the Bible is protected by the same laws in Denmark that protect the Koran, namely, freedom of speech. The inequality that exists between Christianity and the other religions in Denmark does not give the Bible special status other than the fact that the state finances its publishing and the religion behind it.
The point here, Peter, is that the State of Denmark does not prohibit Islam. There are groups that, using various methods, try to do just that, however, but the applicable laws really are quite clear on this.
Islamophobics are everywhere, but thankfully, there is freedom of religion.
-
Actually, I believe the Bible is protected by the same laws in Denmark that protect the Koran, namely, freedom of speech. The inequality that exists between Christianity and the other religions in Denmark does not give the Bible special status other than the fact that the state finances its publishing and the religion behind it.
The point here, Peter, is that the State of Denmark does not prohibit Islam. There are groups that, using various methods, try to do just that, however, but the applicable laws really are quite clear on this.
Islamophobics are everywhere, but thankfully, there is freedom of religion.
I doubt that Islam has the same contitutional status as Christianity in Denmark. Until the year 2000 you were actually born into Christianity here in Sweden by automatically becoming a member of the Swedish state church. The King constitutionally has to be a Christian Protestant. Not to mention that Christianity has been the "official" religion of Sweden since the year 1000.
-
Actually, I believe the Bible is protected by the same laws in Denmark that protect the Koran, namely, freedom of speech. The inequality that exists between Christianity and the other religions in Denmark does not give the Bible special status other than the fact that the state finances its publishing and the religion behind it.
The point here, Peter, is that the State of Denmark does not prohibit Islam. There are groups that, using various methods, try to do just that, however, but the applicable laws really are quite clear on this.
Islamophobics are everywhere, but thankfully, there is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech isn't an absolute. In the UK, I couldn't for instance start the Church of Peter and preach that the English are all evil servants of Satan who should be slaughtered while remaining within the bounds of UK law, since that would fall under hate speech and incitement to violence legislation. It's the same thing when muslims preach that the infidels deserve death; their religion doesn't protect them from prosecution for hate crimes and incitement to violence, and I remember at least one cleric who was deported on those grounds, and I suspect the situation is similar in Denmark.
-
Yes, it is about the same in Denmark, and Sweden, and lots of other places. And that's really the point: you can't do everything the bible tells you to if you want to follow the laws in most countries.
But again: The State of Denmark does not prohibit Islam. There are enough Islamophobics trying to do that but Denmark isn't there yet.
-
Actually, I believe the Bible is protected by the same laws in Denmark that protect the Koran, namely, freedom of speech. The inequality that exists between Christianity and the other religions in Denmark does not give the Bible special status other than the fact that the state finances its publishing and the religion behind it.
The point here, Peter, is that the State of Denmark does not prohibit Islam. There are groups that, using various methods, try to do just that, however, but the applicable laws really are quite clear on this.
Islamophobics are everywhere, but thankfully, there is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech isn't an absolute. In the UK, I couldn't for instance start the Church of Peter and preach that the English are all evil servants of Satan who should be slaughtered while remaining within the bounds of UK law, since that would fall under hate speech and incitement to violence legislation. It's the same thing when muslims preach that the infidels deserve death; their religion doesn't protect them from prosecution for hate crimes and incitement to violence, and I remember at least one cleric who was deported on those grounds, and I suspect the situation is similar in Denmark.
Sweden is actually so sick that I could say publically that all Swedes deserve to die; death threats to Swedes as a group isn't a hate crime in this country!!! If I said the same about Muslims, gays, etc, I'd most likely go to jail for it. ::)
-
Very, very few people "deserve" to die. ::)
-
Very, very few people "deserve" to die. ::)
Sucks then that we all do. Frankly, it seems such a part of humanity that
I would say it is one of our defining factors.
-
I think its worth pointing out that the bible changes tone halfway through - Jesus turns up and is like " hey, forget that violent stuff, its peace and love now!" And the second half has a less bloodthirsty emphasis. Not sure sure if the Koran does.
-
I think its worth pointing out that the bible changes tone halfway through - Jesus turns up and is like " hey, forget that violent stuff, its peace and love now!" And the second half has a less bloodthirsty emphasis. Not sure sure if the Koran does.
I think the Koran is more along the lines of "Hey, you know all that violent stuff? Well, here's a new list of people to be violent towards! I particularly recommend stoning people; it always gives me a stiffy.".
-
makes me wonder if the danes are allowed to study Mein Kampf in history, I assume they don't have RE if holy books are out
-
wow. this so sounds like a discussion on a completetly unreltated board.
And yes, I'm drunk off my fucking ass.
-
Very, very few people "deserve" to die. ::)
Most NPD's I've met deserve to die. :evillaugh:
-
National Police Department?
-
No Pussy getting Dicks.
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
Well, I'm glad that some countries are finally realizing that Islam is a political movement rather than a religious one.
-
As with most religions, it is both. Consider how an average American presidential candidate goes about to win votes in the Bible Belt.
-
As with most religions, it is both. Consider how an average American presidential candidate goes about to win votes in the Bible Belt.
what do they do?
go balls deep?
-
Are you having a Scrapheap moment? Lemon curry?
-
I just came across this: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/the-criminal-parts-of-the-koran/
Well, I'm glad that some countries are finally realizing that Islam is a political movement rather than a religious one.
[/quote]
aren't most religious movements political? historically so, definitely, to one degree or another. after all, if it wasn't about power, no-one woud get too excited about foisting it on other people.
Are you having a Scrapheap moment? Lemon curry?
lemon curry sounds yum, but wtf are you on about?
-
Are you having a Scrapheap moment? Lemon curry?
lemon curry sounds yum, but wtf are you on about?
A while back, Scrapheap spammed the board with those words. I think it was a response of some kind to Calandale, but you'd have to ask him.
-
Are you having a Scrapheap moment? Lemon curry?
lemon curry sounds yum, but wtf are you on about?
A while back, Scrapheap spammed the board with those words. I think it was a response of some kind to Calandale, but you'd have to ask him.
And about as clever as most of the responses I get.
-
oooooh - handbag AND curlers!
anyway, that's not true, and you know it. snitty evening, dear? are you hormonal?
-
Just playful.
-
blimey - get you. "skittish", rather than snitty, then?
-
skittish? Like a mosquitto.
-
look it up. :P
-
Are you having a Scrapheap moment? Lemon curry?
lemon curry sounds yum, but wtf are you on about?
A while back, Scrapheap spammed the board with those words. I think it was a response of some kind to Calandale, but you'd have to ask him.
And about as clever as most of the responses I give.
fixed. ;D
-
You already are, so I can't make the comment
I was thinking.
-
aren't most religious movements political? historically so, definitely, to one degree or another. after all, if it wasn't about power, no-one woud get too excited about foisting it on other people.
Yes, but certainly not to the same degree. It isn't an issue of whether or not we can find religion and politics corrupting each other in all parts of the world with every belief system (of course!), but the capacity of core teachings themselves to induce such occurances. Islam is pretty much about taking over the world. It's even their center of morality; if it's good for Islam, it's morally good. There is no consistent moral code (like, say, the ten commandments), and this allows for muslims to easily condone things like terrorism and suicide bombings. There's a reason this doesn't regularly happen in the (largely christian) west.
-
There is no consistent moral code (like, say, the ten commandments), and this allows for muslims to easily condone things like terrorism and suicide bombings. There's a reason this doesn't regularly happen in the (largely christian) west.
piffle. have you actually read any of the Koran? or know/spoken to any Sufis? or any muslims, for that matter?
-
aren't most religious movements political? historically so, definitely, to one degree or another. after all, if it wasn't about power, no-one woud get too excited about foisting it on other people.
Yes, but certainly not to the same degree. It isn't an issue of whether or not we can find religion and politics corrupting each other in all parts of the world with every belief system (of course!), but the capacity of core teachings themselves to induce such occurances. Islam is pretty much about taking over the world. It's even their center of morality; if it's good for Islam, it's morally good. There is no consistent moral code (like, say, the ten commandments), and this allows for muslims to easily condone things like terrorism and suicide bombings. There's a reason this doesn't regularly happen in the (largely christian) west.
You're quite the little islamophobic, aren't you?
-
Like I said in the free for all 'Islam is a wicked twisted faith' thread - you're a bit of a wanker on the quiet. Meh, whatever it takes to make you believe your own brand of monotheism is the chosen path eh? ::)
-
I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinions, no matter how twisted the opinions are.
-
I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinions, no matter how twisted the opinions are.
QFT.
yes, let's just make it a law that people shouldn't be allowed to act on these opinions.
-
I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinions, no matter how twisted the opinions are.
QFT.
yes, let's just make it a law that people shouldn't be allowed to act on these opinions.
There are such laws. Unfortunately they aren't always followed.
-
Meh, whatever it takes to make you believe your own brand of monotheism is the chosen path eh? ::)
There's nothing wrong with believing that, but it isn't the point. Care to argue against my points so that we can have an actual conversation, instead of just labeling me because I'm not as politically correct as you? Heaven forbid I should actually believe that there is a reason to value western civilization and the religion that served as it's backbone.
piffle. have you actually read any of the Koran? or know/spoken to any Sufis? or any muslims, for that matter?
A little, yes. I have a copy.
or know/spoken to any Sufis? or any muslims, for that matter?
This also clouds the issue. Obviously you can find good and bad people of every religion/nationality. I'm not contesting that. What I'm contesting here is the notion that all religions and philosphies are equally capable of exhorting violence. I don' believe they are. Politically incorrect? Yes. Racist and bigoted? Not necessarily.
-
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious. The bigotry is what makes you a wanker. I don't get you guys - Xtians, Muslims and Jews all base their delusion of superiority (along with Mor(m)ons, Jehovahs Witnesses/insert crackpot sect here) on the same set of fucking divinely inspired *cough* writings from the Bronze Age. So you'll excuse me if I view your attempts to scream the moral high groundf at each other across a field of bodies as a bit fucking rich. Try making a cogent point or two instead of applauding others' bollocks and I'll be happy to debate them with you. :yawn:
-
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious.
Both groups obviously have problems. One of these groups succeeded in created a society that condones suicide bombings, honor killings, and the slave-like oppression of women. Do I think that makes the other group morally better as a whole? Forgive me for saying so, but yes.
Try making a cogent point or two instead of applauding others' bollocks and I'll be happy to debate them with you. :yawn:
You mean like your insightfully cogent argument (which brims with security)? I think I'll pass.
-
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious.
Both groups obviously have problems. One of these groups succeeded in created a society that condones suicide bombings, honor killings, and the slave-like oppression of women. Do I think that makes the other group morally better as a whole? Forgive me for saying so, but yes.
you've obviously never read the history of the christian church then, either. and have never heard of various christian groups who, even today, think it's okay to sexually harrass/abuse young girls, cos they've got red hair, or are pretty, and who then go on to bewail the fact that the devil got into a 7 seven old, and made her tempt them. what complete bollocks.
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious. The bigotry is what makes you a wanker. I don't get you guys - Xtians, Muslims and Jews all base their delusion of superiority (along with Mor(m)ons, Jehovahs Witnesses/insert crackpot sect here) on the same set of fucking divinely inspired *cough* writings from the Bronze Age. So you'll excuse me if I view your attempts to scream the moral high groundf at each other across a field of bodies as a bit fucking rich. Try making a cogent point or two instead of applauding others' bollocks and I'll be happy to debate them with you. :yawn:
QFT. :clap: :plus:
reminds me of the SWP - haven't got an opinion of ther own unless it's in a pamphlet somewhere.
You mean like your insightfully cogent argument (which brims with security)? I think I'll pass.
bit defensive, eh? i think dunc's point stands - he did say "cogent" and not "cop out".
-
Fat boy is as sound as a pound... of lard.
-
i respect thag for having an opinion on this subject. i really don't have one of my own since i have been running from religion since i first got out on my own.
PC or not. i respect the fact that he has a viewpoint. and i doubt that he is so serios about it that he is willing to coordinate an anti muslim parade.
jeez, people, it is just his own opinion based on his upbringing and other experiences. and, he said that he has done some reading.
-
No-one is stopping Serissa's stegosaurus -- or anyone else here -- from having his or hers say on this subject, but that doesn't mean that people aren't going to take their opinions lightly. Otherwise, where's the fun without any opposition?
-
i respect thag for having an opinion on this subject. i really don't have one of my own since i have been running from religion since i first got out on my own.
PC or not. i respect the fact that he has a viewpoint. and i doubt that he is so serios about it that he is willing to coordinate an anti muslim parade.
jeez, people, it is just his own opinion based on his upbringing and other experiences. and, he said that he has done some reading.
like wow, man. fence sitting hippy. :meditate:
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious.
Both groups obviously have problems. One of these groups succeeded in created a society that condones suicide bombings, honor killings, and the slave-like oppression of women. Do I think that makes the other group morally better as a whole? Forgive me for saying so, but yes.
Try making a cogent point or two instead of applauding others' bollocks and I'll be happy to debate them with you. :yawn:
You mean like your insightfully cogent argument (which brims with security)? I think I'll pass.
You don't actually seem to have answered it though monkey boy. I'm serious. Produce an actual argument rather than 'my guys are teh bettar because we don't cut thieves hands off (any more) or stone women to death (any more)' which supports your arguments that a billion people are more predisposed to religion-sanctioned acts of barbarism than adherents of your own blood soaked faith. And then don't make yourself look retarded by applying the argument to the average guy in the street. Tell you what pal, you'd be luckier to break down or run out of cash in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood than a so-called Xtian one. And stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking. Do yourself a favour, and actually get a job with m,uslim co-workers, or make a muslim friend or two, who can actually clue you in on some shit.
-
:agreed:
-
Not politically correct. Considering one set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers trying to claim that another set of believers in the word of 2000+ yr old sheepshaggers are evil/wrong/primitive/pwned is fucking hilarious. The bigotry is what makes you a wanker. I don't get you guys - Xtians, Muslims and Jews all base their delusion of superiority (along with Mor(m)ons, Jehovahs Witnesses/insert crackpot sect here) on the same set of fucking divinely inspired *cough* writings from the Bronze Age. So you'll excuse me if I view your attempts to scream the moral high groundf at each other across a field of bodies as a bit fucking rich. Try making a cogent point or two instead of applauding others' bollocks and I'll be happy to debate them with you. :yawn:
QFT :plus:
-
this is utter bollucks.
why don't you call him out, dunc. it is starting to look like an old fashioned gang up here, by the PC brigade.
at least a callout would make the fight somewhat fair, mohammed!
-
a) learn to spell. the word is bollocks. I swear you do it on purpose. :wanker:
b) I don't see why it needs to be a gang up. I've asked him twice to rationally explain his reasoning for claiming christians to be more moral/superior/whatever than muslims. he hasn't. I don't see why he can't back up his prejudice on this thread. And it has fuck all to do with PC, I treat all sacred cows with equal disdain. I just despise arrogance and hypocrisy. :puke:
If thagomiser would prefer to present his rationale in the main event thats up to him. the question is already there.
-
you've obviously never read the history of the christian church then, either. and have never heard of various christian groups who, even today, think it's okay to sexually harrass/abuse young girls, cos they've got red hair, or are pretty, and who then go on to bewail the fact that the devil got into a 7 seven old, and made her tempt them. what complete bollocks.
Yes I have read about the history of Christianity, and as far as violence and intolerance goes, it (and it's sacred text) has nothing on Islam. It was not spread in the same way. And as I've tried to explain before, there is a theological reason for this, it is independant of whicih religion is "rigiht" or "wrong", and it can be seen the holy texts themselves.
You don't actually seem to have answered it though monkey boy.
Monkey boy? Come on, you can be more original than that. You could have called me a Syphillic Stegosaurus or something. That would have at least made sense.
I'm serious. Produce an actual argument rather than 'my guys are teh bettar because we don't cut thieves hands off (any more) or stone women to death (any more)' which supports your arguments that a billion people are more predisposed to religion-sanctioned acts of barbarism than adherents of your own blood soaked faith.
My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.
And stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking. Do yourself a favour, and actually get a job with muslim co-workers, or make a muslim friend or two, who can actually clue you in on some shit.
Okay, I've obviously hit a nerve somewhere, and it wasn't a place I intended to strike. Either you don't understand what I'm getting at, or I've failed to communicate it properly. For the moment, I will assume the latter. I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.
I did not intend to stereotype anyone. I'm certainly not saying any country should be nuked, or that there shouldn't be freedom of religion. I have, however, lost the respect for Islam (not for muslims) that I used to have, given the events of recent years and the reading that I've done.
And it has fuck all to do with PC, I treat all sacred cows with equal disdain.
That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.
Religions are (usually) different from pseudo-sciences in the respect that they make absolute truth claims which are not subject to scientific testing. Though they can never be proven or disproven, some aspects about their ideologies are ultimately either true or false. Either we are reincarnated when we die, or not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. Either Muhammed was divinely inspired or not. This means that some religions are more correct than others. This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies. Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today. That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.
If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.
-
read ken wilber's "eye of spirit" for a useful and thought-provoking take on religions/belief systems/philosophies.
this is utter bollucks.
why don't you call him out, dunc. it is starting to look like an old fashioned gang up here, by the PC brigade.
at least a callout would make the fight somewhat fair, mohammed!
why don't you get the point that there's a huge difference between being political and being politically correct? i've explained the difference enough times. merely sneering at someone's argument because you've labelled it "PC" is another cop out, which people use just to save themselves from actually thinking about something which makes them feel uncomfortable.
-
you've obviously never read the history of the christian church then, either. and have never heard of various christian groups who, even today, think it's okay to sexually harrass/abuse young girls, cos they've got red hair, or are pretty, and who then go on to bewail the fact that the devil got into a 7 seven old, and made her tempt them. what complete bollocks.
Yes I have read about the history of Christianity, and as far as violence and intolerance goes, it (and it's sacred text) has nothing on Islam. It was not spread in the same way. And as I've tried to explain before, there is a theological reason for this, it is independant of whicih religion is "rigiht" or "wrong", and it can be seen the holy texts themselves.
nonsense. no "holy text" is carved in stone (no pun intended). all require interpretation. you have to ask yourself who's doing the interpreting, and for what reason.
My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.
i'd still like to know which parts of the Koran you're referring to, and what sort of translation (i.e. interpretation) you're using.
I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.
nope. it's the other way round, as it is with all religions. religions are always politicised, in the hunger for power, and that's when all the violence and jihad etc., etc. comes from. the basic tenet of christianity, for example, is love, and we know how that's been perverted over the centuries. it isn't Islam wherein the fault lies, it's some of the proponents of Islam, who choose to (or follow blindly those who've chosen to) interpret it according to their own political agenda.
That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.
q.v. my remark about ken wilbur, above.
This means that some religions are more correct than others.
to, or for, whom?
This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies.
you really should read wilbur. however, this conflicts massively with your belief in "absolute truth". and define good and bad - surely that's a matter of perspective and context?
Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today.
first sensible thing you've said.
That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.
If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.
please do. but you do realise you'll be accused of cherry picking, don't you? and again, any quotations will need to be contextualised - the whole of Leviticus, and its ridiculous code of behaviour, makes complete sense if you put it into context, that's if you can stop laughing for long enough.
-
I haven't read much of the the Koran, but from other people I have a vague idea the difference between it and the bible is that halfway through the bible Jesus turns up and is all peacefull and loving, so that Christians can say "forget the genocide and anti-gay bits, that was just the old testament, Jesus is the important thing now, not the blood-thirsty old Jews".
But then agian Jesus says things like - not do not change any word of the old testament, it still applies. But then he also broke the Sabbath, etc. I find this very confusing and if I still had any faith I would try and investigate it, but I don't.
-
You don't actually seem to have answered it though monkey boy.
Monkey boy? Come on, you can be more original than that. You could have called me a Syphillic Stegosaurus or something. That would have at least made sense.
Meh. I put as much effort into it as you did your original argument. :pie: sure, I could have called you a delusional dinofucker or summat but I couldn't be bothered. Want a point?
I'm serious. Produce an actual argument rather than 'my guys are teh bettar because we don't cut thieves hands off (any more) or stone women to death (any more)' which supports your arguments that a billion people are more predisposed to religion-sanctioned acts of barbarism than adherents of your own blood soaked faith.
My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.
Considering the degree of interpretation these sets of holy bog roll require I think its fair to say you can find a line or two of scripture in any of them to support your jihad/crusade/witchhunt/persecution/land grab. Any verses you could quote for either religion in support of xyz position can be countered by others I'm fairly sure - so sure, if you want to produce reams of quotations thats up to you. But at the end of the day it always degenerates to cherry picking since the 'holy' books are so widely interpreted and full of (apparently) contradictory statements. The tendencies found in various groups of religious nutjobs is the responsibility of those who push a certain 'righteous' position - which is why I tar all the Abrahamic religions with the same brush as you squabble over holy books. It boils down to arrogance, or a spiritual pissing contest, if you prefer. Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihadis?
And stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking. Do yourself a favour, and actually get a job with muslim co-workers, or make a muslim friend or two, who can actually clue you in on some shit.
Okay, I've obviously hit a nerve somewhere, and it wasn't a place I intended to strike. Either you don't understand what I'm getting at, or I've failed to communicate it properly. For the moment, I will assume the latter. I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.
I did not intend to stereotype anyone. I'm certainly not saying any country should be nuked, or that there shouldn't be freedom of religion. I have, however, lost the respect for Islam (not for muslims) that I used to have, given the events of recent years and the reading that I've done.
Accepted. However your argument implicitly attacks Muslims; particularly your enthusiastic support for the free for all troll we had whose stated views were very clearly based on hate and not any rational view of people. That kind of off the cuff support for ignorant bigotry is what made my hackles rise.
And it has fuck all to do with PC, I treat all sacred cows with equal disdain.
That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.
Religions are (usually) different from pseudo-sciences in the respect that they make absolute truth claims which are not subject to scientific testing. Though they can never be proven or disproven, some aspects about their ideologies are ultimately either true or false. Either we are reincarnated when we die, or not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. Either Muhammed was divinely inspired or not. This means that some religions are more correct than others. This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies. Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today. That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.
I've partly answered this above; I've heard the 'some religions are more right than others (and you don't wanna be in the wrong one when the rapture comes, praise the Lawd)' argument before from the door-to-door god botherers. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the 'correct' bits of dogma. A roomful of theologians probably couldn't come to the conclusion you had, but as you have already picked a team its irrelevant. If you're happy with your choice of shepherd good for you, as long as you can recognise that those who chose a different one could do exactly the same thing to you/your faith.
Your definition of PC thought is interestingly flawed, I'm not accepting that it is somehow politically correct to reject all organised religion - particularly since to be PC you must follow a party line - not something you'd expect from a sceptic. PC is like a religion in its own way, with its own dogma and tenets not to be questioned. Don't paint my views in that corner, if you don't mind - I haven't called you a glassy-eyed fundie, have I?
If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.
Really not necessary for the reasons both myself and Lucifer mentioned (i.e. the bollocks-go-round), but if you wish, feel free.
-
"Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihad"
To be fair, Thag is a Catholic, and those are Protestants, so he may not align himself with them.
-
I wasn't suggesting he did align himself with them Mutate - I was asking him if he saw them as a threat, just as the jihadis are a threat.
-
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn:
nothing to say, and just watching? surely not - you're one of "The Aspie PC Elite" same as me and dunc, aren't you?
::)
(try saying "The Aspie PC Elite" five times, quickly. your tongue and teeth will get in a knot).
-
:popcorn:
nothing to say, and just watching? surely not - you're one of "The Aspie PC Elite" same as me and dunc, aren't you?
::)
(try saying "The Aspie PC Elite" five times, quickly. your tongue and teeth will get in a knot).
I have lots to say but Thagomizer is just your average garden-variety islamophobic and IMO not worth the effort. I've heard and seen it all before.
Mmy tongfgdue issdg in a knnnoit nnoww. Ddamnn yowu. :laugh:
-
Mmy tongfgdue issdg in a knnnoit nnoww. Ddamnn yowu. :laugh:
hold it right there! as far as i'm concerned, that makes it "ribbed for pleasure". don't waste it!
-
read ken wilber's "eye of spirit" for a useful and thought-provoking take on religions/belief systems/philosophies.
this is utter bollucks.
why don't you call him out, dunc. it is starting to look like an old fashioned gang up here, by the PC brigade.
at least a callout would make the fight somewhat fair, mohammed!
why don't you get the point that there's a huge difference between being political and being politically correct? i've explained the difference enough times. merely sneering at someone's argument because you've labelled it "PC" is another cop out, which people use just to save themselves from actually thinking about something which makes them feel uncomfortable.
ok.
all i was trying to do was give thag some show of support, since so many were vehemently against him.
i really have no opinion about this subject matter. but it is an interesting read.
-
When you read the Koran it is no less bad as Old Testament and Islam can be reinterpreted with little difficulty. There are a lot of different interpretations of Islam.
The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity for the first few centuries was a marginal, occasionally persecuted sect. That built in a certain distance from secular power into the basic theology, which survived the long period of State-sponsored churches. True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.
Islam on the other hand started out as a governing religion, with Mohammad as a ruler, military leader, legislator and prophet. Islam has a code of religiously inspired laws called the Sharia. This is also a major reason why the Muslim world has had major political legitimacy issues from day one, The Sunni/Shia split occurred because of an argument would have be Mohammed's successor as Caliph.
-
When you read the Koran it is no less bad as Old Testament and Islam can be reinterpreted with little difficulty. There are a lot of different interpretations of Islam.
The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity for the first few centuries was a marginal, occasionally persecuted sect. That built in a certain distance from secular power into the basic theology, which survived the long period of State-sponsored churches. True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.
Islam on the other hand started out as a governing religion, with Mohammad as a ruler, military leader, legislator and prophet. Islam has a code of religiously inspired laws called the Sharia. This is also a major reason why the Muslim world has had major political legitimacy issues from day one, The Sunni/Shia split occurred because of an argument would have be Mohammed's successor as Caliph.
nice post, gamma male - not full of unconsidered bilge. :clap:
-
True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.
The Vatican? The Papal States? Montenegro? You're oversimplifying.
-
True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.
The Vatican? The Papal States? Montenegro? You're oversimplifying.
The Papal States were a European monarchy with the head of the church being the ruler as well. English monarchs from Henry VIII and after also had that dual role.
-
True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.
The Vatican? The Papal States? Montenegro? You're oversimplifying.
The Papal States were a European monarchy with the head of the church being the ruler as well. English monarchs from Henry VIII and after also had that dual role.
the papacy never was a monarchy.
It was (and still is) a theocracy, with
it's primary aim being the religious.
Is England as well? Perhaps. But, having
a king also makes it a monarchy.
-
the papacy never was a monarchy.
It was (and still is) a theocracy, with
it's primary aim being the religious.
Is England as well? Perhaps. But, having
a king also makes it a monarchy.
England and Norway both have theocratic aspects.
-
Protestantism tended to do that.
-
How did I miss this thread. :laugh:
-
because you couldn't aim straight. :P
-
/me groans.
-
serves you right for making me groan yesterday.
er...
um...
*ahem* :-[
-
Okay, sorry it's taken me a while to post. In this post I will outline my problems with Islam. I don't intend for it to be the final statement, though (and there's more where it came from). If I am wrong, then please tell me why. I'd also like to say that I'd gotten off on the wrong foot with my first post on this thread, and namely because I took for granted that there'd probably be some other people who shared my opinion, so I was caught rather off-guard. And my thanks to Lucifer (never thought I'd say that phrase!) and Portland Bill for writing such thoughtful replies. I did not have the opportunity to post a complete reply and gather my resources for quite some time. I will reply to a few specific points the two of you made.
I have lots to say but Thagomizer is just your average garden-variety islamophobic and IMO not worth the effort. I've heard and seen it all before.
So what is an Islamophobic other than someone who criticizes Islam? As the incident involving the Danish cartoon demonstrates, many Muslims seem to want Islam to be above criticism, and to be given the right to scare everyone else into submission, because all problems involving Islamic terrorism in today's world are the result of the capitalistic west's intolerance of Arab people. Frankly, they aren't very tolerant of us. The western world values plurality, equality, and freedom of speech. The Islamic world doesn't.
Haven't you ever noticed that every critic of Islam has to either write pseudonymously (as Ibn Warraq and the authors of http://www.faithfreedom.org/ (http://www.faithfreedom.org/)), has a price on their head (like Irshad Manji), lives in an undisclosed location (like Robert Spencer), or has been murdered (like Theo van Gogh)? I'm still waiting to hear news about the crazy Christian fundamentalists (because Christianity is every bit as capable of inspiring violence as Islam, remember?) who are out for Dan Barker's blood and the death threats he must surely receive.
Regarding Islamophobia, historian Victor Davis states in this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412170839.asp:):
There really isn’t a phenomenon like “Islamophobia†— at least no more than there was a “Germanophobia†in hating Hitler or “Russophobia†in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the “security profiling†of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile “allies†in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Meh. I put as much effort into it as you did your original argument. Pie sure, I could have called you a delusional dinofucker or summat but I couldn't be bothered. Want a point?
;) Just hoping to inject a little humor into what was turning into a heated argument.
Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihadis?
I have no love for them, or Bush for that matter, but the answer is a firm, resounding, YES.
Saying that the religious right of America is equally capable of giving rise to violence would have a lot more credibility if Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell (neither of whom I like) were writing articles defending the stoning of adulterers, (Muslim writer Hani Ramadan published one such article (http://www.comores-online.com/mwezinet/religion/charia.htm) in the French journal Le Monde in September 2002 defending exactly that), or calling for the killing of blasphemers (blasphemy is a capital offense in Pakistan and many other places in the Islamic world), or flying planes into the buildings of countries they considered enemies. Evangelical Christians do not condone or commit these acts, and that alone should be a clear indication that not all religious "fundies" are alike.
I've partly answered this above; I've heard the 'some religions are more right than others (and you don't wanna be in the wrong one when the rapture comes, praise the Lawd)' argument before from the door-to-door god botherers. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the 'correct' bits of dogma. A roomful of theologians probably couldn't come to the conclusion you had, but as you have already picked a team its irrelevant. If you're happy with your choice of shepherd good for you, as long as you can recognise that those who chose a different one could do exactly the same thing to you/your faith.
My 'team' doesn't even have to be correct in order for my point to be valid. It may have sounded like I was arguing religious apologetics or patriotism, but I was trying to make the point that religions still have objective truth values. This should apply to moral teachings as well. If I were an atheist I would certainly still regard Christianity a bit higher than Islam.
however, this conflicts massively with your belief in "absolute truth". and define good and bad - surely that's a matter of perspective and context?
Not quite. To accept that there may truths to be found in all religions, even profound truths, does not make them equally true. They cannot be, because they all make objective truth claims. If they are all wrong, then some are still more wrong than others. As for "good and bad", I am not a moral relativist, and I'm assuming you believe that there is evil behavior that human beings are capable of, whether it is in the form of violence, deceit, or something else that knowingly brings needless harm to other people. If you don't believe that some actions are good and some are evil (before we take into account circumstance--I don't for example, believe that rape and pederasty can ever be justified as good actions), then there would no point in discussing it any further.
to, or for, whom?
Anyone who believes in objective truth. If you don't believe in any reality beyond perception, there's no point in debating it.
it isn't Islam wherein the fault lies, it's some of the proponents of Islam, who choose to (or follow blindly those who've chosen to) interpret it according to their own political agenda.
Why are you so certain of this? Anyway, I believe the problem is the core teachings of Islam, and it will not go away until we recognize why Islam continues to produce peole like bin Laden and Zarqawi and why Judaism and Christianity, for the most part, don't. But I'll get into that in more detail below.
nonsense. no "holy text" is carved in stone (no pun intended). all require interpretation. you have to ask yourself who's doing the interpreting, and for what reason.
Considering the degree of interpretation these sets of holy bog roll require I think its fair to say you can find a line or two of scripture in any of them to support your jihad/crusade/witchhunt/persecution/land grab. Any verses you could quote for either religion in support of xyz position can be countered by others I'm fairly sure - so sure, if you want to produce reams of quotations thats up to you. But at the end of the day it always degenerates to cherry picking since the 'holy' books are so widely interpreted and full of (apparently) contradictory statements.
For the record, I disagree with both of you about interpretation. While examining any holy text can certainly be a daunting task, I think this is too easy a way out of it. It's not cherry picking to quote what the Koran has to say about jihad warfare when it is a constant and undoubtedly affirmed element of mainstream Muslim theology. Religions are not entirely determined (or distorted) by their faithful over time. Are you both asking me to believe that western culture would be enjoying it's secularization today if Islam succeeded in conquering Europe some 1300 years ago (to which the crusades were actually a long-delayed defensive backlash against)? That there would be Christian jihadists bombing the west if Christianity were relegated to the Middle East, that we would have experienced the Renaissance and Enlightment in the same way in a Muslim Europe? It is impossible to be certain, but I believe the answers to all of these questions are "no".
Would it make a difference today, and would history have unfolded the same way, if India was Zoroastrian, China Odinist, and Japan Hindu? Again, I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt it. Culture does affect our behavior, I'm afraid. Whether we like it or not, we are all products of the cultures that spawned us.
All religions are not the same. The lives and words of their founders, which are certainly not equal in meaning, remain central, no matter how long ago they lived. The notion that only believers shape religion is derrived from the literary philosophy of deconstructionism, according to which written words have no meaning other than that given to them by the reader, and equally important, that if only the reader finds meaning, there can be no truth, and certainly no religious truth. We are all, in a deconstructionist perspective, capable of creating our own set of "truths", none of which are better or worse than any other.
Now onto the founder of Islam. I have respect for most of the founders of today's religions. I have respect for Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna, and Confucius. But I do not respect Muhammad. While I can surely accept that moral standards are different now from the way they were during his lifetime, I can't call a man who forces himself on a girl 40 years younger than him, whom he captured in one of his raids in the same day that he killed her husband, her father and many of her relatives, anything other than a rapist. I can't call a man who has sex with a pubescent girl anything other than a pedophile. I can't call a man who aquires his wealth by looting caravans, killing the men, usurping their properties and selling their wives and daughters as slaves anything other than a bandit. I can't call a man who assassinates his critics (who commited no violent crimes against him) in the middle of the night anything other than a terrorist. I can't call a man who instructed his men to kill everyone who didn't accept his dogma, and impose a tax penalty to make life miserable for subdued Jews and Christians anything other than a bigot. I can't call a man who deliberately breaks a treaty anything other than a liar. I can't call a man who conveniently receives a revelation from God that permits him to claim his adpoted son's wife and exceed his quota of four wives anything other than a lech. And I can't call a man who mentions the teachings of Jesus in order to lend credibility as God's ultimate prophet--and then leads a campagin and teaches a doctrine that is diametrically opposite of everything Jesus stood for--anything other than a hypocrite.
Don't believe me? Then try reading about the life of Muhammad yourself. The earliest written biography of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq, supports these facts and many more. In particular, you might try The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasual Allah, Oxford University Press, 1955. This translation was written by a pious Muslim, no less, and almost every page is a devestating refutation of the notion that Muhammad was a peaceful leader. Another useful title is 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by 'Ali Dashti; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazada Publishers, 1994. Dashti was an Iranian Muslim who was courageous enough to write honestly about Muhammad's career and violence. For this, he was ultimately imprisoned, tortured, and eventually murdered by thugs in the employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Robert Spencer, (who wrote much of the material on which my argument are based), just released The Truth About Muhammad, which has been banned in Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIw8UQAURFU&mode=related&search=).
There would be insufficient space in this post to outline the prophet's life, but make no mistake: Muhammad was a warlord. The religion he founded is a religion of war. Muhammad did not teach "peace and tolerance"; he lead armies and ordered assassinations of his enemies. At the end of his life he succeeded in conquering Arabia through a series of brutal conquests. The Islamic tradition he set up allows for negotiations only in the service of the ultimate goal of Islamic conquest. Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
There are more than a hundred verses in the Koran which explicitly exhort believers to wage warfare against nonbelievers. These teachings are not marginal doctrines or historical relics. They're still taught in mainstream Islam today. No Islamic sect has ever renounced the proposition that Islamic law must reign supreme over the entire world, and that Muslims must, under certain circumstances, take up arms to this end. Today's Jihadists have the same goals and motives as Muhammad's original followers, the Muslims who wreaked havoc in Spain and occupied it for 700 years, the Muslims who fought the Crusaders, and the Turks who sacked Constantinople.
Jihad warfare is the highest duty: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause [jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah; they are the people who will achieve salvation (Koran 9:19-20)"
Jihad fi sabil Allah, I am told, refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam. Paradise is guaranteed for those who kill and are killed for the cause: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth (Koran 9:111)" I suppose one may attempt to spiritualize Muhammad's words, but there can be no doubt from the historical record that he meant them literally.
There is, of course, some support for the view of jihad seen as a defensive warfare in the Koran, but there is no clear definition in Islamic law of what constitutes sufficient provocation for taking up arms in self-defense, or whom should strike first, making it possible to portray any struggle as defensive without violating the strict canons of that law. A common teaching in Islam seems to be that Muslims are required to wage war against any country that is percieved to be hindering the spread of Islam, and this is seen as a defensive conflict. It renders the concept of taking up arms in self-defense so elastic as to be meaningless (you need only visit The Islam Q & A (http://www.islam.tc/main.php) for a few disturbing examples of this).
Worse still, the doctrine of abrogation states that Allah can change his mind or cancel anything he says: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Koran 2:106). This means that most Muslim theologians consider the most violent verses (belonging to the ninth sura, which is generally agreed to have been the very last revelation to be revealed to Muhammad) to cancel out every treaty or promise made to infidels (stemming from the earlier parts of Muhammad's career). This is a rather infamous sura, called the Verse of the Sword (Koran 9:5), which is among the Koran's final words on the jihad: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pray the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." In other words, convert or die.
Osama bin Laden quotes extensively from the Koran in his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places", including suras 3;145, 47:4-6, 2:154, 9:14, 47:19, 8:72, and of course, 9:5. You can read it here (http://www.meij.or.jp/new/Osama%20bin%20Laden/jihad1.htm)
Does anyone care to tell me how he is being unfaithful to the spirit of Islam? How is he "interpreting it according to his own political agenda" rather than the agenda of the Koran itself?
Some Islamic apologists have pointed to Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as examples of Christian terrorists, but Spencer points out three reasons why they are not equivalent to bin Laden and Zarqawi: 1) They made no attempt to justify their actions by refering to Christian scripture or tradition, 2) They weren't acting according to mainstream Christian teachings, and 3) There are no large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.
This demonstrates the difference between aberrant acts and aberrant teachings. Yes, any human being with a belief system can commit terrible atrocities, but such acts will be more numerous and frequent when they're encouraged by religious texts and the people who teach from them.
Okay, so what about the majority of Muslims, who are said to be moderates and want nothing to do with the global jihad? I sincerely hope this is the case, but to what extend does moderate Islam exist in the world today? Where Muslims peacefully coexit with non-Muslims (as in Central Asia and Turkey) it isn't because the teachings of jihad in the Koran have been reformed or rejected; they've just been ignored. American historian and counter-terrorism analyst Daniel Pipes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes) estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims support the jihadist's agenda, but there are indications elsewhere that the actual numbers of jihadist supporters might be higher. Kamal Nawash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Nawash), and American moderate Muslim leader said on the O'reilly Factor in August 2004 that 50 per cent of of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad.
According to a survey done in Pakistan (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206), 65 per cent favored Osama bin Laden. 47 per cent believed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. 46 per cent thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
So what is a moderate Muslim? One who will never engage in terrorist acts? That certainly makes them an overwhelming majority in the Muslim world. Or is a moderate instead one who sincerely disapproves of terrorist acts? That reduces the number of moderates a bit. Is a moderate a Muslim who actively speaks out against jihadists? That lowers the number even more. Or what about a Muslim who actively engages the jihadists in a theological discussion, trying to convince them that jihad terrorism is wrong on Islamic grounds? That's only a tiny handful. But I hope I'm wrong.
I do not claim to be an expert on anything. If you feel the critics of Islam quote the Koran or quoted out of context, then by all means educate me and elaborate on how they're wrong. And herein is where it is important to compare the structure of the Koran with those of the Bible. Unlike the most violent passages of the Bible, the Koran does not contain a narrative at all. Rather, it is a recording of Muhammad's dialogue with God. The exhortations to violence against unbelievers in the Koran are entirely without specificity of where or who they are or any other distinction. They are open-ended, universal commands.
Islamic apologists (and anyone who hates Christianity) often quote embarassing verses from the Bible to prove that it too, can have pernicious effects. From the New Testament, we often get:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:26-27)
The fallacy here is that these are the words of a king in a parable that Jesus is telling, not instructions that the is actually giving to his followers, but this sort of subtlety is often ignored. Oh, and how can we forget this one?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Matthew 10:34-35)
Does anyone actually believe that Jesus is calling for a intra-familial jihad of sorts? It's absurd to quote this as the equivalent of the Koran's jihad passages, and it fails to recognize the poetry in the Bible. Even the crusaders didn't quote biblical passages like these. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus never took part in battles (the most violent he ever got was making a scene in the temple). It should be obvious that the "sword" he is talking about is a metaphorical one.
The juicier samples of the Bible are, of course, to be found in the Old Testament. Some of the most frequently quoted verses include Dueteronomy 7:1-2 ("And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them."), Deuteronomy 20:10-17 ("When the LORD gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it (the city) with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all it's spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself . . ."), and Numbers 31:17-18 ("Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."). This chronicles God's commands to the Israelites when they made war against specific people (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites). These passages certainly fall harshly on modern ears, but unless you happen to be one of these peoples, they simply do no apply to you. It's one reason among many that Jews and Christians do not form international terror groups that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilians and non-combatants. Centuries of interpretative traditions have moved away from literalism regarding passages like these, but in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition. Osama's use of the Koran passages he quoted were consistent with the traditional Islamic understanding of the Koran.
Muhammad vs. Jesus
Okay, here are some direct comparisons between the teachings of Muhammad (taken from the Koran and the Sahih Muslim (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/), which is also considered cannon) and the teachings of Jesus (taken from the four New Testament Gospels) to demonstrate how ludicrous it is to claim that the words of both are equally capable of inspiring violence.
On opposition:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Jesus (Matthew 5:44)
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know." Koran 8:60
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish." Jesus (Luke 6:35)
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; exept by way of persecution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. " Koran 3:28
On reciprocity:
". . . if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . ." Jesus (Matthew 5:39)
"Will ye not fight who broke their solemn pledges, and proposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?" Koran 9:13
On persecution:
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, your reward is great in heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:11)
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the place whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter." Koran 2:191
On adultery:
"Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand inthe middle. They said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now, in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?' They said this to test Him, so that they could have some charge against Him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger. But when they continued asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you whois without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again He bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So He was left alone with the woman before Him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'" John 7:53-8:11
"There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He 9the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? . . . By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to the child. When she was delivered she came with the child wrapped in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him . . . She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid bin Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had hurled upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried." Muslim vol. 3, book 17, no. 4206
On Murder:
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." Jesus (Matthew 5:21-22)
Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens . . . But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Koran 47:4
On God's consistency:
"No one is good but God alone." Jesus (Mark 10:18)
"The jews say: 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will." Koran 5:64
Spencer says: "The idea that Allah's hand is 'not chained' is a reflection of his absolute freedom and sovereignty. If God is good, as Jesus says, His goodness may be discernable in the consistency of creation; but in Islam, even to call Allah good would be to bind Him."
On salvation:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
"Alah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth . . ." Koran 9:111
On violence:
"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus (Matthew 26:52)
"Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords (jihad in Allah's cause)." Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 2818
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:8-10)
"Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)." Bukhari, vol. 1, no. 36
"And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." Luke 22:49-51
"Narrated by Abu Qilaba: anas said, 'Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. After they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in Al-Harra and then they asked for water, no water was given to them.' Abu Qilaba added, 'Those people committed theft, murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Messenger." Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, book 4, no. 233
On Mercy:
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your bretheren, what more are you doing than others?" Jesus (Matthew 5:7, 46-7)
"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." Koran 48:29
On Hatred:
"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Jesus (Mark 13:13)
"There is for you an excellent example to follow in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone.' " Koran 60:4
On divine authority:
"My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight." Jesus (John 18:36)
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 25.
On unbelievers:
"And if anyone will not recieve you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town." Jesus (Matthew 10:14)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" Bukhari, vol. 9, book 88, no. 6922
On generosity:
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
"None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself" Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 13
Spencer also adds: "The Muslim version of the Golden Rule extends only to fellow Muslims, not to unbelievers."
And this one just speaks for itself:
"The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." Jesus (John 16:2)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been frbidden by Allah and His Messenger, not acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9:29
That's it for now. Toodles!
-
Ouch. My head REALLY hurts now.
-
Sorry. :-[
-
My own fault for scrolling too quickly.
-
Islamophobia, Thagomizer, is prejudice against Muslims, just as it says in the dictionary:
Islamophobia
n : prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid
of growing Islamophobia in the West"
The islamophobics that are the most dangerous are those that put that quasi-intellectual slant to their ignorance. Not that I consider your telling us how bin Laden often quotes the Koran anything but a cheap shot, but it is bound to disturb the casual reader. Unfortunately I doubt that I can reach you by noting that bin Laden, in his twisted world, is doing pretty much the same as Bush is, when Bush says that God is on our side in the Iraq war. How many times do you suppose a lunatic has quoted the Bible to justify the unjustifiable?
I notice how you quote from the New Testament but avoid the Old. Why is that? Because the Old Testament is far more violent, far more unforgiving? That's also the usual tactics when the two holy scriptures are compared.
The Koran very specifically says:
There is no compulsion in religion
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
You, on the other hand, claim that
Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, says this:
The basic rules of war in Islam are:
1. Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
2. Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
3. Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
4. Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
5. Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
Hmm. He doesn't agree with you, that evil Muslim. You talk to him. Tell him that he's wrong.
I can see how this could go on for a while, however. I can also see that I'm unlikely to convince you of the errors in your ways or simply that hate and distrust doesn't really get you anywhere, so I probably won't bother to reply again. Search the old threads here if you want to read me replying to others like you. Peace, and remember that all you need is love.
-
Okay, sorry it's taken me a while to post. In this post I will outline my problems with Islam. I don't intend for it to be the final statement, though (and there's more where it came from). If I am wrong, then please tell me why. I'd also like to say that I'd gotten off on the wrong foot with my first post on this thread, and namely because I took for granted that there'd probably be some other people who shared my opinion, so I was caught rather off-guard. And my thanks to Lucifer (never thought I'd say that phrase!) and Portland Bill for writing such thoughtful replies. I did not have the opportunity to post a complete reply and gather my resources for quite some time. I will reply to a few specific points the two of you made.
I have lots to say but Thagomizer is just your average garden-variety islamophobic and IMO not worth the effort. I've heard and seen it all before.
So what is an Islamophobic other than someone who criticizes Islam? As the incident involving the Danish cartoon demonstrates, many Muslims seem to want Islam to be above criticism, and to be given the right to scare everyone else into submission, because all problems involving Islamic terrorism in today's world are the result of the capitalistic west's intolerance of Arab people. Frankly, they aren't very tolerant of us. The western world values plurality, equality, and freedom of speech. The Islamic world doesn't.
Haven't you ever noticed that every critic of Islam has to either write pseudonymously (as Ibn Warraq and the authors of http://www.faithfreedom.org/ (http://www.faithfreedom.org/)), has a price on their head (like Irshad Manji), lives in an undisclosed location (like Robert Spencer), or has been murdered (like Theo van Gogh)? I'm still waiting to hear news about the crazy Christian fundamentalists (because Christianity is every bit as capable of inspiring violence as Islam, remember?) who are out for Dan Barker's blood and the death threats he must surely receive.
Regarding Islamophobia, historian Victor Davis states in this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412170839.asp:):
There really isn’t a phenomenon like “Islamophobia†— at least no more than there was a “Germanophobia†in hating Hitler or “Russophobia†in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the “security profiling†of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile “allies†in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Meh. I put as much effort into it as you did your original argument. Pie sure, I could have called you a delusional dinofucker or summat but I couldn't be bothered. Want a point?
;) Just hoping to inject a little humor into what was turning into a heated argument.
Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihadis?
I have no love for them, or Bush for that matter, but the answer is a firm, resounding, YES.
Saying that the religious right of America is equally capable of giving rise to violence would have a lot more credibility if Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell (neither of whom I like) were writing articles defending the stoning of adulterers, (Muslim writer Hani Ramadan published one such article (http://www.comores-online.com/mwezinet/religion/charia.htm) in the French journal Le Monde in September 2002 defending exactly that), or calling for the killing of blasphemers (blasphemy is a capital offense in Pakistan and many other places in the Islamic world), or flying planes into the buildings of countries they considered enemies. Evangelical Christians do not condone or commit these acts, and that alone should be a clear indication that not all religious "fundies" are alike.
I've partly answered this above; I've heard the 'some religions are more right than others (and you don't wanna be in the wrong one when the rapture comes, praise the Lawd)' argument before from the door-to-door god botherers. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the 'correct' bits of dogma. A roomful of theologians probably couldn't come to the conclusion you had, but as you have already picked a team its irrelevant. If you're happy with your choice of shepherd good for you, as long as you can recognise that those who chose a different one could do exactly the same thing to you/your faith.
My 'team' doesn't even have to be correct in order for my point to be valid. It may have sounded like I was arguing religious apologetics or patriotism, but I was trying to make the point that religions still have objective truth values. This should apply to moral teachings as well. If I were an atheist I would certainly still regard Christianity a bit higher than Islam.
however, this conflicts massively with your belief in "absolute truth". and define good and bad - surely that's a matter of perspective and context?
Not quite. To accept that there may truths to be found in all religions, even profound truths, does not make them equally true. They cannot be, because they all make objective truth claims. If they are all wrong, then some are still more wrong than others. As for "good and bad", I am not a moral relativist, and I'm assuming you believe that there is evil behavior that human beings are capable of, whether it is in the form of violence, deceit, or something else that knowingly brings needless harm to other people. If you don't believe that some actions are good and some are evil (before we take into account circumstance--I don't for example, believe that rape and pederasty can ever be justified as good actions), then there would no point in discussing it any further.
to, or for, whom?
Anyone who believes in objective truth. If you don't believe in any reality beyond perception, there's no point in debating it.
it isn't Islam wherein the fault lies, it's some of the proponents of Islam, who choose to (or follow blindly those who've chosen to) interpret it according to their own political agenda.
Why are you so certain of this? Anyway, I believe the problem is the core teachings of Islam, and it will not go away until we recognize why Islam continues to produce peole like bin Laden and Zarqawi and why Judaism and Christianity, for the most part, don't. But I'll get into that in more detail below.
nonsense. no "holy text" is carved in stone (no pun intended). all require interpretation. you have to ask yourself who's doing the interpreting, and for what reason.
Considering the degree of interpretation these sets of holy bog roll require I think its fair to say you can find a line or two of scripture in any of them to support your jihad/crusade/witchhunt/persecution/land grab. Any verses you could quote for either religion in support of xyz position can be countered by others I'm fairly sure - so sure, if you want to produce reams of quotations thats up to you. But at the end of the day it always degenerates to cherry picking since the 'holy' books are so widely interpreted and full of (apparently) contradictory statements.
For the record, I disagree with both of you about interpretation. While examining any holy text can certainly be a daunting task, I think this is too easy a way out of it. It's not cherry picking to quote what the Koran has to say about jihad warfare when it is a constant and undoubtedly affirmed element of mainstream Muslim theology. Religions are not entirely determined (or distorted) by their faithful over time. Are you both asking me to believe that western culture would be enjoying it's secularization today if Islam succeeded in conquering Europe some 1300 years ago (to which the crusades were actually a long-delayed defensive backlash against)? That there would be Christian jihadists bombing the west if Christianity were relegated to the Middle East, that we would have experienced the Renaissance and Enlightment in the same way in a Muslim Europe? It is impossible to be certain, but I believe the answers to all of these questions are "no".
Would it make a difference today, and would history have unfolded the same way, if India was Zoroastrian, China Odinist, and Japan Hindu? Again, I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt it. Culture does affect our behavior, I'm afraid. Whether we like it or not, we are all products of the cultures that spawned us.
All religions are not the same. The lives and words of their founders, which are certainly not equal in meaning, remain central, no matter how long ago they lived. The notion that only believers shape religion is derrived from the literary philosophy of deconstructionism, according to which written words have no meaning other than that given to them by the reader, and equally important, that if only the reader finds meaning, there can be no truth, and certainly no religious truth. We are all, in a deconstructionist perspective, capable of creating our own set of "truths", none of which are better or worse than any other.
Now onto the founder of Islam. I have respect for most of the founders of today's religions. I have respect for Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna, and Confucius. But I do not respect Muhammad. While I can surely accept that moral standards are different now from the way they were during his lifetime, I can't call a man who forces himself on a girl 40 years younger than him, whom he captured in one of his raids in the same day that he killed her husband, her father and many of her relatives, anything other than a rapist. I can't call a man who has sex with a pubescent girl anything other than a pedophile. I can't call a man who aquires his wealth by looting caravans, killing the men, usurping their properties and selling their wives and daughters as slaves anything other than a bandit. I can't call a man who assassinates his critics (who commited no violent crimes against him) in the middle of the night anything other than a terrorist. I can't call a man who instructed his men to kill everyone who didn't accept his dogma, and impose a tax penalty to make life miserable for subdued Jews and Christians anything other than a bigot. I can't call a man who deliberately breaks a treaty anything other than a liar. I can't call a man who conveniently receives a revelation from God that permits him to claim his adpoted son's wife and exceed his quota of four wives anything other than a lech. And I can't call a man who mentions the teachings of Jesus in order to lend credibility as God's ultimate prophet--and then leads a campagin and teaches a doctrine that is diametrically opposite of everything Jesus stood for--anything other than a hypocrite.
Don't believe me? Then try reading about the life of Muhammad yourself. The earliest written biography of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq, supports these facts and many more. In particular, you might try The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasual Allah, Oxford University Press, 1955. This translation was written by a pious Muslim, no less, and almost every page is a devestating refutation of the notion that Muhammad was a peaceful leader. Another useful title is 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by 'Ali Dashti; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazada Publishers, 1994. Dashti was an Iranian Muslim who was courageous enough to write honestly about Muhammad's career and violence. For this, he was ultimately imprisoned, tortured, and eventually murdered by thugs in the employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Robert Spencer, (who wrote much of the material on which my argument are based), just released The Truth About Muhammad, which has been banned in Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIw8UQAURFU&mode=related&search=).
There would be insufficient space in this post to outline the prophet's life, but make no mistake: Muhammad was a warlord. The religion he founded is a religion of war. Muhammad did not teach "peace and tolerance"; he lead armies and ordered assassinations of his enemies. At the end of his life he succeeded in conquering Arabia through a series of brutal conquests. The Islamic tradition he set up allows for negotiations only in the service of the ultimate goal of Islamic conquest. Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
There are more than a hundred verses in the Koran which explicitly exhort believers to wage warfare against nonbelievers. These teachings are not marginal doctrines or historical relics. They're still taught in mainstream Islam today. No Islamic sect has ever renounced the proposition that Islamic law must reign supreme over the entire world, and that Muslims must, under certain circumstances, take up arms to this end. Today's Jihadists have the same goals and motives as Muhammad's original followers, the Muslims who wreaked havoc in Spain and occupied it for 700 years, the Muslims who fought the Crusaders, and the Turks who sacked Constantinople.
Jihad warfare is the highest duty: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause [jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah; they are the people who will achieve salvation (Koran 9:19-20)"
Jihad fi sabil Allah, I am told, refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam. Paradise is guaranteed for those who kill and are killed for the cause: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth (Koran 9:111)" I suppose one may attempt to spiritualize Muhammad's words, but there can be no doubt from the historical record that he meant them literally.
There is, of course, some support for the view of jihad seen as a defensive warfare in the Koran, but there is no clear definition in Islamic law of what constitutes sufficient provocation for taking up arms in self-defense, or whom should strike first, making it possible to portray any struggle as defensive without violating the strict canons of that law. A common teaching in Islam seems to be that Muslims are required to wage war against any country that is percieved to be hindering the spread of Islam, and this is seen as a defensive conflict. It renders the concept of taking up arms in self-defense so elastic as to be meaningless (you need only visit The Islam Q & A (http://www.islam.tc/main.php) for a few disturbing examples of this).
Worse still, the doctrine of abrogation states that Allah can change his mind or cancel anything he says: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Koran 2:106). This means that most Muslim theologians consider the most violent verses (belonging to the ninth sura, which is generally agreed to have been the very last revelation to be revealed to Muhammad) to cancel out every treaty or promise made to infidels (stemming from the earlier parts of Muhammad's career). This is a rather infamous sura, called the Verse of the Sword (Koran 9:5), which is among the Koran's final words on the jihad: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pray the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." In other words, convert or die.
Osama bin Laden quotes extensively from the Koran in his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places", including suras 3;145, 47:4-6, 2:154, 9:14, 47:19, 8:72, and of course, 9:5. You can read it here (http://www.meij.or.jp/new/Osama%20bin%20Laden/jihad1.htm)
Does anyone care to tell me how he is being unfaithful to the spirit of Islam? How is he "interpreting it according to his own political agenda" rather than the agenda of the Koran itself?
Some Islamic apologists have pointed to Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as examples of Christian terrorists, but Spencer points out three reasons why they are not equivalent to bin Laden and Zarqawi: 1) They made no attempt to justify their actions by refering to Christian scripture or tradition, 2) They weren't acting according to mainstream Christian teachings, and 3) There are no large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.
This demonstrates the difference between aberrant acts and aberrant teachings. Yes, any human being with a belief system can commit terrible atrocities, but such acts will be more numerous and frequent when they're encouraged by religious texts and the people who teach from them.
Okay, so what about the majority of Muslims, who are said to be moderates and want nothing to do with the global jihad? I sincerely hope this is the case, but to what extend does moderate Islam exist in the world today? Where Muslims peacefully coexit with non-Muslims (as in Central Asia and Turkey) it isn't because the teachings of jihad in the Koran have been reformed or rejected; they've just been ignored. American historian and counter-terrorism analyst Daniel Pipes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes) estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims support the jihadist's agenda, but there are indications elsewhere that the actual numbers of jihadist supporters might be higher. Kamal Nawash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Nawash), and American moderate Muslim leader said on the O'reilly Factor in August 2004 that 50 per cent of of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad.
According to a survey done in Pakistan (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206), 65 per cent favored Osama bin Laden. 47 per cent believed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. 46 per cent thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
So what is a moderate Muslim? One who will never engage in terrorist acts? That certainly makes them an overwhelming majority in the Muslim world. Or is a moderate instead one who sincerely disapproves of terrorist acts? That reduces the number of moderates a bit. Is a moderate a Muslim who actively speaks out against jihadists? That lowers the number even more. Or what about a Muslim who actively engages the jihadists in a theological discussion, trying to convince them that jihad terrorism is wrong on Islamic grounds? That's only a tiny handful. But I hope I'm wrong.
I do not claim to be an expert on anything. If you feel the critics of Islam quote the Koran or quoted out of context, then by all means educate me and elaborate on how they're wrong. And herein is where it is important to compare the structure of the Koran with those of the Bible. Unlike the most violent passages of the Bible, the Koran does not contain a narrative at all. Rather, it is a recording of Muhammad's dialogue with God. The exhortations to violence against unbelievers in the Koran are entirely without specificity of where or who they are or any other distinction. They are open-ended, universal commands.
Islamic apologists (and anyone who hates Christianity) often quote embarassing verses from the Bible to prove that it too, can have pernicious effects. From the New Testament, we often get:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:26-27)
The fallacy here is that these are the words of a king in a parable that Jesus is telling, not instructions that the is actually giving to his followers, but this sort of subtlety is often ignored. Oh, and how can we forget this one?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Matthew 10:34-35)
Does anyone actually believe that Jesus is calling for a intra-familial jihad of sorts? It's absurd to quote this as the equivalent of the Koran's jihad passages, and it fails to recognize the poetry in the Bible. Even the crusaders didn't quote biblical passages like these. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus never took part in battles (the most violent he ever got was making a scene in the temple). It should be obvious that the "sword" he is talking about is a metaphorical one.
The juicier samples of the Bible are, of course, to be found in the Old Testament. Some of the most frequently quoted verses include Dueteronomy 7:1-2 ("And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them."), Deuteronomy 20:10-17 ("When the LORD gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it (the city) with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all it's spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself . . ."), and Numbers 31:17-18 ("Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."). This chronicles God's commands to the Israelites when they made war against specific people (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites). These passages certainly fall harshly on modern ears, but unless you happen to be one of these peoples, they simply do no apply to you. It's one reason among many that Jews and Christians do not form international terror groups that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilians and non-combatants. Centuries of interpretative traditions have moved away from literalism regarding passages like these, but in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition. Osama's use of the Koran passages he quoted were consistent with the traditional Islamic understanding of the Koran.
Muhammad vs. Jesus
Okay, here are some direct comparisons between the teachings of Muhammad (taken from the Koran and the Sahih Muslim (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/), which is also considered cannon) and the teachings of Jesus (taken from the four New Testament Gospels) to demonstrate how ludicrous it is to claim that the words of both are equally capable of inspiring violence.
On opposition:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Jesus (Matthew 5:44)
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know." Koran 8:60
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish." Jesus (Luke 6:35)
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; exept by way of persecution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. " Koran 3:28
On reciprocity:
". . . if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . ." Jesus (Matthew 5:39)
"Will ye not fight who broke their solemn pledges, and proposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?" Koran 9:13
On persecution:
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, your reward is great in heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:11)
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the place whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter." Koran 2:191
On adultery:
"Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand inthe middle. They said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now, in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?' They said this to test Him, so that they could have some charge against Him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger. But when they continued asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you whois without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again He bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So He was left alone with the woman before Him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'" John 7:53-8:11
"There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He 9the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? . . . By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to the child. When she was delivered she came with the child wrapped in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him . . . She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid bin Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had hurled upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried." Muslim vol. 3, book 17, no. 4206
On Murder:
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." Jesus (Matthew 5:21-22)
Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens . . . But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Koran 47:4
On God's consistency:
"No one is good but God alone." Jesus (Mark 10:18)
"The jews say: 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will." Koran 5:64
Spencer says: "The idea that Allah's hand is 'not chained' is a reflection of his absolute freedom and sovereignty. If God is good, as Jesus says, His goodness may be discernable in the consistency of creation; but in Islam, even to call Allah good would be to bind Him."
On salvation:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
"Alah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth . . ." Koran 9:111
On violence:
"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus (Matthew 26:52)
"Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords (jihad in Allah's cause)." Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 2818
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:8-10)
"Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)." Bukhari, vol. 1, no. 36
"And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." Luke 22:49-51
"Narrated by Abu Qilaba: anas said, 'Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. After they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in Al-Harra and then they asked for water, no water was given to them.' Abu Qilaba added, 'Those people committed theft, murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Messenger." Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, book 4, no. 233
On Mercy:
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your bretheren, what more are you doing than others?" Jesus (Matthew 5:7, 46-7)
"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." Koran 48:29
On Hatred:
"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Jesus (Mark 13:13)
"There is for you an excellent example to follow in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone.' " Koran 60:4
On divine authority:
"My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight." Jesus (John 18:36)
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 25.
On unbelievers:
"And if anyone will not recieve you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town." Jesus (Matthew 10:14)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" Bukhari, vol. 9, book 88, no. 6922
On generosity:
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
"None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself" Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 13
Spencer also adds: "The Muslim version of the Golden Rule extends only to fellow Muslims, not to unbelievers."
And this one just speaks for itself:
"The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." Jesus (John 16:2)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been frbidden by Allah and His Messenger, not acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9:29
That's it for now. Toodles!
more where that came from?
please share.
-
Islamophobia, Thagomizer, is prejudice against Muslims, just as it says in the dictionary:
Islamophobia
n : prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid
of growing Islamophobia in the West"
The islamophobics that are the most dangerous are those that put that quasi-intellectual slant to their ignorance. Not that I consider your telling us how bin Laden often quotes the Koran anything but a cheap shot, but it is bound to disturb the casual reader. Unfortunately I doubt that I can reach you by noting that bin Laden, in his twisted world, is doing pretty much the same as Bush is, when Bush says that God is on our side in the Iraq war. How many times do you suppose a lunatic has quoted the Bible to justify the unjustifiable?
I notice how you quote from the New Testament but avoid the Old. Why is that? Because the Old Testament is far more violent, far more unforgiving? That's also the usual tactics when the two holy scriptures are compared.
The Koran very specifically says:
There is no compulsion in religion
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
You, on the other hand, claim that
Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, says this:
The basic rules of war in Islam are:
1. Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
2. Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
3. Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
4. Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
5. Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
Hmm. He doesn't agree with you, that evil Muslim. You talk to him. Tell him that he's wrong.
I can see how this could go on for a while, however. I can also see that I'm unlikely to convince you of the errors in your ways or simply that hate and distrust doesn't really get you anywhere, so I probably won't bother to reply again. Search the old threads here if you want to read me replying to others like you. Peace, and remember that all you need is love.
:clap: :plus:
bloody well said. in fact, bloody well done for reading the whole of thagomiser's post. ::)
more where that came from?
please share.
you piss taking bastard! i am cracking up. :laugh: :plus: (if you're not still on 666, that is).
-
The islamophobics that are the most dangerous are those that put that quasi-intellectual slant to their ignorance. Not that I consider your telling us how bin Laden often quotes the Koran anything but a cheap shot, but it is bound to disturb the casual reader. Unfortunately I doubt that I can reach you by noting that bin Laden, in his twisted world, is doing pretty much the same as Bush is, when Bush says that God is on our side in the Iraq war.
Bush sucks. If we lived in ancient times, he certainly would have been one of those leaders, like Alexander who declared himself a deity. It is a tenuous thing, to claim that God is on your side, because if you change your mind, God isn't going to change his. However, I don't think Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden. When was he quoting from the Bible specifically to justify attacking Iraq?
How many times do you suppose a lunatic has quoted the Bible to justify the unjustifiable?
Not as often as a lunatic quotes the Koran, and he will not only find more justification there, but from the mainstream theologians who teach it. That was my point.
I notice how you quote from the New Testament but avoid the Old. Why is that? Because the Old Testament is far more violent, far more unforgiving? That's also the usual tactics when the two holy scriptures are compared.
I did quote some commonly referenced OT passages, and I addressed this in my former post. The point in that last part was to compare the teaching of Muhammad with the teachings of Jesus. Muhammad is still held as a high moral example by Muslims to today, and no, I don't think the messages that he taught were morally equivalent to what Jesus taught, and I already demonstrated how and why.
There is no compulsion in religion
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
That's one of the 'canceled' verses, I'm afraid. Here's one that obviates it:
(Al-Baqarah 2:216) Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.
You, on the other hand, claim that
Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
He did teach this. It would be foolish denying it.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, says this:
The basic rules of war in Islam are:
1. Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
2. Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
3. Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
Where does the Koran address anything involving weapons of mass destruction? As I've mentioned before, the definition of "hostilities" is so vague it is often interpreted as anything that impedes the spread of Islam.
4. Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
Again, conversion, subjugation, or death. Not equality or pluralism. That was Muhammad's definition of "peace".
5. Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Muhammad didn't. This is a documented fact.
Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
Allah also tells you to continue fighting so that the entire world accepts Islamic rule, and doesn't specify anything about when and where to stop fighting. I've already quoted this sura in my former post. It might be possible to form a sort of moderate Islam on the basis of those teachings in the Koran that sound better, but in order for that to happen the mainstream needs to acknowledge why and how the teachings of the Koran are having a direct effect on most of the world's ongoing conflicts.
Hmm. He doesn't agree with you, that evil Muslim. You talk to him. Tell him that he's wrong.
I sincerely hope he's right and I'm wrong. However, I should reflect that his faith does allow him to lie to advance the causes of his religion, so unless he's written a response to the critics of Islam that addresses all the points I've made in more detail rather than selectively (very selectively) quoting form the Koran, I will have approach his words with some amount of skepticism. But I'll be sure to look him up.
I can see how this could go on for a while, however. I can also see that I'm unlikely to convince you of the errors in your ways or simply that hate and distrust doesn't really get you anywhere, so I probably won't bother to reply again. Search the old threads here if you want to read me replying to others like you. Peace, and remember that all you need is love.
I'll search the old threads, then. It would be arrant nonsense for me to hate or distrust someone on the basis of their religion alone, but that doesn't mean I can have no reason for thinking there's something wrong the religion itself. I have met a few Muslims whom I've generally liked. I don't know to what degree they were familiar with (or faithful to) the teachings of the Koran, though.
-
bloody well said. in fact, bloody well done for reading the whole of thagomiser's post. ::)
Did you even bother to read it? He didn't address half of what I brought up, and most of what he did was through a knee-jerk reaction rather than intellectual argument. Quick to give karma to anyone who may agree with your ideological standpoint, when you're busy pussyfooting around it, then?
more where that came from?
please share.
It hasn't come to that yet.
-
bloody well said. in fact, bloody well done for reading the whole of thagomiser's post. ::)
Did you even bother to read it? He didn't address half of what I brought up, and most of what he did was through a knee-jerk reaction rather than intellectual argument. Quick to give karma to anyone who may agree with your ideological standpoint, when you're busy pussyfooting around it, then?
more where that came from?
please share.
It hasn't come to that yet.
:popcorn:
-
Thagomizer, regarding 2:216:
Allah says:"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress limits (begin not hostility): For Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more persecution or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Al-Baqarah:190-193)
But it is quite possible to find passages in the Koran that seem to contradict what I, or anyone else for that matter, say. I'm sure you'll do just that. For this reason, have a look at The Quran on Wars And Aggression (http://www.submission.info/perspectives/striving/wars.html) where some of your concerns are addressed.
One final note: if you wish to quote something to cancel a verse, the customary procedure among islamophobics is to pick a later one, not an earlier one. You'd do well to cite the context, however, as very often, the apparently unreasonable aggression is directed towards oppressors or aggressors in an ongoing war.
-
You know what? I've done some thinking and decided it might be best to to do some more research and suspend judgment for now.
Thanks for the link. I'll take this into consideration. ;D
-
:plus: for honesty and integrity.
-
You know what? I've done some thinking and decided it might be best to to do some more research and suspend judgment for now.
Thanks for the link. I'll take this into consideration. ;D
yeah - nice one, thag. :clap:
-
When did Odeon begin a tutoring in islamophobia?
-
I did?
-
he did? i knew he was tutoring something, but i wouldn't have called it political. 8)
-
One final note: if you wish to quote something to cancel a verse, the customary procedure among islamophobics is to pick a later one, not an earlier one. You'd do well to cite the context, however, as very often, the apparently unreasonable aggression is directed towards oppressors or aggressors in an ongoing war.
I was going for the :asthing: effect.
Nevermind, tend your fires.
-
There is not just the Koran which is considered holy for Musliums, there is the Sharia and the Hadith a record of the words and deems of Mohammad himself, this one of the Hadith's "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)."
Female Genital Mutilation is much more common in the Muslim world than you think, because of Mohammed's recommendation that at least the Clitoral hood be removed, which is the most common form of Female Genital Mutilation in Muslim world, only in some places in the Muslim world is the clitoris, along with labia minora and/or labia majora are removed.
-
There are more books I will have to read. ::)
-
For this reason, have a look at The Quran on Wars And Aggression (http://www.submission.info/perspectives/striving/wars.html) where some of your concerns are addressed.
I can't see how you would want to quote an obviously biased source on the Koran (Quran).
I prefer the Skeptics Annotaed Quran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm)
The Quran, along with the bible, contradicts itself every other page. Ultimately you could use the quran to justify almost any position. I think it's important that you look at how Islam is actually being taught.
-
snip
Wow I am impressed, could have not said it better myself. Might I add in, while Christianity and even Hinduism and Buddhism have a future as religions, Islam apart from Sufism does not, it will enter a terminal decline soon enough. Islam is only growing through the natural growth of the present Muslim population, while Christianity is making lots of new converts everyday.
-
snip
Wow I am impressed, could have not said it better myself. Might I add in, while Christianity and even Hinduism and Buddhism have a future as religions, Islam apart from Sufism does not, it will enter a terminal decline soon enough. Islam is only growing through the natural growth of the present Muslim population, while Christianity is making lots of new converts everyday.
Since I don't know the statistics behind this, I'm curious: Does the rate of conversion make up for the masses of disillusioned and bitter people who leave the church every day?
-
Since I don't know the statistics behind this, I'm curious: Does the rate of conversion make up for the masses of disillusioned and bitter people who leave the church every day?
That occurs in the western countries, in places like Africa and Asia the number of new converts is simply amazing, it is making the Christian world focused on Africa, Asia and Latin America, rather than North America and especially Europe where it has been in the past.
-
For this reason, have a look at The Quran on Wars And Aggression (http://www.submission.info/perspectives/striving/wars.html) where some of your concerns are addressed.
I can't see how you would want to quote an obviously biased source on the Koran (Quran).
I prefer the Skeptics Annotaed Quran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm)
The Quran, along with the bible, contradicts itself every other page. Ultimately you could use the quran to justify almost any position. I think it's important that you look at how Islam is actually being taught.
Why is a Muslim source more biased, Scrap? One would think that practicing Muslims would know a bit more about their religion than a non-Muslim.
As for the rest of your comment, that page is there to teach you about Islam. I'm sure you'd rather see confirmation of your fears, something like The Bin Laden Internet Home or perhaps a suicide bomber's guide to Islam, but as with Christian references out there, I much prefer the peaceful Muslim majority.
-
Why is a Muslim source more biased, Scrap? One would think that practicing Muslims would know a bit more about their religion than a non-Muslim.
Comming from a fundamentalist christian home, I can tell you how IGNORANT most christians are about the bible and where it came from. The problem with a muslim source is twofold. One: of course they're going to try to put their best foot forward to try to sell you their message. Two: Although religious people are well INDOCTRINATED, they often don't understand anything of the historical contest thet their religion was founded in, therefore, they don't know what is metaphor and what was supposed to be literal fact.
As for the rest of your comment, that page is there to indoctrinate you about Islamby giving you a sanitized, western friendly interpretation.
Fixed.
I'm sure you'd rather see confirmation of your fears, something like The Bin Laden Internet Home or perhaps a suicide bomber's guide to Islam, but as with Christian references out there, I much prefer the peaceful Muslim majority.
Straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument)
-
I've just read an pdf copy Robert Spencer's - The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam I downloaded on emule. It throughly recommend the book, it basically agrees with everything Thagomizer has been saying and might I add that groups like Al Qaeda aren't on the fringes of the Muslim world, their ideas of waging war against the disbelievers, until Islam is the sole religion of the world has a long and 'honorable' tradition in Islam.
I believe there cannot be true global peace, until Islam is extinct as a religion. I do not propose killing all Muslims. However I do not believe the religion cannot be reformed, because it was established as a religion of war, where morality which other religions hold sacred can be tossed aside with if it serves the cause of Islam.
I think it would have to take a massive revival in Christianity in the west for it to wake up to this reality. The only people in our society who realize this threat are often 'fundamentalist' Christians often so derided by others.
-
...and, just like that, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam's sales plummetted.
-
It takes only a few bad apples to make any religion bad in the end.
-
Comming from a fundamentalist christian home, I can tell you how IGNORANT most christians are about the bible and where it came from. The problem with a muslimChristian source is twofold. One: of course they're going to try to put their best foot forward to try to sell you their message. Two: Although religious people are well INDOCTRINATED, they often don't understand anything of the historical contest thet their religion was founded in, therefore, they don't know what is metaphor and what was supposed to be literal fact.
Fixed. :P
-
I believe there cannot be true global peace, until Islam is extinct as a religion. I do not propose killing all Muslims. However I do not believe the religion cannot be reformed, because it was established as a religion of war, where morality which other religions hold sacred can be tossed aside with if it serves the cause of Islam.
I think it would have to take a massive revival in Christianity in the west for it to wake up to this reality. The only people in our society who realize this threat are often 'fundamentalist' Christians often so derided by others.
There should be no compulsion in religion, Christian or otherwise. What you are advocating are new crusades, TJ, whether you realize it or not. I'm glad you belong to a minority.
-
There should be no compulsion in religion, Christian or otherwise. What you are advocating are new crusades, TJ, whether you realize it or not. I'm glad you belong to a minority.
I am advocating a new crusade so that western civilization and what we have achieved can continue to exist.
-
What the world needs is LESS religious sheep attempting to impose their archaic worldview on the rest of us, not more. :finger:
-
There should be no compulsion in religion, Christian or otherwise. What you are advocating are new crusades, TJ, whether you realize it or not. I'm glad you belong to a minority.
I am advocating a new crusade so that western civilization and what we have achieved can continue to exist.
And how do you plan to handle the Muslims that refuse to denounce their religion, Adolf? Gas chambers? :finger:
-
What the world needs is LESS religious sheep attempting to impose their archaic worldview on the rest of us, not more. :finger:
I am not a religious person, I am a secular humanist who opposed to ideologies which threaten to destroy Liberal Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, Rationalism and Science.
But I am not blind to what Islam stands for and what many Muslims believe in, even if they do not actively fight the disbelievers like Bin Ladin and his ilk do.
Back before the days of cultural relativism great thinkers had the following to say about Islam.
John Quincy Adams on Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
Winston Churchill on Islam:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
-- Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
From Montesquieu, about 1748, “Spirit of the Lawsâ€, Book XXIV, Chapter III:
That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan.
THE Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel, is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.
From Chapter IV:
It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.
Alexis De Tocqueville:
Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the general relations between man and God and between man and man.... That alone... is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.
-
And how do you plan to handle the Muslims that refuse to denounce their religion, Adolf? Gas chambers? :finger:
I do not want to kill people,
I want to see Muslims stop believing in believing the sharia must be the law of the land, that the muslim world must wage jihad against the non-Muslims until Islam is the only religion, stop treating women like property that includes putting women under the veil, stop treating non-Muslims like they are inferior, stop doing female 'circumcision;'.
I want to see all Muslims accept western ideals which everybody else accepts like secular law and human rights (like treating women not as property or non-Muslims like they are inferior).
-
Comming from a fundamentalist christian home, I can tell you how IGNORANT most christians are about the bible and where it came from. The problem with a muslimChristian source is twofold. One: of course they're going to try to put their best foot forward to try to sell you their message. Two: Although religious people are well INDOCTRINATED, they often don't understand anything of the historical contest thet their religion was founded in, therefore, they don't know what is metaphor and what was supposed to be literal fact.
Fixed. :P
What has deluded you into thinkiing I'm putting forth a christian based argument?? I'm agnostic and don't believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. The link I posted to the Skeptics annotated Quran, also is an Agnostic/Atheist site. (did you look at the Skeptics annotated bible?)
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
You're forgetting about the rich who buy their way into heaven. There's churches every 500 yards where I live.
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
I have searched for what I believe in Mind, Body, and Spirit.
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
You're forgetting about the rich who buy their way into heaven. There's churches every 500 yards where I live.
you live in a rich neighbourhood?
churches in america are mostly tax scams.
the word i was looking for is HOPE. meant to satisfy a normally mundane existance.
-
What has deluded you into thinkiing I'm putting forth a christian based argument??
I don't think so. I changed your comment to show that the argument stays the same regardless of the target.
-
I do not want to kill people,
I want to see Muslims stop believing in believing the sharia must be the law of the land, that the muslim world must wage jihad against the non-Muslims until Islam is the only religion, stop treating women like property that includes putting women under the veil, stop treating non-Muslims like they are inferior, stop doing female 'circumcision;'.
I want to see all Muslims accept western ideals which everybody else accepts like secular law and human rights (like treating women not as property or non-Muslims like they are inferior).
You need to actually read the Koran, TJ. Or at least a page such as the one I linked to for Thagomizer, and realize that Islam does not equal war against non-believers.
You also need to answer my question, since you do want a modern crusade: What do you propose to do to the Muslims that won't readily accept your "Western ideals" and denounce their religion? C'mon, don't be shy. Tell us.
-
You need to actually read the Koran, TJ. Or at least a page such as the one I linked to for Thagomizer, and realize that Islam does not equal war against non-believers.
You also need to answer my question, since you do want a modern crusade: What do you propose to do to the Muslims that won't readily accept your "Western ideals" and denounce their religion? C'mon, don't be shy. Tell us.
I will get myself a copy of Koran asap and have a read through it, however I am going to confirm what already I believe. Compared to Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius and even Moses and Abraham. The character of Mohammad described in the Koran and other texts sets a very bad moral example, he was a rapist, pedophile, stole (by raiding caravans), dishonored treaties he made. By the standards of the 7th century, that was nothing unusual for a military leader, however Mohammad is supposed to be model Muslim.
The worst the character of Jesus Christ did, was probably marry an ex-prostitute (it is alluded to in the Gospels).
Islam is also seriously weaken by fact it started out as a ruling religion (Mohammad was a war leader and legislator as well as prophet), which was spread through conquest. Islam is not just a religion, it is a totalising ideology with a blueprint for government and social
organization, rather similar to Communism.
That kind of explain why Muslim fundamentalists are a lot worse than the Christian variety. If you watch the documentary Jesus Camp that describes the worst Christian Fundamentalists can do these days. I am not afraid of Christian Fundamentalists and willing to see them as potential allies. However I am very afraid of Muslim Fundamentalists.
-
There should be no compulsion in religion, Christian or otherwise. What you are advocating are new crusades, TJ, whether you realize it or not. I'm glad you belong to a minority.
I am advocating a new crusade so that western civilization and what we have achieved can continue to exist.
Crusades (and the like) are the sign of an immature stage in
a religion's cycle.
-
I am not a religious person, I am a secular humanist who opposed to ideologies which threaten to destroy Liberal Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, Rationalism and Science.
Don't you see that your secular humanism is effectively a faith of its own?
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
I disagree. They tend to blindly follow, rather than get
caught up in the true issues of the religion. Just as
with our current infatuation with technology. The
masses just seem to have faith, without understanding,
that it is good.
-
I will get myself a copy of Koran asap and have a read through it, however I am going to confirm what already I believe. Compared to Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius and even Moses and Abraham. The character of Mohammad described in the Koran and other texts sets a very bad moral example, he was a rapist, pedophile, stole (by raiding caravans), dishonored treaties he made. By the standards of the 7th century, that was nothing unusual for a military leader, however Mohammad is supposed to be model Muslim.
I'm so glad you decided to keep an open mind... ::)
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
Hear that everyone? McTwunt has just proven that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Decartes, Tolkien, Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Dante, Madeline L'Engle, Isaac Newton, Sir Richard Owen, Edward Drinker Cope, Georges Cuvier, Robert T. Bakker, T. S. Eliot, Milton, Bach, Michelangelo, Bonaventura, Scotus, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kelper, Newman, Pasteur, Kierkagaard, Chesteron, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Mendel, and Solzhenitsyn were all poor and weak of mind.
-
I've just read an pdf copy Robert Spencer's - The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam I downloaded on emule. It throughly recommend the book, it basically agrees with everything Thagomizer has been saying and might I add that groups like Al Qaeda aren't on the fringes of the Muslim world, their ideas of waging war against the disbelievers, until Islam is the sole religion of the world has a long and 'honorable' tradition in Islam.
This book was one of the main sources I used, and it is indeed compelling. While I am still bothered by many aspects of the Islamic faith, it also occured to me that I would do well to read other sources on Islam--for as well as against--before believing that I truly knew what I was talking about.
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
Hear that everyone? McTwunt has just proven that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Decartes, Tolkien, Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Dante, Madeline L'Engle, Isaac Newton, Sir Richard Owen, Edward Drinker Cope, Georges Cuvier, Robert T. Bakker, T. S. Eliot, Milton, Bach, Michelangelo, Bonaventura, Scotus, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kelper, Newman, Pasteur, Kierkagaard, Chesteron, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Mendel, and Solzhenitsyn were all poor and weak of mind.
This is an "Appeal to Athority" argument. (http://"Appeal to Athority" argument.) A well known fallicy of logic.
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
Hear that everyone? McTwunt has just proven that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Decartes, Tolkien, Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Dante, Madeline L'Engle, Isaac Newton, Sir Richard Owen, Edward Drinker Cope, Georges Cuvier, Robert T. Bakker, T. S. Eliot, Milton, Bach, Michelangelo, Bonaventura, Scotus, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kelper, Newman, Pasteur, Kierkagaard, Chesteron, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Mendel, and Solzhenitsyn were all poor and weak of mind.
This is an "Appeal to Athority" argument. (http://"Appeal to Athority" argument.) A well known fallicy of logic.
Ceratinly isn't. McJ's statement was that the religious are the weakest minds,
and Thag was simply pointing a list of those whom he considers less than weak.
Just naming names does not make an appeal to athority.
-
No, McJ said that religious people TEND to be poor and weak.
If you think it's not an Appeal to Athority, then what error of logic does it contain??
-
Never really worried about the names of the
fallacies.
McJ's statement is lacking ANY support whatsoever.
Thag's makes the movement from a small number of
strong minds to an attempt to disprove that the weak
ones practice religion in greater numbers. It's an answer
to a different issue.
But, one can't expect anyone to clearly lay out a fully developed
argument, just for the shits and giggles. To me, it's a fairly telling
blow, against McJ's position, showing that indeed, some very strong
minds do believe - and given that his claim was entirely unsubstantiated
is certainly better defended.
-
Never really worried about the names of the
fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)
-
Thag's makes the movement from a small number of
strong minds to an attempt to disprove that the weak
ones practice religion in greater numbers. It's an answer
to a different issue.
Which is to say that Thag's response is a non-sequitur.
-
Thag's makes the movement from a small number of
strong minds to an attempt to disprove that the weak
ones practice religion in greater numbers. It's an answer
to a different issue.
Which is to say that Thag's response is a non-sequitur.
Still more telling than the original statement,
which was stated as fact, but completely
unsupported.
-
Still more telling than the original statement,
which was stated as fact, but completely
unsupported.
There's no way to quantify "Weak of mind". How is he supposed to support an argument like that??
I tend to agree though, religion tends to target those who are vulnerable. (children born into religious families and those who have limited options)
-
Vulnerable strikes me as VERY different
from what I see as "weak of mind." Someone
like Scotus, whose writings are so complex that
they are nearly indecipherable, was certainly not
weak of mind. Yet, the nature of his age was such
that there was no real option.
Then again, even religion is difficult to pin down.
Some pure form of Buddhism seems very unlike
what we would consider a religion at all.
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
You're forgetting about the rich who buy their way into heaven. There's churches every 500 yards where I live.
you live in a rich neighbourhood?
churches in america are mostly tax scams.
the word i was looking for is HOPE. meant to satisfy a normally mundane existance.
Actually, it does alleviate depression in some people for that very reason (hope), so in those cases, if it's not hurting anyone, I'd say "don't knock it." I'd rather "find god" than have to take antidepressants my whole life, given the two options. Finding god won't wreck my liver (or any other organs the medication decides to attack), plus it might give me something in common with other people, allowing me to broaden my social network, which in turn is another thing that tends to help with depression. (Of course, religion makes me more depressed, personally, but I don't fault Christianity for that. I fault certain specific Christians for that.)
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
Hear that everyone? McTwunt has just proven that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Decartes, Tolkien, Lewis, Luther, Calvin, Dante, Madeline L'Engle, Isaac Newton, Sir Richard Owen, Edward Drinker Cope, Georges Cuvier, Robert T. Bakker, T. S. Eliot, Milton, Bach, Michelangelo, Bonaventura, Scotus, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kelper, Newman, Pasteur, Kierkagaard, Chesteron, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Mendel, and Solzhenitsyn were all poor and weak of mind.
thanks for the history lesson.
the times have certainly changed and people are more educated now. science has changed alot of peoples perceptions about several things.
also, how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
maybe i should have clarified....in modern times.
though, many people that you named (during their time-period) religion was the quickest and most sure fire way to power.
is this enough for you to not act like a condescending twunt? or do i need to write a 10,000 word essay?
edit: you forgot to name Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. what about orel roberts, jessy helms, and pat robertson?
-
why do the poor and weak of mind tend to practice a religion more than any other?
You're forgetting about the rich who buy their way into heaven. There's churches every 500 yards where I live.
you live in a rich neighbourhood?
churches in america are mostly tax scams.
the word i was looking for is HOPE. meant to satisfy a normally mundane existance.
Actually, it does alleviate depression in some people for that very reason (hope), so in those cases, if it's not hurting anyone, I'd say "don't knock it." I'd rather "find god" than have to take antidepressants my whole life, given the two options. Finding god won't wreck my liver (or any other organs the medication decides to attack), plus it might give me something in common with other people, allowing me to broaden my social network, which in turn is another thing that tends to help with depression. (Of course, religion makes me more depressed, personally, but I don't fault Christianity for that. I fault certain specific Christians for that.)
i could agree with this use for religion. same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.
-
i could agree with this use for religion. same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.
I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult." I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.
-
i could agree with this use for religion. same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.
I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult." I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.
hale bopp's and the jim jones peoples come to mind. these people were taking their salvation into their own hands and speeding up the process. they died happy, did they not?
also, the hari krishna's seem like the happiest people in the world.
religion is a unifying force. nothing wrong with giving people hope. take a good look around at the secular world....there isn't much hope here.
-
In Reading the Koran (It is a version translated by NJ Dawood in plain modern English), especially the chronically latter verses, which come first in the Koran interestingly enough. The Koran talks a lot about fighting the disbelievers and/or how the disbelievers are going to meet a terrible fate in the afterworld, there is a verse intersting Sura 2 which says 'Fight for the sake of god those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love agressors', although further on the Koran says bloodshed is less worse than idolatry.
Sura 9 is interesting, 'A Declaration of Immunity from god and his apostle (Muhammad) to the idolaters (Non-Muslims) with whom you have made agreements'. further 'Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, expect to those idolaters who honored their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against the you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous.
The Koran confirms that Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion, there are a lot of laws in the Koran, such as those in inheritance, status of women, divorce, punishments. The Koran says about women they are worth half a man, those punishments and laws they meter out in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Taliban era Afghanistan are laid out in the Koran.
-
... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.
-
In Reading the Koran (It is a version translated by NJ Dawood in plain modern English), especially the chronically latter verses, which come first in the Koran interestingly enough. The Koran talks a lot about fighting the disbelievers and/or how the disbelievers are going to meet a terrible fate in the afterworld, there is a verse intersting Sura 2 which says 'Fight for the sake of god those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love agressors', although further on the Koran says bloodshed is less worse than idolatry.
Sura 9 is interesting, 'A Declaration of Immunity from god and his apostle (Muhammad) to the idolaters (Non-Muslims) with whom you have made agreements'. further 'Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, expect to those idolaters who honored their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against the you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous.
The Koran confirms that Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion, there are a lot of laws in the Koran, such as those in inheritance, status of women, divorce, punishments. The Koran says about women they are worth half a man, those punishments and laws they meter out in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Taliban era Afghanistan are laid out in the Koran.
[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. Thus, those who immigrate, and get evicted from their homes, and are persecuted because of Me, and fight and get killed, I will surely remit their sins and admit them into gardens with flowing streams." Such is the reward from GOD. GOD possesses the ultimate reward.
Do not confuse what The Koran says with what some Muslim countries advocate.
Regarding Sura 9, perhaps you'd better quote the rest:
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
God does indeed not love the aggressor.
-
... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.
zoom.
hear that?
that was the point going right over your head.
-
So, is it only idol-worshippers that are to be slaughtered? Are atheists safe?
-
i could agree with this use for religion. same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.
I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult." I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.
hale bopp's and the jim jones peoples come to mind. these people were taking their salvation into their own hands and speeding up the process. they died happy, did they not?
also, the hari krishna's seem like the happiest people in the world.
religion is a unifying force. nothing wrong with giving people hope. take a good look around at the secular world....there isn't much hope here.
I'll pretend that I'm sure that you're being sincere; I can't really hold that much esteem for a religion/cult that actively encourages the end of human life to such an extent, but I don't see all that much wrong with the hari krishnas in compairson to other popular religions, though all I know I picked up just now from wiki.
As for hope in religion vs. hope in the secular world, I think that whether or not you see hope in something depends on your personal experiences with it/ability to think clearly about it. Although, to be fair, in the most cosmic sense, religions promising eternal afterlives do have more hope than the secular world, because earth, the solar system, and the universe itself are expected to crap out eventually, to my understanding.
-
So, is it only idol-worshippers that are to be slaughtered? Are atheists safe?
Not if they are the aggressors.
-
i could agree with this use for religion. same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.
I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult." I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.
hale bopp's and the jim jones peoples come to mind. these people were taking their salvation into their own hands and speeding up the process. they died happy, did they not?
also, the hari krishna's seem like the happiest people in the world.
religion is a unifying force. nothing wrong with giving people hope. take a good look around at the secular world....there isn't much hope here.
I'll pretend that I'm sure that you're being sincere; I can't really hold that much esteem for a religion/cult that actively encourages the end of human life to such an extent, but I don't see all that much wrong with the hari krishnas in compairson to other popular religions, though all I know I picked up just now from wiki.
As for hope in religion vs. hope in the secular world, I think that whether or not you see hope in something depends on your personal experiences with it/ability to think clearly about it. Although, to be fair, in the most cosmic sense, religions promising eternal afterlives do have more hope than the secular world, because earth, the solar system, and the universe itself are expected to crap out eventually, to my understanding.
i was being serious.
they all offer a sense of belonging and hope.
even the cults where the members killed themselves, they did so as a group and with the confidence that they were going to a better place.
-
OK. I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.
-
OK. I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.
i really think that they are all cults. which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.
-
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
What version you quoted may I ask?, I am reading version translated by NJ Dawood, which was published by Penguin Books, in this version
9-5 goes like this
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them, and lie in ambush, everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
The meaning I get is once such agreements with Disbelievers have expired, providing before hand that the disbelivers have honored the treaties they have made with you in every detail. Outside the holy months, it is fair game to fight the disbelivers, oh that if such a treaty has not been honored in full, that treaty is considered broken.
-
OK. I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.
i really think that they are all cults. which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.
I figured you probably though of all organized religion as some kind of cult.
-
OK. I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.
i really think that they are all cults. which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.
I figured you probably though of all organized religion as some kind of cult.
yes, but this does not negate their utility.
-
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
What version you quoted may I ask?, I am reading version translated by NJ Dawood, which was published by Penguin Books, in this version
9-5 goes like this
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them, and lie in ambush, everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
The meaning I get is once such agreements with Disbelievers have expired, providing before hand that the disbelivers have honored the treaties they have made with you in every detail. Outside the holy months, it is fair game to fight the disbelivers, oh that if such a treaty has not been honored in full, that treaty is considered broken.
I usually browse the one available at http://www.submission.info/quran/.
The Dawood translation has been cast into doubt many times, for example, in this article (http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035). Here's an interesting quote (but do read the entire article):
Consider, for example, the most widely available translation in English, by N J Dawood, the first edition of which was published by Penguin in 1956. This translation subverts the original in several ways. Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning. In 2:217, for example, we read: "idolatry is worse than carnage". The word translated as "idolatry" is "fitna", which actually means persecution or oppression. Dawood's translation conveys an impression that the Qur'an will put up with carnage but not idolatry. In fact, the Qur'an is making persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder. The extract should read: "oppression is more awesome than killing".
Here's another that I find interesting:
This is why, as Abdel Haleem points out in the introduction, you cannot lift a single verse out of context and use it to argue a point or to show what the Qur'an has to say about something. To illustrate the point, he refers to the oft-quoted verse "Slay them wherever you find them" (2:191). This was taken out of context by Dawood, Haleem argues, and thus used to justify the claim that the Qur'an sanctions violence against non-Muslims; and, after 9/11, to rationalise the actions of extremists. In fact, the only situation in which the Qur'an sanctions violence is in self-defence. This particular verse has a context: the Muslims, performing pilgrimage in the sacred precinct in Mecca, were under attack and did not know whether they were permitted to retaliate. The verse permits them to fight back on this - but not necessarily any other - occasion.
-
I have little reason to doubt the language which protrayed in translation of the Koran I have read, the language is the same as Old Testament, which is equally as bellcose.
However Judaism has been a religion of minorities living under the rule of others, prescuted and marginalised for 2000 years. Which has changed the religion. However Islam from day one for the last 1400 years has been the religion of rulers, the doctrine of expanding Islamic rule to the whole world, if necessary by war and conquest, is built into the theology of about every orthodox sect of Islam.
The jihadists are merely following Islamic tradition, set down by the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and Ottoman Empire, along with many other smaller kingdoms and empires who spread Islam through conquest. Right now a suprisingly large proporation of the world's conflicts involve Muslim populations and their non-muslim neighbours and the main threat of terrorism is from the jihadists.
-
I have little reason to doubt the language which protrayed in translation of the Koran I have read, the language is the same as Old Testament, which is equally as bellcose.
However Judaism has been a religion of minorities living under the rule of others, prescuted and marginalised for 2000 years. Which has changed the religion. However Islam from day one for the last 1400 years has been the religion of rulers, the doctrine of expanding Islamic rule to the whole world, if necessary by war and conquest, is built into the theology of about every orthodox sect of Islam.
The jihadists are merely following Islamic tradition, set down by the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and Ottoman Empire, along with many other smaller kingdoms and empires who spread Islam through conquest. Right now a suprisingly large proporation of the world's conflicts involve Muslim populations and their non-muslim neighbours and the main threat of terrorism is from the jihadists.
Translation: "I'll continue to believe in what I believe in, no matter what you say." You're full of hot air and little else, choosing the swallow the propaganda whole. It's cute when you say "I have little reason to doubt..." but where's your evidence? Or didn't the puppet masters give you every answer? Don't you think you should start thinking for yourself?
It is interesting how you choose to interpret what is happening around the world today. Yes, quite a few of the world's conflicts involve Muslims. I wonder why that is--don't you? Let's take one: Palestine. There are Muslim (and Christian) refugees that have been living in camps since 1949, after Israel was formed, driven from their homes. I don't deny Israel's rights in any way, but it is interesting how you choose Judaism as an example, considering how they deny the Palestinians their rights.
(This is where you'll shut your ears and repeat the mantra "suicide bombers, sucide bombers"...)
Or take another, Iraq. The Muslims weren't the aggressors, the US was.They started a war based an false evidence and unsurprisingly, chaos ensued. Is this the conflict on your mind?
(This is where you say "Saddam was evil, we were right in overthrowing him"...)
Or take what's happening throughout the Western world, with Islamophobia on the rise through the likes of yourself and others. Plenty of aggression, plenty of propaganda, plenty of persecution. Yet, what people see are things like the murder of Theo van Gogh.
(Several options available for you here, from honour killings to female circumcision; pick one... the idea is to counter with something universally accepted as horrible and thus not have to talk about what is done against the Muslims, every day. )
"Jihadist" is a cute word, btw, but did you stop for long enough to check what the word "jihad" actually means, or what most Muslims have to say about terrorism? Here's a link (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015814&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE) for you.
I know you'll label me as a "Muslim apologist" and whatnot, but you really go out of your way to show how little some have learned from what happened to the Jews during the second world war.
-
Translation: "I'll continue to believe in what I believe in, no matter what you say." You're full of hot air and little else, choosing the swallow the propaganda whole. It's cute when you say "I have little reason to doubt..." but where's your evidence? Or didn't the puppet masters give you every answer? Don't you think you should start thinking for yourself?
It is interesting how you choose to interpret what is happening around the world today. Yes, quite a few of the world's conflicts involve Muslims. I wonder why that is--don't you? Let's take one: Palestine. There are Muslim (and Christian) refugees that have been living in camps since 1949, after Israel was formed, driven from their homes. I don't deny Israel's rights in any way, but it is interesting how you choose Judaism as an example, considering how they deny the Palestinians their rights.
I chose pre-rabbical Judaism, which existed before the destruction of the second temple by the Romans. Not modern Judaism which is quite different.
Might I refer you to the fact that Arabs living in the state of Israel have equal rights to Jewish population and indeed enjoy better rights than in any other Arab country.
Those Arab states could have integrated the refugees from today's Israel and Palestinian territories successfully, back at the end of World War II, millions of ethnic Germans were deported from places Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia. They had lived in those places for many centuries and in some areas were wholly German (like East Prussia or Sudetenland). However the German government saw to it they would be integrated into German society. However the Arab states saw to it they would remain in refugee camps for nearly SIXTY years, because they had this belief that the Israeli state will be destroyed in the long run.
The modern Jewish-Arab conflict started when the first ancient alien settlers moved into Palestine in the late 19th century and refused to live as Dhimmi's. The status conferred to people's of the book (Jews and Muslims) living under Muslim rule, which is described by Koran sura 9:29
Fight against such those to whom Scriptures were given to believe in neither God or Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute our of hand or utterly subduded.
I am not making the Israeli's into total saints, however their conduct has been remarkably restrained.
-
Might I refer you to the fact that Arabs living in the state of Israel have equal rights to Jewish population and indeed enjoy better rights than in any other Arab country.
Yeah, right, as long as they don't require their own country, in which case they are severely discriminated.
-
... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.
zoom.
hear that?
that was the point going right over your head.
The point being what? I really don't get why you'd try
to defame these men with a claim which was patently
untrue.
-
... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.
zoom.
hear that?
that was the point going right over your head.
The point being what? I really don't get why you'd try
to defame these men with a claim which was patently
untrue.
you quoted me out of context.
some of these men lived in a time when the population pbelieved the world was flat. most of the rest lived before science has learned many other things.
once we can map the human genome and use it to cure all sorts of natural illnesses, have super babies, and whatnot, then humankind IS god.
-
... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?
I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.
zoom.
hear that?
that was the point going right over your head.
The point being what? I really don't get why you'd try
to defame these men with a claim which was patently
untrue.
you quoted me out of context.
some of these men lived in a time when the population pbelieved the world was flat. most of the rest lived before science has learned many other things.
once we can map the human genome and use it to cure all sorts of natural illnesses, have super babies, and whatnot, then humankind IS god.
But, one must defend those that they respect.
Those men were not weak of mind, nor did they
believe what "the population" did. Like most
learned men of their times, they had pretty
good reason to know that the earth was
round. NOW, had you said that they beleived
that it stood still, I'd have felt no reason to
disagree.
-
Yeah, right, as long as they don't require their own country, in which case they are severely discriminated.
Might I refer you to two facts, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people before six day war. When the PLO was originally founded it's aim was for the conquest of Israel, not self rule for West Bank and Gaza then under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. I call them accurately Arabs instead of Palestinians.
The Israeli Arabs if they wanted to they can become full participants of the Israeli state, the Druze have already done so. There is no offical discrimination against the Israeli Arabs.
-
official discrimination? official? oh, well, that's all right then, as long as it isn't official.
(ingenuous, or what?)
-
Yeah, right, as long as they don't require their own country, in which case they are severely discriminated.
Might I refer you to two facts, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people before six day war. When the PLO was originally founded it's aim was for the conquest of Israel, not self rule for West Bank and Gaza then under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. I call them accurately Arabs instead of Palestinians.
I'm sure they'll listen and change their ways. ::)
The Israeli Arabs if they wanted to they can become full participants of the Israeli state, the Druze have already done so. There is no offical discrimination against the Israeli Arabs.
There's no "official" persecution of Muslims in Western countries either.
But tell me, Teejay, do you support an independent Australia?
-
official discrimination? official? oh, well, that's all right then, as long as it isn't official.
(ingenuous, or what?)
I would not be surpised if there was unoffical discrimination in Israeli society towards the Arabs. However there is unoffical discrimination aganist minority groups just about everywhere. Even in the most democratic nations, it is human nature.
-
There's no "official" persecution of Muslims in Western countries either.
In my country there is no offical discrimination, let alone presecution of Muslims.
I'm seen an exteremist because I want governments to criticise Islamic theology which believies in the supremecy of Islamic rule and Sharia over the world, lack of any equal rights given to non-believers (as opposed to dignity of all people before God which is preached by Judaism and Christianity, which is a bedrock of human rights) and the treating of Islamic organisations who believe in as political rather than religious.
Muslims are free to practice their religion so long as they respect our customs and values* which clash with orthodox Islamic teaching. If they can't and start joining groups wanting to introduce the Sharia as law they should be kicked out of the country or jailed (much the same was done to Fascists and Communists who preached the overthrow of Democratic governments).
Democracy is not a suicide pact.
But tell me, Teejay, do you support an independent Australia?
Yes to a degree, I say that because I am a supporter of a democratically elected global government. Which would require the countries becoming a part of it (it would be limited to real democratic nations) giving up their powers over trade, immigration, money, defence.
* Meaning secular law, equal rights for women, homosexuals and people of different religious beliefs
-
There's no "official" persecution of Muslims in Western countries either.
In my country there is no offical discrimination, let alone presecution of Muslims.
I'm seen an exteremist because I want governments to criticise Islamic theology which believies in the supremecy of Islamic rule and Sharia over the world, lack of any equal rights given to non-believers (as opposed to dignity of all people before God which is preached by Judaism and Christianity, which is a bedrock of human rights) and the treating of Islamic organisations who believe in as political rather than religious.
Muslims are free to practice their religion so long as they respect our customs and values* which clash with orthodox Islamic teaching. If they can't and start joining groups wanting to introduce the Sharia as law they should be kicked out of the country or jailed (much the same was done to Fascists and Communists who preached the overthrow of Democratic governments).
Democracy is not a suicide pact.
But tell me, Teejay, do you support an independent Australia?
Yes to a degree, I say that because I am a supporter of a democratically elected global government. Which would require the countries becoming a part of it (it would be limited to real democratic nations) giving up their powers over trade, immigration, money, defence.
* Meaning secular law, equal rights for women, homosexuals and people of different religious beliefs
Point is, though, that you not only want to kick the Muslims out, you want to start a new crusade and hunt them down.. How is a crusade compatible with this:
* Meaning secular law, equal rights for women, homosexuals and people of different religious beliefs
Get rid of that Koran translation. You're getting it all wrong.
-
Point is, though, that you not only want to kick the Muslims out, you want to start a new crusade and hunt them down.. How is a crusade compatible with this
Let me explain, I want to kick out those Muslims who preach that secular law and equality of all before the law, should be replaced with the sharia as law (which is opposed to these notions). A lot of Muslims living in western countries accept secular law and equality before the law and pose no threat, but a minority do and they need to be deported if need be.
Here are the meanings of term crusade,
• noun 1 any of a series of medieval military expeditions made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2 an energetic organized campaign with a political, social, or religious aim: a crusade against crime.
When I say crusade I mean the second meaning. The crusade I propose will involve wars yes, maybe against states like Iran, certainly against Islamic militant groups.
Also it will involve things like trying to change with various methods like propaganda, cutting off aid and other ties to Muslim countries with cut off of ties who do not accept equality of all before the law, genuine freedom of religion, genuine equality for women, renouncing the sharia as law or even paying lip service to it and the doctrine of Islamic supremacy over the world.
I think only Turkey has done nearly all these of those things, namely renounce the Sharia as law or even pay lip service to it. Even then Turkey does not have genuine freedom of religion, Christian converts from Islam are often jailed. It is worse in other Muslim countries, you can be jailed there for converting to another religion Islam or even executed.
-
You're backing away from your original ideas with a new crusade. That's good. You still have some way to go before understanding that not everyone sees western civilization as their ultimate goal, but there's definitely been progress.