NationStates Jolt Archive

"The Muslims" and their darn hive-mind. Why I oughta ...
Quit spoiling my fun.

it's sad that the world cup would allow a brothel advertisement to take advantage of this game (soccer championship). I mean, what does soccer got to do with hookers? Some people never do their homework right and when its too late, they pretend to be the victims of their own creations. As for the threats given by so-called muslims, well that's not also the smart thing to do and it doesn't help their agenda. They should have, in a calm manner, approached (or phoned) the people behind the advertisement and tell them what they were feeling and how it upset them. You can't convince someone how wrong they are with a threat, that'll just get them defensive.

it's sad that the world cup would allow a brothel advertisement to take advantage of this game (soccer championship). I mean, what does soccer got to do with hookers? Some people never do their homework right and when its too late, they pretend to be the victims of their own creations. As for the threats given by so-called muslims, well that's not also the smart thing to do and it doesn't help their agenda. They should have, in a calm manner, approached (or phoned) the people behind the advertisement and tell them what they were feeling and how it upset them. You can't convince someone how wrong they are with a threat, that'll just get them defensive.
How can you have soccer without prostitutes? How can you have any professional sport for that matter without prostitutes? Hookers and sport just go together well.

it's sad that the world cup would allow a brothel advertisement to take advantage of this game (soccer championship). I mean, what does soccer got to do with hookers? Some people never do their homework right and when its too late, they pretend to be the victims of their own creations. As for the threats given by so-called muslims, well that's not also the smart thing to do and it doesn't help their agenda. They should have, in a calm manner, approached (or phoned) the people behind the advertisement and tell them what they were feeling and how it upset them. You can't convince someone how wrong they are with a threat, that'll just get them defensive.
oh i'd say they were all kinds of convincing, since the flags aren't up anymore.

the 'world cup' does not 'allow' anything. FIFA might well take exception, since they regulate football's image, but the world cup is about money as much as everything else, and prostitution is legit.

it's sad that the world cup would allow a brothel advertisement to take advantage of this game (soccer championship). I mean, what does soccer got to do with hookers? Some people never do their homework right and when its too late, they pretend to be the victims of their own creations. .....
Football, not soccer, was invented by 11th century nuns in Southminster Abbey. They later fell out of grace with the rest of the church, and were forced into prostitution. Some of their more famous clientele is allegedly disclosed in documents currently held by the Vatican, being used for leverage during business negotiations at critical moments. Throughout their prostitutional careers the nuns never gave up their love of the game. It was originally played on a small table, with the testicles of non-paying customers. Hence the word football, hence the connection.

I absolutely agree they should have the right to protest. I don't personally agree with them, but the freedom of expression and petition are some of the freedoms that make Western civilization so great. HOWEVER, they shouldn't be allowed to make signs that say things like "Death to the West" or "Europe, you're 9/11 is coming"

The best way to protect the culture of the West is by violating the tenets of that culture: freedom of speech?

Football, not soccer, was invented by 11th century nuns in Southminster Abbey. They later fell out of grace with the rest of the church, and were forced into prostitution. Some of their more famous clientele is allegedly disclosed in documents currently held by the Vatican, being used for leverage during business negotiations at critical moments. Throughout their prostitutional careers the nuns never gave up their love of the game. It was originally played on a small table, with the testicles of non-paying customers. Hence the word football, hence the connection.
...proof?

Football, not soccer, was invented by 11th century nuns in Southminster Abbey. They later fell out of grace with the rest of the church, and were forced into prostitution. Some of their more famous clientele is allegedly disclosed in documents currently held by the Vatican, being used for leverage during business negotiations at critical moments. Throughout their prostitutional careers the nuns never gave up their love of the game. It was originally played on a small table, with the testicles of non-paying customers. Hence the word football, hence the connection.

I was going to give you a "Classic!" for this one and then I realized that if nuns invented it BEFORE becoming prostitutes, as it was the reason for them becoming prostitutes, how could it have been played with the testicles of non-paying customers. Is there something we don't know about the habits of nuns?

I was going to give you a "Classic!" for this one and then I realized that if nuns invented it BEFORE becoming prostitutes, as it was the reason for them becoming prostitutes, how could it have been played with the testicles of non-paying customers. Is there something we don't know about the habits of nuns?
i believe history has it that it was played with coconuts (the migratory variety) prior to their excommunication, but due to a shortage of african swallows, the nuns began to use mannuts. This little known large nut went extinct due to over-footballing, and when football and the world cup was revived in the late 14th century, the old texts were misinterpreted as 'man nuts' not mannuts. thus you have it.
EDIT: incidentally, this explains some women's unfortunate tendencies to aim for the groin instead of the ball in coed leagues.

...proof?
I'll vouch for that story. It makes sense to me.

...proof?
Yes, it's been proven.

Yes, it's been proven.
I meant show me proof.

I meant show me proof.

We voted. It's true. Once some of the small inaccuracies were cleared up.

The best way to protect the culture of the West is by violating the tenets of that culture: freedom of speech?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that rights are indivisible, in other words, one right cannot be read while others ignored. In the case of situations where there appears to be 'competing' rights - such as the typical freedom of speech vs right not to have ones religion/race/etc demeanoured, there can be made a 'priority' of rights based on the 'spirit' of the declaration.
In the case of the recent case of the Muhammad cartoons, there is NO right to demean someone's religious beliefs by way of offensive actions, you can publish whatever you want WITHIN these boundaries. Any human rights lawyer would agree. You are free to publish whatever you want, except certain things that are injurious to the public good, or publications that tarnish negatively ALL members of a race/religion/gender.

I think in the case of the world cup advert used in this thread, there is no targetting of muslims, nor an attempt made to link islam with prostitution in a way that suggests 'if you are muslim, you frequent prostitutes'. Other countries were represented, and the basis for it was the world cup. The only group insulted may have been 'soccer fans'. But they are not a 'community' as defined in human rights common law.

Freedom of speech without restraint led to nazi germany, the genocide in yugoslavia, and in rwanda. The media trumpeted hate speech and intolerance towards 'the other' group(s) in the community and formed an environment ripe for conflict (see academic discussions on 'steps of genocide').

You might have to be a bit more creative, intelligent, smarter to make a point (eg, a lot of suicide bombers are muslim) without insulting a religion/race/gender (eg, followers of islam may be suicide bombers) but thats a good thing. Those who dont understand the sutle difference between the above two 'egs' probably should be fanning the flames of ignorance in threads like this.

I meant show me proof.
clearly, since quagmus was able to allude to the event, and another person (me) was able to fill in details of the same event, it must be true.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that rights are indivisible, in other words, one right cannot be read while others ignored. In the case of situations where there appears to be 'competing' rights - such as the typical freedom of speech vs right not to have ones religion/race/etc demeanoured, there can be made a 'priority' of rights based on the 'spirit' of the declaration.
In the case of the recent case of the Muhammad cartoons, there is NO right to demean someone's religious beliefs by way of offensive actions, you can publish whatever you want WITHIN these boundaries. Any human rights lawyer would agree. You are free to publish whatever you want, except certain things that are injurious to the public good, or publications that tarnish negatively ALL members of a race/religion/gender.

I think in the case of the world cup advert used in this thread, there is no targetting of muslims, nor an attempt made to link islam with prostitution in a way that suggests 'if you are muslim, you frequent prostitutes'. Other countries were represented, and the basis for it was the world cup. The only group insulted may have been 'soccer fans'. But they are not a 'community' as defined in human rights common law.

Freedom of speech without restraint led to nazi germany, the genocide in yugoslavia, and in rwanda. The media trumpeted hate speech and intolerance towards 'the other' group(s) in the community and formed an environment ripe for conflict (see academic discussions on 'steps of genocide').

You might have to be a bit more creative, intelligent, smarter to make a point (eg, a lot of suicide bombers are muslim) without insulting a religion/race/gender (eg, followers of islam may be suicide bombers) but thats a good thing. Those who dont understand the sutle difference between the above two 'egs' probably should be fanning the flames of ignorance in threads like this.
I know of no human rights lawyers that suggest that free speech should be limited in the way you suggest, even though you try to appeal to popularity in your claim.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I found no 'right to not have one's religion demeaned'. Perhaps you can find it for me. Free speech doesn't mean only the speech we approve of.

I'd also like a little support for the wild assertions that aren't already shown to be patently false. How does unfettered freedom of speech lead to genocide? I'm a good jumper but I couldn't make that leap.

Anyway, I'm already ever so curious what the Religionists of Peace are gonna do THIS time.

Jihad! Ayiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyi! Or words to that effect.

I meant show me proof.
What kind of proof do you need? There is public consensus, it is common knowledge, the research has been done. Actually I am surprised you didn't know.

The only group insulted may have been 'soccer fans'. But they are not a 'community' as defined in human rights common law.
in canada, if enough people identify themselves as belonging to a community, the community must legally be recognized. this led to the movement a few years ago to declare 'jedi' as one's community. don't think it worked tho. i would certainly declare 'hooligan'.

What kind of proof do you need? There is public consensus, it is common knowledge, the research has been done. Actually I am surprised you didn't know.
There are a lot of things people in Europe know as common knowledge that is not known in the United States.

There are a lot of things people in Europe know as common knowledge that is not known in the United States.

I'm not from Europe and I know it. Do a little research and stop being so lazy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that rights are indivisible, in other words, one right cannot be read while others ignored. In the case of situations where there appears to be 'competing' rights - such as the typical freedom of speech vs right not to have ones religion/race/etc demeanoured, there can be made a 'priority' of rights based on the 'spirit' of the declaration.
In the case of the recent case of the Muhammad cartoons, there is NO right to demean someone's religious beliefs by way of offensive actions, you can publish whatever you want WITHIN these boundaries. Any human rights lawyer would agree. You are free to publish whatever you want, except certain things that are injurious to the public good, or publications that tarnish negatively ALL members of a race/religion/gender.

I think in the case of the world cup advert used in this thread, there is no targetting of muslims, nor an attempt made to link islam with prostitution in a way that suggests 'if you are muslim, you frequent prostitutes'. Other countries were represented, and the basis for it was the world cup. The only group insulted may have been 'soccer fans'. But they are not a 'community' as defined in human rights common law.

Freedom of speech without restraint led to nazi germany, the genocide in yugoslavia, and in rwanda. The media trumpeted hate speech and intolerance towards 'the other' group(s) in the community and formed an environment ripe for conflict (see academic discussions on 'steps of genocide').

You might have to be a bit more creative, intelligent, smarter to make a point (eg, a lot of suicide bombers are muslim) without insulting a religion/race/gender (eg, followers of islam may be suicide bombers) but thats a good thing. Those who dont understand the sutle difference between the above two 'egs' probably should be fanning the flames of ignorance in threads like this.

Meh. Most of your rhetoric is mis-aimed. My sarcasm was at those who would deny free speech to Muslims simply because they do not like what they say.

As for your assertions about what "any human rights lawyer" would say, that is a fallacious appeal to authority. It is particularly ironic in this case.

I do not recognize that there is a right not "have ones religion/race/etc demeanoured." Can you point to where it is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

I think that certain speech ought not to occur but that does not mean that I agree it should be outlawed. The marketplace of ideas is a morally superior and more efficient means of destroying bad ideas than government oppression.

The best cure for hate speech is anti-hate speech.

I know of no human rights lawyers that suggest that free speech should be limited in the way you suggest, even though you try to appeal to popularity in your claim.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I found no 'right to not have one's religion demeaned'. Perhaps you can find it for me. Free speech doesn't mean only the speech we approve of.

I'd also like a little support for the wild assertions that aren't already shown to be patently false. How does unfettered freedom of speech lead to genocide? I'm a good jumper but I couldn't make that leap.
from the european charter of human rights:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.

as for the leading to genocide part, radio stations in rwanda were very busy inciting the slaughter.

In their defense later, claims were made that freedom of speech granted them this right. Didn't work. Nice try though.

I'm not from Europe and I know it. Do a little research and stop being so lazy.
play nicely. (s)he has every right to come to the general forums and learn new and interesting facts that it might never have even occurred to him/her to even do research about. such as the true origins of the World Cup.

play nicely. (s)he has every right to come to the general forums and learn new and interesting facts that it might never have even occurred to him/her to even do research about. such as the true origins of the World Cup.
Certainly not something I'd have researched on my own. I don't care a whit about sports.

Certainly not something I'd have researched on my own. I don't care a whit about sports.
evidently.
you do realize you've been had?

evidently.
you do realize you've been had?
Of course I do. I just really don't care.

Of course I do. I just really don't care.
ah well, jolly good.

The best cure for hate speech is anti-hate speech.
what is anti-hate speech? is it like Barney the big purple dinosaur? if it is, i prefer hate speech...

what is anti-hate speech? is it like Barney the big purple dinosaur? if it is, i prefer hate speech...

*sings "I love you, you love me ...."*

*sings "I love you, you love me ...."*
i'll burn this thread down! that song is an affront to my community of hooligans!

ok i have nothing intelligent to say, cheerio before i also get a forum ban

:D ok ... believe it or not, i have read ALL of the posts in this thread... and amazingly they were all contradictory and unrelated to the topic...

Europe's Problem with the Muslim population is the Same problem the US has with Hispanics,

as for the poster...

the problem is that the Saudi Flag Includes a motto called in islam al-shihada
(la illah illa allah mohamed rasoul allah) there is no god but Allah and Muhamed is his messenger...

this is the motto that must be said for someone to claim his adoption to Islam, so its a pretty holy motto, and is not even allowed for muslims to make it touch the ground, or be around in places that arnt clean, like the Toilet rooms, etc...

and its Definatly not allowed to be worn by a nude gal... but the poster is not about a nude girl wearing the flag, its a nude girl with all of the flags of the World cup nations, so i dont see how is that wrong... im a Muslim and i tell Muslims living in Cologn or whatever, to grow up, because it wasnt meant to be insulting to Islam, unlike the Cartoons that moked the prophet...

fullstop.:D

from the european charter of human rights:


as for the leading to genocide part, radio stations in rwanda were very busy inciting the slaughter.

In their defense later, claims were made that freedom of speech granted them this right. Didn't work. Nice try though.

Inciting violence or riot is against the law in nearly ever country that supports free speech. That has nothing to do with free speech. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is also not protected. That's because it has nothing to do with the expression of ideas. Also, by that measure, if verbally reach an agreement to murder someone their death is a result of free speech. It's nonsensical.

And the part you quote has nothing to do with what you claim. Try again.

Well, Its good to see some Muslims come forward themselves and say "Hey, where not all fanatical loons here man." PErsonally though, I don't think anything is sacred...but thats just me. (I'm, technically, Christain and I make fun of Christ all the time).

Which reminds me, all the kids at school where offended by this, tell me what you think. "Wouldn't it be funny if, like most (Even R rated) movies, there was a bunch of child-oriented merchandise? Like say, pin the saviour on the crucifix, you know, like pin the tail on the donkey?"

And everyone yelled at me. Anyway, did I just offend someone, let me know!

Inciting violence or riot is against the law in nearly ever country that supports free speech. That has nothing to do with free speech. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is also not protected. That's because it has nothing to do with the expression of ideas. Also, by that measure, if verbally reach an agreement to murder someone their death is a result of free speech. It's nonsensical.

And the part you quote has nothing to do with what you claim. Try again.
What was I claiming? I just posted the part of echr which concerns free speech. The charter in its entirety is in my sig.

If you are referring to the rwanda genocide part, try googling rwanda tribunal radio court, or something like that. Using the "search within results" function.

A brothel that has posted a large advertizement consisting of a partially naked woman and the flags of nations participating in the World Cup, including the flags of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries has enraged, guess who? Yep, the Muslims. It seems that using the flags of Muslim nations on a banner bearing a picture of a semi-naked woman is an insult to Islam. Death threats have been issued. Knife-weilding lunatics have shown up at the brothel.

It seems everything is an insult to Islam. Well, Islam is officially now an insult to me. I demand that everyone stop practicing Islam or I will burn down some embassies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4941788.stm

Does this mean that Moslem soccer players and fans won't patronize the brothel? If they do, it can be construed as rank hypocrisy.

The best cure for hate speech is anti-hate speech.

"On this world, hatred cannot be destroyed by hatred.
Only by non-hatred can it be destroyed.
That is the eternal law."
-Budha

"Where wisdom ends, there violence starts.
Therefor, violence is a sign of weakness."
-Dalai Lama

in canada, if enough people identify themselves as belonging to a community, the community must legally be recognized. this led to the movement a few years ago to declare 'jedi' as one's community. don't think it worked tho. i would certainly declare 'hooligan'.


hehehe...yes..I remember 'jedi' being written by many people in new zealand during the last census as their 'religion'. haha!

Muslims - they are acting like fucking spoiled brats! If they don't like Christians, and way we live, they should crowl back to whatever holes they come from! Nowdays everything is an insult to an Islam. Even those gals! Maybe Germans should take those gals from Muslim flags and put bearded terrorist with AK47 instead!

Muslims - they are acting like fucking spoiled brats! If they don't like Christians, and way we live, they should crowl back to whatever holes they come from! Nowdays everything is an insult to an Islam. Even those gals! Maybe Germans should take those gals from Muslim flags and put bearded terrorist with AK47 instead!What makes you think the brothel owner was Christian? Perhaps he's an athiest.

I know of no human rights lawyers that suggest that free speech should be limited in the way you suggest, even though you try to appeal to popularity in your claim.

I was a bit presumptuous perhaps in saying 'no lawyers', however, you are wrong also to suggest the same. My point was that common law has established that there ARE restrictions to freedom of speech, and has spelled out many instances of this - if you read the subsequent Convenants following the Declaration, there is greater clarification of this point. See Article 18, 19, and 20 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I found no 'right to not have one's religion demeaned'. Perhaps you can find it for me. Free speech doesn't mean only the speech we approve of.

It depends, there ARE limits to free speech (as shown in the Articles quoted above) see especially Article 19 (3a,b). However the majority do not have the right to set the limits - article 27 protects minorities. The right not to have ones religion demeaned is given by me in 'apostrophes' as its not a quote from the Declaration. Rather, it stems from the reading together of two Articles - again best to read the Covenant on C & PR Article 18 (1) (2), and Article 19 (3a).

I'd also like a little support for the wild assertions that aren't already shown to be patently false. How does unfettered freedom of speech lead to genocide? I'm a good jumper but I couldn't make that leap.

This has been the subject of many academic books and publications, so I did not want to try summarise it in a few sentences - and in so doing it sounded like a wild leap..sorry. But I tried to give a source to search for - 'steps of genocide'. Here is a link to an article. ....

http://www.genocidewatch.org/7stages.htm

If you have access to academic digital library databases, there will be plenty of reading material for you there too.


Lastly, as a freelance writer, I am vehemently opposed to arbitrary restrictions of my freedom of expression and there are indeed many many instances where unnecessary (unlawful?) censorship takes place to muzzle the media/writers/artists. But that does not mean I feel compelled to defend those who overstep clear boundaries as set forth in the International Bill of Rights.

..........
...but the poster is not about a nude girl wearing the flag, its a nude girl with all of the flags of the World cup nations, so i dont see how is that wrong... im a Muslim and i tell Muslims living in Cologn or whatever, to grow up, because it wasnt meant to be insulting to Islam, unlike the Cartoons that moked the prophet...
fullstop.:D

My point exactly.

Europe's Problem with the Muslim population is the Same problem the US has with Hispanics,

...Im not sure what you mean with this? What do you think the problem US has with Hispanics? (its a genuine question as Im not from USA, nor have ever lived there) From what I hear, its a problem of illegal immigration ....and i dont think thats the problem Europe has with Muslims right?

If the poster had been intentionally designed to cause offence, then I would understanda strong reaction (though death threats are still unnecessary). If the complainers had calmly written in and complained, or reported it to authorites or the press, then I would be wholely on their side.

The problem is (except for serious hardcore fundamentalist Christians) no other group displays this much violent intent.

Sometimes I think we should just chuck all the violent fundamentalists from all religions in a big room and let them slug it out.

As for your assertions about what "any human rights lawyer" would say, that is a fallacious appeal to authority. It is particularly ironic in this case.

Yes I was a dork to make that claim..as confessed in my post above..!

I do not recognize that there is a right not "have ones religion/race/etc demeanoured." Can you point to where it is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Ive made a clarification above in a subsequent post.

I think that certain speech ought not to occur but that does not mean that I agree it should be outlawed. The marketplace of ideas is a morally superior and more efficient means of destroying bad ideas than government oppression.

The best cure for hate speech is anti-hate speech.

Now its your turn to pluck the strings of utopia...! Can you give me an example of the 'market place of ideas' leading to the destruction of bad ideas and of oppressive governments? and also an example of 'anti-hate speech'. Im not being smart ass and discounting their existence, but I cant think of one.....hmmm....I wish you were right...can you think of any examples?

I suspect that the 'marketplace' of ideas may lead to tyranny of the majority and more oppressive governments, and perhaps 'anti-hate' speech is equally as hate ridden if directed against hate speech. A bit like the fine line between terrorism and freedom fighting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4941788.stm

Sorry. I'm feeling half-retarded today.
Half-retarded ha, welcome to my world!

Muslims should stop denying their women the right to show skin.
I wanna see some skin dammit!

Sometimes I think we should just chuck all the violent fundamentalists from all religions in a big room and let them slug it out.

Or, alternatively, we could stop validating their viewpoint by pretending to take them seriously.

Face it. They do this because they know it will always get a rise, and we'll sit here wringing our hands because we are worried whether or not we are offending their 'faith'.

We should stop paying lip service to 'respecting' thier beliefs, and arrest the fuckers every time they make a death threat.

Further, there should be no debate about whether or not having a deeply held belief mitigates their actions. It doesn't, so we should stop talking about it.

What makes you think the brothel owner was Christian? Perhaps he's an athiest.

Maybe he is an atheist! But he is German, and Germany is Christian country.

We should stop paying lip service to 'respecting' thier beliefs, and arrest the fuckers every time they make a death threat.

I agree that there is no excuse for the death threats, and those who wrote them deserve the full punishment of the law, but if they had just complained rationally and calmly, then I would have had no problem respecting their beliefs and wishes.


Further, there should be no debate about whether or not having a deeply held belief mitigates their actions. It doesn't, so we should stop talking about it.

The problem is, they think the exact same thing about your beliefs and actions.

Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
We should stop paying lip service to 'respecting' thier beliefs, and arrest the fuckers every time they make a death threat.

Damned right!

1. I agree that there is no excuse for the death threats, and those who wrote them deserve the full punishment of the law, but if they had just complained rationally and calmly, then I would have had no problem respecting their beliefs and wishes.



2. The problem is, they think the exact same thing about your beliefs and actions.

1. It's OUR neck of the woods, not theirs, so our values prevail.
2. Ditto. Their POV is immaterial.

The only thing that matters is that they should strictly adhere to OUR laws while they reside in OUR jurisdiction.

There is no entitlement to respect for Islam, and none should be given.

The problem is, they think the exact same thing about your beliefs and actions.

They can think what they like about my beliefs, I don't give a shit. I've never used them as an excuse to break the law, or claimed that they were a mitigating factor in my behavior.

Nor do I run around insisting that everyone else show my beliefs 'sensitivity'.

I was a bit presumptuous perhaps in saying 'no lawyers', however, you are wrong also to suggest the same. My point was that common law has established that there ARE restrictions to freedom of speech, and has spelled out many instances of this - if you read the subsequent Convenants following the Declaration, there is greater clarification of this point. See Article 18, 19, and 20 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The idea that there are some limitations on speech is not at issue and does not support your claim.

Nothing that in the articles you cite says that free speech can be infringed simply because someone might be offended.

Article 18 General comment on its implementation
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 20 comes closest to what you say is prohibited, but it expressly does not prohibit "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred" except where such advocacy "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." Thus hate speech is per se free speech: it only becomes prohibited if it also constitutes incitement to further crimes.



It depends, there ARE limits to free speech (as shown in the Articles quoted above) see especially Article 19 (3a,b). However the majority do not have the right to set the limits - article 27 protects minorities. The right not to have ones religion demeaned is given by me in 'apostrophes' as its not a quote from the Declaration. Rather, it stems from the reading together of two Articles - again best to read the Covenant on C & PR Article 18 (1) (2), and Article 19 (3a).

You started out by claiming that all rights provided for in the Declaration were "indivisible" and that were some of those rights conflicted there had to be a prioritization of rights. You claimed the right not to be "demeaned" took priority over freedom of expression.

Free speech is an express right in the Declaration:
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

You now admit that your alleged right to be free from being offended is not contained in the Declaration at all. Nor is it contained in the Covenant on C&PR, but that you infer such a right from reading between the lines of the Covenant.

Pray tell how a right that expressly provided for in the Declaration is prioritized below a right that is at most infered from a sub-document.


Lastly, as a freelance writer, I am vehemently opposed to arbitrary restrictions of my freedom of expression and there are indeed many many instances where unnecessary (unlawful?) censorship takes place to muzzle the media/writers/artists. But that does not mean I feel compelled to defend those who overstep clear boundaries as set forth in the International Bill of Rights.

Free speech that offends some does not "overstep clear boundaries." You have essentially admitted this by your need to creat such boundaries by reading between the lines.

As for all your concern about genocide, the principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree. If you read the article you linked carefully it concedes this point.

1. It's OUR neck of the woods, not theirs, so our values prevail.
2. Ditto. Their POV is immaterial.

The only thing that matters is that they should strictly adhere to OUR laws while they reside in OUR jurisdiction.


I already sad that the ones breaking the law should be arrested for it. That doesn't mean that you should disrespect all of islam. When I'm in muslim countries they don't wave burning bibles at me.


There is no entitlement to respect for Islam, and none should be given.

That is one of the most racist comments I have heard on this forum to date.

1. I already sad that the ones breaking the law should be arrested for it. That doesn't mean that you should disrespect all of islam. When I'm in muslim countries they don't wave burning bibles at me.




2. That is one of the most racist comments I have heard on this forum to date.

1. Required from you: evidence that I have an obligation to respect Islam.
You may start with the EDHR.

2. Go forth and be fruitful.

Required from you: evidence that I have an obligation to respect Islam.


Am I required to respect your religion? No. I could insult it, degrade it's members, make all their lives a living hell, but I don't. Why? Because it's the decent thing to do. If you don't care about that then I deeply pity you.

Am I required to respect your religion? No. I could insult it, degrade it's members, make all their lives a living hell, but I don't. Why? Because it's the decent thing to do. If you don't care about that then I deeply pity you.

Frankly, I care no more for your pity than for your religion, whatever it may be.
So, I reinvite you to go forth and be fruitful.

The matter remains as before.
Our neck of the woods, our rules, and nothing else.

Meanwhile, I await your evidence.0

Am I required to respect your religion? No. I could insult it, degrade it's members, make all their lives a living hell, but I don't. Why? Because it's the decent thing to do. If you don't care about that then I deeply pity you.

This is the problem I'm talking about. Just because someone chooses to blaspheme as Islam understands it, does not mean that individuals are being degraded. They are still free to believe and respect what they wish. They shouldn't expect anyone else to accord their beliefs the same respect however.

Obviously, no one is saying that they should be personally harrassed, but by the same token, no one should countenance the argument that pissing on the koran, or dropping a crucifix in a bucket of blood an urine actually constitutes harassment either.

I really should add that I don't feel the slightest incentive to be decent towards individuals who appearently believe I wage war upon 'em when my country doesn't give loads of dosh to Hamas, or am part of a global community that seeks to enforce peace in Darfur with a UN Mandate.

I have no quarrel with muslims who behave as decent, quiet, lawabiding citizens.
And I fear no quarrel with those who don't behave as decent, quiet, lawabiding citizens.

This is the problem I'm talking about. Just because someone chooses to blaspheme as Islam understands it, does not mean that individuals are being degraded. They are still free to believe and respect what they wish. They shouldn't expect anyone else to accord their beliefs the same respect however.

Obviously, no one is saying that they should be personally harrassed, but by the same token, no one should countenance the argument that pissing on the koran, or dropping a crucifix in a bucket of blood an urine actually constitutes harassment either.

Not in a legal sense, but that doesn't mean you should go around pissing on the koran or dropping the crucifix in a bucket of blood and urine in public.

Not in a legal sense, but that doesn't mean you should go around pissing on the koran or dropping the crucifix in a bucket of blood and urine in public.

It's probably not good manners, nevertheless it's perfectly legal, and anyone who threatens you with bodily harm or harasses you for doing so should be dealt with by the law.

And no-one should countenance the excuse that someones deeply held beliefs were offended.

Further, you have to face facts, we are hypocritical about this whole thing. Salaman Rushdie is still in hiding, and everyone still pays lip service to the clowns who defend those who want to kill him. No-one is making a concerted effort to gun down andre serrano, and what he did is far, far, worse.

I have no quarrel with muslims who behave as decent, quiet, lawabiding citizens.
And I fear no quarrel with those who don't behave as decent, quiet, lawabiding citizens.

Good for you, but you seem to be under the assumption that most muslims are the latter rather than the former.

I respect Islam just like I respect Christianity, despite violent fundamentalists in both religions

Good for you, but you seem to be under the assumption that most muslims are the latter rather than the former.

I respect Islam just like I respect Christianity, despite violent fundamentalists in both religions

*grins*
So it is your assertion then, that I should have the same POV as you?

And further, it would be your assertion that the vociferous crowds who equate The War On Terror with A War On Islam are just a tiny, misbegotten minority, even when opinionpolls carried out over there suggest they are the overwhelming majority?

In other words, the unpleasantries in the Middle East ( burning embassies etc ) never happened at all? Is that your assertion?

Yes, I think that the moderates in Islam are definetely the minority.
The loudmouths seem to outnumber them three to two.
I don't really think that the electoral events in Algeria, Egypt, Gaza and Iran were just statistical flukes.
It's my assertion that the troublemakers are the majority.

Yes, it's provocative, but we do not need to live in fear of offending one another. If the Saudi government wants to cut the hands of anyone who even looks at a copy of the Koran, then they're welcome to, as long as its within their borders. But they have no place nosing into other societies and countries, or into the global community, in order to uphold a religious belief (whether it be a reasonable religious belief or not). We have free speech in the West, and I for one will not be censored by anyone, Muslim or not, for being politically incorrect. It is ignorant for anyone to assume that their own religious beliefs are absolutes that apply to everyone on the entire planet.

It's ignorant for anyone to assume that their own beleifs about human rights are absolutes that apply to everyone on the entire planet.

I'm currently writing an essay on this very issue, many Muslims regard human rights (inc freedom of speech as protected in the UNUDHR) as born out of the specific culture of the developed and rich "west" and see them as not applicable to Muslim societies, viewing the Qur'an as a complete system with it's own protections of rights. The Saudi authorities are well known for holding this position in the debate.

No one is in the right here, the brothel did something stupid, some Muslims over reacted. It's fine for them to be offended, but threatening violence is extreme. And the people who are so stubborn in this are just plain ignorant and immature.

It never hurts to pay a little attention to what one is saying and doing. Especially when the record shows that when a particular group of people are particularly offended they tend to react a certain way. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn't give people the right to needlessly provoke others.

It's a little like a doctor using latex gloves on a patient who's allergic to latex. There are alternative gloves available that won't cause harm, it's the doctor's responsibility to use them.

This forum is an insult to Bhlabla our glorious god.
Our revenge shall b e terrible.
You'll suck our socks in repentance.

In Strasbourg (France) a small charity gave free soup to the poor's.
An islamist group said it's provocation coz it's pork in the soup!

How by evil an islamist can be poor in a country he came to work???
Who said the soup was made for islamist poor people?

Pork is a national delicacy in France, mainly in Strasbourg kingdom of the French sauerkraut.

NOW ENOUGH is enough
Please would stop IMMEDIATELY you beer drinking, that's an offence to Bhlabla our divine god who said beer is satanic.
Any beer drinker shall be impaled with some garlic.

Now pray brother, we shall not have mass celebration now on, to much wine to drink, too many assholes to kill.
Be sober and change your religion. Fu** the goat and drink camel milk. Amen

High Priest on Sunday
Accountant on week days.
Father of your children by night.

...Im not sure what you mean with this? What do you think the problem US has with Hispanics? (its a genuine question as Im not from USA, nor have ever lived there) From what I hear, its a problem of illegal immigration ....and i dont think thats the problem Europe has with Muslims right?

yes it is, Muslims in Europe are treated like Hispanics in the USA, they are l;ooked as the scum of society, and i should know, since i lived in France for 2 years, and i wasnt an Illigal emmigrant, my dad was investing in Europecar, (Very famous French and german rental co.)

anyways, i had to go to an Arab-Muslim school, due to the discrimination the Muslim and Arabs saw, and france is one of the most tolerant to muslims in Europe, after the UK ofcourse....

Europe seeks to be a Multinational area, like the USA, Australia, Canada, etc... but from what i see here its not ready to become one, only the politicians and economists wish for such reputation...



Yes, I think that the moderates in Islam are definetely the minority.
The loudmouths seem to outnumber them three to two.
I don't really think that the electoral events in Algeria, Egypt, Gaza and Iran were just statistical flukes.
It's my assertion that the troublemakers are the majority.

no Moderates Muslims are the Massive majority, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the 6 Continents, if most of them were terrorists, do you think you wouldve been alive today???:headbang: do people get to think before typing stuff??

no Moderates Muslims are the Massive majority, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the 6 Continents, if most of them were terrorists, do you think you wouldve been alive today???:headbang: do people get to think before typing stuff??

So anyone who isn't a terrorist is a moderate? That is your definition?

My definition of a religious moderate is one who understands that religion should be given no place whatsoever in public life. If you think that it is acceptable to wear a burka in public, you fit in my definition of a religious zealot.

NOW ENOUGH is enough
Please would stop IMMEDIATELY you beer drinking, that's an offence to Bhlabla our divine god who said beer is satanic.
Any beer drinker shall be impaled with some garlic.

Now pray brother, we shall not have mass celebration now on, to much wine to drink, too many assholes to kill.
Be sober and change your religion. Fu** the goat and drink camel milk. Amen
I]

im pretty sure that Beer is forbiden in CHristianity too, regardless of the point... why are you being such a retard in your debate, why cant you have a proper repectable debate like the rest of the people around here. well most of them...

if you cant present your point of view in a civilized manor then you should takl to the walls instead... perhaps thell appreciate you attitude...

:(

So anyone who isn't a terrorist is a moderate? That is your definition?

My definition of a religious moderate is one who understands that religion should be given no place whatsoever in public life. If you think that it is acceptable to wear a burka in public, you fit in my definition of a religious zealot.

Is anyone that wears a cross around their neck also a zealot?

What about someone that prays quietly over their food in a public restaurant?

Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. It belongs to all religious viewpoints. To deny religion a place in public is no better than requiring certain religious practices in public.

Funny thing is, way back in the days, when islam just started spreading through the Middle-east, the muslims were in many cases welcomed by the local population because their sharia laws were much fairer and more reasonable than what they experienced under the pre-islam warlords.

Unfortunately, in the Quran is what is considered to be the final and undisputable words of God to man (by muslims, obviously), so they couldn't really be amended over the years. And it is a very important aspect of Islam that what was told to Muhammad was God's Final Commands to humanity, and shouldn't be tampered with by humans. If you have what you believe to be direct commands from the Allmighty and Allknowing Lord in the Sky, you shouldn't change the parts you don't like.

Never mind that Muhammad himself didn't actually write the Quran. People who had heard him speak, and memorized his words, did.

This isn't meant as a defense for muslims; they can defend themselves. But it tickles my musing bone that sharia at one time was considered liberal, in a way.

It still is be many. In Egypt and othe Muslim countries sharia has been used to justify changes in the law to provide more equal rights for women and Islam as a whole has become a driving force for social welfare programmes, education and healthcare.

Even the haddpenalties, considered horrific by many westerners, are so rarely applied (throughout history and geography) because they require almost impossible levels of evidence - adultary requires 4 independent eye witnesses before flogging is considered an option - could be interpretted as liberal as they pretty much account for circumstances, which much of "western" law does not.

The idea that there are some limitations on speech is not at issue and does not support your claim.

Nothing that in the articles you cite says that free speech can be infringed simply because someone might be offended.

Yes agreed. Just because 'someone' takes offense doesnt mean that its an infringement of free speech - thats why I dont see the need to black out the flags in the advert. I was merely referring to a grade of 'offense' that is so profound as to incite sections of the community to discriminate or marginalise other sectors of society - I am thinking of extreme cases such as Rwanda and Yugoslavia, but also the muhammad cartoons that painted muslims as a group in bad light. Im actually fairly liberal with my boundaries as I think you appear to be so I think Ive dug myself a deep black hole here with other like minded people heheh opps. Rest assured im not in favour of bigger government censorship for the sake of societal grooming!



Article 20 comes closest to what you say is prohibited, but it expressly does not prohibit "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred" except where such advocacy "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." Thus hate speech is per se free speech: it only becomes prohibited if it also constitutes incitement to further crimes.

This may also be technically true legally (im not sure, so ill take your word for it), however my point with this was that in all extreme examples in history (Nazi germany, Yugoslavia, Rwanda) the final stages of genocidal action were preceded by protected, and as you point out, lawful, hate speech. Hate speech is done with and for a purpose, and it is the intent that causes me concern. Though I admit, to oppress groups for their potential 'intent' rather than their actions is not the way to go either. The balance is hard to find - any ideas?


You started out by claiming that all rights provided for in the Declaration were "indivisible" and that were some of those rights conflicted there had to be a prioritization of rights. You claimed the right not to be "demeaned" took priority over freedom of expression.

Free speech is an express right in the Declaration:


You now admit that your alleged right to be free from being offended is not contained in the Declaration at all. Nor is it contained in the Covenant on C&PR, but that you infer such a right from reading between the lines of the Covenant.

Pray tell how a right that expressly provided for in the Declaration is prioritized below a right that is at most infered from a sub-document.

Yes it is clear that HRs are indivisible. My point was that in cases where there appear to be competing rights between aggrieved parties, in actual fact there is no competition at all. Im not reading between the lines....the explicit statement defending freedom of thoughts, ideas etc is cautioned later on in the covenant by exceptions to this freedom. I was taking a philosphical perspective that in the case of the muhammad cartoons, it meets the criteria for these exceptions, but for this advert, it does not (for reasons many posters have noted already). The reading together of all articles is important, and HRs are balanced in this way. 'freedom from being offended' was not the right...but freedom from being persecuted and discriminated against is...and perhaps such cartoons fuel or spark such discrimination and persecution (as similar cartoons did in Nazi era, or in Rwandan newspapers). This may not have been the intent of the cartoonist at all, and he/she may be embroiled in something they didnt mean to be, so this is unfortunate. But here I think the cartoonist could have been a bit more cleverer than sticking a bomb in a turban.

Im not sure of the 'subdocument' you refer to? The Covenent is not a sub document at all, it is a fundamental document of our understanding of HR today. But I dont think you were referring to that right?



Free speech that offends some does not "overstep clear boundaries." You have essentially admitted this by your need to creat such boundaries by reading between the lines.

The clear boundaries are (among others?) Article 19 3(a,b). The interpretation of those articles by courts, such as the European courts, has been interesting and shows that in some cases offensive speech can be a breach of the law. I cant reproduce the link here to the digital library of the relevant case law, but if you have access to a European law library database, you can search for it. The point is, in the english common law system that I am used to, these court rulings are as crucial as the legislation. In Common law judges try to understand the spirit of the intent of the law, by reading parliamentary hansards, UN debate transcripts, etc. But you shouldnt confuse this with 'reading between the lines' as you put it.

As for all your concern about genocide, the principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

Absolutely agree. Couldnt have said it better myself. Thanks also for the Wendell Holmes quote, a good one.

I dont think we disagree as much as you think? I find myself agreeing with most of your points, perhaps my incomplete blurb left me open for misinterpretation. However Im still not sure what you mean by marketplace of ideas. In some respect, isnt that what a university is supposed to be? Yes it shouldn't be controlled by the government, though they do have the obligation in law to provide and protect the HRs of its citizens. But I wonder how many of our fellow citizens engage in the exchange of ideas we are doing here now? how do we stimulate this? An informed populace is fundamental to any 'marketplace of ideas' right?

Is anyone that wears a cross around their neck also a zealot?

What about someone that prays quietly over their food in a public restaurant?

Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. It belongs to all religious viewpoints. To deny religion a place in public is no better than requiring certain religious practices in public.

You have the right to believe, not the right to practise!

If there is such a right, I shall at once establish a religion that practises murdering, say, Sikhs, and appeal to my right to exercise my religion freely!

Dreadfully sorry, but I think you are no moderate at all.

So anyone who isn't a terrorist is a moderate? That is your definition?

My definition of a religious moderate is one who understands that religion should be given no place whatsoever in public life. If you think that it is acceptable to wear a burka in public, you fit in my definition of a religious zealot.

well let me correct you...

perhaps this might be the definition of moderacy in Christianity, Islam is a Package, an Attitude to how to treat your neighbor, to how to treat your family, clients, you are obligated to smile to people and say (peace be upon you ) to people in the street that you dont know, but your eyes looks at each, Islam is a Lifestyle, so you cant be a MUslim if you practice Islam, your definition of Moderacy is to be away from god, Islam is not about praying 5 times a day, and fasting in Ramadan, NO, to be a Muslim for real and not just on your official papers, you MUST behave like one, you must protect the innocent, and treat all people right, and must respect all religious beliefes, Islam is about Respect to the other, and respect to yourself...

if you consider people whi drink, have sex and practice all kinds of sins as moderate muslims, then you need to read a dictionary and understand what Moderate means...

Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right.

This begs the polygamy question.

well let me correct you...

perhaps this might be the definition of moderacy in Christianity, Islam is a Package, an Attitude to how to treat your neighbor, to how to treat your family, clients, you are obligated to smile to people and say (peace be upon you ) to people in the street that you dont know, but your eyes looks at each, Islam is a Lifestyle, so you cant be a MUslim if you practice Islam, your definition of Moderacy is to be away from god, Islam is not about praying 5 times a day, and fasting in Ramadan, NO, to be a Muslim for real and not just on your official papers, you MUST behave like one, you must protect the innocent, and treat all people right, and must respect all religious beliefes, Islam is about Respect to the other, and respect to yourself...

if you consider people whi drink, have sex and practice all kinds of sins as moderate muslims, then you need to read a dictionary and understand what Moderate means...


I have no statutory obligation to respect a lifestyle! And I darned well wont.

You have the right to believe, not the right to practise!

If there is such a right, I shall at once establish a religion that practises murdering, say, Sikhs, and appeal to my right to exercise my religion freely!

Dreadfully sorry, but I think you are no moderate at all.

LOL.

I'm not Muslim. I'm an atheist. Your assumption and implied insult reflect your prejudices, not mine.

There is a difference between saying you have a right to free exercise of religion and saying you have a free pass to violate neutral laws in the name of religion. To confuse the two is rather idiotic.

To say that one has the right to believe but not to practice is grant a hollow right. In your zealotry against Islam, you would strip us all of basic rights.

Look at how India opened up and how some of their Female sports team compete in sme sports, the muslim world could do that too.

This begs the polygamy question.

No. It does not. Free exercise does not require exemptions from generally applicable criminal laws. Criminal laws are generally applicable when they apply across the board regardless of the religious motivation of the prohibited conduct, and are not specifically directed at religious practices.

I have never said nor implied that either free speech or freedom of religion justifies the conduct of the particular Muslims referred to in the OP or to anyone that violates generally applicable criminal laws. To the contrary, Muslims should enjoy the same rights as everyone else -- no more and no less.

There is a difference between saying you have a right to free exercise of religion and saying you have a free pass to violate neutral laws in the name of religion. To confuse the two is rather idiotic.


That has been an issue in the UK. Most notably in the recent cartoon flap.

I have no statutory obligation to respect a lifestyle! And I darned well wont.

i know you dont, and im not asking you to respcet Islam, im updating you with what a moderate muslim means, you assumed it meant a vailed gal, wait a minute, you allow Nude beaches, have you ever heard of Arabs or Indonesians protesting for nude beaches in Italy or Spain, have you ever heard of a protest to stop Gay marriages in San fransisco made by Arabs in the Arab World??

NO, why is that, because the moderat Muslim respects your decision and your lifestyle, but it seems that you are not yet over this, you try to reconstruct the Educational Teachings in Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain to match your lifestyle, you try to force nations to make moves of reforms, just like the Cold war, and MR. Bush has said it publicly that you are either with us or against us, you cant be Neutral...

and by the way the goat drinking camel riders are the reason of why you have such GREAT technology, havnt you heard of the dark age in Europe??? try to check out where the so called camel rider goat milk drinkers were at that time.
yes they were too bussy building Universities, Mosques, Schools, Hospitals, Churches, Houses, Libraries, Science labs, Barracks, and developing their weapons... while in Europe, people were still running after boars in the forests of germany and france...

so perhaps in a few decades we will see who are the camel rider, hole living barbarians :)

You have the right to believe, not the right to practise!

If there is such a right, I shall at once establish a religion that practises murdering, say, Sikhs, and appeal to my right to exercise my religion freely!

Dreadfully sorry, but I think you are no moderate at all.


HAHAHA How to respond to such tripe?!

You appear to be as zealous as any religious zealot Ive met! Have you even bothered to read relevant international human rights documents? Try it, its not a big read...only a few pages. You can do it, im sure.

To replace the preceived hate and intolerance you feel, with competing hate and intolerance, seems not such a novel idea. Can I suggest a title for the book you can pen? "My Struggle".

In your zealous attempt to strike a killer blow to religious zealots, you will deny all of us our civil rights. To allow belief, with no practice, is to allow cookery books but no cooking.

No. It does not. Free exercise does not require exemptions from generally applicable criminal laws. Criminal laws are generally applicable when they apply across the board regardless of the religious motivation of the prohibited conduct, and are not specifically directed at religious practices.

So you can stop people wearing burkas. You just can't explicitly state that the law is for that purpose. You can however insist that people do not cover their faces in public.

Kick them out of the cup!

That has been an issue in the UK. Most notably in the recent cartoon flap.

I am familiar with the cartoon flap. I defend the right of Muslims to protest that which they find offensive, but not to engage in criminal acts such as violence or threats.

I also defend the right of those that made/published the cartoons.

I am familiar with the cartoon flap. I defend the right of Muslims to protest that which they find offensive, but not to engage in criminal acts such as violence or threats.


There was a stink because people holding placards saying "behead those..&c." and "Kill those..&c" - which is illegal in the UK - were given a pass, but a group of peaceful counter demonstraters who supported JP were arrested.

Look at how India opened up and how some of their Female sports team compete in sme sports, the muslim world could do that too.

check out who was the Squash world champion for the third year in a row, and ARAB, check out Who was the African cup of nations champions for the fith time AN ARAB team, who are the best runners in the Olympics, besides Muslim Ethiopians and Kenyans?? thats right again Moroccan ARABS, check out who are the best Horse riders thats right again ARABS..
check out who won most of the gold medals in the last Olympics in wresteling, ARABS , check out who took second place in the athens olympics in Taekundo (hard to spell) yet again ARAB... Check out who won Heavy weigh liffing champion [f] an ARAB WOMAN...

Look at how India opened up and how some of their Female sports team compete in sme sports, the muslim world could do that too.

Mate, Im a kiwi too, so I hate to diss ya, but really...the India thing went right over my head. India has always had female sports teams and their position has not improved due to economic opening up (which is what I guess you are referring to?). It IS true that due to the larger middle class, more people, including females, are using their new found independence to do more leisure activities such as sports. But its not really linked to this discussion me thinks...?

On a side note, if you are still in NZ, I can tell you in my road trips here, i've yet to eat anything here in europe that comes close to beating a mincy and coke from service station. haha.

So you can stop people wearing burkas. You just can't explicitly state that the law is for that purpose. You can however insist that people do not cover their faces in public.

If the point is to stop people from wearing burkas, the law is not religiously neutral. The fact that you are looking to ban a specific religious practice tips your hand.

What substantial government interest requires this law?

There was a stink because people holding placards saying "behead those..&c." and "Kill those..&c" - which is illegal in the UK - were given a pass, but a group of peaceful counter demonstraters who supported JP were arrested.

It sounds like neither group should have been arrested.

But I'm guessing there is more to this story than you are saying.

check out who was the Squash world champion for the third year in a row, and ARAB, check out Who was the African cup of nations champions for the fith time AN ARAB team, who are the best runners in the Olympics, besides Muslim Ethiopians and Kenyans?? thats right again Moroccan ARABS, check out who are the best Horse riders thats right again ARABS..
check out who won most of the gold medals in the last Olympics in wresteling, ARABS , check out who took second place in the athens olympics in Taekundo (hard to spell) yet again ARAB... Check out who won Heavy weigh liffing champion [f] an ARAB WOMAN...
Congratulations, you just thrashed a blind man.

Mate, Im a kiwi too, so I hate to diss ya, but really...the India thing went right over my head. India has always had female sports teams and their position has not improved due to economic opening up (which is what I guess you are referring to?). It IS true that due to the larger middle class, more people, including females, are using their new found independence to do more leisure activities such as sports. But its not really linked to this discussion me thinks...?

On a side note, if you are still in NZ, I can tell you in my road trips here, i've yet to eat anything here in europe that comes close to beating a mincy and coke from service station. haha.
You are right it had nothing to do with the Original post.
I've always been a fan of the Steak and Cheese but only if it is a good one but i had one of the best Servo pies i have ever had on Friday and it was Mince and cheese.

If the point is to stop people from wearing burkas, the law is not religiously neutral. The fact that you are looking to ban a specific religious practice tips your hand.

Obviously it would not be so blatant. It would be approached in a neutral fashion. It would simply talk about the need to stop people wearing masks and covering their faces in public. Hey, if anti-polygamy laws can be forced on Utah.

What substantial government interest requires this law?

Law enforcement. Police forces are relying more and more upon CCTV, and remote cameras to help solve crimes. People wearing masks or covering their faces confound this purpose. It makes it hard to find witnesses &c.

Arguably, it is of far greater interest to the government than stopping polygamy, which can be a religious practice and, in theory at least, harms no-one and should be of no concern to anyone but those involved.

It sounds like neither group should have been arrested.

In the UK you are not allowed to walk around holding placards telling people that they should "behead those who defame islam." That's a no-no. So one group most certainly should have been arrested. Speech is not so protected there.

But I'm guessing there is more to this story than you are saying.

Not really. One group of criminals got off scot free. Another group of protesters was arrested to preserve public order.

It's similiar to the mass book burnings during the satanic verses affair. (Also illegal, public disturbance and all that).

Edit: As I just checked, they have actually decided to arrest five people with the naughty placards, eventually. Notwithstanding, they failed to act at the appropriate time.

Obviously it would not be so blatant. It would be approached in a neutral fashion. It would simply talk about the need to stop people wearing masks and covering their faces in public. Hey, if anti-polygamy laws can be forced on Utah.



Law enforcement. Police forces are relying more and more upon CCTV, and remote cameras to help solve crimes. People wearing masks or covering their faces confound this purpose. It makes it hard to find witnesses &c.

Arguably, it is of far greater interest to the government than stopping polygamy, which can be a religious practice and, in theory at least, harms no-one and should be of no concern to anyone but those involved.

This need would hardly cut it, because it only affects a certain group. Regardless of the words, it constitutes discrimination based on both gender and religion.

Then there is always the principle of proportionality.

Law enforcement. Police forces are relying more and more upon CCTV, and remote cameras to help solve crimes. People wearing masks or covering their faces confound this purpose. It makes it hard to find witnesses &c.

Ha! Yes, there was a lady here who went into a family pub and was asked to remove her hat. Turns out the pub had had trouble with teenagers in caps hiding their faces from CCTV, the publican did not use the witness argument, they simply required hats not worn to prevent troublemakers! The woman was in her seventies!

I'm an ex-muslim and have been for the last 3 months. and I know the religion in and out, do not beleive the moderate facade that Islam is a religion of peace, what Islamic terrorists do in the name of their religion is perfectly Islamic, Prophet Muhammad, it's founder sanctioned, encouraged and practiced terrorism. This is evident in the Quran and the Hadith.

I reject Islams claims to be a peaceful religion because.

*The prophet Muhammad led 67 ghazwaz (holy raids) during a 10 year tenure in Medina on various Jewish settlements, once conquered he wasted no time in raping their women, killing there men, and selling of the children as slaves.

3 examples are his:

1.Invasion of Banu Quraiza
2.Invasion of Banu Nadr
3.Ihe invasion of Banu Qaunuqa

*Because the Quran has established a clearly hostile stance towards non-beleivers.

e.g: 9:23 forbids you to associate yourself with non-muslims, even if they are your close Kin, 9:29: orders muslims to conquer the lands of the on-beleivers and establish holy tax (Jizya) on them, clearly this cannot be in self defense! 9:23 even goes as far as to make Jihad compulsory. Here are the verses if you don't beleive me.

9:23, O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least

*Because the founder of Islam was an insane misogynist (sp?) who saw no problem in raping female prisoners of war (33:50),((4:24) sometimes he forced them into having intercourcse with him, right after he had killed the family of the victims e.g here is what happened to woman named safyah:
Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account".

4:34
Islam also allows for a husband to beat his wife if she is disobedient.
As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge(beat) them.

*Because Islam orders that all apostates must be killed:

(Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Keep in mind that this is a "sahih" Hadith, i.e one whose validity cannot be questioned.

And as for the image/cartoon criticisms of the prophet, Cat-Tribe you say that you don't mind them protesting as long as they don't make it violent, what you don't realise is that that, those violent muslims are only following the violent example set by their prophet, this is the fate of one woman who dared crticize him, in the form of poetry.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

If Muhammad found a couple of poems offensive to him, don't be surprised when current day muslims throw hissy fits abut cartoons and various images that are supposedly "offensive."

Is short, Islam cannot be a religion of peace, because it's founder was an evil and violent man, whose cruel actions give his brainwashed followers a license to repeat those actions, because it's entire history and it's entire existense was based on violence, and it because it's two most holy scriptures advocate violence.

P.S Don't bother telling me that there are similarities in other religions as well, because a) It's founders were nowhere near as cruel as muhammad and b) One evil does not justify the existnce of another.

And also don't bother pointing out to me that there are peaceful verses in the quran as well, they were all written in Mecca when muhammad was weak and was trying to garner a following, One he went to Medina and became powerful, he wasted no time in changing his message into one of violence.

Islam is not a religion of peace, and I feel disgusted to once have called myself a follower!

Here's the wiki link on the protest. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Islamist_demonstration_outside_the_Danish_Embassy)

It's pretty much as I described.

This need would hardly cut it, because it only affects a certain group. Regardless of the words, it constitutes discrimination based on both gender and religion.


How does it discriminate? It applies to everyone.

Are you saying that crime detection is not a compelling government interest?

Edit: Oddly enough, you can't wear a burkha at a public gathering in NYC. Link (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F11FC385D0C728EDDA80894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fM%2fMasks)

How does it discriminate? It applies to everyone.

Are you saying that crime detection is not a compelling government interest?
applies to everyone, affects only some. Like forbidding blonde hair. Applies to everyone, right?

Crime detection is indeed a compelling interest. There are however limits to the methods. Like, crime prevention is a compelling issue, but we really can't gas a neighbourhood, because of a high crime rate.

.....
Edit: Oddly enough, you can't wear a burkha at a public gathering in NYC. Link (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F11FC385D0C728EDDA80894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fM%2fMasks)
balancing interests. understandable. Would like to see your Supreme court rule on this.

applies to everyone, affects only some.

No, it effects everyone. No-one is allowed to cover their face in public, for whatever reason.

Like forbidding blonde hair. Applies to everyone, right?

No, that would only effect blond haired people.

Crime detection is indeed a compelling interest. There are however limits to the methods. Like, crime prevention is a compelling issue, but we really can't gas a neighbourhood, because of a high crime rate.

No-one is gassing anybody. People just aren't allowed to wear masks. Pretty minimal really. It's similar to not allowing people to carry large knives in public, in that respect.

balancing interests. understandable. Would like to see your Supreme court rule on this.

I believe they declined to.

And as for muslims being offened.... who gives a stuff. :D Those people shoul db introduced to the real world and not caught up in socially unacceptable ways... or perhaps the US could lower the number of nuclear weapons it holds by throwing them at the middle east? Ahh a brainwave :headbang:

You know, the Pagan bit makes it doubtful he meant Aryan as in Nazi. He might have actually meant it for what it really is, as any religion the Aryans practice would probably be considered a form of Paganism.


Yeah, common misconception: Pagans aren't always Aryans, and Aryans aren't per definition Nazis.

I'm a pagan myself, I see so many prejudice ("Oh, a pagan eh? Then where do you get your chicken/goats/livestock of choice to sacrifice?" "A pagan eh? Well, you must be a satanist then", etc.etc.)

it's not fair, a whole religion is being judged by a few idiots who do slaughter pigs in order to appease their deity.

Oh hang on...

No, it effects everyone. No-one is allowed to cover their face in public, for whatever reason.



No, that would only effect blond haired people.



No-one is gassing anybody. People just aren't allowed to wear masks. Pretty minimal really. It's similar to not allowing people to carry large knives in public, in that respect.

effect vs apply to

Well, here is why we have courts. Right now, I unilaterally rule that we agree to disagree. Btw, do you know why the supreme declined?

Well, here is why we have courts. Right now, I unilaterally rule that we agree to disagree. Btw, do you know why the supreme declined?

They don't say.

I imagine that they thought the lower holding was either consitent with the law as it is, and therefore did not need to be disturbed, or was of insufficient scope to bother with. It really only effected the Klan, so meh.

BTW, personally, I'm fine with both polygamy and burkhas, I just don't see how you can justify banning one and not the other. Especially when polygamy is a religious practice, and wearing a burkha isn't.

Some officials in Canada have recognized the polygamy problem. Link (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020406.html)

As religions go, I wish Islam would.

Guys...I am a muslim..so Read carefully....Most of the Arab/Muslim world are just uneducated sad freaks...some of them dont even know Islam properly... Specially from the gulf...they COME FROM TENTS OUT IN THE DESERT...Some think TV is a sin (extreemists in pakistan), but that DOES NOT mean all muslims are bad...If you realize, the whole muslim word is the third world countries...lack of money, poor people, bad government (leaders stealling money), you have NO CLUE how things are HERE. One day your living in your house a prince comes the next day and tells you get out this place aint yours and takes it (happened in Saudi Arabia)...or in Egypt where the president's SON comes to every business man and demands 50% ownership of some guys business or that guy loses eveything...Things are crazy, our governments dont spend money educating people that live outside cities or even the ones that came to the cities looking for jobs....Our governments are busy robbing the country...Did you know that in Saudi Arabia, The King takes the oil revenues for himself...Well go read the CIA book about Saudi Arabia.... there are like 4000 princes in Saudi Arabia, once one of them is born they open an account for the baby prince on the governments account (the kids grows up to be rich) while others in the street are starving...The American Government is covering up for them....For God's Sake people...dont you get it....These lunatics threatning everyone are not considered muslims...its a SIN IN ISLAM to Threaten inocent people, kill inocent, perform suacidal bombings, and all that wierd crap happening in Iraq.....The reason it happens is cause they are uneducated and they are PISSED OFF! I suggest you guys and girls before accusing muslims and Islam learn something about us....We know eveything about you, we know about your religion your countries..almost everything (educated muslims)....man you guys have no clue who are we.... The reason these guys are pissed off is cause they dont want their country's flag on some semi nude pic...Educated muslims are the ones you people should talk to...dont take a bad idea about us just cause some minority sad freakish group is doing something so stupid....Find ppl that came to the arab world from your country...Am in UAE (united Arab Emirets) A lot of Americans, Canadians, British, Australians...the list goes on...we have absolutly no problem with them and visa versa....we live together hang out..we are all friends...they know who we really are, and they know that we are not some sad freaks like the ones doing all these threats....Also, plz do understand that Freedom is doing whatever you want AS LONG AS it does NOT hurt anyone...
:)

King Feever.....The Holy Empire of Feever

.......
BTW, personally, I'm fine with both polygamy and burkhas, I just don't see how you can justify banning one and not the other. Especially when polygamy is a religious practice, and wearing a burkha isn't.
depends on reasons, proportionality.....Most debates on human rights concern the legitimacy of limitations. The interpretation of limitation clauses.

<doing whatever you want AS LONG AS it does NOT hurt anyone.> Now that sounds Wiccan.

They don't say.

I imagine that they thought the lower holding was either consitent with the law as it is, and therefore did not need to be disturbed, or was of insufficient scope to bother with. It really only effected the Klan, so meh.

BTW, personally, I'm fine with both polygamy and burkhas, I just don't see how you can justify banning one and not the other. Especially when polygamy is a religious practice, and wearing a burkha isn't.
Polygamy has legal and financial repercussions. The whole tax code has to be modified, not to mention inheritance laws. The state has a compelling interest in getting involved in it.

The burkha is just a piece of cloth and you don't get a tax refund for covering your face. The state has not much of a compelling interest in getting involved.

Just wanted to point out why one could be banned and the other not.

Polygamy has legal and financial repercussions. The whole tax code has to be modified, not to mention inheritance laws. The state has a compelling interest in getting involved in it.

Granted, but the tax codes and inheritence laws are already flexible enough to allow families to choose how many children they want, so I don't imagine that amending it to allow flexibility in the number of spouses would be all that burdensome.

The burkha is just a piece of cloth and you don't get a tax refund for covering your face. The state has not much of a compelling interest in getting involved.

Meh. Like I said, maybe the state has a law enforcement interest in stopping people from covering their faces in public.

Just wanted to point out why one could be banned and the other not.

Obviously that's true, because one is banned and the other isn't. It just seems to me the current state of affairs are more a matter of societal preference than anything to do with fundamental rights.

Granted, but the tax codes and inheritence laws are already flexible enough to allow families to choose how many children they want, so I don't imagine that amending it to allow flexibility in the number of spouses would be all that burdensome.
Evidently some problems would arise, though. But I agree that it could be done. The Inheritance would be especially a bitch.

Meh. Like I said, maybe the state has a law enforcement interest in stopping people from covering their faces in public.
Sure.

Obviously that's true, because one is banned and the other isn't. It just seems to me the current state of affairs are more a matter of societal preference than anything to do with fundamental rights.
The other thing is that polygamy has been a racist practice for most of it'S existence. You never hear of a woman having two husbands. It's always the man who has more than one wife. We don't like racism over here. Or at least we pretend we don't.

Yes, burkha are racist because they don't force men to wear them. That's why people object to it. However, a burkha is not a legal contract and we can't very well order uniforms for everyone.

*snip*

So where did you copy and paste that from?

1- Yes I am a Muslim
2- The freedom thing is in any religion and in the American Constitution...
3- The reason Islam wont go like all other religions is cause all other religions were altered...The holy Bible..come on man look how many versions you got....we only got one quran...the religion hasnt been changed...there is nothing wrong with the religion its the people...
4- PLease do some research...learn something....get some background info. about everything arround you...oh dont use the media...all media is baised

The other thing is that polygamy has been a racist practice for most of it'S existence. You never hear of a woman having two husbands. It's always the man who has more than one wife. We don't like racism over here. Or at least we pretend we don't.


No doubt. Obviously if polygamy was allowed it would have to inclusive. That is to say it would allow MFF, MMF, MMFF and the rest.

How people actually choose to practice it would be their own concern. Polyandry is not completely unknown however. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polyandry)

Reasonable people can differ about either issue, burkhas or polgamy, however my real point is it is not really about fundamental rights. Simply societal norms.

i know you dont, and im not asking you to respcet Islam, im updating you with what a moderate muslim means, you assumed it meant a vailed gal, wait a minute, you allow Nude beaches, have you ever heard of Arabs or Indonesians protesting for nude beaches in Italy or Spain, have you ever heard of a protest to stop Gay marriages in San fransisco made by Arabs in the Arab World??

NO, why is that, because the moderat Muslim respects your decision and your lifestyle, but it seems that you are not yet over this, you try to reconstruct the Educational Teachings in Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain to match your lifestyle, you try to force nations to make moves of reforms, just like the Cold war, and MR. Bush has said it publicly that you are either with us or against us, you cant be Neutral...

and by the way the goat drinking camel riders are the reason of why you have such GREAT technology, havnt you heard of the dark age in Europe??? try to check out where the so called camel rider goat milk drinkers were at that time.
yes they were too bussy building Universities, Mosques, Schools, Hospitals, Churches, Houses, Libraries, Science labs, Barracks, and developing their weapons... while in Europe, people were still running after boars in the forests of germany and france...

so perhaps in a few decades we will see who are the camel rider, hole living barbarians :)
No, Arabs are not why we have such great technology. While the Muslim world was more advanced than Europe for a period of time, much of that knowledge that they had was taken from Greece and Rome. The Muslim world added little. Also Europe became advanced in large part due to original ideas and research conducted during the 17th and 18th centuries. The ideas of that time were not adopted by Muslims, therefore the Muslim world stagnated and fell into decline.

Guys...I am a muslim..so Read carefully....Most of the Arab/Muslim world are just uneducated sad freaks...some of them dont even know Islam properly... Specially from the gulf...they COME FROM TENTS OUT IN THE DESERT...Some think TV is a sin (extreemists in pakistan), but that DOES NOT mean all muslims are bad...If you realize, the whole muslim word is the third world countries...lack of money, poor people, bad government (leaders stealling money), you have NO CLUE how things are HERE. One day your living in your house a prince comes the next day and tells you get out this place aint yours and takes it (happened in Saudi Arabia)...or in Egypt where the president's SON comes to every business man and demands 50% ownership of some guys business or that guy loses eveything...Things are crazy, our governments dont spend money educating people that live outside cities or even the ones that came to the cities looking for jobs....Our governments are busy robbing the country...Did you know that in Saudi Arabia, The King takes the oil revenues for himself...Well go read the CIA book about Saudi Arabia.... there are like 4000 princes in Saudi Arabia, once one of them is born they open an account for the baby prince on the governments account (the kids grows up to be rich) while others in the street are starving...The American Government is covering up for them....For God's Sake people...dont you get it....These lunatics threatning everyone are not considered muslims...its a SIN IN ISLAM to Threaten inocent people, kill inocent, perform suacidal bombings, and all that wierd crap happening in Iraq.....The reason it happens is cause they are uneducated and they are PISSED OFF! I suggest you guys and girls before accusing muslims and Islam learn something about us....We know eveything about you, we know about your religion your countries..almost everything (educated muslims)....man you guys have no clue who are we.... The reason these guys are pissed off is cause they dont want their country's flag on some semi nude pic...Educated muslims are the ones you people should talk to...dont take a bad idea about us just cause some minority sad freakish group is doing something so stupid....Find ppl that came to the arab world from your country...Am in UAE (united Arab Emirets) A lot of Americans, Canadians, British, Australians...the list goes on...we have absolutly no problem with them and visa versa....we live together hang out..we are all friends...they know who we really are, and they know that we are not some sad freaks like the ones doing all these threats....Also, plz do understand that Freedom is doing whatever you want AS LONG AS it does NOT hurt anyone...
:)

King Feever.....The Holy Empire of Feever
Great post. It gets to the root of the problem. If large parts of the Muslim world continue to reject secular educations in favor of teaching their kids only religion, and violent forms of religion at that, more angry terrorists will be produced. If the west wants to help change things in the Muslim world it can no longer back the governments that have a vested finanical interest in keeping the people dumb and angry.

Oh no! We've insulted someone! We better give everyone a gigantic pain in the ass because these guys refuse to let things be.

Excellent post!

I'll admit that not all muslims are bad, but thats simply because they practice a very watered down version of their faith, I should know, I was one of them. Fact is that the entire history of Islam is violent, it's founder Muhammad practiced violence, it's scriptures advocate violence.

The root of islamic terrorism doesn't come from poverty, or lack of education, while I admit that they do nothing to help the situtation, in my humble opinion the problem is within Islam itself. The root of islamic terrorism lies in verses such as these.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Jiza is a tax to be imposed on non-muslims once they have been conquered)

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

And just for the record, prophet Muhammad himself was a terrorist, his benighted followers are just following his example. Once again, Islam is pure evil.

ARAB, ARAB ARABS, ARABS.., ARABS , ARAB... ARAB WOMAN...

Sieg Heil to your Master Race, eh?

Post 334 in this thread.

Sieg Heil to your Master Race, eh?

Post 334 in this thread.
Come on now, he's not saying it's the arab race that is superior. Notice he includes black African Muslims in that post as well? He's claiming that Islam is the master religion and that becoming muslim gives you superhuman athletic ability.

Come on now, he's not saying it's the arab race that is superior. Notice he includes black African Muslims in that post as well? He's claiming that Islam is the master religion and that becoming muslim gives you superhuman athletic ability.

Actually, I think he was just pointing out that Arabs actually do something more than just burning down embassies and dressing women in burkas. Given the immensely negative reaction to Arabs and Muslims in this thread, I think it's appropriate to try and bring up positives about them. Interesting that the only reasoning for doing such a things you can find is arrogance. What do you expect when you guys spend a few dozen pages a day attempting to destroy the Muslim religion and talking about how backwards and useless the Arabs are?

Actually, I think he was just pointing out that Arabs actually do something more than just burning down embassies and dressing women in burkas. Given the immensely negative reaction to Arabs and Muslims in this thread, I think it's appropriate to try and bring up positives about them. Interesting that the only reasoning for doing such a things you can find is arrogance. What do you expect when you guys spend a few dozen pages a day attempting to destroy the Muslim religion and talking about how backwards and useless the Arabs are?
Your interpretation may be right, but it didn't read that way to me.

Your interpretation may be right, but it didn't read that way to me.

I would be quite defensive at this point were I a Muslim on these forums. I think that when we see people trying to tout positive performances by Arabs and Muslims it should be encouraged. I think everyone here would love to see a world where the first thing one jumps to when thinking of Arabs and/or Muslims is terrorism and oppression. Wouldn't you?

What do you expect when you guys spend a few dozen pages a day attempting to destroy the Muslim religion and talking about how backwards and useless the Arabs are?

"Useless" is exaggerating but fact of the matter is that the region is backwards, as long as their men waste their time praying 5 times a day, and as long as their women folk are discouraged from having a place in the workforce,( which they are) they are not going to be overly productive either.

And I see no problem in trying to eradicate the Muslim religion, it is a hateful and violent religion that has no place in the present day. I was born a Muslim, into a 100% (By name anyway) Muslim country, I know first hand how much hate that this particular religion breeds. Read the Quran and you'll see what I mean.

Face it, if you’re not a Muslim you have no choice but to accept it as an evil religion, if you don't believe that Muhammad was the prophet of God then you automatically have no choice but to believe that he was a liar. And judging him by his actions and words, it becomes clear that he had grandoise dreams of world domination. Could such a man possibly be an advocate to a peaceful religion?...here, I'll quote the Quran again.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Jizya is a tax to be imposed on non-Muslims once they have been conquered)

9:39, unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

Does that sound peaceful to you?, and btw verse 9:29 clearly disproves the apologist myth that fighting is only prescribed in cases of self defense.

My advise to you is to wake up and smell reality, Islam is a dangerous religion, and before any of you try to label me as racist keep, believe me, I'm not, I have certain standards or morals, and I will apply these standards when judging any religion, if ANY religion allowed husbands to beat their wives (Quran 4:34), or sanctions the raping of female prisoners of war (Quran 33:50), I would condemn it as evil, the same way that I have condemned Islam to be evil, aside from that I am an ex-Muslim who has spent many years studying the religion, so I yes I do think I am entitled to a view on it.

And no, I do not propose violence against Muslims, they are the biggest victims of their own backward religion, I have shown some of the violent verses to some of my Muslim friends, and even they can't make sense of it when their own holiest scriptures contradict with their imaginary Utopia of Islam being a peaceful and moderate religion, stop believing in the western cliché that beliefs are sacred, they are not, people are sacred! beliefs must be scrutinized and doubted, any religion that serves as a barrier to social progression and contradicts with our own sense of ethics must be discarded, Islam is such a religion!

"Useless" is exaggerating but fact of the matter is that the region is backwards, as long as their men waste their time praying 5 times a day, and as long as their women folk are discouraged from having a place in the workforce,( which they are) they are not going to be overly productive either.

And I see no problem in trying to eradicate the Muslim religion, it is a hateful and violent religion that has no place in the present day. I was born a Muslim, into a 100% (By name anyway) Muslim country, I know first hand how much hate that this particular religion breeds. Read the Quran and you'll see what I mean.

Face it, if you’re not a Muslim you have no choice but to accept it as an evil religion, if you don't believe that Muhammad was the prophet of God then you automatically have no choice but to believe that he was a liar. And judging him by his actions and words, it becomes clear that he had grandoise dreams of world domination. Could such a man possibly be an advocate to a peaceful religion?...here, I'll quote the Quran again.



Does that sound peaceful to you?, and btw verse 9:29 clearly disproves the apologist myth that fighting is only prescribed in cases of self defense.

My advise to you is to wake up and smell reality, Islam is a dangerous religion, and before any of you try to label me as racist keep, believe me, I'm not, I have certain standards or morals, and I will apply these standards when judging any religion, if ANY religion allowed husbands to beat their wives (Quran 4:34), or sanctions the raping of female prisoners of war (Quran 33:50), I would condemn it as evil, the same way that I have condemned Islam to be evil, aside from that I am an ex-Muslim who has spent many years studying the religion, so I yes I do think I am entitled to a view on it.

And no, I do not propose violence against Muslims, they are the biggest victims of their own backward religion, I have shown some of the violent verses to some of my Muslim friends, and even they can't make sense of it when their own holiest scriptures contradict with their imaginary Utopia of Islam being a peaceful and moderate religion, stop believing in the western cliché that beliefs are sacred, they are not, people are sacred! beliefs must be scrutinized and doubted, any religion that serves as a barrier to social progression and contradicts with our own sense of ethics must be discarded, Islam is such a religion!

No, what I see is someone who is making massive generalizations, hasn't read the entire thread, and is intentionally taking things out of context. That's what I see. Forgive me if I scoff and such a poor example of how to address a minority of Muslims and a couple of corrupt governments.

The problem isn't with the flags of Muslim countries in general, it's with the fact that the Saudi flag has a verse from the Koran on it. Associating this holy text with the image of a prostitute is needlessly provocative.

Associating holy text of any sort in any way with the Saudi government is needlessly provocative. Tyrants!

"The Muslims" and their darn hive-mind. Why I oughta ...

"We are Muslim. Resistance is Futile. You will be Allah-similated."

Nice to see how people won't calm down until ever dark and brown-skinned Muslim has been capped through their skull.

"We are Muslim. Resistance is Futile. You will be Allah-similated."

Nice to see how people won't calm down until ever dark and brown-skinned Muslim has been capped through their skull.
It has nothing to do with being dark. It just has to do with being a religious nutjob.

It has nothing to do with being dark. It just has to do with being a religious nutjob.

Yet every thread about Muslims almost inevitably drifts towards the blanket generalization that every single of one of them, man woman and child are all religious nutjob terrorist hiveminds. And considering that very few Muslims are caucasian, it has quite a bit with being dark by default.

Yet every thread about Muslims almost inevitably drifts towards the blanket generalization that every single of one of them, man woman and child are all religious nutjob terrorist hiveminds. And considering that very few Muslims are caucasian, it has quite a bit with being dark by default.
Bullshit. There are plenty of Caucasian Muslims. Ibrahim Hooper, the guy in charge of that terrorist organization CAIR looks pretty white to me. I'd be just as happy to kick his ass as any Palestinian Hamas member.

Bullshit. There are plenty of Caucasian Muslims. Ibrahim Hooper, the guy in charge of that terrorist organization CAIR looks pretty white to me. I'd be just as happy to kick his ass as any Palestinian Hamas member.

But does Hooper get as much attention as Bin Ladin, Al-Zarqawi, Moussaoui and their lot? Of course not. The current media fixation is on brown and dark-skinned Muslims.

But does Hooper get as much attention as Bin Ladin, Al-Zarqawi, Moussaoui and their lot? Of course not. The current media fixation is on brown and dark-skinned Muslims.
That's probably because he's a US citizen and his organization's links to terrorism are tenuous. Also CAIR has a habit of suing people.

That's probably because he's a US citizen and his organization's links to terrorism are tenuous. Also CAIR has a habit of suing people.

And had Hooper been brown-skinned, you and a lot of people would sing the chorus of Caving in to Terrorism™ at this observation.

Ah, but it fails to beat this story in the religion vs. poster wars.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4943406.stm

:p
I can understand why they took it down, it makes it appear that the church in question supports the book which is by the way, a travisty of historical fact.

And had Hooper been brown-skinned, you and a lot of people would sing the chorus of Caving in to Terrorism™ at this observation.
Look, I dislike all religious Muslims regardless of race. It's a damn shame, but I'm reacting to what I see so frequently. The ones who take their religion seriously take offense at everything and seem to want to impose their laws on everyone else. Kind of like that Christian dude, Phelps, the "god hates fags" guy.

Normally, I am rather tolerant of different religions, myself, as an atheist; but these radical muslims need to get a :upyours:'ing clue. My support for the religion that they are representing is evermore dwindling.

Look, I dislike all religious Muslims regardless of race. It's a damn shame, but I'm reacting to what I see so frequently. The ones who take their religion seriously take offense at everything and seem to want to impose their laws on everyone else. Kind of like that Christian dude, Phelps, the "god hates fags" guy.

Yeah, those Muslims are dangerous with their generalized hate and their unwillingness to address individuals instead of treating people not like them as one homogenous group. Evil, I tells ya. Oh, wait, that's exactly what you're doing. The most narfarious evil on our planet is treating individuals like they are equal to a group because some part of that group is dangerous. God forbid people treated as if I believe what you believe because of our commonalities.

Yeah, those Muslims are dangerous with their generalized hate and their unwillingness to address individuals instead of treating people not like them as one homogenous group. Evil, I tells ya. Oh, wait, that's exactly what you're doing. The most narfarious evil on our planet is treating individuals like they are equal to a group because some part of that group is dangerous. God forbid people treated as if I believe what you believe because of our commonalities.
That's not why they're evil. They're evil because the ones who take their religion seriously want to impose their religious laws on everyone else. For example, the Bali bombers are opposed to women in bikinis. So they blew up a bunch on non-muslims. The cartoon protesters think that drawing Muhammad is a sin, but no Muslims drew the cartoons. They want non-muslims to adhere to Muslim law. Sorry, that's not going to happen and if they want to push to the point of violence, well, they shouldn't be surprised when others push back.

Having read nothing about what was posted here, but do recalling something of this nature happining a month or so ago. My responce to all "offended" people is:

GET OVER IT - DONT LOOK AT IT IF YOU DONT LIKE IT. INFACT YOU ARE TAUGHT NOT TO LOOK AT THAT WHICH IS NOT HOLY

Kind of like that Christian dude, Phelps, the "god hates fags" guy.

Yeah. Exactly. The majority of them don't act like that. He's a fairly strange case, as are fundamentalist Muslims.

That's not why they're evil. They're evil because the ones who take their religion seriously want to impose their religious laws on everyone else. For example, the Bali bombers are opposed to women in bikinis. So they blew up a bunch on non-muslims. The cartoon protesters think that drawing Muhammad is a sin, but no Muslims drew the cartoons. They want non-muslims to adhere to Muslim law. Sorry, that's not going to happen and if they want to push to the point of violence, well, they shouldn't be surprised when others push back.

That's a pretty good argument against the 'the fundamentalists' you refer to. Good thing that's not all Muslims. So your problem isn't with all Muslims no matter how often you claim it is. And being a reasonable and rational person, you aren't going to punish people for the actions of others, now are you?

Many Muslims take their religion seriously who do not believe any of what you are complaining about. I think you're problem is that your radar is not very precise. I hope that one day you fix that problem.

That's a pretty good argument against the 'the fundamentalists' you refer to. Good thing that's not all Muslims. So your problem isn't with all Muslims no matter how often you claim it is. And being a reasonable and rational person, you aren't going to punish people for the actions of others, now are you?

Many Muslims take their religion seriously who do not believe any of what you are complaining about. I think you're problem is that your radar is not very precise. I hope that one day you fix that problem.

Not to mention - of course, that I am an Atheist chaffing under 'Christian' laws...

Ah, but it fails to beat this story in the religion vs. poster wars.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4943406.stm

:p
Are you kidding? A bunch of people asking that an advertisement be removed is worse than a bunch of hooded people showing up with knives and sticks and threatening violence? You have a wierd sense of proportion.

How would you like it if 11 nutjob atheists blew up St. Peter's Basilica and killed the pope and you got blamed for the attack by the public simply because you had a tiny thread of a connection to the attackers through religion? How would you like it you got deported or arrested or worse on charges based on generalization? The only reason Islam gets so much attention is because of the damn media. which story catches more eyes, sabre-waving psychos storm embassy or coalition of Imams urges for calm in wake of controversial images? the former of course people see that and get furious, outraged and so they buy and read that paper. I've always lived by the simple mantra that you don't know a man unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. How about you wrap your head in white cloth, get a tan, and grow a beard go to the bible belt and try to move into a gated community

No, what I see is someone who is making massive generalizations, hasn't read the entire thread, and is intentionally taking things out of context. That's what I see. Forgive me if I scoff and such a poor example of how to address a minority of Muslims and a couple of corrupt governments.

How exactly did I take anything out of context? I've read the Quran and the Hadith, the verses that I provided you were quoted in full and I didn't alter or edit any part of it.

Fine, let's forget about the Quran altogether and concentrate on the prophet, part of my point is that you can judge a religion by it's founder, to do this we must refer to the Hadith, the Hadith is the 2nd most holiest scripture in Islam next to the Quran, they serve as historical documents that give us an excellent idea of how the prophet lived his life and of the messages he preached.

Here are some on woman, and proof of my accusation that muhammad is a mysoginyst

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women.... [B]they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541"
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:

The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, "If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "If a woman spends the night deserting her husband's bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband)."

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

And don't bother telling me that the above Hadiths were'nt authentic, they were all "sahah" or "hasan" hadiths, which mean that they have been placed at the highest two levels of authenticity.

Remember that case in Afghanistan, where a Muslim converted to christianity and ended up literally fighting for his life? Here take a look at this:

(Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Once again , a "sahih" Hadith, my point is that the Afghan government were simply acting on the instructions of their insane prophet.

Here is further confirmation.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:


Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Here are some more "sahih" gems:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111:
Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, 'Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur'an)?' 'Ali replied, 'No, except Allah's Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).' Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, 'What is (written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Here is how the prophet used to respond to criticisms.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348: (scroll down to no.4348)
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Did you know that prophet Muhammad married a 9 year old girl? thereby giving his followers a license to do the same, yes, I am saying that Islam allows pedophilia. Take a look at this.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Once again a sahih hadith, the man that muslims name as their prophet was no more than a disgusting pervert, who in their right mind would want to have sex with a 9 year old, keep in mind that the prophet was well into his fifties!!! But his age was no barrier to keep him from satisfying his sexual needs! The prophet married at least 11 times, and often used to rape prisoners of war. Here are three verses from the quran that serve as evidence:

4:3, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess

33:50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The hadith fullly collaborates with my accusation that Muhammad sanctioned rape. Take the example of Safyah, he had killed her father and her relatives after he had conquered and annhialated her town, here is part of that Hadith.

One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account".

Two other women that the Prophet raped were Juwairiyah, and Mariyah, for brevities sake I will not post their stories here. but here are the links if you want.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Juwairiyah.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/mariyah.htm

Aside from all that, the prophet Muhammad was guilty of horrendous war crimes, the prophet led 67 ghazwars (holy raids) during his 10 year stay at Medina and once he conquered these towns, his cruelty knew no bounds.

At Banu quraizah for instance:

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.

He killed their children as well:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Here is further "sahih" confirmation that the prophet sanctioned the killing of children.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, number 256

Muhammad approved the killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the women and children) are from them.

Religion of peace indeed! How could a man such as Muhammad possibly promote a peaceful religion when he is guilty of such horrendous crimes.

I would appreciate it if people who have never read the Quran or spent the amount of time that I've spent studying Islam refrain from accusing me of making generalizations, my "generalizations" are based on fact and experience, whereas you simply get on your high horse and defend a religion which I assume that you know nothing about!

As I have shown the founder of Islam was evil to the core, the problem lies in that Muslims are supposed to emulate anything and evrything that the prophet did, this is called "Sunna"...Now I have nothing against moderate muslims and I know that these moderates in fact constitute the majority of Islam, but suffice to say that this majority follows a very toned down version of the religion that Muhammad bin Abdullah created 1400 years ago, most Muslims read the Quran in arabic without understanding a word of it, they are mostly unaware of the real truth behind their religion, they will likely never find out because most of these moderates pursue an education and actually want decent jobs, therefore they have very little time to read up on their own faith.

When moderates are presented with these verses, giving up their cherished beleifs is not an option, therefore they come with all sorts of excuses such as the ridiculous "out of context" arguement. Muslims are humans just like you and I, they have a consciense and they have values, so when their own teaching contradict with their own values, it is understandable that they be a little upset, and it is understandable that they try to re-interpret their own verses to give it esoteric meanings and it is understandable that come up with all sorts of ludacris explanations to justify the existense of these verses and Hadith.

But as long as thses verses continue to exist, which they will, and as long as muslims beleive that Muhammad and his message was divine, their will always be a problem, Islam will always be dangerous.

No, what I see is someone who is making massive generalizations, hasn't read the entire thread, and is intentionally taking things out of context. That's what I see. Forgive me if I scoff and such a poor example of how to address a minority of Muslims and a couple of corrupt governments.

How exactly did I take anything out of context? I've read the Quran and the Hadith, the verses that I provided you were quoted in full and I didn't alter or edit any part of it.

Fine, let's forget about the Quran altogether and concentrate on the prophet, part of my point is that you can judge a religion by it's founder, to do this we must refer to the Hadith, the Hadith is the 2nd most holiest scripture in Islam next to the Quran, they serve as historical documents that give us an excellent idea of how the prophet lived his life and of the messages he preached.

Here are some on woman, and proof of my accusation that muhammad is a mysoginyst

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women.... [B]they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541"
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:

The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, "If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "If a woman spends the night deserting her husband's bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband)."

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

And don't bother telling me that the above Hadiths were'nt authentic, they were all "sahah" or "hasan" hadiths, which mean that they have been placed at the highest two levels of authenticity.

Remember that case in Afghanistan, where a Muslim converted to christianity and ended up literally fighting for his life? Here take a look at this:

(Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Once again , a "sahih" Hadith, my point is that the Afghan government were simply acting on the instructions of their insane prophet.

Here is further confirmation.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:


Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Here are some more "sahih" gems:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111:
Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, 'Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur'an)?' 'Ali replied, 'No, except Allah's Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).' Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, 'What is (written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Here is how the prophet used to respond to criticisms.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348: (scroll down to no.4348)
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Did you know that prophet Muhammad married a 9 year old girl? thereby giving his followers a license to do the same, yes, I am saying that Islam allows pedophilia. Take a look at this.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Once again a sahih hadith, the man that muslims name as their prophet was no more than a disgusting pervert, who in their right mind would want to have sex with a 9 year old, keep in mind that the prophet was well into his fifties!!! But his age was no barrier to keep him from satisfying his sexual needs! The prophet married at least 11 times, and often used to rape prisoners of war. Here are three verses from the quran that serve as evidence:

4:3, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess

33:50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The hadith fullly collaborates with my accusation that Muhammad sanctioned rape. Take the example of Safyah, he had killed her father and her relatives after he had conquered and annhialated her town, here is part of that Hadith.

One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account".

Two other women that the Prophet raped were Juwairiyah, and Mariyah, for brevities sake I will not post their stories here. but here are the links if you want.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Juwairiyah.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/mariyah.htm

Aside from all that, the prophet Muhammad was guilty of horrendous war crimes, the prophet led 67 ghazwars (holy raids) during his 10 year stay at Medina and once he conquered these towns, his cruelty knew no bounds.

At Banu quraizah for instance:

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.

He killed their children as well:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Here is further "sahih" confirmation that the prophet sanctioned the killing of children.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, number 256

Muhammad approved the killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the women and children) are from them.

Religion of peace indeed! How could a man such as Muhammad possibly promote a peaceful religion when he is guilty of such horrendous crimes.

I would appreciate it if people who have never read the Quran or spent the amount of time that I've spent studying Islam refrain from accusing me of making generalizations, my "generalizations" are based on fact and experience, whereas you simply get on your high horse and defend a religion which I assume that you know nothing about!

As I have shown the founder of Islam was evil to the core, the problem lies in that Muslims are supposed to emulate anything and evrything that the prophet did, this is called "Sunna"...Now I have nothing against moderate muslims and I know that these moderates in fact constitute the majority of Islam, but suffice to say that this majority follows a very toned down version of the religion that Muhammad bin Abdullah created 1400 years ago, most Muslims read the Quran in arabic without understanding a word of it, they are mostly unaware of the real truth behind their religion, they will likely never find out because most of these moderates pursue an education and actually want decent jobs, therefore they have very little time to read up on their own faith.

When moderates are presented with these verses, giving up their cherished beleifs is not an option, therefore they come with all sorts of excuses such as the ridiculous "out of context" arguement. Muslims are humans just like you and I, they have a consciense and they have values, so when their own teaching contradict with their own values, it is understandable that they be a little upset, and it is understandable that they try to re-interpret their own verses to give it esoteric meanings and it is understandable that come up with all sorts of ludacris explanations to justify the existense of these verses and Hadith.

But as long as thses verses continue to exist, which they will, and as long as muslims beleive that Muhammad and his message was divine, their will always be a problem, Islam will always be dangerous.

[QUOTE=Metroret]Bloody typical

I hate this. Why do muslims think they own the world. If something I find is offencive to anyone else no one gives a danm

Oh but as soon as something they don't like happens....The whole arab world goes in up roar

If Muslims don't like whats going on in a country.....Then they can get out!

Darn right!

Actually, I think he was just pointing out that Arabs actually do something more than just burning down embassies and dressing women in burkas. Given the immensely negative reaction to Arabs and Muslims in this thread, I think it's appropriate to try and bring up positives about them. Interesting that the only reasoning for doing such a things you can find is arrogance. What do you expect when you guys spend a few dozen pages a day attempting to destroy the Muslim religion and talking about how backwards and useless the Arabs are?

We expect him to sod off. Or show his true colours. Which he eventually did.
No moderate at all - just another proponent of sharia and jihad.

A brothel that has posted a large advertizement consisting of a partially naked woman and the flags of nations participating in the World Cup, including the flags of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries has enraged, guess who? Yep, the Muslims. It seems that using the flags of Muslim nations on a banner bearing a picture of a semi-naked woman is an insult to Islam. Death threats have been issued. Knife-weilding lunatics have shown up at the brothel.

It seems everything is an insult to Islam. Well, Islam is officially now an insult to me. I demand that everyone stop practicing Islam or I will burn down some embassies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4941788.stm

i think maybe i am drunk...but to osama and his ilk...i am now shooting a load on the koran,and when i am done....hmmmmm...i think i will draw a pic of mohammad on my girls privates so i can fuck it...lol...

get a grip allready.


sorry ..that was rude,i am going on 40m hours with no sleep.

i like islam,cept when they are trying to blow me up.

What people don't realise is that, even though you may claim that most Muslims are moderate, Islam is a very extremist and very violent religion, all the flaws and cruelties inherent in Islam can be traced back to it's founder as I have demonstrated in my above post, if you have not read it yet, please do so because I would be very interested to see a rebuttal to my accusations.

As an ex-muslim, my hatred for Islam is very personal, why? because according to Islam I am supposed to be killed, once again I will repeat the islamic punishment for apostates.

(Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

How am I supposed to consider a religion that wants me to be dead as a peaceful one? Doesn't help that my government is a 100% Muslim one either, nor that many of my relatives would put their love for me aside and hand me over to the government and leave my life in their hands in the hopes that I am once again forced to accept the "religion of peace" as my own.

Fuck allah, Fuck Muhammad, Fuck Islam and Fuck "political correctness"!

Yay, more generalizations. More spurious translations. But now you've added questionable stories from biased sources. Hey, maybe we can hear about how all white Christians should be judge by Falwell. He claims that he is acting according to the Bible as well and has the FLAWED translations to prove it.

What people don't realise is that, even though you may claim that most Muslims are moderate, Islam is a very extremist and very violent religion, all the flaws and cruelties inherent in Islam can be traced back to it's founder as I have demonstrated in my above post, if you have not read it yet, please do so because I would be very interested to see a rebuttal to my accusations.

As an ex-muslim, my hatred for Islam is very personal, why? because according to Islam I am supposed to be killed, once again I will repeat the islamic punishment for apostates.

(Sahih Bukhari 4.260)
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

How am I supposed to consider a religion that wants me to be dead as a peaceful one? Doesn't help that my government is a 100% Muslim one either, nor that many of my relatives would put their love for me aside and hand me over to the government and leave my life in their hands in the hopes that I am once again forced to accept the "religion of peace" as my own.

Fuck allah, Fuck Muhammad, Fuck Islam and Fuck "political correctness"!

"Fuck reason, Fuck treating people like individuals, Fuck religious freedom, Fuck respect for other people." How useful to the discussion.

"Alas, the United Kingdom's descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/04/ixportal.html

How would you like it if 11 nutjob atheists blew up St. Peter's Basilica and killed the pope and you got blamed for the attack by the public simply because you had a tiny thread of a connection to the attackers through religion? How would you like it you got deported or arrested or worse on charges based on generalization? The only reason Islam gets so much attention is because of the damn media. which story catches more eyes, sabre-waving psychos storm embassy or coalition of Imams urges for calm in wake of controversial images? the former of course people see that and get furious, outraged and so they buy and read that paper. I've always lived by the simple mantra that you don't know a man unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. How about you wrap your head in white cloth, get a tan, and grow a beard go to the bible belt and try to move into a gated community
Atheists don't blow up churches. At most atheists just ridicule religion.

Yay, more generalizations. More spurious translations. But now you've added questionable stories from biased sources. Hey, maybe we can hear about how all white Christians should be judge by Falwell. He claims that he is acting according to the Bible as well and has the FLAWED translations to prove it.
The guy you're responding to says he's an ex-muslim. If he's telling the truth, how can you claim that the translations he quotes are spurious? He should know the religion having followed it. Granted, this is the internet and anyone can make any claim, but he might be telling the truth.

The guy you're responding to says he's an ex-muslim. If he's telling the truth, how can you claim that the translations he quotes are spurious? He should know the religion having followed it. Granted, this is the internet and anyone can make any claim, but he might be telling the truth.

So I should believe the random guy on the internet that says these things and treat him as an expert as you're asking or the people I know to be experts on the news that talk about a religion of peace and site the parts of their documents that support the claim?

You do realize if I want to make Christianity seem like a violent religion, I can, yes? It's not however. It has had violent people use it as an excuse for thier violence but Christianity is also intended to be a peaceful religion.

Even if you proved to me that Christ and Mohammed were murderous pedophiles it wouldn't change the value of those that practice these religions peacefully. There is nothing to benefit by treating individuals like an unthinking, homogenous mass.

Yay, more generalizations. More spurious translations. But now you've added questionable stories from biased sources. Hey, maybe we can hear about how all white Christians should be judge by Falwell. He claims that he is acting according to the Bible as well and has the FLAWED translations to prove it.

The authors of thoses Hadiths were all devout Muslims, your'e saying that the followers of Muhammad were biased towards him and delibrately tries to incriminate him, sorry dude, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Perhaps you would care to explain to me why Muslim scholars have placed these particular hadiths within the "sahih" (highest and most authentic) category, furthemore the main source I relied upon was Sahih Bukhari, whose Hadiths form the entire backbone of Islam, to say that those Hadiths are flawed is would be nothing short of Islamic blasphemy.
Your accusation of those particular Hadiths being flawed just goes to show how little you know about the Muslim faith, yet you defend it so adamantly, would you care to explain why?

Dude seriously, I find it annoying that someone who was never a Muslim, has never spent any time studying the faith and has never lived in a Muslim country is giving me lectures on why I should not condemn my ex-faith, especially when I present undeniable evidence to justify myself, evidence that you so casually and arrogantly choose to dismiss lest you risk falling off of yor high horse.

Why don't you actually read my entire post this time and address it's full content instead of responding with your usual dismissive sarcasm, please tell me why you disagree with muslims scholars on the authenticity of those hadiths, please explain to me why you defend a faith that you know so little about? If Islam was some obscure and small cult founded on the same principles would you still defend it? Where are your authentic sources that differ with the ones that I have presented you?

The guy you're responding to says he's an ex-muslim. If he's telling the truth, how can you claim that the translations he quotes are spurious? He should know the religion having followed it. Granted, this is the internet and anyone can make any claim, but he might be telling the truth.
He might. He might also not. As always.

Let's presume someone claims to be a former usian government agent, claiming that she herself planted explosives in wtc.

How credible is that? She might be telling the truth.

So I should believe the random guy on the internet that says these things and treat him as an expert as you're asking or the people I know to be experts on the news that talk about a religion of peace and site the parts of their documents that support the claim?

You do realize if I want to make Christianity seem like a violent religion, I can, yes? It's not however. It has had violent people use it as an excuse for thier violence but Christianity is also intended to be a peaceful religion.

Even if you proved to me that Christ and Mohammed were murderous pedophiles it wouldn't change the value of those that practice these religions peacefully. There is nothing to benefit by treating individuals like an unthinking, homogenous mass.


The crimes, real or imagined of either Christians or atheists are not the point - and vice versa.

The thing is about the clash between 2 lifestyles - Islam actually being a lifestyle, according to Democratic Arabic States ( with the other lifestyle being hedonism ).

Coincidentally, there is something to be benefitted by treating individuals like an amorphous mass - ease of targetting.
Not my cup of tea - but the tea is there.

He might. He might also not. As always.

Let's presume someone claims to be a former usian government agent, claiming that she herself planted explosives in wtc.

How credible is that? She might be telling the truth.
Yeah, except for the fact that there is evidence that the buildings weren't brought down by explosives. In this case there isn't any evidence either way.

.....Why don't you actually read my entire post this time and address it's full content instead of responding with your usual dismissive sarcasm, please tell me why you disagree with muslims scholars on the authenticity of those hadiths, please explain to me why you defend a faith that you know so little about? .....
You would get your points across better if you'd write actual posts, rather than small essays. Some of us don't read good. Especially those you might otherwise be able to convince.

Yeah, except for the fact that there is evidence that the buildings weren't brought down by explosives. In this case there isn't any evidence either way.
He claims that what he is saying is evidence, right? As for the evidence of which you speak, has it been found conclusive by a court?

The authors of thoses Hadiths were all devout Muslims, your'e saying that the followers of Muhammad were biased towards him and delibrately tries to incriminate him, sorry dude, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Perhaps you would care to explain to me why Muslim scholars have placed these particular hadiths within the "sahih" (highest and most authentic) category, furthemore the main source I relied upon was Sahih Bukhari, whose Hadiths form the entire backbone of Islam, to say that those Hadiths are flawed is would be nothing short of Islamic blasphemy.
Your accusation of those particular Hadiths being flawed just goes to show how little you know about the Muslim faith, yet you defend it so adamantly, would you care to explain why?

Dude seriously, I find it annoying that someone who was never a Muslim, has never spent any time studying the faith and has never lived in a Muslim country is giving me lectures on why I should not condemn my ex-faith, especially when I present undeniable evidence to justify myself, evidence that you so casually and arrogantly choose to dismiss lest you risk falling off of yor high horse.

Why don't you actually read my entire post this time and address it's full content instead of responding with your usual dismissive sarcasm, please tell me why you disagree with muslims scholars on the authenticity of those hadiths, please explain to me why you defend a faith that you know so little about? If Islam was some obscure and small cult founded on the same principles would you still defend it? Where are your authentic sources that differ with the ones that I have presented you?

I'm saying that like all such things, I take it with a grain of salt, particularly when placed in an argument that defies reason and tries to pretend like Muslims are all part of a hive mind. You know there are many different types of followers of Islam. They are not homogenous. They are not ALL violent or even MOSTLY violent. Their are many followers of Islam that find no violence in the religion. You try to deny they exist. That is why I dismiss your argument.

I'd be happy to present evidence except it doesn't change the point. Mohammed could have been the worst murderer/rapist/pedophile/littering/impolite person on the planet EVER and if people find peace in the religion then I will treat them as peaceful people. You want to judge groups based on some individuals and the argument is inherently flawed. You try to use biased sources to prove your point and the argument is still inherently flawed.

Show me a source that proves that all Muslims are violent and then you'll have some ground to argue from. Until then you're just prejudiced.

I'll tell you what, here are quotes from the Bible -

9For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Need more?

How about slavery?

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Of course I'm taking things out of the context of the religion and most who adhere to the religion would not put people to death or own slaves, but hey let's take quotes out of context from their most holy document in a proper translation of the Bible and let's just paint them all with one brush to justfiy our bigotry. /sarcasm


See how that works? When you're talking about something as complicated as religion you do it a disservice painting it the way you have. Let's not pretend like that is not your intent.

Even if you proved to me that Christ and Mohammed were murderous pedophiles it wouldn't change the value of those that practice these religions peacefully.

You idiot. I've already admitted that muslims are humans just like you and I and obviously they have values,my father is a muslim, my mother is a muslim I do not condemn the values of it's moderate followers, I condemn the values of the religion itself.

Are you familiar with the old cliche: "don't judge a religion by it's followers", it works the other way around too.

The crimes, real or imagined of either Christians or atheists are not the point - and vice versa.

The thing is about the clash between 2 lifestyles - Islam actually being a lifestyle, according to Democratic Arabic States ( with the other lifestyle being hedonism ).

Coincidentally, there is something to be benefitted by treating individuals like an amorphous mass - ease of targetting.
Not my cup of tea - but the tea is there.

Not all people who follow Islam subscribe to the same lifestyle. There are many flavors and I find that some people only like the flavor that justifies their bigotry, on both sides of the coin.

SNIP

Show me a source that proves that all Muslims are violent and then you'll have some ground to argue from. Until then you're just prejudiced.

Easily countered. Show me evidence that each and every muslim is completely harmless.

Gosh... I don't think that kind of bickering is going to resolve a lot.

You idiot. I've already admitted that muslims are humans just like you and I and obviously they have values,my father is a muslim, my mother is a muslim I do not condemn the values of it's moderate followers, I condemn the values of the religion itself.

Are you familiar with the old cliche: "don't judge a religion by it's followers", it works the other way around too.
Are you saying that you think Islam is evil, muslims are not?

Not all people who follow Islam subscribe to the same lifestyle. There are many flavors and I find that some people only like the flavor that justifies their bigotry, on both sides of the coin.

I know what you mean, and gladly admit the point.

It isn't about all of Islam being a clear and present danger - it's about Omar and Abdullah being naughty boys.
Mind you, very naughty boys, in need of getting a proper spanking.

He claims that what he is saying is evidence, right? As for the evidence of which you speak, has it been found conclusive by a court?
Ok, if you want to verify his evidence you need to go out and get a copy of the koran and the hadiths. As for the 9/11 evidence, it was found conclusive by the committee that held hearings on the attack.

Ok, if you want to verify his evidence you need to go out and get a copy of the koran and the hadiths. As for the 9/11 evidence, it was found conclusive by the committee that held hearings on the attack.
Court-kosher evidence is conclusive. Higher probability of impartiality. Especially if it is an international court.

Court-kosher evidence is conclusive. Higher probability of impartiality. Especially if it is an international court.

Do you have anything to say, apart from attacks on other people's evidence?

Easily countered. Show me evidence that each and every muslim is completely harmless.

Gosh... I don't think that kind of bickering is going to resolve a lot.

I don't have to show that all are, that most are, that only a few are. If any Muslims are not violent than punishing them is a miscarriage of justice. If some Muslims are not violent than pretending that they are is a lie. The point is that he is painting all Muslims as violent. I'm not claiming that no Muslims are violent and/or dangerous, but that only a minority are. Your point is spurious.

Do you have anything to say, apart from attacks on other people's evidence?
Is that not enough for you? Are you a member of the Evidencially Challenged Group?

You idiot. I've already admitted that muslims are humans just like you and I and obviously they have values,my father is a muslim, my mother is a muslim I do not condemn the values of it's moderate followers, I condemn the values of the religion itself.

Are you familiar with the old cliche: "don't judge a religion by it's followers", it works the other way around too.

The religious groups define the religion they follow. "Don't judge a religion by its followers" refers to making sweeping generalizations by the actions of a few. It does not refer to ignoring the beliefs of the people of a particular sect as, you know, the beliefs of that particular sect. You can't actually claim that the religion and the way it is followed are entirely seperate. If I look at a particular sect of Islam and they are completely non-violent, you cannot claim that their religion is violent because all evidence is against you. You paint Islam like one single homogenous religious faith and that's simply not true. There is more than one flavor of Islam despite your claims. You're like the people on here who claim there is only one version of Christianity. It's utter bullocks.

Is that not enough for you? Are you a member of the Evidencially Challenged Group?

Go forth and be fruitful.
All you have been doing is wanking about what is evidence or not.
Delaying tactics and/or filibustering.

I don't have to show that all are, that most are, that only a few are. If any Muslims are not violent than punishing them is a miscarriage of justice. If some Muslims are not violent than pretending that they are is a lie. The point is that he is painting all Muslims as violent. I'm not claiming that no Muslims are violent and/or dangerous, but that only a minority are. Your point is spurious.

It isn't about justice ( therefore innocence or guilt of individuals isn't very material ) , it is about how to deal with a clear and present danger. Before you ask me about how to define a clear and present danger, you know as well as I do that the definition of that is an executive prerogative.

And on another level: the question must be asked whether or not the group shows a good or a bad influence. And it has to be said that muslims as a group don't exactly excel at being good little boys.

And then it has to be said that most muslims living in Germany are Turks, and that very few Turks have been involved in the unpleasantries of the last decade. No one has mentioned the ethnic origin of the perps, but I would be highly surprised if I were to find that those perps were of Turkish origin.

hilarious. lol. hilarious

Go forth and be fruitful.
All you have been doing is wanking about what is evidence or not.
Delaying tactics and/or filibustering.
Can't help it, I am a law student and have been brainwashed into believing that evidence matters.:(

Can't help it, I am a law student and have been brainwashed into believing that evidence matters.:(

At 300 quid an hour, I imagine lawyers are delighted to quibble ad infinitum atque nauseam. But excuse me if I get nauseous over it.

The religious groups define the religion they follow. "Don't judge a religion by its followers" refers to making sweeping generalizations by the actions of a few. It does not refer to ignoring the beliefs of the people of a particular sect as, you know, the beliefs of that particular sect. You can't actually claim that the religion and the way it is followed are entirely seperate. If I look at a particular sect of Islam and they are completely non-violent, you cannot claim that their religion is violent because all evidence is against you. You paint Islam like one single homogenous religious faith and that's simply not true. There is more than one flavor of Islam despite your claims. You're like the people on here who claim there is only one version of Christianity. It's utter bullocks.

Where in the world did I say that there is only one version of Islam? And where exactly did I say that ALL muslims are dangerous, my point is that the minority of muslims who are indeed dangerous, are acting on the instructions of their prophet, my beef is with Islam, not Muslims, as you claim.

Your point on Islam not being homogenous is irrelavant, the hadiths that I provided, form the backbone of each of those sects, NO MUSLIM IS ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE AUTHENTICITY OF A SAHIH HADITH, wether you are Ahammadi, Sunni, Shiite, Wahhabi is entirely irrelevant.

Show me a source that proves that all Muslims are violent and then you'll have some ground to argue from. Until then you're just prejudiced.

Now why would I do such a thing, obviously the majority of muslims are not violent, they are all humans and they all have a conscience, when they find the violence that is inherent in their own religion don't you think it is logical that they would deliberately try to mis-interpret it so that it confirmed with thir values, hence the "out-of context", "relevance of time" arguement, the problem is that a minority value their faith above their own conciense and this is where the problem is.

As for your point about the bible, how does one form of evil justify the existence of another, I kept my mouth shut about the bible because I know very little about it, unlike you I do not make assumptions, wether positive or negative, about things that I know nothing about.

Where in the world did I say that there is only one version of Islam? And where exactly did I say that ALL muslims are dangerous, my point is that the minority of muslims who are indeed dangerous, are acting on the instructions of their prophet, my beef is with Islam, not Muslims, as you claim.

Your point on Islam not being homogenous is irrelavant, the hadiths that I provided, form the backbone of each of those sects, NO MUSLIM IS ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE AUTHENTICITY OF A SAHIH HADITH, wether you are Ahammadi, Sunni, Shiite, Wahhabi is entirely irrelevant.



Now why would I do such a thing, obviously the majority of muslims are not violent, they are all humans and they all have a conscience, when they find the violence that is inherent in their own religion don't you think it is logical that they would deliberately try to mis-interpret it so that it confirmed with thir values, hence the "out-of context", "relevance of time" arguement, the problem is that a minority value their faith above their own conciense and this is where the problem is.

As for your point about the bible, how does one form of evil justify the existence of another, I kept my mouth shut about the bible because I know very little about it, unlike you I do not make assumptions, wether positive or negative, about things that I know nothing about.

Uh-huh. So let's say that you're right. Then there are no Muslim clerics that claim Islam is a religion of peace? Are you a cleric? Since you're claiming authority, are you claiming your studies are further along than the Clerics who are on TV claiming it's a religion of peace?

I find it amusing that you claim a majority of Muslims are non-violent but they are also not 'true' Muslims and they are denying their faith. Their faith is defined by their adherence to it.

If some Muslims are not violent than pretending that they are is a lie

The statement that all muslims are violent is a lie, to state that Islam is not violent is also a lie.

The statement that all muslims are violent is a lie, to state that Islam is not violent is also a lie.
Yes, yes, it's the old True Scotsman fallacy. Amusing but useless.

The statement that all muslims are violent is a lie, to state that Islam is not violent is also a lie.

I disagree. Islam is violent, in the hands OF the violent... just like anything else.

Uh-huh. So let's say that you're right. Then there are no Muslim clerics that claim Islam is a religion of peace? Are you a cleric? Since you're claiming authority, are you claiming your studies are further along than the Clerics who are on TV claiming it's a religion of peace?

There are also clerics who advocate violence, in light of the Afghani trial where a muslim man had converted to a christian, how many clerics unanimously agreed that he should have been put to death, your point is irrelevant, I don't beleive in anything unless their is evidence.

Gentlemen, I intend to put the matter to rest once and for all.

If Muslims are peaceful, how come they haven't surrendered unconditionally to our Coalition Forces?

( yeah, I know I'm being spurious , but it is as good a test-case as any )

I disagree. Islam is violent, in the hands OF the violent... just like anything else.

And the first violent hands that Islam fell into were those of prophet Muhammad.

I disagree. Islam is violent, in the hands OF the violent... just like anything else.

yes, because the Koran advocates violence as the answer to all problems. . . .:rolleyes:
and i'm sure th other 90% of muslims would love to hear your argument. then they would be violent of course. :)

There are also clerics who advocate violence, in light of the Afghani trial where a muslim man had converted to a christian, how many clerics unanimously agreed that he should have been put to death, your point is irrelevant, I don't beleive in anything unless their is evidence.

You're make a blanket statement about the religion. I'm not. This is where your point falls apart. Yes, some clerics lead a violent religion. Some don't. Apparently they don't accept your claims. Perhaps they just need to have Islam explained to them by you.

And the first violent hands that Islam fell into were those of prophet Muhammad.

And according to many this was defensive.

Gentlemen, I intend to put the matter to rest once and for all.

If Muslims are peaceful, how come they haven't surrendered unconditionally to our Coalition Forces?

( yeah, I know I'm being spurious , but it is as good a test-case as any )

It is not a good test case. If I invaded your home and you tried to defend yourself against me (I'm not saying it's exactly equivalent but enough so that you can't claim what you claim), does that evidence your violent nature or just your willingness to protect your life and the lives of your family?

A brothel that has posted a large advertizement consisting of a partially naked woman and the flags of nations participating in the World Cup, including the flags of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries has enraged, guess who? Yep, the Muslims. It seems that using the flags of Muslim nations on a banner bearing a picture of a semi-naked woman is an insult to Islam. Death threats have been issued. Knife-weilding lunatics have shown up at the brothel.

It seems everything is an insult to Islam. Well, Islam is officially now an insult to me. I demand that everyone stop practicing Islam or I will burn down some embassies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4941788.stm

I certainly do not agree with the deaththreats on the Muslim side and the "knife weilding lunaics", but I do not a agree with you too. You seem not to be better than them if you demand stop practicing Islam or you will burn down some embassies. That is certainly not the solution!

I find it amusing that you claim a majority of Muslims are non-violent but they are also not 'true' Muslims and they are denying their faith. Their faith is defined by their adherence to it.

What's so amusing about it? Muslim moderates adhere to their own personal interpretations of their faith so that it collaborates with their peaceful values, or they simply deny the existence of the Islam's inherent violence and injustice.

For example, no moderate would ever admit that Islam would allow you to beat your wife, yet this verse clearly proves otherwise:

" 4:34:

As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge(beat) them."

Or do you consider the Quran inauthentic and "biased as well?

It is not a good test case. If I invaded your home and you tried to defend yourself against me (I'm not saying it's exactly equivalent but enough so that you can't claim what you claim), does that evidence your violent nature or just your willingness to protect your life and the lives of your family?

It is as good a case as any. ( I admit to being a bit spurious, and I admit it is a destructive test ).

The thing is: only the violent defend themselves. People don't have armies unless they are willing to use them. I defend myself. I know I'm a rather violent man.

My assumption is that your average muslim isn't all that different from your average human. And I don't trust your average human all that much, for he's quite an evil little beast.

And according to many this was defensive.

Muhammad fought only one defensive war during his career as a prophet, that was the battle of Uhud, the meccans decided to invade because they were sick of the prophet raiding their caravans. If you claim that they were defesnive, please explain this to me.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jizya is tax, how do you tax someone in self defense?

What's so amusing about it? Muslim moderates adhere to their own personal interpretations of their faith so that it collaborates with their peaceful values, or they simply deny the existence of the Islam's inherent violence and injustice.

For example, no moderate would ever admit that Islam would allow you to beat your wife, yet this verse clearly proves otherwise:

" 4:34:

As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge(beat) them."

Or do you consider the Quran inauthentic and "biased as well?

Yes, I've noticed that you can prove anything about a religion by taking parts of it's religious documents out of context. Like I said, one could claim that slavery is justified by Christianity, but this would be an obviously false claim.

Muhammad fought only one defensive war during his career as a prophet, that was the battle of Uhud, the meccans decided to invade because they were sick of the prophet raiding their caravans. If you claim that they were defesnive, please explain this to me.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jizya is tax, how do you tax someone in self defense?

Unless, he was being figurative. I'm not sayin things can't be interpreted your way. I'm saying you're looking for it to say something. You're using the True Scotsman fallacy though. You are claiming that your view of it is the only TRUE view and that all those Clerics who call it a religion of peace are violating the tenets of the religion itself. It's a fallacy.

It is as good a case as any. ( I admit to being a bit spurious, and I admit it is a destructive test ).

The thing is: only the violent defend themselves. People don't have armies unless they are willing to use them. I defend myself. I know I'm a rather violent man.

My assumption is that your average muslim isn't all that different from your average human. And I don't trust your average human all that much, for he's quite an evil little beast.

Being willing to defend your life does not make you a violent person by most people's definition of the term. If I attempt to attack your daughter and you step up to stop me from doing so, it's not an agressive act. It's a defensive act. One can't call you violent unless you have other workable options. You haven't shown they have other workable options.

Unless, he was being figurative. I'm not sayin things can't be interpreted your way. I'm saying you're looking for it to say something. You're using the True Scotsman fallacy though. You are claiming that your view of it is the only TRUE view and that all those Clerics who call it a religion of peace are violating the tenets of the religion itself. It's a fallacy.

What about when my interpretation collaborates with actual history and fact, during Islams 60 year rise to power, they managed to conquer all of North Africa, part of Spain, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and part of southern India. Do you think that an empire that large could possibly have been carved out in the name of self defense? keep in mind that the leaders of these conquest i.e Abu-Bakr, Khalid-bunul_Waleed, were some of Muhammads closest followers and true to muhammads instructions, they did impose tax on all non-muslims.

Here, take a look at this:

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, number 256

Muhammad approved the killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the women and children) are from them.

Do, you think he killed those women and children in self-defense, or out of loathe for their religion? How do you explain this Hadith....oh wait, you don't agree with the Islamic scholars verdict that Sahih hadiths are authentic, my apologies.

What about when my interpretation collaborates with actual history and fact, during Islams 60 year rise to power, they managed to conquer all of North Africa, part of Spain, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and part of southern India. Do you think that an empire that large could possibly have been carved out in the name of self defense? keep in mind that the leaders of these conquest i.e Abu-Bakr, Khalid-bunul_Waleed, were some of Muhammads closest followers and true to muhammads instructions, they did impose tax on all non-muslims.

Here, take a look at this:

Do, you think he killed those women and children in self-defense, or out of loathe for their religion? How do you explain this Hadith....oh wait, you don't agree with the Islamic scholars verdict that Sahih hadiths are authentic, my apologies.

All you're evidencing is that some Muslims hold to a violent history. You still have yet to explain how some Muslims leaders hold to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace other than your True Scotsman fallacy.

So the Muslim fundies are upset every time an image of their God shows up, and the Christian fundies are upset every time an image of their God isn't plastered on every available surface.

Personally, I find the latter more annoying, if only because of the frequency with which the nutters throw their tantrums.

Hey everybody, I don't really think this relates to this topic but i'd just like to give you a insight on the starting of Islam.


Like everything else it started during the Bible ages, You can find the answer in 1Ch 1:28 "The sons of Abraham: Isaac, and Ishmael." now, historians uses this book of the bible and others to relate back to where famlies came from, so Abraham had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac which was the obedient son, which started The Judeo-Christian (christians)(basis for Law today) and the second son was the disobedient, Ishmael. The two look alot the same eh? Thats where the Islammic religion came from. So people who say Islam is the Right Religion, they're following a Disobedient Son of Abraham.

Be Blessed.

All you're evidencing is that some Muslims hold to a violent history. You still have yet to explain how some Muslims leaders hold to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace other than your True Scotsman fallacy.
Apparently, some clerics take the scripture more seriously than others. Same goes for christian ones, and their flocks. Considering interpretations of the good Book.

To stone or not to stone, for example.

As for that flock word, I wonder if muslim clerics (imams, whatever) also refer to their followers as sheep.

All you're evidencing is that some Muslims hold to a violent history. You still have yet to explain how some Muslims leaders hold to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace other than your True Scotsman fallacy.

The Quran can be divided into two parts, the Meccan verses and the Medinan verses, when Muhammad first started preaching in Mecca he was weak and only had a small following, therefore he kept his message peaceful so that it would appeal to people who were potential candidates to join Islam.

However, once he emigrated to Medina, he gradually built up more power and his following increased, he eventually changed the entire tone of the Quran to a more violent and intolerant one and used force, to amass even more power.

The clerics who claim that Islam is peaceful, rely on the Meccan verses to prove their point, and entirely disregard the existence of the Medinan verses.

Your accusation of me holding to a "True Scotsman fallacy" is flawed, the interpretations that I provided you with actuallly collaborate with the actions of the prophet, this was how the prophet meant them to be interpreted so your arguement holds no water.

And where exactly did I take anything out of context.

Gentlemen, I intend to put the matter to rest once and for all.

If Muslims are peaceful, how come they haven't surrendered unconditionally to our Coalition Forces?

( yeah, I know I'm being spurious , but it is as good a test-case as any )

If Christians are peaceful, why are there even Coalition Forces 'there'?

No religion is inherently violent OR peaceful... they just become that way in the hands of men.

I've seen Buddhists beat a man down in the street...

I've seen Buddhists beat a man down in the street...

i bet that was a sight to behold...

i bet that was a sight to behold...

Unexpected. They handed his ass to him, too. You just haven't lived, till you've seen Buddhists rioting. :)

No religion is inherently violent OR peaceful... they just become that way in the hands of men.

I've seen Buddhists beat a man down in the street...

No. That's where you are wrong, a religion is inherently violent or peaceful based on it's teachings, your point about the existence of violent Buddhists is flawed because their religious teachings don't justify their actions, whereas in Islam violence is justified, is encouraged and is part of the religion, once again, the first violent hands that Islam fell into were those of it's founder.

Now, to address Jocabia. The accusation that I am taking verses out of context is dumb, they aren't there as parables or metaphors, they are there as instructions, when verse 9:29 says fight the infidels and impose tax on them, that is exactly what it means, there is no esoteric meaning to be applied. To fully understand those verses you have to study the Hezbollah (reason for revelation), which I have. Suffice to say that they were not revealed for the sake of self defense.

In fact the early Muslims were actually very reluctant to fight, does it make sense that they would be reluctant if their lives and homes were threatened? This does not make any sense! They were reluctant to be the aggressor, hence the prophet therefore had to rely on revelation to incite them to fight, read these following verses and it all adds up.

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

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

You are welcome to do your own research and come to your own conclusion on whether or not these are "spurious" translations, or whether or not I have taken them out of context.

Like I said, one could claim that slavery is justified by Christianity, but this would be an obviously false claim.

That depends on whether or not Jesus Christ owned slaves himself, or if he allowed any of his followers at the time to own slaves. Unlike Christianity, all the vices in Islam and the Quran were inherent in its founder. Your statement that the immorality of the founder is irrelevant, is one of the most retarded things that I've ever read. The example of the founder is what the followers look to as their guidance, meaning that every action of the prophet, give Muslims a license to do the same.

No. That's where you are wrong, a religion is inherently violent or peaceful based on it's teachings, your point about the existence of violent Buddhists is flawed because their religious teachings don't justify their actions, whereas in Islam violence is justified, is encouraged and is part of the religion, once again, the first violent hands that Islam fell into were those of it's founder.

......

The example of the founder is what the followers look to as their guidance, meaning that every action of the prophet, give Muslims a license to do the same.

1 Would you say that non-violent muslims are not practising properly?

2 Who, in your opinion, is the founder of christianity?

3 Does it say someplace in the koran that every action of the prophet, give Muslims a license to do the same?

Being willing to defend your life does not make you a violent person by most people's definition of the term. If I attempt to attack your daughter and you step up to stop me from doing so, it's not an agressive act. It's a defensive act. One can't call you violent unless you have other workable options. You haven't shown they have other workable options.

One of the problems that arrise out of the argument you are using is that appearently, quite a lot of muslims will 'defend' anything that strikes their fancy as a more normal person would defend a daughter.

I am not interested in their options. Either we have a direct way that ensures that the average muslim behave in a way that pleases us, or we should create such a way without delay.

It isn't about justice - it is about safeguarding OUR security.

1 Would you say that non-violent muslims are not practising properly?

2 Who, in your opinion, is the founder of christianity?

3 Does it say someplace in the koran that every action of the prophet, give Muslims a license to do the same?

1. *nods* certainly your average imam in the middle east would argue so.
2. I offer no opinion.
3. Not so much a license, as an obligation. Once again, I must add, in the middle east, that being the place where the more extreme versions ARE the only versions.

A brothel that has posted a large advertizement consisting of a partially naked woman and the flags of nations participating in the World Cup, including the flags of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries has enraged, guess who? Yep, the Muslims. It seems that using the flags of Muslim nations on a banner bearing a picture of a semi-naked woman is an insult to Islam. Death threats have been issued. Knife-weilding lunatics have shown up at the brothel.

It seems everything is an insult to Islam. Well, Islam is officially now an insult to me. I demand that everyone stop practicing Islam or I will burn down some embassies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4941788.stm
Nice banner ad, I like it! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

The muslims (or some muslim fundamentalists, at least) are really getting more retarded all the time :rolleyes:

1. *nods* certainly your average imam in the middle east would argue so.
2. I offer no opinion.
3. Not so much a license, as an obligation. Once again, I must add, in the middle east, that being the place where the more extreme versions ARE the only versions.
I was actually hoping to hear the viewpoint of the learned ex-muslim. Which I am interested to see. I hope he is not a puppet of yorn. :(

I was actually hoping to hear the viewpoint of the learned ex-muslim. Which I am interested to see. I hope he is not a puppet of yorn. :(

I'm sure he'll be back. And I'm pretty sure I don't have puppets.

1 Would you say that non-violent muslims are not practising properly?

Yes.

2 Who, in your opinion, is the founder of christianity?
Wether or not Jesus Christ was the actual founder of Christianity, he is the example that Christians look to and therefore follow.

3 Does it say someplace in the koran that every action of the prophet, give Muslims a license to do the same?

No offense, but that's a stupid question. It's common sense that the founder of the religion sets the values of his followers, aside from that the Quran claims that Muhammad was sent as an example for all mankind, so to answer your question, yes. It is called Sunna.

.....
That's a stupid question, it's common sense that the founder of the religion sets the values of his followers, aside from that the quran claims that Muhammad was sent as an example for all mankind, so to answer your question, yes. It is called Sunna.
It is not common sense, it's your opinion until you back it up.

Apparently, the sunnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Absolutist_rejection_of_hadith_and_sunnah), of which you speak is somewhat disputed. There are actually groups that claim that since mohammad was just a prophet, there is no reason to follow his example.

Qur'an Alone Muslims reject the alleged sunnah of the prophet Mohammad in accordance with the Qur'an's teaching that the sole duty of Mohammad was to the deliver the Qur'an, as per:

42:48 "You (Mohammad) have NO duty EXCEPT DELIVERING the message."

13:40 "(Mohammad) Your ONLY duty is delivering, we will call them to account."

5:99 "The messenger (Mohammad) has NO function EXCEPT delivery of the message."

Furthermore, they observe Mohammad's only message as the Qur'an, as per:

21:10 "We have sent down to you a scripture containing YOUR MESSAGE. Do you not understand?"

69:44-46 "Had he (Muhammad) uttered any other teachings. We would have punished him. We would have stopped the revelations to him."

Qur'an Alone Muslims uphold only one sunnah; the Qur'an.

Which sect did you belong to?

42:48 "You (Mohammad) have NO duty EXCEPT DELIVERING the message."

13:40 "(Mohammad) Your ONLY duty is delivering, we will call them to account."

5:99 "The messenger (Mohammad) has NO function EXCEPT delivery of the message."

He delivered the message through the Quran, his actions set the example on how they should be followed, once again your point is flawed because his actions were all consistent with the "message" he preached.

Here is where your own source contradicts with your point.

69:44-46 "Had he (Muhammad) uttered any other teachings. We would have punished him. We would have stopped the revelations to him."

Yet he continued to receive revelations. Don't you think that if he didn't practice what he preached he would have been labeled as a hypocrate by his own followers, sorry, but your arguement makes no sense.

Qur'an Alone Muslims uphold only one sunnah; the Qur'an.

Muhammads sunnah was consistent with the sunnah of the Quran, therefore you have no real point. Aside from that the Quran claims that Muhammad had sublime Morals so Muslims judge themselves by his standard.

68:4. And surely thou hast sublime morals.

The Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, but since the Quran claims that the prophet had "sublime Morals", they see nothing wrong with it and hence can justify themselves when they commit the same act.

It is not common sense, it's your opinion until you back it up.

It is common sense, but I am more than happy to provide you with evidence.

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (33:21)

Therefore, yes, his example is supposed to be followed.

Which sect did you belong to?

Sunni with a couple of wahhabi relatives.

I'm tired so I'm off to bed. Will check later for your response.

.....Sunni with a couple of wahhabi relatives.
Isn't that the sect that makes the most of the sunnah? Hence the name. Are you sure your interpretation of the koran is the one adhered to by muslims in general? Because the application of most codified religion is based on interpretation, rendering the texts as such somewhat unimportant. A christian going literally by the bible would find himself in jail very fast.

To understand your views better, are you from Saudi Arabia?

Isn't that the sect that makes the most of the sunnah? Hence the name. Are you sure your interpretation of the koran is the one adhered to by muslims in general?

The Sunni sect makes up close to 90% of all Muslims, they are by far the largest majority, so I will answer with a yes to your question since Sunnis do make up muslims in general. The groups that you refer to are a very small minority, all other sects unanimously agree that their views are "blasphemous".

Because the application of most codified religion is based on interpretation, rendering the texts as such somewhat unimportant.

Muslims rely on Hezbollah or "reason for revealtion" to understand the verses in the Quran, the verses that are their as instructions are to be taken literally. When the Quran praises the prophet by boasting of his "sublime-morals"(68:4) and that "he is a good exaple to follow"(33:21) the meaning there is literal as well. The Quran itself states that it was sent as a guide to mankind.

2:185: Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind

If that guide was based on Metaphors or parables, then people are free to interpret it however they want, and this "guide" would be rendered useless, it would make no sense to have it that way, the interpretations of the Quran are meant to be taken literally, or they are to be interpreted in the way that the prophet meant them to be interpreted by studying the Hadith, Muslims are not free to interpret the Quran in whichever way they want.

If that guide was based on Metaphors or parables, then people are free to interpret it however they want, and this "guide" would be rendered useless, it would make no sense to have it that way, the interpretations of the Quran are meant to be taken literally, or they are to be interpreted in the way that the prophet meant them to be interpreted by studying the Hadith, Muslims are not free to interpret the Quran in whichever way they want.
So the clergy decides on the interpretation. The text is not interpreted literally. Even legal texts today are subject to interpretation.

Anyway, why don't you tell your nationality? Are you afraid that it would be the first step toward revealing your trollness?

So the clergy decides on the interpretation. The text is not interpreted literally. Even legal texts today are subject to interpretation.

The Hadith provides all the reasons for why a particular verse was revealed, the interpretations are based on the Hadith, more often than the meanings ARE literal. Muhammad followed the Quran literally, therefore his followers are supposed to follow it based on literal interpreations as well.

Anyway, why don't you tell your nationality? Are you afraid that it would be the first step toward revealing your trollness?

I did not think that it was relevant to the discussion. I am from the Maldives, it's a small Island nation that is 100% Muslim. They claim to be moderate but I have lived along them long enough to know that this is a false claim, granted they are nowhere near as extreme as the Middle Eastern region, though I would be punished harshly for my apostasy if My government ever found out. Currently I live in Sri Lanka and am preparing to leave for Malaysia in a few months time. Now could we get back to the actual discussion?

The Hadith provides all the reasons for why a particular verse was revealed, the interpretations are based on the Hadith, more often than the meanings ARE literal. Muhammad followed the Quran literally, therefore his followers are supposed to follow it based on literal interpreations as well.

Only the majority doesn't. Why?

I did not think that it was relevant to the discussion. I am from the Maldives, it's a small Island nation that is 100% Muslim. They claim to be moderate but I have lived along them long enough to know that this is a false claim, granted they are nowhere near as extreme as the Middle Eastern region, though I would be punished harshly for my apostasy if My government ever found out. Currently I live in Sri Lanka and am preparing to leave for Malaysia in a few months time. Now could we get back to the actual discussion? I believe you are not who you say you are. And I get some pervert enjoyment frome trollspotting. Your points are worthy of discussion regardless, even if they seem to be pulled from anti-islam websites, rather than your personally gathered knowledge.

Only the majority doesn't. Why?

The majority read the Quran in Arabic without understanding the meaning of it. Aside from that the majority have a conscience and deliberately interpret them so that they are peaceful, my arguement is that Islam and it's founder were violent, not Muslims. (not the moderates who live in denial anyway)

I believe you are not who you say you are. And I get some pervert enjoyment frome trollspotting

I am exactly who I say I am, but like you said, who I am is irrelevant to my arguement, you are free to beleive what you want. Any moderator is more than welcome to search my IP address.

Your points are worthy of discussion regardless, even if they seem to be pulled from anti-islam websites, rather than your personally gathered knowledge.

False, but fair enough. My eveidence is authentic and I will continue to use them, wether or not you beleive I have an ulterior motive.

Now it is my turn to ask you some questions of my own.

1. Do you beleive that Muhammad was the messenger of God?

2. If not, then do you think that he was a liar?

3. Do you deny the "sahih"(fully authentic and accepted by all Islamic scholars) evidence that clearly prove that Muhammad was a violent man? evidence such as this:

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:

Muhammad approved the killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the children) are from them…

4. If your answer was "NO" to question one and three, and "YES" to question two....do you then beleive that such a man could have possibly created a religion of peace?

Please answer with a simple yes or a no.

The majority read the Quran in Arabic without understanding the meaning of it. Aside from that the majority have a conscience and deliberately interpret them so that they are peaceful, my arguement is that Islam and it's founder were violent, not Muslims. (not the moderates who live in denial anyway)

I think it also quite possible that it is you who are in denial of the fact that both meaning and ambit of all written rules evolves over time. Always. What was created has little to do with what is.

As for the violence of the founder, he was an empire-builder. Violence comes with the job.

1. Do you beleive that Muhammad was the messenger of God?

2. If not, then do you think that he was a liar?

3. Do you deny the "sahih"(fully authentic and accepted by all Islamic scholars) evidence that clearly prove that Muhammad was a violent man? evidence such as this:[...]

4. If your answer was "NO" to question one and three, and "YES" to question two....do you then beleive that such a man could have possibly created a religion of peace?

1. no
2. yes
3. no
4. yes

I think it also quite possible that it is you who are in denial of the fact that both meaning and ambit of all written rules evolves over time. Always. What was created has little to do with what is.

What a religion is based on will never change. What's ironic is that even a Muslim would reject your defense of Islam, since they believe that the Quran is the final and most perfected revelation, hence Muhammad being the last messenger of God. To re-interpret it or to “evolve” it as you say would be blasphemy.

5:3 Today, I have completed your religion, perfected My blessing upon you,


As for the violence of the founder, he was an empire-builder. Violence comes with the job.

You can only build an Empire by conquering and enslaving, for this Muhammad relied upon his followers, to incite his followers to do his bidding, he relied on revelation i.e. the Quran. Therefore, if the Quran advocates violence, Islam advocates violence as well. You admit that Muhammad was violent, th Quran states that:

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (33:21)

Do you therefore think that prophet Muhammads violent ways were a good example to follow? He was also a pedophile, a misogynist and a rapist...are these good examples to follow? Do you agree with the Quran that the prophet had "sublime Morals"(68:4)

1. no
2. yes
3. no
4. yes

You admit that Muhammad was a liar, you don't deny that he killed women and children, or that annhialted countless Jewish settlements, enslaved and raped their women, you cannot deny that the Quran states that the prophet was a "good example to follow" and had "sublime morals"....yet you say that this man is capable of producing a "religion of peace".....I find your logic very interesting, perahaps you would care to explain it. (I am not interested to hear how certain followers decided to re-interpret and "evolve" his message, well after Muhammad died.) Please explain your logic.

What a religion is based on will never change. What's ironic is that even a Muslim would reject your defense of Islam, since they believe that the Quran is the final and most perfected revelation, hence Muhammad being the last messenger of God. To re-interpret it or to “evolve” it as you say would be blasphemy.

Blasphemy or not, this is the way it is. Those who see the qur'an as the final revelation, do they believe that it interprets itself? Especially the fact that a certain class has a monopoly on interpretation points to there being a new interpretation as this class is renewed. Thus re-interpretation is an ongoing process. Evolution.




You can only build an Empire by conquering and enslaving, for this Muhammad relied upon his followers, to incite his followers to do his bidding, he relied on revelation i.e. the Quran. Therefore, if the Quran advocates violence, Islam advocates violence as well. You admit that Muhammad was violent, th Quran states that:

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (33:21)

Do you therefore think that prophet Muhammads violent ways were a good example to follow? He was also a pedophile, a misogynist and a rapist...are these good examples to follow? Do you agree with the Quran that the prophet had "sublime Morals"(68:4)

A fine example of the need to interpret. You choose to believe that this statement from the qur'an means that muslims must do as mohammad allegedly did. I believe otherwise. A member of the islamic clergy is bound to have issued a statement.



You admit that Muhammad was a liar, you don't deny that he killed women and children, or that annhialted countless Jewish settlements, enslaved and raped their women, you cannot deny that the Quran states that the prophet was a "good example to follow" and had "sublime morals"....yet you say that this man is capable of producing a "religion of peace".....I find your logic very interesting, perahaps you would care to explain it. (I am not interested to hear how certain followers decided to re-interpret and "evolve" his message, well after Muhammad died.) Please explain your logic.
Anyone can theoretically do anything. If you wanted my logic you shouldn't have asked for simple yes or no answers. Obviously such answers could never be satisfactory. Ask again, if you're still interested. Can you read arabic?

Pfft. It's things like this that makes me want to parade around in a thong bikini made from the Saudi Arabian flag. I swear, they'll take offense at anything these days.

I did not think that it was relevant to the discussion. I am from the Maldives, it's a small Island nation that is 100% Muslim. *snip*

100% Muslim, wow, how did they manage that. So I should go there and make it like 99.99999% Muslim... :D

:-)-+-< see that? thats muhammad that is. anyone who could get offended so easily is probably autistic or something. dumb fucks. good thing iv got a fire proof embassy.

Again, it's nice to see how a majority of NationStates posters would cream in their pants at the prospect of every brown and dark-skinned man woman and child who proclaims their faith and allegiance to Allah and Muhammed laying on the ground with their skull and brain spattered.

Blasphemy or not, this is the way it is. Those who see the qur’an as the final revelation, do they believe that it interprets itself? Especially the fact that a certain class has a monopoly on interpretation points to there being a new interpretation as this class is renewed. Thus re-interpretation is an ongoing process. Evolution.

I am aware that this is the case, but in the process these interpretations deviate from what the entire doctrine was based on and no longer satisfy the intent of its founder. It is illogical to state that later interpretations of Islam are the authentic version of the religion. Islam as practiced by the prophet is the Islam that I refer to as this is the version of the faith that extremists adhere to. The ORIGINAL version.

What if a few centuries from now people decide that Mein Kampf(sp?) was entirely metaphorical and Hitlers teachings are not to be taken literally, thus re-interpret and evolve it so that it becomes a peaceful doctrine. Would it change the inherent violence that Nazism was based on? No. for the interpretation to be authentic you have to understand the intent of the AUTHOR.

A fine example of the need to interpret. You choose to believe that this statement from the qur'an means that muslims must do as mohammad allegedly did. I believe otherwise. A member of the islamic clergy is bound to have issued a statement.

You forget that what was revealed in the Quran was dictated by the prophet, if he stated that he was "a good example to follow" why would he mean anything else by it? Even if it doesn't mean that Muslims "must" do as he did, it does serve as encouragement. It is a license. Tell me another interpretation for it?

Anyone can theoretically do anything. If you wanted my logic you shouldn't have asked for simple yes or no answers. Obviously such answers could never be satisfactory.

Yes, anyone can "theoretically" do anything but it makes no impact on the probability of him actually doing it. If that "anyone" was a rapist/pedophile/warlord/ruthless conqueror...do you then think it LIKELY that he would preach a religion of peace?

Ask again, if you're still interested.

I am still interested.

Can you read arabic?

I can read and pronounce Arabic words but no, I do not understand the language.

Again, it's nice to see how a majority of NationStates posters would cream in their pants at the prospect of every brown and dark-skinned man woman and child who proclaims their faith and allegiance to Allah and Muhammed laying on the ground with their skull and brain spattered.

Where did anyone say that?

Here is a sahih Hadith, that testifies to the violent example set by the founder of Islam.

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:

. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet .

Here is another one.

Sahih Bukhari vol 3,Book 46, No. 717

Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

Notice is says that the prophet attacked them while they were heedless, clearly demonstrating that this act was not done in self defense. He kept Juwairiyah as a sex slave.

Now take a look at this Hadith by Ibn Ishaq, the earliest known biographer of the prophet.

“Sirat e Rasulullah” by Ishaq, pge 464

After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty. . He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.

Notice that in each of the Hadiths, he takes a captive woman for himself. This is consistent with this verse in the Quran:

33:50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;

It's pretty clear how that verse was supposed to be interpreted.

I await your explanation on why you think that the religion Muhammad preached was peaceful.

Again, it's nice to see how a majority of NationStates posters would cream in their pants at the prospect of every brown and dark-skinned man woman and child who proclaims their faith and allegiance to Allah and Muhammed laying on the ground with their skull and brain spattered.
I agree with the creaming my pants comment but not on the killing of Muslims.

I am aware that this is the case, but in the process these interpretations deviate from what the entire doctrine was based on and no longer satisfy the intent of its founder. It is illogical to state that later interpretations of Islam are the authentic version of the religion. Islam as practiced by the prophet is the Islam that I refer to as this is the version of the faith that extremists adhere to. The ORIGINAL version.

What if a few centuries from now people decide that Mein Kampf(sp?) was entirely metaphorical and Hitlers teachings are not to be taken literally, thus re-interpret and evolve it so that it becomes a peaceful doctrine. Would it change the inherent violence that Nazism was based on? No. for the interpretation to be authentic you have to understand the intent of the AUTHOR.
Authenticity is impossible to establish. Because the meaning of the texts is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is mostly based on the hadiths, which are collected oral traditions. Right? Fairytales, recorded hearsay. Hence, the interpretation depends on what fairytales have been deemed appropriate.

As for your reference to Mein Kampf, tell me, what was the intent of the author?


You forget that what was revealed in the Quran was dictated by the prophet, if he stated that he was "a good example to follow" why would he mean anything else by it? Even if it doesn't mean that Muslims "must" do as he did, it does serve as encouragement. It is a license. Tell me another interpretation for it?

This is your personal interpretation. Others may share it, but the list of possible explanations is long. At the time, it was considered quite appropriate, pretty much anywhere, to kill your enemies and enslave the women and children. How is Mohammad any worse than the rest?

Yes, anyone can "theoretically" do anything but it makes no impact on the probability of him actually doing it. If that "anyone" was a rapist/pedophile/warlord/ruthless conqueror...do you then think it LIKELY that he would preach a religion of peace?
As I stated above, mohammad seems to have been quite the bonus pater leader of men. No particular cruelty or viciousness. How do you come to the conclusion that he was a rapist and/or pedophile? The collected oral traditions?


I am still interested. Eve if I don't deny his horribleness, I remain unconvinced of it. Besides, 'Religion of Peace' is rather vague. Would you call christianity a religion of peace?

Ossama Bin Baddies niece was in GQ or Vogue or something and she was all tramped up, not really a good look for the Defender of the faith.:p

Authenticity is impossible to establish. Because the meaning of the texts is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is mostly based on the hadiths, which are collected oral traditions. Right? Fairytales, recorded hearsay. Hence, the interpretation depends on what fairytales have been deemed appropriate.

No. There is a complex system designed to establish which Hadiths are appropriate, with "hasan" and "sahih" being the highest levels, "sahih" being the highest, all the hadiths I provided for you were sahih (with the exception of the Ibn Ishaq one) meaning that their authenticity cannot be questioned. It also does not make sense that devout followers of Islam would try to incriminate their own prophet like that by making up stories that show him in such a negative light. Sahih Hadiths form the backbone of Islam and cannot be dismissed.

As for your reference to Mein Kampf, tell me, what was the intent of the author?

Power.

At the time, it was considered quite appropriate, pretty much anywhere, to kill your enemies and enslave the women and children. How is Mohammad any worse than the rest?

Because he founded a religion based on the barbaric principles of their time and furthemore claimed to be an example for all mankind to follow, he also claimed to have sublime morals and stated that all non-muslims were jahhlliyah (ignorant). He claimed to be the prophet of God so he should have set a better example.

And for your information it was never appropriate to kill you enemies and enslave women and children, ethics is irrelevant to time.

This is your personal interpretation. Others may share it, but the list of possible explanations is long. At the time, it was considered quite appropriate, pretty much anywhere, to kill your enemies and enslave the women and children. How is Mohammad any worse than the rest?

Actually roughly 98% of all muslims would testify that the example of the prophet should be followed, it is not my personal interpretation.

As I stated above, mohammad seems to have been quite the bonus pater leader of men. No particular cruelty or viciousness. How do you come to the conclusion that he was a rapist and/or pedophile? The collected oral traditions?

Once again, all the hadiths I provided were sahih, a hadith is deemed sahih when numerous different sources or authors, all account for the same thing and they all collaborate with each other. They cannot be dismissed.

Eve if I don't deny his horribleness, I remain unconvinced of it. Besides, 'Religion of Peace' is rather vague. Would you call christianity a religion of peace?

I know very little about Christianity so I will offer no opinion.

I will ask you one more question. I will once again ask you to answer with a simple yes or a no:

If Muhammad was indeed a rapist/pedophile/warlord/ etc....do you think that he is a good example for current day Muslims to follow? (Yes/No)

She has nice lips though.

I think that there are two perspective to cultic religious worship.

1. Is to have a 'personality cult' a living personality cult is based upon an individuals like a president or a general or a doctor. A ancestory based is often turned into 'symbolic relgious or cultural' depending on wether historians call the mythical or real and wether they are tied into a divine theon or have solely human ancestory.

In the case of Mohammad he is a 'man' with human parents, although his father one of a group that was a keeper of a celestial object the black stone or is it kabbah.

Anyway he was raised as a foster child of his uncle a merchant. In mohammads travels he appently came into contact with the 'jewish' although not modern jewish teachings. He spent much time in a cave and was illiterate, some creature or powerful being perhaps an angel although babylonian angels were the winged bulls and other angels were said to be wandering 'human like' gnostics. The early christian churches were active at this time. Mohammed ended up bringing monotheism to an otherwise paganistic area, and said the same god as the christians and jews brining al into allignment of the same centrificatio of faith. Mohammad allied with the jews but a messenger from god told him the jews were plotting against him and so he went to war although with mixed viciousness.

Mohammad never wrote the khoran, one of his wives and other close persons did. So really we do not know if it was mohammads opinion or his wives and assosiates opinions.

Taking anything out of context does nothing. If we live totally by logic then we discover union with g-d. Contradiction is only contradiction if you think any moment is the same. Things change. Relgion and chronicals are histories with meanings. Just because someone does something at one time doesn't mean it is applicable in every case. Live your own life, if you nderstand the meaning behind the act rather than the act then you may understand. Morals are universal. It is largely a kingdom based, that is following of either mohammad and his chosen disciples or following of all individuals claiming to be his followers. Does authority exist in politics of self, or in ancestory of authority?

I think it is important to say no one is alike trying to group everyone that experiences something and identifies with it in the same group is like saying that everyone who learns math is as proficient efficient and does it the same way. Worship is art.

Think carefully and ask yourself why you think or feel a way until you can't anymore, if you can't do that then you are blinded in ignorance.

Can I join in? Not because i'm particularly insulted or anything, I just want to burn stuff.
Count me in.

I know very little about Christianity so I will offer no opinion.

I will ask you one more question. I will once again ask you to answer with a simple yes or a no:

If Muhammad was indeed a rapist/pedophile/warlord/ etc....do you think that he is a good example for current day Muslims to follow? (Yes/No)

A: Methinks Quagmus was talking about the crusades

B: No, but looking at places like Afghanistan...

Mohammad allied with the jews but a messenger from god told him the jews were plotting against him and so he went to war although with mixed viciousness.

Muhammad, when he first started preaching did indeed try to keep his message appealing and consistent with the Jews, hoping that they were likely to join Islam and accept him, Muhammad as their prophet. However when they rejected his message he was furious with them, the vicious war that he waged against them was a form of punishment. That an angel warned him about the Jews plotting against him, was simply the alibi that he used.

Mohammad never wrote the khoran, one of his wives and other close persons did. So really we do not know if it was mohammads opinion or his wives and assosiates opinions.

Muhammad didn't write it, but he did dictate what was to be written so everything in it IS his personal opinion, they were written down in HIS presence. Also the Quran is quite discriminatory towards women, it is very unlikely that these were the opinions of his wife or wives.

Taking anything out of context does nothing. If we live totally by logic then we discover union with g-d. Contradiction is only contradiction if you think any moment is the same. Things change.

Where did I take anything out of context? The meanings of the verses that I provided you with were how Muhammad applied them, which context are you talking about?

Just because someone does something at one time doesn't mean it is applicable in every case.

When was it ever alright to wage war against someone for their beliefs? When was it ever alright to kill women and children or take them as captives? When was it ever alright to rape female prisoners of war? In which times or cases were they applicable?

It is the Muslim belief that the example of the prophet is an example for all mankind to emulate for all time. That the religion he preached was the most perfected version of it. That is why they believe that he is the LAST messenger of God, so to a Muslim the "context of time" argument" is actually pretty useless, since it goes against their own beliefs.


Think carefully and ask yourself why you think or feel a way until you can't anymore, if you can't do that then you are blinded in ignorance.

I am an ex-Muslim who left Islam because I was horrified with the actions of my prophet, and horrified at some of the cruel teachings of Islam. Back when I was a Muslim I used the same "out-of-context", "context-of time-argument" to defend my religion when others attacked it (mostly over the internet as I lived in a fully Muslim country). Eventually as I researched deeper into my religion the more horrified I became, so I finally decided to leave it. I am an atheist now and have been so for the past 3 months.

A: Methinks Quagmus was talking about the crusades

When judging a religion, how peaceful it is, whatever, it is best to look at the example set by the founder and look to the principles inherent within the religion itself. This is the logic I use to judge Islam.

No. There is a complex system designed to establish which Hadiths are appropriate, with "hasan" and "sahih" being the highest levels, "sahih" being the highest, all the hadiths I provided for you were sahih (with the exception of the Ibn Ishaq one) meaning that their authenticity cannot be questioned. It also does not make sense that devout followers of Islam would try to incriminate their own prophet like that by making up stories that show him in such a negative light. Sahih Hadiths form the backbone of Islam and cannot be dismissed.

Such claims need to be backed up if we are having a discussion. Especially since the hadiths seem to form a crucial pillar of your argument. Why can they not be dismissed?


And for your information it was never appropriate to kill you enemies and enslave women and children, ethics is irrelevant to time.Ethics change over time. Shall I back that up or will you? Because this is is also an important pillar of your argument.

Actually roughly 98% of all muslims would testify that the example of the prophet should be followed, it is not my personal interpretation. How important is the testament of roughly 98% of all muslims?


I will ask you one more question. I will once again ask you to answer with a simple yes or a no:

If Muhammad was indeed a rapist/pedophile/warlord/ etc....do you think that he is a good example for current day Muslims to follow? (Yes/No) Because you will surely ask me to explain, regardless of your wish for a yes/no answer, I will disregard that wish. My answer is... I don't think people should indulge in rape, pedophilia, or warlording. In that respect, no. You have however not explained how you come to the conclusion that he was a rapist and/or pedophile? Please do.

When judging a religion, how peaceful it is, whatever, it is best to look at the example set by the founder and look to the principles inherent within the religion itself. This is the logic I use to judge Islam.

Not at all. When judging a religion, it is best to judge the religion... not to pick little elements of it, like who wrote it, or what the extremists think.

Jesus apparently got his visions from starving himself for 6 weeks until starvation hallucinations kicked in, that makes no comments about what Christianity 'means'.

Not at all. When judging a religion, it is best to judge the religion... not to pick little elements of it, like who wrote it, or what the extremists think......
That depends on what conclusion you want, though.

That depends on what conclusion you want, though.

I guess.

I was taking the word 'judge' at face value, rather than looking for a justification for a specific view.

I'm insulted by this whole thread! Can anyone tell me how I can burn this forum down. Or hang it. Or chop it's head off. Or stab it with a knife. Or....um......blow myself up taking this forum with it...peacefully, loving my brother, regliously burning, hanging, chopping, stabbing and explodingly you understand.:headbang: (Am I being racist or stereotypical?)

I guess.

I was taking the word 'judge' at face value, rather than looking for a justification for a specific view.

That's exactly the point. I know that he is trying to pretend as if he's being objective but it's clear he's just trying to justify his conclusion. That's why I stopped arguing with him. When one bases a conclusion on all available evidence then they are worth arguing with because you are giving them new evidence or reinterpreting old evidence. When they are simply using evidence to support a conclusion then you are never going to make any difference by discussing ANYTHING with them.

Such claims need to be backed up if we are having a discussion. Especially since the hadiths seem to form a crucial pillar of your argument. Why can they not be dismissed?

The evidence is in that the hadiths I provided you with have been deemed as "sahih". Meaning that they were a) narrated by trustworthy sources and b) many many different sources all account for the exact same thing. Sahih hadiths are a combination both a) and b). I have cited the sources for you, you are welcome to do your own research on wether or not they are authentic.

Ethics change over time. Shall I back that up or will you? Because this is is also an important pillar of your argument.

Morals may change but ethics do not, ethics are based on concsience, "do not do unto others what you would not do unto yourself" etc. I would not like to be tortured so I do not torture, I do not want to be killed so I do not Kill...etc. Morals are based on what values a society deems either good or bad, i.e based on social or religious values you may state that homosexuality is immoral, but you cannot state that being gay is un-ethical.

How important is the testament of roughly 98% of all muslims?

Quite important.

You have however not explained how you come to the conclusion that he was a rapist and/or pedophile? Please do.

Based on the SAHIH hadiths that I provided. Based on the evidence that Muslims, Historians, biographers of the prophet, Islamic scholars have deemed as authentic. Once again a Hadith is deemed as sahih based on a selective process.

There is also the fact that the sources of all these Hadiths were all devout Muslims, once again, does it make sense that they would deliberately make up stories to show their own revered prophet in such a negative light?

Explain your answer, but please begin with either a "yes" or a "no".