NationStates Jolt Archive

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".
It makes sense if they are trying to justify rape or pedophelia.

I love how you admit that a large portion of Muslims are peaceful, but you argue that Islam CAN'T be because of certain interpretations. And then when challenged the popularity of certain ideas among Muslims is important.

Are the beliefs of individual Muslims important or not? Because you've argued both sides of that coin depending on what was convenient at the time.

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 would say that you're simply being a dickhead for being a dickhead's sake myself.

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.
The sahih hadiths are now the only basis for your opinion. Let's focus on their credibility, then.

You do not know their sources, their narrators. Yet you cling religiously to their truthfulness. Because someone says that they cannot be questioned, you do not, either. How can you leave the religion, yet keep adhering to such religious dogma?

You are the one claiming that the hadiths prove things. You bear the burden of proof, then. I suggest you start by posting the relevant hadith snippets. Those might further your point a little, regardless of the credibility of the hadiths and their value in demonstrating the inherent violence of islam.

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.
Shall I name examples of ethics that have changed? Do you have a certain definition of ethics in mind?


Quite important.But still you say that the majority of muslims are wrong, but you are right? What admireable self-assuredness. Does this mean that their opinion as regarding the inherent evilness of islam matters, or not?



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. This selective process has been going on for how long? When did it stop, or is it still being carried out?

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".
Which negative light? The pedophilia/rapist part, of which you speak, but have not shown indications of? The being a warlord/ruthless conqueror part, which I fail to see as negative, given the times?

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.

What is wrong with justifying your conclusion, I came to a conclusion based on my own research and back myslef up with evidence. I would not state my opinions if I did not beleive in them, that would make me a hypocrate. You are free to accept or reject my views.

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.

Fair enough. Give me the evidence that supports your views then.

When they are simply using evidence to support a conclusion then you are never going to make any difference by discussing ANYTHING with them.

You say that it is necssary to look at all the evidence available, yet when I give you that eveidence you decided to dismiss them as "spurious" translation from "biased sources". You say you are objective yet you already seemed to have picked a side, even though you do not seem to know very much about the religion.

It makes sense if they are trying to justify rape or pedophelia.

Well, to be honest with you back when I was a Muslim that's how I used to think, so I see where your'e coming from. The problem is that dozens of different sources all account for the same thing and the descriptions are strikingly similar, then there is also the fact that they collaborate with the Quran. However I see the logic in your arguement and will conced defeat to your rebuttal of my point. I still maintain that the hadiths are authenitc.

I love how you admit that a large portion of Muslims are peaceful, but you argue that Islam CAN'T be because of certain interpretations.

I base my interpretations on how the prophet applied them, my point is that even though the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the violent side that extremists adhere to IS inherent within the religion.

Are the beliefs of individual Muslims important or not? Because you've argued both sides of that coin depending on what was convenient at the time.

If their religious beleifs are actually consistent with the beleifs of the prophet yes, if not, no. Beleifs may collaborate with the religion but they cannot change it.

What is wrong with justifying your conclusion, I came to a conclusion based on my own research and back myslef up with evidence. I would not state my opinions if I did not beleive in them, that would make me a hypocrate. You are free to accept or reject my views.



Fair enough. Give me the evidence that supports your views then.



You say that it is necssary to look at all the evidence available, yet when I give you that eveidence you decided to dismiss them as "spurious" translation from "biased sources". You say you are objective yet you already seemed to have picked a side, even though you do not seem to know very much about the religion.



Well, to be honest with you back when I was a Muslim that's how I used to think, so I see where your'e coming from. The problem is that dozens of different sources all account for the same thing and the descriptions are strikingly similar, then there is also the fact that they collaborate with the Quran. However I see the logic in your arguement and will conced defeat to your rebuttal of my point. I still maintain that the hadiths are authenitc.



I base my interpretations on how the prophet applied them, my point is that even though the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the violent side that extremists adhere to IS inherent within the religion.



If their religious beleifs are actually consistent with the beleifs of the prophet yes, if not, no. Beleifs may collaborate with the religion but they cannot change it.

We offered you evidence and you used the True Scotsman fallacy to dismiss it. It's called a fallacy for a reason. You've demonstrated that the only interpretation of the evidence you'll accept is your interpretation. You've demonstrated that you will dismiss any evidence to that contrary. In my opinion, that makes you not worth arguing with.

You know what's a good indicator of someone who is not actually looking to analyze evidence but instead to simply create a soapbox, they same things like 'real Muslims' or 'everyone believes' or 'you must agree' or such things. Shall I quote you make these kinds of statements or do you want to leave well enough alone?

Here is a sahih Hadith, that testifies to the violent example set by the founder of Islam.

Here is another one.

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.

Notice that in each of the Hadiths, he takes a captive woman for himself. This is consistent with this verse in the Quran:

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.
Are those (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10874799&postcount=484) supposed to be evidence of rape and pedophelia? How was that verse supposed to be interpreted? Please explain, especially the pedophilia part, for I see it not.

All muslims ever seem to do these days is get offended by images.

All muslims ever seem to do these days is get offended by images.

Really? You know them all, huh? Whats that like?

Really? You know them all, huh? Whats that like?
Sufficient numbers of them (in the millions) seem to be offended. So, you know them all too, and know that absolutely none of them were offended?

It's pretty lame. I mean, Christians who are offended by Harry Potter don't call for the death of the author, and don't riot in the streets and burn down embassies, do they?

While the millions of Muslims who are offended by images of Muhammed drawn by some Danes call for the death of the cartoonists and publishers, and riot in the streets for days and burn down embassies?

Hmm?

Really? You know them all, huh? Whats that like?
no. I don't know them all.

Really? You know them all, huh? Whats that like?

So it's your assertion, then, that they're a peaceful lot?
Checked 'em all or summat?

So it's your assertion, then, that they're a peaceful lot?
Checked 'em all or summat?

Possibly, just possibly, I was making the point that not all Muslims are getting offended. A sizable minority, perhaps, but not 'All' of them, as Swilatia seemed to indicate.

But please, don't let my reason get in the way of Muslim-bashing...

Oh no we have to respect symbolic speech even if we don't like it!

Possibly, just possibly, I was making the point that not all Muslims are getting offended. A sizable minority, perhaps, but not 'All' of them, as Swilatia seemed to indicate.

But please, don't let my reason get in the way of Muslim-bashing...


Is the group you're trying to defend absolutely no threat whatsover, or is that group a danger to be dealt with?


There is no reason but raison d'Etat...

I'll happily concede your point that it isn't very rational to think that we should run every time some muslim opens his mouth, when it is in fact a case of Omar or Mustafa being a naughty boy who needs a spanking.
But I think it is very strange that certain folks are more interested in giving THEM blanket-protection that giving US blanket-protection.

As long as there is talk of 'we Muslims' the 'we Westerners' or 'we Europeans' or 'we Americans' are thoroughly right in confronting their corporate ( or algamate ) identity.

Is the group you're trying to defend absolutely no threat whatsover, or is that group a danger to be dealt with?


There is no reason but raison d'Etat...

I'll happily concede your point that

Okay. IU'm just making the point that not all Muslims are being offended by the images. A sizable minority are, yes. Quite possibly egged on by radical preachers and governments. Not all, however. There are many organisations of peaceful Muslims who will have nothing to do with these protests, but are of course ignored by those who wish to paint the entire religion in a negative light.

Is it possible, just possible for you to concede that not all Muslims are rioting/getting offended?

Okay. IU'm just making the point that not all Muslims are being offended by the images. A sizable minority are, yes. Quite possibly egged on by radical preachers and governments. Not all, however. There are many organisations of peaceful Muslims who will have nothing to do with these protests, but are of course ignored by those who wish to paint the entire religion in a negative light.

Is it possible, just possible for you to concede that not all Muslims are rioting/getting offended?


*nods*

Yes, I concede that quite happily.

I was still editing my post - the fault is mine.

Okay. IU'm just making the point that not all Muslims are being offended by the images. A sizable minority are, yes. Quite possibly egged on by radical preachers and governments. Not all, however. There are many organisations of peaceful Muslims who will have nothing to do with these protests, but are of course ignored by those who wish to paint the entire religion in a negative light.

Is it possible, just possible for you to concede that not all Muslims are rioting/getting offended?
If it helps, I personally share an office with a Muslim gentleman who has yet to express any outrage or desire to shoot people in regards to these cartoons. I'm reasonably certain he really does exist, though it is possible the fumes from the lab nextdoor have caused me to halluncinate very convincingly for the last 11 months.

*nods*

Yes, I concede that quite happily.

I was still editing my post - the fault is mine.

Yes, I see now. My apologies for writing too fast. Yes, I agree, it isn't a fair thing. And I'm certainly not trying to defend them all or become an apologist. There are extremists and they are worrying. However, I was merely pointing out that not all should be tarred with the same brush.

If it helps, I personally share an office with a Muslim gentleman who has yet to express any outrage or desire to shoot people in regards to these cartoons. I'm reasonably certain he really does exist, though it is possible the fumes from the lab nextdoor have caused me to halluncinate very convincingly for the last 11 months.

My point exactly.

My point exactly.
You know, speaking of my coworker, I have a question.

This coworker has a son, about 3 or 4 years old I think. What would be the "right" Muslim response if the kid drew a picture of the Prophet? I mean, I have known little Christian kids to doodle pictures of Jesus, just because they've learnt that Jesus is a good fellow and they feel like drawing somebody, so what happens if a little Muslim kid does the same? How are the parents supposed to respond? I have to believe that this has come up at least once in all the history of Islam.

......
As long as there is talk of 'we Muslims' the 'we Westerners' or 'we Europeans' or 'we Americans' are thoroughly right in confronting their corporate ( or algamate ) identity.
Yes, in a sense. This is similar to the 'either you are an ally or an enemy' doctrine. Also: If they do it, we are free to. This mentality is the surest way to maintain conflict, always.

Yes, I see now. My apologies for writing too fast. Yes, I agree, it isn't a fair thing. And I'm certainly not trying to defend them all or become an apologist. There are extremists and they are worrying. However, I was merely pointing out that not all should be tarred with the same brush.


I know that, and quite agree.

With one aside, though.
As long as 'us fellowns' get confronted through their corporate identity as 'we Muslims', we retain the right to deal with them on an aggregrate level.

Obviously, there are limitations to that right, not the least of them being the British sense of fair play and decency. I imagine that even the average BNP voter would dislike the idea of, say, beheading some 4 year old Pakistani girl over the insult offered to the Danish flag. And I for one would be happy to deal severely with the dolt ( or worse ) who would attempt so.

( But a serious attempt to outline those limitations would be too lengthy to merit it's space. )

You know, speaking of my coworker, I have a question.

This coworker has a son, about 3 or 4 years old I think. What would be the "right" Muslim response if the kid drew a picture of the Prophet? I mean, I have known little Christian kids to doodle pictures of Jesus, just because they've learnt that Jesus is a good fellow and they feel like drawing somebody, so what happens if a little Muslim kid does the same? How are the parents supposed to respond? I have to believe that this has come up at least once in all the history of Islam.

If the parents are Deobandis or Salafists, they have an obligation to kill the kid.

Other Muslims - who can tell? It's a heterodoxy. But there are plenty who would kill their own children.

Yes, in a sense. This is similar to the 'either you are an ally or an enemy' doctrine. Also: If they do it, we are free to. This mentality is the surest way to maintain conflict, always.


As a quick aside, I don't believe in the possibility of avoiding conflict. If history teaches us one thing, it is that war, and not peace, is the norm.

As another aside: quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Reading back, I think I should expand on my first aside.
People go to war because of the things they themselves do or want to do.
Not because of what others do or would want to do.
The latter reason merely serves as an excuse.

If the parents are Deobandis or Salafists, they have an obligation to kill the kid.

Other Muslims - who can tell? It's a heterodoxy. But there are plenty who would kill their own children.
Ok, wait, my sarcasm-o-meter is on the fritz. You're not serious, are you?

Ok, wait, my sarcasm-o-meter is on the fritz. You're not serious, are you?

I'm thinking you should assume that he is dead serious.
It does fit closely with what we know about Salafists and similar ilk.

Possibly, just possibly, I was making the point that not all Muslims are getting offended. A sizable minority, perhaps, but not 'All' of them, as Swilatia seemed to indicate.
While the topic came up, in the case of the original starting article, here in Cologne that "sizeable minority" was about 0.03% of the our muslim citizens. Thats a lot less than the percentage of potentially violent supporters of an average premier league football club.
And now go back to whatever irrational discussion you are having.

I'm thinking you should assume that he is dead serious.
It does fit closely with what we know about Salafists and similar ilk.
Maybe I am really ignorant for saying so, but I have a hard time believing that.

I mean, the Bible says you're supposed to kill your kid if he swears at you, but no Christians actually DO that. Are there really actual living Muslims who would kill a kid for doodling the Prophet?

Maybe I am really ignorant for saying so, but I have a hard time believing that.

I mean, the Bible says you're supposed to kill your kid if he swears at you, but no Christians actually DO that. Are there really actual living Muslims who would kill a kid for doodling the Prophet?


And for much lesser offenses as well.

Personally, I'm not too sure that it is a religious thing, and I believe it is cultural. I am not inclined to believe that it is merely coincidental that Salafism is most 'popular' in areas which have a long history of ( promoting ) human sacrifice.

Religion is usually an excuse, and not the rootcause.

Personally, I'm not too sure that it is a religious thing, and I believe it is cultural. I am not inclined to believe that it is merely coincidental that Salafism is most 'popular' in areas which have a long history of ( promoting ) human sacrifice.I have the feeling you're talking out of your bum. If you or Deep Kimchee have a citation to either the Quran or Sunnah or even a fatwa or Salafi text, post it. Otherwise, you're just slandering a few billion people.

Even in the strictest sects, a child under the age of five would still be cared for by the women. Children are not expected to spring forth from the womb with full knowledge of Islam.

Sidenote, Muslim children are actively discouraged from drawing figures (human and animal) from a very early age, much like Christian children are discouraged from depicting nudity.

Maybe I am really ignorant for saying so, but I have a hard time believing that.

I mean, the Bible says you're supposed to kill your kid if he swears at you, but no Christians actually DO that. Are there really actual living Muslims who would kill a kid for doodling the Prophet?

Yes there are. Maybe you should ask Aryavartha, who is quite familiar with how strict Deobandis are.

It's blasphemy, pure and simple. Now, Christians seem to have gotten over the idea of stoning or burning people at the stake for heresy and blasphemy, but there are literally tens of millions of Muslims who would kill someone for blaspheming.

The classic example I remember (and this is not even Salafists - it's Shias) is a professor in Iran who, during the height of the Iranian Revolution, held up a pair of dice to demonstrate the idea of randomness. One student shouted, "A Satanic artifact!" and the professor's lecture on how the universe is not deterministic (blasphemy) was cut short. He was dragged from the classroom and shot by the Revolutionary Guards for blasphemy.

I have the feeling you're talking out of your bum. If you or Deep Kimchee have a citation to either the Quran or Sunnah or even a fatwa or Salafi text, post it. Otherwise, you're just slandering a few billion people.

Even in the strictest sects, a child under the age of five would still be cared for by the women. Children are not expected to spring forth from the womb with full knowledge of Islam.

See, and that's what I would have expected. But people seem to be suggesting that many Muslim parents would be prepared to kill a 4 year old for drawing a picture.


Sidenote, Muslim children are actively discouraged from drawing figures (human and animal) from a very early age, much like Christian children are discouraged from depicting nudity.
Wow, they aren't supposed to draw ANY people or animals?

Yes there are. Maybe you should ask Aryavartha, who is quite familiar with how strict Deobandis are.

It's blasphemy, pure and simple. Now, Christians seem to have gotten over the idea of stoning or burning people at the stake for heresy and blasphemy, but there are literally tens of millions of Muslims who would kill someone for blaspheming.

The classic example I remember (and this is not even Salafists - it's Shias) is a professor in Iran who, during the height of the Iranian Revolution, held up a pair of dice to demonstrate the idea of randomness. One student shouted, "A Satanic artifact!" and the professor's lecture on how the universe is not deterministic (blasphemy) was cut short. He was dragged from the classroom and shot by the Revolutionary Guards for blasphemy.
!!!

Whoa.

Wow, they aren't supposed to draw ANY people or animals?Some sects include them as part of the proscription against idolatry.

The classic example I remember (and this is not even Salafists - it's Shias) is a professor in Iran who, during the height of the Iranian Revolution...<snip>A university professor is hardly a 3-year-old with a crayon.

Actions during the height of revolutionary fever aren't really instructive as to what is a tenet of faith. They're indicative of the level of hysteria and mob-rule in a particular population; such events occur regardless of religion, culture or geographic boundaries.

Some sects include them as part of the proscription against idolatry.
Ooohkaaaayyy.

Some things are just a little too nutty for me to understand.

I have the feeling you're talking out of your bum. If you or Deep Kimchee have a citation to either the Quran or Sunnah or even a fatwa or Salafi text, post it. Otherwise, you're just slandering a few billion people.

Even in the strictest sects, a child under the age of five would still be cared for by the women. Children are not expected to spring forth from the womb with full knowledge of Islam.

Sidenote, Muslim children are actively discouraged from drawing figures (human and animal) from a very early age, much like Christian children are discouraged from depicting nudity.

The short version of your 'argument' is, judge 'em at their words, not their actions.

You almost persuade me to post several pages of nazi-texts to prove just what good fellers they were. Almost, but not quite.

The short version of your 'argument' is, judge 'em at their words, not their actions.

You almost persuade me to post several pages of nazi-texts to prove just what good fellers they were. Almost, but not quite.
Well, but have you guys provided a single concrete example of Muslims who actually carry out death sentences for children who doodle pictures of the Prophet? I've never heard of this before, not once, even though there are plenty of media outlets that leap to highlight any and all evils of the Muslim world. If Muslims were killing little kids for drawing pictures, why has NOBODY reported about it?

Well, but have you guys provided a single concrete example of Muslims who actually carry out death sentences for children who doodle pictures of the Prophet? I've never heard of this before, not once, even though there are plenty of media outlets that leap to highlight any and all evils of the Muslim world. If Muslims were killing little kids for drawing pictures, why has NOBODY reported about it?


Unless you were to provide me with examples of Salafists being content with merely slapping kids on the wrist for doodling a piccie of Muhammed, I don't think that would be quite relevant.

What we do have, however, is a constant pattern of those fine Salafist lads killing left and right...
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/november_1_1994_170996.html
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1962/july_5_1962_125565.html
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010941.php


In no case whatsoever was there as much as a trial, rendering the phrase 'death sentence' as somewhat ironic.

And that's just the top-3 outcomes for googling the terms murder, algeria.

Unless you were to provide me with examples of Salafists being content with merely slapping kids on the wrist for doodling a piccie of Muhammed, I don't think that would be quite relevant.

Wait, huh?

My original question was, specifically, what are the "official" Muslim rules on how to deal with little kids who draw pictures of the Prophet.

If you state that some Muslims advocate killing such children, then I would expect you to provide some kind of evidence to back up your claim. It would not be my responsibility to prove that no Muslims ever do more than slap these kids on the wrist; that would constitute proving a negative, which is impossible.


What we do have, however, is a constant pattern of those fine Salafist lads killing left and right...
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/november_1_1994_170996.html
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1962/july_5_1962_125565.html
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010941.php


In no case whatsoever was there as much as a trial, rendering the phrase 'death sentence' as somewhat ironic.

And that's just the top-3 outcomes for googling the terms murder, algeria.
I could provide just as long a list of, say, Christians/Catholics in Ireland blowing each other up. Does that mean that I have "proven" that such Irishfolk support the Biblical instruction to murder a child who curses?

Wait, huh?

My original question was, specifically, what are the "official" Muslim rules on how to deal with little kids who draw pictures of the Prophet.

If you state that some Muslims advocate killing such children, then I would expect you to provide some kind of evidence to back up your claim. It would not be my responsibility to prove that no Muslims ever do more than slap these kids on the wrist; that would constitute proving a negative, which is impossible.


I could provide just as long a list of, say, Christians/Catholics in Ireland blowing each other up. Does that mean that I have "proven" that such Irishfolk support the Biblical instruction to murder a child who curses?


My point is that official rules have the same charming irrelevancy in predicting salafist behaviour as the text of the Geneva Conventions have in predicting American behaviour at Gitmo.

My further point would be that a reasonably knowledgeable person already knows that, leaving the very act of posing the original question as a charming irrelevancy to the topic at hand.

One would further assume that a reasonably knowledgeable person is quite aware of the bloodthirstiness under scrutiny.

You assume that there is a need to prove guilt.
Sir, this is not a Courtroom.
We are, or so I hope anyway, a group of reasonable persons interested in determining what courses of action are open to us to safeguard our Societies.

Justice is concerned with sentencing criminals post-facto.
And as it happens, we are concerned with stopping heinous acts... ante-facto, ie, before the assassin has plunged the knife in.

PS: what would the outcome be for googling: murder, ireland?

My point is that official rules have the same charming relevancy in predicting salafist behaviour as the text of the Geneva Conventions have in predicting American behaviour at Gitmo.

Ok. So that would mean that we would not predict salafists to be particularly likely to punish children for drawing such pictures. Right?

1. Texts say that drawing Prophet is idolatry and sinful and warrants swift sword of death.
2. BogMarsh et al assert that "official rules have the same charming relevancy in predicting salafist behaviour as the text of the Geneva Conventions have in predicting American behaviour at Gitmo."
3. Therefore, the textual references to the wrongness of drawing Prophet would not be expected to predict the actual response of Salafists.

Or am I just getting myself more confused?

My further point would be that a reasonably knowledgeable person already knows that, leaving the very act of posing the original question as a charming irrelevancy to the topic at hand.

Well now you're just being insulting. I am a reasonably knowledgeable person, I simply don't have much personal experience with the ins-and-outs of traditional Muslim culture. Rather than leaping to assumptions on my own, I asked a question in the hopes that actual Muslims or scholars of Muslim culture would provide me with more information.

Admitting to ignorance on a subject is not something that should be punished out of hand.


One would further assume that a reasonably knowledgeable person is quite aware of the bloodthirstiness under scrutiny.

I am aware that there are several violent sects of Islam, much as there are violent Christian sects. However, I was curious about a particular issue.

Put it to you another way: I know of several extremely violent Christian sects, groups which advocate and practice violence routinely. However, I have never heard of a single one of these groups actually executing a child who curses. Similarly, I am aware that there are extremely violent Muslim sects, but I have never heard of them executing a child for drawing pictures.


You assume that there is a need to prove guilt.
Sir, this is not a Courtroom.
We are, or so I hope anyway, a group of reasonable persons interested in determining what courses of action are open to us to safeguard our Societies.

Ok, sure. Are you suggesting that "a group of reasonable persons" would automatically assume that Muslims kill children who draw pictures, without having any evidence provided to them that this is occuring?


Justice is concerned with sentencing criminals post-facto.
And as it happens, we are concerned with stopping heinous acts... ante-facto, ie, before the assassin has plunged the knife in.

I think the justice system in my country is, at least nominally, as concerned about preventing crime as it is in punishing those who have already committed crimes.

Personally, I fail to see how assuming guilt automatically is going to help me prevent real criminal acts. If no Muslims are actually killing children who draw pictures, then exactly how am I preventing crimes by assuming that they are?


PS: what would the outcome be for googling: murder, ireland?
I would imagine a list of links refering to murders committed in Ireland.

Ok. So that would mean that we would not predict salafists to be particularly likely to punish children for drawing such pictures. Right?

1. Texts say that drawing Prophet is idolatry and sinful and warrants swift sword of death.
2. BogMarsh et al assert that "official rules have the same charming relevancy in predicting salafist behaviour as the text of the Geneva Conventions have in predicting American behaviour at Gitmo."
3. Therefore, the textual references to the wrongness of drawing Prophet would not be expected to predict the actual response of Salafists.

Or am I just getting myself more confused?

Well now you're just being insulting. I am a reasonably knowledgeable person, I simply don't have much personal experience with the ins-and-outs of traditional Muslim culture. Rather than leaping to assumptions on my own, I asked a question in the hopes that actual Muslims or scholars of Muslim culture would provide me with more information.

Admitting to ignorance on a subject is not something that should be punished out of hand.


I am aware that there are several violent sects of Islam, much as there are violent Christian sects. However, I was curious about a particular issue.

Put it to you another way: I know of several extremely violent Christian sects, groups which advocate and practice violence routinely. However, I have never heard of a single one of these groups actually executing a child who curses. Similarly, I am aware that there are extremely violent Muslim sects, but I have never heard of them executing a child for drawing pictures.


Ok, sure. Are you suggesting that "a group of reasonable persons" would automatically assume that Muslims kill children who draw pictures, without having any evidence provided to them that this is occuring?


I think the justice system in my country is, at least nominally, as concerned about preventing crime as it is in punishing those who have already committed crimes.

Personally, I fail to see how assuming guilt automatically is going to help me prevent real criminal acts. If no Muslims are actually killing children who draw pictures, then exactly how am I preventing crimes by assuming that they are?


I would imagine a list of links refering to murders committed in Ireland.


They kill as they please. You either know that and simply argue in an attempt to change the nature of truth, or you are simply too unaware to have an opinion on the matter at hand. What you cannot do is pee on my leg and ask me to consider the possibility that it is raining.

Yes, you confuse yourself because you engage in sophistry. The fault is your own. Sophistry has that unfortunate tendency - the results are usually bollocks.

My point is and remains that the issue of 'guilt' is pointless, since the very concept of guilt works only post-facto. you may bring up the attempts to prevent crime with justice, but unfortunately, Judge Judy reminded us last week that this approach fails at least 80% of the time. Done in nomen, void in action.

To ask for scholastic texts is quite pointless - apart from simply stringing matters out. Actions, not words.

As to Ireland, googling for murder, ireland doesn't lead to a top-3 with religious connotations. Oddly enough, the result of googling for murder, algeria leads to exactly that...

They kill as they please. ...<snippage>...
To ask for scholastic texts is quite pointless - apart from simply stringing matters out.
Actions, not words.Actually that's not true. Eliminating instances of mob violence (as they have nothing to do with societal structures), death (whether for violation of law or jihad) as punishment is based on scriptural text. You may not approve of that text or find it rational, but Muslim death sentences are no less justified than Christian ones. That's the core problem with theocracies no matter the stripe.

Because of the above, scripture and interpretive texts aren't pointless at all. They're the structure on which Islamic states are built. Do interpretations vary? Sure. And those variations make their way into the documents as well.

Actions? I notice you still haven't provided a single instance of a Muslim killing a Muslim child for violating the proscriptions against idolatry.

Actually that's not true. Eliminating instances of mob violence (as they have nothing to do with societal structures), death (whether for violation of law or jihad) as punishment is based on scriptural text. You may not approve of that text or find it rational, but Muslim death sentences are no less justified than Christian ones. That's the core problem with theocracies no matter the stripe.

Because of the above, scripture and interpretive texts aren't pointless at all. They're the structure on which Islamic states are built. Do interpretations vary? Sure. And those variations make their way into the documents as well.

Actions? I notice you still haven't provided a single instance of a Muslim killing a Muslim child for violating the proscriptions against idolatry.
Honestly, I don't see where the disconnect is occuring.

I asked a question about a SPECIFIC issue. I did not ask for references that show certain Muslim sects to be violent. I am willing to accept that there are violent Muslim sects, and I have no interest in debating that issue. I was interested in a particular doctrinal point.

It is not reasonable to say, "There are Muslim sects we know to be violent, and therefore we can assume that those sects kill children for doodling!" The two are entirely different matters.

They kill as they please. You either know that and simply argue in an attempt to change the nature of truth, or you are simply too unaware to have an opinion on the matter at hand. What you cannot do is pee on my leg and ask me to consider the possibility that it is raining.

I'm sorry if you were insulted by something I have said. I did not intentionally "pee on your leg." Instead, I am trying to gather information.

Whether or not certain Muslim sects "kill as they please" doesn't really answer my question.


Yes, you confuse yourself because you engage in sophistry. The fault is your own. Sophistry has that unfortunate tendency - the results are usually bollocks.

Would you please clarify?


My point is and remains that the issue of 'guilt' is pointless, since the very concept of guilt works only post-facto. you may bring up the attempts to prevent crime with justice, but unfortunately, Judge Judy reminded us last week that this approach fails at least 80% of the time. Done in nomen, void in action.

I did not bring up the issue of "guilt." I was asking about a particular practice (or lack thereof), and was not discussing the "guilt" or "non-guilt" of anybody.


To ask for scholastic texts is quite pointless - apart from simply stringing matters out. Actions, not words.

Again, I did not ask for scholastic texts. Indeed, quite the opposite!

I asked for evidence that this practice is occuring IN REALITY. I have been made aware that there are Muslim texts which state that drawing the Prophet is punishable by death, but my question was whether these instructions are literally carried out in the case of children who draw pictures of the Prophet.


As to Ireland, googling for murder, ireland doesn't lead to a top-3 with religious connotations. Oddly enough, the result of googling for murder, algeria leads to exactly that...
I do not see how that answers my question.

Unless you were to provide me with examples of Salafists being content with merely slapping kids on the wrist for doodling a piccie of Muhammed, I don't think that would be quite relevant.

What we do have, however, is a constant pattern of those fine Salafist lads killing left and right...
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/november_1_1994_170996.html
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1962/july_5_1962_125565.html
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010941.php


In no case whatsoever was there as much as a trial, rendering the phrase 'death sentence' as somewhat ironic.

And that's just the top-3 outcomes for googling the terms murder, algeria.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.html
June 26, 1970 - 2 children murdered
July 21, 1972 - 2 children murdered
Feb 4, 1974 - 2 children murdered
Nov 21, 1974 - 1 child murdered
Aug 27,1979 - 2 children murdered
Dec 6, 1982 - 2 children murdered
Aug 5, 1998 - 9 children murdered

In Ireland they are stoning children to death for wearing clothing made of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I believe an reasonable person would draw the conclusion that we need to do something about Ireland because they murder children for wearing two types of fabric.

See how useless it is when you present evidence that doesn't actually have anything to do with your point.

Either present evidence that children are being directly and intentionally murdered because they drew the prophet or quit acting like it's a given.

muslims have always been mistreated all through history. as a global population we need to start respecting them and all of their needs. we need to start criminalizing the christians that are always mistreating and slandering the muslims.

Sufficient numbers of them (in the millions) seem to be offended. So, you know them all too, and know that absolutely none of them were offended?


I'm not really up on my 'logical fallacies'... but it seems likely that:

"Making a sweeping all-inclusive claim" should really be on there somewhere.

As, I believe should:

"Attempting to reverse the situation, when someone questions a sweeping all-inclusive claim".

One post claimed something general about Islam, and another post expressed doubts that it was true on an ABSOLUTE scale. And now, you expect the skeptic to provide similarly flawed generalisations?

But there are plenty who would kill their own children.

Plenty?

Any evidence for (another) sweeping generalisation?

My point is that official rules have the same charming irrelevancy in predicting salafist behaviour as the text of the Geneva Conventions have in predicting American behaviour at Gitmo.

My further point would be that a reasonably knowledgeable person already knows that, leaving the very act of posing the original question as a charming irrelevancy to the topic at hand.

One would further assume that a reasonably knowledgeable person is quite aware of the bloodthirstiness under scrutiny.

You assume that there is a need to prove guilt.
Sir, this is not a Courtroom.
We are, or so I hope anyway, a group of reasonable persons interested in determining what courses of action are open to us to safeguard our Societies.

Justice is concerned with sentencing criminals post-facto.
And as it happens, we are concerned with stopping heinous acts... ante-facto, ie, before the assassin has plunged the knife in.

PS: what would the outcome be for googling: murder, ireland?

Your sources contained to unsupported statements (which I find hard to consider, therefore, as more than 'hearsay') and a third link which had nothing to do with the question asked.

If this WERE a courtroom, your case would be in tatters.

No one denies that there are some apples in every batch that are bad apples. However, if part of our number wants to claim that those bad apples are a good reason for treating apples as a collective evil, they really should be prepared to support their prejudices/claims with reasonable evidence - courtroom or not.

Personally - my 'intolerance' is towards the inciters of hate or distrust based on generalised, unsupported, stereotypes.

Your sources contained to unsupported statements (which I find hard to consider, therefore, as more than 'hearsay') and a third link which had nothing to do with the question asked.

If this WERE a courtroom, your case would be in tatters.

No one denies that there are some apples in every batch that are bad apples. However, if part of our number wants to claim that those bad apples are a good reason for treating apples as a collective evil, they really should be prepared to support their prejudices/claims with reasonable evidence - courtroom or not.

Personally - my 'intolerance' is towards the inciters of hate or distrust based on generalised, unsupported, stereotypes.

I actually presented more evidence than he did and using that evidence and his logic, it's clear the true threat is the Irish.

I actually presented more evidence than he did and using that evidence and his logic, it's clear the true threat is the Irish.

Hell, I've been saying THAT on here for years... but then again, I grew up in London, while the IRA were doing things like bombing department stores...

(Worth noting, perhaps, that the 'political wing' (Sinn Fein) of the IRA has been collecting funds in the US for years, that they still do - and that the US has, on occassion, still sent official delegates to Sinn Fein events, even AFTER 9/11 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/537556/posts)).

Apparently, though, it's okay to support terrorism IF the terrorists are Catholics or Protestants... but not if they are one of those 'foreign, heathen' religions.

Hell, I've been saying THAT on here for years... but then again, I grew up in London, while the IRA were doing things like bombing department stores...

(Worth noting, perhaps, that the 'political wing' (Sinn Fein) of the IRA has been collecting funds in the US for years, that they still do - and that the US has, on occassion, still sent official delegates to Sinn Fein events, even AFTER 9/11 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/537556/posts)).

Apparently, though, it's okay to support terrorism IF the terrorists are Catholics or Protestants... but not if they are one of those 'foreign, heathen' religions.

Yes. Also people seem to forget that the biggest deadly threat to any random person in the US is easily a white person. The vast majority of murders are by relatives and spouses, etc. so let's not count those. They aren't random. But as far as being a random victim of deadly violence, it's far more likely that the bomber, or arsonist, or serial killer is a white person, and usually a male.

If you counted up ALL of the terrorist bombings or arsons within US borders since the creation of the US, how many would be from Muslims. I suspect it would be the only 'race', religion or ethnicity where I could count them on one hand.

Yes. Also people seem to forget that the biggest deadly threat to any random person in the US is easily a white person. The vast majority of murders are by relatives and spouses, etc. so let's not count those. They aren't random. But as far as being a random victim of deadly violence, it's far more likely that the bomber, or arsonist, or serial killer is a white person, and usually a male.

If you counted up ALL of the terrorist bombings or arsons within US borders since the creation of the US, how many would be from Muslims. I suspect it would be the only 'race', religion or ethnicity where I could count them on one hand.

Makes you think, eh?

The funny thing is - this is all like a horrendous re-enactment of bad 90's movies...

"Here he is now. The man that a thin majority of you chose to be the president of the United States", "Mr. President, the American people will buy whatever we tell them to", "Let me level with you, sir. I would destroy any nation - even my own - if my president gave the order"...

and, of course: "Jesus, is this the best you could come up with? What about, ya know, international terrorism?", "Well, sir, we're not going to re-open missile factories just to fight some creeps running around in exploding rental cars, are we, sir?"....

Life mirrors art?

Unless you were to provide me with examples of Salafists being content with merely slapping kids on the wrist for doodling a piccie of Muhammed, I don't think that would be quite relevant.

What we do have, however, is a constant pattern of those fine Salafist lads killing left and right...
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/november_1_1994_170996.html
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1962/july_5_1962_125565.html
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010941.php


In no case whatsoever was there as much as a trial, rendering the phrase 'death sentence' as somewhat ironic.

And that's just the top-3 outcomes for googling the terms murder, algeria.
What excellent research! Your jihadwatch piece contains this link. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18756466-23109,00.html) There you will find details of your story, including this bit:The radio did not identify the attackers.
Independent newspaper El Watan said the assailants were chanting "God is Greatest" during the attack on the agents who were heading for the oil area of Ouargla to attend a seminar.

The attackers escaped with the customs agents' weapons.

El Khabar said it believed smugglers rather than Islamist gunmen were behind the attack.

The two groups of outlaws have been known to coordinate such attacks in the past.
As for the links to brainyhistory, what are they supposed to prove? That muslims kill people?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.htmlJune ....
Does that link work for anyone else?

Does that link work for anyone else?

Sorry. It's fixed now. For some reason it dropped my carriage return so it ended up appending the date to the end.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.html....
very good, thanxses. Yes it is clear that those Irish are murderous. But that is different because they don't do suicide bombings, as I mentioned someplace earlier. Children should not be blasted to mincemeat by a heathen suicide bomber, but by a rational, christian, serial killer. :)

Okay, I've made it pretty clear that I am not a big fan of Islam, but the assumption that Muslims kill their own children for drawing pictures of the prophet is absoloutely false, though it is punishable, Muhammad never left an exact punishment for the crime, if you consider it a "crime" as such. Muslims are somewhat discouraged from drawing pictures anyways, they beleive that it is blasphemous to imitate the work of God by drawing his creations.

Quagmus, I do not adhere to any religious Dogma so I do not cosnider any hadiths to be authentic simply besaue someone told me so, my research was based on the works of Abu-huariyah, Ibn-Ishaq, Abu-Dawud, Bukhari and Muslim. Anyway you asked me for evidence of Muhammad being a pedophile, this discussion seems to have evolved quite a bit, I'll post it nevertheless:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
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).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4915 and Number 4915
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old

Well, I'll sod off now since my O'levels beging tommorow. It's been an intersting discussion.

Yanno, I used to let some of these things slide a few years ago.
I realize that Muslims in that part of the world have had a lot of bullshit heaped on them, and a lot of injustice has been handed to them -by the western world- for a long time.

However, Im tired of it.

After 9/11, every one has to tread on eggshells for fear of offending the "Muslim Community".
I personally, dont give two fucks about "the muslim community" anymore than I do about any other religious zealot group of nut-bag assholes who bully everyone into complying with thier own desires.

Jesus and Allah can go have a daisy-chain for all I care.

Im tired of uproars happening whenever someone remotely offends Islam.

Im tired of insane christians screaming "Jesus hate them dirty fags!"

Its all hippocritcal bullshit, with no real believers, only people in it for social status, or political, or even financial gain, and none of them are helping anyone, let alone, preaching any kind of "peace".

All of them can pretty much piss off.

Okay, I've made it pretty clear that I am not a big fan of Islam, but the assumption that Muslims kill their own children for drawing pictures of the prophet is absoloutely false, though it is punishable, Muhammad never left an exact punishment for the crime, if you consider it a "crime" as such. Muslims are somewhat discouraged from drawing pictures anyways, they beleive that it is blasphemous to imitate the work of God by drawing his creations.

Quagmus, I do not adhere to any religious Dogma so I do not cosnider any hadiths to be authentic simply besaue someone told me so, my research was based on the works of Abu-huariyah, Ibn-Ishaq, Abu-Dawud, Bukhari and Muslim. Anyway you asked me for evidence of Muhammad being a pedophile, this discussion seems to have evolved quite a bit, I'll post it nevertheless:

Well, I'll sod off now since my O'levels beging tommorow. It's been an intersting discussion.

1, The picture issue is the reason most islamic architecture is covered in patterns, but no pictures.
2, Marriage does not equal sex. Especially when the bride is six. Early marriages have been quite the rage in many parts of the world, especially for political reasons, but also for business reasons, family status, etc.
3, Good luck, yes it has, thanx

2, Marriage does not equal sex. Especially when the bride is six. Early marriages have been quite the rage in many parts of the world, especially for political reasons, but also for business reasons, family status, etc.


...that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old...

Reading comprehension is fun.

I mean, the Bible says you're supposed to kill your kid if he swears at you, but no Christians actually DO that. Are there really actual living Muslims who would kill a kid for doodling the Prophet?


Christians don't take the Bible literally. They interpret it as the Church tells them too. They also believe that the Bible is man's work.

muslims believe that the koran, word for word, is allah's work. If it says to kill someone for drawing muhammed, they must kill them...

Christians don't take the Bible literally. They interpret it as the Church tells them too. They also believe that the Bible is man's work.

muslims believe that the koran, word for word, is allah's work. If it says to kill someone for drawing muhammed, they must kill them...

Wow, wrong on both counts.

I think you'll find that many Christians DO believe the Bible to be the literal word of god, or, at the very least - directly divinely inspired.

On the other count, most muslims (certainly among those I've met) have claimed the Koran as an 'account' of Mohammed's inspiration by Allah.... thus, written by Mohammed, again - divinely inspired.

Christians don't take the Bible literally.So Southern Baptists, not to mention the vast majority of pentecostals, aren't Christians? Guess that's the good news of the day.

Reading comprehension is fun.
These quotations, all sahih and therefor undisputable, differ. They are also translations. What does it say in arabic?

One speaks of consummation, other speaks of cohabitation, one says 6 years old, other says 7 years old. Which goes to show that there is a large margin for doubting truthfulness and accuracy.

And where there is doubt, there is not guilt. What was the norm at the time regarding marriage and the consummation thereof?


Reading comprehension is fun, indeed. I admit, I missed that bit. Otherwise I would have addressed it in 1st reply. I will sulk a little now...:(......:( .......:( ......done.

I actually presented more evidence than he did and using that evidence and his logic, it's clear the true threat is the Irish.
I agree, the Irish are the true danger.

I mean, the wingers have been howling about how Mezikans wave around not-America flags, and how that is proof that the Mezikans want to invade us and steal all our low-paying jobs. Well, I personally have attended enough St. Pat's Day parades to know that the Irish are a much larger threat. Because they have so many more not-America flags, you see.

Christians don't take the Bible literally. They interpret it as the Church tells them too. They also believe that the Bible is man's work.

You're joking, right?

Dude, America is currently afflicted with a massive population of murderous imbeciles who believe that certain passages of the Bible MUST BE INTERPRETTED LITERALLY. Now, granted, they feel qualified to pick and choose which passages those are, but still...they've got no problem at all using Biblical literalism to justify violence and murder.


muslims believe that the koran, word for word, is allah's work. If it says to kill someone for drawing muhammed, they must kill them...
Honestly, is there ANYBODY who is going to provide ANY evidence that Muslims kill little kids who draw pictures of the Prophet? Any evidence at all?

2, Marriage does not equal sex. Especially when the bride is six. Early marriages have been quite the rage in many parts of the world, especially for political reasons, but also for business reasons, family status, etc.



Yes, that's true. And why should we perceive that as any less fucked up than raping a little girl?

Selling a child into marriage is disgusting. Believing that, as a parent, you have the right to sell your child's life to another adult is disgusting. IF there was a "prophet" or leader who supported this practice, I would find him every bit as disgusting as a child molester.

No human being is the property of another. No child deserves to have their future sold to some creepy old man who think's is appropriate to "marry" a 6 year old.



All of which is irrelevant to the point of this thread, but I felt like venting. Please continue. :)

What excellent research! Your jihadwatch piece contains this link. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18756466-23109,00.html) There you will find details of your story, including this bit:
As for the links to brainyhistory, what are they supposed to prove? That muslims kill people?

Would proof be necessary for that?

The danger exists - all that remains to be decided upon is how to eliminate a clear and present danger to the West.

Your sources contained to unsupported statements (which I find hard to consider, therefore, as more than 'hearsay') and a third link which had nothing to do with the question asked.

If this WERE a courtroom, your case would be in tatters.

No one denies that there are some apples in every batch that are bad apples. However, if part of our number wants to claim that those bad apples are a good reason for treating apples as a collective evil, they really should be prepared to support their prejudices/claims with reasonable evidence - courtroom or not.

Personally - my 'intolerance' is towards the inciters of hate or distrust based on generalised, unsupported, stereotypes.


Sir, my intolerance is towards those who lack the necessary zeal to protect OUR interests.

The whole rigmarole of openmindedness - I've heard it all before, during the Cold War. Twas nonsense then, tis nonsense now, and it will be nonsense in the future.

Sir, my intolerance is towards those who lack the necessary zeal to protect OUR interests.

Whose interests?

Whose interests?


Generally speaking, the collective interests of the Nations forming the Atlantic Alliance.
+ various antipodes, Japan and similar.

En bref: the current global Establishment.

And to save a plenitude of explanations: anti-establishmentarianism = treason. Don't expect me to have the slightest sympathy for anyone indulging in it.

Yes, that's true. And why should we perceive that as any less fucked up than raping a little girl?

Selling a child into marriage is disgusting. Believing that, as a parent, you have the right to sell your child's life to another adult is disgusting. IF there was a "prophet" or leader who supported this practice, I would find him every bit as disgusting as a child molester.

No human being is the property of another. No child deserves to have their future sold to some creepy old man who think's is appropriate to "marry" a 6 year old.



All of which is irrelevant to the point of this thread, but I felt like venting. Please continue. :)
The slave trade was until recently considered good business. I don't see the participants as particularly evil, given the times. A slave trader today however is a different animal, as is slavery today.

Generally speaking, the collective interests of the Nations forming the Atlantic Alliance.
+ various antipodes, Japan and similar.

En bref: the current global Establishment.

Ok, so which interests? I mean, you said that you reject those who "lack the necessary zeal to protect OUR interests." Perhaps the problem is that they perceive "our interests" differently than you?


And to save a plenitude of explanations: anti-establishmentarianism = treason. Don't expect me to have the slightest sympathy for anyone indulging in it.
I'm not terribly concerned with obtaining your sympathy. I'm more interested in understanding how you define "our" interests, and how you have determined that said interests must necessarily conflict with the interests of the Muslim world.

The slave trade was until recently considered good business. I don't see the participants as particularly evil, given the times. A slave trader today however is a different animal, as is slavery today.

*scratches head*

Does that mean that you approve of slavery now, but not then?
Or does that mean you approved of slavery then, but not now?

Would proof be necessary for that?

The danger exists - all that remains to be decided upon is how to eliminate a clear and present danger to the West.
muslims kill people, common knowledge. So do non-muslims.

What is a clear and present danger to the West? Muslims? Islam? ManPigDogs? Illegal Terrorist Immigrants?

The slave trade was until recently considered good business. I don't see the participants as particularly evil, given the times. A slave trader today however is a different animal, as is slavery today.
I recognize that there was a historical context to the slave trade. I do not think the historical context in any way diminishes the evil that was done by slave traders. A man who rapes a little girl today is no more or less evil than a man who raped little girls 500 years ago. I am disgusted by people who feel that it is appropriate to worship a child rapist, and even more disgusted that they would try to use historical context to justify it. If God picked a child rapist for his Prophet, then God is clearly unworthy of our respect or adoration.

Ok, so which interests? I mean, you said that you reject those who "lack the necessary zeal to protect OUR interests." Perhaps the problem is that they perceive "our interests" differently than you?


I'm not terribly concerned with obtaining your sympathy. I'm more interested in understanding how you define "our" interests, and how you have determined that said interests must necessarily conflict with the interests of the Muslim world.


The world is a zero-sum-game. Anything else?

muslims kill people, common knowledge. So do non-muslims.

What is a clear and present danger to the West? Muslims? Islam? ManPigDogs? Illegal Terrorist Immigrants?
I am statistically more likely to be violently murdered by a white Christian American than by a Muslim from the East. This tends to influence my perspective on the anti-Islam movement. :)

muslims kill people, common knowledge. So do non-muslims.

What is a clear and present danger to the West? Muslims? Islam? ManPigDogs? Illegal Terrorist Immigrants?


For the purpose of this discussion - anyone who doesn't agree with the current global balance of power, and is willing to act against it.

Disagreement without the willingness to act is quite immaterial.

The world is a zero-sum-game. Anything else?
You know, you could just come right out and say, "I'm not interested in discussing this or answering questions, I only want to state my beliefs as fact." I wouldn't bitch you out for admitting that.

*scratches head*

Does that mean that you approve of slavery now, but not then?
Or does that mean you approved of slavery then, but not now?
I think slaveowners back then had better excuses. I believe that is the common understanding among unitedstatespeople today. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

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.

Uh...

Problem is they decide time-by-time what is an insult and what is not, they they are providing a endless list of things that are an insult for islam.

it believe we may waste less time if they simply says what is NOT an insult to islam. Just one or two words, and the list is complete.

Why we should waste years of time to understand what is an insult for islam, while we may simply need a few seconds to know what is NOT an insult?

Uriel

I am statistically more likely to be violently murdered by a white Christian American than by a Muslim from the East. This tends to influence my perspective on the anti-Islam movement. :)

*shrugs while smiling*

Nice point, actually.

For me, the prospects of being murdered by a white Christian American are basically zero.

I think slaveowners back then had better excuses. I believe that is the common understanding among unitedstatespeople today. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.


I think the factual statements are quite correct.


As an aside - I personally feel that the excuses offered, say, 2 centuries ago, should not be considered as mitigating circumstances, but rather as a reason to increase our disaproval.

I think you will find that in most cases people kill people....
Don't matter what they profess to beleive or disbeleive.....
people are dumb enough to fire a gun at someone and people are dumb enough to get shot...
what I find astonishing is that we still feel a need to justify it....
whether it be an insult to our "religion" or a threat to our "national security"

You know, you could just come right out and say, "I'm not interested in discussing this or answering questions, I only want to state my beliefs as fact." I wouldn't bitch you out for admitting that.

The reasons for being brief are more complex.

1. I believe in brevity in general - and try to refrain from posting anything I could not deliver orally, without notes, in 30 seconds.

2. I dislike stating the obvious.

3. I believe that the real purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth. Hence, I disapprove of argument in general.

4. My view is as follows: Let the parties state their respective positions, and be done with it.

I recognize that there was a historical context to the slave trade. I do not think the historical context in any way diminishes the evil that was done by slave traders. A man who rapes a little girl today is no more or less evil than a man who raped little girls 500 years ago. I am disgusted by people who feel that it is appropriate to worship a child rapist, and even more disgusted that they would try to use historical context to justify it. If God picked a child rapist for his Prophet, then God is clearly unworthy of our respect or adoration.
god is of course entitled to nothing, except interest as a concept. Human Rights have taken over his seat, fortunately.

However, I've yet to see proof of prophetic sex with a nine year old. So I don't believe it.

Also, what constitutes a minor is a legal decision, made by people. 18, 17, 16, .....what is the correct minimum age for sex?

I think the factual statements are quite correct.


As an aside - I personally feel that the excuses offered, say, 2 centuries ago, should not be considered as mitigating circumstances, but rather as a reason to increase our disaproval.
An opinion on why slavery was not forbidden back then?

While you're at it, care to say whether the law dictates what is right/wrong, or whether what is right/wrong dictates how the law should be?

An opinion on why slavery was not forbidden back then?

While you're at it, care to say whether the law dictates what is right/wrong, or whether what is right/wrong dictates how the law should be?

Oh, I love that specific topic.

Slavery remained legal because there were too many compromisers.
Men whose creed was 'let us tolerate' rather than ' thou shalt NOT suffer a slaver to live'.

Law does not dictate Right and Wrong - it merely dictates actions.

Did you ever wonder why Porky pig never gets to win over BUGS BUNNY ????

Well did you.....???

It a Muslim conspiracy .

I would say that you're simply being a dickhead for being a dickhead's sake myself.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at. If you did then you're a bit of a plonker.

god is of course entitled to nothing, except interest as a concept. Human Rights have taken over his seat, fortunately.

Well, yes.


However, I've yet to see proof of prophetic sex with a nine year old. So I don't believe it.

I don't believe or disbelieve any of it, myself, since I also don't really care. Following a particular code of ethics just because some dude wrote it down a couple of centuries back is deeply foolish, in my opinion. If the principles are valid without the dude who wrote them, then what does it matter who he was? If the principles are crappy to begin with, then how would the dude's personal character redeem them?


Also, what constitutes a minor is a legal decision, made by people. 18, 17, 16, .....what is the correct minimum age for sex?
This is a matter of opinion, but I personally believe that non-consentual sex is wrong. Therefore, the "correct" minimum age for sex would be the age at which an individual becomes capable of adult consent. Based on everything we know about human neurobiology, a 9 year old child is not physiologically capable of such consent.

There will be variations from individual to individual in terms of when exactly adult consent becomes possible. There will probably be even bigger variations in terms of when adult reasoning is employed :). But I believe that a reasonable way to set a standard minimum age of consent would be to use the point at which we can be virtually certain than any non-mentally-impaired individual would have acquired the ability to give adult consent. Based on my understanding and my personal research, I believe a reasonable age would be 15 or 16 years old.

However, I do not hold any expert degree in human neurobiology, so I would obviously defer to the experts if they had evidence that my evaluation is incorrect.

You know, you could just come right out and say, "I'm not interested in discussing this or answering questions, I only want to state my beliefs as fact." I wouldn't bitch you out for admitting that.


If one single german atheist brothel-owner is disturbed in his right to advertise to further his business, because some plonker from another part of the world thinks his religion is being offended,
then we clearly have a conflict.

If one single german atheist brothel-owner is disturbed in his right to advertise to further his business, because some plonker from another part of the world thinks his religion is being offended,
then we clearly have a conflict.
Now THAT is something I can whole-heartedly agree with. Of course, I think there is a problem if anybody, anywhere, is the least bit inconvenienced by religious hissy-fits, no matter who is throwing them.

Now THAT is something I can whole-heartedly agree with. Of course, I think there is a problem if anybody, anywhere, is the least bit inconvenienced by religious hissy-fits, no matter who is throwing them.

About the same time that drunken.etc made this thread he had a similar thread about some tossers in Washington bitching about parking-fines interfering with their right to believe. ( he wrote it and I replied to it before I saw this one )

I replied to that with a 'tell 'em to render unto caesar what is caesar's' - which is polite-speech for 'shut the f*ck up and do as you are told'.

While you're at it, care to say whether the law dictates what is right/wrong, or whether what is right/wrong dictates how the law should be?
Yes.

Sir, my intolerance is towards those who lack the necessary zeal to protect OUR interests.

The whole rigmarole of openmindedness - I've heard it all before, during the Cold War. Twas nonsense then, tis nonsense now, and it will be nonsense in the future.

On the contrary, the Cold War WAS the 'rigmarole', Vietnam WAS the rigmarole, and this 'detente' in the Middle East now, IS the rigmarole.

It depresses me that people are so easily led, and so quick to accept base-reactions, that they will actually lap this kind of thing up.

You claim a 'clear and present' danger, where none has been demonstrated. In my life, I have been FAR more closely affected by IRISH terrorism, than by 'Islamic' terrorism. In my life, I have suffered much more persecution at the hands of Christians, than at the hands of Muslims.

And yet - I have no 'agenda' against the Irish, or against the Christian - because I see a bigger picture - where the actions of a few extremists do NOT automatically equate to the will of the mass.

For the purpose of this discussion - anyone who doesn't agree with the current global balance of power, and is willing to act against it.

Disagreement without the willingness to act is quite immaterial.

You may not have noticed, but your 'definition' (I'm loathe to dignify it to that extent) includes, at the very least, the government regimes of almost every major power. The US, if no other, is currently involved in activities designed to DIRECTLY 'go against the current global balance of power'. China is certainly no less 'guilty'... and, if I'm not much mistaken, the activities 'changing the current balance of power' in Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan, are fairly well supported by various world governments.

Your argument is hollow rhetoric. Attempting to debate your 'point' is like attempting to shave an egg.

3. I believe that the real purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth. Hence, I disapprove of argument in general.

4. My view is as follows: Let the parties state their respective positions, and be done with it.

Perhaps you would be happier with a 'blog' then... as this is a 'debate' forum, and, by all accounts, you don't 'like' debate... no?

If one single german atheist brothel-owner is disturbed in his right to advertise to further his business, because some plonker from another part of the world thinks his religion is being offended,
then we clearly have a conflict.

And yet, you seem to ignore the almost blanket 'christian' conspiracy to prevent even the practise of prostitution, let alone the advertising of such services...

The reasons for being brief are more complex.

1. I believe in brevity in general - and try to refrain from posting anything I could not deliver orally, without notes, in 30 seconds.

2. I dislike stating the obvious.

3. I believe that the real purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth. Hence, I disapprove of argument in general.

4. My view is as follows: Let the parties state their respective positions, and be done with it.

So you believe you have already seen EVERY relevant bit of evidence and looked at the argument from every possible side OR you are unwilling to be swayed by an argument that is based on more complete evidence or better analyzes the evidence? I don't like either one of those scenarios because either you're an unbelievable egotist or completely unreasonable. For the rest of us, we prefer to not hold such a position as we are not interesting in being either of those things.

If one single german atheist brothel-owner is disturbed in his right to advertise to further his business, because some plonker from another part of the world thinks his religion is being offended,
then we clearly have a conflict.

People are entitled to voice their opinion and others are entitled to act on it or not as they wish. It doesn't matter on what the opinion is based. If I say I am offended by black children on tv and the network pulls all shows with black people on them. The network owner's rights were not trampled. They made a decision based on the reaction of the people that were intended to view it.

Freedom of anything doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If I'm a singer who says that Christianity is for wankers, I have every to say it. However, there must a screw loose if I believe that it's not well within the right of Christians to boycott my product or excercise their EQUAL right to free speech to say they dislike my product or me.

I'll be waiting for the announcement: People interested in mindlessly attacking the local Saudi embassy, arrive to Sikaanyhtyjäntie 5A at 17.30. Bring your own drinks and Molotov cocktails. Steel pipes optional. An opportunity to exercise and have fun!

Oh noes, it's those silly muzlim again....











:|

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!

:upyours:

QFT

Im sick of Arabs and their bs.

So you believe you have already seen EVERY relevant bit of evidence and looked at the argument from every possible side OR you are unwilling to be swayed by an argument that is based on more complete evidence or better analyzes the evidence? I don't like either one of those scenarios because either you're an unbelievable egotist or completely unreasonable. For the rest of us, we prefer to not hold such a position as we are not interesting in being either of those things.


Look at the endless threads debating the merits of either christianity or atheism.
How many people have been swayed from one opinion to the other by it?

Look at the endless threads debating the merits of either christianity or atheism.
How many people have been swayed from one opinion to the other by it?
98.347

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


Maybe because the second gulf war wasnt fought in the name of Jesus?

Maybe because the second gulf war wasnt fought in the name of Jesus?
O really?
Maybe you should notify Bush.

O really?
Maybe you should notify Bush.

Well, to be fair, just because one nutter (Albeit a nutter in the most powerful job in the world) says God told him to invade, doesn't make him either a Christian or right, or that he represents Christianity.

I don't mind people listening to some unseeable persona in the sky and basing their faith around it. It's when they're the most powerful man in the world and start basing major foreign policy decisions on it that I start to worry...

Look at the endless threads debating the merits of either christianity or atheism.
How many people have been swayed from one opinion to the other by it?

It's not just the hardcore from either side that read these debates. Plenty of people just wander through threads and learn something new.

well y dont i put up a big sign saying "THE HOLOCAUST IS BULLSHIT!!!!" and see the jewish reaction to that?? chances are theyll go so far as the UN security council, mayb even the general assembly. when ahmedinejad called the holocaust a myth, they went whining to the international community about it.

why is it they can complain and we cant? unless u stop supporting them everytime they bitch, well then fuck u but im going to be upset by an image.

well y dont i put up a big sign saying "THE HOLOCAUST IS BULLSHIT!!!!" and see the jewish reaction to that?? chances are theyll go so far as the UN security council, mayb even the general assembly. when ahmedinejad called the holocaust a myth, they went whining to the international community about it.

why is it they can complain and we cant? unless u stop supporting them everytime they bitch, well then fuck u but im going to be upset by an image.
So wait, let me see if I understand this logic:

"Group A acts like a bunch of dickheads. They throw tantrums over every little damn thing, like when we deny the genocide that was perpetrated against their people, and I think they're a bunch of stinkers. So I'm going to act like an even BIGGER dickhead, and throw even BIGGER tantrums over shit that is even MORE trivial! That'll show Group A who's boss!"

Can't you people just go back to playing under the monkey bars and shoving pee gravel up your nose?

Look at the endless threads debating the merits of either christianity or atheism.
How many people have been swayed from one opinion to the other by it?

You happened to pick two things that are completely and entirely opinion. So? Meanwhile, I'm certain many people have been educated in various ways by those threads. Learned more about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, history of the Catholic church, translations of the Bible, etc. I'm sure many atheists have found out from those threads that there are some Christians who are completely reasonable in their faith and that there are some Atheists who are completely dogmatic, as much so as the worst Christians. There are many benefits to such threads. More importantly, I have never noticed anyone forcing you to participate in them.

The goal of many discussions is not necessarily to win, but it doesn't mean debate has no benefit. As has been stated, if you don't want to subject your opinion to criticism, starting a blog is easy these days and will likely make you much happier.

Maybe because the second gulf war wasnt fought in the name of Jesus?

Relevence?

Or do you have some mysterious evidence that all the people resisiting the Allied Invasion, did so as a form of religious observance? That - maybe, every insurgent MUST be fighting for a purely religious motive?

So wait, let me see if I understand this logic:

"Group A acts like a bunch of dickheads. They throw tantrums over every little damn thing, like when we deny the genocide that was perpetrated against their people, and I think they're a bunch of stinkers. So I'm going to act like an even BIGGER dickhead, and throw even BIGGER tantrums over shit that is even MORE trivial! That'll show Group A who's boss!"

Can't you people just go back to playing under the monkey bars and shoving pee gravel up your nose?

well if israel acts like dickheads and it gets support, then if arabs act like bigger dickheads we'll get even more support. get my logic now?