NationStates Jolt Archive

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs. They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran. Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible. Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't. Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.

"The left"? :confused:

I dislike Islam also, there is nothing wrong with not liking a religion, but I do feel that the majority of Muslims are not how you would think.

Edit: Actually I agree that a lot of people seem to be too fast in protecting the Muslims for the very thing they fiercly criticize christianity for.

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race.

No, it's just bigoted, at least if you dislike Islam for reasons you don't apply to other religions.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

So do you dislike all religions?

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs.

Some Muslims.

They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

No. Islamic fundamentalism. Like Jewish fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, etc.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran.

Actually, they're determined mostly by certain interpretations of certain parts of Sharia.

Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible.

The book, yes. Human interpretations of it, no.

Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Traditional Jews believe the Bible is completely true, but do you see them advocating the death penalty for homosexuality? Muslims who do not hold to ultra-fundamentalist views can easily come to conclusions that would not demand repression.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

"The left"? You do realize that the "left" encompasses far more than the Western Left? There are leftists in Muslim-majority countries, and there are leftists born in Muslim-majority countries who currently live in the West, and many of them very harshly criticize such abuses.

Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.

Plenty of Christians do as well. Fundamentalism of any sort is abhorrent, and should be fought.

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

Not racist, but certainly religiously biased, which could be equated to be the same thing. In any case, go on...

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

Submission doesn't necessarily mean blind faith. When you submit in a wrestling match, for example, it's because you've been shown and reasoned that your opponent is more powerful. As for determinism, I'm not sure that Islam actually is deterministic. In any case, determinism does not necessarily deny responsibility.

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs. They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

Don't generalize. Muslim belief on church and state, restriction of others, etc., varies enormously. When the Islamic world wasn't such a third world backwater, stuff was much more relaxed.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran. Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible. Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Shariah=/=necessarily the Qu'ran, and infallibility in general is a surprisingly mutable concept.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

Rights are a silly concept in any case. More to the point, remember above, any specific interpretation of Sharia you encounter =/= necessarily Islam.

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't. Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.

Yeah, support of terrorism in the Qu'ran is incredibly unlikely, as Islam began as a basically national religion, while terrorism is a tactic of those who cannot depend on a nation's power of raising armies. As for church+state stuff, addressed above, it's hardly universally representative.

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.
*snipped for length*
You are correct that it is not racist to dislike Islam, because "Islam" is not a race.

However, it is profoundly stupid to dislike Islam for the reasons you posted if you are not also going to feel equally strongly opposed to Judaism and Christianity.

I have met plenty of muslims, and I would completely disagree with your idea of submission, for a start - and none are "qu'ran thumping sand niggers" that many seem to think thy are.

All religions can be interpreted to infringe on freedom of speech (Blasphemy), death penalty (24 in the Bible), infringing the rights of women (Ephesians 5:22-26) anyway.

Replace Islam with any other religion and the same shit applies.

Replace Islam with any other religion and the same shit applies.

If you look at the world in the most simplistic aproach as possible then maybe.

Replace Islam with any other religion and the same shit applies.
Which is why, to be honest, whenever somebody presents these arguments as reasons why they dislike Islam I do tend to assume they're racist or specifically anti-Muslim. If those reasons really were that important to them, then they would just say, "I oppose Abrahamic religions," instead of singling out Islam in particular.

If you look at the world in the most simplistic aproach as possible then maybe.

What? Saying all this is a problem only with Islam is pretty fucking simplistic if you ask me.

What? Saying all this is a problem only with Islam is pretty fucking simplistic if you ask me.

I never said that. Im just saying that some Religions can be more hateful then others.

"The left"? :confused:
The left. Yes.

I never said that. Im just saying that some Religions can be more hateful then others.

So a small percentage of muslims are more hateful than the small percentage of gay-bashing woman-hating christians?

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?


emm..Sharia is bollocks, the Koran is bollocks.....What you seem to forget is the context in which most criticism of Islam comes up - it usually has "and thats why the US is right to invade/support x" tacked on the back. Plus a lot of criticism of Islam is actually either off the mark or just factually incorrect.

So a small percentage of muslims are more hateful than the small percentage of gay-bashing woman-hating christians?
A small percentage?

So a small percentage of muslims are more hateful than the small percentage of gay-bashing woman-hating christians?
You don't understand how this works.

See, a minority of Muslims engage in hateful acts, which means that Islam is a hateful religion. On the other hand, if a minority of Christians bomb abortion clinics, or hate women, or hate gays, that doesn't mean Christianity is a hateful religion. This is because Christianity is a good thing, and non-Christianity is a bad thing, but we're not supposed to say that out loud.

So a small percentage of muslims are more hateful than the small percentage of gay-bashing woman-hating christians?

Yes because the % of gay-bashing christians (woman hating is extremely rare now) = % of gay killing muslims.

I agree with his points for the most part, but besides bigotry, I don't know why he would choose to single out Islam. I don't like any religion, but I don't discriminate on which religion I mock. I think his point is that Islam is wrongly defended by Western leftists, while they overcriticize Christianity, but that's not a very meaningful, or possibly valid, point.

You don't understand how this works.

See, a minority of Muslims engage in hateful acts, which means that Islam is a hateful religion. On the other hand, if a minority of Christians bomb abortion clinics, or hate women, or hate gays, that doesn't mean Christianity is a hateful religion. This is because Christianity is a good thing, and non-Christianity is a bad thing, but we're not supposed to say that out loud.

Yes of course, because i really think that Christianity is perfect don't I.

The left. Yes.
What left? (Still :confused:)

Yes because the % of gay-bashing christians (woman hating is extremely rare now) = % of gay killing muslims.
Ah, wishful thinking...

Yes of course, because i really think that Christianity is perfect don't I.
Did I say your name anywhere in there? Did I say, "Christianity is perfect"? Did I say that you, or anybody else, think Christianity is perfect?

Then kindly stop attacking your straw man.

Ah, wishful thinking...
No kidding. According to recent surveys, about 85% of evangelical Christians do not believe that women should have the same human rights as men. When a group is singled out and denied rights, I'd say that qualifies as more than a mild dislike.

Ah, wishful thinking...

Well I don't interpret, not allowing Women priests as women hating. Nor do i interpret traditional roles of Women being encouraged women hating. It may be irrational, but to generalize like that and say it is women hating shows the hypocracy of this whole thing.

Did I say your name anywhere in there? Did I say, "Christianity is perfect"? Did I say that you, or anybody else, think Christianity is perfect?

Then kindly stop attacking your straw man.

You quoted a quote quoting me so I assumed you were mimicking me. As if you were replying from my point of view.

Well I don't interpret, not allowing Women priests as women hating. Nor do i interpret traditional roles of Women being encouraged women hating. It may be irrational, but to generalize like that and say it is women hating shows the hypocracy of this whole thing.
That depend on what you mean by encouraging "traditional roles of Women", doesn't it...

Does anyone ever actually use the search function?

I mean ....

Search, NationStates General, "Islam" and BAM! 100,000 topics just like this one!

Amazing.

I have nothing else meaningful to contribute to this ignorance.

That depend on what you mean by encouraging "traditional roles of Women", doesn't it...

Well, the act of enforcing it is extremely rare in England among fundamentalists. Im not so sure about America but i still think it is not the majority, depsite that, it is still not Women hating.

You are correct that it is not racist to dislike Islam, because "Islam" is not a race.

However, it is profoundly stupid to dislike Islam for the reasons you posted if you are not also going to feel equally strongly opposed to Judaism and Christianity.
Why should it be necessary to put a disclaimer saying "this statement applies to all Abrahamic religions" when criticising Islam? Considering that it's pretty normal on this forum to make threads criticising Christians exclusively (especially the US Christian Right).

That's like expecting me to put a disclaimer saying "I disapprove of terrorists too" every time I criticise US foreign policy.

What? Saying all this is a problem only with Islam is pretty fucking simplistic if you ask me.
Islam does suffer from these problems worse than others though. Imagine the most right-wing hardcore Bible-thumping US Southern Protestant. Then imagine that such people constituted the majority of Christians, and that there were plenty of Christian groups more extreme scattered worldwide*. If that were the case, then Christianity would be an equally problematic religion.

*There are, in fact, several Christian terrorist groups, but they are confined to a few countries in Africa.

I think his point is that Islam is wrongly defended by Western leftists, while they overcriticize Christianity, but that's not a very meaningful, or possibly valid, point.
Western leftists don't overcriticise Christianity, but they often do overdefend Islam. Of course, moderate Muslims deserve to be defended from loud-mouthed bigots. But many leftists defend Muslims who hold the same opinions as the über-conservative Christians that these same leftists criticise.

No kidding. According to recent surveys, about 85% of evangelical Christians do not believe that women should have the same human rights as men.
What rights are these that you speak of?

Im so sick of people singling out islam as a hateful religion-the only reason why the 'left' defend islam so strongly is because so many people dont have a fucking clue what theyre talking about.The reason there is more criticism (as you see it) of christianity on this site is because there are more people on this site who know what cristianity is mostly about and can therefore legitimatly criticise it.You can pull the bad parts out of any religion and make it seem bigoted, but to lump all muslims as subordinate woman hating terrorists is as bad as calling all christians Gay bashing woman hating bigots.There are people in every religion who are bigots, but this is not reflective of the whole demographic.Its dangerous to misrepresent any religion as moe hateful than another.All religions have hateful elements in them as all religions(except scientology) that have good elements to them aswell.

"The left" as you call it, is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Islam. You will have to go a long way to find a liberal who actually agrees that islamic nations should be free to stone adultorers and gays in the streets. But most liberal people would try to defend a peaople's general way of life, even if it is a little traditionalist. They defend the girls who actually want to wear headscarves in school, as part of their religious conviction. They defend the average muslim who, while he may hold some fundamentalist beliefs, is generally a good person. And they oppose war with the entire middle east for obvious reasons.

Well, the act of enforcing it is extremely rare in England among fundamentalists. Im not so sure about America but i still think it is not the majority, depsite that, it is still not Women hating.
Ok, let me ask a bit differently: What are the "traditional roles of Women" then?

Ok, let me ask a bit differently: What are the "traditional roles of Women" then?

I don't know erm, looking after the house and children, looking after the husband etc... Whereas the husband has the more important jobs. This is discrimination of course, but it is not out of hate.

Great, more people suckered into hating Islam just because George W. Bush said so. Well, at least he has a great reason for hating Islam - all of our oil is under their sand!

Why should it be necessary to put a disclaimer saying "this statement applies to all Abrahamic religions" when criticising Islam? Considering that it's pretty normal on this forum to make threads criticising Christians exclusively (especially the US Christian Right).

That's like expecting me to put a disclaimer saying "I disapprove of terrorists too" every time I criticise US foreign policy.

Here's the difference. In the Western World Christianity is pretty much the default religion to the perceptions of most people. We're all familiar with it, we're all familiar with its basic tenets, and it's easy to cite examples regarding it and its followers. When people criticize Christianity on a forum like this one, it tends to be implicitly directed at other religions as well, because Christianity has that role. When people criticize some other religion - say, Judaism or Islam - it's a different matter, because people are citing a religion that is not as common, and are thus singling it out.

[

Islam does suffer from these problems worse than others though. Imagine the most right-wing hardcore Bible-thumping US Southern Protestant. Then imagine that such people constituted the majority of Christians, and that there were plenty of Christian groups more extreme scattered worldwide*. If that were the case, then Christianity would be an equally problematic religion.

*There are, in fact, several Christian terrorist groups, but they are confined to a few countries in Africa.

?[/QUOTE]

okay,firstly that show your ignorance of islam-does the whole of christianity consist of bible thumping protestants, no, does islam consist mainly of terrorists, no.
How many muslims have you actually met?I have met more bible thumping protestants than radical muslims, and I live in an area that is 50/50 split christian /muslim so I think that says something about your theory that most muslims are radical islamists.
there are christian terrorist groups in a lot more places than africa-ever heard of the IRA?
This, my friends, is the caliber of debate.

Great, more people suckered into hating Islam just because George W. Bush said so. Well, at least he has a great reason for hating Islam - all of our oil is under their sand!

Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[
there are christian terrorist groups in a lot more places than africa-ever heard of the IRA?
This, my friends, is the caliber of debate.

the marxist national liberation army?

whats your point there?

You will have to go a long way to find a liberal who actually agrees that islamic nations should be free to stone adultorers and gays in the streets.
Grave_n_idle (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10656057&postcount=122)

But most liberal people would try to defend a peaople's general way of life, even if it is a little traditionalist.
Or even radically so. Many liberals apply a double standard. They say that Christians in the US South have no right to take away the right of gay people to marry. Yet Muslims in Pakistan have the right to take away the right of gay people (or women who have been raped) to live? It's madness and hypocrisy.

there are christian terrorist groups in a lot more places than africa-ever heard of the IRA?

The IRA is not fuelled by Christianity at all.

Grave_n_idle (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10656057&postcount=122)


Or even radically so. Many liberals apply a double standard. They say that Christians in the US South have no right to take away the right of gay people to marry. Yet Muslims in Pakistan have the right to take away the right of gay people (or women who have been raped) to live? It's madness and hypocrisy.

I can see your point,and I agree with you, but remember that islam is a much younger religion(not claiming its right)but christianity went through a period where they did pritty much the same thing,and singling out islam as more hateful than other religions is dangerous.There is a hateful side to every religion, and I condemn them all equally.

Islam does suffer from these problems worse than others though. Imagine the most right-wing hardcore Bible-thumping US Southern Protestant. Then imagine that such people constituted the majority of Christians, and that there were plenty of Christian groups more extreme scattered worldwide*. If that were the case, then Christianity would be an equally problematic religion.

Look at how many people in the world are muslim. Then take the percentage of people who would actively commit an act that killed innocent civilians on american soil. You have an equal percentage as those bible thumpers.

Now how about this. Imagine if Islam crusaded against Christianity instead of the other way around...I think the thread would be titled differently.

The IRA is not fuelled by Christianity at all.

The IRA is a catholic group,and although partly fuelled by hate of the british is also fuelled by hate of protestantism.If you meet an Irish republican you will find their religion factors highly in their struggle.Its not the only factor, but it is a large one.

The number of deaths or extremists are irrelivant anyway, I'm talking more about its teachings and its tendency to intervine in politics more.

I don't know erm, looking after the house and children, looking after the husband etc... Whereas the husband has the more important jobs. This is discrimination of course, but it is not out of hate.
Right. And some people believe that women shouldn't have the right to vote, because they cannot - should not even try to - have an informed opinion about politics. This is the job of the husband.

Some people believe that women do not need a general education, because their role is to stay at home and look after the husband and children.

Some believe that women should not work, should not hold any form of elected office, should not be able to get a divorce.

Many people with these beliefs would say that they thought like they did not out of hate, but out of love - because that is the traditional roles of women/that is how God created them/that is how women will find happiness.
Observers on the outside would probably lable them as "women haters" even so...

Right. And some people believe that women shouldn't have the right to vote, because they cannot - should not even try to - have an informed opinion about politics. This is the job of the husband.

Some people believe that women do not need a general education, because their role is to stay at home and look after the husband and children.

Some believe that women should not work, should not hold any form of elected office, should not be able to get a divorce.

Many people with these beliefs would say that they thought like they did not out of hate, but out of love - because that is the traditional roles of women/that is how God created them/that is how women will find happiness.
Observers on the outside would probably lable them as "women haters" even so...

This is very common is Islam, extremely rare in christianity, even so it is out of dedication to the Bible nothing to do with hate.

well, islam isnt the only religion to interfere in politics. hinduism in india, christianity in america.Taoism in mayalsia-shintoism in japan one religion is not worse than another for doing this-most religions do get involved in some way in politics!!

Thats why the World needs to watch its immagration with "Muslims" they cant live in Modern Europe Life. The Radical Muslims will kill anyone who breaks one rule of Allah. Look at what they are doing in the Middle East,America,Europe. One day the world is going have to fight them. They are already taking Somalia!

This is very common is Islam, extremely rare in christianity, even so it is out of dedication to the Bible nothing to do with hate.
it is as common in christianity as it is in Islam.If you are claiming christians have bigoted veiws about women through love of the bible you could equally say that muslims do through love of the Koran.This is at odds with you calling Islam a hateful religion.
Dont comlain to me about double standards.

The IRA is a catholic group,and although partly fuelled by hate of the british is also fuelled by hate of protestantism.If you meet an Irish republican you will find their religion factors highly in their struggle.Its not the only factor, but it is a large one.

you just have and you are talking arse. the IRA is a national liberation group that just happens to be mostly catholic. irish republicanism has a long list of noteable protestants and holds anti-sectariansim dear. religious bigotry comes from the other side.

This is very common is Islam, extremely rare in christianity, even so it is out of dedication to the Bible nothing to do with hate.
Unfortunately, it is not "extremely rare" in Christianity - and definently not if you look back in time just a few years, even.

okay,firstly that show your ignorance of islam-does the whole of christianity consist of bible thumping protestants, no, does islam consist mainly of terrorists, no.
I never said such things. The great majority of Christians are not Bible thumping US Protestants, but most, or at least a very large minority of Muslims are Qu'aran-thumping Sunnis.

How many muslims have you actually met?I have met more bible thumping protestants than radical muslims, and I live in an area that is 50/50 split christian /muslim so I think that says something about your theory that most muslims are radical islamists.
I don't believe in such a theory. People who claim most Muslims to be radicals, are bigots. Muslims who live in the west are more liberal than the average Middle-Eastern Muslim, so I don't really want to rely on my personal experience.

there are christian terrorist groups in a lot more places than africa-ever heard of the IRA?
I know all about the IRA. They were generally Catholic, but their goals were political, not religious. Theocracy was nowhere near their agenda.

Great, more people suckered into hating Islam just because George W. Bush said so. Well, at least he has a great reason for hating Islam - all of our oil is under their sand!
You know that famous quote that right-wingers love to loath, "Islam is a religion of peace"? George Bush originally said that.

Here's the difference. In the Western World Christianity is pretty much the default religion to the perceptions of most people. We're all familiar with it, we're all familiar with its basic tenets, and it's easy to cite examples regarding it and its followers. When people criticize Christianity on a forum like this one, it tends to be implicitly directed at other religions as well, because Christianity has that role. When people criticize some other religion - say, Judaism or Islam - it's a different matter, because people are citing a religion that is not as common, and are thus singling it out.
I would accuse this of being Western-centric, but that is understandable on a forum populated by Americans and Europeans.

It has become clear enough that when people criticize Christianity here, it tends not to be implicitly directed at other religions. Rather, the other religions, which are often falsely perceived to be underdogs, get a free pass because their culture is different.

it is as common in christianity as it is in Islam.If you are claiming christians have bigoted veiws about women through love of the bible you could equally say that muslims do through love of the Koran.This is at odds with you calling Islam a hateful religion.
Dont comlain to me about double standards.

Firstly, no it is not common in christianity at all.
Secondly, im not talking about those aspects of the Islam religion, im talking about how some of the teachings encourage hate towards opposing views.

you just have and you are talking arse. the IRA is a national liberation group that just happens to be mostly catholic. irish republicanism has a long list of noteable protestants and holds anti-sectariansim dear. religious bigotry comes from the other side.

I do know what the IRA is you know.
And if we are going down that line,plenty of people are talking out of their arse about islam.
I was simply saying rebublicans I have spoken to(not IRA members tho i admit) count their religion as part and parcel of the struggle against britain, and there is religious bigotry on both sides.(but mostlt from dear old rev Ian Paisly)

I do know what the IRA is you know.
And if we are going down that line,plenty of people are talking out of their arse about islam.
I was simply saying rebublicans I have spoken to(not IRA members tho i admit) count their religion as part and parcel of the struggle against britain, and there is religious bigotry on both sides.(but mostlt from dear old rev Ian Paisly)

i dont believe you

Firstly, no it is not common in christianity at all.
Secondly, im not talking about those aspects of the Islam religion, im talking about how some of the teachings encourage hate towards opposing views.
And this is why 'leftists' on this site try and defend islam,because some people refuse to believe that extremism isnt common to all religions, and that extremism is an islamic problem.It is common in christianity-(though to be fair to you I have never heard of a christian suicide bomber)Ther are plenty of passages in the bible that discourage and teach people to hate others veiws, that gay people are evil, that women should be subordinate.It is not just islam, and there was a time in christianity where adultresses were stoned,witches were burned, protestants/catholics(depending on the time) hung or beheaded.All religions have elemnets of bigotry past and present.

i dont believe you
You dont have to.

It has become clear enough that when people criticize Christianity here, it tends not to be implicitly directed at other religions. Rather, the other religions, which are often falsely perceived to be underdogs, get a free pass because their culture is different.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have attacked Christian fundamentalism plenty of times on this forum, and I think pretty much all the criticisms I have made are just as applicable to Islam.

The other religions don't "get a free pass." What is true is that the fact that many people in our society are bigoted against Islam makes people more sensitive to critiques of Islam than to critiques of Christianity.

Look at how many people in the world are muslim. Then take the percentage of people who would actively commit an act that killed innocent civilians on american soil. You have an equal percentage as those bible thumpers.
Do you not see it as problematic that there are as many would-be terrorists in Islam (though I would strongly question this) as there are Republican-voting Bible thumpers? Keep in mind that the latter is non-violent.

Now how about this. Imagine if Islam crusaded against Christianity instead of the other way around...I think the thread would be titled differently.
Rather an outdated reference? Neither religion does that any more.

well, islam isnt the only religion to interfere in politics. hinduism in india, christianity in america.Taoism in mayalsia-shintoism in japan one religion is not worse than another for doing this-most religions do get involved in some way in politics!!
The difference that causes people to criticise Islam more is that Islamic interference in politics is on average significantly more violent than that of Christians, Hindus or Shintos.

I can see your point,and I agree with you, but remember that islam is a much younger religion(not claiming its right)but christianity went through a period where they did pritty much the same thing,and singling out islam as more hateful than other religions is dangerous.
That age of the religion has little to do with anything. More relevant are the actions of its followers and the events that befell them. Many Middle Eastern cultures are backwards largely owing to devastating Mongol invasion and Western imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. In this way it is not surprising that they persist with behaviour that falls short of our human rights standards, but the past is no reason why we should not encourage and help the Muslim world to enter the 21st century.

This is very common is Islam, extremely rare in christianity, even so it is out of dedication to the Bible nothing to do with hate.
I hope you don't really believe this. You're giving Muslim mysoginists, homophobes and the rest of that rabble the excuse of "love for the Qu'aran" to fall back on.

And this is why 'leftists' on this site try and defend islam,because some people refuse to believe that extremism isnt common to all religions, and that extremism is an islamic problem.It is common in christianity-(though to be fair to you I have never heard of a christian suicide bomber)Ther are plenty of passages in the bible that discourage and teach people to hate others veiws, that gay people are evil, that women should be subordinate.It is not just islam, and there was a time in christianity where adultresses were stoned,witches were burned, protestants/catholics(depending on the time) hung or beheaded.All religions have elemnets of bigotry past and present.

Firstly, I am a "leftist".
Secondly, you obviously have no idea about the teachings of Christianity.
It is completely against the christian religion to hate, have you ever heard of "love your enemies."
It says nowhere in the bible does it say that gay people are evil or that women should be subordinate. Withces were only burnt on extremely rare ocasions, and this is against christianity anyway. Any law about adultresses getting stoned were rebuked in the new testement in the new covernant, which is what Christianity is based on.

As a muslim i am a bit sorry that you see our religion that way. As a socialist I respect your opinon. As i pacifist i understand your point of view. But as a muslim, I also have my own point of view. Only some muslims are like that and I hope you have better encounters with muslims in the future.

It is common in christianity-(though to be fair to you I have never heard of a christian suicide bomber)
You're getting the point now. All religions have their extremists, but Islam's extremists are much more numerous, extreme and generally problematic than the radicals of other faiths.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have attacked Christian fundamentalism plenty of times on this forum, and I think pretty much all the criticisms I have made are just as applicable to Islam.
I know. I've also attacked Christian fundamentalism and I view you as one who does not have a double standard as some do. I'm just sick of conservatives who give Christian fundies a free pass, and sick of liberals who give Muslim fundies a free pass.

The other religions don't "get a free pass." What is true is that the fact that many people in our society are bigoted against Islam makes people more sensitive to critiques of Islam than to critiques of Christianity.
I don't think that people should be automatically more sensitive to critiques of Islam. It depends on what the critic is saying, not just who they are saying it to. There are wise critiques, and mindlessly stupid rants that can be thrown at both religions. I wish people were more discerning between the two, instead of just nodding at all critiques/rants at Xianity, and then screaming "racist/bigot!" at all critiques/rants at Islam.

Any law about adultresses getting stoned were rebuked in the new testement in the new covernant, which is what Christianity is based on.

But Christianity doesn't say that the Old Testament was wrong or immoral, just that large portions of it are unnecessary.

So, accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, stoning adulterers is perfectly moral, and was necessary, as the command of God, before Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, but is now no longer relevant - not immoral, but no longer relevant.

Firstly, I am a "leftist".
Secondly, you obviously have no idea about the teachings of Christianity.
It is completely against the christian religion to hate, have you ever heard of "love your enemies."
It says nowhere in the bible does it say that gay people are evil or that women should be subordinate. Withces were only burnt on extremely rare ocasions, and this is against christianity anyway. Any law about adultresses getting stoned were rebuked in the new testement in the new covernant, which is what Christianity is based on.

Firstly, I was baptised, and confirmed a catholic,I went to a catholic school and read the bible every day for at least 6 years.
There is a passage, that begins with man shall not lie with man, but to be fair this type opasseges are in the old testament, but I have met many people who take these passeges very seriosly and seen people enact this to the extent where they have stood outside gay clubs calling people evil as they come out.
There is bigotry in every religion, but as I was raised a catholic I think I can speak for the bigotry in a religion I do actually understand.

But Christianity doesn't say that the Old Testament was wrong or immoral, just that large portions of it are unnecessary.

So, accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, stoning adulterers is perfectly moral, and was necessary, as the command of God, before Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, but is now no longer relevant - not immoral, but no longer relevant.

The new covernent itself rejects many of the old teachings of the old testement.

Firstly, I was baptised, and confirmed a catholic,I went to a catholic school and read the bible every day for at least 6 years.
There is a passage, that begins with man shall not lie with man, but to be fair this type opasseges are in the old testament, but I have met many people who take these passeges very seriosly and seen people enact this to the extent where they have stood outside gay clubs calling people evil as they come out.
There is bigotry in every religion, but as I was raised a catholic I think I can speak for the bigotry in a religion I do actually understand.

That is very very true, there is bigotry in every religion, but in the teachings of Islam itself there is much more bigotry then there is in the teachings of Christianity.

Firstly, I am a "leftist".
Secondly, you obviously have no idea about the teachings of Christianity.
It is completely against the christian religion to hate, have you ever heard of "love your enemies."
It says nowhere in the bible does it say that gay people are evil or that women should be subordinate. Withces were only burnt on extremely rare ocasions, and this is against christianity anyway. Any law about adultresses getting stoned were rebuked in the new testement in the new covernant, which is what Christianity is based on.

and witch burning(at least in britain )was a regular occurance.

That is very very true, there is bigotry in every religion, but in the teachings of Islam itself there is much more bigotry then there is in the teachings of Christianity.
as far as Im concerned there is equal in both,and it really depents on the culture around people that decides whether there is bigotry,In britain there may be less christian and muslim bigotry, because british society frowns upon it,but in the middle east there may be more bigotry becasue of the culture there not because of the religion of a person.

and witch burning(at least in britain )was a regular occurance.

Actually, I believe Germany held the highest for number of witch burnings thus far.

I don't think that people should be automatically more sensitive to critiques of Islam. It depends on what the critic is saying, not just who they are saying it to. There are wise critiques, and mindlessly stupid rants that can be thrown at both religions. I wish people were more discerning between the two, instead of just nodding at all critiques/rants at Xianity, and then screaming "racist/bigot!" at all critiques/rants at Islam.

Fair enough, I suppose. It's just that I'm tired of people screaming "oh, look at what the Muslims are doing!" without ever caring to look in a mirror.

as far as Im concerned there is equal in both,and it really depents on the culture around people that decides whether there is bigotry,In britain there may be less christian and muslim bigotry, because british society frowns upon it,but in the middle east there may be more bigotry becasue of the culture there not because of the religion of a person.

That is your opinion, but it is difficult to know without actually reading the Q'uran.

The new covernent itself rejects many of the old teachings of the old testement.

The New Covenant is a covenant legitimized by Jesus's self-sacrifice. It does not imply that the Old Covenant was somehow immoral, merely that it's now unnecessary.

Actually, I believe Germany held the highest for number of witch burnings thus far.
They were hangings mostly, but yes, Germany tops the lot, numbers-wise. The British had relatively few witch executions, but in my opinion, they made up for it with sectarian violence in a series of civil war conflicts.

thats what i don't like about religion. Instead of bringing us together, it drives us apart.

thats what i don't like about religion. Instead of bringing us together, it drives us apart.

Good point, but that is inevitable with just about anything.

I'm sorry, but, looking at it historically, I fail to see how Islam is any worse for violence and bigotry than any other organized religion. They just happen to be the worst at this time. Maybe it's their turn.

They were hangings mostly, but yes, Germany tops the lot, numbers-wise. The British had relatively few witch executions, but in my opinion, they made up for it with sectarian violence in a series of civil war conflicts.

Yeah, that's true. Good o' War of the Roses.

Which is why, to be honest, whenever somebody presents these arguments as reasons why they dislike Islam I do tend to assume they're racist or specifically anti-Muslim. If those reasons really were that important to them, then they would just say, "I oppose Abrahamic religions," instead of singling out Islam in particular.
I agree with you. I believe that the basis for this thread is just another racial bashing of Muslims.

That is your opinion, but it is difficult to know without actually reading the Q'uran.
I have read some of the Koran, but like the bible I havent read it all so I cant definitivly make a judgement.But I have tried to make an effort to read into as much of as many religions as I can-just so that I can actually properly argue one way or the other-otherwise I really would b talking out my own ass.

They just happen to be the worst at this time. Maybe it's their turn.
That's the problem. I don't accept that "it's their turn". We're in the 21st century. No religion should be taking turns at outright atrocities ever again.

Fair enough, I suppose. It's just that I'm tired of people screaming "oh, look at what the Muslims are doing!" without ever caring to look in a mirror.
Honestly, there are not many critics of Islam who are doing the same thing as those they criticise.

That is very very true, there is bigotry in every religion, but in the teachings of Islam itself there is much more bigotry then there is in the teachings of Christianity.
Please, I don't want another thread flooded with long Bible quotes. Frankly I don't think that the holy books are very relevant to this debate. What is relevant is the action of those who follow those books.

I agree with you. I believe that the basis for this thread is just another racial bashing of Muslims.
No, it isn't. Islam is not a race, and the OP is not religiously bigoted either. You're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about when I say

It depends on what the critic is saying, not just who they are saying it to. There are wise critiques, and mindlessly stupid rants that can be thrown at both religions. I wish people were more discerning between the two, instead of just nodding at all critiques/rants at Xianity, and then screaming "racist/bigot!" at all critiques/rants at Islam.

Come on Canuck, are you even thinking about this?

Do you not see it as problematic that there are as many would-be terrorists in Islam (though I would strongly question this) as there are Republican-voting Bible thumpers? Keep in mind that the latter is non-violent.
Just because "Republican-voting Bible thumpers" aren't necessarily the ones pulling the trigger, doesn't mean that they are "non-violent". By re-electing George Bush, they are in essence supplying the ammunition.

What left? (Still :confused:)
The ones who want to crack down on let's say Neo Nazi's with the full force of the law. But when the culprits are muslim they immediatly start making excuses for their deeds.

That's the problem. I don't accept that "it's their turn". We're in the 21st century. No religion should be taking turns at outright atrocities ever again. <snip>
Well, you do have a problem then, friend, because there is no such thing as progress. When the Muslims are done being World Bastards, maybe it'll be the Mormons' turn, and then the Scientologists, and then who knows? And every time any religion or political group or social class or what-have-you decides to use violence to make itself the focus of the world's attention -- just 'cause they wanna -- then it will be up to people who believe in peace and equality and freedom to resist them. And 'round and 'round we go.

The ones who want to crack down on let's say Neo Nazi's with the full force of the law. But when the culprits are muslim they immediatly start looking for excuses for their deeds.
Just to clarify -- if "the left"* are willing to crack down on Islamist terrorists with the full force of the law, will you be okay with them also cracking down on, let's say, neo-nazis? And if we can establish that nobody in this thread thinks terrorism is okay, even if a Muslim does it, can we refrain from implying that people whose politics you don't like support terrorism?




* You still haven't defined who you are talking about.

there is a reason there are no arabs in "star trek"

there is a reason there are no arabs in "star trek"

Theres also a reason why people like you get deleted.

All religions are shit and have big problems with them. Islam isnt special or alone in this regard. It is no better and no worse than say Christianity.

No, it isn't. Islam is not a race, and the OP is not religiously bigoted either. You're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about when I say

Come on Canuck, are you even thinking about this?
I am always thinking my friend. Bottle made a point and I agree with her point. I call them as I see them. I see the OP as a bigoted shot at Muslims.

I don't know erm, looking after the house and children, looking after the husband etc... Whereas the husband has the more important jobs.
"More important?" You've got a lot of damned nerve, you know that? But at least, from this post, we learn that you think some people are inherently worth less than others just because of who and what they are. So, we've got sexism on the list. Let's see what other bigotries we can add.

This is discrimination of course, but it is not out of hate.
I don't care why you are discriminating against me. I just want you to cut it the hell out.

Ok, so the original poster believes that Islam is all about violence and it is bad.

First of all, at the time of Muhammad, Arabia was a bloodbath, and it was clearly out of civilization. They had not social order at the time, so God needed to put some kinds of laws that will maintain order and best suits them. Thus God revealed laws of life and how to govern to Muhammad, which were know as Sharia. These laws worker perfectly for many centuries, withouth this stuff that you the Taliban do. First of all, Sharia was revealed to some 7th century barbarians, so it needed to suit them and their lifestyles. the problems wiht modern world is that the middle east was modernized too fast, and some people resisted the change and still have the 7th cenutry mentality. We all know what fast changes can do; look at U.S.S.R: its downfall was mainly automitazition and modernization that came too rapidly.

When Jesus came, he did not need to worry about the social order after he was gone, for it was the time of Roman Empire. It was pax romana and a civilized world right?? In the 4th century, all Christianity did was baptize the Roman Empire and its laws. The laws were already set for the people.

God has said in Quran many many times to think. Think before you act. God has given us the power to choose right and wrong. This is what most Mosulims ignore today, unfortunately.

since most whats said here is based on predjudisms

www.cisv.org

Well, the act of enforcing it is extremely rare in England among fundamentalists. Im not so sure about America but i still think it is not the majority, depsite that, it is still not Women hating.

Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Thank you for creating this convenient comeback.

Just because "Republican-voting Bible thumpers" aren't necessarily the ones pulling the trigger, doesn't mean that they are "non-violent". By re-electing George Bush, they are in essence supplying the ammunition.
If they aren't pulling the trigger or detonating the bomb, then yes they are non-violent. I agree that their politics are problematic, but to suggest that being a US Republican is comparable to being a would-be terrorist is ridiculous.

Well, you do have a problem then, friend, because there is no such thing as progress. When the Muslims are done being World Bastards, maybe it'll be the Mormons' turn, and then the Scientologists, and then who knows? And every time any religion or political group or social class or what-have-you decides to use violence to make itself the focus of the world's attention -- just 'cause they wanna -- then it will be up to people who believe in peace and equality and freedom to resist them. And 'round and 'round we go.
Progress is real and we can make it happen. Standards of human rights are at their highest point in history. We are slowly but surely ridding the world of slavery and racism. These things have already almost vanished from the west. When the Muslim radicals are defeated we shouldn't just sit on our hands and wait for the next group of maniacs, we should give people in the world good living conditions and freedoms that will ensure they don't need to resort to violence to be heard.

Come on people, another world is possible.

there is a reason there are no arabs in "star trek"
Meet Dr. Bashir

http://www.startreksite.com/crews/bashir.jpg

The number of deaths or extremists are irrelivant anyway, I'm talking more about its teachings and its tendency to intervine in politics more.
So, in other words, you just hate Islam, and this thread is just an attempt to justify that hate, since, according to you, your hatred is not dependent on the actions of Muslims.

This is very common is Islam, extremely rare in christianity, even so it is out of dedication to the Bible nothing to do with hate.
Another one: religious bigotry.

Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I am always thinking my friend. Bottle made a point and I agree with her point. I call them as I see them. I see the OP as a bigoted shot at Muslims.
You must have pretty thick blinders on then. Care to quote some examples? The OP made it rather clear that he doesn't consider the majority of Muslims to be radical, terrorists, or dangerous. It's no worse, and no less correct than making a thread against the US Christian Right.

Ok, so the original poster believes that Islam is all about violence and it is bad.

First of all, at the time of Muhammad, Arabia was a bloodbath, and it was clearly out of civilization. They had not social order at the time, so God needed to put some kinds of laws that will maintain order and best suits them. Thus God revealed laws of life and how to govern to Muhammad, which were know as Sharia. These laws worker perfectly for many centuries, withouth this stuff that you the Taliban do. First of all, Sharia was revealed to some 7th century barbarians, so it needed to suit them and their lifestyles. the problems wiht modern world is that the middle east was modernized too fast, and some people resisted the change and still have the 7th cenutry mentality. We all know what fast changes can do; look at U.S.S.R: its downfall was mainly automitazition and modernization that came too rapidly.

When Jesus came, he did not need to worry about the social order after he was gone, for it was the time of Roman Empire. It was pax romana and a civilized world right?? In the 4th century, all Christianity did was baptize the Roman Empire and its laws. The laws were already set for the people.

God has said in Quran many many times to think. Think before you act. God has given us the power to choose right and wrong. This is what most Mosulims ignore today, unfortunately.

Next unclear matter about Islam? do not hesitate to tell.

That is very very true, there is bigotry in every religion, but in the teachings of Islam itself there is much more bigotry then there is in the teachings of Christianity.
And again.

Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

That is your opinion, but it is difficult to know without actually reading the Q'uran.
Why don't you read it then, and come back with an argument that is based on something other than your own assumptions -- if you can build one.

And again.

Firstly Muravyets, you seem to assume that im a christain reading your posts, when i am infact a left leaning agnostic. The stuff I said about women etc.. are not my point of view, its the christian point of view, i was using it to show how people generalize against christianity. Why don't you actually debate against what i say rather then using that thing I said. Also I do not hate Islam at all, just when you read its teachings, you can see how it encourages people to hate.
Also im not the OP. It is not my thread.

since most whats said here is based on predjudisms

www.cisv.org
Cool. :)

Firstly Muravyets, you seem to assume that im a christain reading your posts, when i am infact a left leaning agnostic. The stuff I said about women etc.. are not my point of view, its the christian point of view, i was using it to show how people generalize against christianity. Why don't you actually debate against what i say rather then using that thing I said. Also I do not hate Islam at all, just when you read its teachings, you can see how it encourages people to hate.


Once again, you are clearly wrong. If Islam teaches to hate, why are not there 1.2 billion ready to blow themselves up?? Do not forget that Christianity persecuted Jews and Muslims in Europe for centuries. Do you forget chrtistian witch-hunting? Those are just extremists. There are zionist extremists that believe that Israel should kill all the Palestineans for they believe that Palestineans are Canaaites. So must we assume that Judaism is violent?

Once again, you are clearly wrong. If Islam teaches to hate, why are not there 1.2 billion ready to blow themselves up?? Do not forget that Christianity persecuted Jews and Muslims in Europe for centuries. Do you forget chrtistian witch-hunting? Those are just extremists. There are zionist extremists that believe that Israel should kill all the Palestineans for they believe that Palestineans are Canaaites. So must we assume that Judaism is violent?

Because not everyone follows the literal interpration of Islam.

Because not everyone follows the literal interpration of Islam.

I do. I try to do it to the last word. Does this mean I am violent and ready to blow myself up?

Problem 1) Prohibition on drinking of alcohol.



That's really it. Fix that one and all the other problems will be rapidly solved.

Problem 1) Prohibition on drinking of alcohol.

That's really it. Fix that one and all the other problems will be rapidly solved.
lol, thanks for the comic relief!

Firstly Muravyets, you seem to assume that im a christain reading your posts, when i am infact a left leaning agnostic. The stuff I said about women etc.. are not my point of view, its the christian point of view, i was using it to show how people generalize against christianity. Why don't you actually debate against what i say rather then using that thing I said. Also I do not hate Islam at all, just when you read its teachings, you can see how it encourages people to hate.
Also im not the OP. It is not my thread.
Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This is fun. :D

1. I was using the rhetorical "you." You just assumed that I was assuming you were a christian.

2. Oh, really? You weren't generalizing about Christian attitudes towards women in order to illustrate how much more hateful you think Islam is?

3. I am not debating your statements. I am dismissing them as being nothing but your own personal assumptions. Prove me wrong -- show us your supporting evidence.

4. You don't hate Islam. Right. But don't mind me; I'm sure there are people here who believe you. Me, I prefer to go with your actual words, which I quoted, and which are pretty biased, let me tell you -- particularly since you suggest that you have not read the Quran, which means you're not really in a position to say what its teachings are, are you?

5. I'm not responding to the OP at the moment. I'm responding to you.

I do. I try to do it to the last word. Does this mean I am violent and ready to blow myself up?

Of course not, there are many different interpretations of Islam. Im really only talking about the more hateful one hre

I see you are silent and no one has replied to this:

Ok, so the original poster believes that Islam is all about violence and it is bad.

First of all, at the time of Muhammad, Arabia was a bloodbath, and it was clearly out of civilization. They had not social order at the time, so God needed to put some kinds of laws that will maintain order and best suits them. Thus God revealed laws of life and how to govern to Muhammad, which were know as Sharia. These laws worker perfectly for many centuries, withouth this stuff that you the Taliban do. First of all, Sharia was revealed to some 7th century barbarians, so it needed to suit them and their lifestyles. the problems wiht modern world is that the middle east was modernized too fast, and some people resisted the change and still have the 7th cenutry mentality. We all know what fast changes can do; look at U.S.S.R: its downfall was mainly automitazition and modernization that came too rapidly.

When Jesus came, he did not need to worry about the social order after he was gone, for it was the time of Roman Empire. It was pax romana and a civilized world right?? In the 4th century, all Christianity did was baptize the Roman Empire and its laws. The laws were already set for the people.

God has said in Quran many many times to think. Think before you act. God has given us the power to choose right and wrong. This is what most Mosulims ignore today, unfortunately.

Next unclear matter about Islam? do not hesitate to tell.

<snip>
Progress is real and we can make it happen. Standards of human rights are at their highest point in history. We are slowly but surely ridding the world of slavery and racism. These things have already almost vanished from the west. When the Muslim radicals are defeated we shouldn't just sit on our hands and wait for the next group of maniacs, we should give people in the world good living conditions and freedoms that will ensure they don't need to resort to violence to be heard.

Come on people, another world is possible.
<snip>
You're not going to get there by singling out the entire religion of Islam as the root cause of the problem, thus stoking the fires of sectarian hostility.

Because not everyone follows the literal interpration of Islam.
And here you are assuming that you know what a literal interpretation of Islam is.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that it's okay to persecute and massacre people out of religious extremism, just so long as the religion isn't Islam?

Truth = 0
Asumption = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Is this annoying you enough yet to make you stop basing your whole argument on uninformed assumptions?

Of course not, there are many different interpretations of Islam. Im really only talking about the more hateful one hre

It is true that there are 150+ verses that ask muslims to fight. However, these are in only the circumnstances that a muslim is attacked. Nowadays, Taliban and Al-quaeda want to interpretate "infidel" and "non-believers" as westeners. While the Quran clearly states that non-believers are those who do not believe in God.

You must also consider that those times were times of war, and Arabia was the most barbaric place on the planet at the time. If they wanted to survive, they had to defend themselves when they are attacked. Turning cheek at the time would get you killed in the middle of bandits and desert.

This is fun. :D

1. I was using the rhetorical "you." You just assumed that I was assuming you were a christian.


Who is this "me", i would prefer it if you wouldn't stereo type me.


2. Oh, really? You weren't generalizing about Christian attitudes towards women in order to illustrate how much more hateful you think Islam is?


If you read my posts, we were calmly debating about Christain fundementalists, not all of Christianity of course!


3. I am not debating your statements. I am dismissing them as being nothing but your own personal assumptions. Prove me wrong -- show us your supporting evidence.


I have in some cases, it depends what things you are talking about.


4. You don't hate Islam. Right. But don't mind me; I'm sure there are people here who believe you. Me, I prefer to go with your actual words, which I quoted, and which are pretty biased, let me tell you -- particularly since you suggest that you have not read the Quran, which means you're not really in a position to say what its teachings are, are you?


I have read a lot of the Q'uran, I was talking about the guy I quoted. Who was incredibly bias in saying that all christains are homosexual haters and women haters.


5. I'm not responding to the OP at the moment. I'm responding to you.

But you said that I made this thread to justify my alleged hate towards islam.

Of course not, there are many different interpretations of Islam. Im really only talking about the more hateful one hre
Is that why, before now, you kept saying that Islam encourages hate, not that one extremist interpretation of Islam encourages hate?

Is that why, before now, you kept saying that Islam encourages hate, not that one extremist interpretation of Islam encourages hate?

Well, believe it or not, the most common interpration in the middle east is very extreme.

I think religion in general and some of its followers have problems.

Well, believe it or not, the most common interpration in the middle east is very extreme.


Yes, only extrme parties and governments. Most westeners do not know what ALL the people think in middle east. The news only shows the extremists and when people see it, they think ALL are like that.

For example, go ask a westener who has gone to Tehran; ask about it and see what he/she will tell you.

I'm going to bed now but before I go, a few things:

I definately think that the majority of Muslims are kind, peaceful people who are not hateful at all. I am against any discrimination against muslims.
But I am against people who discriminate or harshly criticize christainity but then protect Islam for the very thing they criticized Christianity over.

I also think that the teachings of Islam, as a muslim on this thread pointed out, were made in a time of war. Which means that they can sometimes be very violent, this invitably causes problems with Islamist countries and fuels orginisations such as Al Queda.

Who is this "me", i would prefer it if you wouldn't stereo type me.
Are you familiar with the word "rhetorical"? The rhetorical "you" is not a reference to you, the specific individual I am addressing. It is a substitute for the indefinite pronoun "one," and is used in the context to indicate anyone who represents the position you were arguing (even allowing that you were arguing someone else's position). One uses "you" instead of "one" to emphasize the difference between our arguments.

If you read my posts, we were calmly debating about Christain fundementalists, not all of Christianity of course!
Really? Please point out the posts in which you made this distinction clear before now. Was it at the same point where you made it clear you were only condemning one extremist interpretation of Islam instead of Islam in general?

I have in some cases, it depends what things you are talking about.
Cute prevarication. Start with the points of yours in this thread that I quoted and dismissed as assumptions.

I have read a lot of the Q'uran, I was talking about the guy I quoted. Who was incredibly bias in saying that all christains are homosexual haters and women haters.
Ah, now who needs to read some posts? The person you were responding to was Checklandia, who said nothing of the sort. In fact, nobody did. Grave_n_idle, Bottle, and I challenged your suggestion that Christianity is less bigoted than Islam, but none of us suggested that all Christians are bigots.

But, if you have actually read the Quran, then I assume you will grace us with proof of your claims about it?

But you said that I made this thread to justify my alleged hate towards islam.
Oh, I'm sorry. I mispoke myself. I meant that your argument is a justification of your hatred towards Islam.

Well, believe it or not, the most common interpration in the middle east is very extreme.
Do you really want me to keep throwing that post of yours back at you?

I'm going to bed now but before I go, a few things:

I definately think that the majority of Muslims are kind, peaceful people who are not hateful at all. I am against any discrimination against muslims.
But I am against people who discriminate or harshly criticize christainity but then protect Islam for the very thing they criticized Christianity over.

Well, you rarely see a muslim critisize Christianity, but there are always extremists and misunderstood people.

I also think that the teachings of Islam, as a muslim on this thread pointed out, were made in a time of war. Which means that they can sometimes be very violent, this invitably causes problems with Islamist countries and fuels orginisations such as Al Queda.

I did say that it came in times of war, but Islam teaches to be a civilized person and not wanting war. However, when you are in a war, you must use violenece to win it. The essence of war is violence, moderation in war is imbocility. Quran does not say to make war when you are unsatisfied. Only make war when you are attacked and there is no other way. It also tells that when enemy surrenders, sheath your sword. QURAN DOES NOT ENVOURAGE WAR ONLY IN VITAL CIRCUIMSTANCES, for example when your country is invaded.

From many many verses of Islam, you only find a very few that are about war and fighting.

Plus, Islam was completed in 20 years and its laws came during that period. Islam takes priciples step by step. Imagine that Moses brought Ten Commandmets in due of 20 years instead of one night. Those who are violent only read and see the fighting parts of Quran. For if they read all of it, surely they would not be so violent.

For example, God told Israelites not to make treatis with Caanites and kill them all.

In conclusion, one shoud read ALL of Quran before taking any action or judging.

Islam is not a religion of peace, as many claim.
It advocates and encourages jihad and killing of infidels.
How can a religion be of peace when its leader waged war against Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, slaughtering and forcefully converting people to Islam?

Islam is not a religion of peace, as many claim.
It advocates and encourages jihad and killing of infidels.
How can a religion be of peace when its leader waged war against Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, slaughtering and forcefully converting people to Islam?
On behalf of all the posts that have come before you, but which I guess you didn't have time to read, I refer you back to the entirety of human history. The Muslims are not the first. I don't think they'll be the last.

So that's that then. Muslims cause all the trouble in the world but WASPs have never done anything at all bad, apart from the world wars, nukes, vietnam, that whole middle east thing and constantly fucking with south america and pretty much everywhere else. Yeah Christianity sure is the way of peace and calm, once all the baddies have been turned to ash.

I'm going to bed now but before I go, a few things:

I definately think that the majority of Muslims are kind, peaceful people who are not hateful at all. I am against any discrimination against muslims.
But I am against people who discriminate or harshly criticize christainity but then protect Islam for the very thing they criticized Christianity over.

A very good point. Islam should be criticized every bit as harshy as Christianity. Bullshit rules founded on superstition are bullshit no matter what superstition they are founded upon.

A very good point. Islam should be criticized every bit as harshy as Christianity. Bullshit rules founded on superstition are bullshit no matter what superstition they are founded upon.

Well, alot of superstition stems from religion. So where's the line when both are interconnected? Remember that athiests could be superstitious as well.

If you think Islam is A Religion of Hatred and Violence™, can't do anything to change your mind.

What disturbs me is the callous attitude that many of those critics adopt, especially where they think Islam ought to be banned, or their devotees forcibly converted or systematically exterminated. And none of them even give it a second thought when they toss out these suggestions like it was an advice on roach spraying.

There has never been a sentiment on a national scale that felt Christians needed to be exterminated since the 20th century, and when there was one for Judaism which was applied in practice, we had the Nuremberg Trials afterwards. But if you suggest Muslims ought to be interned, sterilized, or just shot, nobody even widens their eyes in shock. Hell, you might even get applauded for mentioning that notion.

If you think Islam is A Religion of Hatred and Violence™, can't do anything to change your mind.

What disturbs me is the callous attitude that many of those critics adopt, especially where they think Islam ought to be banned, or their devotees forcibly converted or systematically exterminated. And none of them even give it a second thought when they toss out these suggestions like it was an advice on roach spraying.

There has never been a sentiment on a national scale that felt Christians needed to be exterminated since the 20th century, and when there was one for Judaism which was applied in practice, we had the Nuremberg Trials afterwards. But if you suggest Muslims ought to be interned, sterilized, or just shot, nobody even widens their eyes in shock. Hell, you might even get applauded for mentioning that notion.
Yep.
'Tis sad. Sad indeed.

I don't like Islam much. I'm really sick of hearing people on TV say "Muslims, of whom the vast majority are peaceloving people...". If so many of them are peaceloving then how come every stinking day we hear about ten suicide bombings or car bombs set off by Muslims? There has to be something horribly, fundamentally wrong with their Koran if so many of them commit these attrocities. i just cant accept the idea that they're just misinterpreting it or something, b/c that would be a lot of people misunderstanding the book they've devoted their lives too.:headbang:

I don't like Islam much. I'm really sick of hearing people on TV say "Muslims, of whom the vast majority are peaceloving people...". If so many of them are peaceloving then how come every stinking day we hear about ten suicide bombings or car bombs set off by Muslims? There has to be something horribly, fundamentally wrong with their Koran if so many of them commit these attrocities. i just cant accept the idea that they're just misinterpreting it or something, b/c that would be a lot of people misunderstanding the book they've devoted their lives too.:headbang:

It's called The Media. If it was "liberal" like the 101st Fighting Keyboarders insisted, you'd never see a single damn instance of Jihadist attacks reported and we'd just be getting nothing but reports of Abu Ghraibs, Hadithas and other such incidents.

:rolleyes:

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs. They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran. Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible. Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't. Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.Or you can always be a liberal Muslim and hold basic beliefs and not let it interfere with your life like me. :)

Or you can always be a liberal Muslim and hold basic beliefs and not let it interfere with your life like me. :)

In which case you're dismissed as "Not a Real Muslim™" who does not adhere strictly to the tenets of a "Wicked, Evil Religion™."

There is a dialogue in the movie Casablanca between Rick and a young girl from Albania, who is being blackmailed/seduced by Captain Renault.

Annina: Monsieur Rick, what kind of a man is Captain Renault?
Rick: Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.

That is my feeling about what is wrong with Islam. It's a religion, like any other, only more so.

*hands Gauthier a virtual cookie* You, sir, have written the only intelligent posts in this thread.

There is a dialogue in the movie Casablanca between Rick and a young girl from Albania, who is being blackmailed/seduced by Captain Renault.

Annina: Monsieur Rick, what kind of a man is Captain Renault?
Rick: Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.

That is my feeling about what is wrong with Islam. It's a religion, like any other, only more so.
Pretty much. All forms of religious fundamentalism are perverted, but I find Islamic fundamentalism to currently be the worst about. Of course you have nutcases like Phelps alleging to be Christian, but they do not garner the level of support Islamic fundamentalism does.

*hands Gauthier a virtual cookie* You, sir, have written the only intelligent posts in this thread.

Thanks. But it's a sad reflection of humanity's current state.

I don't like Islam much. I'm really sick of hearing people on TV say "Muslims, of whom the vast majority are peaceloving people...". If so many of them are peaceloving then how come every stinking day we hear about ten suicide bombings or car bombs set off by Muslims? There has to be something horribly, fundamentally wrong with their Koran if so many of them commit these attrocities. i just cant accept the idea that they're just misinterpreting it or something, b/c that would be a lot of people misunderstanding the book they've devoted their lives too.:headbang:

1) read the koran
2)meet a muslim
3) the reason we only see violent muslims on teh news is because peaceful muslims going about their daily business isnt newsworthy.

1) read the koran
2)meet a muslim
3) the reason we only see violent muslims on teh news is because peaceful muslims going about their daily business isnt newsworthy.

On 2: No, thanks!

Never ever again - GAH!

On 2: No, thanks!

Never ever again - GAH!

well then thats your problem, but I find it slightly bigoted to criticise Islam when you wont even meet a muslim.
Thats like me saying Ive met a fundamentalist christian I dont want to meet one again.
All religions are crap to me but I respect those who have religious beliefs and dont force them down my throat.
My good friend miriam is a muslim and the Islam people on this site describe does not in anyway descibe the religion my friend believes in.
And to think that all muslim s are extremists is wrong, miriam and her family are devout muslims but she is not 'forced' into being subordinate-she doesnt even wear a headscarf and thinks that suicide bombings are evil as much as anyone Ive heard on this site.If anything she is more anygry than people on this site because it gives people the impression that all muslims are like this and leads to the veiw that islam is a religion of hate.
Islam is no more a relgion of hate than christianity.

No, it's just bigoted, at least if you dislike Islam for reasons you don't apply to other religions.




i dislike all religions, am I bigoted?

Well, alot of superstition stems from religion. So where's the line when both are interconnected? Remember that athiests could be superstitious as well.
Let me say it again: Bullshit rules founded on superstition are bullshit no matter what superstition they are founded upon. Doesn't matter if the person supporting the bullshit rules is Christian, Muslim, atheist, or made of blue cheese.

i dislike all religions, am I bigoted?
That would depend on why you dislike them.

It's like saying, "I dislike Tom. Am I bigotted?" If you dislike Tom because he kicked you in the junk on the playground last week, then no you are a not a bigot for disliking him. If, on the other hand, you dislike Tom because he's a Mexican, then there's a good chance you're a bigot.

I did say that it came in times of war, but Islam teaches to be a civilized person and not wanting war. However, when you are in a war, you must use violenece to win it. The essence of war is violence, moderation in war is imbocility. Quran does not say to make war when you are unsatisfied. Only make war when you are attacked and there is no other way. It also tells that when enemy surrenders, sheath your sword. QURAN DOES NOT ENVOURAGE WAR ONLY IN VITAL CIRCUIMSTANCES, for example when your country is invaded.

From many many verses of Islam, you only find a very few that are about war and fighting.

Plus, Islam was completed in 20 years and its laws came during that period. Islam takes priciples step by step. Imagine that Moses brought Ten Commandmets in due of 20 years instead of one night. Those who are violent only read and see the fighting parts of Quran. For if they read all of it, surely they would not be so violent.

For example, God told Israelites not to make treatis with Caanites and kill them all.

In conclusion, one shoud read ALL of Quran before taking any action or judging.

Wasnt it under your prophet's rule, muslims attacked many countries?

I don't know erm, looking after the house and children, looking after the husband etc... Whereas the husband has the more important jobs. This is discrimination of course, but it is not out of hate.
Wait, looking after the family isn't an important job? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Wait, looking after the family isn't an important job? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Well gosh, taking care of babies is woman's work. And we all know that woman's work is inherently less valuable than men's work.

You know the Black stone in mecca had over 300 idols around or in it i heard! and that Muhammed tribe the Quadish's had an idol called Allah? i just heard all that and you have to submit to Allah and all that (not the other Idols) i heard that from somewhere interesting once look that up

Well gosh, taking care of babies is woman's work. And we all know that woman's work is inherently less valuable than men's work.
Yes, I would absolutely love to see how well small children would do if nobody cooked their food or preformed the sorts of tasks that constitute "women's work". It would be very interesting to see how a household would look after a week of that.

I mean, my family has functioned well for several months when my dad has lost his job in the past, I can't see such a great level of functionality if nobody looked after the family or did any other much less important work.

Yes, I would absolutely love to see how well small children would do if nobody cooked their food or preformed the sorts of tasks that constitute "women's work". It would be very interesting to see how a household would look after a week of that.

I mean, my family has functioned well for several months when my dad has lost his job in the past, I can't see such a great level of functionality if nobody looked after the family or did any other much less important work.

Is it just me or does noone ever get when Bottle is being sarcastic?

Yes, I would absolutely love to see how well small children would do if nobody cooked their food or preformed the sorts of tasks that constitute "women's work". It would be very interesting to see how a household would look after a week of that.

I mean, my family has functioned well for several months when my dad has lost his job in the past, I can't see such a great level of functionality if nobody looked after the family or did any other much less important work.
Nobody is saying that those chores don't need to be done. It's just that those chores are boring and icky and demeaning, and therefore should be done by women because men aren't meant to soil their masculine hands with such labors.

Is it just me or does noone ever get when Bottle is being sarcastic?
To be fair, Bottle is sarcastic so often that sometimes Bottle has trouble remembering if Bottle is being serious.

SNIP.


I could rewrite the whole thing ( my position ) as:
the trouble with islam is that it exists in my neck of the woods.
Unacceptable.

To be fair, Bottle is sarcastic so often that sometimes Bottle has trouble remembering if Bottle is being serious.

I spin a bottle, and see what comes out.
I suppose the bottle was sarcastic this time.
( But I really don't mind that. )

*amuses Bottle by throwing a hissyfit*

Bottles are EBIL!

I could rewrite the whole thing as:
the trouble with islam is that it exists in my neck of the woods.
Unacceptable.

It exists in your neck of the woods? Well if you dont like that you should probably leave...earth. Go to Mars where Islam might not exist. Actually dont even bother because if there is life there its probably life that you dont like. You should just kill yourself.

It exists in your neck of the woods? Well if you dont like that you should probably leave...earth. Go to Mars where Islam might not exist. Actually dont even bother because if there is life there its probably life that you dont like. You should just kill yourself.

OUR backyard, OUR rules - and zero backtalk tolerance.

OUR way, or the highway.

Is it just me or does noone ever get when Bottle is being sarcastic?
Is it just me or does nobody get when I'm being sarcastic.

(Although I suppose throwing that last serious bit on the end didn't help)

Nobody is saying that those chores don't need to be done. It's just that those chores are boring and icky and demeaning, and therefore should be done by women because men aren't meant to soil their masculine hands with such labors.
Oh yes, of course men are definitely above such menial tasks, we all know that they're the superior gender afterall.

Wasnt it under your prophet's rule, muslims attacked many countries?
Wasn't it under a Catholic pope that the Crusades were conducted? Wasn't it under Protestant leadership that the English Civil War was fought, as well as all the mini-wars of the Reformation? Wasn't it under secular leadership that two world wars were fought? In the ancient world, weren't all countries fighting with each other while practicing pagan religions? :rolleyes:

Wasn't it under a Catholic pope that the Crusades were conducted? Wasn't it under Protestant leadership that the English Civil War was fought, as well as all the mini-wars of the Reformation? Wasn't it under secular leadership that two world wars were fought? In the ancient world, weren't all countries fighting with each other while practicing pagan religions? :rolleyes:

Didn't Christianity go through a Reformation? Didn't a large majority of European Christians go on to become secularly-oriented, or in fact, atheists? Didn't the UK, for instance, experience a 90% membership drop in a single generation for church attendance?

Has Islam gone through a Reformation? No. What are the chances that someone can be an openly avowed atheist in a place like Pakistan?

The difference is that the people who practice (or formerly practiced) Christianity have moved on, by and large. Islam has massive parts of its heterodoxy sliding backwards in time.

You know the Black stone in mecca had over 300 idols around or in it i heard! and that Muhammed tribe the Quadish's had an idol called Allah? i just heard all that and you have to submit to Allah and all that (not the other Idols) i heard that from somewhere interesting once look that up
Why don't you look it up and post some facts instead of just some apocryphal gossip? After all, you're the one who seems to think it's interesting, or even relevant.

Oh yes, of course men are definitely above such menial tasks, we all know that they're the superior gender afterall.
Also, we must remember that all women are programmed to want to have babies and change diapers and keep house, while all men are programmed to want to have lots of sex and watch sports and be dirty. So it's not the fault of MEN that women have to do all the chores, it's just that women are biologically designed to take care of all the dirty jobs that nobody wants to have to do.

Didn't Christianity go through a Reformation? Didn't a large majority of European Christians go on to become secularly-oriented, or in fact, atheists? Didn't the UK, for instance, experience a 90% membership drop in a single generation for church attendance?

Has Islam gone through a Reformation? No. What are the chances that someone can be an openly avowed atheist in a place like Pakistan?

The difference is that the people who practice (or formerly practiced) Christianity have moved on, by and large. Islam has massive parts of its heterodoxy sliding backwards in time.
Let's keep our timeline in mind, though. Look at how long it took for Christianity to reach the Reformation and the Enlightenment, relative to when Christianity emerged as an organized religion. Now compare modern Islam to when Islam was founded. Honestly, I think they're moving every bit as quickly as Christianity did, they just started off a few centuries later.

Also, we must remember that all women are programmed to want to have babies and change diapers and keep house, while all men are programmed to want to have lots of sex and watch sports and be dirty. So it's not the fault of MEN that women have to do all the chores, it's just that women are biologically designed to take care of all the dirty jobs that nobody wants to have to do.
Oh, we can't forget that men are programmed to run around spreading their seed so they can't be blamed for not being faithful either, the women they cheat with are, however, filthy whores who should be tied to the nearest tree and beaten with sticks while the wives of these poor men must be chastised for failing to satisfy their husbands.

Wasn't it under a Catholic pope that the Crusades were conducted? Wasn't it under Protestant leadership that the English Civil War was fought, as well as all the mini-wars of the Reformation? Wasn't it under secular leadership that two world wars were fought? In the ancient world, weren't all countries fighting with each other while practicing pagan religions? :rolleyes:

Dont forget that the crusades where in the NAME OF GOD not actually doing God a Favour lol! like saying "I hate you so i will kill you because God Dosnt like you and nor do i" So basically Your putting your own hates and views rather then actually listening to God! :) Protestant leadership because King Charles believed that God picked him to be King! i.e Divine Rights as it where called! so really the Protestents or Puritans read alot of the Bible and Studied it said "hang on What is this Guy on about it mention's nothing about King Charles lol"

Britain went to war when Germany invaded Poland remember! and America went to War because Japan bombed pearl Harbour lol Russia Turned against Hitler becuase hitler invaded Russia! Not becuase of God?

Why don't you look it up and post some facts instead of just some apocryphal gossip? After all, you're the one who seems to think it's interesting, or even relevant.

Funny you say that Word Facts whats Factual about many things on these forums? i just heard it and it's worth looking up becuase it's quite possible that it is True?

Oh, we can't forget that men are programmed to run around spreading their seed so they can't be blamed for not being faithful either, the women they cheat with are, however, filthy whores who should be tied to the nearest tree and beaten with sticks while the wives of these poor men must be chastised for failing to satisfy their husbands.
Well naturally. This is because women possess the ability to control themselves, while men do not. I'm not quite sure why this translates into men being the ones who should rule the world, but pretty much every major religion tells me that's how it works. Men have no self-control, men have no empathy, men want to screw and eat and make messes, and this is why men should be head of the home and Lords of the manor.

Of course, they also tell me that men are unable to control their lust and rage, yet are at the same time are more rational than silly emotional womenfolk. I've never quite figured out how that one works.

Didn't Christianity go through a Reformation? Didn't a large majority of European Christians go on to become secularly-oriented, or in fact, atheists? Didn't the UK, for instance, experience a 90% membership drop in a single generation for church attendance?

Has Islam gone through a Reformation? No. What are the chances that someone can be an openly avowed atheist in a place like Pakistan?

The difference is that the people who practice (or formerly practiced) Christianity have moved on, by and large. Islam has massive parts of its heterodoxy sliding backwards in time.
Didn't you read my post?

Oh, no I guess not. You were too busy not reading history or the news, either. Well, in deference to your poor little brain, I'll say it even more obviously:

Ancient pagan societies = violence. Catholic society = violence. Protestant Reformation = violence. Modern secular nationalism = violence. Godless atheistic communism = violence. Modern Advanced Christ-loving American Western Reformed Enlightened Perfect White Christian Protestants Who Have "Moved On" = violence when they blow up clinics, shoot doctors, and call for the murders of foreign leaders and homosexuals.

The attempt to blame all of Islam for the crimes of religious extremists and to "prove" it by claiming that other belief systems do not produce violence is bullshit.

And as for which group has members "sliding backwards in time," which group is burdened with your barbaric membership, Mr. Kill All the Muslims?

I could rewrite the whole thing ( my position ) as:
the trouble with islam is that it exists in my neck of the woods.
Unacceptable.
I could rewrite the whole thing (my position) as:
the trouble with bigoted jerkwads is that they exist in my neck of the woods.
Unacceptable.

Wow, you're right. That is easy and fun. Not a very persuasive argument, though, is it?

And as for which group has members "sliding backwards in time," which group is burdened with your barbaric membership, Mr. Kill All the Muslims?

Realpolitik.

And as for which group has members "sliding backwards in time," which group is burdened with your barbaric membership, Mr. Kill All the Muslims?
*singing softly*

If advocating genocide is wrong, baby I don't wanna be right...

The difference is that the people who practice (or formerly practiced) Christianity have moved on, by and large. Islam has massive parts of its heterodoxy sliding backwards in time.
Yeah, I mean, just look at the Catholic Church! Why, it only took them like 400 years to accept that the Earth orbits the Sun! Not like those backward-ass Muslims...

OUR backyard, OUR rules - and zero backtalk tolerance.

OUR way, or the highway.
Oh, well, now, see, there you have a problem. Because it's MY backyard, too. And I have rules, too, as it happens. And one of my top rules is that you don't get to tell me to shut up. So, what are you going to do about the backtalk you're going to get from me, then? Hm?

Realpolitik.
Bullshit.

Yeah, I mean, just look at the Catholic Church! Why, it only took them like 400 years to accept that the Earth orbits the Sun! Not like those backward-ass Muslims...
Something tells me that official Catholic policy changed after they realized that their parishoners were going to believe science instead.

You can still be executed in places like Iran for teaching that the universe is non-deterministic. Makes it hard to teach physics class.

Oh, well, now, see, there you have a problem. Because it's MY backyard, too. And I have rules, too, as it happens. And one of my top rules is that you don't get to tell me to shut up. So, what are you going to do about the backtalk you're going to get from me, then? Hm?
Um, duh, when he says "OUR rules" he means "HIS rules." He makes the rules, you follow them, or else you leave his country.

That's how America works, isn't it? Whatever the majority wants is passed into law, and everybody gets to shut the hell up about it. That's why we still have slavery, women are forbidden to vote, and Bush has been removed from office.

Funny you say that Word Facts whats Factual about many things on these forums? i just heard it and it's worth looking up becuase it's quite possible that it is True?
AGAIN: If it's worth looking up, then go and look it up.

*sigh* I see this is going to be one of those days where everything has to be posted at least twice. :rolleyes:

Bullshit.
Not a very good argument. I expected something wordy.

Didn't you read my post?

Oh, no I guess not. You were too busy not reading history or the news, either. Well, in deference to your poor little brain, I'll say it even more obviously:

Ancient pagan societies = violence. Catholic society = violence. Protestant Reformation = violence. Modern secular nationalism = violence. Godless atheistic communism = violence. Modern Advanced Christ-loving American Western Reformed Enlightened Perfect White Christian Protestants Who Have "Moved On" = violence when they blow up clinics, shoot doctors, and call for the murders of foreign leaders and homosexuals.

The attempt to blame all of Islam for the crimes of religious extremists and to "prove" it by claiming that other belief systems do not produce violence is bullshit.

And as for which group has members "sliding backwards in time," which group is burdened with your barbaric membership, Mr. Kill All the Muslims?

Muhammed was a warrior too! he was involved in many battles and raids against tribes and nations in the region. But im sure muslims arn't supposed to imitate that. but muhammed was just a simple sinful man how can explain islam to a simple run of the mill chap?

Dont forget that the crusades where in the NAME OF GOD not actually doing God a Favour lol! like saying "I hate you so i will kill you because God Dosnt like you and nor do i" So basically Your putting your own hates and views rather then actually listening to God! :) Protestant leadership because King Charles believed that God picked him to be King! i.e Divine Rights as it where called! so really the Protestents or Puritans read alot of the Bible and Studied it said "hang on What is this Guy on about it mention's nothing about King Charles lol"

Britain went to war when Germany invaded Poland remember! and America went to War because Japan bombed pearl Harbour lol Russia Turned against Hitler becuase hitler invaded Russia! Not becuase of God?
So you agree with me that it is total bullshit to claim that Islam, in and of itself, is any more violent than any other popular, organized belief system in the history of civilization.

I want to know one thing--where is Santa Barbara, that intrepid apologist for everything Islamic? Why hasn't he shown up to tell us that Islam really isn't a bloodthirsty 7th-century political ideology masquerading as a religion, and that whenever someone cites explicit teachings from the Koran and the Hadith (the so-called "traditions" that are also fundamental to Islam) that reveal the savage, aggressive, intolerant, vicious, misogynistic nature of that creed and its unsavory so-called prophet, it's all taken "out of context"?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Hadith, here are some choice citations. All are given in their entirety, and are posted on an Islamic site
(see http://www.witness-pioneer.org/hadeeth/ ). Read them and judge for yourselves. Women especially take note of Volume 7, "Wedlock, Marriage".

From Bukhari Hadith:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: "Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." [you read it right: a 50-plus man who "marries" a six-year-old girl and rapes her at age nine]

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o: [prostitution endorsed for soldiers!]
Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137: [It’s OK not only to rape but to impregnate female captives!] Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a: The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33: [this one really says it all!]
Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

And then there's "Allah's Apostle's" orders concerning the treatment of prisoners. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Volume 8: Punishment of Disbelievers at War with Allah and His Apostle

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: [torture and mutilation of prisoners commanded by the false prophet. “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful” (yeah, right).] Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

BTW: don't even try defending Islam by citing Matthew 10:34 ("Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.") The teachings are in no way comparable, and here, the context is important--the following verses show Christ meant that His ministry would create division within families, and that anyone who valued his family relationships more than Him wasn't worthy to follow Him. He certainly didn't tell His followers to take that (metaphorical) sword and cut off people's hands and legs (let alone heads).

Islam stands condemned by its own teachings.

Not a very good argument. I expected something wordy.
I don't waste words arguing against bullshit.

AGAIN: If it's worth looking up, then go and look it up.

*sigh* I see this is going to be one of those days where everything has to be posted at least twice. :rolleyes:

maybe ive looked it up alot and alot is alot as in Books other muslims schools universities Goverment Arab texts Scholars from muslim Mosques hmmm i mightve looked it up i dont want to force an opionion onto anyone thou it's best that what ive found they find it for themselves because it might hurt to tell people what the Truth is or the Mumbo jumbo is lol! Your not a Muslim are you?

Wasn't it under a Catholic pope that the Crusades were conducted? Wasn't it under Protestant leadership that the English Civil War was fought, as well as all the mini-wars of the Reformation? Wasn't it under secular leadership that two world wars were fought? In the ancient world, weren't all countries fighting with each other while practicing pagan religions? :rolleyes:

Mohammed was a warior. Jesus on the other hand was pacifistic. Comparing one religions founder with popes are apples and oranges...
My point is, Islam is more agressive than Christianity


Muhammad spent his last ten years, from 613 to 622, as the ruler of a Muslim community in Medina that was engaged in constant warfare. Through raids, sieges, and diplomacy, he and his followers subdued most of the tribes and cities of the Arabian peninsula. They also sent out raiding parties against Arabic-speaking communities under Byzantine rulership.


Edit:


Criticisms

Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated.
[edit]

Muslim response to criticisms

Muslims respond by asserting that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

So you agree with me that it is total bullshit to claim that Islam, in and of itself, is any more violent than any other popular, organized belief system in the history of civilization.

hehehe yes i do agree with you that Islam isnt just the only reason why theres conflict on earth!

Perhaps not, but it's possibly the most prominent threat to freedom that currently exists.

maybe ive looked it up alot and alot is alot as in Books other muslims schools universities Goverment Arab texts Scholars from muslim Mosques hmmm i mightve looked it up i dont want to force an opionion onto anyone thou it's best that what ive found they find it for themselves because it might hurt to tell people what the Truth is or the Mumbo jumbo is lol!
So in other words, you actually don't have any facts or references to post here in order to back up these gossipy and irrelevant remarks of yours. Fine. We can all ignore them, then.

Your not a Muslim are you?
No, I am not a Muslim.

It has been my experience that only bigoted people ask questions like that about people who disagree with them. It is an attempt to show that all "good" people would agree with them, so anyone who doesn't agree must belong to the group they label as "not good."

Mohammed was a warior. Jesus on the other hand was pacifistic. Comparing one religions founder with popes are apples and oranges...

I think it's apples and oranges to compare a religion's founder to that religion as a whole.

Like most people, I don't have much of a problem with Jesus. It's his followers who I worry about.


My point is, Islam is more agressive than Christianity
The Prophet might have been more militant than Jesus, but that doesn't in any way equate to Islam (the religion) being more aggressive than Christianity (the religion). I think Christians and Muslims are equally likely to use their "faith" as justification for their own selfish and violent tendencies.

is the problem of islam not the same as any belief,it shadows your mind to the point of dellusion?
Politic is almost about it,belief,and it is becoming even more sectarian...
Even Darwinian,and that is bad news.since it only can result in an Orwellian stand up.

correct in away but theres always something in the way of people living there own lives isnt there like say global Warming!? hehehe if people's lives are disrubted like the lives of many Iraq's and Afghans Many Indonisieans many Americans and Many Australians the list may continue then there will be conflict.

Um, duh, when he says "OUR rules" he means "HIS rules." He makes the rules, you follow them, or else you leave his country.

That's how America works, isn't it? Whatever the majority wants is passed into law, and everybody gets to shut the hell up about it. That's why we still have slavery, women are forbidden to vote, and Bush has been removed from office.
Oh, right. Damn, I need to keep up with the news. :p

Muhammed was a warrior too! he was involved in many battles and raids against tribes and nations in the region. But im sure muslims arn't supposed to imitate that. but muhammed was just a simple sinful man how can explain islam to a simple run of the mill chap?
Do you have anything at all to say about Islam that is (A) something other than your personal opinion and (B) actually relevant to...well, to anything?

Well naturally. This is because women possess the ability to control themselves, while men do not. I'm not quite sure why this translates into men being the ones who should rule the world, but pretty much every major religion tells me that's how it works. Men have no self-control, men have no empathy, men want to screw and eat and make messes, and this is why men should be head of the home and Lords of the manor.

Of course, they also tell me that men are unable to control their lust and rage, yet are at the same time are more rational than silly emotional womenfolk. I've never quite figured out how that one works.
Oh well, isn't it obvious? If someone is so virile sexual that they can't keep their cocks in their pants it's a good thing, but crying on occasion is obviously a sign of weakness.

The Prophet might have been more militant than Jesus, but that doesn't in any way equate to Islam (the religion) being more aggressive than Christianity (the religion).

Actually, it does. Read the Koran and the Hadith. The teachings are clear.

I think Christians and Muslims are equally likely to use their "faith" as justification for their own selfish and violent tendencies.

The difference is, Christians who do so are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ, while Muslims who do so are acting consistently with the teachings of their prophet.

Nice try.

So in other words, you actually don't have any facts or references to post here in order to back up these gossipy and irrelevant remarks of yours. Fine. We can all ignore them, then.

Your not a Muslim are you?[/QUOTE]
No, I am not a Muslim.

It has been my experience that only bigoted people ask questions like that about people who disagree with them. It is an attempt to show that all "good" people would agree with them, so anyone who doesn't agree must belong to the group they label as "not good."[/QUOTE]

but your contradicting yourself because your saying that i have no Facts or Reference. so you trying to influence everyone to ignore my posts is actually contradicting your last point about "It has been my experience that only bigoted people ask questions like that about people who disagree with them. It is an attempt to show that all "good" people would agree with them, so anyone who doesn't agree must belong to the group they label as "not good.?? so your being a bigot yourself arnt you?

Mohammed was a warior. Jesus on the other hand was pacifistic. Comparing one religions founder with popes are apples and oranges...
My point is, Islam is more agressive than Christianity



Edit:
And my point (since I have to repeat it) is that that is not true. Christianity was just as aggressive in its day as Islam is now. So there's a cheap grab at cultural superiority that you are doomed to miss.

I think it's apples and oranges to compare a religion's founder to that religion as a whole.

Like most people, I don't have much of a problem with Jesus. It's his followers who I worry about.


The Prophet might have been more militant than Jesus, but that doesn't in any way equate to Islam (the religion) being more aggressive than Christianity (the religion). I think Christians and Muslims are equally likely to use their "faith" as justification for their own selfish and violent tendencies.

Religions tend to look at their prophets as role models. So Mohammad being more militant than Jesus might mean Islam is more militant then Christianity...
Also:


Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of some criticism, especially his marriage to Aisha. Some consider it wrong that he had more wives than the four generally allowed by the Qur'an (although one Qur'anic verse makes an exception for Muhammad). They question the circumstances of some of his marriages, such as those to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, and to Aisha, who according to hadith was nine years old when the marriage was consummated.[6]


Although, I dont know if he married the child to protect her or married as in "marriage". Maybe someone can explain.

Actually, it does. Read the Koran and the Hadith. The teachings are clear.

So are the teachings of the Bible. Do I really need to list the number of passages where God commands His People to go rape and slaughter?


The difference is, Christians who do so are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ, while Muslims who do so are acting consistently with the teachings of their prophet.


Here's the thing: you can find a passage of the Bible to support anything you damn well please. If you want to fornicate with box turtles, I'm pretty sure you can find a few paragraphs in the back that can be interpretted to mean that God loves he who fornicates with box turtles. And if you want to wage wars, kill the infidels, or just generally screw over people who aren't like you, I'm 100% certain that you can find parts of the Bible that will tell you God's on your side.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Qu'ran worked the same way. I don't think Islam is any better (or worse) than any of the other superstitious cults founded on the worship of an imaginary patriarch who lives in the sky. I'm sure Islamic holy texts contain plenty of bullshit, just like Christian holy texts do, and Jewish ones, and even the Buddhist and Hindu Holy Reading List.

Religions tend to look at their prophets as role models. So Mohammad being more militant than Jesus might mean Islam is more militant then Christianity...

You're right, it might mean that. But I don't think historical evidence supports that conclusion. Christians have been plenty militant despite their meek lamb of a Messiah.


Although, I dont know if he married the child to protect her or married as in "marriage". Maybe someone can explain.
Meh. The Christian God raped a 14 year old virgin. All these religions seem to include plenty of woman-hating and exploitation of children.

yes but you have to realise that the pope is just a man? same as you and me! yes Catholism is an Organised religion and has caused many wars and many bad things, peter was the first bishop of Rome after he finsihed his Fourth Journey from Jerusalem to Corinth to Thessolian and the other places he went to Preach. but he wasnt the Pope! and after peter there where bishops which then where given the name of Pope which to catholics is the Representative of Christ on earth ?

Now im sorry to all Catholics but Christ dosnt need a representative on earth he Has had the Apostles and Christ himself taught what the Earth needed so Catholism has become corrupted because of mans ignorance to God!

You're right, it might mean that. But I don't think historical evidence supports that conclusion. Christians have been plenty militant despite their meek lamb of a Messiah.

Meh. The Christian God raped a 14 year old virgin. All these religions seem to include plenty of woman-hating and exploitation of children.

Let's look at what has become of most "Christian" nations.

A lot more secularism. In some cases, approaching 90 percent - Christianity in name only.

Islamic nations, if they were given the true freedom of religious choice, after a few generations might be in the same secular pattern. It would be the destruction of Islam without killing anyone.

Actually, it does. Read the Koran and the Hadith. The teachings are clear.



The difference is, Christians who do so are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ, while Muslims who do so are acting consistently with the teachings of their prophet.

Nice try.
The problem with this is that I don't give a crap. Let's say I'm a witch. I don't really care if the scumbag burning me at the stake is doing it in strict accordance with his religion's teachings or in technical violation of them. I especially don't care about it if the said scumbag's church happens to be actually supporting him in doing violence against me. The finer points of theological interpretations within his own religious community do nothing to amend my view of his scumbaggery. So, on the principle that actions speak louder than words, I maintain that Christianity has produced just as many vicious, violent, holy-text-waving scumbags as Islam.

I dont know if he married the child to protect her or married as in "marriage". Maybe someone can explain.

Consider the following:

Bukhari Hadith, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Clearly the so-called prophet intended to marry the child as in "marriage", not to "protect her."

A "prophet" of "God" who molests little girls and says, "It's OK, God said I could do it"? What does that say about the character of this "prophet"? And what does it say about the mentality of people who would follow such a "prophet" and believe in such a "God"?

So, on the principle that actions speak louder than words, I maintain that Christianity has produced just as many vicious, violent, holy-text-waving scumbags as Islam.

How many witch-burnings in recent memory?

I think many people in the west fear that Islam will spread, engulfing Western Culture and destroying our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy in the process. This is not without precedent. The Middle East was at one time the most densely Christian real estate on earth and was violently converted to Islam at the point of a scimitar. Europe barely woke up in time to save their collective culture (a repeating theme, it seems).

Muslims are the minority in western cultures and always will be. Here's why: As their numbers increase, so do their demands for western culture to bow to their religion (cp. Canada and the Islamic court, France in general, London, Denmark et al). Logically once the population numbers are high enough in their favor there won't be a western culture, because Islam is both a religion and a political system. Imagine the fundamental Christians making all the rules. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Fueling the angst is that Westerners see their friends, family and countrymen having their heads sawn off on live TV in the name of Islam. Then they look around see little or no indignation from the local Muslim populace - just an Imam or two saying that Islam is a religion of peace. Yet, someone draws a cartoon and suddenly Muslims come out of the woodwork to protest in the streets and demand this and that - calling for sanctions against free speech and even for the death of the artist in some cases. This leaves many to read the Muslim attitude toward violence against the west as permissive, or at least sympathetic.

Democracy has two realistic choices: foster a genuine seperation of church and state among Muslims or die a slow, inevitable death (a war against Islam is not a realistic choice). That death will not be with a bang, it will be with a whimper.

Wanting to preserve your culture is not racism, nor is it bigotry. How you go about it ... well, that's a different story. Encouraging non-dictatorial, secular Muslim nations while squeezing the theocracies seems like the best approach to me. Theocracies work no better than communism, and we seem to have a good track record changing and/or removing communist ideals.

Kudos to Canada for denying the Islamic Law Court, by the way. Encouraging segregation by such nonsense is a very slippery slope indeed.

Let's look at what has become of most "Christian" nations.

A lot more secularism. In some cases, approaching 90 percent - Christianity in name only.

Islamic nations, if they were given the true freedom of religious choice, after a few generations might be in the same secular pattern. It would be the destruction of Islam without killing anyone.
Yeah, but look how long it took for "christian" nations to achieve that feat and look at how much oppression and ignorance was forced during that time. If anything, it's just that secularism is a good thing here and neither christianity nor islam are great with secularism.

Perhaps not, but it's possibly the most prominent threat to freedom that currently exists.
I dispute that. I say nationalism, warmongering, and corporatism are far greater threats, and they can all be dressed up as either religious or secular.

Yeah, but look how long it took for "christian" nations to achieve that feat and look at how much oppression and ignorance was forced during that time. If anything, it's just that secularism is a good thing here and neither christianity nor islam are great with secularism.
Yes, secularism is a good thing.

One might ask why Christianity was able to be pushed aside by secularism, while Islam was not.

You're right, it might mean that. But I don't think historical evidence supports that conclusion. Christians have been plenty militant despite their meek lamb of a Messiah.


Meh. The Christian God raped a 14 year old virgin. All these religions seem to include plenty of woman-hating and exploitation of children.

She was young but was she 14? And you could have made your point without using "rape". :rolleyes:

sad to see it becoming a religious war:headbang: :upyours:

Let's look at what has become of most "Christian" nations.

A lot more secularism. In some cases, approaching 90 percent - Christianity in name only.

Which seems to suggest that it is the absence of Christianity which is important.


Islamic nations, if they were given the true freedom of religious choice, after a few generations might be in the same secular pattern. It would be the destruction of Islam without killing anyone.
I don't think "freedom of religious choice" is the only factor. Education and access to equal rights is a major factor, too.

Which seems to suggest that it is the absence of Christianity which is important.

I don't think "freedom of religious choice" is the only factor. Education and access to equal rights is a major factor, too.
You will notice on this forum that I am not defending "Christianity".

It's the presence of secularism, and in general, Western values concerning human rights.

Then people vote with their feet. So, tell me how you do it.

She was young but was she 14?

Based on historical evidence and what we know of the time period, it's actually likely that she was closer to 12. But I was being generous.


And you could have made your point without using "rape". :rolleyes:
First of all, any sexual contact with a child of that age is rape. But, in addition, you'll note that at no point did God ask Mary for her consent. He simply informed her that she was gonna get knocked up. In my opinion, impregnating a little girl without so much as asking her opinion on the subject would constitute rape.

Yes, secularism is a good thing.

One might ask why Christianity was able to be pushed aside by secularism, while Islam was not.
Islam hasn't been pushed aside by secularism yet.
And in the case of christianity I think it has more to do with the increase in literacy rates and education. If people can read and write and have some knowledge of the world around them and how things work, then not only do they have less place for religion in their lives, but they're likely to be less gullible and go along with what the good priest is telling them.

but your contradicting yourself because your saying that i have no Facts or Reference. so you trying to influence everyone to ignore my posts is actually contradicting your last point about "It has been my experience that only bigoted people ask questions like that about people who disagree with them. It is an attempt to show that all "good" people would agree with them, so anyone who doesn't agree must belong to the group they label as "not good.?? so your being a bigot yourself arnt you?
That is not a contradiction at all. You made a statement purporting to be fact about the history/origins of Islam. You provided no data to support that statement. In fact, you admitted that it was just something you had "heard," although you didn't bother to specify where you heard it or from whom. So what are we supposed to do with that? Debate it? What is there to debate? Nothing at all. As I told you, if you want to make it a point in this debate, then go look it up and present the facts properly. You have not done so, apparently because there is no particular source for these remarks. On top of all of that, the remarks are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to address them. I.e. we can ignore them. Done and done.

As for my personal prejudices -- yes, I have a very strong prejudice against bigots. My feelings are so strong that I cannot refrain from calling them on their bigotry every time I see it posted.

You will notice on this forum that I am not defending "Christianity".

It's the presence of secularism, and in general, Western values concerning human rights.

Then people vote with their feet. So, tell me how you do it.
I don't think "Western values" are necessarily the key. At least, not if you include America in with "the West." American values at this point appear to center around mindless obedience to superstition, coupled with bland and meaningless speeches about "tolerance" that are used to cover up blatantly intolerant and discriminatory practices.

Here's the thing: you can find a passage of the Bible to support anything you damn well please. If you want to fornicate with box turtles, I'm pretty sure you can find a few paragraphs in the back that can be interpretted to mean that God loves he who fornicates with box turtles. And if you want to wage wars, kill the infidels, or just generally screw over people who aren't like you, I'm 100% certain that you can find parts of the Bible that will tell you God's on your side.

Thats just a fundamental non-understanding of the Bible.

I don't think "Western values" are necessarily the key. At least, not if you include America in with "the West." American values at this point appear to center around mindless obedience to superstition, coupled with bland and meaningless speeches about "tolerance" that are used to cover up blatantly intolerant and discriminatory practices.
I'm looking at the European success in eliminating Christianity by up to 90 percent in some cases.

Based on historical evidence and what we know of the time period, it's actually likely that she was closer to 12. But I was being generous.


Links? Back your claims...


First of all, any sexual contact with a child of that age is rape. But, in addition, you'll note that at no point did God ask Mary for her consent. He simply informed her that she was gonna get knocked up. In my opinion, impregnating a little girl without so much as asking her opinion on the subject would constitute rape.

How do you know? Maybe "god" spoke to her and she said "all righty".

Thats just a fundamental none understanding of the Bible.
No, that's just a fundamental conclusion reached after reading the Bible. There are passages describing how God condones rape. There are passages condoning murder and genocide. There are passages condoning slavery.

And there are pages condemning all of the above. The Bible is a collection of works by many different human authors, all of whom had their own vision of morality and their own perspective on their belief system. No surprise, then, that the Bible presents many different views of its subject material.

How many witch-burnings in recent memory?
Let me check my calendar. What are you doing next weekend?

Let me bottom-line this right now. I know you won't pay any attention to this because, apparently, at some point in your life you decided that pretending to be thick would be the key to your success, but for the sake of the rest of the party:

I don't want to hear complaints about Violent Jerk-Off A coming out of the mouth of Violent Jerk-Off B. I don't want to hear some bunch of asshats resting on the accomplishments and privileges of a church that drenched the world in blood and violence for 100s of years, bitching now about the next bunch of asshats doing the exact same thing in the exact same way. And I ESPECIALLY don't want to hear how vicious and despicable other people are from someone advocates genocide. Get it, hypocrite?

You are not -- repeat, NOT -- better than them.

Links? Back your claims...

I try very much not to rely on the internets for my information when it comes to Biblical subjects. I've found that this particular topic gets especially distorted online. I recommend reading the apocryphal texts that provide the most detail on Mary, including Luke and James.

According to apocryphal writings, Mary spent her childhood, from age 3 to 12 or so, in the temple, and entered into her betrothal following leaving the temple. There are varying accounts of how old she was when she was betrothed to Joseph, because I've read a couple that said it was immediately following her 12th birthday, and others saying it was right after her 14th birthday. Let's go with the 14th birthday, to be generous.

One story describes how the chief priest in charge of her education was visited by an angel one night, and the angel told him that a bunch of suitors for Mary should be brought in, and that each one should be told to bring a staff with him. Then, the Lord would give a sign, so they would know who to marry her to. Joseph was one of the suitors, and when a flower (a lily, I think) bloomed from his staff they knew that he was the one God picked out to marry her. (Of course, Joseph already had children as old as Mary, and nobody really asked her what she thought about the situation, but never mind all that.)

Mary was impregnated shortly after being betrothed, while staying with her parents and awaiting the marriage ceremony. Betrothals would not last longer than a year back then, so that would mean that if she was betrothed shortly after her 14th birthday then she would not yet have reached her 15th birthday when God got her preggers. Joseph was out of town working to build a new Temple at the time.

Of course, all of this does rely on the assumption that the character of Mary really existed. Which we can't possibly know.


How do you know? Maybe "god" spoke to her and she said "all righty".
Keep in mind that I personally don't think the Christian God exists, let alone that he went around screwing 14 year old girls and knocking them up. I'm just assuming that what the early Christians wrote about their own religion is accurate. These are texts that were dated to earlier than 200 B.C., so they're pretty much as good as any of the other Biblical texts we've got.

You will notice on this forum that I am not defending "Christianity".

It's the presence of secularism, and in general, Western values concerning human rights.

Then people vote with their feet. So, tell me how you do it.
I'm one of those strict secularist, "separation of church and state = huge honking wall" type people, but let's not forget, secular movements also gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Franco. There is no simplistic answer to social problems, especially no answer that boils down to an "us vs them" scenario.

a war against Islam is not a realistic choice.

On the contrary, it was a very realistic choice in Bosnia, also Kosovo, until that pantload from Little Rock decided to intervene on behalf of the anti-Christian, anti-Western forces, hoping that would make them like us :rolleyes:

It's going to come down to the Final Crusade or the new Dark Ages. This enemy must be defeated, once and for all, for the sake of all humanity.

You are not -- repeat, NOT -- better than them.

Yes, he is. You, on the other hand, are not. Moreover,your refusal to acknowledge the nature of the Islamic enemy and the vast moral gulf between it and human civilization makes you an enabler of the enemy and part of the problem human civilization faces today.

On the contrary, it was a very realistic choice in Bosnia, also Kosovo, until that pantload from Little Rock decided to intervene on behalf of the anti-Christian, anti-Western forces, hoping that would make them like us :rolleyes:

It's going to come down to the Final Crusade or the new Dark Ages. This enemy must be defeated, once and for all, for the sake of all humanity.
How utterly ridiculous to think that you can kill/subjugate just the right set of people and that will make everything hunkydory for humanity.

Let me point out just one of the many flaws in this idea of yours: I am not a Muslim, yet I view anyone who advocates war (religious or secular) as my enemy and the enemy of humanity. So, you've already got two separate enemies and, potentially, conflicts on two fronts -- since I will see taking action to stop you from starting or prosecuting a war to be an act of self defense. And don't even try to lump me in with your other enemy, because he and I are enemies, too. And your little crusade hasn't even started yet. How many more parties do you think you could fatally piss off with your murderous and presumptuous self-righteousness?

Yes, he is. You, on the other hand, are not. Moreover,your refusal to acknowledge the nature of the Islamic enemy and the vast moral gulf between it and human civilization makes you an enabler of the enemy and part of the problem human civilization faces today.
Smile when you say that, mister. Them's fightin' words. This is nothing but an internet forum where talk is cheap, but I assure you that, in real life, I view you and "the Islamic enemy" as one and the same -- a threat to me -- the same threat, in fact. If push comes to shove, I will not tolerate that threat, and I will do whatever is in my power to crush it -- you and them both. My vision of utopia includes you and bin Laden sharing the same prison cell for the rest of your lives. Have a nice day.

Islam isnt the enemy really there just a stepping stone. and at the end of the Day everyone in this forum has committed sin even if he's a Jew, Arab, Greek, Australian, communist, atheist, Democrat, Socialist, modernist, blablablablabla list go's on forever oh or a spammer! hehehe but really one dayt the world will end, maybe not in your time maybe not in 2 years not in 50 years not in 100 years but the world will end.

After a short introduction (ch. 1:1–10), it contains an account of the author, who identifies himself as John, and of two visions that he received on the isle of Patmos. The first vision (chs. 1:11–3:22), related by "one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle", speaking with "a great voice, as of a trumpet", are statements addressed to the seven churches of Asia. The second vision comprising the rest of the book (chs. 4–22) begins with "a door … opened in heaven" and describes the end of the world—involving the final rebellion by Satan at Armageddon, God's final defeat of Satan, and the restoration of peace to the world.

thats the Book of Revelations. if i didnt mention it.

The Muslins, kill then all. The Christians, kill then all. Then finish with all the religions too .... and then the peoples will go to fight between itself for any another idiotic reason who anybody invent.

The Muslins, kill then all. The Christians, kill then all. Then finish with all the religions too .... and then the peoples will go to fight between itself for any another idiotic reason who anybody invent.
Not every religion though, right? Surely you don't have anything against the Satanists or the Raelians?

Not every religion though, right? Surely you don't have anything against the Satanists or the Raelians?


It´s nothing against the religions, any religion. The problem is not the religion in itself, any religion, but the way for which its worshippers use it.

The Muslins, kill then all. The Christians, kill then all. Then finish with all the religions too .... and then the peoples will go to fight between itself for any another idiotic reason who anybody invent.

Oh, I agree with you that religion needs to become extinct.

However, in order to remove religion, "educate" should be the word to use, not "exterminate".

lol @ the thread.

Is there anyone here who can dispassionately discuss Islamic theology, the sunnah (traditions), shariah, Islamic history and the rise of the modern salafism without going "well all religions are...well xtianity did this in 8th century...well Fred Phelps is..." or "well all muslims are...well I think what the Koran must be saying is..well Islam is teh evil" and such stuff ?

I try very much not to rely on the internets for my information when it comes to Biblical subjects. I've found that this particular topic gets especially distorted online. I recommend reading the apocryphal texts that provide the most detail on Mary, including Luke and James.

According to apocryphal writings, Mary spent her childhood, from age 3 to 12 or so, in the temple, and entered into her betrothal following leaving the temple. There are varying accounts of how old she was when she was betrothed to Joseph, because I've read a couple that said it was immediately following her 12th birthday, and others saying it was right after her 14th birthday. Let's go with the 14th birthday, to be generous.

One story describes how the chief priest in charge of her education was visited by an angel one night, and the angel told him that a bunch of suitors for Mary should be brought in, and that each one should be told to bring a staff with him. Then, the Lord would give a sign, so they would know who to marry her to. Joseph was one of the suitors, and when a flower (a lily, I think) bloomed from his staff they knew that he was the one God picked out to marry her. (Of course, Joseph already had children as old as Mary, and nobody really asked her what she thought about the situation, but never mind all that.)

Mary was impregnated shortly after being betrothed, while staying with her parents and awaiting the marriage ceremony. Betrothals would not last longer than a year back then, so that would mean that if she was betrothed shortly after her 14th birthday then she would not yet have reached her 15th birthday when God got her preggers. Joseph was out of town working to build a new Temple at the time.

Of course, all of this does rely on the assumption that the character of Mary really existed. Which we can't possibly know.


Keep in mind that I personally don't think the Christian God exists, let alone that he went around screwing 14 year old girls and knocking them up. I'm just assuming that what the early Christians wrote about their own religion is accurate. These are texts that were dated to earlier than 200 B.C., so they're pretty much as good as any of the other Biblical texts we've got.

If you dont believe in Christian God, you dont need to believe Mary. If you dont belive it and use mary about critisizing Christianity, you dont know if GOD talked to her or if she wanted a baby as well...
My point is "rape" was unneccessary. You could have made your point without such flamboyant words...

Oh, I agree with you that religion needs to become extinct.

However, in order to remove religion, "educate" should be the word to use, not "exterminate".


I am not against the religions. But I say that, exactly that all are extinct, the peoples had still found "good" reasons to kill another "diferent" peoples.

If you dont believe in Christian God, you dont need to believe Mary. If you dont belive it and use mary about critisizing Christianity, you dont know if GOD talked to her or if she wanted a baby as well...
My point is "rape" was unneccessary. You could have made your point without such flamboyant words...

Ohhh. Then believes you that God really spoke with Mary? In a similar way that He speaks with Bush nowadays I assume.:eek:

Ok, so the original poster believes that Islam is all about violence and it is bad.
No, he doesn't. He made that quite clear.

You're not going to get there by singling out the entire religion of Islam as the root cause of the problem, thus stoking the fires of sectarian hostility.
Obviously. But nothing is going to happen if we follow your approach of ignoring the (metaphorical) big green Islamist elephant in the room.

I also don't think that the religion in general is a problem, just the fundamentalist interpretation of it.

Yes, only extrme parties and governments. Most westeners do not know what ALL the people think in middle east. The news only shows the extremists and when people see it, they think ALL are like that.

For example, go ask a westener who has gone to Tehran; ask about it and see what he/she will tell you.
You're right there. We see the pictures of crowds on TV burning down an embassy and because the crowd looks pretty big, we think that they represent the majority when in fact they don't.

The majority of Muslims in the middle east are conservative, somewhat bigoted against Jews and gays, but certainly not the fire-breathing looneys they are often depicted as.

So that's that then. Muslims cause all the trouble in the world but WASPs have never done anything at all bad, apart from the world wars, nukes, vietnam, that whole middle east thing and constantly fucking with south america and pretty much everywhere else. Yeah Christianity sure is the way of peace and calm, once all the baddies have been turned to ash.
Why are all critics of radical Islam assumed to be right-wing Bush lovers?

But if you suggest Muslims ought to be interned, sterilized, or just shot, nobody even widens their eyes in shock. Hell, you might even get applauded for mentioning that notion.
Seriously? I've never heard anyone suggest a Muslim holocaust, except for Ann Coulter who is a mere shock-jock.

Where do you live?

Well gosh, taking care of babies is woman's work. And we all know that woman's work is inherently less valuable than men's work.
It is often, incorrectly, thought of as such because it is unpaid.

Oh yes, of course men are definitely above such menial tasks, we all know that they're the superior gender afterall.
A lot of men do really dirty jobs. I even know women who think of themselves as above such demeaning work, such as all DIY, anything involving soil or cement.

Let's keep our timeline in mind, though. Look at how long it took for Christianity to reach the Reformation and the Enlightenment, relative to when Christianity emerged as an organized religion. Now compare modern Islam to when Islam was founded. Honestly, I think they're moving every bit as quickly as Christianity did, they just started off a few centuries later.
I don't think that timelines are very important really, what really affects things is the events that happened to various peoples throughout history. But that doesn't matter now. We should try and soften the worst aspects of Islamic religious rule.

Oh, we can't forget that men are programmed to run around spreading their seed so they can't be blamed for not being faithful either, the women they cheat with are, however, filthy whores who should be tied to the nearest tree and beaten with sticks while the wives of these poor men must be chastised for failing to satisfy their husbands.
Is writing stuff like this fun?

And as for which group has members "sliding backwards in time," which group is burdened with your barbaric membership, Mr. Kill All the Muslims?
In DK's case, WASPs I imagine. But he is right, Middle Eastern civilisations are stagnant if not actually sliding backwards, while in contrast Europe (and America, to a slightly lesser extent) - if the last 50 years is anything to go by - is consigning things like misogyny, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, slavery, religious extremism and nationalism to history.

I could rewrite the whole thing (my position) as:
the trouble with bigoted jerkwads is that they exist in my neck of the woods.
Unacceptable.

Wow, you're right. That is easy and fun. Not a very persuasive argument, though, is it?
Don't take BogMarsh seriously, he's just playing the right-wing asshole. Those aren't his real opinions.

The problem with this is that I don't give a crap. Let's say I'm a witch. I don't really care if the scumbag burning me at the stake is doing it in strict accordance with his religion's teachings or in technical violation of them. I especially don't care about it if the said scumbag's church happens to be actually supporting him in doing violence against me. The finer points of theological interpretations within his own religious community do nothing to amend my view of his scumbaggery. So, on the principle that actions speak louder than words, I maintain that Christianity has produced just as many vicious, violent, holy-text-waving scumbags as Islam.
Good post, though I would add that Christianity is no longer a problem, but Islam still is, for the aforementioned scumbags.

I don't want to hear complaints about Violent Jerk-Off A coming out of the mouth of Violent Jerk-Off B. I don't want to hear some bunch of asshats resting on the accomplishments and privileges of a church that drenched the world in blood and violence for 100s of years, bitching now about the next bunch of asshats doing the exact same thing in the exact same way.

You're blaming DK for the actions of Christians who died centuries before he was born?

lol @ the thread.

Is there anyone here who can dispassionately discuss Islamic theology, the sunnah (traditions), shariah, Islamic history and the rise of the modern salafism without going "well all religions are...well xtianity did this in 8th century...well Fred Phelps is..." or "well all muslims are...well I think what the Koran must be saying is..well Islam is teh evil" and such stuff ?hey.. I am you man ;)

hey.. I am you man ;)

Hey, long time no see...how are you? :fluffle:

Allah requires you to send your son for him, whereas God sent his son for you. Simple enough.

Allah requires you to send your son for him, whereas God sent his son for you. Simple enough.

Christians and Muslims share the same God, similiar to how they both share the same God with the Jews.

Allah requires you to send your son for him, whereas God sent his son for you. Simple enough.

Eloquently put - although I disagree with the religious characterisations.

<snip>
Obviously. But nothing is going to happen if we follow your approach of ignoring the (metaphorical) big green Islamist elephant in the room.
I would like you to quote the post where you think I said anything even remotely like we should ignore Islamist terrorism.

This is an extraordinarily irritating habit of some people on this forum. Anyone who disagrees with your preferred approach to the problem, you just toss them into some imaginary pool of appeasers or sympathizers or whatever, and make up a load of bullshit, claiming that they said things they didn't say or presented an argument that nobody -- neither them nor anyone else -- has even suggested. At best it is a lame attempt to dismiss opponents by painting them as some kind of extremists in their own right. At it worst, it is downright demonization of your opponents (I even once got labeled a terrorist because I oppose Bush's Iraq policy).

Let me tell you something very clearly: The attitude towards Islam that you and others here are copping does nothing but play into the hands of our enemies. It will take brains, not brawn, to solve this problem, but of course, one can't expect warmongers to understand that. One side blows up a bomb, and the other side yells "Yippee!" and starts revving up tanks. And where am I? Caught in the middle with the rest of the world. When I look at the current situation all I see is a bunch of Islamist warmongers and a bunch of anti-Islamist warmongers drooling all over themselves to kill as many people as they can, and I see no difference between them except the cut of their pants. You are all a threat to me. I oppose you and them alike. That means I oppose you, but no matter how much you try to twist and stretch it, it does not mean that I'm soft on terrorism.

Now. Has that response given you enough time to come up with a quote of me saying we should just ignore Islamist terrorism, or do you need a few more minutes?

In DK's case, WASPs I imagine. But he is right, Middle Eastern civilisations are stagnant if not actually sliding backwards, while in contrast Europe (and America, to a slightly lesser extent) - if the last 50 years is anything to go by - is consigning things like misogyny, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, slavery, religious extremism and nationalism to history.
LOL! Now who is ignoring big green elephants? Brother, you need to get out more often. But that is neither here nor there.

How ironic it is that you bring up how much more enlightened you think Europe and the US are, while at the same time, you espouse an attitude of religious and cultural bigotry and align yourself with people who advocate genocide, torture, war -- in fact all the same tactics of the terrorists themselves. What price enlightenment, eh? You think a couple hundred years of science and philosophy somehow makes it possible for us to commit acts of barbarism without becoming barbarians? It does not.

Don't take BogMarsh seriously, he's just playing the right-wing asshole. Those aren't his real opinions.
Well, he's good at it. He can take my responses as a tribute, then.

Good post, though I would add that Christianity is no longer a problem, but Islam still is, for the aforementioned scumbags.
Really? I disagree. I see Christian scumbags working away like little beavers all over my country, the US. They haven't started burning witches again yet, but they are diligently trying to get followers of minority religions barred from public office, from certain kinds of jobs, from being represented in popular culture, and their pundits make a regular habit of denouncing everything non-Christian as "anti-Christian" and positing some fantasy of a "war against Christ" that, amazingly, has nothing to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with Wiccan soldiers killed in action getting pentacles on their tombstones. Their rhetoric is not very different from the scumbags on the Islamic side of the fence.

You're blaming DK for the actions of Christians who died centuries before he was born?
No. I am blaming DK for the things he says on this forum.

lol @ the thread.

Is there anyone here who can dispassionately discuss Islamic theology, the sunnah (traditions), shariah, Islamic history and the rise of the modern salafism without going "well all religions are...well xtianity did this in 8th century...well Fred Phelps is..." or "well all muslims are...well I think what the Koran must be saying is..well Islam is teh evil" and such stuff ?
No, unfortunately, because these threads are usually started by people already prejudiced against Islam and looking for a way to vent those feelings. They have no interest in actually learning anything about Islam. Their opponents have no option but to address the prejudice in their statements, so the argument always devolves into being about that and not about Islam.

Eloquently put - although I disagree with the religious characterisations.

Mohammed came and conquered. Christ came and healed, saved, raised the dead, and was executed by his own.

I read it somewhere-tried to remember it as best I could.

Did some more research on the issue and the primary problem continues to be the prohibition of alcohol.

Christians and Muslims share the same God, similiar to how they both share the same God with the Jews.

Nope. Not even close. Muslims and Christians are so far apart it's like comparing apples to tacos.

Jews and christians are closely related because the jews are simply those who are still looking for the messiah, whereas Christians are those (Jewish or not) who have beleived the Messiah to already come. As of Christ's death, Judiasm is a dead religion.

Mohammed came and conquered. Christ came and healed, saved, raised the dead, and was executed by his own.

I read it somewhere-tried to remember it as best I could.
And then people like you came along and negated all his good work, thus making his entire life a waste of time. Poor Jesus.

Nope. Not even close. Muslims and Christians are so far apart it's like comparing apples to tacos.

Jews and christians are closely related because the jews are simply those who are still looking for the messiah, whereas Christians are those (Jewish or not) who have beleived the Messiah to already come. As of Christ's death, Judiasm is a dead religion.

Well the Jews will tell you that they're not prepared to die and that JC was a prophet who got a bit ahead of himself. The Muslims will tell you that JC was a prophet. That's two against one so JC loses by a majority decision. The muslims and christians both use the old testament. The three religions are Abrahamic, they all believe in Adam and Eve and all that stuff. They have more in common than any of the Hindu or Pantheist religions.

No, unfortunately, because these threads are usually started by people already prejudiced against Islam and looking for a way to vent those feelings. They have no interest in actually learning anything about Islam. Their opponents have no option but to address the prejudice in their statements, so the argument always devolves into being about that and not about Islam.

The opponents are also as ignorant as the prejudiced accuser.

*not a personal comment directed to you, this is a general one*

How many here have actually taken the damned Qur'an and read the suras for yourself? How many here know of the basic theology, the five pillars of Islam, the sunnah, the shariah, the events during Mohammed's lifetime, the events after his death, the Shia-Sunni split, the Abbasid, Ummayid caliphates, the Shiah Imamtes, Islamic schools like hanafi, hanbali, deobandi, barelvi, etc, writings of muslim thinkers..both islamist (Qutb, Maududi, Waliullah etc) and sufi types like Rumi etc, the concept of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb

How many here even know that Islam expanded the most and owes a lot to Abu Bakr than Mohammed?

Nothing. All I see is accusations of apologism, paranoia, fear-mongering etc but nobody actually learns anything other than hardening their own ignorant positions.

the damned Qur'anReally, that's shocking. I have a copy of the Qur'an and I've read it a number of times. Do you know about the particular shade of blue used by certain Jews to dye their prayer shawls?

The Qur'an is just a book.