NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I have been talking to a few Muslim amigos of mine on another forum site, and someone mentioned a parade in which Americans dressed up in burkas, mocking Islam. For a few minutes, people only expressed outrage about the parade, saying normal things like they won't be laughing when God sends them to hell. However, I saw a comment by a poster about a hadith where Mohammed said that he wanted a poet killed, because the poet was saying some rather nasty things about him. Well, I had read about that before on a christian site, and just thought it was made up or taken out of context to promote islamophobia. So I inquired about it, and basically, I am being told that killing IS in fact acceptable when you insult the prophet or Islam. One of my muslim friends piped up and started to disagree, but poster after poster showed us hadiths, and ayats saying the same thing. Now this shocked the hell out of me. I have been for a while now, defending Islam against what I thought were radical Islamophobes, but it does seem that quite a bit of Muslims, and even their religion states that is okay.

When I spoke up, saying that this goes against the notion of Islam being a religion of peace, I was told that it is, but it is also one of balance. That doesn't make too much sense to me, because killing a person for insulting, not even doing a violent act against it but insulting, seems to go beyond moderate, and goes to the extreme.

Now mind you, I am no islamophobe, as I detest those spineless punks, however, this has caused great concern with me. How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people in order to keep the honour of the Prophet or Islam? If any of our muslim posters out there could care to post something by a high ranking Imam saying otherwise, would be very helpful. I'll believe a high up imam any day, over what layman Muslims say.

Because lots of big religions have lots of contradictions in them.

And Christianity says that you have to kill anyone who bad-mouths their parents. It matters not what is said. It matters what is done.

As am sure someone else will say in a much less pleasant and unsarcastic way, I can't think of any of the major religious books that don't have some violence. In the Old Testament, Elijah has a bear kill children because they tease him for being bald (I'm not making this up; it's the weirdest story I've every heard from a fairly strange book). But that's not central to the beliefs of the Jews or Christians, or even what Elijah preached. The Muhammad-poet story may be similar.

And Christianity says that you have to kill anyone who bad-mouths their parents. It matters not what is said. It matters what is done.

Can you quote where Christ said you should kill your children for bad mouthing their parents?

So, I have been talking to a few Muslim amigos of mine on another forum site, and someone mentioned a parade in which Americans dressed up in burkas, mocking Islam. For a few minutes, people only expressed outrage about the parade, saying normal things like they won't be laughing when God sends them to hell. However, I saw a comment by a poster about a hadith where Mohammed said that he wanted a poet killed, because the poet was saying some rather nasty things about him. Well, I had read about that before on a christian site, and just thought it was made up or taken out of context to promote islamophobia. So I inquired about it, and basically, I am being told that killing IS in fact acceptable when you insult the prophet or Islam. One of my muslim friends piped up and started to disagree, but poster after poster showed us hadiths, and ayats saying the same thing. Now this shocked the hell out of me. I have been for a while now, defending Islam against what I thought were radical Islamophobes, but it does seem that quite a bit of Muslims, and even their religion states that is okay.


I like how you turned "poster after poster" on some message board into "quite a bit of Muslims," and ignored your actual Muslim friend.

How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people

How can Christianity claim killing is wrong when Abraham was ordered to murder his own child?

Ooh, ooh, I guess Christianity is violent and barbaric and now we need a Christian to come disprove us or else we get to EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.

If any of our muslim posters out there could care to post something by a high ranking Imam saying otherwise, would be very helpful. I'll believe a high up imam any day, over what layman Muslims say.

I'm pretty sure we don't have "high up imams" on this message board.

I'm pretty sure we don't have any real Muslims either.

But if we had any of the latter, what would be their point in posting? They're not "high up" and you would ignore them just as you ignored your Muslim friend. And you are exemplary of all Islamophobes in this exact manner.

Maybe Islam isn't as peaceful as we thought?

Get outta town! Next thing you'll be telling me Christianity isn't as loving as you thought. Shatter my world, that will...

I like how you turned "poster after poster" on some message board into "quite a bit of Muslims," and ignored your actual Muslim friend.



How can Christianity claim killing is wrong when Abraham was ordered to murder his own child?

Ooh, ooh, I guess Christianity is violent and barbaric and now we need a Christian to come disprove us or else we get to EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.



I'm pretty sure we don't have "high up imams" on this message board.

I'm pretty sure we don't have any real Muslims either.

But if we had any of the latter, what would be their point in posting? They're not "high up" and you would ignore them just as you ignored your Muslim friend. And you are exemplary of all Islamophobes in this exact manner.

No, I said if they could post any thing from a high up imam. Reading comprehension, anyone?

Can you quote where Christ said you should kill your children for bad mouthing their parents?

When he said that nothing in the OT was to be changed. And it says there right in the OT, that kids who badmouth their parents are to be stoned.

When he said that nothing in the OT was to be changed. And it says there right in the OT, that kids who badmouth their parents are to be stoned.
I will avoid the obvious joke, as it would be in crude taste.
I don't remember every reading this. I remember Jesus saying the Pharisees don't understand the spirit of the Law, though, so if he did, I'm pretty sure he didn't expect anyone to take everything literally (which is what the Pharisees were doing).

When he said that nothing in the OT was to be changed. And it says there right in the OT, that kids who badmouth their parents are to be stoned.

Don't bother, Zilam's ilk read the Bible to pretend away the parts they don't like...

Don't bother, Zilam's ilk read the Bible to pretend away the parts they don't like...
Good, Fassigen has brought his necessary post of intolerance and pointlessness; this thread is now complete.;)

where exactly in the Koran does it state for anyone to kill someone who insults allah or the prophet?

... as we thought?

Huh?

Can you quote where Christ said you should kill your children for bad mouthing their parents?

Christ believed in the OT.

Exodus
21:15, 17

where exactly in the Koran does it state for anyone to kill someone who insults allah or the prophet?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193

Good, Fassigen has brought his necessary post of intolerance and pointlessness; this thread is now complete.

I've dealt with Zilam before - he likes to pretend the Bible doesn't tell people to kill people, despite what it clearly states. He then likes to pretend away that Jesus supports it. Because he can't stomach Christianity and loving his deity despite its doucheiness. He can only stomach the Fisher Price version, he can only love an easily lovable deity.

I've dealt with Zilam before...
"Dealt with Zilam before"? That makes it sound like you formed the posse that chased him and his fellow ne'er-do-wells out of town, and now he's back. I think what you mean is "I've successfully countered the arguments of the person who calls himself Zilam on an internet forum." Not quite the same thing.

ow can Christianity claim killing is wrong when Abraham was ordered to murder his own child?

Ooh, ooh, I guess Christianity is violent and barbaric and now we need a Christian to come disprove us or else we get to EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.


Actually, God ordered Abraham to kill his child as a show of devotion (which was in the end not required), not some prophet, and regardless, the Bible does not condemn killing it condemns murder (yes, there is indeed a difference, there can be righteous violence, I have never heard Billy Graham speak out against WWII....)

"Dealt with Zilam before"? That makes it sound like you formed the posse that chased him and his fellow ne'er-do-wells out of town, and now he's back. I think what you mean is "I've successfully countered the arguments of the person who calls himself Zilam on an internet forum." Not quite the same thing.

Sort of like this post of yours is not quite the same thing as being of any meaning whatsoever?

so some of us have known this for years

"Dealt with Zilam before"? That makes it sound like you formed the posse that chased him and his fellow ne'er-do-wells out of town, and now he's back.
This is now my personal fanon about reality.

How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people in order to keep the honour of the Prophet or Islam?

Easy.

Islam isn't a religion of peace.


Does this surprise you?

Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of law.

he likes to pretend the Bible doesn't tell people to kill people, despite what it clearly states. He then likes to pretend away that Jesus supports it. Because he can't stomach Christianity and loving his deity despite its doucheiness. He can only stomach the Fisher Price version, he can only love an easily lovable deity.

That makes no sense at all, where does Jesus say "kill people yo" or anything of the like (but phrases like 'turn the other cheek' or 'do unto others' or 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' or 'as far as it is up to you be at piece with your neighbor' or 'love your enemies' or 'bless those who curse you' come to mind quite handily) Moreover, you may well not be separating the Old Testament from the New Testament, a common ignorant mistake, as the Old Testament is Judaic, not Christian, the Salvation of Grace through Christ frees Christians, not obedience to the Mosaic (or other miscellaneous Judaic) Law... perhaps you should take a Biblical Theology class to not be an idiot....

Sort of like this post of yours is not quite the same thing as being of any meaning whatsoever?

Was that the best comeback you had? Seriously? I doubt you could have 'dealt with' a damp stone, much less Zilam... with that level of wit anyhow....

I've dealt with Zilam before - he likes to pretend the Bible doesn't tell people to kill people, despite what it clearly states. He then likes to pretend away that Jesus supports it. Because he can't stomach Christianity and loving his deity despite its doucheiness. He can only stomach the Fisher Price version, he can only love an easily lovable deity.

Right, because you have a monopoly of knowing what the bible means. As I have stated before, my belief of the OT is that it is simply old jewish law, and how they lived at the time. If you read what Christ said about loving others as yourself, and since he triumphs the OT law, then you'd know that as Christians were are to be brokers of peace and love and tolerance, not of war. You narrow minded view of life, and of my faith makes you look a bit ignorant, to be honest.

Easy.

Islam isn't a religion of peace.


Does this surprise you?

Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of law.


It does in fact surprise me. I am always hearing how its the religion of peace, and how people just corrupt the words, and then to have this thrown in my face, is like running into a brick wall in the dark.

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193

is that verbatim?

Now mind you, I am no islamophobe, as I detest those spineless punks, however, this has caused great concern with me. How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people in order to keep the honour of the Prophet or Islam?

The same kind of mentality that trains death squads for Freedom or shoots muslims for baby Jesus. The fact is that most muslims don't go round bumping off people who disrespect their religon. However they are more easily riled these days, because they feel they're under attack.

is that verbatim?

With those verses quoted like that, I was always told that was for in time of war only. As is much of surah 9, where it talks about killing others.

The same kind of mentality that trains death squads for Freedom or shoots muslims for baby Jesus. The fact is that most muslims don't go round bumping off people who disrespect their religon. However they are more easily riled these days, because they feel they're under attack.


But see what you are saying about doing something for baby Jesus, goes directly against what Christ said. Where as, Mohammed said that he wanted the poet dead for insulting him. There is a difference. One leader says no death, and the other makes it acceptable to kill in the case of insult.

I have many Muslim friends, i feel shocked

But see what you are saying about doing something for baby Jesus, goes directly against what Christ said. Where as, Mohammed said that he wanted the poet dead for insulting him. There is a difference. One leader says no death, and the other makes it acceptable to kill in the case of insult.

However (and this is the important thing to note) people still justify/reconcile some rather savage acts with christianity (and Buddhism, Hinduism and any other ism, be it secular or religous). What you must bear in mind is what do the majority do. Were they to take the hardline as some read it, you wouldnt be able to piss in a pot without a bomb going off. Its not like that in practice, so therefore the less hardline reading is obviously the majority view.

However (and this is the important thing to note) people still justify/reconcile some rather savage acts with christianity (and Buddhism, Hinduism and any other ism, be it secular or religous). What you must bear in mind is what do the majority do. Were they to take the hardline as some read it, you wouldnt be able to piss in a pot without a bomb going off. Its not like that in practice, so therefore the less hardline reading is obviously the majority view.
I disagree. It's not the majority that matters. It's how violent the minority is. Bombing abortion clinics is wrong, but it hasn't killed as many as the attacks on 9/11, nor even the first attack on the WTC. Something is very wrong with a large number of Muslims. Not a majority, maybe not even a large minority, but a large number just the same. They have tarnished their religion far more than followers of any other in modern times.

I think most Christians would rather point to the New Testament as their guide, rather than to the Old. There's a lot less smiting in the New Testament and a lot more tolerance.

Can we say the same for the Holy Book of Islam?

That's actually a question for which I would like to see an answer. Is there a portion of the Koran that is preferred over another? Maybe a little more peaceful than the passages that we see quoted about slaying and enslaving infidels?

It does in fact surprise me. I am always hearing how its the religion of peace, and how people just corrupt the words, and then to have this thrown in my face, is like running into a brick wall in the dark.

You shouldn't be surprised really. But then again, who claims for it to be a religion of peace? I've only heard it used by the "Evil Moslems" crowd... You know, the "Oh look what the followers of the Religion of Peace did today :rolleyes:" -people. And George W. Bush.

But when President Bush described Islam in these terms in his address to a joint session of Congress on 21 September 2001 (invoking "the peaceful teachings of Islam" and reiterating that Islam's "teachings are good and peaceful"), he was criticised by Christian fundamentalists, who argued precisely the opposite, that Islam was inherently and essentially a warlike and aggressive faith. Both characterisations are equally tendentious and mistaken. Islam qua religion cannot accurately be stated to be either more or less "peaceful" than Christianity; both faiths have a militant conception of the struggle of Good versus Evil, and both have justified numerous wars in the name of God.

The key difference between them, apart from the theological conflict between Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus and in the Trinity and Islam's rigorous monotheism, is that Islam is a religion that contains and transmits a framework of law held to be of divine origin and binding on all believers, in a way that - the Ten Commandments and the like notwithstanding - has no counterpart in Christianity.

Islam is not so much a religion of peace as a religion of law. In this respect it is much closer to Judaism and very unlike Christianity. Also worth noting, being a religion of law, Islam is inherently concerned with governance and thus political in tendency.

snip...

Islam needs to go through a reform period. That may be in the process now.

Islam's holy scriptures were written by warriors in a war-like region during a war-like period. Of course they're going to reflect that.

On the other hand, a religion is what you make of it. So rather than judging a religion, we should probably judge the religious person we're concerned about.

And Christianity says that you have to kill anyone who bad-mouths their parents. It matters not what is said. It matters what is done.

NO, that's JUDAISM.

The New Testament is a "New" Covenant with God, and supercedes the Old Testament laws - if it didn't then the Bible would be contradictory.

I like how you turned "poster after poster" on some message board into "quite a bit of Muslims," and ignored your actual Muslim friend.



How can Christianity claim killing is wrong when Abraham was ordered to murder his own child?

Ooh, ooh, I guess Christianity is violent and barbaric and now we need a Christian to come disprove us or else we get to EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.



I'm pretty sure we don't have "high up imams" on this message board.

I'm pretty sure we don't have any real Muslims either.

But if we had any of the latter, what would be their point in posting? They're not "high up" and you would ignore them just as you ignored your Muslim friend. And you are exemplary of all Islamophobes in this exact manner.

Grow the fuck up. Time after time, when anyone says the slightest negative thing about Islam BASED ON THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES, you have jumped in and suggested, or even blatantly said, that they hate all Muslims and that's why they've said what they've said.

Islam is not so much a religion of peace as a religion of law. In this respect it is much closer to Judaism and very unlike Christianity. Also worth noting, being a religion of law, Islam is inherently concerned with governance and thus political in tendency.

QFT. This makes the most sense of anything yet.

You shouldn't be surprised really. But then again, who claims for it to be a religion of peace? I've only heard it used by the "Evil Moslems" crowd... You know, the "Oh look what the followers of the Religion of Peace did today :rolleyes:" -people. And George W. Bush.

But when President Bush described Islam in these terms in his address to a joint session of Congress on 21 September 2001 (invoking "the peaceful teachings of Islam" and reiterating that Islam's "teachings are good and peaceful"), he was criticised by Christian fundamentalists, who argued precisely the opposite, that Islam was inherently and essentially a warlike and aggressive faith. Both characterisations are equally tendentious and mistaken. Islam qua religion cannot accurately be stated to be either more or less "peaceful" than Christianity; both faiths have a militant conception of the struggle of Good versus Evil, and both have justified numerous wars in the name of God.

The key difference between them, apart from the theological conflict between Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus and in the Trinity and Islam's rigorous monotheism, is that Islam is a religion that contains and transmits a framework of law held to be of divine origin and binding on all believers, in a way that - the Ten Commandments and the like notwithstanding - has no counterpart in Christianity.

Islam is not so much a religion of peace as a religion of law. In this respect it is much closer to Judaism and very unlike Christianity. Also worth noting, being a religion of law, Islam is inherently concerned with governance and thus political in tendency.

Another difference: The worldwide attacks that were comitted in the name of Christianity happened ages go. The worldwide attacks in the name of Islam are still happening.

I have heard something about certain parts of the Qur'an superceding other parts. Unfortunately, I have no reference for that.

However, I found this on killing in the Qur'an: http://koran1.blogspot.com/

And P.S., there are a number of Muslims who believe the hadiths and ayats are often, or at least sometimes, written by men with their own agendas, rather than being from Allah, and prefer to trust in what the Qur'an alone says.

I'm pretty sure we don't have any real Muslims either.
.

Yes, NSG has Muslim posters. Pay attention and you may find some. Also want to add that as most Christians do not respond to the stupid Christian threads. Why would you think that Muslims on these boards would want to jump in a thread where most talk out there ass?

Can you quote where Christ said you should kill your children for bad mouthing their parents?

For bad-mouthing your parents:
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." Leviticus 20:9

Some others, for good measure:
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." Leviticus 21:9

And it is not an option:
"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." Jeremiah 48:10

And it doesn't matter that it is in the freaking old testament, as someone already pointed out:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-19

NO, that's JUDAISM.

The New Testament is a "New" Covenant with God, and supercedes the Old Testament laws - if it didn't then the Bible would be contradictory.

I had to quote this, thanks for the great laugh. If it didn't, then it would be contradictory? then!?!

So, I have been talking to a few Muslim amigos of mine on another forum site, and someone mentioned a parade in which Americans dressed up in burkas, mocking Islam. For a few minutes, people only expressed outrage about the parade, saying normal things like they won't be laughing when God sends them to hell. However, I saw a comment by a poster about a hadith where Mohammed said that he wanted a poet killed, because the poet was saying some rather nasty things about him. Well, I had read about that before on a christian site, and just thought it was made up or taken out of context to promote islamophobia. So I inquired about it, and basically, I am being told that killing IS in fact acceptable when you insult the prophet or Islam. One of my muslim friends piped up and started to disagree, but poster after poster showed us hadiths, and ayats saying the same thing. Now this shocked the hell out of me. I have been for a while now, defending Islam against what I thought were radical Islamophobes, but it does seem that quite a bit of Muslims, and even their religion states that is okay.

When I spoke up, saying that this goes against the notion of Islam being a religion of peace, I was told that it is, but it is also one of balance. That doesn't make too much sense to me, because killing a person for insulting, not even doing a violent act against it but insulting, seems to go beyond moderate, and goes to the extreme.

Now mind you, I am no islamophobe, as I detest those spineless punks, however, this has caused great concern with me. How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people in order to keep the honour of the Prophet or Islam? If any of our muslim posters out there could care to post something by a high ranking Imam saying otherwise, would be very helpful. I'll believe a high up imam any day, over what layman Muslims say.

Every big religion has crazy rules. You don't have to take them.

What? How come one else has posted this yet.

http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/images/thumb/e/e3/NotThisShitAgain.jpg/180px-NotThisShitAgain.jpg

Seriously, this forum is falling to pieces.

I have Muslim friends, these kinds of things are pissing me off more than the time I watched that OJ verdict with my roomate.

http://www.youtube.com/v/5xJn_tAT0r0

is that verbatim?
Given that the Qu'ran was first written down in some form of Arabic (opinions vary on the actual dialect) and that Arabic (as with many other languages) does not perfectly translate into English, it's not likely to be verbatim - no matter what its adherents (or opponents) claim.

Of course, the poetic style that it was written in - presumably a result of the fact that it was dictated to attendant scribes, rather than being written first-hand, so to speak - leaves much of it open to interpretation which, in conjunction with the schism over succession that brought us the Shi'a and Sunni, is where various imams have come in down the centuries to put their own additional slants on it until we reach the present day, where there are loads of different sects all claiming that their way is the right way. Seems to be a familiar path in the evolution of a religion.

NO, that's JUDAISM.

The New Testament is a "New" Covenant with God, and supercedes the Old Testament laws - if it didn't then the Bible would be contradictory.

Nope. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Guess who said that.

Nope. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Guess who said that.

And by him fulfilling it, those under his grace are no longer subject to judgment under the law. The law doesn't matter. In fact, it matters so little, that he said 2 commandments could cover the entire law. Guess what they were... Loving God above all, and loving others as yourself.

Christianity 101 might be of use to you.

But see what you are saying about doing something for baby Jesus, goes directly against what Christ said. Where as, Mohammed said that he wanted the poet dead for insulting him. There is a difference. One leader says no death, and the other makes it acceptable to kill in the case of insult.

How do you know that prophet Muhammed ordered a poet dead for insulting him? It's kind of like me claiming that Jesus was a blood thirst murdering thief. Essentially, there's no proof whatsoever that Muhammed said that, in fact, mullahs don't mind making up bs if it serves their purposes.

How do you know that prophet Muhammed ordered a poet dead for insulting him? It's kind of like me claiming that Jesus was a blood thirst murdering thief. Essentially, there's no proof whatsoever that Muhammed said that, in fact, mullahs don't mind making up bs if it serves their purposes.

Its in a well trusted hadith, which those are the sayings of mohammed, as collected by his friends, and loved ones, no?

Its in a well trusted hadith, which those are the sayings of mohammed, as collected by his friends, and loved ones, no?

Just because some people trust it does not make it true. Which hadith by the way?

It does in fact surprise me. I am always hearing how its the religion of peace, and how people just corrupt the words, and then to have this thrown in my face, is like running into a brick wall in the dark.

Organized religions are systems of control dependent on belief. It's as violent as the people who practice and lead it because the people who practice and lead it will interpret the tenets according to their views.

Imagine if Mahatma Ghandi was a big wheel in the Islamic faith. Would throw a pretty big wrench in the violence espoused by the various noodniks who thrive on blood.

Matthew 10:33-35 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=10&verse=33&end_verse=35&version=31&context=context

Nope. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Guess who said that.

Jurassic 5?

And by him fulfilling it, those under his grace are no longer subject to judgment under the law. The law doesn't matter. In fact, it matters so little, that he said 2 commandments could cover the entire law. Guess what they were... Loving God above all, and loving others as yourself.

Christianity 101 might be of use to you.

Reading the Bible might be of use to you. So may be "Differentiating Jesus and Paul 101".

To me Islam is just a Cult. with a murderor for a leader.

To me Islam is just a Cult. with a murderor for a leader.

To me You is just a Person. with a brain that ran away.

To me You is just a Person. with a brain that ran away.

Lol

Reading the Bible might be of use to you. So may be "Differentiating Jesus and Paul 101".

:rolleyes:

Here is something that I found.

Question:
I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:

1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’

If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’

Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.

Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795)

It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.

If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr.

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.

Matthew 10:33-35 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=10&verse=33&end_verse=35&version=31&context=context

With this, there is an explanation of context and meaning in the original language. With the Quran and hadith, it is clear as glass as to what it is saying. A muslim that speaks out against the prophets becomes a kafr and is to be executed, and a non muslim may or may not be executed for the same crime.

* Main screen turn on. *

##: Good evening gentlemen..

##: You are on the way to destruction.

##: You have no chance to survive make your time.

http://business2.blogs.com/business2blog/images/all_your_base.jpg

With this, there is an explanation of context and meaning in the original language. With the Quran and hadith, it is clear as glass as to what it is saying. A muslim that speaks out against the prophets becomes a kafr and is to be executed, and a non muslim may or may not be executed for the same crime.

And what context could it be that jesus isnt saying go and kill? granted war is a better reason (if there is a good reason) but it seems as though he is claiming to be the reason for the war in the first place.

a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

that last line just seems to be missing a referance to 72 virgins...

Yes, NSG has Muslim posters. Pay attention and you may find some. Also want to add that as most Christians do not respond to the stupid Christian threads. Why would you think that Muslims on these boards would want to jump in a thread where most talk out there ass?

We might have some, but they are a definite minority, and of those that claim to be I would guess a good portion are internet trolls.

Right, because you have a monopoly of knowing what the bible means. As I have stated before, my belief of the OT is that it is simply old jewish law, and how they lived at the time. If you read what Christ said about loving others as yourself, and since he triumphs the OT law, then you'd know that as Christians were are to be brokers of peace and love and tolerance, not of war. You narrow minded view of life, and of my faith makes you look a bit ignorant, to be honest.

Then why is abortion an issue for 'Christians' when Jesus never mentioned it, and social justice is ignored when it was his biggest message.

As I remember Jesus thought it was pretty difficult for a rich man to enter heaven, yet somehow the big 'Christians' in the US are hand-in-hand with corporate interests.

"Dealt with Zilam before"? That makes it sound like you formed the posse that chased him and his fellow ne'er-do-wells out of town, and now he's back.

I like this mental picture, although, it could just be the image of Fass in chaps. *snickers* :D

I disagree. It's not the majority that matters. It's how violent the minority is. Bombing abortion clinics is wrong, but it hasn't killed as many as the attacks on 9/11, nor even the first attack on the WTC. Something is very wrong with a large number of Muslims. Not a majority, maybe not even a large minority, but a large number just the same. They have tarnished their religion far more than followers of any other in modern times.

I think most Christians would rather point to the New Testament as their guide, rather than to the Old. There's a lot less smiting in the New Testament and a lot more tolerance.

Can we say the same for the Holy Book of Islam?

That's actually a question for which I would like to see an answer. Is there a portion of the Koran that is preferred over another? Maybe a little more peaceful than the passages that we see quoted about slaying and enslaving infidels?

Yes, but in the greater scale of things, the WTC thing was a drop in the ocean. Compared to some things that have happened, over long periods, it barely rates a mention. Harsh, but there you go. There were only 2,000 - 3,000 involved in Al-Q, 19-20 in the attacks and only 2000 killed. Compare that to any number of incidents and wars and its a mere blip on the radar.

Do the majority of muslims engage in attacks or hunting down those who insult Allah and his oul messenger the big M? No. However those that do happened to have a go against a media saturated somewhat xenophobic superpower, and thus we have Hysteria.

With this, there is an explanation of context and meaning in the original language. With the Quran and hadith, it is clear as glass as to what it is saying. A muslim that speaks out against the prophets becomes a kafr and is to be executed, and a non muslim may or may not be executed for the same crime.

I have studied Arabic and Islam and I know that this simply is not the case. every text needs interpretation. The Qur'an and the Hadith are not cristal clear, that is why in traditional Islam one has to study for 30 years or so before one can begin to interpret on the basis of the Qur'an, Hadith and scholarly consensus.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

No they are not... This guy can say they are, but that does not make it true...

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Ibn Taymiya was a scholar that lived in the 13th century. He snapped when the Mongols sacked Bagdad, the city of his birth. He is often cited by takfiri's. Takfir is to dub another muslim a Kafir, and is forbidden in Islam. Ali the last of the rightious Kaliphs, or first Imam in Shi'a Islam, already struggled with a takfiri sect, name the khariji, who believed that all other Muslims were mistaken and therefore kafir, therefore an apostate to be killed...

In practice the Khariji were nothong more than common robbers, killing Muslims and taking their wealth.



Islam is not monolythic, the Islam does not exist... Islam is not determined by the Qur'an or the Hadith. Islam is what its followers believe it is. As a result we find great variety in Islam, from Indonesia to Morocco, Saudi Arabia to Turkey, Consertvative and liberal, Islam is found in many varieties. If you were to study it you would not be so worried. Your source is probably a Salafi, which is also dubbed Wahabism, they are quite distinctive in that they accept only Qur'an some hadith... they do not accept the consensus of the scholars... This guy is even an extreme variant because he is a Takfiri as well... I would tell non-muslims not to worry and this Muslim to study the rich traditions of Islam instead of this sectarian nonesense. ;)

Edit: No seriously Salafism is also a legitimate form of Islam, as Islam is that what its believers believe it to be. Personally I am struck by the great flight that Salafist information has taken in bookshops and the internet. Especially Muslims not very knowledgeable about their religion, may be susceptible to the message that salafism is “true Islam”. I think that Salafism takes a lot of things out of Islam, and rigidly focuses on interpretations which are less sympathetic.

no organized belief automaticly makes everyone who subscribes to it as peaceful, or anything else, as it represents itself to be. neither christianity nor even buddhism are any sort of exceptions. still they do, and islam is not an exception to this either, serve in some large mesure to try and encourage people to WANT to avoid causing suffering.

=^^=
.../\...

NO, that's JUDAISM.


Not really.

The Torah is not nearly the last word when it comes to Judaism.

Since 200 BC more or less, it was almost forbidden to execute even one man every 70 years. (Mishna, Makkot 1:10) A Sanhedrin that sentenced a man to death once every 70 years was called "murderous". And there are much worse crimes who deserve the death penalty, so they had to pick the worse crime every 71 years at least.

Since the holy temple was ruined - there is no such thing as a death sentence.

The problem with Islam is not its laws. It's the way some of its followers are interpreting it, and the way some of them are practicing it.

Interpretation is everything in law - religious and secular alike.

Interpretation is everything in law - religious and secular alike.

QFT

Just one guy? That’s all?

Pffff.

The christian god killed entire cities by instance just cause their inhabitants were building towers and stuff.

The christian god doesn’t like kinky people as well. He kills them!

All religious violence can be chalked up to deific dick insecurity. Some people simply can't handle even unintentional implications that their god might not have the biggest dick. *nod*

OLD TESTAMENT:

An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. Genesis 17:14

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. Exodus 22:18

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. Exodus 22:20

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. Exodus 31:14

Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2-3

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Leviticus 20:13

Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. Leviticus 24:16

If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation. Deuteronomy 4:25-26

Wizards, witches, astrologers, and new age folks are all "an abomination unto the Lord." Deuteronomy 18:10-12

God won't let bastards attend church. Neither can the sons or daughters of bastards "even to the tenth generation." So if you plan to attend church next Sunday be ready to prove that your genitals are intact and don't forget your birth certificate and genealogical records for at least the last ten generations. Don't laugh. This stuff is important to God. Deuteronomy 23:2

NEW TESTAMENT:

"And the city shall be accursed ... and all that therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot shall live." God explains that Rahab is to be spared since she hid Joshua's spies and lied to those who were searching for them (2:4-5). But why was everyone else killed? Some of them were probably liars too. Joshua 6:17

If you piss him off, God will cut off your arm, consume your eyes, grieve your heart, and kill your sons and grandfathers. 1 Samuel 2:31-34

God kills 50,070 men for looking into the ark. "And the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." 1 Samuel 6:19

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Yes, there's more (and after that there's the koran and probably the book of mormon), but I'm too offended by the disgusting statements to continue on. Someone else'll have to take over: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

Someone else'll have to take over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk-G2twc_M4

:)

For bad-mouthing your parents:
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." Leviticus 20:9

Some others, for good measure:
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." Leviticus 21:9

And it is not an option:
"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." Jeremiah 48:10

And it doesn't matter that it is in the freaking old testament, as someone already pointed out:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-19



I had to quote this, thanks for the great laugh. If it didn't, then it would be contradictory? then!?!

Yes - if Christ's words did not supercede the words of the Old Testament, then the Bible would be contradictory and the whole thing deemed invalid - for example, in the Old Testament, it is said to take an eye for an eye - yet in the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying NOT to take an eye for eye.

Thus, what you have written above is both ignorant and irrelevant.

Although many Westerners are not aware of this, one of the principle doctrines of fundamentalist islam is a term now referred to as "Khaybar". When Mohammad was travelling around Saudi-Arabia with his army and taking over cities, he ran into a Jewish settlement called Khaybar. Upon the first encounter, the Jewish local militia defeated Mohammad's army pretty badly. As a result, Mohammad signed a peace treaty vowing to never attack them again. A few years later, with the Khaybarese feeling safe from attacks and therefore reducing the size of their militia, all of a sudden they were attacked by a massive force Mohammad was building up all along and were annihilated almost completely. The few survivors asked him: 'what? why? what happened? we thought we had peace, you vowed to never attack us again..' and so on. mohammad plainly replied in what became a part of the entire Muslim philosophy: 'any peace with infidelsis no peace at all and one is allowed to break it whenever he gets the chance'. The term Khaybar was coined to mean 'peace with infidels' i.e. one that can and should be broken once the Muslims gain the upper hand. This is what the West simply does not understand. Any peace with the fundamentalist muslims is just temporary and illusionary. They truly want our annihilation, its just that luckily they have not overcome us in power yet and know they will lose. When will the west learn?

Nope. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Guess who said that.

Yes, and many, if not most, Christians state that the law was fulfilled after Jesus was killed. The New Testament is the New Covenant with God, but if Christians are supposed to follow both testaments, then the whole Bible is contradictory. They're only supposed to follow the new one.

The rules of the Old Testament were for a previous period in history.

In addition, there are parts in the New Testament (can't remember passage numbers) which refer to no longer heeding the words of Moses, or something similar, and to taking the words in spirit, not letter (the latter is somewhere in Corinthians).

Not really.

The Torah is not nearly the last word when it comes to Judaism.

Since 200 BC more or less, it was almost forbidden to execute even one man every 70 years. (Mishna, Makkot 1:10) A Sanhedrin that sentenced a man to death once every 70 years was called "murderous". And there are much worse crimes who deserve the death penalty, so they had to pick the worse crime every 71 years at least.

Since the holy temple was ruined - there is no such thing as a death sentence.

The problem with Islam is not its laws. It's the way some of its followers are interpreting it, and the way some of them are practicing it.

Interpretation is everything in law - religious and secular alike.

OLD TESTAMENT:

An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. Genesis 17:14

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. Exodus 22:18

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. Exodus 22:20

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. Exodus 31:14

Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2-3

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Leviticus 20:13

Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. Leviticus 24:16

If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation. Deuteronomy 4:25-26

Wizards, witches, astrologers, and new age folks are all "an abomination unto the Lord." Deuteronomy 18:10-12

God won't let bastards attend church. Neither can the sons or daughters of bastards "even to the tenth generation." So if you plan to attend church next Sunday be ready to prove that your genitals are intact and don't forget your birth certificate and genealogical records for at least the last ten generations. Don't laugh. This stuff is important to God. Deuteronomy 23:2

NEW TESTAMENT:

"And the city shall be accursed ... and all that therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot shall live." God explains that Rahab is to be spared since she hid Joshua's spies and lied to those who were searching for them (2:4-5). But why was everyone else killed? Some of them were probably liars too. Joshua 6:17

If you piss him off, God will cut off your arm, consume your eyes, grieve your heart, and kill your sons and grandfathers. 1 Samuel 2:31-34

God kills 50,070 men for looking into the ark. "And the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." 1 Samuel 6:19

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Yes, there's more (and after that there's the koran and probably the book of mormon), but I'm too offended by the disgusting statements to continue on. Someone else'll have to take over: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

You make a good point. However, and I can't be arsed checking, some of that stuff could have been said by people other than Jesus. Also, according to the Bible, Jesus generally preached peace (except occasionally when he got pissed off) and talked in a lot of parables - for example, he talked about being the bread of life, and last time I checked, Jesus wasn't a loaf of bread. Also he was asked what the most important commandments were, and he said to love God and love they neighbour as thyself. This is of course according to the Bible, which I believe has very little to do with the truth about Jesus, who I believe is a god, but not THE God - he's, for want of a better word, a "lower" god, perhaps a demi/semi-god - not the male aspect of the Supreme Being (who I believe is Pan, with the male aspect being Gaia), but an aspect of Pan, like many other gods..

snip

Meh, there is no such thing as a peaceful religion. They all have such a long history that there must be accounts of people making war in it's name.

bold added by ##Although many Westerners are not aware of this, one of the principle doctrines of fundamentalist islam is a term now referred to as "Khaybar". When Mohammad was travelling around Saudi-Arabia with his army and taking over cities... and Jesus said "Lord Vader RISE!!".. and he did why in the World should I take your word for it?
because some Jew wrote this 1000 years ago? BTW Lord Vader in tis case is Lazarus.

In addition, there are parts in the New Testament (can't remember passage numbers) which refer to no longer heeding the words of Moses, or something similar, and to taking the words in spirit, not letter (the latter is somewhere in Corinthians).better take all of them in spirit.
ALL of them.

... some of that stuff could have been said by people other than Jesus...some? No kidding. :D

Meh, there is no such thing as a peaceful religion.religions are peaceful

We are NOT.
we the people.
the human race. most of.

Although many Westerners are not aware of this, one of the principle doctrines of fundamentalist islam is a term now referred to as "Khaybar". When Mohammad was travelling around Saudi-Arabia with his army and taking over cities, he ran into a Jewish settlement called Khaybar. Upon the first encounter, the Jewish local militia defeated Mohammad's army pretty badly. As a result, Mohammad signed a peace treaty vowing to never attack them again. A few years later, with the Khaybarese feeling safe from attacks and therefore reducing the size of their militia, all of a sudden they were attacked by a massive force Mohammad was building up all along and were annihilated almost completely. The few survivors asked him: 'what? why? what happened? we thought we had peace, you vowed to never attack us again..' and so on. mohammad plainly replied in what became a part of the entire Muslim philosophy: 'any peace with infidelsis no peace at all and one is allowed to break it whenever he gets the chance'. The term Khaybar was coined to mean 'peace with infidels' i.e. one that can and should be broken once the Muslims gain the upper hand. This is what the West simply does not understand. Any peace with the fundamentalist muslims is just temporary and illusionary. They truly want our annihilation, its just that luckily they have not overcome us in power yet and know they will lose. When will the west learn?
Yeah, it is all just one big conspiracy.. One huge monolithic pinky and Brain planning to take over the world :rolleyes:

And they (who the fuck are they) will keep on trying every night...

You are wasting my time… well actually, I am wasting my time by replying to this nonsense. If you are really interested go study Islam in all its diversity before you go telling fairy tales… :)

religions are peaceful

Not particularly. Any ideology that includes killing people not in the group or non-believers can hardly be said to be peaceful.

And that would be my answer to the OP, most religions are not inherently peaceful.

*rolls eyes at OP*

Please read the link in my sig. It explains everything.

*rolls eyes at OP*

Please read the link in my sig. It explains everything.

Just a note, you should fix that link in your sig before telling people to read it. It's currently linking to: http://'http//www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/dcpi/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf
You need to remove the beginning "http://'" and put a colon after the 2nd "http".

...For a few minutes, people only expressed outrage about the parade, saying normal things like they won't be laughing when God sends them to hell. However, I saw a comment...

If that's 'normal' then we may have a problem...

No, I said if they could post any thing from a high up imam. Reading comprehension, anyone?

You said,

I'll believe a high up imam any day, over what layman Muslims say.

And I like how you respond to my entire post with some snippy, half-assed attempt at dismissal on the basis of "reading comprehension." Reading, indeed. Try it some time. That is, unless I'm not "high up" enough to stem the tide of your rising Islamophobia.

Just a note, you should fix that link in your sig before telling people to read it. It's currently linking to: http://'http//www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/dcpi/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf
You need to remove the beginning "http://'" and put a colon after the 2nd "http".

Fixed.

That is, unless I'm not "high up" enough to stem the tide of your rising Islamophobia.

Obviously, there's no reason to fear the people who just told him it was OK to kill people who offend their prophet.

Maybe you should read the Koran some time.

You said,



And I like how you respond to my entire post with some snippy, half-assed attempt at dismissal on the basis of "reading comprehension." Reading, indeed. Try it some time. That is, unless I'm not "high up" enough to stem the tide of your rising Islamophobia.

So Islampophobia is thinking that the Quran isn't peaceful?

The New Testament is a "New" Covenant with God, and supercedes the Old Testament laws - if it didn't then the Bible would be contradictory.

You mean the New Testament isn't contradictory on its own? When was Jesus born?

Obviously, there's no reason to fear the people who just told him it was OK to kill people who offend their prophet.

Oh, he can be afraid if he wants. You too, ya chickenshit.

Maybe you should read the Koran some time.

I think you meant to say, "Maybe you should read the Koran some time, and use your biased and deliberately narrow interpretations of it to make grossly stereotypical generalizations of billions of people in order to spread fear and hatred."

So Islampophobia is thinking that the Quran isn't peaceful?

For Trostia, that's the obvious conclusion. It's ok to say that Christians aren't peaceful (look at the Old Testament, will ya?), or that Zen Buddhists can go on katana-wielding rampages, but if you say anything about Islam that's negative and true, you're an Islamophobe.

For Trostia, that's the obvious conclusion.

Ooh! The strawman! It burns, it burns!

It's ok to say that Christians aren't peaceful (look at the Old Testament, will ya?)

Oh, is it?

or that Zen Buddhists can go on katana-wielding rampages

Do they?

but if you say anything about Islam that's negative and true, you're an Islamophobe.

Nah, if you regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims, you're an Islamophobe. Much like if I regularly spread fear and hatred of Jews, I'm an Anti-Semite. See how bigotry works? Now why don't you go post a spasmodic expression of how much killing people creams your jeans. Again. You'll get lots of the attention you apparently need then.

Nah, if you regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims, you're an Islamophobe. Much like if I regularly spread fear and hatred of Jews, I'm an Anti-Semite. See how bigotry works? Now why don't you go post a spasmodic expression of how much killing people creams your jeans. Again. You'll get lots of the attention you apparently need then.

Funny, I don't see Zilam spreading fear and hatred.

If what you say about others is false, it's fear and hatred based on bigotry.

If it's true, then it's rational fear.

You're going to say I should never have shot those people who shot at me? That doing so made me a bigot?

Nah, if you regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims, you're an Islamophobe. Much like if I regularly spread fear and hatred of Jews, I'm an Anti-Semite. See how bigotry works?

Zilam doesn't regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims. I don't think I have even ever seen him make a post about Muslims. Criticizing the Quran is not spreading fear and hatred of Islam.

'they' are fundamentalist muslims. and its your business to believe whatever you want. Many mulims believe israel does not let muslims into their holy places in jerusalem. what i had explained:

Originally Posted by Intelligenstan
Although many Westerners are not aware of this, one of the principle doctrines of fundamentalist islam is a term now referred to as "Khaybar". When Mohammad was travelling around Saudi-Arabia with his army and taking over cities, he ran into a Jewish settlement called Khaybar. Upon the first encounter, the Jewish local militia defeated Mohammad's army pretty badly. As a result, Mohammad signed a peace treaty vowing to never attack them again. A few years later, with the Khaybarese feeling safe from attacks and therefore reducing the size of their militia, all of a sudden they were attacked by a massive force Mohammad was building up all along and were annihilated almost completely. The few survivors asked him: 'what? why? what happened? we thought we had peace, you vowed to never attack us again..' and so on. mohammad plainly replied in what became a part of the entire Muslim philosophy: 'any peace with infidelsis no peace at all and one is allowed to break it whenever he gets the chance'. The term Khaybar was coined to mean 'peace with infidels' i.e. one that can and should be broken once the Muslims gain the upper hand. This is what the West simply does not understand. Any peace with the fundamentalist muslims is just temporary and illusionary. They truly want our annihilation, its just that luckily they have not overcome us in power yet and know they will lose. When will the west learn?

comes from historical muslim writers and interpreters as well as documented books written very accurately from that time. whether you choose to believe this or not is not something i can do much about.

Another difference: The worldwide attacks that were comitted in the name of Christianity happened ages go. The worldwide attacks in the name of Islam are still happening.

How's that a difference between the religions?

With this, there is an explanation of context and meaning in the original language. With the Quran and hadith, it is clear as glass as to what it is saying. A muslim that speaks out against the prophets becomes a kafr and is to be executed, and a non muslim may or may not be executed for the same crime.

That's according to some, it's not something written in stone. There are surahs about prophet Muhammed in which he is mistreated, and yet he continues on, he does not order the person to be executed or any such thing. That is in the Quran, and is far more reliable then something from a hadith. It is up to God to punish those who he do wrong, and if it is wrong to insult prophet Muhammed, then they shall receive their due. In such cases, the best thing to do is to leave it at that, as God is the greatest judge.

(... blah blah blah khaybar this blah blah blah Muslims are the ebil..blah blah blah.. they want to kill all infidels.. blah blah blah.. )

(this)
comes from historical muslim writers....What are the names of your so called 'historical' Muslim writers ???

Zilam doesn't regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims. I don't think I have even ever seen him make a post about Muslims. Criticizing the Quran is not spreading fear and hatred of Islam.

If you'll notice, I was talking to Remote Observer.

Funny, I don't see Zilam spreading fear and hatred.

Funny, I guess you got yourself and Zilam confused as well.

If what you say about others is false, it's fear and hatred based on bigotry.

If it's true, then it's rational fear.

Hatred is irrational. Nice try at lumping that in there!

I could explain what you already know - it's possible to lie with facts by means of implications and connotations. You do it all the time. But why bother? You're a troll.


You're going to say I should never have shot those people who shot at me? That doing so made me a bigot?

Well, first assuming you've ever shot at anyone in your life. Then assuming you got your orgasmic pleasure from doing so, as you've claimed and bragged about. That would just make you a sadistic fuck, not necessarily a bigot.

No, you're a bigot because you make your regular bigoted threads and posts about how vile, barbaric and dangerous Islam and Muslims are.

You're not very good at predicting what I say. Then again your "prediction" was little more than a pre-emptive strawman fallacy. Alas.

..If you read what Christ said about loving others as yourself, and since he triumphs the OT law..
Haha, so christ triumphs the OT. Jesus, this sounds like an RPG manual ("Anything in the core books triumphs items found in accessory manuals"). Fuck off, if the bible says one thing, then it says the other thing, that is a contradiction. If Jesus triumphs the OT, why not just cut out all of the bits that clash? Oh right, they did that in the middle ages. Didn't do a fantastic job, though, eh?

Here, if anything, take this:
OT says Killing disobedient children is law
Jesus doesn't speak specifically on the matter, but does state his support of the OT.

So either Jesus was lying when he said he supports the OT, or Jesus was lying when he pretends to advocate a life of peace and love.

Pick one.

*snip, snip, snip*

Technically, it's not Religion of peace, but for all effects and purposes, it functions as one, so who cares?

Of, course, if you want to talk about extremists, then I advise killing them quickly. You see, I don't care too much Religions of peace (or else I wouldn't advise killing extremists). But if there's a kind of Religion I hate more, then it would be a Religion of mindless aggression.

As for taking the Koran literally, if any religion did that it wouldn't be good. READ ANY religious text and you'll find it's not to difficult to justify killing. Greek Mythology seems more logical then most of the Religions of the world to me.

Funny, I don't see Zilam spreading fear and hatred.

If what you say about others is false, it's fear and hatred based on bigotry.


Yes. I don't see Zilam doing that. You however, are another story.

In Soviet Russia, maybe you're not as peaceful as we thought?

In Soviet Russia, maybe you're not as peaceful as we thought?

No no no it should go:

In soviet Russia, peace is not as Muslim as we thought! :D

No no no it should go:

In soviet Russia, peace is not as Muslim as we thought! :D

ROFL! good point.:D:p

No no no it should go:

In soviet Russia, peace is not as Muslim as we thought! :DIn soviet Russia 72 Virgins are just not enough.

In soviet Russia 72 Virgins are just not enough.

... not just in Soviet Russia... :p

Moses=Most disturbing of all the religious leaders

Haha, so christ triumphs the OT. Jesus, this sounds like an RPG manual ("Anything in the core books triumphs items found in accessory manuals"). Fuck off, if the bible says one thing, then it says the other thing, that is a contradiction. If Jesus triumphs the OT, why not just cut out all of the bits that clash? Oh right, they did that in the middle ages. Didn't do a fantastic job, though, eh?

Here, if anything, take this:
OT says Killing disobedient children is law
Jesus doesn't speak specifically on the matter, but does state his support of the OT.

So either Jesus was lying when he said he supports the OT, or Jesus was lying when he pretends to advocate a life of peace and love.

Pick one.

lol I remember spending time arguing about world of warcraft

THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN RETCONED

lol I remember spending time arguing about world of warcraft

THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN RETCONED Thats the new testament in a nutshell, if you ask me. One giant retcon. It changed so much, that you'd almost get the idea that it was only affiliated with it in the first place to source converts :eek:

Another difference: The worldwide attacks that were comitted in the name of Christianity happened ages go. The worldwide attacks in the name of Islam are still happening.

Good point.

Islam is over half a millenium younger than Christianity. Just think about what Christianity was doing between 500 and 600 years ago, and the general attitude. Considering that, Islam's not doing all that bad.

The bloodiest things Christianity has done aren't in recent memory, they're in history books (sometimes, if they're not glossed over).

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all sprang from the same source, which is Judaism of course (I guess Judaism didn't really "spring" from itself, though....), and Judaism is a very mean religion with a very scary god. Christianity actually---in its original, non-hierarchical form---fixed most of the major problems of Judaism (i.e., useless and arbitrary laws, hatred of others for x reason[s]) but also created some new problems later on, such as the emphasis on faith over acts and an overall slavish morality.

Then, Islam comes along: a religion whose "prophet" was little more than a primitive Napoleon, and it's been devolving for the most part ever since.

However, it must be noted that Islam (Islamic philosophers and scientists, in particular) have contributed much to the world. After Hypatia's library in Rome (which held all the world's major scientific achievements---as well as many philosophical ones---up to that point) was ramsacked and Hypatia herself brutally murdered, the world plummeted into the Dark Ages, having lost all its prior achievements. It wasn't until several centuries later that Islamic scholars came along and more or less single-handedly rebuilt the foundation of reason and science, believe it or not, slowly lifting the world back out of the pit of the Dark Ages. In other words, it's in no small part due to Islam that we have achieved much of what we've achieved today.

That being said, Islam today is a hybrid of hierarchy and patriarchy with an ironic dose of chaos---that is, even amongst the various sheiks and mullahs there is much disagreement about exactly how and why a people should be oppressed, or less often, whether they should be oppressed at all.

While there is a strain of Christianity that, in my opinion, stays true to its roots of anarchism and voluntary social aid, there seems to be no such strain in Islam, which almost universally advocates politico-religious fusion through shari'a. The same is true of the Zionists (NOT to be confused with traditional Jews), who have their own arbitrary and oppressive laws.

But to use the famous, "I'm no ____ophobe, my FRIEND is a ____!" argument, my bestest friend in the world is what you might call a "good" Muslim, but we never discuss religion for obvious reasons. Hell, I've even smoked many a joint with the guy (way back when we smoked).

So, I have been talking to a few Muslim amigos of mine on another forum site, and someone mentioned a parade in which Americans dressed up in burkas, mocking Islam. For a few minutes, people only expressed outrage about the parade, saying normal things like they won't be laughing when God sends them to hell. However, I saw a comment by a poster about a hadith where Mohammed said that he wanted a poet killed, because the poet was saying some rather nasty things about him. Well, I had read about that before on a christian site, and just thought it was made up or taken out of context to promote islamophobia. So I inquired about it, and basically, I am being told that killing IS in fact acceptable when you insult the prophet or Islam. One of my muslim friends piped up and started to disagree, but poster after poster showed us hadiths, and ayats saying the same thing. Now this shocked the hell out of me. I have been for a while now, defending Islam against what I thought were radical Islamophobes, but it does seem that quite a bit of Muslims, and even their religion states that is okay.

When I spoke up, saying that this goes against the notion of Islam being a religion of peace, I was told that it is, but it is also one of balance. That doesn't make too much sense to me, because killing a person for insulting, not even doing a violent act against it but insulting, seems to go beyond moderate, and goes to the extreme.

Now mind you, I am no islamophobe, as I detest those spineless punks, however, this has caused great concern with me. How can Islam claim to be a religion of peace, when it is acceptable to kill people in order to keep the honour of the Prophet or Islam? If any of our muslim posters out there could care to post something by a high ranking Imam saying otherwise, would be very helpful. I'll believe a high up imam any day, over what layman Muslims say.

I was going to make a reasoned response.

Then I thought about threads we've had on this very forum where people have said stupid things like they would start killing people if the economic model of the country changed to one they didn't like.

People are stupid. End of discussion.

Good point.

Islam is over half a millenium younger than Christianity. Just think about what Christianity was doing between 500 and 600 years ago, and the general attitude. Considering that, Islam's not doing all that bad.

The bloodiest things Christianity has done aren't in recent memory, they're in history books (sometimes, if they're not glossed over).

Good point? Hardly. This doesn't really have anything to do with whether the religion itself is inherently peaceful or not.

How's that a difference between the religions?

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Ah, so we're using the "Christianity has matured. It's a big boy now. All they do is persecute the gays." argument.

If we're going to do that, we might as well allow Islam the same time to mature as Christianity. Wouldn't that be fair? So let's see. It took Christianity about, what, 1500 years to hit an age of Enlightenment and Reason, and pull it up out of the shithole.

Islam's seven or so hundred years younger than Christianity.

I guess we'll be able to use the "Islam's matured. It's a big boy now. All it and Christianity ever do is persecute the gays" argument in, oh, 2200.

See you then, cupcake.

Ooh! The strawman! It burns, it burns!



Oh, is it?



Do they?



Nah, if you regularly spread fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims, you're an Islamophobe. Much like if I regularly spread fear and hatred of Jews, I'm an Anti-Semite. See how bigotry works? Now why don't you go post a spasmodic expression of how much killing people creams your jeans. Again. You'll get lots of the attention you apparently need then.

It was pretty obvious in the first post in this thread that Zilam does NOT want to go around spreading fear OR hatred of Islam OR Muslims. But you just like to go on the attack (as you have done previously, including against a thread by me) against anyone who has the slightest problem with Islam, even if they ask a genuine question based on something they've read/heard with regards to Islam which genuinely concerns them.

Just because a person is bothered by an aspect of Islam does not mean they want an excuse to hate Islam/Muslims - the very fact they are asking about it proves that (rather than simply believing all Muslims are evil and burning down mosques).

Ah, so we're using the "Christianity has matured. It's a big boy now. All they do is persecute the gays." argument.

If we're going to do that, we might as well allow Islam the same time to mature as Christianity. Wouldn't that be fair? So let's see. It took Christianity about, what, 1500 years to hit an age of Enlightenment and Reason, and pull it up out of the shithole.

Islam's seven or so hundred years younger than Christianity.

I guess we'll be able to use the "Islam's matured. It's a big boy now. All it and Christianity ever do is persecute the gays" argument in, oh, 2200.

See you then, cupcake.

I don't think we should allow the extremist versions of Islam to 'mature'. Instead I think responsible parents and Imams should ensure that vulnerable Muslims are not turned into murderers by groups preaching distorted versions of Islam. A lot quicker than waiting around until someone manages to removed the negative passages of the Qur'an or get people to actually read the WHOLE Qur'an PROPERLY before deciding whether it ACTUALLY says murdering innocent people is fine with Allah.

And yes, the Christian religion has matured SOMEWHAT from the violent religion as it was once practiced in some places, but it still has a long way to go. But isn't true Christianity a personal relationship with Christ anyway? And if so, doesn't taht mean you should be able to contact Jesus (at least if you meditate hard enough) and so not need the Bible anyway as you can ask him personally what he thinks?

Haha, so christ triumphs the OT. Jesus, this sounds like an RPG manual ("Anything in the core books triumphs items found in accessory manuals"). Fuck off, if the bible says one thing, then it says the other thing, that is a contradiction. If Jesus triumphs the OT, why not just cut out all of the bits that clash? Oh right, they did that in the middle ages. Didn't do a fantastic job, though, eh?

Here, if anything, take this:
OT says Killing disobedient children is law
Jesus doesn't speak specifically on the matter, but does state his support of the OT.

So either Jesus was lying when he said he supports the OT, or Jesus was lying when he pretends to advocate a life of peace and love.

Pick one.

The OT laws were fulfilled when Jesus died (is one claim of some Christians). Thus, all OT laws are moot. And I prefer the Mormon perspective - God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are not the Trinity (they're not 3 beings making up one God) - they are 3 very seperate beings, and so Jesus isn't God. Thus he aint contradicting himself. But since I think most of the Bible was made up for men's (not women's) personal agenda anyway, this is a kinda pointless response I think but never mind. I used to think Jesus came to try to correct the bad stuff in the Old Testament (cus it was not from God). Perhaps he did (I don't believe he is THE God, as he never directly claimed it even according to the Bible) but then the NT got distorted as well.

I don't think we should allow the extremist versions of Islam to 'mature'. Instead I think responsible parents and Imams should ensure that vulnerable Muslims are not turned into murderers by groups preaching distorted versions of Islam. A lot quicker than waiting around until someone manages to removed the negative passages of the Qur'an or get people to actually read the WHOLE Qur'an PROPERLY before deciding whether it ACTUALLY says murdering innocent people is fine with Allah.

And yes, the Christian religion has matured SOMEWHAT from the violent religion as it was once practiced in some places, but it still has a long way to go. But isn't true Christianity a personal relationship with Christ anyway? And if so, doesn't taht mean you should be able to contact Jesus (at least if you meditate hard enough) and so not need the Bible anyway as you can ask him personally what he thinks?

Personally I don't really care how the religion works. I don't care how hard you have to meditate to have Christ tell you to pull his finger. I'm neither Muslim, nor Christian. And from the outside, it really looks like both of them need to reign in the extremists, and get the fuck over themselves.

At the same time, that doesn't mean that violent extremism is just cause to decry the entire religion. Far be that from the truth.

Because lots of big religions have lots of contradictions in them.

Like any (daisy) chain, a religion is only as strong as its weakest link(s).

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries in the name of Islam?

a) How the hell would you know why someone is blowing themself up? It's not like they give a fucking speech before they blow themselves up.

b) Even if they did say something, it most likely wasn't in English, so how the hell would you know what they said?

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries in the name of Islam?

a) How the hell would you know why someone is blowing themself up? It's not like they give a fucking speech before they blow themselves up.

b) Even if they did say something, it most likely wasn't in English, so how the hell would you know what they said?

Yeah - coulda been Aramaic.
Or pig latin! :eek:

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries in the name of Islam?

a) How the hell would you know why someone is blowing themself up? It's not like they give a fucking speech before they blow themselves up.

b) Even if they did say something, it most likely wasn't in English, so how the hell would you know what they said?

Actually they do. Many suicide bombers leave videos telling people why they blow themselves up in the first place.

Actually they do. Many suicide bombers leave videos telling people why they blow themselves up in the first place.

And of course you routinely grab a couple of those from the nearest Blockbuster...

I have seen excerpts from them from various places.

God bless YouTube.
Or Allah bless.
FSM bless.
Cthulu bless.

...ya know.

And of course you routinely grab a couple of those from the nearest Blockbuster...

I have seen excerpts from them from various places.

It was pretty obvious in the first post in this thread that Zilam does NOT

It's also pretty obvious that I was talking to Remote Observer. What are you, like the 4th poster who's deliberately taken that out of context?

But you just like to go on the attack (as you have done previously, including against a thread by me) against anyone who has the slightest problem with Islam, even if they ask a genuine question based on something they've read/heard with regards to Islam which genuinely concerns them.

Ah yes, those kinds of genuine questions. Maybe Jews are moneygrubbers? Hey I'm just asking a question, and it genuinely concerns me!

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Depends what you mean by 'these days'.

I'm not giving Christianity any prizes for managing to (pretty much) control it's bloodlust for a few years. Manifest Destiny was a 'Christian' genocide.

Depends what you mean by 'these days'.

I'm not giving Christianity any prizes for managing to (pretty much) control it's bloodlust for a few years. Manifest Destiny was a 'Christian' genocide.

If you are referring to the "genocide" of the natives, that had nothing to do with the manifest destiny. The slaughtering of the buffalo, was done in an economic crisis during which the natives were stopping Americans from digging gold, long after this manifest destiny nonsense.

If you are referring to the "genocide" of the natives, that had nothing to do with the manifest destiny. The slaughtering of the buffalo, was done in an economic crisis during which the natives were stopping Americans from digging gold, long after this manifest destiny nonsense.

I'd say I have no idea what you are talking about, but... I'm more of the opinion that you have beaten me to that point.

Maybe you'd care to restate your opinion in some semblence of sense?

I'd say I have no idea what you are talking about, but... I'm more of the opinion that you have beaten me to that point.

Maybe you'd care to restate your opinion in some semblence of sense?

You said the manifest destiny was a genocide, i'm assuming you mean the "genocide" of the native americans right?

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Some in the US seem to think Iraq and funding Israel is the 'christian thing to do'.......

You said the manifest destiny was a genocide, i'm assuming you mean the "genocide" of the native americans right?

Manifest Destiny is a lot of things... it's the name we apply to the mentality of divine right that accompanied the annexation of Texas, for example... and for the expansionism that displaced and slaughtered American Natives.

Some argue it is the philosophy that still governs US foreign policy.

But, yes - Christians murdered Indians.

As the it drew closer to the fasting month, my usual urges to compress some pretty heinous debaucheries into a few days of sex, drugs and possibly rock'n'roll (lately it is mostly techno, but what the hey) before I try to pass myself off as one of really faithful.

So I'm pretty sure I'm somewhat mellow and peaceful, ... so nyah :p

Manifest Destiny is a lot of things... it's the name we apply to the mentality of divine right that accompanied the annexation of Texas, for example... and for the expansionism that displaced and slaughtered American Natives.

Some argue it is the philosophy that still governs US foreign policy.

But, yes - Christians murdered Indians.

I've always read the Manifest Destiny as the divine right Europeans had to claim America as their own. They didn't just go in to America shooting all natives they saw on sight, they befriended some, ignored some, and battled some. When they eventually slaughtered the buffalo (removing the natives source of food and killing most of them), it was nothing remotely to do with Christianity or the manifest destiny.

I've always read the Manifest Destiny as the divine right Europeans had to claim America as their own. They didn't just go in to America shooting all natives they saw on sight, they befriended some, ignored some, and battled some. When they eventually slaughtered the buffalo (removing the natives source of food and killing most of them), it was nothing remotely to do with Christianity or the manifest destiny.

Killing buffalo is only part of the situation. I wonder how much you actually know about how natives were treated... does The Trail of Tears mean anything?

You can see Christianity and Manifest Destiny were not involved in the genocide of the Native Americans... but I'd argue that the invocation of divine right is a pretty strong argument to the contrary.

Killing buffalo is only part of the situation. I wonder how much you actually know about how natives were treated... does The Trail of Tears mean anything?

You can see Christianity and Manifest Destiny were not involved in the genocide of the Native Americans... but I'd argue that the invocation of divine right is a pretty strong argument to the contrary.

The "Indian removal act" would be an even stronger argument on your side, but the process to get acts like these passed was so boringly political and bureaucratic, Christian influences seemed very minimal if not absent. But whatever, it's pointless discussing the past of what each religion has done since there is nothing "inherent" in religion accept the belief in metaphysical stuff.

The same kind of mentality that trains death squads for Freedom or shoots muslims for baby Jesus. The fact is that most muslims don't go round bumping off people who disrespect their religon. However they are more easily riled these days, because they feel they're under attack.

In my opion you've just won the thread.A lot of people group Muslims with terrorists.Not here but still.Just because it says one thing doesn't mean it's enforced.Last I checked littering was against the law but only a small percentage of those who litter are penalized.The Quran was written like what,at least 500 years ago.Besides did we all rip out 20 pages,and 300 years of our history books,with the Crusades with both Muslims and Christians decapiting one another.Stealing,and pilaging,and burning.

However I do not accept killing those who insult Mohammed.It's wrong to bomb a newspaper office over a picture or shooting someone because they mad statements which weren't even meant to be offensive but rather interpreted that way.

Those who need to be sought after are those who attack innocent people for no reason.Those who threaten to "wipe Isreal off the map" and ahed American blood because there different that you.I've read that Osama attacked the US because back in the first Gulf War US and other coalition troops were in Saudi Arabia.Quote "holy Muslim ground." Were they making fun and disgracing the land and the people:NO!Does it justify killing 3,000 innocent Americans:hell no!!People who seek to "destroy the Jews" need to be chased down.Not a few posters.

Now mind you, I am no islamophobe, as I detest those spineless punks, however, this has caused great concern with me.

How spineless do you have to be to not only commit an act of terrorism, not only destroy a huge building complex, not only kill thousands, but to actually fly the plane that does it right into the buildings?

I have seen excerpts from them from various places.

Perhaps, but how do you know what they said? If there were subtitles how do you know they were telling you what he really said? It's not like people haven't made up lies about others before. The thing you'd probably know at all would be Alllahu Akbar, which (as a statement) is nothing wrong. Christians talk about how great God is all the time, and so do most other religions.

In my opion you've just won the thread.A lot of people group Muslims with terrorists.Not here but still.Just because it says one thing doesn't mean it's enforced.Last I checked littering was against the law but only a small percentage of those who litter are penalized.The Quran was written like what,at least 500 years ago.Besides did we all rip out 20 pages,and 300 years of our history books,with the Crusades with both Muslims and Christians decapiting one another.Stealing,and pilaging,and burning.

However I do not accept killing those who insult Mohammed.It's wrong to bomb a newspaper office over a picture or shooting someone because they mad statements which weren't even meant to be offensive but rather interpreted that way.

Those who need to be sought after are those who attack innocent people for no reason.Those who threaten to "wipe Isreal off the map" and ahed American blood because there different that you.I've read that Osama attacked the US because back in the first Gulf War US and other coalition troops were in Saudi Arabia.Quote "holy Muslim ground." Were they making fun and disgracing the land and the people:NO!Does it justify killing 3,000 innocent Americans:hell no!!People who seek to "destroy the Jews" need to be chased down.Not a few posters.

The Quran is actually around 1300 years old, just so you know. Also, for your information, Ahmadinejad never said that he would "wipe Israel off of the map". As well, Osama bin Laden (and his type) is essentially insane (and probably already dead), so how does he represent Islam at all?

When it comes to violent actions by Muslims, you also have to realize that many Muslims, including myself, feel that our faith is under attack. It doesn't make their reactions right, but there's a reason for everything. In the west, Israel is always seen as right and fair, and the Arab nations as the aggressors. But in Muslim countries and the minds of most Muslims, who is the aggressor? Israel. Who is the occupier of Iraq? America. Different people have totally different perspectives of the world, and if you try to see the Muslim perspective, then I think you would understand the world much better. Many Muslims feel like their world is under attack and that their religion is under constant and unfair criticism. And don't give me any bullshit that the West understands or is unbiased towards Islam. Since the fucking Middle Ages up to today they've lied about our religion and tried to make us seem evil.

All of this stuff combines together, and it creates insecurity. And when people feel like they're backed into a corner, what do they do? It doesn't make their actions right or justified, but as I said, everything has a reason.

Manifest Destiny is a lot of things... it's the name we apply to the mentality of divine right that accompanied the annexation of Texas, for example... and for the expansionism that displaced and slaughtered American Natives.

Some argue it is the philosophy that still governs US foreign policy.

But, yes - Christians murdered Indians.

Native Americans.

Governments based on fundamentalist Islam, Christianity, or Judism are all incompatible with a free society.

Governments based on fundamentalist Islam, Christianity, or Judism are all incompatible with a free society.

Define free society.

Define free society.

Freedom of and from religion. Freedom to do as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's my definition.

The Quran is actually around 1300 years old, just so you know. Also, for your information, Ahmadinejad never said that he would "wipe Israel off of the map". As well, Osama bin Laden (and his type) is essentially insane (and probably already dead), so how does he represent Islam at all?

When it comes to violent actions by Muslims, you also have to realize that many Muslims, including myself, feel that our faith is under attack. It doesn't make their reactions right, but there's a reason for everything. In the west, Israel is always seen as right and fair, and the Arab nations as the aggressors. But in Muslim countries and the minds of most Muslims, who is the aggressor? Israel. Who is the occupier of Iraq? America. Different people have totally different perspectives of the world, and if you try to see the Muslim perspective, then I think you would understand the world much better. Many Muslims feel like their world is under attack and that their religion is under constant and unfair criticism. And don't give me any bullshit that the West understands or is unbiased towards Islam. Since the fucking Middle Ages up to today they've lied about our religion and tried to make us seem evil.

All of this stuff combines together, and it creates insecurity. And when people feel like they're backed into a corner, what do they do? It doesn't make their actions right or justified, but as I said, everything has a reason.

I'm tired of these excuses. One of the things that annoys the rest of us is that there is so little criticism from mainstream Muslim leaders over the actions of the fanatical nutcases who commit their crimes in the name of Islam. If someone publishes a cartoon you don't like, even if it is total blasphemy as far as your religion is concerned, you don't get to riot and destroy things and kill people over it. That's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. People are going to insult one's religion. It isn't nice, but it happens to everyone who has a religion, and those who don't often get their lack of one insulted.

If Muslims perceive their faith as under attack, maybe they should consider the fact that their relative silence is seen as tacit approval.

Also, plenty westerners sympathize more with the Palestinians than Israel. I myself can't stand either of them, as both sides have lowered themselves to a morally reprehensible level.

I'm tired of these excuses. One of the things that annoys the rest of us is that there is so little criticism from mainstream Muslim leaders over the actions of the fanatical nutcases who commit their crimes in the name of Islam. If someone publishes a cartoon you don't like, even if it is total blasphemy as far as your religion is concerned, you don't get to riot and destroy things and kill people over it. That's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. People are going to insult one's religion. It isn't nice, but it happens to everyone who has a religion, and those who don't often get their lack of one insulted.

If Muslims perceive their faith as under attack, maybe they should consider the fact that their relative silence is seen as tacit approval.

Also, plenty westerners sympathize more with the Palestinians than Israel. I myself can't stand either of them, as both sides have lowered themselves to a morally reprehensible level.

Your applying Western standards to the Middle East and the Muslim world, that generally doesn't work, it's a different culture.

I'm tired of these excuses. One of the things that annoys the rest of us is that there is so little criticism from mainstream Muslim leaders over the actions of the fanatical nutcases who commit their crimes in the name of Islam.

What makes you think theres no criticism?

What makes you think theres no criticism?

"little criticism" not "no criticism."

Your applying Western standards to the Middle East and the Muslim world, that generally doesn't work, it's a different culture.

I'm applying adult standards. I am offended by things every day. I don't kill people or destroy things because of it. I suppose maybe my total lack of tolerance for those who think they have some sort of special right to be free from things that offend them stems from my hatred of whining.

So a newspaper publishes something you don't like. Maybe even it's deeply insulting to you, perhaps the most insulting thing you've ever read. Don't buy that paper anymore.

I'm applying adult standards. I am offended by things every day. I don't kill people or destroy things because of it. I suppose maybe my total lack of tolerance for those who think they have some sort of special right to be free from things that offend them stems from my hatred of whining.

So a newspaper publishes something you don't like. Maybe even it's deeply insulting to you, perhaps the most insulting thing you've ever read. Don't buy that paper anymore.

No, your applying Western standards.

Freedom of and from religion. Freedom to do as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's my definition.

Mine as well.

No, your applying Western standards.

I have an expectation of people to act with maturity, even when offended. I cannot believe that westerners are the only ones capable of doing this, which you seem to imply.

I have an expectation of people to act with maturity, even when offended. I cannot believe that westerners are the only ones capable of doing this, which you seem to imply.
The Muslim world has an acceptance and education that Islam is supreme, full stop, how do you think their going to react? Not saying I agree with them but that's how it is. Plus saying 'every country should be like America' is remarkably arrogant.

actually andaras prime is right... besides if that is basic freedom then to be able to enjoy full freedom is to be able to kill someone :)


anyway i am not islamic.. i am without any faith but i have to say.... there are also violent extreme christian churches like the westboro baptist church. But that doesn't mean that the whole christian faith is like that.. same counts for islam

look at turkey for instance... they aren't that extreme in islamic faith. hell, most islamic immigrants in europe aren't like extremist osama bin ladens.

look at 10 years back and nobody would have said that islam is like and evil killer religion. It is only a result because of some terrorist guy and and a few dictators in iran and irak.... Qatar and other arabic nations aren't that extreme like them. it is like like america is kinda having a bad hangover from 9/11 and dubbed islam evil because of the extreme islamic terrorist

The Muslim world has an acceptance and education that Islam is supreme, full stop, how do you think their going to react? Not saying I agree with them but that's how it is. Plus saying 'every country should be like America' is remarkably arrogant.

I never said that every country should be like America, as this country is pretty fucked up right now.

I don't care about excuses. I am aware that there are cultural differences, but those don't justify such ridiculous reactions. If the reason that such reactions occur is their education, then their education is considerably lacking. It doesn't make it OK to kill people and destroy things and generally act with the same amount of maturity as a five year old every time one sees something offensive, no matter what one's religion is or even if one has a religion.

[...] If someone publishes a cartoon you don't like, even if it is total blasphemy as far as your religion is concerned, you don't get to riot and destroy things and kill people over it. That's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. People are going to insult one's religion. It isn't nice, but it happens to everyone who has a religion, and those who don't often get their lack of one insulted.[...]

People riot, over all sorts of things. Should I apologise when members of "my group" riot? When students riot, should I as a student apologise?

I know many muslims, and many simply replied with the proverbial "meh" after viewing these pictures. Some said it was bad taste, and others said that they felt bad for their parents, who were sad over these pictures....

In my counntry there were no riots... nor in any other country in the west, we have plenty of Muslims here... The people that did riot lived in countries where no one in his rright mind would riot for fear of being shot, unless they were allowed to... When people are allowed to riot, people will riot.. no big surprise there. I only wish the media were more critical, and would go into the reasons these govts had to let these young people go loose....

People riot, over all sorts of things. Should I apologise when members of "my group" riot? When students riot, should I as a student apologise?

I know many muslims, and many simply replied with the proverbial "meh" after viewing these pictures. Some said it was bad taste, and others said that they felt bad for their parents, who were sad over these pictures....

In my counntry there were no riots... nor in any other country in the west, we have plenty of Muslims here... The people that did riot lived in countries where no one in his rright mind would riot for fear of being shot, unless they were allowed to... When people are allowed to riot, people will riot.. no big surprise there. I only wish the media were more critical, and would go into the reasons these govts had to let these young people go loose....

Again with the assumptions that I know nothing of the corrupt governments in many countries. Everything that's wrong with the middle east is hard to get into one post.

Indeed, the media should be taking a closer look at the governments of these countries, who use Islam in a cynical manner to distract their populace from the fact that they're screwing them for all they're worth. I find the fact that some of these governments are US "allies" quite appalling. But then, my government unfortunately never has been very picky about friends...

Again with the assumptions that I know nothing of the corrupt governments in many countries. Everything that's wrong with the middle east is hard to get into one post.

No I do not assume you do not know these things: I simply wonder why you make a big point of these riots?

I know you are not the first to do so, but I think it is absurd to think that Muslims act that way, because of being Muslim... All over the world, will certain young people riot, given half the chance.

These riots were a non-event, blown to great proportions by the way media work...

I have an expectation of people to act with maturity, even when offended. I cannot believe that westerners are the only ones capable of doing this, which you seem to imply.

There are those who are, like you mentioned, "kids throwing tantrums" and then there are "intermediaries / apologists" who tell us that "don't provoke the kid".

IMHO, these intermediaries (elitemen, mediapeople, academics etc who talk on behalf of muslims) are not helping in this issue. They just use the spectre of masses of islamic yahoo to further their own agendas. And then they turn around and whip these passions to justify their bogeyman.

I never said that every country should be like America, as this country is pretty fucked up right now.

I don't care about excuses. I am aware that there are cultural differences, but those don't justify such ridiculous reactions. If the reason that such reactions occur is their education, then their education is considerably lacking. It doesn't make it OK to kill people and destroy things and generally act with the same amount of maturity as a five year old every time one sees something offensive, no matter what one's religion is or even if one has a religion.

Again though, essentially your argument boils down to that you think Muslims should act as you want them to.

Native Americans.

Sorry - I'm being pop-(sub)culture-y.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVRtxQOJ02s

"little criticism" not "no criticism."


So essentially, they don't get as upset as you'd like them too-ignoring the fact that they aren't some hivemind, who don't nessecarliy even imagine that somebody associates them and some of the groups at large......

Again with the assumptions that I know nothing of the corrupt governments in many countries. Everything that's wrong with the middle east is hard to get into one post.

Indeed, the media should be taking a closer look at the governments of these countries, who use Islam in a cynical manner to distract their populace from the fact that they're screwing them for all they're worth. I find the fact that some of these governments are US "allies" quite appalling. But then, my government unfortunately never has been very picky about friends...

lol that idea is so warped. you generalise a whole country just because of a few extremist Islamic terrorist or Islamic government.

Like i said there are islamic countries that is not a so called "evil" because they believe in the islam. For instance turkey, qatar oman, yemen, united arab emirates.

also the Koran can be interpreted in many ways just like the bible or the Torah.

There are people that don't wear burka's and don't have full beards but still believe in the islamic faith

besides if you followed the bible literally you all would be amish by now

There are just too many differences between fundamentalist Islamic countries and our western society for us to get along. The relegation of half your population to a lesser status because of their sex is in itself enough to warrant a break of trade and diplomatic relations until that situation changes.
Essentially we are friends with these nations because they have oil we need so we’ll “hold hands” with them as long as they have something we need. Doesn’t anybody on the right see anything morally inconsistent here? I mean, walking into a shoe store and seeing the male owner beating the crap out of his wife or worse, would the conservative supplysider simply ask, “How much for those shoes?”

I'm applying adult standards. I am offended by things every day. I don't kill people or destroy things because of it. I suppose maybe my total lack of tolerance for those who think they have some sort of special right to be free from things that offend them stems from my hatred of whining.

So a newspaper publishes something you don't like. Maybe even it's deeply insulting to you, perhaps the most insulting thing you've ever read. Don't buy that paper anymore.

Exactly. I suspect the apologists for Islamist violence are motivated in part by a casual 'Orientalist' racism: "Oh, you can't expect those Arabs/Persians/Pakistanis to act in a civilised way so it's your fault for provoking them."

There are just too many differences between fundamentalist Islamic countries and our western society for us to get along. The relegation of half your population to a lesser status because of their sex is in itself enough to warrant a break of trade and diplomatic relations until that situation changes.

Another great post. Our dependency on oil has led us to accept, and even to support, governments which have instituted sexual apartheit.

Do you see people blowing up various parts of various countries "in the name of Christianity" these days?

Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Resistance_Army) Not that this has got anything to do with the difference between the religions, mind.

There are just too many differences between fundamentalist Islamic countries and our western society for us to get along. The relegation of half your population to a lesser status because of their sex is in itself enough to warrant a break of trade and diplomatic relations until that situation changes.
Essentially we are friends with these nations because they have oil we need so we’ll “hold hands” with them as long as they have something we need. Doesn’t anybody on the right see anything morally inconsistent here? I mean, walking into a shoe store and seeing the male owner beating the crap out of his wife or worse, would the conservative supplysider simply ask, “How much for those shoes?”

So? there are too many differances between china and western countries... also with india

also i never seen big oil fields in turkey..... and not all oil rich countries are like terrorist countries... the only iffy one that is on the US side is Saudia Arabia... all the countries that i've mentioned have never produced any terrorist or any other "radical" beliefs that offends the US

Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Resistance_Army) Not that this has got anything to do with the difference between the religions, mind.

And more locally (for the US) there's Micheal Korn (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats). He hasn't actually blown anyone up yet but I suspect it's only a matter of time.

And more locally (for the US) there's Micheal Korn (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats). He hasn't actually blown anyone up yet but I suspect it's only a matter of time.

"Korn was seen distributing flyers suggesting the instructors were "child molesters" for teaching evolution to students."

Wow.

Exactly. I suspect the apologists for Islamist violence are motivated in part by a casual 'Orientalist' racism: "Oh, you can't expect those Arabs/Persians/Pakistanis to act in a civilised way so it's your fault for provoking them."

Indeed. I am not saying that every person in each of these countries isn't civilized. I just don't excuse violence because someone is 'different.' I don't believe that non-westerners are any more naturally predisposed to disproportionately violent reactions to things that offend them than westerners are.

Also, to note Shlarg's post, I don't think it excuses Saudi Arabia's oppression of half its population because they happen to be female, either.

Indeed. I am not saying that every person in each of these countries isn't civilized. I just don't excuse violence because someone is 'different.' I don't believe that non-westerners are any more naturally predisposed to disproportionately violent reactions to things that offend them than westerners are.

Also, to note Shlarg's post, I don't think it excuses Saudi Arabia's oppression of half its population because they happen to be female, either.
There is no superior 'civilization', only different cultures.

hey, haven't read much past the first page of this... but here are some surprising quotes!

"For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away form him.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them Bring hither and slay them before me"

Praise be to allah!... that's St. Luke , 19: 26, and 19:27, words of "our lord" jesus christ, found in the king james bible, where he orders his disciples to take from those that are poor (who hath not) and to give to those that are more well off (who ... hath) and also to bring those who refuse the rule of jesus to be slain!

WONDERFUL MESSAGE OF LOVE!

Believe in me OR DIE

Which one is the violent religion eh?

Anyone who thinks Islam is morally equivalent to Christianity, go and say "Jesus sucks" in America or Italy, then go and say "Allah sucks!" in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Also, be aware that the Qur'an is 3 times more violent than the Bible (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html) and that the equivalationists have been answered (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011599.php) resoundingly. Also, be aware that the "tiny minority" the BBC crowd likes to throw around is not quite so tiny (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22970&only&rss).

"Korn was seen distributing flyers suggesting the instructors were "child molesters" for teaching evolution to students."

Wow.

Didn't they name a band after him?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193

Nice way to take it out of context; now put that in context to the larger message of the Qur'an - oh, you can't? thats right, you don't own a copy of the Qur'an, its just a plain copy and paste from a Christian fundamentalist hate driven site.

Nice way to take it out of context; now put that in context to the larger message of the Qur'an - oh, you can't? thats right, you don't own a copy of the Qur'an, its just a plain copy and paste from a Christian fundamentalist hate driven site.

Why don't you provide the context in, because I can't see any argument in that rhetoric.

Nice way to take it out of context; now put that in context to the larger message of the Qur'an - oh, you can't? thats right, you don't own a copy of the Qur'an, its just a plain copy and paste from a Christian fundamentalist hate driven site.

I find it interesting that you think I'm a Xian fundamentalist. I can assure you that if the Xian fundies go back to the ways of the crusades, inquisition, or begin wiring their women and children with bombs and sending them into malls I'll stand against them also. There is no love lost between the Xian fundies and me.
The basic problem is, "2:99 Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them." Recent polls have found that 24%of Muslims living in the U.S. think it's perfectly acceptable to use suicide bombers against enemies of Islam which is essentially anyone who isn't Islamic."2:98 Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers. "
No I don't own a hard copy of the Qur'an. Which english translation is is accurate?

There is no superior 'civilization', only different cultures.

Nah, any culture which automatically makes women subservient simply because they're women is definitely inferior to ours.

Nah, any culture which automatically makes women subservient simply because they're women is definitely inferior to ours.

Quoted For Fucking Truth.

Nice way to take it out of context; now put that in context to the larger message of the Qur'an - oh, you can't? thats right, you don't own a copy of the Qur'an, its just a plain copy and paste from a Christian fundamentalist hate driven site.

Questioning the posters motivation is not a rebuttal, neither is an unsupported assertion that their sources are innaccurate or that their quotes are taken out of context. If it's out of context then show us the context..

Nah, any culture which automatically makes women subservient simply because they're women is definitely inferior to ours.

Which culture are you thinking of?

Questioning the posters motivation is not a rebuttal, neither is an unsupported assertion that their sources are innaccurate or that their quotes are taken out of context. If it's out of context then show us the context..

No, its taking one quotation out of a book that needs to be taken in its entirety rather than cherry picking through and posting what deems to be suitable for an agenda.

Its when people use the 'creation story' within the Tanakh then claim that its evidence whilst ignoring there are two creation stories, the story itself is a narrative to actually explain something deeper and more important than creation per-say.

Was going to post some links showing treatment of women in islamic countries and then thought better of it.

Was going to post some links showing treatment of women in islamic countries and then thought better of it.

What a coincidence, I'm sure someone was going to post some links showing treatment of women in non-islamic countries and then thought better of it.

I'm also sure that the reason is that women are mistreated by people of every religious conviction there is.

What a coincidence, I'm sure someone was going to post some links showing treatment of women in non-islamic countries and then thought better of it.

I'm also sure that the reason is that women are mistreated by people of every religious conviction there is.

Yup--and none of it can be justified for any reason.

Yup--and none of it can be justified for any reason.

Indeed. Nor would your links be any proof that Islam is a "violent religion".

Questioning the posters motivation is not a rebuttal, neither is an unsupported assertion that their sources are innaccurate or that their quotes are taken out of context. If it's out of context then show us the context..


OK, here goes. First note that the context is to
1) fight those who fight you. and,
2) only in self defence (begin not hostilities).
3) The fight is stated to go until fighting ends when the other side desists, NOT until everyone converts to Islam

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.196
Note that you are reading THREE different translation to English, but they all agree in substance.

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

lol that idea is so warped. you generalise a whole country just because of a few extremist Islamic terrorist or Islamic government.

Like i said there are islamic countries that is not a so called "evil" because they believe in the islam. For instance turkey, qatar oman, yemen, united arab emirates.

also the Koran can be interpreted in many ways just like the bible or the Torah.

There are people that don't wear burka's and don't have full beards but still believe in the islamic faith

besides if you followed the bible literally you all would be amish by now

I don't follow the bible, period. Let alone following it literally. You seem to think that my opinion of fundamentalist Christianity is more pleasant than my opinion of fundamentalist Islam. I hate them both.

WTH! I'm Islamic! How dare those (and excuse this) damn paraders insult my belief! Living in Turkey was a blast for me! Death to the salaks!:mp5::mp5::sniper::gundge:

WTH! I'm Islamic! How dare those (and excuse this) damn paraders insult my belief! Living in Turkey was a blast for me! Death to the salaks!:mp5::mp5::sniper::gundge:

Yeah, because death threats and gun smilies are the perfect way to persuade people! :rolleyes:

The basic problem is, "2:99 Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them." Recent polls have found that 24%of Muslims living in the U.S. think it's perfectly acceptable to use suicide bombers against enemies of Islam which is essentially anyone who isn't Islamic.

If you're speaking of the poll that I'm thinking of, a well conducted poll that people seem to love-love-love "quoting" when arguing about Islam, you're probably horribly misrepresenting those results. It found that 24% of Muslims felt that suicide bombing used as a military tactic could be rarely or sometimes justified, with the majority of those agreeing marking the rarely category. It's a statistic that has nothing to do with civilian targets; in fact, the same poll found that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support the bombing of civilian targets. Placed in this context I don't see what the big deal is. If, in a war, a side chooses to use suicide bombings as a military tactic against military targets, I don't find that any more disagreeable than the very act of war itself. The poll also points out the interesting fact that, at least in America (I don't recall its results for Europe, off hand), Muslim immigrants tend to be more moderate than their American convert counterparts.

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out. It frustrates me when scientifically conducted polls are taken out of context and warped to fit agendas, as it undermines the entire field of polling science and such and lends ammo to idiots who like to tout how empirically "useless" opinion polls are.

Nah, any culture which automatically makes women subservient simply because they're women is definitely inferior to ours.

Depends what you mean by 'ours'. Western cultures still automatically make women subservient, to a greater or lesser extent. They also discriminate against people of other cultures, people of non-Christian religion... Christians of non-Christian religion of a different sect to their own, old people, young people, people who dress differently, people who dye their hair, people who have tattoos, people who have piercings...

The fact that (for some of these) there are laws to prevent discrimiation doesn't mean it isn't happening. Quite the contrary - it means it IS happening, unless people have it scared out of them.

Depends what you mean by 'ours'. Western cultures still automatically make women subservient, to a greater or lesser extent.

To a far lesser extent.


They also discriminate against people of other cultures

Who is they?


people of non-Christian religion... Christians of non-Christian religion of a different sect to their own

Not all of the west are bigoted Christians, especially in Europe where most aren't.


old people, young people, people who dress differently, people who dye their hair, people who have tattoos, people who have piercings...


Show me extremist anti tattoo groups or anti piercing groups... in the west. I don't know a single person who is intolerant to any of those things.

To a far lesser extent.


So? It still happens. And less than a hundred years ago we weren't that far from some of 'those' cultures.


Who is they?


The same 'they' as in the sentence before. I didn't realise it was going to be this difficult.


Not all of the west are bigoted Christians, especially in Europe where most aren't.


I'm an Englishman. It happens, even in England. Even moreso in some other parts of Europe.


Show me extremist anti tattoo groups or anti piercing groups... in the west. I don't know a single person who is intolerant to any of those things.

I've been refused jobs on the basis of a tattoo or long hair. My wife has been refused work on the basis of a pierced lip.

I don't know where you arrived at "extremist anti tattoo groups"... that would imply the context was 'extremist anti-women groups'.

So? It still happens. And less than a hundred years ago we weren't that far from some of 'those' cultures.


As long as you agree then.


The same 'they' as in the sentence before. I didn't realise it was going to be this difficult.


The cultural norm was what you were referring to before, no "people" are behind that today.


I'm an Englishman. It happens, even in England. Even more so in some other parts of Europe.


Yes it happens, but it's minimal and is fairly trivial discrimination usually.


I've been refused jobs on the basis of a tattoo or long hair. My wife has been refused work on the basis of a pierced lip.


I think that's more to do with pragmatic stuff, like wanting to make the work place look "smart", or some other crap. I doubt the employer had any actual hatred for people with tattoos.


I don't know where you arrived at "extremist anti tattoo groups"... that would imply the context was 'extremist anti-women groups'.

Well I assumed that you were implying that our culture is no better then theirs.

Well I assumed that you were implying that our culture is no better then theirs.

I don't need to imply it. It's self-evident. A veneer of civility doesn't make us civilised.

Also.. what is the measure of bestness?

For me, at least, 'our culture' is so retrogressive and self-predatory, I find it hard to consider it 'above' or 'below' other models. It's a shadow of what it could (should?) be.

Indeed. Nor would your links be any proof that Islam is a "violent religion".

Good! then I'm sure we can count on the majority of Islamics to turn in the militant jihadists. Problem solved. Whew! I was concerned there for a while. Thought there might be a problem. Will sleep much more easily now.

I don't need to imply it. It's self-evident. A veneer of civility doesn't make us civilised.

Also.. what is the measure of bestness?

For me, at least, 'our culture' is so retrogressive and self-predatory, I find it hard to consider it 'above' or 'below' other models. It's a shadow of what it could (should?) be.

Pick any measure:

Human rights: we are better
Tolerance: we are better
Health: we are better
Technology: we are better
Economic equality/poverty: we are better

A secular country with a mixed economy will always win.

Pick any measure:

Human rights: we are better
Tolerance: we are better
Health: we are better
Technology: we are better
Economic equality/poverty: we are better


I could question some of these... example: the US GINI statistics show America to have an 'economic equality' in the sub-Saharan range.

But, since these are unsupported anyway, it seems a waste of energy to go looking for GINI figures for you.

Also - you realise how totally arbitrary these 'measures' are? One could look at how homogenous, how 'faithful', how adherent to a code... maybe even the longevity of the culture.

You pick the measures YOU like, which you present unsupported. Of course YOU consider 'your' culture to be better.


A secular country with a mixed economy will always win.

Even by NS standards, this is a pretty naive thing to say.

Their are some Islamic radical ideologies I approve of, here are some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran

I could question some of these... example: the US GINI statistics show America to have an 'economic equality' in the sub-Saharan range.

But, since these are unsupported anyway, it seems a waste of energy to go looking for GINI figures for you.

Also - you realise how totally arbitrary these 'measures' are? One could look at how homogenous, how 'faithful', how adherent to a code... maybe even the longevity of the culture.

You pick the measures YOU like, which you present unsupported. Of course YOU consider 'your' culture to be better.



Even by NS standards, this is a pretty naive thing to say.

Hydesland isn't from the US, he's in Britain.

Anyway, you mentioned that our culture is retrogressive and predatory. Are you referring to capitalism? I wouldn't say it's one of the better parts of our culture, myself, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

Additionally, while being refused a job because of a tattoo or pierced lip is fucked up, it's not quite the same as being discriminated against because one happens to be female. One chooses to get a tattoo or a piercing, knowing that some people probably aren't going to like it, but it's a bit different I think to be discriminated against for the sex one was born as.

Hydesland isn't from the US, he's in Britain.


And?

Is Britain not connected with 'western culture'? My mention of the US GINI statistics is because someone claimed - with a straight face, apparently - that 'western culture' leads to greater income equality. The US - as far as I know - can be referred to under the 'western culture' umbrella, and has the sort of income inequality one might expect for somewhere like the Sudan.


Anyway, you mentioned that our culture is retrogressive and predatory. Are you referring to capitalism? I wouldn't say it's one of the better parts of our culture, myself, but I'm not sure what you mean here.


I asn't really referring to capitalism, although our 'culture' is certainly informed by the capitalist/consumer culture. I was more thinking about the strong currents of ultraconservatism - both the US and UK have been guilty, in recent years - of 'moral' politics that attempt to reinvent a classic era that never actually existed. What it boils down to is stifling advance, opposing difference, and smothering dissent.


Additionally, while being refused a job because of a tattoo or pierced lip is fucked up, it's not quite the same as being discriminated against because one happens to be female. One chooses to get a tattoo or a piercing, knowing that some people probably aren't going to like it, but it's a bit different I think to be discriminated against for the sex one was born as.

So - discrimination is okay if you discriminate against choice?

So what has this thread degenerated into?

And?

Is Britain not connected with 'western culture'? My mention of the US GINI statistics is because someone claimed - with a straight face, apparently - that 'western culture' leads to greater income equality. The US - as far as I know - can be referred to under the 'western culture' umbrella, and has the sort of income inequality one might expect for somewhere like the Sudan.

True, the US has fairly bad income inequality. Though I find that my own country is often somewhat lacking in the good parts of western culture, all too often.

I asn't really referring to capitalism, although our 'culture' is certainly informed by the capitalist/consumer culture. I was more thinking about the strong currents of ultraconservatism - both the US and UK have been guilty, in recent years - of 'moral' politics that attempt to reinvent a classic era that never actually existed. What it boils down to is stifling advance, opposing difference, and smothering dissent.

'Moral' politics are quite repressive, in my opinion. I don't like it when my own government does it, and I don't like it when other governments pull the same sort of bullshit to an even greater degree.

So - discrimination is okay if you discriminate against choice?

Oh come on. In the very paragraph you're quoting, I mention that it's fucked up. You're not stupid, you didn't actually think that somehow when I said "fucked up," I meant it was perfectly "okay."

So what has this thread degenerated into?

Considering where it started, I think 'degenerated' would be (unlikely and) a matter of perspective.

Considering where it started, I think 'degenerated' would be (unlikely and) a matter of perspective.

I guess calling you a jerk would be a matter of perspective as well, no? ;)

I guess calling you a jerk would be a matter of perspective as well, no? ;)

No. It would just be stupid.

Recommended reading for anyone who might want to understand why radical Islam IS a threat to any country that doesn't embrace it fully. Sure, it's a bit one sided, but when you understand what she went through just to get out of Lebanon, you can see why she took that position. A scary book, indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358377

Recommended reading for anyone who might want to understand why radical Islam IS a threat to any country that doesn't embrace it fully. Sure, it's a bit one sided, but when you understand what she went through just to get out of Lebanon, you can see why she took that position. A scary book, indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358377


The most scary thing about it is the fact that people don't seem to realise that as a Maronite Christian, her mob were out there "death squadding" with the rest of them, and have and had a few militias of their own. Theres a great deal of muslim Lebanese who left there because of them too, you know....

Recommended reading for anyone who might want to understand why radical Islam IS a threat to any country that doesn't embrace it fully. Sure, it's a bit one sided, but when you understand what she went through just to get out of Lebanon, you can see why she took that position. A scary book, indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358377

If you want to learn about radical Islam...

I would rather read Jesica Stern "terror in the name of God" (read the whole book)

or "Globalized Islam" by Roy and "Jihad" by Kepel for a better understanding of political Islam...

Not some personal hard-life story....

Well, in all honesty Islam is a religion of peace. It just isn't peaceful. Now before you call me a hyporcrite or call Islam and Mohammed contradictory, realize that Islam calls for peace with the Infidels.

Of course, one of the convient things that they ignore is what kind of peace they want. There are many kinds of peace. The peace you have between yourself and a friend, the kind that exists between two equals who trust eachother. That's peace.

The peace between two strangers who don't know eachother but have no reason to quarrel. That's peace.

The peace between two enemies who know that fighting isn't right. That's peace.

The peace between two groups...say Japan and the US directly after WWII. The peace with millions dead, your homeland bombed into ashes, two nuclear weapons droped on your country and your nation occupied, government and emperor overthrown and the same people you attacked dictating just what your society is going to become...

Well, that's peace too. And that's the kind of peace that Islam calls for. Either you're a follower of Muhammed, you're dead, or you are a Dhimini (not sure on spelling). Dhimini is Islam's system of government of Christians and Jews, those who have heard the word of Allah's prophets, but not the word of the true prophet muhammed. In essence you are little more than a slave because of your religion within the Islamic cluture, this system led to the end of Zorastasism in the Middle East, and is the main reason for te general decimation of the once massive christian majorities in the Middle east.


So yes, Islam wishes for peace, but just remember that peace is a peace where you've either Muslim, Dhumini, or dead. They wish for the peace between a conqureror and the conqured not the peace between equals.

Well, in all honesty Islam is a religion of peace. It just isn't peaceful. Now before you call me a hyporcrite or call Islam and Mohammed contradictory, realize that Islam calls for peace with the Infidels.

Of course, one of the convient things that they ignore is what kind of peace they want. There are many kinds of peace. The peace you have between yourself and a friend, the kind that exists between two equals who trust eachother. That's peace.

The peace between two strangers who don't know eachother but have no reason to quarrel. That's peace.

The peace between two enemies who know that fighting isn't right. That's peace.

The peace between two groups...say Japan and the US directly after WWII. The peace with millions dead, your homeland bombed into ashes, two nuclear weapons droped on your country and your nation occupied, government and emperor overthrown and the same people you attacked dictating just what your society is going to become...

Well, that's peace too. And that's the kind of peace that Islam calls for. Either you're a follower of Muhammed, you're dead, or you are a Dhimini (not sure on spelling). Dhimini is Islam's system of government of Christians and Jews, those who have heard the word of Allah's prophets, but not the word of the true prophet muhammed. In essence you are little more than a slave because of your religion within the Islamic cluture, this system led to the end of Zorastasism in the Middle East, and is the main reason for te general decimation of the once massive christian majorities in the Middle east.


So yes, Islam wishes for peace, but just remember that peace is a peace where you've either Muslim, Dhumini, or dead. They wish for the peace between a conqureror and the conqured not the peace between equals.

Five years of studying Arabic, the Middle East, Islam, Muslim societies and political Islam and I still have not seen the they you people keep referring to.

You take the Qur'an and Hadith and then start to prescribe what muslims are and what they should and should not do.

When I see Islam I look at how the people see Islam and I see none of this warmongering... radicalism does exist, but it is just as rare among muslims as it is among other people.

Well, in all honesty Islam is a religion of peace. It just isn't peaceful. Now before you call me a hyporcrite or call Islam and Mohammed contradictory, realize that Islam calls for peace with the Infidels.

Of course, one of the convient things that they ignore is what kind of peace they want. There are many kinds of peace. The peace you have between yourself and a friend, the kind that exists between two equals who trust eachother. That's peace.

The peace between two strangers who don't know eachother but have no reason to quarrel. That's peace.

The peace between two enemies who know that fighting isn't right. That's peace.

The peace between two groups...say Japan and the US directly after WWII. The peace with millions dead, your homeland bombed into ashes, two nuclear weapons droped on your country and your nation occupied, government and emperor overthrown and the same people you attacked dictating just what your society is going to become...

Well, that's peace too. And that's the kind of peace that Islam calls for. Either you're a follower of Muhammed, you're dead, or you are a Dhimini (not sure on spelling). Dhimini is Islam's system of government of Christians and Jews, those who have heard the word of Allah's prophets, but not the word of the true prophet muhammed. In essence you are little more than a slave because of your religion within the Islamic cluture, this system led to the end of Zorastasism in the Middle East, and is the main reason for te general decimation of the once massive christian majorities in the Middle east.


So yes, Islam wishes for peace, but just remember that peace is a peace where you've either Muslim, Dhumini, or dead. They wish for the peace between a conqureror and the conqured not the peace between equals.
If I had a penny for every Evil Muslim Conspiracy I saw, and every idiot who thinks that 'they' have a homogeneous hive-mind, I'd unfortunately be a wealthy man...

If I had a penny for every Evil Muslim Conspiracy I saw, and every idiot who thinks that 'they' have a homogeneous hive-mind, I'd unfortunately be a wealthy man...

At that monetary rate, you'd have made Bill Gates look like a street corner beggar.

It's like someone once said on this forum, Jew-hating is a vile, unconscionable act but Muslim-hating is a high form of patriotism and selflessness.

I could question some of these... example: the US GINI statistics show America to have an 'economic equality' in the sub-Saharan range.


I don't live in the USA.


But, since these are unsupported anyway, it seems a waste of energy to go looking for GINI figures for you.


Unsupported? It's common sense.


Also - you realise how totally arbitrary these 'measures' are? One could look at how homogenous, how 'faithful', how adherent to a code... maybe even the longevity of the culture.


They are not arbitrary, human rights can be measured. The economy can be measured. Poverty is not relative.


You pick the measures YOU like, which you present unsupported. Of course YOU consider 'your' culture to be better.


I pick the measures everyone likes, like not being poor, disease ridden and oppressed.


Even by NS standards, this is a pretty naive thing to say.

No it isn't, it may sound flippant, but any country with a good secular government always excels in most categories.

I don't live in the USA.


Well done. At least you know which countries you don't live in. It's a start.

Relevence?


Unsupported? It's common sense.


The thing about 'common sense' is it is not that common... and it's rarely sense.

As for using 'common sense' as an excuse for not providing supporting evidence - especially when your 'argument' has already been shown to be wrong on at least one claim... well, it's just weak.


They are not arbitrary, human rights can be measured. The economy can be measured.


I don't think you understand my usage of the word 'arbitrary'.


Poverty is not relative.


You're on a roll, now. Even by NS standards, this is another pretty naive thing to say.


I pick the measures everyone likes, like not being poor, disease ridden and oppressed.


Those are the measures YOU like. "Being poor" would be irrelevent in a true communism, being "oppressed" would be irrelevent in a popular, benign dictatorship.

Some people think differently. Some would rather see everyone fed, clothed and housed than have 'western-style' (basically, that means carefully non-functional) 'democracy'.


No it isn't, it may sound flippant, but any country with a good secular government always excels in most categories.

If you tailor the categories to fit. I notice you already dropped the 'mixed-economy' bit, and added a 'good' qualifier.

Good! then I'm sure we can count on the majority of Islamics to turn in the militant jihadists. Problem solved. Whew! I was concerned there for a while. Thought there might be a problem. Will sleep much more easily now.
Turn them in to whom?

You seem to fail to realize the problem connected to the authoritarian governments in the countries that happen to be islamic. And that most militant islamic movements have as a goal to defeat the near enemy - i.e. the local governments of the islamic countries. Which is why countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are under attack by radicals. Only a very small minority is concerned with global jihad and a desire to wage war directly upon the west (the US).

So yeah. Remove the desire for them to fight against their own governments, and the militant jihad movement may die. Get a stable (democratic) and fair government in place, and you will sleep better at night.
Pick any measure:

Human rights: we are better
Tolerance: we are better
Health: we are better
Technology: we are better
Economic equality/poverty: we are better

A secular country with a mixed economy will always win.
Again: Who are "we"?
Five years of studying Arabic, the Middle East, Islam, Muslim societies and political Islam and I still have not seen the they you people keep referring to.

Indeed. Me neither.

I'm sorry... this was a while ago, but I just feel the need.

NEW TESTAMENT:

"And the city shall be accursed ... and all that therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot shall live." God explains that Rahab is to be spared since she hid Joshua's spies and lied to those who were searching for them (2:4-5). But why was everyone else killed? Some of them were probably liars too. Joshua 6:17

If you piss him off, God will cut off your arm, consume your eyes, grieve your heart, and kill your sons and grandfathers. 1 Samuel 2:31-34

God kills 50,070 men for looking into the ark. "And the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." 1 Samuel 6:19

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

You seem to forget the fact that both the Book of Joshua and 1 Samuel happen to be in the Old Testament.

As for any faith, I'd say that you should judge a person not on their faith, or any reason for that matter, other than their character as a person.

The reason why most countries with secular governments tend to succeed more often than faith-based governments is the fact that government is a secular institution. You cannot govern people of differing faiths with any degree of success when you have a different religion's values set into law.

By the way, the 'capitalism' you seem to refer to is probably laissez-faire capitalism. There is everything from socialized capitalism to authoritarian capitalism, take your pick.

Five years of studying Arabic, the Middle East, Islam, Muslim societies and political Islam and I still have not seen the they you people keep referring to.

You take the Qur'an and Hadith and then start to prescribe what muslims are and what they should and should not do.

When I see Islam I look at how the people see Islam and I see none of this warmongering... radicalism does exist, but it is just as rare among muslims as it is among other people.

Oh, just to be clear, I do take the Qur'an and prescribe it as to what Muslims are and what they should and shouldn't do because the Qur'an is the difinitive word of 'God' acording to Islam. The Bible, the Torah, those aren't the word of God, the Qur'an is the word of God acording to Islam. Acording to Muhammed it's the direct word of God, or didn't you notice that in the person to person conversational writing of the document?

Soooo moving on...what you're saying is that the Dhimini system of religous aparthied isn't a part of Qur'anic law? The the Qur'an dosen't forbid peace agreements with infidels unless the peace is only permitted for Muslims to rebuild their strenght and is to their advantage? That the Qur'an dosen't call for the world wide dominance of the Sharia?

So you're also saying that you haven't caught wind of all the other impoliteness that the religon encourages? You know, the killing homosexuals, the degredation and brutality against women, the equating of non-muslims as being the equal of dog feces and dead animals, the complete intolerance (read; eradication) of 'pagan' religons such as buddhism and taoism?

After five years you haven't noticed one or two of those points? Or the actions of the two most notable countries governed by Islamic Law? Iran and Saudi Arabia?

When I refer to 'they' I refer to Muslims that understand and practice their religon as it's stated in the Qur'an. That's one of those fundamental differnces between Islam and every other religon. The Qur'an can only be spoken and written in ancient arabic. Most people -Muslim or otherwise- aren't exactly well versed in the tounge. The Bible by contrast is perhaps the most translated book in the world, it's been read in thousands of different languages and dialects for thousands of years. Masses are spoken in the language of those who are attending the service, not in Latin. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, they can read their holy books, they can draw their own meanings from the texts and from the words within, they can consult their preists, rabbis, and what not for other interpretations.

The majority of non arab muslims learn to recite passages from the Qur'an, not read them.

You ever notice that christan radicals are the ones that break off to form their own peaceful sects, while it's the Islamic radicals that tend to crash jet liners into buildings?

-snip-

Ah, the "True Muslims Behead and Blow People Up" rant I've come to expect from the likes of Kimchi, New Mitanni and Rizzoinabox. Which of course likes to sidestep around the issue of countless other Muslims in the world who are polite and productive members of society with a No True Scotsman Fallacy the size of Fat Bastard.

:rolleyes:

Wikipedia: Islamic Reformation (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Reformation)

(Wiki should never really be used as evidence in a solid argument, but the link is to merely highlight that a movement calling for a Reformation in Islam actually does exist.)

Okay, let's make it clear. Islam is way fucking overdue for a Reformation to update it to modern times. And I bet you're going to argue that Reforming Islam in any shape or form is going to turn it into something that is not "True" Islam. Which is not only the same as saying the New Testament is complete bullshit, but it's also the exact same argument that Islamists are going to use to try and quash any attempts at Islamic Reformation.

Oh dear a rant...
Oh, just to be clear, I do take the Qur'an and prescribe it as to what Muslims are and what they should and shouldn't do because the Qur'an is the difinitive word of 'God' acording to Islam. The Bible, the Torah, those aren't the word of God, the Qur'an is the word of God acording to Islam. Acording to Muhammed it's the direct word of God, or didn't you notice that in the person to person conversational writing of the document?

It is correct that the Qur'an is believed the literal and definite word of God.

Soooo moving on...what you're saying is that the Dhimini system of religous aparthied isn't a part of Qur'anic law? The the Qur'an dosen't forbid peace agreements with infidels unless the peace is only permitted for Muslims to rebuild their strenght and is to their advantage? That the Qur'an dosen't call for the world wide dominance of the Sharia?

Second, There is no such thing as Qur'anic law... the dhimmi system cannot be part of it.. the Shari'a, or Islamic law, which is al about the interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith may have some things to say on matters of peace and war... As the Shari'a is all about the legal interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith and did not exist during the lifetime of the prophet, you may understand that it cannot call for "the world wide dominance of the Sharia."

So you're also saying that you haven't caught wind of all the other impoliteness that the religon encourages? You know, the killing homosexuals, the degredation and brutality against women, the equating of non-muslims as being the equal of dog feces and dead animals, the complete intolerance (read; eradication) of 'pagan' religons such as buddhism and taoism?

After five years you haven't noticed one or two of those points? Or the actions of the two most notable countries governed by Islamic Law? Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Yes there are indeed problems in those countries, but none of the extend you refer to. Homosexuality officially does not exist in Islamic societies. And women have a lot more influence in these countries than you might think. Especially in Iran, which I am more familiar with.

When I refer to 'they' I refer to Muslims that understand and practice their religon as it's stated in the Qur'an. That's one of those fundamental differnces between Islam and every other religon. The Qur'an can only be spoken and written in ancient arabic. Most people -Muslim or otherwise- aren't exactly well versed in the tounge. The Bible by contrast is perhaps the most translated book in the world, it's been read in thousands of different languages and dialects for thousands of years. Masses are spoken in the language of those who are attending the service, not in Latin. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, they can read their holy books, they can draw their own meanings from the texts and from the words within, they can consult their preists, rabbis, and what not for other interpretations.

There is the prescription....

You say what Muslims are and if they do not behave violently you do not consider them Muslim... I think that is a problem of your rigid thinking, not of Islam.

You say what Muslims are and if they do not behave violently you do not consider them Muslim... I think that is a problem of your rigid thinking, not of Islam.

Well I have stated my views, and you have stated yours. We both have our own interpretations of what which we have read and studied. In six years of study, Islam has yet to prove to me that it is the religion of peace that it claims to be. It's only proven to me that it's a faith built on lies, violence, and intolerance.

But perhaps beyond what the word says, one should place greater value on the actions rather than words? Maybe it is more telling that the most well known christian in recent history is Pope John Paul the II and the most well known muslim is Osama bin Laden?

But you certainly have your own reasons for you views, and I should hope that you respect that I have reasons for mine. I shall call this an end, good day.

The Qur'an can only be spoken and written in ancient arabic. Most people -Muslim or otherwise- aren't exactly well versed in the tounge. The Bible by contrast is perhaps the most translated book in the world, it's been read in thousands of different languages and dialects for thousands of years. Masses are spoken in the language of those who are attending the service, not in Latin. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, they can read their holy books, they can draw their own meanings from the texts and from the words within, they can consult their preists, rabbis, and what not for other interpretations.

Erm...few things here. "Ancient", which is actually formal, Arabic, while different than colloquial, can be understood on a basic level by most colloquial speakers, it seems to me. Aside from non-Arab Muslims, Muslims can understand the readings, assuming they actually speak Arabic. However, even ignoring that, there is a reason that the Quran has to be read aloud in Arabic. It derives from an extremely old poetic tradition that was prevalent in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Islam's creation.

This is actually not too dissimilar to Orthodox Jews, who generally do their prayer in Hebrew in the same singsong fashion. Hell, that's why Bar Mitzvahs are so humiliating. Having to "sing" the haftorah sucks when your voice is cracking all over the place.

I also want to point out that there are two very distinct sections of the Quran. You have the earlier Meccan suras, which are largely metaphysical in nature, and then you have the Medinan suras which, unsurprisingly, take place during the more politicized part of Islam's creation; these suras are very litigious in nature.

Also, take note that there are various teachings of the Quran. Broadly, Sunni Islam tends towards a more allegorical interpretation while, on the other hand, Shiite Islam tends towards a literal interpretation. Like I said, it's a broad generalization, but that's the gist of it. Islam, as has been stated, isn't some homogeneous hive mind, there are factions and sects within it, same as Christianity and Judaism.

But perhaps beyond what the word says, one should place greater value on the actions rather than words? Maybe it is more telling that the most well known christian in recent history is Pope John Paul the II and the most well known muslim is Osama bin Laden?

Damn, you must really hate Germans.

Damn, you must really hate Germans.

Yeah, the Holocaust does leave a bitter taste in the mouth, along with Nazism, and the Ba'ath party legacy. Falls under the catagory of 'marks that don't come off'.

Though that is a different discussion for a different thread.

Oh, ....into buildings?


Is there an academy people have to learn that crap off by heart....? Like a madrasa for islamophobes?

In six years of study, Islam has yet to prove to me that it is the religion of peace that it claims to be.
Islam claims to be a religion of peace? When and where does it do that, exactly?

It's only proven to me that it's a faith built on lies, violence, and intolerance.
Many people feel that way about many religions.


But perhaps beyond what the word says, one should place greater value on the actions rather than words? Maybe it is more telling that the most well known christian in recent history is Pope John Paul the II and the most well known muslim is Osama bin Laden?
Well known where? Your western bias is showing.

And damn, you're forgetting all about Muhammed Ali and Malcolm X.

...the Islamic radicals that tend to crash jet liners into buildings?

Happens a lot, does it?

Well done. At least you know which countries you don't live in. It's a start.


You are attacking the USA as if it were the prime example of the west, when it is actually probably the among the worst of the best, if you catch my drift. But you are pointing out problems of the same category and then equating the problems to be the same as those in the middle east. This is your logic:

person:"hey, my next door neighbour just killed his son, he is the worst neighbour ever because of those domestic problems"

you:"no, I shouted at my mother once! Therefore we also have domestic problems, thus we are just as bad as your neighbours!"

See the flaw?


The thing about 'common sense' is it is not that common... and it's rarely sense.


Maybe to people who think that some people might actually like being opressed, I guesse common sense wont make any sense.


As for using 'common sense' as an excuse for not providing supporting evidence - especially when your 'argument' has already been shown to be wrong on at least one claim... well, it's just weak.


I don't actually remember what you were asking me to offer support for.


I don't think you understand my usage of the word 'arbitrary'.


The measures I have chosen may not be objective universal measures, but they will be pretty much agreed upon by 99% of people.


You're on a roll, now. Even by NS standards, this is another pretty naive thing to say.

Those are the measures YOU like. "Being poor" would be irrelevent in a true communism

Ha! Poverty =/= JUST having no money. Poverty can include being without food and shelter, undesirable things for anyone who doesn't want to die a slow death.


being "oppressed" would be irrelevent in a popular, benign dictatorship.


It would be irrelevant to those supporting the oppression, but can you really say that it would be irrelevant to those with their human rights and dignity taken away?


Some people think differently. Some would rather see everyone fed, clothed and housed than have 'western-style' (basically, that means carefully non-functional) 'democracy'.


So far, 'western-style' democracy has succeeded at this much better then any other existing form of modern government.


If you tailor the categories to fit. I notice you already dropped the 'mixed-economy' bit, and added a 'good' qualifier.

I didn't 'drop' it, I still believe that (unfortunately for me) mixed economy governments have been the most successful so far. This doesn't mean I think it will always be better then any other style of government.

You are attacking the USA as if it were the prime example of the west, when it is actually probably the among the worst of the best, if you catch my drift. But you are pointing out problems of the same category and then equating the problems to be the same as those in the middle east. This is your logic:

person:"hey, my next door neighbour just killed his son, he is the worst neighbour ever because of those domestic problems"

you:"no, I shouted at my mother once! Therefore we also have domestic problems, thus we are just as bad as your neighbours!"

See the flaw?


Errr... what?

You presented a number of 'ways in which the west is best'. I picked one of the list and showed that the universal assumption doesn't hold true. That simple.

I have no idea what you are rambling about with your killing of sons and shouting at mothers.


Maybe to people who think that some people might actually like being opressed, I guesse common sense wont make any sense.


Errr... what?

Where did anyone say people might like being oppressed?

Your 'justification', as presented, was that somethings, for some peculiar reason only you know, are just 'common sense'.

I think that's pretty dumb. You could use the same argument to prove the world is flat.


I don't actually remember what you were asking me to offer support for.


Well, that's not my problem. The posts are there, all you would have had to do was back up a couple.

You provided some baseless assertions of how 'western culture is best'... but that's the problem - you left them as nothing but baseless assertions.

I could have simply copied-and-pasted the exact same list and said it was all the ways in which 'they' are better than 'us'... and you would have asked for evidence, no?


The measures I have chosen may not be objective universal measures, but they will be pretty much agreed upon by 99% of people.


Popularity doesn't stop a thing being arbitrary.

But, at least you finally saw the light. What you presented are not objective, universal measures.


Ha! Poverty =/= JUST having no money. Poverty can include being without food and shelter, undesirable things for anyone who doesn't want to die a slow death.


Errr... what?

I didn't say poverty was equal to having no money.

In a true communism, currency WOULD be irrelevent, but there is also no reason why anyone SHOULD be un-housed, un-clothed or un-fed, when the workers have equal access to the means of production, and thus (at least theoretically) no reason NOT to be equally advantaged.


It would be irrelevant to those supporting the oppression, but can you really say that it would be irrelevant to those with their human rights and dignity taken away?


Errr... what?

Again - I don't think you are understanding the terms... or my use of them.

In a benign dictatorship... why would anyone have their 'human rights' or dignity taken away?


So far, 'western-style' democracy has succeeded at this much better then any other existing form of modern government.


I disagree. I think limited dictatorships (such as the conventional military structure, or the model of a number of successful corporate models) have shown a strong tendency to provide for their 'citizens' much more thoroughly and ably than more 'democratic' models.


I didn't 'drop' it, I still believe that (unfortunately for me) mixed economy governments have been the most successful so far. This doesn't mean I think it will always be better then any other style of government.

Not dropped? So... you still claim that: "any country with a secular government and mixed-economy always excels in most categories"?

Errr... what?

You presented a number of 'ways in which the west is best'. I picked one of the list and showed that the universal assumption doesn't hold true. That simple.

I have no idea what you are rambling about with your killing of sons and shouting at mothers.


I was referring to your comments about how you have been denied jobs etc... and then indirectly applying that this shows that there is nothing better about the west. Also, you need to realise I am not talking in universals here, I am generalising.


Errr... what?

Where did anyone say people might like being oppressed?


You did, when you suggested that only to me is the measure of oppression legitimate.


Well, that's not my problem. The posts are there, all you would have had to do was back up a couple.

You provided some baseless assertions of how 'western culture is best'... but that's the problem - you left them as nothing but baseless assertions.


Why are you complaining about them being "baseless" when you seem to believe in cultural relativism, where nothing can be measured about a culture and thus supported. It's irrelevant to support whether the west has better human rights, since we are discussing whether such measures can be used to show one culture is better then another in the first place. This is a question of logic, not something that can be supported by evidence.


I could have simply copied-and-pasted the exact same list and said it was all the ways in which 'they' are better than 'us'... and you would have asked for evidence, no?


So you are asking for evidence of the extremely obvious? Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that people in say... Saudi Arabia are as wealthy, healthy and as free as people in say... Sweden? If you do not know, there is no point in continuing this debate. And don't complain about them being arbitrary, since you seem to be asking for support of those specific measures and not whether they are legitimate measures.


Popularity doesn't stop a thing being arbitrary.


No, but then almost everything is arbitrary and subjective. We have to start somewhere.


But, at least you finally saw the light. What you presented are not objective, universal measures.


See above.


Errr... what?

I didn't say poverty was equal to having no money.

In a true communism, currency WOULD be irrelevent, but there is also no reason why anyone SHOULD be un-housed, un-clothed or un-fed, when the workers have equal access to the means of production, and thus (at least theoretically) no reason NOT to be equally advantaged.


Ah, you seem to be assuming that I meant that mixed economy governments will always win, even against some future hypothetical communist utopia. I am referring to the fact that we are more successful then any other current government.


Errr... what?

Again - I don't think you are understanding the terms... or my use of them.

In a benign dictatorship... why would anyone have their 'human rights' or dignity taken away?


Again, see above.



Examples?

[QUOTE]
Not dropped? So... you still claim that: "any country with a secular government and mixed-economy always excels in most categories"?

Against any government thus far, yes. I didn't say any future government.

I was referring to your comments about how you have been denied jobs etc... and then indirectly applying that this shows that there is nothing better about the west. Also, you need to realise I am not talking in universals here, I am generalising.


If YOU applied my comments about 'denial of jobs'... to showing 'there is nothing better about the west'... well, that's your problem.

It has nothing to do with any argument I made.


You did, when you suggested that only to me is the measure of oppression legitimate.


It is an arbitrary factor. It is important to you - that doesn't mean it is a good measure.


Why are you complaining about them being "baseless" when you seem to believe in cultural relativism, where nothing can be measured about a culture and thus supported. It's irrelevant to support whether the west has better human rights, since we are discussing whether such measures can be used to show one culture is better then another in the first place. This is a question of logic, not something that can be supported by evidence.


I'm glad you admit that your argument cannot be supported by evidence.

I'd argue that it can't be discussed with 'logic', either... since there is no reason to assume the values you have listed are the 'important' ones.


No, but then almost everything is arbitrary and subjective. We have to start somewhere.


I disagree. If I am alive, that is not arbitrary and subjective with regard to the question of me being alive.

On the other hand - a question like 'which is the best culture' MUST be arbitrary AND subjective... unless you can find some common universal measure... which you haven't done.


Against any government thus far, yes. I didn't say any future government.

You said 'always'. Again - your grasp of the language seems to be hurting your case.

Well I have stated my views, and you have stated yours. We both have our own interpretations of what which we have read and studied. In six years of study, Islam has yet to prove to me that it is the religion of peace that it claims to be. It's only proven to me that it's a faith built on lies, violence, and intolerance.

But perhaps beyond what the word says, one should place greater value on the actions rather than words? Maybe it is more telling that the most well known christian in recent history is Pope John Paul the II and the most well known muslim is Osama bin Laden?

But you certainly have your own reasons for you views, and I should hope that you respect that I have reasons for mine. I shall call this an end, good day.
May I ask at what establishment did you study Islam? I myself have only five years of studying Arabic and Islam and my knowledge remains limited. All I can say that there is much more than that which meets the western Eye…Still, to me you do not show exceptional knowledge of Islam, nor do you offer any explanation apart from vague polemics.

As for the analogy, I would rather say the most well known Christian would currently be George.... would be a slightly better analogy.... For the Pope one might refer to the sheikh of al-azhar (http://www.alazhar.gov.eg)...

To conclude, your argument goes something like this:

Osama = Well known
&
Osama = Muslim (Islamic)
&
Osama = Violent

ergo

Islam = violent

Do you see the fallacy?

Ah, the "True Muslims Behead and Blow People Up" rant I've come to expect from the likes of Kimchi, New Mitanni and Rizzoinabox.

Keep my name out your mouth and off your keyboard, fool :p

If YOU applied my comments about 'denial of jobs'... to showing 'there is nothing better about the west'... well, that's your problem.

It has nothing to do with any argument I made.


So basically your post was pointless.


I'm glad you admit that your argument cannot be supported by evidence.


Nice way to spin it into your favour :rolleyes:


I'd argue that it can't be discussed with 'logic', either... since there is no reason to assume the values you have listed are the 'important' ones.


Yes there is, 99.99% of people will not like to be oppressed, therefore it is desirable for 99.99% of people to not be oppressed. If it is agreed upon that a better country is a country that doesn't oppress its peoples by 99.99% of people, that should make it a better measure to use then whether the leader prefers dogs or cats, for instance. Both measures are totally arbitrary, but arbitrary by no means = the same worth, otherwise intelligent design and evolution would actually have to be considered the same worth as well.


I disagree. If I am alive, that is not arbitrary and subjective with regard to the question of me being alive.


But that is about as far as you can get (hence the 'almost everything'), after all science is only based on senses.


On the other hand - a question like 'which is the best culture' MUST be arbitrary AND subjective... unless you can find some common universal measure... which you haven't done.


As soon as you came into the discussion claiming that the west is not better then the east, you already implied that such a question can be measured (i'm not saying it can). This is not unusual, debates are usually done under a basic set of standards/assertions to begin with, whether stated or not (such as, 'the universe is real' or 'such and such history did happen' etc..). Otherwise nothing could be debated, as no one would ever be able to support or prove anything. Don't come into debate acting as if such standards, in this case countries can be measured in worth, are true and then start complaining about such a question being arbitrary in the first place.


You said 'always'. Again - your grasp of the language seems to be hurting your case.

Yes, I know I said always. That doesn't change what I said:

"Pick any measure:

Human rights: we are better
Tolerance: we are better
Health: we are better
Technology: we are better
Economic equality/poverty: we are better

A secular country with a mixed economy will always win."

I didn't say we are better then any future government, I meant we will always win against the middle east, since that is what we were comparing.

So basically your post was pointless.


So - my post isn't the strawman argument you've decided you want it to be... as a consequence of which... my post is pointless?

An interesting a pproach to debate.


Nice way to spin it into your favour :rolleyes:


You haven't provided evidence. You've admitted your argument cannot be supported by evidence. I have cited at least one evidence (you can go to the CIA worldbook resource and compare GINI figures, if you like) that invalidates your argument on at least one point.

It isn't me spinning it into my favour.. it's that well known bias that reality has.


Yes there is, 99.99% of people will not like to be oppressed, therefore it is desirable for 99.99% of people to not be oppressed. If it is agreed upon that a better country is a country that doesn't oppress its peoples by 99.99% of people, that should make it a better measure to use then whether the leader prefers dogs or cats, for instance. Both measures are totally arbitrary, but arbitrary by no means = the same worth, otherwise intelligent design and evolution would actually have to be considered the same worth as well.


Except that evolution has evidence. You have none. ANd evolution is based on evidence, whereas you have flown directly in the face of evidence on at least one point, and presented mere 'common sense' as your justification for all.

Your story is the 'intelligent design' in this debate.

Interestingly, with all your talk of 'oppression' here... 'oppression' wasn't on your original list. Or anything I suggested. You've advanced your 'arbitrary' one step, and promoted it to 'irrelevent'.


But that is about as far as you can get (hence the 'almost everything'), after all science is only based on senses.


I don't know.... that would suggest that science is capricious and arbitrary as your little argument. It would suggest that 'science' doesn't habitually attemp to remove as much of the subjectivity and arbitrary vicissitude as possible.


As soon as you came into the discussion claiming that the west is not better then the east, you already implied that such a question can be measured (i'm not saying it can). This is not unusual, debates are usually done under a basic set of standards/assertions to begin with, whether stated or not (such as, 'the universe is real' or 'such and such history did happen' etc..). Otherwise nothing could be debated, as no one would ever be able to support or prove anything. Don't come into debate acting as if such standards, in this case countries can be measured in worth, are true and then start complaining about such a question being arbitrary in the first place.


Actually, I merely refuted your assertion that the 'west' IS better than the east. You created the scenario, all I did was question it.


Yes, I know I said always. That doesn't change what I said:

"Pick any measure:

Human rights: we are better
Tolerance: we are better
Health: we are better
Technology: we are better
Economic equality/poverty: we are better

A secular country with a mixed economy will always win."

I didn't say we are better then any future government, I meant we will always win against the middle east, since that is what we were comparing.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that what you meant, and what you said, are anything like related.

So - my post isn't the strawman
argument you've decided you want it to be... as a consequence of which... my post is pointless?

An interesting a pproach to debate.


You said that when you made that post it had nothing to do with what you were trying to argue, so what was the point of that post?


You haven't provided evidence.

There is no way I should have to, I asked you if you think the human rights of Saudi Arabia is the same as that of Sweden (which you conveniently ignored), if you actually do not think this is true THEN I will provide evidence that black =/= white.


You've admitted your argument cannot be supported by evidence.

When debated under the "but but but everything is arbitrary" standard, yes. But then NOTHING can have evidence under these standards. That was the fucking point I was trying to make, but again you take it completely out of context.


I have cited at least one evidence (you can go to the CIA worldbook resource and compare GINI figures, if you like) that invalidates your argument on at least one point.

It isn't me spinning it into my favour.. it's that well known bias that reality has.


I don't have the time to look for evidence you are supposed to be giving.


Except that evolution has evidence.

There you have it, you just agreed with me that ideas can have more weight then others despite being based on completely arbitrary concepts (science).


You have none. And evolution is based on evidence, whereas you have flown directly in the face of evidence on at least one point, and presented mere 'common sense' as your justification for all.

Your story is the 'intelligent design' in this debate.


I justified not PROVIDING evidence with the fact that it doesn't take half a brain to know that it is completely obvious, I didn't say there wasn't any. Just like if I were to say that water is h2o but not provide evidence of this because I assumed that you wouldn't have your head in the sand, you then say "this is not true because you haven't provided evidence", no all it means is that I haven't provided evidence yet. I still can't believe you complain about it being arbitrary, but still ask for evidence and argue as if it isn't arbitrary. That's like me saying "there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of God, but since you haven't proven him yet he does not exist".


Interestingly, with all your talk of 'oppression' here... 'oppression' wasn't on your original list. Or anything I suggested. You've advanced your 'arbitrary' one step, and promoted it to 'irrelevent'.


I said human rights, if there is no human rights the people are being oppressed. Nice try though.


I don't know.... that would suggest that science is capricious and arbitrary as your little argument. It would suggest that 'science' doesn't habitually attemp to remove as much of the subjectivity and arbitrary vicissitude as possible.


Science is based on the senses, that makes it ultimately completely subjective.


Actually, I merely refuted your assertion that the 'west' IS better than the east. You created the scenario, all I did was question it.


Yes, and as soon as you argue back and say it isn't or they don't seem any better (which you did), you are going against any notion that the question is arbitrary in the first place, so you have no right to THEN whine about it being arbitrary.


Don't make the mistake of assuming that what you meant, and what you said, are anything like related.

I find it hilarious that you claim to know what I really mean better then I do. Of course that is what I said and I have admitted that it may not win against every future government in this thread already. I don't even like mixed economy governments idealistically.

You said that when you made that post it had nothing to do with what you were trying to argue, so what was the point of that post?


You have confused two different responses to two different parts of your posts... as though they were directly connected.

It is not that what I wrote has nthing to do with what I was trying to argue.. it is more that you seem to be unable to work out which posts/parts of posts respond to which of your points.


There is no way I should have to, I asked you if you think the human rights of Saudi Arabia is the same as that of Sweden (which you conveniently ignored), if you actually do not think this is true THEN I will provide evidence that black =/= white.


I ignored it because it is nonsensical.


I don't have the time to look for evidence you are supposed to be giving.


You want me to hunt down GINI stats? Sure.

Then you'll admit that the evidence makes your argument a lie, and we can actually get to you 'proving' your baseless assertions?

"The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2172

US GINI index: 45 ('sub-saharan' would be 50)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html


There you have it, you just agreed with me that ideas can have more weight then others despite being based on completely arbitrary concepts (science).


How is science 'arbitrary'?

Evidence carries more weight than no-evidence, sure. That's because we are using a logical process, and it requires data.


I justified not PROVIDING evidence with the fact that it doesn't take half a brain to know that it is completely obvious, I didn't say there wasn't any. Just like if I were to say that water is h2o but not provide evidence of this because I assumed that you wouldn't have your head in the sand, you then say "this is not true because you haven't provided evidence", no all it means is that I haven't provided evidence yet. I still can't believe you complain about it being arbitrary, but still ask for evidence and argue as if it isn't arbitrary. That's like me saying "there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of God, but since you haven't proven him yet he does not exist".


Water isn't h20. (Especially not that, but it is also not H2O, or H2O)

Unless it is absolutely pure, even then, from a purely scientific viewpoint, that could only really be true on a molecular level...


I said human rights, if there is no human rights the people are being oppressed. Nice try though.


I disagree. I think 'oppression' requires more than a scarcity of 'human rights'... especially when you use such nebulous terms. If you live in a non-democratic society, you lack the 'right' to vote for your government (perhaps)... does that mean you are 'oppressed'?


Science is based on the senses, that makes it ultimately completely subjective.


No, it really doesn't. The methodology is verifiable by other 'subjective' creatures.


Yes, and as soon as you argue back and say it isn't or they don't seem any better (which you did), you are going against any notion that the question is arbitrary in the first place, so you have no right to THEN whine about it being arbitrary.


Don't be silly. If one of my complaints is the arbitrary nature, of COURSE I can 'whine' about it being arbitrary.


I find it hilarious that you claim to know what I really mean better then I do. Of course that is what I said and I have admitted that it may not win against every future government in this thread already. I don't even like mixed economy governments idealistically.

I didn't claim to know what you MEAN better than you. But, apparently, I know what you SAID better.