NationStates Jolt Archive

Since some posters on NSG still argue that Islam incourages terrorism, it should be interesting to see that a group of Muslim scholars in India hold the opposite view.

An influential group of Muslim theologians in India have denounced terrorism, saying it is completely against the teachings of Islam.

Their statements were made at a meeting held at the Darul-Uloom Deoband, a powerful Islamic school more than 150 years old.

Scholars from 6,000 religious schools attended the meeting.

The Deoband school promotes a brand of Islam which some say was an inspiration to Afghanistan's Taleban.

The school has always denied this.

Opening the conclave the head of the Deoband school, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, described terrorism as a thoughtless act which is against the teachings of Islam.

He said that the killing of innocent people of any religion was prohibited by the Koran, the Muslim Holy Book.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7262283.stm

And so the debate will continue.

I've researched a few religious texts, none of them advocate violence. Only through the deliberate misinterpretation of these documents can one believe they advocate violence. It's far past time for people to understand this.

"To kill someone is as if you killed everyone, and to save someone is as if you saved everyone." -- the koran.

I've researched a few religious texts, none of them advocate violence. Only through the deliberate misinterpretation of these documents can one believe they advocate violence. It's far past time for people to understand this.

Just like the Bible can be fairly interpreted to subjugate women and justify slavery, the Koran can be interpreted to sanction violence without having to do too many mental backflips.

The problem, though, is not with the religion itself; the problem comes from trying to keep a 1400 year old text relevant in the modern world.

What we need to understand is that so long as we keep making excuses for the mental laziness that religion allows, we will continue to have problems with religious extremism and violence. We need to stop coddling the irrational beliefs of the world and start pointing out that religion isn't the benevolent force in the world that the faithful would like it to be.

Don't get me wrong: it is good that these "scholars" are speaking out against terrorism and violence. That doesn't give a free pass to the religion, though.

Just like the Bible can be fairly interpreted to subjugate women and justify slavery, the Koran can be interpreted to sanction violence without having to do too many mental backflips.

The problem, though, is not with the religion itself; the problem comes from trying to keep a 1400 year old text relevant in the modern world.

What we need to understand is that so long as we keep making excuses for the mental laziness that religion allows, we will continue to have problems with religious extremism and violence. We need to stop coddling the irrational beliefs of the world and start pointing out that religion isn't the benevolent force in the world that the faithful would like it to be.

Amen for your post! And for those who'd like to sharpen your claws in regards to this debate, check the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Koran
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/
http://www.searchtruth.com/
http://www.quran.net/

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/innocent-muslims-are-always-targetted-darululoom/59793-3.html
Deobandis don't admit it but there was political and administrative pressure on the Dar-ul-Uloom.

As Jamait-e-Ulema Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani says, “Everytime there is a bomb blast, innocent Muslims are suspected. We had to do this to clear our name.”

Deobandis have also been worried by growing incidence of terror even in Uttar Pradesh.

lol...when it is too close to home (Deoband is in Uttar Pradesh)...the Deobandis have come out to publicly denounce terrorism.

But the leaned moulana still has to indulge in some spin..

“Both terrorism and the state's treatment of innocent Muslims ought to be condemned strongly,” stated the seminary’s Vice-Chancellor, Maulana Karim Mohammad Usman.

This will hopefully help reduce the number of ignorant fucktards that harp the "Islam is ebil and must be annihilated" line. I've never gotten an answer about how they are going to do this that didn't involve genocide.

Moderate Muslim scholars are made of win.

What difference does it make?

The loons with bombs on the tube will still try to detonate themselves.

And there's the fact that people will still leave a tube carriage if they spot a Koran and a Backpack.

Shit don't know aboutthat I see many Muslims reading their Koran on my daily commute to and from work.

What difference does it make?

The loons with bombs on the tube will still try to detonate themselves.

See? Makes no difference whatsoever when the sane guys speaks.

Meh! Then again, I trap myself generalizing that all the rest of the world thinks like this. Bad me...

And there's the fact that people will still leave a tube carriage if they spot a Koran and a Backpack.

I have said this before and I say it again the majority of Muslims are just as afraid of terrorists as anyone else. I speak from personal knowledge, my wife is a Muslim and I am not.

I would get out of a train if I was sure there were a terrorist in my carraige.

Just like the Bible can be fairly interpreted to subjugate women and justify slavery, the Koran can be interpreted to sanction violence without having to do too many mental backflips.

The problem, though, is not with the religion itself; the problem comes from trying to keep a 1400 year old text relevant in the modern world.

What we need to understand is that so long as we keep making excuses for the mental laziness that religion allows, we will continue to have problems with religious extremism and violence. We need to stop coddling the irrational beliefs of the world and start pointing out that religion isn't the benevolent force in the world that the faithful would like it to be.

Don't get me wrong: it is good that these "scholars" are speaking out against terrorism and violence. That doesn't give a free pass to the religion, though.

^^What he/she said.

Yeah if I saw a Christian at the Olympics, at an abortion clinic or in front of a government building with a Bible in his backpack I would run like hell. :rolleyes:

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/innocent-muslims-are-always-targetted-darululoom/59793-3.html

lol...when it is too close to home (Deoband is in Uttar Pradesh)...the Deobandis have come out to publicly denounce terrorism.

But the leaned moulana still has to indulge in some spin..
You left out a telling quote "This is the first time a formal declaration distancing Islam from terrorism been made from such an important Islamic platform."

And there's the fact that people will still leave a tube carriage if they spot a Koran and a Backpack.

If only stupidity and ignorance were crimes.

Damn.

Yeah if I saw a Christian at the Olympics, at an abortion clinic or in front of a government building with a Bible in his backpack I would run like hell. :rolleyes:

Or any geeky looking white or asian kids at a college. ...That's a lot of running. :eek:

You left out a telling quote "This is the first time a formal declaration distancing Islam from terrorism been made from such an important Islamic platform."

It maybe a first for Deobandis, but I know that Shias of India have come out openly against terrorism. In fact, Shias broke away from the All India Muslim board to form the All India Shia Muslim board citing the differences with the Indian Sunni Muslim community and one of them being "no shia has committed terrorism in this country".

There has been some acts of terrorism against Muslims themselves recently, the Malegaon mosque and the Mecca masjid and one averted one in Jumma Masjid. Maybe those incidents are pushing Darul Uloom to speak out. Plus the increasing incidents of Indian muslims being apprehended for terror plots...is putting a lot of focus on the Islamic institutions. In the past week, a software engineer was arrested in Bangalore for planning attacks...he was also the head of SIMI (Karnataka branch)- a banned jihadi org of India having ties to Deoband.

I am not against these kind of public posturings....they serve an important purpose..it is all part of a civil debate..but I don't like the way one of the moulana linking allged govt handling of 'innocent muslims' with real acts of terrorism. Sure there have been police misuse of authority but that in no way matches the scale / degreeof islamist terror incidents and should not be used to justify these attacks. That is just so stupid in so many levels...and it would also give leeway to hindu groups that they too are retaliating.

Or any geeky looking white or asian kids at a college. ...That's a lot of running. :eek:

We should all be very afraid.

There's danger EVERYWHERE?

I am not against these kind of public posturings....they serve an important purpose.
QFT

I am starting to get extremely skeptical of the apparent existence of this force of people on NSG who allegedly say that "all Muslims are evil and support terrorism", I have never seen a single person on NSG say this or something similar. There is a small portion of people who state that the Quran supports terrorism, but this is hardly surprising. To say that the Quran is that clear cut is ludacris, the Quran like the Bible is incredibly vague and contradictory. Many Christian scholars state explicitly that the Bible is not homophobic, yet many on NSG state explicitly that it is and are rarely decried for it, are these people also 'ignorant fucktards' for not sharing the same interpretation as the Christian scholars?

I am starting to get extremely skeptical of the apparent existence of this force of people on NSG who allegedly say that "all Muslims are evil and support terrorism", I have never seen a single person on NSG say this or something similar.

Now I know you were around in Deep Kimchi's heyday . . .

I am starting to get extremely skeptical of the apparent existence of this force of people on NSG who allegedly say that "all Muslims are evil and support terrorism", I have never seen a single person on NSG say this or something similar. There is a small portion of people who state that the Quran supports terrorism, but this is hardly surprising. To say that the Quran is that clear cut is ludacris, the Quran like the Bible is incredibly vague and contradictory. Many Christian scholars state explicitly that the Bible is not homophobic, yet many on NSG state explicitly that it is and are rarely decried for it, are these people also 'ignorant fucktards' for not sharing the same interpretation as the Christian scholars?

Saying and sutbly implying are different.

Now I know you were around in Deep Kimchi's heyday . . .

Yeah but I am pretty sure that he was a troll, but even he didn't actually say that he thought all Muslims were supported terrorism. He supported a possible policy of extreme segregation of Muslim people, as a means to an end to secure the security of the country and because he thought that an unacceptable amount were supporters and possible terrorists, not that he thought they were all inherently supporters of communism just for being Muslim.

Ah, rational thought, soon to be dismissed as the thoughts of infidels getting cozy with the west. That voice of moderation will soon be drowned out by the eternal cries of those who take the word literally.

Now I know you were around in Deep Kimchi's heyday . . .


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=845218
Deep Kimchi
Honorary Spam Forum Owner

Last Activity: 06-04-2007 8:48 AM


Isn't it time to let go of Deep Kimchi?

I am starting to get extremely skeptical of the apparent existence of this force of people on NSG who allegedly say that "all Muslims are evil and support terrorism", I have never seen a single person on NSG say this or something similar. There is a small portion of people who state that the Quran supports terrorism, but this is hardly surprising. To say that the Quran is that clear cut is ludacris, the Quran like the Bible is incredibly vague and contradictory. Many Christian scholars state explicitly that the Bible is not homophobic, yet many on NSG state explicitly that it is and are rarely decried for it, are these people also 'ignorant fucktards' for not sharing the same interpretation as the Christian scholars?

Very good point. Like the Bible, the Qur'an is rather contradictory, so some parts advocate violence while others condemn it. As I understand it this is primarily split between the more peaceful 'early Meccan suras' when Mohammed was primarily a preacher and could afford to be fairly idealistic, and the 'later Medinan suras' when he was a chieftain and general who couldn't afford to be anything but pragmatic and hard-nosed, but I don't know much about the Qur'an so I could be completely wrong here.

Yeah but I am pretty sure that he was a troll, but even he didn't actually say that he thought all Muslims were supported terrorism. He supported a possible policy of extreme segregation of Muslim people, as a means to an end to secure the security of the country and because he thought that an unacceptable amount were supporters and possible terrorists, not that he thought they were all inherently supporters of communism just for being Muslim.

He wanted to kill every single Muslim on earth with biological weaponry. That's not segregation.

Islam does not condone terrorism. The radical perversion of Islam condones terrorism, just as Christianity does not condone bombing of abortion clinics, or harrassment and murder of homosexuals, the radical perversion of Chirstianity condones bombing abortion clincs and murdering homosexuals.

Islam does not condone terrorism. The radical perversion of Islam condones terrorism, just as Christianity does not condone bombing of abortion clinics, or harrassment and murder of homosexuals, the radical perversion of Chirstianity condones bombing abortion clincs and murdering homosexuals.

I'm sure terrorism isn't explicitly spelled out in the koran, but you can damned well believe that people can find easy justification for their blood-lusts within the pages of that book. You're a bit off on the bible, though. If you turn to the book of Leviticus, oh around 20:13, you'll find that if a man does the nasty with another man, he shall surely be put to death.

The justifications for killing those who don't follow the rules of your own particular cult run rampant through the books of the children of abraham. You can practice the religion if you want to... that is your right. Just be sure you don't selectively ignore the inconvenient passages because they make you uncomfortable.

But everyone ignores SOME stuff.
Or are you going to tell me that there are Christians who think shrimp is an abomination, kill people for working on the sabbath, and sacrifice animals to God?
'Cause that's all in there. I wish someone'd cut it out, but it's still in there.

I'm sure terrorism isn't explicitly spelled out in the koran, but you can damned well believe that people can find easy justification for their blood-lusts within the pages of that book. You're a bit off on the bible, though. If you turn to the book of Leviticus, oh around 20:13, you'll find that if a man does the nasty with another man, he shall surely be put to death.

The justifications for killing those who don't follow the rules of your own particular cult run rampant through the books of the children of abraham. You can practice the religion if you want to... that is your right. Just be sure you don't selectively ignore the inconvenient passages because they make you uncomfortable.



Leviticus is in the Old Testament. It is a history of the laws of the era and the priestly duties of Hebrew rabbis. Which is nothing more than a history of Judeaism. These are laws that once were, not laws that are followed today.

It is not the laws of Christianity at all. The laws and teachings are in the New Testament and you will not find that statement there. There is no passage in the New Testament that refers to death for homosexuality.

It isn't a matter of selectively ignoring anything.

All religious texts seem nasty and violent to me, even if they also say they promote peace. They tell stories that depict violence as a reasonable solution to things, as long as the violence comes from the right source. Buddhist texts seem pretty tame though, and the Taoist things I've read seem too vague to be violent.

Decrying terrorism is great, but they need to get to work stopping it by stamping out any forays it makes in to mainstream Islam. It's no different than a Christian church eradicating its own extremists and pushing them so far out of the mainstream that they are impotent and incapable of much real action.

He wanted to kill every single Muslim on earth with biological weaponry. That's not segregation.

You don't do it like that, you round up all the ones in western countries, put them on all the old ships that aren't used anymore or are soon to be retired, you pack the holds tight, you lock them in, you take the ships out over the deepest trenches of the ocean, the crews evacuate and then sink them. Cheap, easy and relatively humane considering it's genocide.

As for the middle east and other muslim countries... build some sort of nukeproof dome around Israel and the places in south asia that aren't muslim, and then... NUKES

Gee. That's funny. You're so funny. Can I hear some of your other routines, like How To Lynch Black People, or The Best Way to Kill A Few Million Jews? Those would be equally full of hilarity and good-natured mirth.

No I have no problem with Jews or Blacks. That wasn't just for Muslims, any group can use it against any other group. I was just throwin it out there.

You need to lighten up. Don't take shit so seriously

Since some posters on NSG still argue that Islam incourages terrorism, it should be interesting to see that a group of Muslim scholars in India hold the opposite view.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7262283.stm

And so the debate will continue.

The Free Minds Alliance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546840&highlight=Free+Minds+Alliance) should be instated in RL.

but but but if they have really said this, that means they're normal, just like you and I. It means I'd have to think of Muslims as human beings and not the substandard evil Western-hating terrorist scum FOX has told me they are.
This is all too confusing.

You don't do it like that, you round up all the ones in western countries, put them on all the old ships that aren't used anymore or are soon to be retired, you pack the holds tight, you lock them in, you take the ships out over the deepest trenches of the ocean, the crews evacuate and then sink them. Cheap, easy and relatively humane considering it's genocide.

As for the middle east and other muslim countries... build some sort of nukeproof dome around Israel and the places in south asia that aren't muslim, and then... NUKES

Gee. That's funny. You're so funny. Can I hear some of your other routines, like How To Lynch Black People, or The Best Way to Kill A Few Million Jews? Those would be equally full of hilarity and good-natured mirth.

The justifications for killing those who don't follow the rules of your own particular cult run rampant through the books of the children of abraham. You can practice the religion if you want to... that is your right. Just be sure you don't selectively ignore the inconvenient passages because they make you uncomfortable.

LoL, so every good christian, muslim and jew should be out killing gays, stoning those who work on the sabbath, killing "pagans and heretics" and generally being dicks to everyone?

No I have no problem with Jews or Blacks.

Woo! missed the point there, didn't you? See, I was likening your dislike of Muslims (to the point of a rather unfunny how-to manual on genocide) to a dislike of Jews or Blacks. As such, I wasn't actually accusing you of disliking Jews or Blacks, but merely pointing out how exhibiting the same repulsive, vicarious sadism and callous disregard for human life as you is what makes Jew-, Black- OR Muslim-hating all pretty much the same thing.

You need to lighten up. Don't take shit so seriously

Yeah whatever. If I posted what you did but replaced references to Muslims with references to Jews, I'd be forumbanned. But Muslim-hating is PC still. That's what disgusts me the most. That people like you still think this shit is funny and cool to mention whenever the need arises. And it seems to arise with about the spontaneity of teenage erections but that has got to be some sort of coincidence.

All religious texts seem nasty and violent to me, even if they also say they promote peace. They tell stories that depict violence as a reasonable solution to things, as long as the violence comes from the right source. Buddhist texts seem pretty tame though, and the Taoist things I've read seem too vague to be violent.

Taoism isn't all that vague, IMO. It's a very peaceful, laid-back religion, which is why it's been my belief system of choice for over a year now.

http://www.taopage.org/

If you don't mind reading books that are slightly "pop-psch"-y, I recommend The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet by Benjamin Hoff.

But everyone ignores SOME stuff.
Or are you going to tell me that there are Christians who think shrimp is an abomination, kill people for working on the sabbath, and sacrifice animals to God?
'Cause that's all in there. I wish someone'd cut it out, but it's still in there.

What I'm about to say is irrelevant to the topic, so I apologise in advance. Christianity does not involve the law of the 1st 5 books of the bible. The Jews however, are required to fulfil this law, since their messiah hasn't come. Christians believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of the law, meaning he was perfect in the sight of God, and validating his sacrifice on the cross, lifting us from the burden of fulfilling Old Testament Law.
Jews=Law; salvation is earned. Christians=Grace; salvation is a gift which cannot be earned.
We keep it there because the narratives in the Old Testament are valuable to learning about God and human nature. And we keep it there to remind us how impossible the law was for sinful man.Majority of Christians base their lives on the New Testament teachings.
Okay, sorry, back to the debate.

The Bible and the Koran aren't that different - they both pretty much say God likes it when you kill people with different beliefs. Not surprising that extremists of all three religions of the book take this literally.

It doesn't matter how often muslims speak out against terrorism, the right will always be "waiting" to hear muslims speak out against terrorism. Even some otherwise very liberal friends of mine rail about the lack of condemnation of violence in Islam. I've been seeing it since Sept. 12, 2001, though, so I can only conclude that people don't hear about it because they don't really want to.

LoL, so every good christian, muslim and jew should be out killing gays, stoning those who work on the sabbath, killing "pagans and heretics" and generally being dicks to everyone?

No, they should stop believing in fairy tales just like they stopped believing in santa claus. The point is that the book is 2000 years old and not written for a modern audience.

We all learn greek and roman mythology in grade school and we find the stories amusing but we never really entertain the idea that they could be real. The same should be true of the bible.

The Deoband school, following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence (long recognized as the oldest and most tolerant of the four schools of Sunni Islam) and Sufic practices, has generally denied violence. During the Soviet-Afghan War, they lent much support to the Mujahideen, who engaged in activities that could be labeled as terrorism. Just depends on which side you are on, really.
In his book 'Taliban,' Ahmed Rashid looks at the Deoband way of thinking (not neccessarily what the school is publicly saying) and how it has influenced the region, including the Taliban, whose beliefs are largely a mix of radical Wahhabi and compatible Deoband ideas that took root, mostly among the Pashtun tribes, during the S-A War. Vali Nasr also looks at the Deoband movement in 'The Shia Revival,' examining it as a reactionary movement to strengthen Indian Islam against British colonial practice. While the institution itself has made proclamations of non-violence or anti-terrorism in the past, undoubtedly some (or many, who really knows?) of its members do not neccessarily follow the practice. It makes a hazy line between the statements an institution makes vs. what its teachings may encourage.

Then again, scholars usually aren't the ones who go out and kill others or advocate doing so (yes, there are exceptions. Ibn Taymiyyah comes to mind prominently, and more recently Said Qutb and Abdullah Yussef Azzam.) I wish that moderates would go out and kill extremists because extremists have no problem killing them.

Islam is a large, mature, multifaceted, largely contradictory in practice (like other religions,) religious/social movement. It's relatively easy to find one group among the scholarly community preaching non-violence, modernization, and tolerance, and find another group of scholars preaching the exact opposite. We can't really find answers about Islam as a whole because of this, rather just what certain groups thought at certain times in certain places.

Islam is a large, mature, multifaceted, largely contradictory in practice (like other religions,) religious/social movement. It's relatively easy to find one group among the scholarly community preaching non-violence, modernization, and tolerance, and find another group of scholars preaching the exact opposite. We can't really find answers about Islam as a whole because of this, rather just what certain groups thought at certain times in certain places.

Exactly. This applies to both the "Islam is evil" argument and "Islam is a religion of peace" argument.

A step in the right direction obviously, but I want to see results before we come to any conclusions.

What I'm about to say is irrelevant to the topic, so I apologise in advance. Christianity does not involve the law of the 1st 5 books of the bible. The Jews however, are required to fulfil this law, since their messiah hasn't come. Christians believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of the law, meaning he was perfect in the sight of God, and validating his sacrifice on the cross, lifting us from the burden of fulfilling Old Testament Law.
Jews=Law; salvation is earned. Christians=Grace; salvation is a gift which cannot be earned.
We keep it there because the narratives in the Old Testament are valuable to learning about God and human nature. And we keep it there to remind us how impossible the law was for sinful man.Majority of Christians base their lives on the New Testament teachings.
Okay, sorry, back to the debate.

In theory that's true.
But there are two problems with it:
1) There are a lot of Christians that use parts of the OT to justify there own prejudices. I was pointing out that if you keep one part of the OT you've got to keep all of it.
2) The reverse of that: So it's OK to murder now? (Note: In the sense that God won't get mad at you.) Because as horrible as a lot of the OT is, some of it is laws that God would be insane not to enforce.

I've been trying to say for a long long time that just because the terrorists in question are Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. I've met a few people from that religion who were very friendly people. Of course no religion can say "Everyone who belongs to me is nice!" just as none can say "Everyone who belongs to me is evil!", I'm just saying people should stop talking like if you're Muslim you must clearly wake up every morning wondering how many infidels you can blow up by breakfast.

Yeah but I am pretty sure that he was a troll, but even he didn't actually say that he thought all Muslims were supported terrorism. He supported a possible policy of extreme segregation of Muslim people, as a means to an end to secure the security of the country and because he thought that an unacceptable amount were supporters and possible terrorists, not that he thought they were all inherently supporters of communism just for being Muslim.

Freudian slip? =)

Another interesting development

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts
...The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith...

Exactly. This applies to both the "Islam is evil" argument and "Islam is a religion of peace" argument.

That is what I said...

Leviticus is in the Old Testament. It is a history of the laws of the era and the priestly duties of Hebrew rabbis. Which is nothing more than a history of Judeaism. These are laws that once were, not laws that are followed today.

It is not the laws of Christianity at all. The laws and teachings are in the New Testament and you will not find that statement there. There is no passage in the New Testament that refers to death for homosexuality.

It isn't a matter of selectively ignoring anything.



So what about that part where Jesus says the stories of the Old Testament are true and that the laws of the Old Testament are still valid?


No matter how you look at it, the Bible is violent, pro-slavery (some of that in the NT too!) pro-genocide, and contradictory, and ignoring the violent and hateful parts IS selectively ignoring, no matter how Christians like to spin it.


Fess up and take responsibility for your damn holy book.

And there's the fact that people will still leave a tube carriage if they spot a Koran and a Backpack.

Hehe. I suppose I may have made people leave my presence by carrying a Koran and a backpack, then. Never really thought about it before.

I did intentionally carry my (English translation) Koran into an airport, and no one said anything to me.

In theory that's true.
But there are two problems with it:
1) There are a lot of Christians that use parts of the OT to justify there own prejudices. I was pointing out that if you keep one part of the OT you've got to keep all of it.
2) The reverse of that: So it's OK to murder now? (Note: In the sense that God won't get mad at you.) Because as horrible as a lot of the OT is, some of it is laws that God would be insane not to enforce.

In regards to christians using the Old Testament to justify prejudices...its very unfortunate. Seeing as the whole point of it was to point out they CAN'T keep it....making judging others for doing the same thing, crazy. So I completely agree with you. And its really frustrating that people do it. No wonder most people hate christianity so much.
But I don't agree with the 2nd bit of what you've said. Sin is still sin. Its just that now, if someone is genuinely sorry and repents, they're forgiven. And the NT enforces a lot of the OT rules with 2 new commandments, Love God and love each other. If you love someone, you're not going to murder them etc.

"To kill someone is as if you killed everyone, and to save someone is as if you saved everyone." -- the koran.

sry, no such verse.

"To kill someone is as if you killed everyone, and to save someone is as if you saved everyone." -- the koran.

REALLY!

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
:upyours:

REALLY!

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
:upyours:

okay chill! wat i mean is there's no exact word for word fr south lorenya.
the quote you gave is i believe from 191.

true if u read just 191 it may suggest the quran advocating mindless violence (which i believe terrorist justify for civilian bombings, etc).

but if u read fr 189 to 193, it says bout no being trangessors and not fighting the unarmed. this was telling about the conquest of mecca, and no one get killed, due to that war neways.

this is just pointless religion bashing.

What difference does it make?

The loons with bombs on the tube will still try to detonate themselves.
Out in the Real World it might make someone think twice before supporting terrorism.

On here, it's a thread to be brought up the next time someone says that "No muslims have ever condemned terrorism."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=845218

Isn't it time to let go of Deep Kimchi?
No.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1381057
Last Activity: 18-09-2007 2:03 AM

And besides, posters like him are still around. He's just a shining example.

Another interesting development

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Wow.. that's actually quite amazing what they're doing (and probably deserves a thread to itself). If this works, I feel it can only be a good thing and appears to be promoting a more moderate approach to religion reliant on metaphorical rather than literal interpretations of religious texts. Reminds me actually of another BBC article I read recently on "european islam", specifically looking at countries such as Albania and Bosnia who have high percentages of muslims (and have done so for hundreds of years) the majority of which have a more secular 'european' view /interpretation of the religion. Unfortunatly a search has failed to find the article (although I will continue).

I suspect this move is on the one hand an attempt to keep Turkey as a secular state and on the other an attempt to move closer to their ultimate goal of joining the EU.

Yes, we all know Islam is against the killing of innocent* people.

The fun begins when you see the asterisk after word innocent, read the footnotes, and see who gets defined as innocent and who does not.

And we all know terrorism is a perversion of Islam... but then why do terrorists never face blasphemy or apostasy charges in Islamic nations, the way pro-feminist writers do in Egypt? The obvious conclusion seems to be: terrorism is a perversion of Islam, but not nearly as much a perversion as something REALLY awful, like when Abu Zayd wrote that each generation of Muslims finds new meaning in the Koran in light of historical experiences. Abu Zayd said that ownership of slave girls was not permissible.

Now THAT was a perversion of Islam. The religious court couldn't accept that. For that, Abu Zayd was tried and convicted of apostasy. He was ordered to divorce his wife and fled into exile.


One day, terrorists will really be considered perverters of Islam, and then Islamic nations will treat them to apostasy trials, just like Mr. Zayd's, or the many others. Until then, the fact remains that at the level of the religious courts, claiming that Islam inspired you to blow up a school is not considered a perversion of Islam.

Yes, we all know Islam is against the killing of innocent* people.

The fun begins when you see the asterisk after word innocent, read the footnotes, and see who gets defined as innocent and who does not.


So its like the rest of the worlds religons then. You can complain about them when Bush, Cheney, Kissinger and Blair (to pick a few) get dragged off to a court. Till then....

On here, it's a thread to be brought up the first time someone says that "No muslims have ever condemned terrorism."

Fixed

So its like the rest of the worlds religons then. You can complain about them when Bush, Cheney, Kissinger and Blair (to pick a few) get dragged off to a court. Till then....

Till then, I'll complain about the ones with the wackjobs who want to kill me, thank you very much**, and broadly tolerate the others, as long as they aren't teaching superstition and myth in schools.

Even that is somewhat tolerable, as long as they aren't holding blasphemy trials for those that oppose them.

It's that whole issue of have trials and punishments (even executions!) for religious views. Barbaric in the extreme! Torture and Death, just for holding a contrary view of some guy who preached centuries ago! Only one religion does that today. Ignore it at your peril.

Thank Allah the Turkish government is taking a truly progressive step:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3448827.ece

Maybe it is the start of something good.

**(yes, I know, not all of them, but enough)

So religion is just bad huh?


What we need to understand is that so long as we keep making excuses for the mental laziness that religion allows, we will continue to have problems with religious extremism and violence. We need to stop coddling the irrational beliefs of the world and start pointing out that religion isn't the benevolent force in the world that the faithful would like it to be.


I take issue with this statement.

You want to eliminate religion from the world? Take a good, hard look at what you'd be doing.

Where does the overwhelming and vast majority of charity come from? Religious organizations of varying types. People who have a problem with religion like to minimize this fact but to do so is intellectually dishonest at best. Both domestic and international charity organizations provide food, shelter, medicine, housing and miscellaneous needs to millions. Who would do it if not the good religions of the world?

The Government? Yeah, right. If you believe that your faith in your Government is stronger than my faith in God.

I don't just mean long-term poverty relief either. Want an example? According to a documentary I watched on the History Channel last week... Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans. The Government of the United States completely drops the ball while tenns of thousands are left without basic needs and shelter. Where was FEMA? Where was the military? Picking their noses, someplace. Wanna guess who the first real organized relief came from? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One of those pesky world-ruining religions.

And that example is hardly atypical. Religious based relief services are in place all over the world and come from a variety of different religious faiths. They represent people who give freely of their time, money and effort (as opposed to taxes being taken from them). They represent people at their best. People who do for others and ask nothing in return. They're people who save lives and make a difference and despite differences in race, creed or politics they reach out and make the world a better place for it.

But I guess to you, that's a bunch of mental laziness. I wonder what, to you, is the ideal.

Thank Allah the Turkish government is taking a truly progressive step:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3448827.ece

Maybe it is the start of something good.



We'll start with that. Its not the Turkish government, its a group of muslim scholars. The Turkish Goverment is secular, has been since Ataturk, and is far too harsh on religon in many ways (which tends to be counter productive).

Fixed

Fail.

You are obviously new here. Or you've just forgotten about New Nordland, Deep Kimchi, Eve Online, DesignatedMarksman, New Mitanni, The Potato Factory...

2006 was an especially heavy year for such claims. You can do a search yourself - I'd start with Deep Kimchi who made lots of anti-muslim posts. Like this one, that I just stumbled upon (and it's not the one where he suggested that muslims should be wiped out using a biological weapon.)

Knock yourself out.


Not many Christians demanding conversion or death. Or threatening it, either.

Millions of Muslims, however.

So religion is just bad huh?

Chris Rock, as the 13th. apostle in ¨Dogma¨ said something I take to heart. And hey, I know Kevin Smith isn´t a versed source, but I find it brilliant that he was able to approach such a delicate subject without offending too many. Rufus, the 13th. apostle said that religion was a good idea turned bad by human hands. And I have to agree with him. The worst crimes in human history have been committed under the name of God, be Him, Yaweh, Allah, Odin or which ever god was worshiped by the empires in power.

Fail.

You are obviously new here.
Relatively new, but I've been here enough months to have been insulted by you a bunch of times, don't you recall?
Or you've just forgotten about New Nordland, Deep Kimchi, Eve Online, DesignatedMarksman, New Mitanni, The Potato Factory...
Have never encountered any of them, except New Mitanni, whom I do not particularly care for, but have not seen making the particular claim you ascribe to him.
2006 was an especially heavy year for such claims.
Well, that was quite some time ago now. Maybe you should consider getting on with life?
You can do a search yourself
Why?

REALLY!

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
:upyours:

Really.

(2:190) Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.


In other words, it is saying to defend yourself reasonably. Don't know where you're pulling that (your translation) from, other than one of those fanatical anti-Islam websites that just pull shit out of there asses.

It's an important first step.

Now, bring me the bombers, trussed up and crying from the ass-kicking their fellow Muslims gave them for suborning and desecrating their religion, and I'll begin to believe they're serious.

It's an important first step.

Now, bring me the bombers, trussed up and crying from the ass-kicking their fellow Muslims gave them for suborning and desecrating their religion, and I'll begin to believe they're serious.

So you want Muslims to be violent against Muslims that are already violent? It's self-defeating really.

Relatively new, but I've been here enough months to have been insulted by you a bunch of times, don't you recall?
Insulted? By me? Nope, sorry, I can't recall that at all. Should I know you? :confused:

Have never encountered any of them, except New Mitanni, whom I do not particularly care for, but have not seen making the particular claim you ascribe to him.
Yet you seem to think that you can safely claim that it has never happened on NSG. Interesting.

Well, that was quite some time ago now. Maybe you should consider getting on with life?
Why should I believe that the ideas some have formulated two years ago suddenly magically have disappeared? I still see the same tendencies, and I believe that some posters still hold the same ideas.

Why should we just sweep ignorance and bigotry under the carpet? Why should we not learn from the past?

Why?
You seem to be under the misguided impression that it has never happened on NSG. Before you go around "fixing" quotes, I sugggest you do some research and educate yourself on the topic at hand.

It's an important first step.

Now, bring me the bombers, trussed up and crying from the ass-kicking their fellow Muslims gave them for suborning and desecrating their religion, and I'll begin to believe they're serious.

Nice! If only it would happen...

This isnt going to stop the suicide bombers, it's just a feel good move for moderate muslims.

Should I know you? :confused:
Now that's really laughable.
When you and a poster of similar views ganged up on me, I just assumed it was one person with two nations and responded to both together. You then chided me for not being careful to keep track of who I was talking to-- but evidently you don't bother to do so, either.
Yet you seem to think that you can safely claim that it has never happened on NSG. Interesting.
I haven't seen it, and still haven't. You gave as your evidence an old post making the perfectly true observations that present-day Christians no longer believe in conversions by force (although certainly they did practice it in recent centuries), while approx. 0.1% to 1% of present-day Muslims (that is, millions of them) do still believe in that: I consider that a conservative estimate, and think it is more like a few percent (that is, tens of millions). That is not, of course, "all" Muslims, or "most" Muslims, but it is not a small enough minority to be negligible. It is a large enough critical mass that even Muslims who don't think that way at all are likely to have someone in their extended family who does, and Muslim societies as a whole don't show much will to eradicate these destructive elements.

Among American Christians, there are several hundred or perhaps a couple thousand (hard to get good data) who think bombing abortion clinics is a reasonable thing to support, and while few have actually acted on that (how many are ever likely to is a separate, and also difficult, question), it is considered a problem-- but neither in proportion, nor in absolute numbers, is it as huge a problem as the violent among the Muslims. But when anybody mentions the problem with violent Muslims, you make the strawman accusation "You're saying *all* Muslims are like that" to people who have said nothing of the sort.
Why should I believe that the ideas some have formulated two years ago suddenly magically have disappeared? I still see the same tendencies, and I believe that some posters still hold the same ideas.
For all I know, you had no better basis for thinking anyone lumped "all" Muslims together two years ago. If you ever had a good basis for saying so, you could show me, but I'm not going back to read everything posted on this whole board for a period of years: I don't get through everything posted here in the course of a single day.
I sugggest you do some research and educate yourself on the topic at hand.
If you think I am in error, then show me. I am not going to hunt for what you claim is back there.

Now that's really laughable.
When you and a poster of similar views ganged up on me, I just assumed it was one person with two nations and responded to both together. You then chided me for not being careful to keep track of who I was talking to-- but evidently you don't bother to do so, either.
So you failing to keep track of who made what post in the same thread is somehow the same as not recognizing a poster from a different thread?

And because two different posters have views that coincide somewhat, they "gang up" when expressing those views?

And "chiding" you by pointing out that you attribute to me the positions and views of another poster - which I did not share - when you ask me to defend said remarks, is somehow "insulting" you?

You are a strange person.

I haven't seen it, and still haven't. You gave as your evidence an old post making the perfectly true observations that present-day Christians no longer believe in conversions by force (although certainly they did practice it in recent centuries), while approx. 0.1% to 1% of present-day Muslims (that is, millions of them) do still believe in that: I consider that a conservative estimate, and think it is more like a few percent (that is, tens of millions). That is not, of course, "all" Muslims, or "most" Muslims, but it is not a small enough minority to be negligible. It is a large enough critical mass that even Muslims who don't think that way at all are likely to have someone in their extended family who does, and Muslim societies as a whole don't show much will to eradicate these destructive elements.
And it was a claim without evidence.

But when anybody mentions the problem with violent Muslims, you make the strawman accusation "You're saying *all* Muslims are like that" to people who have said nothing of the sort.
Now you're making up stuff. I only point out the inaccuracy of claiming that "Muslims condone violence" when that just isn't true.

For all I know, you had no better basis for thinking anyone lumped "all" Muslims together two years ago. If you ever had a good basis for saying so, you could show me, but I'm not going back to read everything posted on this whole board for a period of years: I don't get through everything posted here in the course of a single day.
And yet you don't bother even trying to check, nor do you ask for evidence, you just feel comfortable "fixing" my post and assume that nobody has ever done what I claim - after being on here for how many months?

Experience has shown that some posters do indeed hold the view I mentioned, so I'm satisfied.

If you think I am in error, then show me. I am not going to hunt for what you claim is back there.
That's your loss.

Try asking for evidence instead of arrogantly "fixing" quotes next time.

Muslim terrorists decry the decrying of terrorism.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Latest_News/JK_separatists_criticise_Deoband_decree/articleshow/2824364.cms
SRINAGAR: Kashmir militants have ‘regretted’ the ‘failure’ of Deoband’s religious scholars in making a distinction between Jihad and terrorism. They said the decree was correct but one-sided.

“Moulana (Margoob-ur-Rehman) is correct in saying that Islam rejects terrorism, but there is no interpretation especially because various powers are dubbing genuine struggles as terrorism,” Sadaqat Hussain, a spokesman of the Muzafarrabad-based militant alliance United Jihad Council said.

Apparently in a bid to condemn terrorism in wake of allegations that seminaries were terrorist hubs, Deoband Darul-Uloom in western UP had recently got over 10,000 scholars from across India to deliberate on the issue. The conclave ended with an outright condemnation of terrorism.

“We respect the scholars at Deoband and we hope that they would discuss the struggles in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Iraq and interpret it in the light of what Koran says,” Hussain added.

The decree did not evoke the expected response from Kashmir. Sheikh Aziz, one of the executive members of the moderate Hurriyat Conference, agreed that Islam does not allow killing of non-combatants. “But the scholars have touched one aspect of the problem and remained silent on the real problem of Kashmir,” he said.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who heads a parallel Hurriyat faction, talked of his respect of the Deoband but insisted “the decree would have no impact on the Kashmir struggle which is political”.
He sees state terrorism as the root cause and people’s reaction its effect. “Unless we cure the cause, we cannot stem its effect,” he said.

I think there seems to be some confusion over the difference between struggles for indepencence or Liberation involving muslims, and Jihadi terrorism. The latter might use the former as an excuse, but that should in no way undermine their validitity. The Chechens have a right to be free of the russians every much as the Kosovan Albanians have to determine their own future out of Serbia. Likewise the Iraqis from the Americans, the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation.

So you failing to keep track of who made what post in the same thread is somehow the same as not recognizing a poster from a different thread?
??? Yes, it's very much the same. Our discussions have spilled over several threads. Any particular thread tends to be short-lived, here.
And "chiding" you by pointing out that you attribute to me the positions and views of another poster - which I did not share - when you ask me to defend said remarks, is somehow "insulting" you?
You did, in fact, share the views, but you were chiding me for not recognizing that the other poster was in fact different from yourself. I never said that this was "insulting" to me: you should not use quote marks for an interpretive leap of your own.
You are a strange person.
Many people have found me to be so, yes.
I only point out the inaccuracy of claiming that "Muslims condone violence" when that just isn't true.
It most certainly IS true that "Muslims condone violence": an example was just posted here. You think it fair, whenever anyone points out, correctly, that *some* Muslims (too many, in fact) do condone violence, to accuse them of saying that *all* Muslims condone violence. In this particular case, you were claiming that unspecified people had been arguing that no Muslim had ever condemned violence: nobody had said any such thing.

And yet you don't bother even trying to check, nor do you ask for evidence, you just feel comfortable "fixing" my post and assume that nobody has ever done what I claim - after being on here for how many months?
I was not intending to make any claims about the deep-past history of this board. I was referring to the discussions that have been going on here for the past few months.
You may have some personal interest in continuing to argue with ghosts who haven't been here for more than a year, but why should I even care what their names were, let alone what their positions may or may not have been?

??? Yes, it's very much the same. Our discussions have spilled over several threads. Any particular thread tends to be short-lived, here.
Nope, it's not the same. Not recognizing a poster and mixing that poster up with someone else is two very different things.

You did, in fact, share the views,
I did not, as far as I can recall.

but you were chiding me for not recognizing that the other poster was in fact different from yourself. I never said that this was "insulting" to me: you should not use quote marks for an interpretive leap of your own.
Of course you didn't imply it either...
Relatively new, but I've been here enough months to have been insulted by you a bunch of times, don't you recall?
And when I said that I could not recall insulting you, you went off on how I'd chided you.

So I can ask you more directly: How have I insulted you?

Many people have found me to be so, yes.
Does explain things.

It most certainly IS true that "Muslims condone violence": an example was just posted here. You think it fair, whenever anyone points out, correctly, that *some* Muslims (too many, in fact) do condone violence, to accuse them of saying that *all* Muslims condone violence. In this particular case, you were claiming that unspecified people had been arguing that no Muslim had ever condemned violence: nobody had said any such thing.
You're getting things mixed up again.

1. Some muslims do condone violence.
2. A violent Jihad may be different from acts of terror.
3. When someone points out that some muslims condone violence, I don't disagree with them. Feel free to show where I did otherwise.
4. When someone claims that muslims condone violence, I will voice my disagreement.
5. In this case, I've given you several names of posters that have been arguing that Muslims had failed to condemned condemn acts of terror.
6. My basis for the claim is my experiences (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518850) here, and I've seen it happen several times, more or less directly.

I was not intending to make any claims about the deep-past history of this board.
Yet that's exactly what you did and what you keep doing. Stranger still...

I was referring to the discussions that have been going on here for the past few months.
And I was not. See how you fail?

You may have some personal interest in continuing to argue with ghosts who haven't been here for more than a year, but why should I even care what their names were, let alone what their positions may or may not have been?
So what you're saying now is that you had no reason to fix my quote, no interest in making sure your quote fixing was accurate, no knowledge of the past that would support your fixing of my quote, no interest in the fact that there have been (and may still be) posters on NSG with extreme and sometimes severly islamophobic views, no desire to learn of past debates, and nothing to add to this thread?

Righty-o. I think we're done here then.

-snip-
Or you could have chosen to engage in debate in a non-childish way. If you don't think your views can stand up on their own, being a child isn't going to help your case.

Nope, it's not the same. Not recognizing a poster and mixing that poster up with someone else is two very different things.
I don't really see the distinction, but never mind.
I did not, as far as I can recall.
Both you and Guathier were taking the view that when someone points out grotesque anti-Semitism in the Muslim media, it needs to be pointed out that some Muslim media outlets exist which don't engage in it. Gauthier had committed some unfortunate wording about how the Iranian state media were "pipsqueaks" or whatever it was (I don't want to go back and look it up), and you didn't want to be associated with that wording (agreeing with me that the state media of a large nation is in fact of some importance), but you did agree with the basic attitude that nobody should point out anti-Semitism in Muslim media without the ritual "Not ALL Muslims are like that!"
To me, this tiresome attitude is like saying that you should not decry the genocide in Darfur without pointing out that there are still a lot of people in Darfur who have not been killed, and should not denounce the war in Iraq without pointing out that there are a lot of buildings in Baghdad which have not been bombed.
Of course you didn't imply it either...
Imply that your confusion about who I was was "insulting" to me? No, I did not imply any such thing. I just said it seems amusing in view of your anger about me not distinguishing you and Gauthier (in my defense, I was on a computer where the Quote function kept not working, so I had to thumb back and cut-and-paste all the time, which is why it was more difficult to keep track).
And when I said that I could not recall insulting you, you went off on how I'd chided you.
So I can ask you more directly: How have I insulted you?

You did not say that you could not recall insulting me, you asked whether you should remember me at all.
My reference to you "insulting" me was to the time you said I was a "Kimchiteer" (which I now understand to be a reference to a poster "Deep Kimchi" who was an enemy of yours long ago) who must support Bush's war in Iraq (I despise Bush and all he stands for) and "froth at the mouth at the prospect of exterminating all Muslims" (I believe that quote is approximately verbatim).

[Tmutarakhan]I was not intending to make any claims about the deep-past history of this board.
Yet that's exactly what you did and what you keep doing. Stranger still...
No, it is not what I was ever doing, or am doing now. I assumed you to be engaged in a discussion with the people who are around you, not to be continuing an argument with ghosts who haven't been around in years. If you took my statement to be a denial that you ever had those arguments with those vanished people, I apologize, but my position about those long-vanished people and arguments is: I don't know what those guys said, and I don't care. If you wish to argue with the people who aren't here, you could walk up and down the sidewalk and mutter to yourself; that would be just as effective as posting arguments on a board where your desired antagonists don't come anymore.

Righty-o. I think we're done here then.
Guess so.

I don't really see the distinction, but never mind.
Wait! That's not what you said at all! You said
Nope, it's not the same. Not recognizing a poster and mixing that poster up with someone else is two very different things.
Why would you suddenly say something else? Don't go being so inconsistent and changing positions all of a sudden, stand up and defend yourself!


...



You still don't see how that's not the same as saying that "I can't rember debating with you in another thread"? ;)


Both you and Guathier were taking the view that when someone points out grotesque anti-Semitism in the Muslim media, it needs to be pointed out that some Muslim media outlets exist which don't engage in it.
Because it's as inaccurate - and wrong - as claiming that the Christian media in Italy necessarily will hold the same position as the Christian media in Kansas or in Sweden simply because they are Christian.

Gauthier had committed some unfortunate wording about how the Iranian state media were "pipsqueaks" or whatever it was (I don't want to go back and look it up), and you didn't want to be associated with that wording (agreeing with me that the state media of a large nation is in fact of some importance), but you did agree with the basic attitude that nobody should point out anti-Semitism in Muslim media without the ritual "Not ALL Muslims are like that!"
To me, this tiresome attitude is like saying that you should not decry the genocide in Darfur without pointing out that there are still a lot of people in Darfur who have not been killed, and should not denounce the war in Iraq without pointing out that there are a lot of buildings in Baghdad which have not been bombed.
That's because you obviously don't understand my position. See above for a hint.

But regardless, you're not saying I did not insult you back then?

Imply that your confusion about who I was was "insulting" to me? No, I did not imply any such thing. I just said it seems amusing in view of your anger about me not distinguishing you and Gauthier (in my defense, I was on a computer where the Quote function kept not working, so I had to thumb back and cut-and-paste all the time, which is why it was more difficult to keep track).
You're not really making much sense, you know.


You did not say that you could not recall insulting me, you asked whether you should remember me at all.
My reference to you "insulting" me was to the time you said I was a "Kimchiteer" (which I now understand to be a reference to a poster "Deep Kimchi" who was an enemy of yours long ago) who must support Bush's war in Iraq (I despise Bush and all he stands for) and "froth at the mouth at the prospect of exterminating all Muslims" (I believe that quote is approximately verbatim).
Again you're confusing me with someone else, as I have never used that term nor agreed with it. Nor was DK an "enemy" of mine, he was just a poster who suffered from rabid islamophobia and a desire to exterminate muslims. Apart from that he could debate quite well when he didn't turn to trolling (or, should I say, when another less able person in the self-admitted collective that was behind DK took the reins.)

But to sum up: You still confuse me with someone else. Well done.

No, it is not what I was ever doing, or am doing now. I assumed you to be engaged in a discussion with the people who are around you, not to be continuing an argument with ghosts who haven't been around in years.
Then you should have protested that nobody were saying that right now insted of so arrogantly "fixing" the quote when you were not in possession of all the facts, shouldn't you. And as I've said repeatedly, even if the prominent posters are gone I believe that some still hold those sentiments.

If you took my statement to be a denial that you ever had those arguments with those vanished people, I apologize, but my position about those long-vanished people and arguments is: I don't know what those guys said, and I don't care. If you wish to argue with the people who aren't here, you could walk up and down the sidewalk and mutter to yourself; that would be just as effective as posting arguments on a board where your desired antagonists don't come anymore.
See above, then go back and take a good look at the post you "fixed".
What difference does it make?

The loons with bombs on the tube will still try to detonate themselves.
Out in the Real World it might make someone think twice before supporting terrorism.

On here, it's a thread to be brought up the next time someone says that "No muslims have ever condemned terrorism."
It was not a direct argument. I don't claim that anyone has claimed it in this thread, nor any specific threads. But due to past experiences I know it has happened, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again. Hence my post.

Guess so.
Just one more thing:

G R A V L E N !

Maybe you'll be able to differentiate between me and other posters starting in G next time.

[Tmut]Both you and Guathier were taking the view that when someone points out grotesque anti-Semitism in the Muslim media, it needs to be pointed out that some Muslim media outlets exist which don't engage in it.

Because it's as inaccurate - and wrong - as claiming that the Christian media in Italy necessarily will hold the same position as the Christian media in Kansas or in Sweden simply because they are Christian.
No. Pointing out that grotesque anti-Semitism is frighteningly common in the Muslim media is not remotely the same as claiming that every media outlet in the Muslim world is the same. You will it from Algeria, you will find it from Malaysia; but of course you can also find more reasonable media outlets in the Muslim world, in widespread different countries.
When I say that "Christian groups promote anti-gay legislation in my state", I do not feel any need to point out that this is not inclusive of every single Christian denomination. They ARE Christian groups, and there are a lot of them like that, and the religion they belong to is not the least bit irrelevant to why they take the positions they do.
But if anybody says that Muslim groups promote anti-Semitism, or terroristic violence, Muslim apologists will swarm to point out "You forgot to say, Not all Muslims!" whether or not anybody implied that all Muslims are the same (and I have never seen anybody imply such a thing).
That's because you obviously don't understand my position. See above for a hint.
Of course I understand your position. I disagree with it. Muslim violence is a serious problem, and it is absurd to demand hedging and qualifiers every time someone points out that it is a problem. If I say "The people in Darfur are being slaughtered!" do you insist that I point out how many Darfuris are still alive?
But regardless, you're not saying I did not insult you back then?
Back when? My remarks about the time you chided me for confusing you with another Muslim apologist were directed at the irony of you not remembering me from anybody else when we've been going at each other for months; that was not connected to my earlier remark about you insulting me, and I was a little puzzled that you thought it was.
Again you're confusing me with someone else, as I have never used that term nor agreed with it.
If you say so. I'm not about to grave-dig, so let us assume that it was Gauthier and that it happened during the time when I was under the misapprehension that you and he were the same person.
Then you should have protested that nobody were saying that right now
I was referring to the entire discussion over the past several months, over several threads, not just this one particular thread. Individual threads are not very long lived.
And as I've said repeatedly, even if the prominent posters are gone I believe that some still hold those sentiments.
I believe you are grossly mistaken, and that is why I do not take your word for it that anybody ever held such sentiments.

G R A V L E N !

Maybe you'll be able to differentiate between me and other posters starting in G next time.
T M U T A R A K H A N !
Now how could you ever forget such a charming name?

No. Pointing out that grotesque anti-Semitism is frighteningly common in the Muslim media is not remotely the same as claiming that every media outlet in the Muslim world is the same. You will it from Algeria, you will find it from Malaysia; but of course you can also find more reasonable media outlets in the Muslim world, in widespread different countries.
When I say that "Christian groups promote anti-gay legislation in my state", I do not feel any need to point out that this is not inclusive of every single Christian denomination. They ARE Christian groups, and there are a lot of them like that, and the religion they belong to is not the least bit irrelevant to why they take the positions they do.
But if anybody says that Muslim groups promote anti-Semitism, or terroristic violence, Muslim apologists will swarm to point out "You forgot to say, Not all Muslims!" whether or not anybody implied that all Muslims are the same (and I have never seen anybody imply such a thing).
*Sigh*

Again you miss the point.

Of course I understand your position. I disagree with it. Muslim violence is a serious problem, and it is absurd to demand hedging and qualifiers every time someone points out that it is a problem. If I say "The people in Darfur are being slaughtered!" do you insist that I point out how many Darfuris are still alive?
And apparently, you really don't understand my position. Oh well.

Back when? My remarks about the time you chided me for confusing you with another Muslim apologist were directed at the irony of you not remembering me from anybody else when we've been going at each other for months; that was not connected to my earlier remark about you insulting me, and I was a little puzzled that you thought it was.
We haven't been going at each other for months. We've argued in one thread as far as I can recall. I think you're mixing me up with others again.

If you say so. I'm not about to grave-dig, so let us assume that it was Gauthier and that it happened during the time when I was under the misapprehension that you and he were the same person.
You don't have to grave-dig to find the quotes, just as I haven't grave-dug when I found the thread by New Mitanni linked to above and the quote by DK presented above. But again, meh.

I was referring to the entire discussion over the past several months, over several threads, not just this one particular thread. Individual threads are not very long lived.
Then you should you have said so originally, shouldn't you?

I believe you are grossly mistaken, and that is why I do not take your word for it that anybody ever held such sentiments.
Yet you do no reseach, you haven't commented the linked thread above, you admit that you don't care about what happened in the past or what posters you yourself haven't met has said, and you don't ask for evidence when you don't take my word for it, and you just blatantly assume that I'm wrong and set about "fixing" quotes with no basis for it whatsoever. Right.

I believe you believe I'm mistaken because you don't even try to look deeper, because you're content with your current level of ignorance on the matter at hand.

T M U T A R A K H A N !
Now how could you ever forget such a charming name?
I will remember the poster for his strangeness, his lack of reading comprehension and his inability to separate posters and posts, don't you worry.

/threadjack.

You did not say that you could not recall insulting me, you asked whether you should remember me at all.
My reference to you "insulting" me was to the time you said I was a "Kimchiteer" (which I now understand to be a reference to a poster "Deep Kimchi" who was an enemy of yours long ago) who must support Bush's war in Iraq (I despise Bush and all he stands for) and "froth at the mouth at the prospect of exterminating all Muslims" (I believe that quote is approximately verbatim).
*cough*
And as has been pointed out, you are deafeningly silent when it comes to Israelis celebrating the King David Hotel bombing. And the truth comes out from you with that bolded text. You're a Kimchiteer who probably has wet dreams about all Muslims dying off and going extinct.
And here's a little Reality Check for you:

Hamas claims Dimona attack, says bombers came from Hebron (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/951028.html)

Where did you pull this notion out of your ass that Fatah was the group responsible for the suicide bombing? My assertion that you're a Kimchiteer who gets excited at the prospect of Muslim Extinction still stands and is bolstered by this.

If you'll click on the little green arrows you'll see that Gauthier was responding to you. It took less than a minute to do that search. When a poster vehemently denies being the one that insulted you, why on earth wouldn't you have gone an pulled up the the insulting posts? Seems we could have sorted this business out much earlier.

*Sigh*
Again you miss the point.
And apparently, you really don't understand my position. Oh well.
Well then, you might try explaining what your point actually IS. So far, you have given only one example of what you are complaining about, a post by Mitanni stating, correctly, that present-day Christians no longer believe in conversion at swordpoint while millions of present-day Muslims still do. I assumed that you intended this as an example of someone accusing "all" Muslims of doing what only "some" or "many" Muslims do, and that is not the case (if he had said "a billion Muslims" were telling us "convert or die", I would agree).
Again, you said "I only point out the inaccuracy of claiming that "Muslims condone violence" when that just isn't true", but of course, it IS true, and quite well-known, that Muslims do condone violence: I took you to be meaning that saying "Muslims condone violence" should be construed as meaning "all Muslims condone violence" although that isn't what it says (you said it would be OK as long as it said "some Muslims condone violence"; I find this insistence on throwing in the qualifier every time to be pointless).
And, pointing out that grotesque anti-Semitism exists in Muslim media is "as inaccurate - and wrong - as claiming that the Christian media in Italy necessarily will hold the same position as the Christian media in Kansas or in Sweden" according to you: but no, it isn't; it is just a plain fact, and I don't see why someone who points it out has to be required to point out other examples of non-anti-Semitic media outlets.
Apparently you were making some different point instead? What was it, then?

We haven't been going at each other for months. We've argued in one thread as far as I can recall. I think you're mixing me up with others again.

You don't have to grave-dig to find the quotes, just as I haven't grave-dug when I found the thread by New Mitanni linked to above and the quote by DK presented above. But again, meh.
I was not aware there was an efficient "search" function on this board: most boards have no search, or have such an option but it works really suckily. What I would have been would be to change the "Last Day" option at the bottom to "Last Month" and look back for the Israel/Palestine threads. OK, I will check out Jolt's "search" (I do see it up there) for future reference.

Then you should you have said so originally, shouldn't you?
I was rather taking it for granted that you were referring to the very active ongoing discussions, and thought that went without saying.
Shouldn't YOU have said originally that you were referring to posters who haven't been here for years? You take it for granted that it was self-evident you were referring to the deep past. I took you, rather, to be implying that in current discussions people are making the "no Muslims ever condemn terrorism" claim, which I do not see, although I do see strawman accusations to that effect. What is undeniably true is that Muslim condemnations of terrorism are rather infrequent, and tend to be (as Aryavartha has pointed out in the current instance) hedged around with qualifications.

Yet you do no reseach, you haven't commented the linked thread above
Where you have the word "experiences" underlined? It did not even occur to me to check whether that was an active link, I thought you were just using an underline for emphasis.
OK, now I've looked at it, and my only comment is: Mitanni points out, correctly, that Muslims used poison gas. You think he is implying that "all" Muslims use poison gas? Evidently not. Maybe your point is that it is irrelevant what religion the poison-gas-users are? If so, I completely disagree: there is a systemic problem in Islam (and in the Abrahamic religions generally, but it is manifesting most virulently within Islam at present) that drives this kind of murderousness.

you admit that you don't care about what happened in the past or what posters you yourself haven't met has said, and you don't ask for evidence when you don't take my word for it...
I did, in fact, say "If you ever had a good basis for saying so, you could show me", inviting you to give examples if you so desire.

I believe you believe I'm mistaken because you don't even try to look deeper, because you're content with your current level of ignorance on the matter at hand.
About the ancient history of this board? Of course I have a very low level of interest in the topic. Why would I be interested?

go thread!

Well then, you might try explaining what your point actually IS. So far, you have given only one example of what you are complaining about, a post by Mitanni stating...
*Snip*
Apparently you were making some different point instead? What was it, then?
This isn't the thread for it, nor do I feel obligated to explain myself and my positions more deeply to you as you've already failed to see the points when they were presented before you - as I have done before to no avail.

BTW, you're both mixing up posters again (the quote was by Deep Kimchi) and you're ignoring other example that you still somehow managed to comment on later in your previous post. Impressive.

I was rather taking it for granted that you were referring to the very active ongoing discussions, and thought that went without saying.
Did I ever say "Recently", "in the last months", or even that "In the other thread Tmutarakhan said..."? No.

I said "On here, it's a thread to be brought up the next time someone says that "No muslims have ever condemned terrorism.""

Does that imply in any way that I assign chronological boundries to my comment? Nope. You were the one who started to talk about the past and the present. You were the one to deny that it had ever happened on this forum. My original comment still stands.

Shouldn't YOU have said originally that you were referring to posters who haven't been here for years?
No.

Not at all, especially since one of the posters on my mind still hangs around. But more importantly: I only said "The next time". It has happened before, and it may happen again. As such, I don't need to add any qualifiers. Moreover, since my original comment did not mention any particular comment or poster, it still stands on its own. It was your assumption that failed completely.

You take it for granted that it was self-evident you were referring to the deep past.
Actually, if you read it yet again, it may sink in that the "next time" does not in any way imply that it happened yesterday or the last month or whatever. It was only your unfounded assumption that it had happened in the last couple of months or during the last couple of threads, and still you insinuate that it has never happened.

I took you, rather, to be implying that in current discussions people are making the "no Muslims ever condemn terrorism" claim, which I do not see, although I do see strawman accusations to that effect.
...and your assumption failed. Well done.

What is undeniably true is that Muslim condemnations of terrorism are rather infrequent, and tend to be (as Aryavartha has pointed out in the current instance) hedged around with qualifications.
Is that what he pointed out? Really? I think you should go back and read it again.

Where you have the word "experiences" underlined? It did not even occur to me to check whether that was an active link, I thought you were just using an underline for emphasis.
OK, now I've looked at it, and my only comment is: Mitanni points out, correctly, that Muslims used poison gas. You think he is implying that "all" Muslims use poison gas? Evidently not. Maybe your point is that it is irrelevant what religion the poison-gas-users are? If so, I completely disagree: there is a systemic problem in Islam (and in the Abrahamic religions generally, but it is manifesting most virulently within Islam at present) that drives this kind of murderousness.
And yet again you dodge the point with an uncommon dexterity, and somehow manage to avoid reading the very last sentence in his OP. Well done. I'm getting impressed.

I did, in fact, say "If you ever had a good basis for saying so, you could show me", inviting you to give examples if you so desire.
After "fixing" the quote, implying that it had never happened and effectively called me a liar. Yes, you sure know how to invite people to give examples.

About the ancient history of this board? Of course I have a very low level of interest in the topic. Why would I be interested?
Since you deem yourself qualified to make judgements about the accuracy of posts pertaining to past events, one would assume that you had some interest or knowledge in, or experience with, past events on this board. You don't, so your post did indeed fail.

Now, have you got anything, anything at all, to actually contribute to this thread?

So religion is just bad huh?



I take issue with this statement.

You want to eliminate religion from the world? Take a good, hard look at what you'd be doing.

Where does the overwhelming and vast majority of charity come from? Religious organizations of varying types. People who have a problem with religion like to minimize this fact but to do so is intellectually dishonest at best. Both domestic and international charity organizations provide food, shelter, medicine, housing and miscellaneous needs to millions. Who would do it if not the good religions of the world?

Got any statistics on this? What's your source for claiming that the vast majority of 'charity' is delivered by religious groups (excluding charities set up to 'mend the local church rook', 'send Bibles to starving Africans' and other explicitly religious motives)?

I also find your attacks on government aid rather dubious: if a group provided education to children who wouldn't get any otherwise then they'd be classed as a charity, no? So surely we should include state education when we consider where the majority of 'charity' comes from, as without it most children wouldn't be educated. I'd guess the UN programmes for famine relief and vaccination alone would dwarf most religious charities, although I'm basing this on intuition rather than hard data. I'd be interested to see what your sources are.

There's also the problem that *gasp* not all of the people who donate to religious charities are necessarily religious. I gave to Christian Aid at Christmas last year simply because they were doing good secular work, but I'm as Atheist as they come.

If you want to be consistent then you should also factor in the damage that religious charities can do, such as the Roman Catholic groups who go to African countries and tell the people that using condoms will give you AIDS, or the 'Crisis Pregnancy Centres' which masquerade as as Family Planning Clinics to feed pregnant women anti-abortion propaganda (and in some cases actively mislead them until they're past the legal time limit for an abortion).

Since this thread is still alive...I am posting some info on Darul Uloom, Deoband. They are not the 'progressives' some postors may thing because of this particular fatwa.

http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/279075.html
The scariest religious institution I have ever been to is the Darul Uloom in Deoband. In the hour I spent wandering about its grounds on my single uninvited visit a couple of years ago I understood why it had inspired the Taliban. It is an institution that remains frozen in seventh century Arabia, a time when men were primitive and women got a primitive deal. I saw one woman while I was there and she was veiled to the eyeballs. The angry young students I met were Islamists to a man and the maleficent power of Saudi Arabia manifested itself in their refusal to speak to me because they were only allowed to speak Arabic. So they said. This most important Islamic seminary on the Indian sub-continent may not be directly training jihadis but it is responsible for perpetuating a narrow, literal interpretation of Islam which is the ideology that inspires the jihad......

As someone who thinks of the Deobandi interpretation of Islam as exactly the kind we do not want in our land of happy infidels, my ears instantly pricked up. Could the Darul Uloom have changed since my one and only visit? Had it now become a place of unveiled women? The head Maulana refused to entertain my request for an interview because I was unveiled. And, I, proud infidel that I am, sent him a message to veil himself if he had a problem with gazing upon the female form.:p
...

So far so good, but the next paragraph and the one after clarifies that the Darul Uloom’s idea of terrorism is different to yours and mine. It’s not attacks by Islamist suicide bombers on us idol-worshippers that they are worried about but attacks on Muslims. Listen. ‘The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony on the present global and national alarming conditions (sic) in which most of the nations are adopting such an attitude against their citizens, especially Muslims, to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West . . . the conference strongly demands the Indian Government (sic) to curb those maligning the madrassas and Muslims’.

As I suspected, nothing has changed in the cloistered world of the Darul Uloom. If it had the declaration should have contained at least one reference to innocent infidels being killed by Islamist suicide bombers as they prayed in temples and went home from work on Mumbai’s commuter trains.

Darul Ifta, part of Darul Uloom, recently gave out a fatwa banning films (cinema). It was criticized by other clerics, mostly shia clerics.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1153553

LUCKNOW: Several Muslim clerics have slammed the fatwa against films and acting issued by the Darul Ifta, part of Deoband’s Darul Uloom, which provides online answers to questions relating to the Muslim faith posed by people from all over the world.

The latest fatwa has been sparked by a simple query: Is working in cinema permissible?

The edict issued in response to this poser (fatwa no. 193) reads: "The cinemas are centres of sins and other unlawful things which are either basically unlawful or co-operation on unlawful [sic] and both these things are haraam in Shariah; the Quran says: But help ye not one another in sin and rancour, fear Allah, for Allah is strict in punishment and Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) knows best."

Says Nadeemul Wajidi, mufti at the Darul Ifta: "When Islam does not permit making pictures of living things itself, then any kind of activity related to film-making is haraam for a Muslim as per the Shariah [Islamic law], whether it is production of films, watching them or working in them.

" He points out that the Darul Ifta's fatwa (no. 221) clearly states that "the pictures of living beings, whether still or moving, are unlawful".

Another mufti, Maulana Irfan, ups the ante further, saying: "Islam clearly prohibits earning from singing and dancing. So earning from acting in films is not halaal
for Muslims."

Islam prohibits but parasti (idol worship), and fatwa (no. 1232) says: "Photography of animals and human being is not allowed without any exigency and pressing need, while photography of things other than living being is allowed." According to fatwa no. 1867, the pictures of living beings are prohibited for two reasons: (i) it leads to polytheism; and (ii) it resembles the creation of Allah. "These two reasons are present in every picture whether they are worshipped or not," it says.

However, Muslim clerics have pooh-poohed the latest fatwa. Eminent Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad points out that Arab TV channels broadcast live five-time salawat as well as the tarawih prayers from Mecca.

"Some Maulanas and muftis are out to make a mockery of our religion. I beg them to put an end this frivolity and do something constructive for the faith," he told DNA.

Says film actor Raza Murad: "Such fatwas are meaningless.”

Asks an angry Maulana Yasoob Abbas: "What about photographs on passports which every Muslim needs for Haj, and what about the contribution of legends like Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari and Naseeruddin Shah to Indian cinema.

Are we going to put all that in the dustbin? If we continue to be so thick-headed, our faith will become a laughing stock."

go thread!

Quiet in the Back!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't the thread for it
Then what IS this thread for??? I thought you were trying to make some kind of point. But now you are telling me that you started this thread without any intention of making a point?
nor do I feel obligated to explain myself and my positions more deeply to you as you've already failed to see the points when they were presented before you - as I have done before to no avail.
When I fail to convey what I mean, I try to re-explain myself.
I have recapitulated what it is that you have "presented before me" and explained what it appeared that you were trying to convey by it. If what you present conveys to me something other than you intended to convey, the problem may be on the transmitting end rather than the receiving end.
BTW, you're both mixing up posters again (the quote was by Deep Kimchi)
OK then, your example was, also, something about the far past. The point remains that it does not show the kind of "all Muslims are alike" position that I took you to be claiming that it was; if you were claiming something else about it, then I don't know what it is. You put it up as if to say, "See? Isn't this awful?" and no, I don't see anything awful about stating, correctly, some important truths. My only disagreement with the DeepKimchi post would be the implication that Christianity can be let off the hook about its past simply because there have been no conquistadores active this past hundred years: there are plenty of other kinds of awful Christian behavior that I would condemn Christianity for.
and you're ignoring other example that you still somehow managed to comment on later in your previous post. Impressive.
It was not until I read down to where you chided me for failing to follow your link that I even realized you had GIVEN a link, and it took me some trouble to figure out what link you could possibly be talking about (underlining one word in the middle of a sentence just looks like putting an emphasis on that one word; you gave no clue that I was expected to click on it).
The substantive point being, that again I do not see there what you apparently expect me to see there: your particular reading lenses put things in there that my lenses do not.
Did I ever say "Recently", "in the last months", or even that "In the other thread Tmutarakhan said..."? No.
No, but I assumed you meant "TAKE THAT!" to someone who was currently disputing with you, not "TAKE THAT!" to a long-vanished ghost.

Not at all, especially since one of the posters on my mind still hangs around.
Do you mean NeoMitanni? Or are you going to chide me for making baseless assumptions if I say that I do not see in NeoMitanni's posts what you do?

Is that what he pointed out? Really? I think you should go back and read it again.
I did so. “Both terrorism and the state's treatment of innocent Muslims ought to be condemned strongly.” They just can't bring themselves to condemn terrorism without condemning the investigation of terrorism also, as if being questioned by the police, although uninvolved, is on the same level as being murdered. There is all the difference in the world between "Murder is wrong!" and "Murder is wrong, but..."

And yet again you dodge the point with an uncommon dexterity, and somehow manage to avoid reading the very last sentence in his OP. Well done. I'm getting impressed.
He points out, correctly, that no Muslims have protested the use of chemical weapons by the Islamists in Iraq, and, equally correctly, that Muslims frequently protest far lesser bad acts by Israel/US/whoever, rhetorically asks why, and opines, "The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems." Which also seems to be undeniably true, and also seems to be far short of a claim that no Muslim has ever denounced any bad act by a Muslim: in this instance, however, there was no denunciation of any kind, and in no case that I know of have there ever been the kinds of protest rallies against a Muslim act of terrorism that, say, printing some cartoons or naming a teddy bear can provoke; are you trying to deny that?

After "fixing" the quote, implying that it had never happened and effectively called me a liar.
As I have tried to explain before (and will try, now, to explain again, recognizing that your failure to get what I am saying may be the fault of the transmitter in not expressing myself clearly), I had no intention of calling you a liar about the deep past, concerning which I have no opinions (unless or until some of these things from the past are brought up for my inspection).
Instead, I was taking it for granted that you were speaking within the context of the long-running discussion that has ranged through the Israel-Palestine threads, the Danish-cartoon threads, the teddy-bear thread etc. and rebutting a claim that you thought had been made repeatedly in that ongoing discussion. My assumption, obviously, was wrong, but you seem to think it a grave sin of mine not to grasp immediately that you had instead in mind some long-ago dead discussion. However strange a person you are coming to think me, can you understand that I am also coming to perceive you as exceedingly strange?
Since you deem yourself qualified to make judgements about the accuracy of posts pertaining to past events...
No, I do not deem myself any such thing.
As to your depiction of what the history of this board has been, I neither call you a liar, nor take your word for it, but maintain agnosticism unless shown something. I do not engage in any historical research, because my interest in the topic is not that great.

Now, have you got anything, anything at all, to actually contribute to this thread?Then what IS this thread for??? I thought you were trying to make some kind of point. But now you are telling me that you started this thread without any intention of making a point?

When I fail to convey what I mean, I try to re-explain myself.
I have recapitulated what it is that you have "presented before me" and explained what it appeared that you were trying to convey by it. If what you present conveys to me something other than you intended to convey, the problem may be on the transmitting end rather than the receiving end.

OK then, your example was, also, something about the far past. The point remains that it does not show the kind of "all Muslims are alike" position that I took you to be claiming that it was; if you were claiming something else about it, then I don't know what it is. You put it up as if to say, "See? Isn't this awful?" and no, I don't see anything awful about stating, correctly, some important truths. My only disagreement with the DeepKimchi post would be the implication that Christianity can be let off the hook about its past simply because there have been no conquistadores active this past hundred years: there are plenty of other kinds of awful Christian behavior that I would condemn Christianity for.

It was not until I read down to where you chided me for failing to follow your link that I even realized you had GIVEN a link, and it took me some trouble to figure out what link you could possibly be talking about (underlining one word in the middle of a sentence just looks like putting an emphasis on that one word; you gave no clue that I was expected to click on it).
The substantive point being, that again I do not see there what you apparently expect me to see there: your particular reading lenses put things in there that my lenses do not.

No, but I assumed you meant "TAKE THAT!" to someone who was currently disputing with you, not "TAKE THAT!" to a long-vanished ghost.

Do you mean NeoMitanni? Or are you going to chide me for making baseless assumptions if I say that I do not see in NeoMitanni's posts what you do?

I did so. “Both terrorism and the state's treatment of innocent Muslims ought to be condemned strongly.” They just can't bring themselves to condemn terrorism without condemning the investigation of terrorism also, as if being questioned by the police, although uninvolved, is on the same level as being murdered. There is all the difference in the world between "Murder is wrong!" and "Murder is wrong, but..."

He points out, correctly, that no Muslims have protested the use of chemical weapons by the Islamists in Iraq, and, equally correctly, that Muslims frequently protest far lesser bad acts by Israel/US/whoever, rhetorically asks why, and opines, "The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems." Which also seems to be undeniably true, and also seems to be far short of a claim that no Muslim has ever denounced any bad act by a Muslim: in this instance, however, there was no denunciation of any kind, and in no case that I know of have there ever been the kinds of protest rallies against a Muslim act of terrorism that, say, printing some cartoons or naming a teddy bear can provoke; are you trying to deny that?

As I have tried to explain before (and will try, now, to explain again, recognizing that your failure to get what I am saying may be the fault of the transmitter in not expressing myself clearly), I had no intention of calling you a liar about the deep past, concerning which I have no opinions (unless or until some of these things from the past are brought up for my inspection).
Instead, I was taking it for granted that you were speaking within the context of the long-running discussion that has ranged through the Israel-Palestine threads, the Danish-cartoon threads, the teddy-bear thread etc. and rebutting a claim that you thought had been made repeatedly in that ongoing discussion. My assumption, obviously, was wrong, but you seem to think it a grave sin of mine not to grasp immediately that you had instead in mind some long-ago dead discussion. However strange a person you are coming to think me, can you understand that I am also coming to perceive you as exceedingly strange?

No, I do not deem myself any such thing.
As to your depiction of what the history of this board has been, I neither call you a liar, nor take your word for it, but maintain agnosticism unless shown something. I do not engage in any historical research, because my interest in the topic is not that great.

I guess that's a "No".

I guess that's a "No".
To my question, as to whether you had any point you wanted to make: likewise.

Since this thread is still alive...I am posting some info on Darul Uloom, Deoband. They are not the 'progressives' some postors may thing because of this particular fatwa.

http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/279075.html

While I'm not one of those who would call them "Progressives", I would disagree with the interpretation put forward by Tavleen Singh. I think the sentence "Darul Uloom Deoband condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms" stands alone and is not influenced by the following expression of concern. However, while she seems to me to be biased against them in this matter, she may be touching on a point, and I will not say for certain that her interpretation isn't the correct one.

Press releases seem to go against her views, though:
The conference will ask the Muslim community to stay away from acts of terrorism and organisations that encourage violence in the name of religion, he said, adding: "we condemn terrorism and killing of innocent people."

"Terrorism has no place in a civil society," Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani, Islamic scholar and spokesman of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, said.

All acts of terrorism and killing of innocent people of any religion are strictly prohibited, he said.
Link. (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200802241201.htm)

To my question, as to whether you had any point you wanted to make: likewise.

If you can't or won't see it, well, that's up to you entirely. *Shrug*

If you can't or won't see it, well, that's up to you entirely. *Shrug*

I am perfectly willing. I explained what it was that your postings conveyed to me. If you are not willing to say anything except "Nope, that's not it", well, that's up to you entirely. *Shrug*

I am perfectly willing. I explained what it was that your postings conveyed to me. If you are not willing to say anything except "Nope, that's not it", well, that's up to you entirely. *Shrug*

I question your ability to grasp my post, as I have explained it before. See the thread. I doubt another effort by me would somehow change the fact that points keep flying over your head and you keep making assumptions and battling straw men without even bothering to do basic research first. That's all on you.

Perhaps un-needed, but here it is, some comic relief.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/squirrellywrath1972/LolCatRenderer-23.jpg

Neener, neener, I question your ability to communicate your point... Is that all you want to do, flame-war? I decline.

I'm not sure what "basic research" you want me to do, besides reading years' worth of old posts on this board: I have no telepathic ability to determine what old posts you consider relevant, and Jolt's search function won't find "the posts Gravlen is talking about" for me. So I will assume your only point was "Take that!" to some old opponent of yours, apologize humbly to you for confusing you with Gauthier and for doubting the existence of your old enemy, and call it a day.

If you want someone to engage in thoughtful debate you perhaps should review your tactics for engaging in debate. Once again, behaving like an ass isn't the way.

I question your ability to grasp my post, as I have explained it before. See the thread.
Neener, neener, I question your ability to communicate your point... Is that all you want to do, flame-war? I decline.
I doubt another effort by me would somehow change the fact that points keep flying over your head and you keep making assumptions and battling straw men without even bothering to do basic research first. That's all on you.
I'm not sure what "basic research" you want me to do, besides reading years' worth of old posts on this board: I have no telepathic ability to determine what old posts you consider relevant, and Jolt's search function won't find "the posts Gravlen is talking about" for me. So I will assume your only point was "Take that!" to some old opponent of yours, apologize humbly to you for confusing you with Gauthier and for doubting the existence of your old enemy, and call it a day.

I thought the point where thoughtful debate was possible passed when he said he can't possibly explain what his point is. If you know what his point is, and are willing to explain it, maybe we can talk. But he, obviously, won't.

No, debate was made impossible by the childish way you entered this thread. Seriously, how can you expect a reasonable debate when you behave like a child and 'fix' a quote instead of posting a thoughtful retort?

If you want someone to engage in thoughtful debate you perhaps should review your tactics for engaging in debate.
I thought the point where thoughtful debate was possible passed when he said he can't possibly explain what his point is. If you know what his point is, and are willing to explain it, maybe we can talk. But he, obviously, won't.

No, debate was made impossible by the childish way you entered this thread. Seriously, how can you expect a reasonable debate when you behave like a child and 'fix' a quote instead of posting a thoughtful retort?
It does not seem to be an uncommon way to make a brief point on this board. There have been so many exchanges of this type, "You are a bigot for saying that all Muslims..." -- "No, I never said all Muslims..." in the running threads of the past few weeks that it gets very tiresome. I read his post as meaning "A bunch of people need to be slapped down for saying that all Muslims condone terrorism" and I was saying, concisely, "No, nobody has been saying that."

I think the sentence "Darul Uloom Deoband condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms" stands alone and is not influenced by the following expression of concern. However, while she seems to me to be biased against them in this matter, she may be touching on a point, and I will not say for certain that her interpretation isn't the correct one.

Press releases seem to go against her views, though:

Link. (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200802241201.htm)

It's because she read the actual declaration and not the snippets put out in news media. In the actual declaration, "Darul Uloom Deoband condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms" does not stand alone. It is stitched along the usual victimhood drivel.

For ex, take a lookee at this crap
http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm
The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony on the present global and national alarming conditions in which most of the nations are adopting such an attitude against their citizens especially Muslims to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West, which cannot be justified in any way. It is a matter of greater concern that the internal and external policies of our country are getting heavily influenced by these forces. Their aggression, barbarism and state-sponsored terrorism not only in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Bosnia and various South American countries have surpassed all the records known to human history. Contrary to it, our great nation has always been known for impartiality and its moral and spiritual values. Now the situation has worsened so far that every Indian Muslim especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of characters, are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime. And, today countless number of innocent Muslims are spending their lives behind the bars and are forced to bear many intolerable tortures. And, those spreading terror, attacking police stations, killing the police in broad daylight and showing illegal arms are roaming about freely with no effective and preventive steps being taken by the government to check their acts of terrorism and violence. This partial attitude has put a big question mark on the secular character of the government posing great threats to the country. Therefore, this All India Anti-Terrorism Conference strongly condemns this attitude and expresses its deep concern on this partiality of government officials and declares its continuous joint struggles for domination of law, justice and secular system.



This conference strongly demands the Indian Government to curb those maligning the madrasas and Muslims. The administrative machinery should be demanded to conduct impartial investigations in activities disturbing public peace in the country and to punish only those found guilty. It also demands to free the accused if he is found innocent and punish severely those officials who accused him of crimes of terrorism. No person of any particular community should be suspected without solid reasons. In short, the government agencies must fulfill their duty justly without any prejudice and bias so that real peace and security may prevail in the country.

They could have avoided all this and stuck to a simple and pointed message without these unnecessary stuff. You would think that it is a fatwa against the GoI.

Again, I MUST stress, I am happy that at least this came out. Sets some sort of civil discourse going. But let's not make it as if its the greatest thing to happen (or be too dismissive of this, OTOH).

It does not seem to be an uncommon way to make a brief point on this board. There have been so many exchanges of this type, "You are a bigot for saying that all Muslims..." -- "No, I never said all Muslims..." in the running threads of the past few weeks that it gets very tiresome. I read his post as meaning "A bunch of people need to be slapped down for saying that all Muslims condone terrorism" and I was saying, concisely, "No, nobody has been saying that."

Considering history on this site, not really something you can defend. Of course, I haven't read this entire thread, but so far I haven't seen much implicating all Muslims. However, claiming that we don't occasionally have someone pull their head out of the sand to cry out that all Muslims are evil is false.

It's because she read the actual declaration
So did I when I made my previous post.

It's because she read the actual declaration and not the snippets put out in news media. In the actual declaration, "Darul Uloom Deoband condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms" does not stand alone. It is stitched along the usual victimhood drivel.


Well those riots and subsequent debacles probably make them feel that way. Also, imagine if every time Hindu nationalists did something stupid we had the same level of attention focused.

Considering history on this site, not really something you can defend.
I meant "Nobody has been saying that lately". But it does seem to be the consensus that I was in the wrong for implying "Nobody has been saying that, ever ever."
Of course, I haven't read this entire thread, but so far I haven't seen much implicating all Muslims.
Nor will you see it in the recent ongoing discussions, but I have seen an irritating amount of strawman accusations to that effect. I took Gravlen to be doing more of the strawmanning, and so far I have seen little to disconfirm that.