Cite?
Oh, ok, well thanks for taking the time to type all that out. It was really really interesting to read.
Answer my question for you regarding your academic qualifications to challenge Aquinas and I’ll be happy to.
What ancient languages can you read and write in?
Where did you go to college, what was your major, and what was the highest degree you received.
You already said you’d answer so please do.
Thanks in advance.
To be fair I said “left instructions” not “wrote the Koran”, I’m aware it was put together after he died and may even have mentioned that upthread somewhere. Anyway…
I found this when researching the infidel issue:
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
In later recited verses, particularly those recited after the Hijra in 622 AD, the concept of infidel - kafir - was expanded upon, with Jews and Christians included.[22] The expanded term kafir refers to anyone who satisfies one or more of the following conditions - practices idolatry of any form, does not accept the absolute oneness of God, denies Muhammed as Prophet, ignores God’s ayah (evidence or signs), or rejects belief in resurrection and final judgment.[22][23][24] Jews were condemned as infidels for their disbelief in God’s ayah, Christians were condemned as infidels for their belief in the Trinity, which the Qur’an declared as a form of polytheism.[22][23][24][25] Texts of Sunni sect of Islam, the majority, include other sects of Islam such as Shia as infidel.[17][26] Certain sects of Islam, such as Wahhabism, include as kafir those Muslims who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage and follow Shia teachings about Imams.[27][28][29] Similarly, in Africa and South Asia, certain sects of Islam such as Hausas, Ahmadi, Akhbaris have been repeatedly declared as Kufir or infidels by other sects of Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
The infidel/kafir term according to this seems to cover everyone who isn’t in strict obedience with sect X in most cases.
No, actually, all of that is irrelevant.
For example, I don’t have to be an expert in American History or Military Science or have a PhD in Ethics to declare that Andrew Jackson was bad person because he mistreated the Native Americans, specifically, that he made treaties with them during the war of 1812, because he needed their help against the British, promising them safety and protection and allegiance after the war. He broke, as far as I know, all of these promises. If not all of them then definitely most. You can google Indian Removal Act or Trail of Tears if you have any question as to the validity of my claims.
I don’t know the details of any of the battles, or treaties, or the exact number of Native Americans who died or were displaced. But I don’t need to know all of that to know that he was a no good, traitorous, lying son of a bitch. Who was proudly know as “a man of the people” and “an Indian Fighter”.
Or are you going to make the absurd claim that because I don’t have a PhD relevant to the subject that somehow makes Jackson’s treachery any less evil?
I’d just like to be upfront here and say that my penis is well above average in length (and somewhat above average in girth). You know. If this is a dick measuring contest now. And also let me make this very clear: When I say average I mean Scandinavian average, not those puny things they come up with in the rest of the world.
So let’s cut to the chase: How big is yours and can you provide a cite?
While the Quran explicitly criticized the concept of the Trinity Muhammad explicitly on multiple occasion me made it clear Christians were to be considered “Dhimmis” because they, along with the Jews, believed in the God of Abraham. As such they were entitled to a rank, though a low rank within society.
The term “unbeliever” or “infidel”(Kaffir) was reserved for pagans who didn’t believe in the God of Abraham.
That is why while medieval Christians and Jews in the Muslim Middle East faced discrimination it rarely, though occasionally became persecution. Had they been classified as Kufffar(infidels) they’d have been slaughtered.
Obviously however, this means little today since most modern day Muslims when they use the term, clearly mean it to apply to Jews and Christians.
So I guess I’m an infidel. Good.
Thanks for clarifying. 
This is not appropriate. If you want to challenge another poster, do so without violating explicit rules of the forum.
This is a Warning that such behavior will not be tolerated.
[ /Moderating ]
Why should anyone show that those acts were “common” when they are not “common” among Muslims, either. They happen too often, but they are still so far removed from “common” as to make your argument untenable.
You don’t think there is a difference between a handful of isolated incidents and a common trend?
I think that there is a difference.
I suspect that you want to pretend that isolated incidents are “common.” (Just as some Europeans like to believe that the U.S. is a violent country where no one is safe, even though the overwhelming majority of us never witness, much less suffer from, a violent crime.)
Actually, what I think is:
That the closer and closer you get to a Muslim Theocracy the worse and worse it will get for infidels, atheists, homosexuals, women etc, as in dangerous and oppressive as opposed to merely oppressive.
Let’s run a thought experiment:
A group of super super billionaires buy the Island of Madagascar. It is the “New Holy Land”. You are an Atheist homosexual. For some reason you have to live there, your company sends you because you are the only IT network guru who can properly oversee the instillation of digital infrastructure in this new grand project. You must stay for 10 years. Would you rather that Island be bought and run by an “extreme” group of Muslims or an very Orthodox group of Hasidic Jews?
Just answer the question honestly…
In case their is any confusion, I am NOT saying all Muslims are bad people. I quite literally know this from having Muslim roommates/schoolmates in boarding school and college. I lived in NYC for over 15 years. Lots and lots and lots of good Muslims live in NYC. What I — am — saying is that Islam is fine as long as democratic checks are maintained and a secular oversight of civil rights is maintained. Remove that, install a theocracy, and things get bad, quickly.
Here’s a trend I’ve noticed - wealthy countries use advanced war machines to kill large numbers of people. Small numbers of people in poor countries use crude techniques to kill far fewer people. Then, people in the wealthy countries treat the poor peoples’ tactics - tactics far more likely to be used against their country than by their country, what with the multi-billion dollar military machine - as uniquely heinous and worthy of condemnation.
I don’t agree with all of that, killing is killing, but you are definitely, 100% definitely, raising a good point.
Buddhism is pretty shitty towards women. In a traditional Buddhist worldview, women are a sort of black hole of lust which threatens the very stability of humanity, and in some interpretations is responsible for the downfall of humanity.
Women are denied the highest levels of Buddhism both cosmically and here on Earth. Women cannot achieve enlightenment (some concede they can if they take on a male form.) Being born a woman is considered the result of bad karma, and your best hope is to be reincarnated as a man so that you become eligable to progress spiritually. Buddhist nuns are disallowed from taking the vows men do, they are subject to many special rules and extra restrictions, and they are treated as entirely secondary to monks. In the past, it was required for all nuns to automatically bow to a monk of any rank.
Buddha himself told women to submit to their husbands, and came up with very precise ideas as to what kinds of wives it was acceptable for a woman to be (fully devoted, of course.) In the modern world, Buddhist sexual exploitation happens all the time, both in the east and the west.
Buddhist countries today are not great places to be women. They score uniformly low on Gender Inequality Indexes. Some are abysmal (Laos, looking at you.) Buddhist countries have historically and in modern times been perfectly okay with stuff that is bad for women- child marriage, forced marriage, not educating girls, restricting the movement of women, etc.
I just wouldn’t pick Buddhism as the champion of women’s rights. There is just as musch sexism in Buddhism as there is anywhere else.
Ok, well, I’ve pretty much given up all “hope” for religion then. Thanks (for lack of a better term) for explaining all of that.
Why are you particularizing Islam in this? The closer we get to ANY kind of theocracy, the worse it is for the minorities which they have singled out for their special religious hatred.
Every religion is the same in this: if it falls into absolute power, it will abuse that power most hellishly. Every religion, without exception. They’re decent (?) servants, and shitten masters.
I’m not being sarcastic. You really believe that all forms of “extreme applications” of religions will be equally bad?