:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Tired of watching your opinions trashed with facts and logic, I suppose.
Or even less.
Back to the topic at hand, in case this was not already linked I find it a useful jumping off point about the differential effects of religious belief.
I think the most useful point of that video is highlighting the principle that the actual details of the theology and the writings have consequences. It does not settle on its own whether Islam has “more bad stuff” that needs to be negated, but once you accept that the details of the theology is one of the variables that goes into how people behave for believers, then the notion that we ought to just **presume **that christianity and Islam are essentially equivalent when it comes violence goes away. That presumption, ipso facto, is a liberal egalitarian conceit, born out of a desire to see equality in all things.
This is why I charged that liberals are too quick to hold beliefs/IDEAS up being subject to the rules of equality, because that is where they make their ASSUMPTIONS when it comes to the outcomes of christianity and islam, we’ve already seen it in this thread.
Christianity has been pretty shitty in the past, but it’s mostly been domesticated in modern times. Islam may have been *slightly *less shitty in the past, but it’s still shitty in a lot of places around the world today. Even the so called enlightened and moderate nations like Turkey have issues with islamism and trying to silence disagreements from the population by their Vizier Erdogan as he seeks more authoritarian power.
Another point off that video that I think is worth discussion. Calling someone fundamentalist or radical is kind of an intellectual dodge because it seeks to separate the details of the beliefs/ideas from the severity and devout nature of the practitioners. As he points out, a radical/fundamentalist Jain would be hard pressed to justify going on a killing rampage.
People cannot WAIT to ignore the details of the theology and the details of the claims, they don’t want to go there. For some reason when it comes to religion (ESPECIALLY when attached to minority populations), even the liberals seem to have a hands off approach to attributing core beliefs to outcomes. Do they do that when a conservative christian rejects marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs? Of course not, they can see a clear and direct link, but god effing help them if you EVER expect them to draw a line from islamic ideology to bad behavior, and to the extent they do, here comes the equality, ok its bad, just like christianity, because we can’t EVER say one groups beliefs are worse than anothers. That would be “judging,” that would be singling out a helpless minority under siege. I’m a good liberal and I am going to extend my fantasy of equality to **BELIEFS **because that is the only thing that will allow me to shore up the standard of not singling out the beliefs of a minority group. Equality over reality, is an idea that needs to DIE among liberals.
How about a little more objectivity please? Just as an attitude in looking at the world, can we please stop that kind of thinking? I’m liberal, and we need the liberals to think clearly here, we can’t cede sense and sanity to the party of Trump. For the sake of all that is good just and holy in this world, liberals, PLEASE, get it together !!!
/… end rant.
I don’t believe liberals do any such thing. Liberals are very quick to condemn bad ideas, such as racism and bigotry.
In this thread, we’re mostly opposing a view that appears to be bigoted: that Islam is a “bad religion” because many bad people in the world today happen to be Islamic.
You might just as well say that “Caucasians are violent,” and point to white people committing murders. It isn’t inherent in religion, or race, or nationality: violence pops up among all populations. And so do bad ideas.
Assertion in bold. Not a settled fact and very much in debate. People are like hardware, beliefs and ideas are like software, just because software package A produces good and bad results on hardware sets just like software package B, does not mean all software is of the same nature and character. It might be, but the case is not proven, that’s the point.
violence pops up in ALL populations, as do bad ideas, more equality, more tomato tomahto potato potahto, we can’t be bothered to even consider that one idea set (BELIEFS) can make people more or less susceptible. That would be bad form, unfair, why? Why do you and others give special quarter to ideas when they are religious and attached to minorities?
If it’s possible for you and anyone else to believe that the idea set of Jainism, when truly believed, makes it LESS likely a person will engage in violence against their fellow man, why is it so inconceivable to you all to suspect there is some differential in the likelihood of violence between christian believers and muslim believers?
I think I know the answer, a fetish and misapplication of the egalitarian ideal, a poisoned chalice that infects the minds of liberals.
yes, but does it pop up 8,886 times a year in any other religion - besides - islam?
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
How many verses in the New testament call for war with unbelievers?
How many passages of Buddhists scripture call for war with unbelievers?
Nicely put.
To keep beating this dead horse: you’re taking recent events as indicative of the behavior of a 1400-year-old religion, but handwave away similar violent periods in other religions. Nobody is arguing that RIGHT NOW there is an EXTREMIST MINORITY of Muslims perpetuating horrible violent acts. Other religions have also experienced such periods of horrible sectarian violence. Why does the fact that the Muslim-themed violence is happening at the time we’re talking about this mean that the entire religion and its 1400-year historyand its 1.5 billion adherents area somehow worse than those of other religions? It requires very narrowly-defined criteria to make this work.
Again, since reading comprehension isn’t your thing: no one is excusing Islamic terrorism. But taking into account the entire history of the religion, Islam isn’t exceptional and you’re having to do a lot of special pleading to make it so.
Well, this is a pretty problem, isn’t it? Now that we have identified the problem, what is to be done? I mean, here’s this bad religion, loosed upon the world, what can we do about all these awful, awful people?
Still, it is somewhat empowering, isn’t it, to be freed from those effete and cringing restraints, since we have actually identified the true source. I mean, its not something we necessarily want to do, but it would be hard for any reasoning person not to accept that stern measures must be taken.
And we can’t just pat ourselves on the back for Iraq, for taking out a couple hundred grand of them…drop of blood in the bucket, isn’t it? I mean, two hundred thousand (optimistic estimate) against a billion or so, that’s less than…what? five percent? Perhaps we can save some of the children, once we can get a clear understanding of how long it takes before a child is hopelessly corrupted by Islam. Then we can work out a modest proposal for those that cannot be salvaged.
Sadly, I see little opportunity here for laxity. Sure, some of them are bound to pretend that they have accepted Cheney into their hearts, but how can we be sure?
And surely those few who have come to a higher understanding of right and good, they will see that their sacrifice is for a greater purpose. They would see us a spiritual liberators, freeing them from the surly bonds of error, and delivering them innocent into the loving hands of the Father!
May the sweet baby Jesus sharpen your bayonets, stern duty calls.
Or did you guys have something else in mind?
You want some narrowly defined criteria?
1- Muslim men can keep women as sex slaves, as per the Koran
2- Muslim men can beat disobedient wives, as per the Koran
3- Muslim men can divorce a woman at will, as per the Koran
4- Muslim men can have up to 4 wives, as per the Koran
The worst you get in the New Testament is for Women to be silent and Women to submit. Which, is bad, but not as bad as the Koran.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/11/top_ten_rules_in_the_quran_tha.html
note: the article lists 10 items. My order does not follow that order. My order in in list of worst case first.
I was wrong about the idea of a peaceful hippie jesus from the bible. The New Testament has 163 passages that deal with violence or some similar concept. Most of these passages are implied, ie, religious proclamations, like burn in hell, or depictions of the cross. The Koran has 532. Most of which talk about hellfire and doom and similar concepts. The Old Testament has 1157. I don’t know how many of the 1157 passages call for violence like stoning and beating slaves, but, you will find a fair number. Note that in terms of “abstract” violence the Koran has more than twice the New Testament and a total of over 500 passages. 532 is not an insignificant number, not by any credible set of criteria.
What is different is the Koran has 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. That is different than the Old Testament which talks, primarily, about historical events with a starting point and stopping point. The majority of the 109 proclamations in the Koran, are open ended however, standing orders, spoken in the present tense, straight from the mouth of Mohammed, straight from the mouth of god. The New Testament has no such passages, none to make war on unbelievers.
If you want to learn about Islam I’d suggest you read scholars on Islam, not islamophobic webpages aimed at the ignorant and full of deliberate misinformation.
I can’t really help you there (my library is full of stuff on Islam, but from the historic standpoint ;)) but I’m sure **Aïsha **can suggest more than a few.
I don’t think I need a scholar to explain any of the following passages:
Quran (3:56) - “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) - “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
Quran (8:67) - “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”
Quran (9:123) - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (48:29) - “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves”
I’m not really interested in hearing some Muslim apologist try to redefine “ruthless” or “cast terror into the hearts” or “punish with terrible agony”
Quran (2:191-193) - “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”
I’ll admit many of the proclamations are marginal. But, how many direct orders from god to kill unbelievers does a religion need before it becomes a bad religion?
Of course, it is not difficult to pretend that certain things are in the Qu’ran when one quotes an extremist who was specifically interpreting it in the harshest way. Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi was certainly a Muslim scholar, but his interpretations of Qu’ran were specifically designed to get back to an Islam that never was. His interpretations were changes to the standard interpretations of the previous 1350 years.
Can we please reduce this to a simple yes or no for each variable? I’m not talking about the way Fred interprets it, or Tom, or even Steve. Does the Koran make the following 4 statements:
1- Muslim men can keep women as sex slaves
2- Muslim men can beat disobedient wives
3- Muslim men can divorce a woman at will
4- Muslim men can have up to 4 wives
Those passages mean absolutely fuck all without their context. The Koran often makes use of “violent” imagery and language, because when all is said and done Muhammad was talking in front of a crowd of brigands and he didn’t want to lose them by going overboard with the peace and love shit I suppose.
But to give you an example of what I mean, the absolute favourite verse of Internet 'phobes is (the first part of) ah-Tawbah 9:5 which says :
[QUOTE=Koran]
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.
[/QUOTE]
Now, you read that shit and you’re like “Woah ! That’s some Al-Qaeda jihad shit and no mistake !”.
But if you’re a curious asshole such as I, you read it again and wonder what that “sacred month” business is about. And so you look up the surah, only to find that this one line comes at the tail end of a long explanation on treaties and truces, why you should always try to make them happen, what guarantees you should ask from your opponent etc… and that the “sacred months” in question are the months of an agreed truce or granting of safe passage (for pilgrimages or collecting the war wounded or prisoner exchanges and so forth), during which Muhammad says again and again not to be a huge dick.
And at that point, with that context, you get that far from being a blanket commandment to seek out the infidel and kill them all the time everywhere, what this line *really *says is “keep your word and respect the treaties you make to the letter, but not one iota further” (which is pretty sound diplomatic/strategic advice), and all that violent shit is just a stylistic flourish.
Oh, and that it is to be understood within the context of an already on-going military conflict. Hey, at least he’s not saying he’s going to use the guts of the infidels to grease the treads of his tanks 
You also find out that there’s actually more to 9:5 which 'phobe sites rarely bother copy/pasting for some odd and difficult to pinpoint reason, namely :
[QUOTE=Koran]
But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
[/QUOTE]
Which defuses that oh so scary line some more (it should be noted that the “infidel” business refers strictly to the polytheists/pagans Muhammad was at war with at the time, BTW. None of that applies to Christians, Jews etc…)
And you’d never hear of **any **of that precious context from your shitty website. Because they have a stated goal, which is to make you hate Islam and Muslims. They’re pretty open about it, so why would you trust them to give you straight information ?
So,in other words, he does preach death and violence. You are not actually proposing that he does not. You are simply saying that he is commanding death and violence and that he is using hyperbolic language to get his point across?
Hyperbole: exaggerated statements
Yeah, Well, I don’t care. I mean I don’t care if it came on the tail end of a story and the basic message says it is not ok to kill in these 9 situations but in this 1 situation it is ok.
(BTW I could not be any less interested in what is meant by “sacred month”. I can think of few things that are hardly less relevant.)
So, let’s be clear, Mohammed is still calling for death and violence, and what you find so fascinating is that he only wants people to use death and violence as a last resort, try being a gentleman first?
Am I characterizing your description accurately?
I would love to see some unbiased website about the Koran. So far all I see are sites by muslim haters or muslim apologists.