I dunno. I’ve been on diets that made me want to kill something. A cow, mainly.
You’re not following things properly. I didn’t make such a claim. Someone else said I made that claim. What you are calling my straw man is someone else’s straw man.
That’s two out of context quotes in a row. I think when people throw around critical thinking terms they often overestimate their own competence, and think it’s a replacement for simple literacy.
Sorry to be blunt.
So? It does not matter if it took a year, or 100 years or 500. They stole land and killed people to take it. And they had divine sanction for their actions.
Because politicians, kings and generals make a common habit out of lying. I find it incredibly incredibly incredibly odd that you would try to assert otherwise.
Certainly there were political motivations. There were also religious motivations. I’m not going to give credit to any biased statements that defend their actions.
Because it was carried out by Muslims and they were following Mohammed’s instructions.
Actually, Tom claimed early on in this thread that the “bad” muslims were the “radical” muslims and that the other 1.5 billion were “peaceful”. I don’t remember his exact words but I do seem to remember him saying that squeezed in somewhere among the many lectures he has given me on this topic.
I was just wanting something to back this claim up
“Thus, a third to a half of of all current Muslims have no violent religious history.”
A link to a bit of history, a bit of data. Something helpful like that so I could see “Ooh, you’re right!”, rather than “blah blah I know something you don’t blah”
I think what he means, in the Wilberian sense, is that the Muslim world was full of smart Oranges intent on playing domination games, and they used the sucker Blues to do so.
Hence all these wars - Muslim conquests - Wikipedia - were nothing to do with religion. I think cunningly fielding an army of religious pawns makes it a religious war.
But I guess the idea is that it was like this Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979 - YouTube
Mohammed was long dead by then, and he never gave such instructions. “Muslims doing it” is not in and of itself a proof of religious intent.
So did Americans - divine providence, and that. They didn’t bother keeping any of the locals alive to rule over, either.
Hell, every country is built on a pile of corpses and a sea of blood.
Politicians lie. Kings have no need to. That’s kind of the big perk of being head honcho by birth and for life. Feudalism means never having to say you’re sorry :p.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s an irredeemable world of war and suffering and all religions play their part, slaughtering the weak, stealing for the chosen, spitting in the eyes of the innocent. They’ll be quibbling over who’s got the best version of the book when mankind is building bases on Pluto. Hopefully they’ll be doing it on Earth and not allowed to take their madness any further.
But you just know that even on Pluto someone will have a vision while walking through the hydroponic forest one day, and write a book, and somebody will insult someone else’s cousin, and it’ll all start again.
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. Quran 48:29
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Quran 9:5
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Quran 9:29
O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. Quran 9:73
That technicolour disaster movie ending is a bit of a problem. I don’t fancy it, myself, even for people I swap insults with on forums. How can we keep verbally knifing each other if the seas are boiling and the skies falling and all that ? That would ruin everything.
Irony there is that the modern world is more likely to bring it about than the anti-science religious zealots. Can hardly blame ISIS and the Taliban for melting the ice caps, can we ?
I’m not seeing “by the way, Iberia. Take that shit, brahs” in there. **And **I already explained that one to you, and why it doesn’t say what you think it says. That you keep trotting that shit out regardless tells me you have absolutely no interest in actually understanding things or questioning your prejudices.
No.
It says exactly what it says.
What you want it to say… is not what Mohammed actually said. That you continue to say he said things he didn’t actually say leads me to believe you have absolutely no interest in actually understanding things or criticizing Islam.
Seriously
Why should I trust the interpretation of someone who is - clearly - biased in defending Islam (trust that over) the actual words of Mohammed? If he meant what you say he meant, he should of said that, and precisely that.
(in other words, did Mohammed ever specifically say, stop killing when the festival is over, or, stop killing after you capture Mecca? (or whatever apologetics you are currently promoting) Did he say that specifically, in the Koran?)
ISIS’s purpose is to create conflict where ever they can in the Middle East.
Folks, they are not a country or a nation.
It is, when you bother looking at the bloody context ! I’m not interpreting shit*,* I’m actually reading what it says before and after that line.
As for my being biased, that’s pretty rich coming from you.
I’m not Muslim. I strongly dislike religions in general, and the aggressively religious in particular. I’m not even agnostic, I’m as strongly atheist as they come. I have little patience for the arrogantly ignorant.
But as it turns out, they’re not confined to the religious.
Trust me, don’t trust me, I don’t give a shit any more. I’m done with you. You can lead the ass to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Give me a quote directly from Mohammed that says what you claim. Until then, please save your lectures and condescension.
Heck, I’m not even saying he couldn’t mean what you say. Maybe he did. It seems like a reasonable explanation to me. But, unless you can quote that from the Koran, then it does not mean ANYTHING. The Koran is the source of authority on this issue. Not your interpretation of what was in the mind of Mohammed. Furthermore, and what is really important, radical muslims are going to disagree with your interpretation even more strongly than I do. The words of the Koran are the ONLY words that matter on this topic. Because those are the words that are being used to cause violence and oppress people.
When I was a boy I used the term “assume” when talking to my father. He responded by asking me to spell out loud “assume” one letter at a time.
So I did
a-s-s-u-m-e
ass out of you and me
Still I assume lots of times
Such is life
The idea that religious adherents are influenced by their primary religious text is self defining. The more fervent their belief, the more important the text becomes. Any objective analysis would admit this.
Discussions of Islam on SDMB are too similar to discussions of the Holocaust on Stormfront.org. Both are big echo chambers of denial, full of self righteous assurances designed to comfort those who are uncomfortable with basic facts of history.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
So did Americans - divine providence, and that.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and the ideology that drove this expansion is widely discussed, examined, and criticized. Entire university departments are all but dedicated to eradicating it. Meanwhile media outlets don’t show satirical drawings of Mohammed when they are newsworthy for fear of being labeled bigots by ignorant faux progressives, or being by killed Muslims following the example of how their prophet treated criticism.
Not true.
Interestingly, in Ken Burns documentary “The West” he explains how, by the time Sitting Bull was in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West show, whites considered the conflicts that arose from the colonization of the continent to all be ones in which the Indians were the aggressors and that all of the violence perpetrated against them by whites was done in self defense. The history of the expansion of Islam is often presented by Islamists and apologists in the same revisionist manner.
Let me try to see what those talking points would look like:
Muhammad did nothing wrong.
Muslims are trying to protect their lands from leftist degeneracy. If you look around the world you can see they are right.
You only hate Muslims because of decades of Jewish propaganda.
We should have allied with Islam against the communists.
Osama bin Laden was only trying to protect his people.
No, they’re like Stormfront in that they’re both filled with unreasoning bigotry and old, false accusations against a specific religious group.
What a steaming load of bullshit this is.
First he says that the Taliban who shot Malala were simply following what their religion dictated, completely ignoring the fact that Malala herself was and still is a devout Muslim and is also simply following what her religion dictates. In other words, just like every other Islamophobe, he puts himself firmly on the side of the Taliban and against the very people he claims to be supporting, by asserting that the Taliban are the only “proper” Muslims and people like Malala are doing their own religion wrong by not also supporting what the Taliban supports.
Second, he attempts to ridicule the notion that the Taliban are misinterpreting and taking things out of context by himself misinterpreting and taking things out of context! The doctrine of naskh was not developed by the “propagators” of Islam, but was developed centuries later as part of inter-madh’hab legal conflicts (and the “commands preaching violence” were not all chronologically after the “commands of peace”). He also doesn’t seem aware that, in naskh, it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one, such as the command to release or ransom prisoners (Q 47:4) abrogating the Sword Verse (Q 9:5) in some tafsir.
The Qur’an also does not ask “true believers” to cut the fingertips off of anyone - the verse itself explicitly says it was God telling angels who were divinely intervening in the Battle of Badr to do that. It also doesn’t tell Muslims to never be friends with Christians and Jews. It says Muslims should not become clients of them under the patronage system that was common in Arabia at the time and should not make common cause with those who persecute them and drive them from their homes, but explicitly says (in Q 60:7-9) that Muslims can certainly have friendly, affectionate relations with nonbelievers otherwise.