Islam = intolorance to other religions ??

Great Debates
101

Well, it is fairly * elementary *, no one is doing that. Other than you as a straw man in a rather sad attempt to save a fast sinking position.

Freddie old man was cited by me as an example of how some Xtians can distort Xtianity.

See, I make distinction between what some sub-set of believers can do to their religion, man’s infinate capacity to be chowder-headed as frequently demonstrated here, and the religion in grosso modo.

Simple, and it seems to me most folks have grasped that, with some notable if unimpressive exceptions.

102

Collunsbury never said “Fred Phelps represents all Christianity”.

I never said “Osama Bin Laden represents all Islam”.

So where’s the arguement?

103

Some folks, they do gots balls.

For anyone wishing to evaluate the comment, read through the thread.

104

Nice dodge!

105

Well, I’ve read more in my translation (by N.J. Dawood, Penguin Classics, revised edition). I have to admit that I was wrong, and my judgment was hasty.

There is a lot of harsh staement in the Koran about Christians and Jews, Muhammad’s text does not condone murdering innocent people. There is a lot of talk about how infidels will burn in Hell, but Muslims are exhorted to “warn” them of that and not take Go’d vengence into their own hands. In fact, it appears that the Koran ought to condemn what these terrorists have done (and are doing), and the highjackers ought to be burning in Hell right now…

As for the treatment of women, the Koran does say that lewd and unfaithful wives ought to be beaten, and it seems also that: 1) men are superior to women; and, 2) for legal purposes one man equals two women. However, the text emphasizes reconciliation and forgiveness, and the property/inheritance rights of women are defended and spelled out.

It seems only right that I should give the Koran its due and admit my error.

But I still criticize mainstream Muslims and the Islamic nations for not repudiating these Taliban as the evil0doers that they are.

And I must recommend that people go out and get a a copy of the Koran and read it before coming to judgment on Islam.

106

Ah, Neurodoc, rewind to the destruction of the statues some months back. There was widespread condemnation.

Presently, mainstream folks should be doing more, but there have been condemnations of both the Taleban and al-Qaeda. However, they’re muted and laced with hypocrisy. Too much David and Goliath sorta resentment and too much influence of the Us versus Them thinkers. Leaves way too much ambiguity.

Well, that’s nice but it’s also good to know some historical context. Otherwise one can badly misunderstand things. Not that I don’t give you major props for having read the translation and revised your thinking, that’s the best SDMB tradition, but I also have the sense that a lot of the material is coming out of left field and one does need context to help absorb it.

And Milroyj, that ain’t no dodge, you just don’t merit more than a dismissal after all that.

107

Wrong again, Tommy. The acts I asked about were encouraging, enticing, and conspiring with others to murder and commit genocide. Aiding and abetting (which includes enticing and eencouraging) murder (including, necessarily, any form of muiltiple murder, such as genocide) has been illegal under Anglo-Am law for centuries. And violating anyone’s civil rights (which includes killing them) on account race, religion, etc. has been a federal crime since just about 1867.

108

Oh, let me clarify my response to Neurodoc’s advice to read the Quran before coming to conclusions, which is good advice. I sound like I’m bustin’ on him. What I meant was that for any religion, and above all for those rooted in other cultures, it’s good policy to step outside of what “theory” alone says (i.e. ideal practice, the holy writ) to get a picture of origins and the like from history.

But again, that’s as a supplement to his advice, which is sage advice.

109

And I will add to what I said above. From what I have read in the Koran, these terrorists, and those who would defend them, are NOT following the Koran. They are NOT true Muslims. The Koran says that God will punish them. That may be the “theory” of the Koran, but it seems to be exactly what the book says.

I only hope that the Muslim world agrees with my position, and that they do not condemn us for waging our war of self-defense againt the Taliban, OBL, and his murderous unbelieving evil-doing ilk. That’s about as plainly as I can state my opinion.

110

Neuro:

Glad to hear you’ve read more of your translation. The big thing for you now is to realize that Christians and Jews are not considered infidels by the Koran. They are “People of the Book,” which means the Koran considers Christians and Jews to also worship Allah.

111

Actually that’s not quite correct. Infidel is not synonomous with pagan. All non-Muslims are, in relation to Muslims, infidels by definition. Christians and Jews are both People of the Book and infidels in this respect. Similarily all non-Christians are infidels relative to Christians. An infidel is simply a non-believer in a particular religion.

My sources on the above are Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and more to the point Bernard Lewis’ The Political Language of Islam.

  • Tamerlane
112

Y’know, playing word games is more fun when there is less anger involved. Aiding and abetting murder has been illegal for centuries. (As long as murder is seen as the deliberate killing of one or more individuals–as happened at the WTC and Pentagon.) Aiding and abetting genocide has never been a crime under Anglo-American law until the mid-20th century–and the definition of genocide has undergone numerous enhancements since 1945. (You can point to someone in the 19th century U.S. who was prosecuted for encouraging genocide on the indians, right?)

The concept that murder was a violation of someone’s civil rights was never included in the 1867 law. It was a theory proposed in court in the late 1960s so that Federal prosecutors could have a handle on trying Klan types who had evaded conviction for murder of Civil Rights activists. The concept seems to be accepted as law, now, although there are still complaints that it involves double jeopardy. It was, however, still a legal tactic (with the tacit assent of the country) rather than an actual debated and accepted piece of legislation.

I have already noted that in some areas, Western views toward civil rights are as much as 100 years ahead of similar concepts in a number of Islamic societies. (Islamic laws tend to be a couple of thousand years ahead of the Taleban’s contorted depiction of them.) Trying to show that Western/Christian morality has been far superior to Islamic morality for a great length of time will require better attacks than mangling history.

113

Holding up Phelps as an example is not appropriate to a comparison of Islam, but we have been responding to the discussion you started in the following exchange in which you made no distinction between Islam and the Taleban, or even the Wahabbists.

Since you equated the actions of one sub-group to “Islam” it has appeared that selecting one sub-group to represent Christianity was appropriate.

114

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by tomndebb *
** Y’know, playing word games is more fun when there is less anger involved.*

No anger here, Bucko, so calm yourself. Just a heartfelt concern for accuracy. And we’ll see who’s playing the words games.

** Aiding and abetting murder has been illegal for centuries. **

Happy to see the concession.

** As long as murder is seen as the deliberate killing of one or more individuals–as happened at the WTC and Pentagon.)**

I’m sorry, is there some alternative view of murder?

** Aiding and abetting genocide has never been a crime under Anglo-American law until the mid-20th century–and the definition of genocide has undergone numerous enhancements since 1945.**

“As long as murder is seen as the intentional killing of one or more individuals,” one might say, genocide–however many unidenitified “changes” and “enhancements” you think it has experienced “since 1945”–has constituted a form of murder–the kind of murder that we think of as a crime.

** (You can point to someone in the 19th century U.S. who was prosecuted for encouraging genocide on the indians, right?)**

You said it wasn’t a crime. And that is demonstrably incorrect. Now you say, “Well, it wasn’t * enforced,* and you can’t prove me wrong about * that *, so why don’t you just pretend I’m right about everything.” Sorry, dude. This is not about you. It’s about facts, and the desirability of knowing what you’re talking about before you shoot your mouth off.

** The concept that murder was a violation of someone’s civil rights was never included in the 1867 law. . . . The concept seems to be accepted as law, now, although there are still complaints that it involves double jeopardy. It was, however, still a legal tactic (with the tacit assent of the country) rather than an actual debated and accepted piece of legislation.**

Any notion that murder is NOT a form of rights-violation would come as a great surprise to the drafters of our nation’s civil rights laws, as well as nearly everyone I can think of, except, apparently, you. (And not that it matters, but the double jeopardy complaints that are raised in connection with successive state crime/fed civil rights prosecutions are utterly without merit; yes, Tommy Boy, meritless legal arguments are routinely raised in the course of litigation. I mention this only in service of correcting yet anouther woefully ignorant assertion on your part, and suggesting a career path that might play to your strengths.)

** Trying to show that Western/Christian morality has been far superior to Islamic morality for a great length of time will require better attacks than mangling history. **

Not my point, so try again. As for mangling, bring it on. When you prattle on about nuclear physics and microbiology, I won’t be able to tell if you’re full of shit or not, but I’m sure others can, and I’d be grateful if they take you to task. But when it comes to American legal history and related topics, you’re not likely to slip any whoppers past my eyes. Carry on.

115

You’re playing word games again. Genocide was practiced and promoted without ever being perceived as murder. If you want to go back and declare that Custer, Chivington, and a dozen other folks were guilty of what we call either murder or genocide, I would agree that that was what occurred. You will be hard pressed to find anyone from that period who even used the word murder regarding Sand Creek, the “battles” of the Washita, or any of the numerous other genocidal attacks.

Similarly, declaring that to murder someone deprives them of their civil rights makes imminent sense in 2001. There is no evidence that anyone in 1867 would have even put the two concepts together.

Since the law tends to operate by applying abstract concepts to concrete situations, it is unrealistic (and mendacious) to claim that a concept formulated in the mid or late 20th century retroactively applies to laws written a century earlier. We do reinterpret ancient laws in the light of newer concepts or more recent concrete experiences, but claiming that the 1867 civil rights law covered murder when it was written is, at best, an anachronism. Just more word games.

So what? I offered no support for the position. I simply noted that among legal scholars, the issue is one that has a certain amount of dissension. I am not aware of any case where that defense was raised, only of a few theoretical legal discussions, so the notion that it can be ignored because “meritless legal arguments are routinely raised in the course of litigation” is an irrelevant red herring. The purpose of pointing out the dissension was to note that the concept was rather recent and still had open discussions associated with it, rather than being carved in stone in all its particulars–despite your anachronistic view of the world.

116

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**

Tom? No one’s fooled by this ploy. When you state things as fact that are actually false, and someone points that out by reference to the words * you * used (is there any other way?), that’s not “playing word games.” It just means you’re wrong. Get used to it.

117

Tom, I understand your point. Equating the Taliban with Islam was not a fair or accurate statement.

However, wouldn’t a more productive counter-argument have been pointing out the fallacies of that statement, rather than simply making semi-equivalent statements about Christianity? (Not you, but others) have equated Phelps and the Army of God with Christianity.

Dissing one religion to defend another doesn’t seem intellectually honest, IMHO.

118

I really don’t think that’s the case milroyj. It certainly wasn’t my intention and I think Collounsbury specifically disavowed that it was his.

Phelps et al are NOT representative of Christianity. Clearly not. But they are one tiny, quite rightfully maligned and marginalized face of Christianity. Just as the Taliban are a tiny, marginalized face of Islam.

Now the Taliban does seems to get a lot more visible support in the Muslim world than the Christian Identity Movement gets in the Christian world. But MHO is that the comparison is somewhat illusory as it is confounded by persection complexes and a tendency by Muslims in that part of the world to close ranks against a perceived “Western aggressor”. I think that’s ignorant and very, very unfortunate. But the fact remains that the Taliban are from representative. And I think that has been at the heart of a lot of this discussion :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
119

Quite likely. OTOH, most of the folks posting here are following multiple threads in multiple Fora and you never know what idea or rebuttal is rattling around their head from the last thread that just winds up carrying over to a new thread.

I certainly am quite willing to condemn the Taleban and I have noted areas where the philosophy of Islamic majority countries seem to lag behind Western ideals of civil rights. I just fear that statements condemning all Islam will wind up pitting major portions of the world against each other, needlessly.

120

I should like to point out that the entire sidetrack on Freddie Phelps and other Xtian things arose out of your requests for analagous things in Xtianity.

It never struck me that to recognize such folks exist in Xtianity means that all of Xtianity is like them.
Fallacy of composition. It would be rather perverse to draw attention to that and then commit it at one and the same time. Your ‘misreadings’ on this matter continue to strike me as rather perverse.