More Muslim Marvelousnous

[magellan01]

@Ibn_Warraq

Are you saying you honestly don’t think the Bible condemns adultery or requires the death penalty for adultery?

Reread Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10, and Proverbs 6:32.

Now, perhaps you’re going to argue that because of Jesus you can ignore all the laws of the Old Testament, but that certainly wasn’t what Jesus felt. As he said in Matthew 5:17-18.

He makes it very clear that they need to follow ever “jot and tittle of the law(meaning the law of the OT)”(another translation of the same passage.

Now, earlier you insisted that Christianity doesn’t argue that adultery should be a capitol offense because of John 8:1-11, but you seem to have misunderstood the point of that passage. “The Pharisees and the teachers of the law” had brought this adulteress before Jesus and were challenging him to say she had to be stoned. Jesus then came up with a reason not to with the famous phrase “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Now, the reason Jesus did this was because as the passage tells us, “they were using this question as a trap” and Jesus refused to do so because if he’d condemned her to be stoned to death he would have been a hypocrite because at that time the people in charge were regularly breaking the law.

As he said "“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'”(Matthew 23:1-3).

Had Jesus actually said it was wrong to punish people for adultery then Christians would not have over the centuries executed countless numbers of people for adultery and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine wouldn’t have defended this.

Christians in Europe didn’t stop executing people for adultery because they suddenly found some passage in the Bible they hadn’t noticed but because secular philosophies defanged them. That’s also why European Muslims in Bosnia, Albania, and Turkey don’t believe that adulterers should be executed.

Thanks for your response. Much of this has been addressed, so I’ll just add that the problem is not what be found in a book with a critical reading, it’s whether or not there is a good number of people alive today who share a literal interpretation of the barbarism contained therein. The fact that there is a New Testament assists in that. It gives license to not be hyper-literal about what is found int eh Old Testament. Also, where one looks to for enlightenment as far as the laws that will steer a society plays a huge role. The laws are both a seed and a mirror for culture. And when your laws come from a holy book, all three get intertwined, making it hard for any one of the three to evolve.

@Ibn_Warraq

I’m sorry that’s an extremely silly question. For starters, if you read more than just the Gospels you’ll notice the New Testament can be quite fiery towards what is to happen to people who don’t accept Jesus. If you read Revelations you’ll notice that Jesus is supposed to come back and commit genocide and mass murder on a grand scale against all non-Christians and those who don’t accept him into their hearts on a scale that makes Hitler look like a boy scout.

Again, the question is not what may be fond in books over a thousand years old, it’s the degree to which the barbarism described in them is being practiced today. Let me throw out this hypothetical to make the point: If Quakerism had roots going back 4,000 years and the ancient Book of Quakerism from it’s founding, had passages ten times worse than the Old Testament or the Quran, would you care? Would anyone care? Why should we?

@Ibn_Warraq

Beyond that, why don’t you say “the Bible” instead of “the New Testament”.

Obviously, because of the difference in the level of barbarity described in the two books and the fact that most people who call themselves Christian do not identify, or are even aware of, much of that barbarism. So, it’s irrelevant to them in the world in which they live.

@Ibn_Warraq

It’s patently obvious to us all that you didn’t say “The Bible” because you knew that the Old Testament, if anything, contains far more fiery, xenophobic, and extreme rhetoric than the Quran, though the New Testament contains a fair amount of bigoted garbage as well.

Obviously. See above.

@Ibn_Warraq

Well, then instead of comparing apple to oranges by squealing about how come the Muslims in Bangladesh aren’t more like Americans, compare Muslims and Christians Sub-Saharran Africa and the Middle East to each other.

In other words, do not put a magnifying glass on Islam. I strongly disagree. I think it needs to be scrutinized more, not less. It clearly is the most barbaric of major religions. It has not evolved. The world should highlight the barbarism that stems from that religion in an attempt to embarrass them out of the stone age. Think of all the people that will have better lives. Women especially.

@Ibn_Warraq

For example, you’ll notice that female genital mutilation is practiced by large numbers of Christians in Egypt yet nobody whines about Christianity somehow “tolerating” it or that it is “associated with Christianity”.

Which is it associated with more? I have heard of zero incidents of Christian immigrants to America mutilating their daughters and nieces. They’ve all been Muslim. And if genital mutilation was the only barbarism Islam is guilty of, I agree that we should attack the practice and all who participate in it. But that is just one of the many barbaric atrocities Islam is guilty of. I really don’t understand why you want to take the spotlight off of Islam. It can only do good. It will embarrass them into changing and it allows us civilized western societies to know what the threat is.

@Ibn_Warraq

As for Apostasy and adultery, I suspect if you spoke with Christian Arabs in the Levant area and Egypt, the responses you’d get wouldn’t be much different. I know in Egypt that whenever someone converts to Islam from Christianity they are immediately disowned by the family. I’ve never heard of an “ex-Christian” being murdered, but that probably has more to do with the Egyptian government making it clear that they would execute anyone who murdered “ex-Christians” rather than tolerance for this.

I don’t believe that Islam has a monopoly on backwardness and barbarism, but that is not the point. The point is, does it have a sufficient amount of backwardness and barbarism to distinguish itself from other major religions? I think that question is clearly. “yes”.

[AshenLady]

The Bush family got its’ money by laundering money for the Nazi’s. That didn’t keep Bush from getting elected X 2. No one is held responsible for anything anymore.

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You’re largely talking about the third world, though. In the third world, Islam and Christianity are both capable of manifesting in primitive, backwards ways. I point once again to Sub-Saharan Africa and to the violent homophobia fomented there by American Christians. Third world cultures are barbaric.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I am not contesting that Islam tradition holds that martyrs go to Heaven, my contention is that the majority of Islamic tradition does not consider those who kill innocents to be martyrs. Most Muslims do not think that suicide bombers are martyrs, they think they’re criminals.

Fair enough, but that’s not what you said. You referred to “violent martyrdom”.

Also Muslim views regarding suicide bombings are considerably more complex than either you or Cort seem to think.

For starters, it is certainly true that most Muslim were appalled by 9/11 and by attacks against Shia civilians in Iraq by suicide bombers, but when talking about the targeting of Israeli civilians opinions are quite different.

Numerous clerics have repeatedly defending the targeting of Israeli civilians, such as Yousef Al Qaradawi.

There’s a reason why Al Jazeera refused to use the term “suicide bomber” to refer to those who blew up Sbarros and instead referred to them as “martyrs” engaged in “martyrdom operations”.

For the longest time, one of the few Clerics who opposed suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians was Sheikh Tantawi, though he did so on the grounds that the Quran forbade suicide, not because the killing of Jewish civilians was wrong.

Now, in the last several years, the Muslim public has not been so supportive after Hamas started using children and women(particularly when many of the women were pressured into doing so) and as a result of such pressure, Hamas suspended martyrdom operations.

Nevertheless, while Muslims have had many different reactions to the movie Paradise Now, I don’t think too many think that Khaled and Sayyid were criminals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvNx2ZwRvY&feature=related

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ibn_Warraq

Fair enough, but that’s not what you said. You referred to “violent martyrdom”.

I was reiterating that phrase as it was used by a previous poster to refer to suicide bombings and terrorism.

[miss_elizabeth]

@magellan01

Yeah, yeah, I’m a piece of shit and you’re a piece of shit. But from where does this “dishonest debater” notion come from? I’ve been called lots and lots of things on these boards, all the usual ad hominems—and more. But I don’t recall this accusation. Please, do tell, what have i been dishonest about? Somehow I get the feeling that the dishonest piece of shit is you. And your quote above is my cite.

However, I do agree with you that casdave has done a stellar job here, as has Cort and NCDane.

When you compare Islam to Christianity, but leave out half the Bible, that is dishonest debating.

Also, I don’t agree with you. I think you are wrong, and you come from the wrong place, so even if you happen to hit on an idea I think is right, you’re still wrong because you’re right for the wrong reasons. You have a stupid axe to grind about Islam, and it comes from a nasty place, a place just as nasty as that which you condemn, in my opinion. I fear people like you coming to power as much as Islam; more, in fact, since in this country at least, people like you having power is far more likely.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ibn Warraq

There’s a reason why Al Jazeera refused to use the term “suicide bomber” to refer to those who blew up Sbarros and instead referred to them as “martyrs” engaged in “martyrdom operations”

I’m calling horseshit on this. Cite?

[John_Mace]

@AshenLady

The Bush family got its’ money by laundering money for the Nazi’s. That didn’t keep Bush from getting elected X 2. No one is held responsible for anything anymore.

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html

Assuming that article is true, and I don’t know that it is:

1. WTF does that have to do with teh evil Musilms?

2. Are you suggesting that George W. Bush is responsible for actions taken by his Grandfather?

[ElvisL1ves]

There’s also a school of thought that suggests suicide bombers are typically motivated by an intent to commit suicide. If they are in a culture where suicide is unthinkable, whose belief system condemns those who commit it to the lowest pits of the afterworld, but that sanctifies those who give their own lives for a higher purpose, then it becomes easy. Just volunteer yourself for the task.

There’s a story about an Iraqi operation, led by a middle-aged woman, I believe, that picks out likely-seeming young women, and has them raped, condemning them to an existence worse than death. Then, they get the soft-sell recruiting pitch, telling them of the glories available to them if they strap on an explosive vest and go somewhere there’s a lot of unbelievers.

Compare the mindset to the IRA and its own suicide bombers. Suicide is condemned about as strongly in Catholicism as in Islam.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m calling horseshit on this. Cite?

Ok, for starters read the book* Al Jazeera: The Story of the Network That is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism* by Mohammed Al-nanawy and Adel Iskander, which was a very complimentary account of Al Jazeera.

Or, if you’d rather not look them up, you can listen to another reporter who also admires Al Jazeera.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/285/cnn-of-the-arab-world

One of the critiques by some U.S. journalists and government officials is that some of Al-Jazeera’s correspondents call Palestinian suicide bombers martyrs, not terrorists, whereas they call those responsible for the attacks terrorists, or they do not label them in any definite way. Is that true, and how do you account for that?

L.A.: It’s not just Palestinian correspondents that call the suicide bombers martyrs, it’s Al-Jazeera. It’s their policy and I can understand their policy. Mind you, I don’t represent it, but I can tell you what they say. They say if you are reporting what’s happening in Palestine, then you are reporting and acknowledging the occupation of Arab people by Israelis, and so Palestinians who are fighting for freedom from occupation are labeled martyrs.

To be honest, I’m surprised you’re really shocked to learn this.

What’s surprising that Middle Eastern Muslims will have different outlooks on the conflict than westerners?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@ElvisL1ves

Compare the mindset to the IRA and its own suicide bombers. Suicide is condemned about as strongly in Catholicism as in Islam.

When has the IRA ever used suicide bombers?

[magellan01]

@miss_elizabeth

When you compare Islam to Christianity, but leave out half the Bible, that is dishonest debating.

Nope. Not even close. Subsequent to your post I explained why I did that. It makes perfect sense. I don’t whitewash what is in the Old Testament—there’s stuff in it just as barbaric as there is in the Quran—I just point out that it’s not relevant in today’s world. You might want to read my response to Ibn Warraq. Now you can disagree with the degree to which it is relevant, but to characterize it as dishonest shows you have no grasp of the meaning of the word. What IS dishonest is you characterizing my focusing on the New Testamant as dishonest.

@miss_elizabeth

Also, I don’t agree with you. I think you are wrong, and you come from the wrong place, so even if you happen to hit on an idea I think is right, you’re still wrong because you’re right for the wrong reasons.

Boo-hoo. Big fucking deal, you don’t agree with me. I don’t agree with you. It also seems that you’re more interested in the messenger than the message. Not a great trait in debates. And just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re dishonest. It means I think you’re wrong.

@miss_elizabeth

You have a stupid axe to grind about Islam, and it comes from a nasty place, a place just as nasty as that which you condemn, in my opinion. I fear people like you coming to power as much as Islam; more, in fact, since in this country at least, people like you having power is far more likely.

This is pure comedy gold. What a hypocrite you are! You find some problem with me starting a thread on yet the latest piece of Muslim barbarism, and call that “stupid”, then you come in here and rail to the high heavens about the evils of all religions. THAT comes from a nasty place. And you’re just like the worst of the evangelical atheists: you’re a fundie from the other end of the spectrum.

So, now that the one piece of sup[posed substantiation you offered regarding me being dishonest has fallen, I’m sure you’ll be eager to retract that statement. Right?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ibn_Warraq

Ok, for starters read the book* Al Jazeera: The Story of the Network That is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism* by Mohammed Al-nanawy and Adel Iskander, which was a very complimentary account of Al Jazeera.

Or, if you’d rather not look them up, you can listen to another reporter who also admires Al Jazeera.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/285/cnn-of-the-arab-world
To be honest, I’m surprised you’re really shocked to learn this.

What’s surprising that Middle Eastern Muslims will have different outlooks on the conflict than westerners?

So basically you don’t have a cite then? Didn’t think so.

[kaylasdad99]

As long as you’re online, magellan01, I wonder if I could draw your attention to my post #125, and get some feedback. I recognize that it may have gotten buried in the mad rush to continue the debate, so I’m not accusing you of ignoring it, but I did intend for it to be taken seriously.

Thanks for your time.

[casdave]

In just over a weeks time, I am compelled to attend ‘extremism training’

The aim is to identify possible who could be radicalisers and those who could be radicalised.

Even though we in the UK had IRA terrorism for decades, we never had this to deal with. I have no doubt the trainer will mention that terrorists come from many differant sectors of the worlds population, and with differant motives and causes, however,and this will be an attempt to disguise this training under the name of PC.

How likely is it that had there been a more sensible application of Islam in the world that I would not have to undergo this training? Despite all the other atrocities in the world today.

My role is not remarkable, and there are plenty such as myself who must do this training, but the most we ever had to deal with before Islamofascism was to remember not to leave your bags unattended, which is sensible advice if you don’t want them stolen, let alone worry about unidentified luggage causing chaos in public transport hubs.

Islam is based upon the repression of half of its own followers, and the description of non-followers as infidels, this is not meaningless drivel, this is today and its not even seen as radical, this is mainstream Islam, you know, the ones who would never dream of blowing up a train, aircraft or bus.

If you add in the repression of thought, of the ability for believers to change their minds, Islam pretty much represses the majority of muslims, because it represses freedom of ideas, it even tries to repress non-believers freedom of expression through threat of violence for those who draw or write anything that its completely unnaccountable leaders deem is ‘offensive’.
Its no good saying moderate muslims wouild not countenance such actions the Islamic lunatics are a significantly sized minority, its not one in a million, its millions and millions of them.

I wryly note that these nasty little religious dictators are never in a nation where they can be held accountable for their intemperate and evil outbursts, try extraditing them to our countries for incitement of religious hatreds, no hope, they know they could never get away with their behaviour in any nation with an independant judicial system.This alone says to me that these people have an idea of what is actually acceptable and what is not, and take refuge in places where they can continue to spread their poison without ever worrying about the no-knock warrant being served.

Wouldn’t you just love to see some of them here, perhaps engaging in an evening chat show and justifying their statements of evil? They won’t because they would be demolished in any debate, they cannot discuss these matters rationally and convincingly, because in Islam, debate consist not of true discourse, but of trying to fit the latest atrocity around the existing dogma, its all about justification.

How many of these idiots have been arrested and shipped over from say, Turkey? Sudan? Pakistan? Even the politicians of many Islamic nations must Kow-Tow to the mindless drivellings of the self appointed and self important little men who describe themselves as guardians of Islam.These little nasty people are the ones who preach hatred, they praise it, they promote it, not just for Islamic values, but to crush the will and spirit of independant thought.

Have you ever seen how Islamic schools teach the Q’ran? - I’ll help you out here, it is not through the use of critical analysis, it is not through a careful study and discussion about the differances of the world today compared to the time it was written.Some how it reminds me of the silly little pointless illustrations of Catholicism in the past whereby bishops were reputed to have had serious debates over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin - because its about as relevant.

It is rote taught, memorised, as are the comments by theocrats over the centuries, centuries and centuries of ignorant theocratic comment provides the material to be deemed ‘learnin’, when it is merely a repetition and twisting of what went before. There isn’t all that much need to twist it either, because to many Muslims, this is the absolute word and even if they cannto read, then the absolute word is whatever the hate filled Imams tell them is the truth.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So basically you don’t have a cite then? Didn’t think so.

What do you mean I don’t have a cite?

I linked you to one.

Do you want another?

Ok, here is an interview with Arab Media scholars Adel Iskandar and Mohammed El-nawawy where they both freely talk about how Al Jazeera refers to Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs”.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/134.html

Carnegie Council: You talk about the Arab perspective being mistakenly interpreted as biased. I will mention one specific charge of bias on Al-Jazeera that has received a lot of attention: the use of the word “martyr” to describe Palestinians killed in the current Intifada. Al-Jazeera defenders say this is simply the way Arabs regard Palestinians killed in the conflict; but now that suicide bombing has become a secular phenomena—the fact is, we also have Christian martyrs and even Jewish martyrs—the word appears to connote something more than just an Arab perspective on the Palestinians.

AIF: Interestingly enough, there is a debate now in the Middle East about the usage of “martyr” and whether active resistance or attacks on civilians constitutes martyrdom. My sense is, the term has been taken out of context insofar as it is a religious term. Plus “martyr” is a loaded term. That said, Al-Jazeera is hardly alone in favoring loaded terms –Western networks, for instance, are constantly referring to “terrorists.” What does “terrorist” really mean? Who is a terrorist? There is no universal definition, yet the term is being tossed around. Also, people now say “targeted killings” instead of “assassination.” All networks, whether Arab or Western, should be held accountable for their loaded language –it has deep connotations that should not be ignored.

Me-N: From the Arab point of view, the Palestinians who died resisting the Israeli incursions into Ramallah and Bethlehem and other Palestinian areas should be called “martyrs” because they died for a cause – that of an independent nation. But Al-Jazeera did not call the September 11th hijackers “martyrs.”

Please don’t ever accuse me of lying again unless you have evidence to support such a contention.

Moreover, if you’re going to accuse Arab-American professors who’ve devoted years of their lives to studying the Arab language media of lying then you need to present evidence of that.

Perhaps, I’m wrong and you speak Arabic and regularly watch Al Jazeera, but I doubt it.

[Cort]

@elucidator

Well, shit, Cort, if you give a pass to the Sufis (as well you should), then you finally get down to hating violent assholes. Why not just hate violent assholes and forget about their religious persuasions? What difference does it make what lame-ass justifications they use?

The justifications are relevant because without knowing them, we don’t know what to argue against. One of the biggest flaws in the argument that Islamic violence is just a matter of poverty, or violent people being violent, is that when you correct for wealth and education, support for suicide bombing goes up.

[even_sven]

@Cort

The justifications are relevant because without knowing them, we don’t know what to argue against. One of the biggest flaws in the argument that Islamic violence is just a matter of poverty, or violent people being violent, is that when you correct for wealth and education, support for suicide bombing goes up.

Suicide bombing is political. Nobody blows up a Guatemalan grocery store or a Gabonese border crossing because they just hate Christians that much. Nobody attacks Ethiopian or Indian Jews. When the Uighers fight against the Han Chinse, it’s not because they are a bunch of Atheists.

Suicide bombs are done by political groups (which use religion to sell their shtick) for political reasons. Political violence is an old story that happens around the world, and so it’s not all that surprising that there is Islamic political violence as well.

[AshenLady]

Hey guys, if Islam is so wonderful, why aren’t there any mass conversions and, in fact, why not MOVE to the middle east where you can be with all of your brethren.

You don’t want to get dirtied by associating with nasty Judeo/Christians and athiests and agnostics, now do any of you politically correct naybobs, eh?

[Lobohan]

@AshenLady

Hey guys, if Islam is so wonderful, why aren’t there any mass conversions and, in fact, why not MOVE to the middle east where you can be with all of your brethren.

You don’t want to get dirtied by associating with nasty Judeo/Christians and athiests and agnostics, now do any of you politically correct naybobs, eh?

You’re trying, and I can respect that. But if you aren’t up to Magellan’s relatively meager level you really should sit this one out.