By the way, you are permitted to challenge other posters’ statements in this forum, but accusations of dishonesty are prohibited:
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
You are not making any sense here. A generalization is by definition true if it applies generally, implying that there are exceptions, and so do not apply to all adherents.
Wrong wrong wrong. This makes it clear that you do not understand Islam as it exists today. I am not saying religion does not change over time, I never made that claim. You and I agree that it does. You are wrong that I pretend this, but much more importantly you are wrong to think that no one pretends that Islam does not change over time. This is believed by hundreds of millions of people! The eternal perfection of the Koran and the Prophet are fundamental Islamic beliefs.
y definition of Islam is the same as yours here, and so, I agree with you, but most Muslims do not, as they use a different definition. They would say that Muslims have changed over time, being better or worse Muslims, closer or further from eternally true unchanging Islam, and point out how long the Koran has been the same, and how it is the same Koran no matter where you go.
He continues to make false accusations against me and you give ME the warning??
You are seriously going to use your powers of moderation to keep me from defending myself from from false accusations?? seriously??
you should be immediately banned for this
Yes, you’re correct that the Quran says really nasty things about pagans and those who deny don’t believe in the God of Abraham. So do the holy texts of the Jews and the Christians.
People will also notice that the pagans in Europe were treated vastly, vastly worse by Christians than Zoroastrians or Hindus were by Muslims.
Islam has always been a practical religion and able to adapt itself to the situation.
That’s why they can have Akbar the Great not slaughter the Hindus the way Christian Europeans slaughter the pagans.
Sadly, this is also why Al Quaeda can slaughter women and children and decapitate prisoners and engage in suicide bombings despite clear, unequivocal pronouncements by Muhammad that such is wrong.
My username is Ibn Warraq. If you really were all that knowledgeable about this religion you despise you would know I wouldn’t need to read any of your links to know this.
You’ll notice that traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity are equally harsh as to what happens to those who deny the existence of the one true God.
Huh? Bernard Lewis is probably the most respected scholar of Islam currently living and no one would call him an apologist. Also, he’s taught at many universities, but never at any of those in the University of California state system.
Except of course that’s what all Muslims do. Are you saying that Osama Bin Laden wasn’t a Muslim because he ignores explicit commands by Muhammad when it comes to the targeting of women and children or to Hamas suicide bombers who reject his explicit instructions against suicide.
Similarly, Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in.
No, according to Paul and Revelations he engages in much worse. So do King David, Moses and countless others worshipped by both Jews and Christians.
For someone who claimed initially he hated all religions you seem to be an apologist for the non-Islamic Abrahamic faiths.
I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.
You’ve never been to Cairo have you?
Otherwise, you’d note that people can eat bacon, drink booze, refuse to wear hijabs and a ton of other stuff that would be illegal if there was anything remotely true in your claims.
So then you’re saying Bukhari Hadiths claiming that all of Abu Bakr’s children had been born before Muhammad heard the call and the Aisha was amongst the first Muslims aren’t “accepted”?
You think Bernard Lewis is an Islamic apologist and doesn’t engage in “traditional scholarship”?
You think Bernard Lewis and a guy who’s username is “Ibn Warraq” are “devoted to softening the image of Islam to a Western audience”? :dubious:
You really haven’t read much on the subject have you.
We are talking about today. Saying that Islam is no worse than Christianity back in the witch burning days doesn’t do it’s image the favor you are trying to give it.
What about when Mo decapitated prisoners?
It’s a username on a message board. I am aware of the traditional usage of the moniker and the contemporary author who uses it, but you are nothing like any of them, as evidenced by your attempts to advance the revisionist claims regarding Aisha’s age.
Yeah, that’s why we chopped their balls off and bred them to be miniature versions of their former selves.
You did not cite him in any way relevant to any argument I was making, personally. You have cited him when you are trying to point out that Islam has not always sucked as bad as Christianity in all times and places. I have never contested this repeated assertion of yours.
I am talking about the consensus of Muslims. I think it would be hard to make a definitive argument either way: many Muslims do not consider OBL a Muslim, because of his attacks on civilians, but he does have some support, and many who don’t support him would still consider him a Muslim.
But as far as picking and choosing which parts of the Koran are true? That’s easy, if you think that is kosher then you are no Muslim, according to the commonly accepted definition of people who call themselves Muslims.
And in a few pockets in Africa and all over history this has and had horrid, brutal effects, like the effects of Islam today which are widespread.
Jesus and Buddha were not warlords, and thus emulating their behavior does not overtly manifest in violence so often.
That said, it just makes their negative influence more insipid. If you think heathens are doomed to hell fire forever, or that people born into poverty and disability deserve it because of past life choices, it becomes much easier to devalue their actual human existence. But a comparison of this sort deserves it’s own thread, and should not be needed every third sentence when trying to discuss any specific point about Islam.
How do you think democracy is going to work itself out in a country where 84% of Muslims favor making leaving Islam punishable by stoning?
I am saying that according to traditional and mainstream Islamic sources, the Prophet Muhammad raped a child.
If you have any evidence at all that this is not true I would like to see it. Please use cites.
You think the scarecrow was a strawman?
Your username is your cite?
You are welcome to point out where his statements are in error.
You are prohibited by the rules of this forum from accusing him of lying or being dishonest.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m assuming the poster here isn’t the more well-known Ibn Warraq. But the well-known one is a critic of Islam.
Only to the extent that it is religious, per se. The number of people who are willing to kill others for “democracy” or “communism” or “capitalism” or simply power, (the religions of secular society), are quite as high as the number of Muslims who will kill for their beliefs. (Having better weaponry, those outside Islam are just more efficient at it, so it tends to not make the news as often or is portrayed in different ways.)
Piffle.
Getting a mob to riot and make the news is hardly the same as your claim that some “very large percentage of individuals [are] willing to kill and be killed.” If that were actually true, the bloody fighting in India would be constant, not sporadic. There wold be no Copts left in Egypt, today. It would have been Muslim Bosnians slaughtering Serb Christians rather than the other way around. Israel would have been overrun by people launching themselves across its borders in attacks reminiscent of banzai attacks. Are the percentages higher in those Muslim lands that are currently in political upheaval? Yes. Have a number of fanatics been able to use one warped version of their religion to incite people who perceive themselves to be oppressed to rally in violence to its “defense”? Sure. But if it is the religion causing all these problems, why do so many people in the same places not join with their co-religionists in the same violence? Why is it that when people of the same religion move out of those political cauldrons, they overwhelmingly take on the attitudes of their secular or Christian or Buddhist neighbors?
So they all believe in exactly the same way except when they don’t believe in exactly the same way.
Got it.
Ahh! Those are the ones who take sugar in their porridge.
Presumably Hank also gets upset at people labeling Muhammad Atta a Muslim since, from his standpoint, Muhammad Atta can’t possibly have been a Muslim since he was caught on camera downing multiple cognacs at an airport bar before boarding the final airplane he’d ever get on.
Nor, I’m sure, does Hank think the other 911 hijackers who felt the need to get lap dances at a strip club before blowing themselves and three thousand other human beings were Muslims.
Or at least, based on the logic he’s been using they can’t have been.
To be honest, one of Islam’s strengths and weaknesses is that the Quran and the Hadiths can be interpreted to justify all kinds of behavior, including behavior that’s completely contradictory.
According to traditional Islamic belief, every action can easily be put into five different classification, obligatory, recommended, allowed, discouraged, and forbidden, but in reality, it really depends on who your Marja is, or, to be more accurate, who you want your Marja to be when making certain decisions.
This is actually an interesting point. There are a number of very strong parallels between the majority Muslim lands today and the Europe of Christianity’s brief fling with witch hunting. In both cases, there was a significant disruption of both political power and the underpinnings of philosophical belief. In both cases, the reaction of many people was to seek out scapegoats to “punish” for the fears that that social upheaval engendered. In both cases, the there were un-historical claims, (with lots of false and incompletely understood citations to the purported "facts), about what the religion had actually taught that was used as a litmus test to decide whom to punish.
(And, as with condemnation of Islam, today, there are a lot of ignorant people who condemn the witch trials as arising from “true” Christianity, usually even getting the period when they occurred wrong.)
This is more than just massive goal post moving, which it is as well, it’s a blind denial of reality on your part. That you posted other things later does not mean that it wasn’t what you said. You said it, everyone can see it, and it’s absurd for you to try to say that it wasn’t what you said. It is exactly what you said. Regarding your later post, you were also incorrect as you tried to frame it as “whining” over the definition of the borders of the Middle East. Most Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia, which is not part of the Middle East by any definition of where the exact boundaries of the Middle East are.
Your arguments might (and I stress might) hold more water if you would have simply admitted your error rather than repeatedly trying to deny that you said what everyone can see clear as day is exactly what you said.
Answer: way less often.
The example I gave should be taken as a sign or a possibility of a problem not the problem itself. The problem becomes visible through incidents like below:
Six killed during protest against desecration of holy book in Ghaziabad(India)
Do you agree that religion(in this case Islam, in the case of medieval Europe, Christianity) is one of the factors that causes/perpetuates these problems? Or is religion blameless?
Sure. It’s a factor. Of course, how it is a factor is considerably influenced by other cultural considerations. (That explains why, even if one makes a big deal about Islam being “warlike,” the Muslim warriors were generally more merciful to their defeated opponents than were Christians up until the twentieth century. There have always been massacres by conquering armies, but Christian culture has tolerated a lot more of them than Islam has.)
I assume you know India is not a majority Muslim nation…
You are missing the distinction, I think, between religion and political boundary affiliations. Perhaps there is not a distinction, but I think there is.
Where Islam is a majority religion, oppression at a political level for any alternate belief is very high, and oppression of women at a political level (that is, a practical political structure which limits their equality) is very high. The percentage of the populace willing to sanction killing for the cause of the religious tenets (suicide bombing, e.g.) is very high. It appears to me you want to separate that reality from “the religion” and blame it on some other thing such as historical climate, or culture or whatever.
In this you are incorrect. The association of this sort of extremism with the religion of Islam is so pervasive and so consistent that it is much more reasonable to draw the conclusion that Islam drives this sort of culture.
Islam is stuck where the Westboro Baptists are stuck, where Christianity was stuck a few hundred years back, and where Judaism was stuck in Joshua’s day. There may be political parallels (really rabid Communism or McCarthyism, for example) but I doubt it. Muslims are Muslims first, and all else second. That is to say, they actually put into practice what they believe. And so some extraordinarily high percentage of a majority Muslim country is “radicalized” (from our perspective).
It may be true that emigrants from Muslim majority countries take on the less violent and oppressive views of their new countries, but I suggest an alternative explanation: the less violent and less oppressively-inclined are the ones who emigrate. When you are all good with defending the faith with violence against its “attackers,” forcing hijab and stoning adulterers, you are less inclined to go find freedom. Having said that, I submit that were a Western country to be somehow converted entirely to Islam, you would see a substantial reduction in political freedoms. This is because with Islam, you are Muslim first and all other affiliations second. Therefore your government and laws need to drive Islamic ideals above Western ideals of freedom to think for oneself.
Within any religion and political boundary, there will be a natural distribution of extremists and leave-alone-ists. What distinguishes Islam is its broad penetration as a religion, and the number of extremists it generates. God help us if the Westboro Baptists ever become as successful as Islam, and compared with Islamist extremists, the Westboro Baptist crowd are wannabe wimps.
Which hates sites are these? The Koran?
Ok good. That is a fact I’ve had a lot of trouble isolating from your posts in various threads. Further then, today, as things stand, do you think Islam (including as parts of the whole its extremist Salafist strains, its Deobandi strains, its more moderate Ismaili strains, the Islam-inspired Islamist political party strains) a more negative factor than other religions or less? Measured against other religions today, mind you, not Christianity in the medieval ages, or the Jews of the old testament?
They were flexible … in their beliefs.