This is a Rave about Islam

[distraction tactics]

Yeah, Islam gets a pretty bad rap. You know, for blowing up nightclubs, stoning rape victims, and flying jets into skyscrapers. But it's all unwarranted, see, because now they're KILLING NUNS. How rad is that?


MOGADISHU, Somalia - An elderly Italian nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa was shot dead by two gunmen at a hospital Sunday in an attack possibly linked to worldwide Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_af/somalia_nun_killed)

I have to say, Islam and Muslims are looking less retarded every day.

[Neppy]

At least she was elderly.

[Heleuiski]

Yeah I mean how dare the pope say that Islam is violent?


Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

All I see is peace, love and understanding.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/images_working/Hitler_Muslims/holo.jpg

http://images.washtimes.com/photos/full/20060205-111427-3497.jpg

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg

And before I get accused of being anti Islamic, I have no issue with any religion, until it becomes violent, bigoted and fundamentalist.

Islam has gone down the toilet.

[mancroft]

Mustn't criticise Islam.

You are on their death list now.

I bet that society would benefit if some of the women on these forums were made to walk round with bags over their heads. Like that old slapper at number 19 near me.

:rofl:

[Heleuiski]

Mustn't criticise Islam.

You are on their death list now.

I bet that society would benefit if some of the women on these forums were made to walk round with bags over their heads. Like that old slapper at number 19 near me.

:rofl:

:nono:

Hahahaha.

http://www.costumes4less.com/prodimages/thumbnails/5/thumbnail90752.jpg

There's prolly a fatwa out against me now.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Jepwish13.jpg

[meshou]

Fuck Christians while we're at it.

http://www.bn9.com/images/news/2005/6/29/lgbadsigns.jpg

[mancroft]

There's prolly a fatwa out against me now.

FATwa?

Go on a diet!

=))

[Ferrus]

Because Muslims have far more enlightened views on homosexuality: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/01/islam_and_gays.html#more

[meshou]

Because Muslims have far more enlightened views on homosexuality: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/01/islam_and_gays.html#moreA barbarian's a barbarian, especially if he agrees with other barbarians.

[Heleuiski]

FATwa?

Go on a diet!

=))

I'm on one!

I'm waiting for my thinwa.

;)

[Heleuiski]

http://www.mattszabo.com/archives/God%20Hates%20Fags-thumb.jpg

http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/images/uploads/bush_money_changers.jpg

[Ferrus]

A barbarian's a barbarian, especially if he agrees with other barbarians.
He's not an isolated example: http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html

[meshou]

...They're just so HAPPY. :D

[Heleuiski]

They're just so HAPPY. :D

That's coz they aren't a pair of carpet munchers and they aren't gonna burn in the fiery pits of hell like me.

:banana:

Bring it on!!!!

http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/SaddamDevil.jpg

[meshou]

He's not an isolated example: http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.htmlNeither is Fred Phelps. Do you have a point?

http://www.radicalruss.net/blog/images/rudolphe.jpg

[macr0]

Bashing on Islam on Internet forums is like beating up little kids. I guess that's why it's so fun.

[Heleuiski]

http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-3/virgins-zarqawi.GIF

[Ferrus]

Neither is Fred Phelps. Do you have a point?

http://www.radicalruss.net/blog/images/rudolphe.jpg
Yes in fact. If Christianity, as a religion, is able to make people do just vile and irrational things as you describe, for example with homosexuality, then surely Islam as a religion is able to do just the same?

[macr0]

Yes in fact. If Christianity, as a religion, is able to make people do just vile and irrational things as you describe, for example with homosexuality, then surely Islam as a religion is able to do just the same?

The low tide beaches all boats.

[sandwich]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/wealhtheow/Protest23.jpg

[meshou]

Yes in fact. If Christianity, as a religion, is able to make people do just vile and irrational things as you describe, for example with homosexuality, then surely Islam as a religion is able to do just the same?My point's apparently about three inches above your head.

[Heleuiski]

The point is, you can take any text and use it either as a tool for good, or for bad.

It can be warped, bastardised and misconstrued, an excuse to keep those fags and women down.

;)

[meshou]

The point is, you can take any text and use it either as a tool for good, or for bad.

It can be warped, bastardised and misconstrued, an excuse to keep those fags and women down.

;)I'd give you a cigar, but apparently it's not your kink.

A chia-kitty, perhaps?

[Ferrus]

My point's apparently about three inches above your head.
No I was well aware of it. I just choose to ignore it because of its fatuity.

[meshou]

No I was well aware of it. I just choose to ignore it because of its fatuity.So you decided to pretend I meant something you already knew I didn't? Riiight.

HAY GUYZ I'M NOT ACTUALLY STUOPID I JUZT PRETEND I AM CUZ I R SMART PLEASE BELIEVE ME i'm lonely.

[charred_heart]

i kill nuns! heheheheh

what kind of an idiot would kill a nun? That's... pathetic and twisted.
:mellow:

[Ferrus]

So you decided to pretend I meant something you already knew I didn't? Riiight.
Yes, because I'm bored and it makes the conversation more piquant to do that.

[Heleuiski]

i kill nuns! heheheheh

what kind of an idiot would kill a nun? That's... pathetic and twisted.
:mellow:

No you don't you're lovely.

:smooch:

[Ferrus]

No you don't you're lovely.
I don't know. It could be an affectation. One that dooms us all, DOOMS US!

[charred_heart]

I don't know. It could be an affectation. One that dooms us all, DOOMS US!:devil:

[Stoned_Rider]

Bashing on Islam on Internet forums is like beating up little kids. I guess that's why it's so fun.

Well, I don't think anyone really wants to end up like Theo van Gogh:

http://www.jiten.com/media/1/20060224-van_gogh_dead_on_foot_path_1.jpg

Having said that, even bashing Islam on the Internet might not be as safe as you think.


Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.

"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange.


The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross.
http://www.copts.net/detail.asp?id=614 (Originally reported in New York Post).

This is perfectly in line with Islamic teachings. Muhammad silenced his critics by murdering them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_Bint_Marwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf

[Stoned_Rider]

I'm on one!

I'm waiting for my thinwa.

;)
Hmm, that's gonna be a tough one, considering that most muslim clerics are fat.

I'll try to contact this guy though, I'm sure he'll sort you out!
http://www.famousmuslims.com/zakirnaik_files/image004.jpg

[Heleuiski]

SR why in your opinion are these people so barbaric, like butchers?

[Heleuiski]

Hmm, that's gonna be a tough one, considering that most muslim clerics are fat.

I'll try to contact this guy though, I'm sure he'll sort you out!
http://www.famousmuslims.com/zakirnaik_files/image004.jpg

He hasn't had enough Tabboulleh! Better fatten him up fast.
*adopts motherly concern*

[Heleuiski]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/02/06/ed-cartoon-big.jpg

http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/cartoon1.gif

[Heleuiski]

http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/cartoon2.gif

[Stoned_Rider]

SR why in your opinion are these people so barbaric, like butchers?
I don't think it is in their nature to be barbaric. I could have easily become one of them, or at least supportive of their acts, had I still been a muslim today. As an INTP who values truth more than anything else, I would have strived to follow Islam exactly the way it is supposed to be followed if I was 100% convinced that it is the truth and that the Quran is the literal word of God, no matter how "barbaric" or "backward" that would have made me in the eyes of people.

And this is exactly the problem with such people. To them, it is utterly inconceivable that the truth could be anything other than Islam. They consider secularism or even moderation to be the "footsteps of Satan". They find themselves in a situation where they have to derive all their morality from Muhammad, as instructed in the Quran. Anything that he did is considered perfectly moral and acceptable (such as slaughtering critics of Islam, marrying a 9 year old girl etc..). Therefore, they see absolutely nothing wrong in what they do because it is perfectly Islamic, and Islam is the ultimate truth.

This is why I always insist on tackling the very roots of the problem, Islam, instead of coming up with lame excuses for them like poverty, US foreign policy, Israel, bla bla bla

[Heleuiski]

This is why I always insist on tackling the very roots of the problem, Islam, instead of coming up with lame excuses for them like poverty, US foreign policy, Israel, bla bla bla

Islam or fundamnetalist Islam... however I think that you believe that the very nature of Islam is to be fundamentalist am I right?

And yet moderate Muslims I know are so not like that.
I suppose to fundamnetalists they would not be called proper Muslims.

[Stoned_Rider]

Islam or fundamnetalist Islam... however I think that you believe that the very nature of Islam is to be fundamentalist am I right?
Yup you are right. Reforming Islam goes against the very nature of Islam! There is only one form of Islam and it is to accept the Quran as the literal, eternal, unchanging word of God.
This is something that western liberals still cannot grasp. Like Ferrus previously asserted, it is very wrong to assume all religions are the same and that they all go through the same phases. What happened to Christianity cannot and will not happen to Islam.


And yet moderate Muslims I know are so not like that.
I suppose to fundamnetalists they would not be called proper Muslims.
Hmm, have you ever asked your moderate friends whether they consider themselves to be proper and devout muslims? It would be interesting to hear their answer.

[Stoned_Rider]

He hasn't had enough Tabboulleh! Better fatten him up fast.
*adopts motherly concern*
Hmm I don't think tabboulleh actually makes you fat. Go for Hummus ;)

[Heleuiski]

Hmm, have you ever asked your moderate friends whether they consider themselves to be proper and devout muslims? It would be interesting to hear their answer.

Muslims yes, devout? No.

They consider themselves to be muslims but in the way that a lot of westerners are christian, they don't go to Mosque but they believe in Allah.

[Dom]

Simply put it's a problem of religion.

Fundamentalist Muslims, like Fundamentalist Christians, think the moderate Muslims and Christians are compromising, weak, and immoral.

If you believe anything to be the absolutely truth, and I mean believe it. WE don't do that you see, in our western cynical culture, we don't really believe much, we have mini faith, an Idea. We decide it's better to just get along, we don't get righteously angry that the law of the land allows things that god call immoral, after all it's the individuals decision.

Fundamentalists see it differently. They recognize that the above is a compromise between the ideals exposed in religious texts and living comfortably in a modern society... They hate it.

While SR wants to hit the topic head on, and discuss the root problem which is Islam, he fails to see that that problem is not solvable. How can you change what people believe?? They are convinced, prepared to die even, how can you educate them or talk to them to show that they are wrong? They read the text, they see what it says...

You can't uninvent technology, and you can't remove religious revelation. In other words one can not destroy or erase Islam, it will always be with us. The same process with secularized the west, will not happen (at least not in the same way) for the middle east, then people were figuring out morality and science and their relationship with religion, now the option of secularism isn't something the Islamic world can face as a thing to be experimented with, it's taught to be evil.....

We are stuck with Islam and I do not know how to pacify it. Personally I'd like to see better distribution of wealth, fairer foreign policy etc etc then they will have no excuse and will have to face the world in an honest, 'we're doing this cos the book says so' way. Then we can engage them as harshly or in some other way as we wish, them finally being exposed to the world and to many of their own for what they really are.

I ponder how many angry Muslims, really think it is about foreign policy etc, I wonder how many would remain loyal when it changes into we must conquer the world for allah...

just some ramblings as normal...

[Heleuiski]

Yeah to the fundamentalists we are a decadent immoral godless society.

In a a way they have a point. The UK has a huge amount of Alcoholic debauche louts.

Doesn't mean we all deserve to have our heads chopped off tho of course.

[Heleuiski]

See my friends are Turks Azeri's and Iranians. The Iranians I know escaped from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war.

They don't want to live in Iran. They love London and the opportunities that this country has given them.

They drink the odd bottle of wine.

They are never going to eat pork tho. That's something ingrained in them. Heh.

[Arioch]

I'm surprised that a whole rave about Islam was started because some gunman who might or might not have been Islamic, shot a nun which might or might not be in connection to what the pope said?

Didn't anybody read the part about the country being in chaos? Warlords? That people got killed there *before* the pope said anything? I quote: "A Swedish journalist, Martin Adler, was shot dead in June during a demonstration in Mogadishu."

[Heleuiski]

I'm surprised that a whole rave about Islam was started because some gunman who might or might not have been Islamic, shot a nun which might or might not be in connection to what the pope said?

Didn't anybody read the part about the country being in chaos? Warlords? That people got killed there *before* the pope said anything? I quote: "A Swedish journalist, Martin Adler, was shot dead in June during a demonstration in Mogadishu."

Thank you for the insight Arioch.

[wildcat]

Simply put it's a problem of religion.

Fundamentalist Muslims, like Fundamentalist Christians, think the moderate Muslims and Christians are compromising, weak, and immoral.

If you believe anything to be the absolutely truth, and I mean believe it. WE don't do that you see, in our western cynical culture, we don't really believe much, we have mini faith, an Idea. We decide it's better to just get along, we don't get righteously angry that the law of the land allows things that god call immoral, after all it's the individuals decision.

Fundamentalists see it differently. They recognize that the above is a compromise between the ideals exposed in religious texts and living comfortably in a modern society... They hate it.

While SR wants to hit the topic head on, and discuss the root problem which is Islam, he fails to see that that problem is not solvable. How can you change what people believe?? They are convinced, prepared to die even, how can you educate them or talk to them to show that they are wrong? They read the text, they see what it says...

You can't uninvent technology, and you can't remove religious revelation. In other words one can not destroy or erase Islam, it will always be with us. The same process with secularized the west, will not happen (at least not in the same way) for the middle east, then people were figuring out morality and science and their relationship with religion, now the option of secularism isn't something the Islamic world can face as a thing to be experimented with, it's taught to be evil.....

We are stuck with Islam and I do not know how to pacify it. Personally I'd like to see better distribution of wealth, fairer foreign policy etc etc then they will have no excuse and will have to face the world in an honest, 'we're doing this cos the book says so' way. Then we can engage them as harshly or in some other way as we wish, them finally being exposed to the world and to many of their own for what they really are.

I ponder how many angry Muslims, really think it is about foreign policy etc, I wonder how many would remain loyal when it changes into we must conquer the world for allah...

just some ramblings as normal...
The fundamentalists do not recognize a goddamn thing.

[Dom]

Yeah to the fundamentalists we are a decadent immoral godless society.

In a a way they have a point. The UK has a huge amount of Alcoholic debauche louts.

Doesn't mean we all deserve to have our heads chopped off tho of course.

Well they do think so.... It says so right er there......

[mancroft]

This is perfectly in line with Islamic teachings. Muhammad silenced his critics by murdering them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_Bint_Marwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf

Yes, Muhammad seems to have had an awful lot of people killed.

[Heleuiski]

[QUOTE]Asmā bint Marwān (Arabic: عصماء بنت مروان, namely "'Asmā the daughter of Marwān") was a poet who lived in Hijaz in medieval Arabia. According to the Ahadith, she was killed on the orders of the Islamic prophet Muhammad for composing poetry that satirized him.[/QUOTE

It goes all the way back...
*gulp*

[Heleuiski]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5358976.stm


Indonesia to execute Christians

Three Indonesian Christians sentenced to death for launching attacks on Muslims in 2000 are due to be executed on Thursday or Friday, lawyers said.

Fabianus Tibo, Marianus Riwu and Dominggus Silva had been set to face the firing squad last month but won a reprieve after a papal appeal.

The men were found guilty of inciting attacks during religious rioting in Central Sulawesi in 2000.

Their supporters and rights groups have questioned the trial's fairness.

Some 4,000 extra troops have been deployed in religiously-divided Sulawesi amid fears the executions could spark further violence.

More Christian/Muslim violence

[Stoned_Rider]

Wise ramblings, Moridin ;)
Unfortunately though, not many people see Islam as the root problem like you do. They genuinely believe that other factors are solely responsible for all of this.

I never said it was going to be an easy task to de-Islamize people. In fact I will probably not see it happen in my lifetime. But why just sit there and surrender that Islam will never vanish? We have successfully defeated Nazism and Fascism and I don't see why the same cannot happen with Islam if the world recognises it as a dangerous ideology. I know this is a simplistic comparison but my point is, us humans have shown throughout history that we are capable of anything especially when truth and reason is on our side.

Yes, fundamentalists read the text, they see what it says, and they are convinced it is the truth. But why? I don't think they have under-developed brains or anything, it is purely a question of education.
As a kid, I often couldn't sleep at night whenever I thought about the Quranic verses that were taught to me that day. The most common theme in the Quran is Hell and torture. Open the Quran to any page and chances are you will come across a truly graphic account of how people are going to be tortured in hell, how their burned skin will be replaced with new skin so that they can constantly suffer again, for all eternity... how they will ask for just a drop of cold water but what they get instead is boiling water that burns their guts.. how Allah sent earthquakes and hurricanes as a punishment for people who didn't believe in him etc..

Sure, I thought such verses were evil and frightening but I had no doubt they were the truth! Why? Because I was taught to accept it as the truth, or else I'd end up with all those damned souls in Hell!
Islam is taught through fear. Muslims fear Allah more than they love him. Why else would they abstain from all the pleasures of life and perform tedious rituals five times a day?

This brainwashing is also re-inforced through Islamic apologetic propaganda. We were made to believe that the Quran is miraculous in all sorts of ways, especially scientific, and that it couldn't have possibly been written by a mere human 1400 years ago. My teachers always used to frown upon any questions or criticisms i had about this so-called miraculous aspect. Needless to say, they never came up with satisfactory answers.

Anyways, here I am, a living proof that there is still hope for most muslims. If everyone ignored the root problem which is Islam like you called for, I would probably be on the other side today, threatening to slit your throat :D

I have lived most of my life among muslims and I know for a fact that most of them are ignorant about the real Islam. Even the educated ones. For example, charred_heart never heard about how Muhammad's companions used to rape their war captives, under Muhammad's supervision, or how he murdered his critics, until I brought these issues to his attention.

You said it yourself, secularism and all the things that come with it is taught to be evil. We can definitely do something about that. We can persuade Islamic countries to introduce a more objective and critical outlook to Islam in their curricula, and let people decide for themselves. We can persuade them to stop glorifying Islamic conquests and "holy wars". We can teach muslims that Islam is inherently barbaric and evil and should have no place in a civilised society.

[Heleuiski]

We can teach muslims that Islam is inherently barbaric and evil and should have no place in a civilised society.

How are you going to do that?

Good luck.

Are you so sure that one day Islam won't be watered down to something more palatable?

Remember catholicism in Spain? The Inquisition?

Included under the rubric of heretical propositions were verbal offenses, from outright blasphemy to questionable statements regarding religious beliefs, from issues of sexual morality, to behavior of the clergy. Many were brought to trial for affirming that simple fornication (sex without the explicit aim of procreation) was not a sin or for putting in doubt different aspects of Christian faith such as Transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary. Also, members of the clergy itself were on occasion accused of heretical propositions. These offenses were infrequently paired with severe penalties.

The Inquisition also pursued offenses against morals, at times in open conflict with the jurisdictions of civil tribunals. In particular, there were numerous trials for bigamy, a relatively frequent offense in a society that only permitted divorce under the most extreme circumstances. In the case of men, the penalty was five years in the galley (tantamount to a death sentence). Women too were accused of bigamy. Also, many cases of solicitation during confession were adjudicated, indicating a strict vigilance over the clergy.

Inquisitorial repression of the sexual offenses of homosexuality and bestiality, considered, according to Canon Law, crimes against nature, merits separate attention. Homosexuality, known at the time as sodomy, was punished by death by civil authorities. It fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition only in the territories of Aragon, when, in 1524, Clement VII, in a papal brief, granted jurisdiction over sodomy to the Inquisition of Aragon, whether or not it was related to heresy. In Castile, cases of sodomy were not adjudicated, unless related to heresy. The tribunal of Zaragoza distinguished itself for its severity in judging these offenses: between 1571 and 1579 more than 100 men accused of sodomy were processed and at least 36 were executed; in total, between 1570 and 1630 there were 534 trials and 102 executed.[15]

Galileo...

In 1614, from the pulpit of Santa Maria Novella, Father Tommaso Caccini (1574-1648) denounced Galileo's opinions on the motion of the Earth, judging them dangerous and close to heresy. Galileo went to Rome to defend himself against these accusations, but, in 1616, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy as religious doctrine. In 1622, Galileo wrote the The Assayer (Saggiatore), which was approved and published in 1623. In 1624, he developed the first known example of the microscope. In 1630, he returned to Rome to apply for a license to print the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in Florence in 1632. In October of that year, however, he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office in Rome. The court issued a sentence of condemnation and forced Galileo to abjure. As a result, he was confined in Siena and eventually, in December 1633, he was allowed to retire to his villa in Arcetri. In 1634, he was deprived of the support of his beloved daughter, Sister Maria Celeste (1600-1634), who died prematurely. In 1638, almost totally blind, Galileo published his final book, Two New Sciences, in Leiden. He died in Arcetri on January 8, 1642, in the company of his student Vincenzo Viviani.

Christians weren't always so liberal...

[Ferrus]

Are you so sure that one day Islam won't be watered down to something more palatable?
No it won't, Christianity has never been turned into something more to the tastes modern sensibilities, it has merely been reduced to a cipher by Western culture - with some Christians reactining to this and trying to modernise it as a desperate last gasp. Fundamentalist Christians are just as resolute as Islamic fundamentalists but unlike Islam, Christianity doesn't have unchallenged dominace in society so they are foced more to react (as opposed to create) in much the same way the early Christians in Rome were.

[Dom]

You said it yourself, secularism and all the things that come with it is taught to be evil. We can definitely do something about that. We can persuade Islamic countries to introduce a more objective and critical outlook to Islam in their curricula, and let people decide for themselves. We can persuade them to stop glorifying Islamic conquests and "holy wars". We can teach Muslims that Islam is inherently barbaric and evil and should have no place in a civilized society.

In Christianity it took a reformation, the emergence of protestantism and many hundreds of years, and not an insignificant number of wars to achieve this 'objective and critical outlook' at the Catholic flavor of Christianity. This is exactly one of things taught to Muslims as evidence that Christianity was not the answer. It must be from with in a Muslim community that this transformation can start if it hopes to be successful, trying to introduce it from outside will probably not work.

I'm not opposed to trying however, got to do something!

[Ymir]

Simply put it's a problem of religion.

I have to object to the idea that the source of all evil is religion. The worst acts of violence in human history has been commited by non-religious people. People like Stalin and Mao were not religious, even Hitler can't be considered a christian.

[Heleuiski]

In Christianity it took a reformation, the emergence of protestantism and many hundreds of years, and not an insignificant number of wars to achieve this 'objective and critical outlook' at the Catholic flavor of Christianity. This is exactly one of things taught to Muslims as evidence that Christianity was not the answer. It must be from with in a Muslim community that this transformation can start if it hopes to be successful, trying to introduce it from outside will probably not work.

I'm not opposed to trying however, got to do something!


It seems to me that Islam is at a stage not unlike Christianity 300 years ago. If this is so then there is a long way to go yet.

[Ferrus]

I have to object to the idea that the source of all evil is religion. The worst acts of violence in human history has been commited by non-religious people. People like Stalin and Mao were not religious, even Hitler can't be considered a christian.
The source of all evil in the world is power, and ideas. Both of which are closely allied to each other. And whether it is "evil" is a debatable question. I would consider it just a natural consquence of the human condition.

[Heleuiski]

I have to object to the idea that the source of all evil is religion. The worst acts of violence in human history has been commited by non-religious people. People like Stalin and Mao were not religious, even Hitler can't be considered a christian.

But Ymir...that is NOT what was said. What was said is that in THIS CASE it is a problem of religion.

[Heleuiski]

The source of all evil in the world is power, and ideas. Both of which are closely allied to each other. And whether it is "evil" is a debatable question. I would consider it just a natural consquence of the human condition.

Correction... power and STOOPID ideas.

Some ideas are quite fantastic.

[Stoned_Rider]

In Christianity it took a reformation, the emergence of protestantism and many hundreds of years, and not an insignificant number of wars to achieve this 'objective and critical outlook' at the Catholic flavor of Christianity. This is exactly one of things taught to Muslims as evidence that Christianity was not the answer. It must be from with in a Muslim community that this transformation can start if it hopes to be successful, trying to introduce it from outside will probably not work.

I'm not opposed to trying however, got to do something!

Yup, that's why I said it is the Islamic countries themselves that have to introduce this change. But it would definitely help if western liberals stop being so friendly to Islam, as Muslims see this as further proof that Islam is the truth.

"Oh, look! George Galloway said he likes Islam! Allahu Akbar! Islam is the truth!".

Just look at the BBC's guide to Islam to get a taste of what I mean:


What can justify Jihad?
There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the underlying cause. (wtf?)

Permissable reasons for military Jihad:

Self-defence
Strengthening Islam (elaborate?)
Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
Putting right a wrong (elaborate?)

What a Jihad is not

A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:

Force people to convert to Islam (wtf?)
Conquer other nations to colonise them (wtf?)
Take territory for economic gain
Settle disputes
Demonstrate a leader's power
Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest (wtf?), and took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_3.shtml

:rolleyes:


How are you going to do that?
The means are definitely there.



Are you so sure that one day Islam won't be watered down to something more palatable?
Who knows. The only thing I'm sure of is that such a watered-down version would have absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad's Islam.

[charred_heart]

For example, charred_heart never heard about how Muhammad's companions used to rape their war captives, under Muhammad's supervision,...wait a second, that's what you said. Upon reading the hadith again it was clear the prophet did not approve and denied them the right although he did not rebuke the men for their proposal.

[distraction tactics]

I'm surprised that a whole rave about Islam was started because some gunman who might or might not have been Islamic, shot a nun which might or might not be in connection to what the pope said?

Didn't anybody read the part about the country being in chaos? Warlords? That people got killed there *before* the pope said anything? I quote: "A Swedish journalist, Martin Adler, was shot dead in June during a demonstration in Mogadishu."

1. You could definitely be right.

2. ...but probably not. The story is likely true as depicted.

3. Either way it doesn't really matter. The trial of Islam as prosecuted by the West isn't really concerned with this specific incident. Indeed, if the story was false it's a shocking example of media bias and a moral for the masses to always question. However, given the other acts of violence we've seen from the Islamic world, getting up in arms about this specific case is like stressing about a bug hitting your car's windshield while not blinking an eye at your house getting leveled by a mudslide.

(I trust everyone at least caught the half tongue-in-cheek tone of the OP.)

[charred_heart]

Indeed, if the story was false it's a shocking example of media bias and a moral for the masses to always question...
I can't help but smile :)


(I trust everyone at least caught the half tongue-in-cheek tone of the OP.)I see you left yourself a safe exit in case of emergencies

[Dom]

1. You could definitely be right.

2. ...but probably not. The story is likely true as depicted.

3. Either way it doesn't really matter. The trial of Islam as prosecuted by the West isn't really concerned with this specific incident. Indeed, if the story was false it's a shocking example of media bias and a moral for the masses to always question. However, given the other acts of violence we've seen from the Islamic world, getting up in arms about this specific case is like stressing about a bug hitting your car's windshield while not blinking an eye at your house getting leveled by a mudslide.

(I trust everyone at least caught the half tongue-in-cheek tone of the OP.)

1, agree

2, agree

3, agree

and the other yes I did....

[distraction tactics]

I can't help but smile :)

I see you left yourself a safe exit in case of emergencies

Actually, no, Islam still sucks and you're still a moron.

No exit required.

[Stoned_Rider]

wait a second, that's what you said. Upon reading the hadith again it was clear the prophet did not approve and denied them the right although he did not rebuke the men for their proposal.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371):

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

This is the approved Islamic translation of the Hadith by Muslim scholars, not my own translation.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I'm surprised that a whole rave about Islam was started because some gunman who might or might not have been Islamic, shot a nun which might or might not be in connection to what the pope said?

Didn't anybody read the part about the country being in chaos? Warlords? That people got killed there *before* the pope said anything? I quote: "A Swedish journalist, Martin Adler, was shot dead in June during a demonstration in Mogadishu."

Yes,and I suppose that the fact that four Catholic churches in the West Bank were burnt down in the days after the Pope's speech is just a coincidence too.

RE the OP, I think this quote from Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokewoman Tasnim Aslam says it all:


Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence

PRICELESS.=)) =)) =))

[charred_heart]

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371):

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

This is the approved Islamic translation of the Hadith by Muslim scholars, not my own translation.
I remember you interpreting what the prophet said (the part highlighted in bold) as an acceptance to the men's wishes. I asked you for the arabic translation, and when I read it the first words from the prophet's sentece was
لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا
which translates to "No, you should not" then the sentence continues.

The prophet Mohammed had a 20+ year career and took in whole tribes. Why should the customs of some of them be a reflection of the prophet's ethics?

[charred_heart]

Actually, no, Islam still sucks and you're still a moron.

No exit required.this habit of putting your foot in your mouth, are you aware of it?

Don't worry, I'll remind you later :)

[Dom]

I remember you interpreting what the prophet said (the part highlighted in bold) as an acceptance to the men's wishes. I asked you for the arabic translation, and when I read it the first words from the prophet's sentece was
لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا
which translates to "No, you should not" then the sentence continues.

The prophet Mohammed had a 20+ year career and took in whole tribes. Why should the customs of some of them be a reflection of the prophet's ethics?

Then why is the translation that Stoned Rider posted considered an accepted and published translation???

[distraction tactics]

this habit of putting your foot in your mouth, are you aware of it?

Don't worry, I'll remind you later :)

Oh, won't you please clue my ignorant self in? All that knowledge you possess but only see fit to dispense to the deserving doesn't mesh well with your inability to insult someone without using a 'smiley' emoticon.

At least you're actually responding to the correct context this time.

[Arioch]

1. You could definitely be right.

2. ...but probably not. The story is likely true as depicted.

3. Either way it doesn't really matter. The trial of Islam as prosecuted by the West isn't really concerned with this specific incident. Indeed, if the story was false it's a shocking example of media bias and a moral for the masses to always question. However, given the other acts of violence we've seen from the Islamic world, getting up in arms about this specific case is like stressing about a bug hitting your car's windshield while not blinking an eye at your house getting leveled by a mudslide.

(I trust everyone at least caught the half tongue-in-cheek tone of the OP.)

Yes you are quite right, it is not about this one incident

What we must remember is is that this particular incident is but one example of the fact that "even INTPs" are quite willing and ready to forget the facts, bypass proper reason and make baseless assumptions on a matter, simply because it fits something they already suspect.

Strangely enough this is an accusation I have seen lobbied against Christian and Muslims quite a lot lately on this forum. Now... what did they call that again...?

[charred_heart]

Then why is the translation that Stoned Rider posted considered an accepted and published translation???it's the interpretation of the translator. Maybe he saw that it was not needed to stress on the "no".

[Nemesis]

Yeah, Islam is TEH SUCK.

[distraction tactics]

Yes you are quite right, it is not about this one incident

What we must remember is is that this particular incident is but one example of the fact that "even INTPs" are quite willing and ready to forget the facts, bypass proper reason and make baseless assumptions on a matter, simply because it fits something they already suspect.

Strangely enough this is an accusation I have seen lobbied against Christian and Muslims quite a lot lately on this forum. Now... what did they call that again...?

I believe, "not being allowed to have an opinion."

This article hasn't been 'proven false'. Get off your fucking high horse, Islamic lunatics are still running rampant.

[charred_heart]

Oh, won't you please clue my ignorant self in?I'm afraid that's impossible


All that knowledge you possess but only see fit to dispense to the deserving doesn't mesh well with your inability to insult someone without using a 'smiley' emoticon.I don't rate my level of knowledge with my skill at hurling insults. I'm not insulted by you, you are too naive to be insulting :)

[Dom]

it's the interpretation of the translator. Maybe he saw that it was not needed to stress on the "no".

So this accepted and published translator, thought it more important to suggest that it doesn't matter whether one withdraws or not as obviously a child will be born if Allah wills it whether one withdraws or not.

Odd that this translator thinks that is more important than a direct instruction not to rape them.

Also if the other translation says no, don't do it, this has lost conext when taken with the just of the sentence.

It means "No, don't do it," Where it is the withdrawal as this is the topic of the rest of the sentence. Your translation also does not directly or definiatively show that the big guy told them not to rape those women.

[charred_heart]

Yeah, Islam is TEH SUCK.yeah, cause your TEH GAY.

On a related note:
For muslim shariah law countries, what do you think of the idea of giving equal rights to gays while imposing a fine on public displays of affection? They probably stop people who do it anyway so why not use it as a bargaining chip? It sucks, but it's something the conservative muslims can stomach.
The idea is that gay people should be given the choice to live their lives however they see fit, but at the same time keep it private.

You might find this strange, muslim societies don't consider PDA an act of love, they see it as rude exhibitionism. Prudish, but that's how they feel.

What would be the downside to this? The other option would cause a volcanic eruption of opposition in a conservative muslim country - it will go nowhere.

[charred_heart]

It means "No, don't do it," Where it is the withdrawal as this is the topic of the rest of the sentence. Your translation also does not directly or definiatively show that the big guy told them not to rape those women.It was known to them that the only option unexplored was this one of withdrawal. The prophet told them it's also wrong, so they had no way to commit the rapes without sinning.

[distraction tactics]

I'm afraid that's impossible

I don't rate my level of knowledge with my skill at hurling insults. I'm not insulted by you, you are too naive to be insulting :)

Interesting. I give you every opportunity, but you still won't take the plunge. I don't even know to that which you are specifically referring.

Is that:

A) Theism is illogical with the corollary being Islam is a completely false philosophy?

B) That extremist Muslims are predisposed to inappropriate attacks against civilian populations?

C) That I don't treat 'white' aggression with the same vehemence, leading you to therefore make the incorrect assumption I believe it's 'okay'?

D) That I find you in general particularily tiring with your ostrich-like view of Islamic extremism?

E) That I am unapologetic in stating my opinion?

F) That you cannot comphrehend being against an ideology while still maintaining peace and goodwill to those associated in like belief to said ideology?

G) Or that I cannot debate the nitty-gritty scriptural aspects of Islam in favour of a pragmatic look at its overall social and political effects?

[Ivy]

I can't help but smile :)

I see you left yourself a safe exit in case of emergencies

I don't think he's exiting at all. This one story being in question doesn't really affect the bigger picture. I am big on religious tolerance, but I think we need to be careful about tolerating the religion, not the violent acts perpetrated while wearing the vestments of the religion.

The same is true of my own religion, Christianity. I think if I'm intellectually honest I have to admit that some people have done some pretty shitty things in the name of my religion. I can't, and won't, and wouldn't, defend that.

[charred_heart]

Interesting. I give you every opportunity, but you still won't take the plunge. I don't even know to that which you are specifically referring.

Is that:

A) Theism is illogical with the corollary being Islam is a completely false philosophy?

B) That extremist Muslims are predisposed to inappropriate attacks against civilian populations?

C) That I don't treat 'white' aggression with the same vehemence, leading you to therefore make the incorrect assumption I believe it's 'okay'?

D) That I find you in general particularily tiring with your ostrich-like view of Islamic extremism?

E) That I am unapologetic in stating my opinion?

F) That you cannot comphrehend being against an ideology while still maintaining peace and goodwill to those associated in like belief to said ideology?

G) Or that I cannot debate the nitty-gritty scriptural aspects of Islam in favour of a pragmatic look at its overall social and political effects?
It's:
H) Your complete lack of awareness of what goes on in the middle east.
I) Projecting your personal experiences with religion on everything.

[charred_heart]

I don't think he's exiting at all. This one story being in question doesn't really affect the bigger picture. I am big on religious tolerance, but I think we need to be careful about tolerating the religion, not the violent acts perpetrated while wearing the vestments of the religion.

The same is true of my own religion, Christianity. I think if I'm intellectually honest I have to admit that some people have done some pretty shitty things in the name of my religion. I can't, and won't, and wouldn't, defend that.There's a possibility it has nothing to do with religion. I say this because I know a bit about Somalia, not because I'm a muslim. distraction's complete confidence in his assumptions is a litle irritating for someone who probably doesn't know where Somalia is (maybe he does, but he probably googled it up recently).

[distraction tactics]

Wow, you actually bit! Good boy.


It's:
H) Your complete lack of awareness of what goes on in the middle east.


Guilty as charged, at least in some respects. I know a bit more than I let on, or rather, I know as much as any westerner without formal education in that particular field.

On the other hand, you grossly overstate your own understanding about the middle east and it wouldn't be a stretch to say I'm not the only one who finds it slightly embarassing.


I) Projecting your personal experiences with religion on everything.

This is incorrect. My personal experiences with religion are relatively benign and inform very little on my views outside of prarie-Christianity, but rather have paved the way for an interest in the topic.

[Arioch]

I believe, "not being allowed to have an opinion."

This article hasn't been 'proven false'. Get off your fucking high horse, Islamic lunatics are still running rampant.

*sighs* Let me try this again, perhaps in smaller words.

I am calling for reason and logic in lieu of jumping to conclusions that have little relation towards the facts and hypocrisy

I have in no way claimed that the article is false, merely your interpretation

[Ivy]

There's a possibility it has nothing to do with religion. I say this because I know a bit about Somalia, not because I'm a muslim. distraction's complete confidence in his assumptions is a litle irritating for someone who probably doesn't know where Somalia is (maybe he does, but he probably googled it up recently).

Do you think if a group of radical Christians shot and killed a gay man it would be unreasonable to speculate that it was an example of religiously-motivated violence? I don't. It would be possible that it was a personal dispute, or a robbery, or something like that. But probably not.

[Stoned_Rider]

I remember you interpreting what the prophet said (the part highlighted in bold) as an acceptance to the men's wishes. I asked you for the arabic translation, and when I read it the first words from the prophet's sentece was
لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا
which translates to "No, you should not" then the sentence continues.

The prophet Mohammed had a 20+ year career and took in whole tribes. Why should the customs of some of them be a reflection of the prophet's ethics?

Nope. You're clutching at straws and you know it. It literally translates into "it does not matter if you do not do it".

I will probably sound boring here but please bear with me, this is necessary:

"La alaikom an la taf'alou" means: It does not matter if you do not do it. "La alaikom" is an Arabic expression that means "It does not matter".

"La, alaikom an la taf'alou" (Note the added comma) means: No, You must not do that. However, this is an absurd and weird way to say it in Arabic. If that's what Muhammad intended to say then surely he could have found better words to put it.

In the Arabic text, there is no comma after the "La", so the first translation applies. Also, the setence that comes straight after, which says that if a soul is destined to be born then it will be born anyway, favours the first translation.

Besides, do you realize you are going against the consensus of Islamic scholars who accept and endorse this translation as Islamic?

Finally, eat this:
(‏لا عليكم أن لاتفعلوا‏)‏ معناه ما عليكم ضرر في ترك العزل، لأن كل نفس قدر الله خلقها لابد أن يخلقها‏.‏ سواء عزلتم أم لا‏.‏ وما لم يقدر خلقها لا يقع، سواء عزلتم أم لا‏.‏ فلا فائدة في عزلكم‏.‏ فإنه إن كان الله تعالى قدر خلقها سبقكم الماء، فلا ينفع حرصكم في منع الخلق‏]‏‏.
http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=138&CID=77#s11

This is an explanation, in Arabic, of the phrase mentioned above. Sorry, but you got it wrong this time.

[distraction tactics]

I don't think he's exiting at all. This one story being in question doesn't really affect the bigger picture. I am big on religious tolerance, but I think we need to be careful about tolerating the religion, not the violent acts perpetrated while wearing the vestments of the religion.

The same is true of my own religion, Christianity. I think if I'm intellectually honest I have to admit that some people have done some pretty shitty things in the name of my religion. I can't, and won't, and wouldn't, defend that.

I referenced the concept in an earlier post, but for all of charred heart's lack of naivete, he seems unable to comphrend being morally-opposed to an oppressive and dangerous ideology like Islamic extremism yet still being accepting of Muslims and wishing them the best life possible like the everyday humans they are.

It's not a means to save face, it's a required method for living.

Do I still associate with my Christian parents because some internet dope thinks it provides me an 'exit' (of what nature, only CH can determine), or could it be I value them for who they are beyond our opposing views?

[Dom]

It was known to them that the only option unexplored was this one of withdrawal. The prophet told them it's also wrong, so they had no way to commit the rapes without sinning.

This contradicts itself.

It suggests that this was the last part of the action that they were unsure of, if the rape itself was sinful then why do they even need to investigate this issue of withdrawal?

They were going to rape them, and they didn't cos they were told withdrawal would be wrong and they feared getting the women preggers, at no point does it seem implicit or otherwise, that the rape itself was sinfull.

[distraction tactics]

*sighs* Let me try this again, perhaps in smaller words.

I am calling for reason and logic in lieu of jumping to conclusions that have little relation towards the facts and hypocrisy

I have in no way claimed that the article is false, merely your interpretation

-The news article makes a link to the recent events made by the Pope.
-It is not my interpretation.
-It is not beyond me that they might have gotten the context wrong now, nor before I made this thread.
-Given the propensity for Muslims in some parts of the world for absurd violence, it is not a stretch, nor false to assume the link made is in fact true.

Your call is noted, but completely moot. We all know that jumping to conclusions in intellectually false and dishonest, but in the specific case the circumstances make it so that it doesn't matter.

If you advocate fence-sitting on even the most mundane of assertions, i.e. "It's raining outside", then on "Muslims are killing innocent people again" we're just going to have to disagree (because we all know they'd NEVER do that).

[distraction tactics]

There's a possibility it has nothing to do with religion. I say this because I know a bit about Somalia, not because I'm a muslim. distraction's complete confidence in his assumptions is a litle irritating for someone who probably doesn't know where Somalia is (maybe he does, but he probably googled it up recently).

I can't specifically identify Somalia on a map. I believe it's in the north-eastern region of Africa, south/south-east of Egypt.

This, however, is fallacious. Ignorance of a geographic location my signify further ignorance of the situation, but it does not logically follow. Such a tactic didn't fly when people criticized knowledge about Iraq, and it doesn't fit now.

Somalia in conflict? Who knew?

[charred_heart]

you grossly overstate your own understanding about the middle east and it wouldn't be a stretch to say I'm not the only one who finds it slightly embarassing.


I am interested because I have a vested interest in making a change in the region. I only look at what's practical, what is of significance.
However "embarrassing" I may seem to you, I have a background on the subject simply because I live in the affected area.

[distraction tactics]

I am interested because I have a vested interest in making a change in the region. I only look at what's practical, what is of significance.
However "embarrassing" I may seem to you, I have a background on the subject simply because I live in the affected area.

I would also assume you have a ready source of local information on local issues.

It's clear we're never going to agree on religion. However, I can think of at least two times you have clarified a political context and I've appreciated that. I may not have local political information, but I am capable of understanding the bigger, religious picture of what is happening between the west and east, and indeed do have an understanding.

[Stoned_Rider]

Time for me to go. I think I'll wait for CH to admit he was wrong before logging off.. hurry up, my train's in 20 mins :D

[charred_heart]

I will probably sound boring here but please bear with me, this is necessary:

"La alaikom an la taf'alou" means: It does not matter if you do not do it. "La alaikom" is an Arabic expression that means "It does not matter".

"La, alaikom an la taf'alou" (Note the added comma) means: No, You must not do that. However, this is an absurd and weird way to say it in Arabic. If that's what Muhammad intended to say then surely he could have found better words to put it.

In the Arabic text, there is no comma after the "La", so the first translation applies. Also, the setence that comes straight after, which says that if a soul is destined to be born then it will be born anyway, favours the first translation.

Besides, do you realize you are going against the consensus of Islamic scholars who accept and endorse this translation as Islamic?

Finally, eat this:
http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=138&CID=77#s11

This is an explanation, in Arabic, of the phrase mentioned above. Sorry, but you got it wrong this time.


"La alaikom" is an Arabic expression that means "It does not matter".
this phrase means it does not matter, true. This is how I read it at first but the phrase "an la taf'alou" threw me off.
You see, "an la taf'alou" means "you should not". Putting the two together does not make sense. It's like saying:
"Don't worry about it, you should not do it!"

Do you remember the incident where some guy stated on a radio channel that the ideal in Islam is for a man to marry three women, and that this turned out to be based on a grammatical mistake? I don't remember the verse.

[charred_heart]

Time for me to go. I think I'll wait for CH to admit he was wrong before logging off.. hurry up, my train's in 20 mins :Dsee you later

[Stoned_Rider]

this phrase means it does not matter, true. This is how I read it at first but the phrase "an la taf'alou" threw me off.
You see, "an la taf'alou" means "you should not". Putting the two together does not make sense. It's like saying:
"Don't worry about it, you should not do it!"


"an la taf'alou" means: that you do not do it.

Putting the two together means: It does not matter that you do not do it.

Makes perfect sense.

I'll leave it at that. Laters. Get a refresher course in Arabic :D

[charred_heart]

"an la taf'alou" means: that you do not do it.

Putting the two together means: It does not matter that you do not do it.

Makes perfect sense.

I'll leave it at that. Laters. Get a refresher course in Arabic :D
wtf! no it doesn't!
That would be "la alaikom in fa'altum" <- It does not matter if you did

[charred_heart]

I may not have local political information, but I am capable of understanding the bigger, religious picture of what is happening between the west and east, and indeed do have an understanding.I was able to see your understanding of the situation ever since I was 13 years old. Unfortunately, it does not help solve anything. Confrontation is the simple answer that will lead us to one conclusion: world war.

[Nemesis]

yeah, cause your TEH GAY.

On a related note:
For muslim shariah law countries, what do you think of the idea of giving equal rights to gays while imposing a fine on public displays of affection? They probably stop people who do it anyway so why not use it as a bargaining chip? It sucks, but it's something the conservative muslims can stomach.
The idea is that gay people should be given the choice to live their lives however they see fit, but at the same time keep it private.

You might find this strange, muslim societies don't consider PDA an act of love, they see it as rude exhibitionism. Prudish, but that's how they feel.

What would be the downside to this? The other option would cause a volcanic eruption of opposition in a conservative muslim country - it will go nowhere.
PSSSSSST- I was being sarcastic.

[charred_heart]

PSSSSSST- I was being sarcastic.yeah, I was joking. I wanted to open up a discussion about something else

[mr. treat]

what's wrong with a little rape amongst conquerers? next you'll be criticizing vikings for being.. so... viking. the world is full of bad shit, get over it.

[Stoic]

Politics > Religion.

Muslims could all switch to christianity today and would still be doing the same shit, they might even be worse because the OT is very hardcore.

[PenguinHunter]

I can't specifically identify Somalia on a map. I believe it's in the north-eastern region of Africa, south/south-east of Egypt.

This, however, is fallacious. Ignorance of a geographic location my signify further ignorance of the situation, but it does not logically follow. Such a tactic didn't fly when people criticized knowledge about Iraq, and it doesn't fit now.

Somalia in conflict? Who knew?

I don't like to butt into the flaming fun, but I just have a small comment about Somalia.

I read a book by Paul Theroux a few years back called Dark Star Safari, about an overland trip across Africa. To adapt a quote that applies here: "Africans don't want your life; they want your shoes." In a place like Somalia though, if you don't give them your shoes, they take both.

I would say it was probably a combination of both of the factors.

1) Without a doubt she was killed for what little money/goods she had.

2) Being a Christian nun definitely didn't help spare her. This may have been religious intolerance but it's just as likely that she was viewed as a symbol of outside interference (if you've been following the African Union's attempts to negotiate peace-keeping forces in Somalia, you can see how important a factor "outside interference" is to the current Somali regime) - or even more likely a combination of the two factors, as it becomes quite hard to separate things like this into nice options.

People are killed every day in Somalia because there is still essentially no government and no law. Many of these people may be Christians, aid workers or even Christian aid workers. The question is, why is this suddenly big news now? Arioch and CH are quite right to suggest we should be highly skeptical of the timing and implications suggested by the author of the article.

The media likes explosive responses, especially when Muslims are involved. Personally, I think the murder shows nothing about Islam (Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism or whichever variation you want to use). Rather it shows how shitty Somalians (and aid workers sent to Somalia) have it right now, and serves (as you said earlier) as a reminder to be wary of all news sources - especially a place like Yahoo News.

(I also understand that you only meant this article as a gateway to the discussion going on right now - I just think it's worth pointing out the problems with the article and the assumptions made in it.)

[Nemesis]

Because Muslims have far more enlightened views on homosexuality: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/01/islam_and_gays.html#more
Heh. Let's hope they don't find out about the crown prince of Qatar.

[intl_babygirl]

hmm ... muslims arent so bad ... christians have been doing this for centuries

[ptGatsby]

(I also understand that you only meant this article as a gateway to the discussion going on right now - I just think it's worth pointing out the problems with the article and the assumptions made in it.)

Well said.

There are cases where religion trumps social problems, and it is generally true a certain amount of religious extremists cause problems even in wealthy stable countries.

But those are pretty rare compared to the systemic social problems in these areas. If we talk about widespread motivation and actions, it normally comes down to very basic social problems... like getting food and water, not to mention security and the like.

Somalia would be the dictionary definition of this. Its one of the poorest countries with the highest levels of violence... a complete abscence of law. You don't need anything fancy to explain the problems here.

[domokun]

what's wrong with a little rape amongst conquerers? next you'll be criticizing vikings for being.. so... viking. the world is full of bad shit, get over it.
What is a conqueror's woman, if not a conquest herself?

[Stoned_Rider]

what's wrong with a little rape amongst conquerers? next you'll be criticizing vikings for being.. so... viking. the world is full of bad shit, get over it.

No. Nothing's wrong with rape for a religion that claims to be the perfect way of life for all fucking humanity.

[Stoned_Rider]

wtf! no it doesn't!
That would be "la alaikom in fa'altum" <- It does not matter if you did

pffft. Ok, so according to you, Muhammad contradicted himself in the same sentence. Well done :D

[mr. treat]

No. Nothing's wrong with rape for a religion that claims to be the perfect way of life for all fucking humanity.

so you are saying that religion actually is the answer to the problems of humanity?

[LocoAko]

Well, I don't think anyone really wants to end up like Theo van Gogh:

http://www.jiten.com/media/1/20060224-van_gogh_dead_on_foot_path_1.jpg

Having said that, even bashing Islam on the Internet might not be as safe as you think.


http://www.copts.net/detail.asp?id=614 (Originally reported in New York Post).

This is perfectly in line with Islamic teachings. Muhammad silenced his critics by murdering them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_Bint_Marwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf



I knew Sylvia. She didn't go to my highschool but we were both in a program for Visual and Performing Arts that is held at a local college. The two year anniversary is coming up. That sure was a sad day. RIP Sylvia. My friend who knew the family personally went to the funeral where the riots broke out.

This only goes along with the late 90's "Death To America" riots held in Jersey City by hundreds (thousands?) of Muslims here. On 9/11, while the towers burned in full view everywhere in Jersey City, it is well documented that there were Muslims celebrating and dancing on their rooves. The next few weeks they investigated homes and found that the local mosque had ties to Al-Qaeda. Not to mention that the guy who led the `93 bombings lived here, a few blocks from me.

:mellow:

[Stoned_Rider]

so you are saying that religion actually is the answer to the problems of humanity?
Huh? :confused:

You said that the world is full of bad shit and that I should get over it. I actually agree with that. But if we condemn the vikings (or whoever) for raping war captives then we should equally condemn Muhammad and his companions for doing the same thing. That is the whole freaking point. I will get over it once people realize that Islam is amongst the bad shit the world is full of.

[domokun]

"A man sees a woman getting chased by a dog. When the dog is about to bite the woman, the man intervenes and kicks the dog. A reporter was watching all this.

He said "That was great. I'll definitely publish this in newspaper. Tomorrow the headline will be 'LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM A DOG'"

The man replied "Thank you, but I'm not from here. I am from US"

Reporter: "OK". Then the headline will be "US CITIZEN SAVES WOMAN FROM A DOG".

Man: "Actually, I live in US but I'm not a US citizen, I'm a Pakistani national".

Next day, the headline in the newspaper read...

" TERRORIST ATTACKS A LOCAL DOG "

[demagogic_schizoid]

"A man sees a woman getting chased by a dog. When the dog is about to bite the woman, the man intervenes and kicks the dog. A reporter was watching all this.

He said "That was great. I'll definitely publish this in newspaper. Tomorrow the headline will be 'LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM A DOG'"

The man replied "Thank you, but I'm not from here. I am from US"

Reporter: "OK". Then the headline will be "US CITIZEN SAVES WOMAN FROM A DOG".

Man: "Actually, I live in US but I'm not a US citizen, I'm a Pakistani national".

Next day, the headline in the newspaper read...

" TERRORIST ATTACKS A LOCAL DOG "

:lol: :lol: :lol: that's a good joke.

[macr0]

http://www.copts.net/detail.asp?id=614

:mellow:

:eek:

[Stoned_Rider]

I knew Sylvia. She didn't go to my highschool but we were both in a program for Visual and Performing Arts that is held at a local college. The two year anniversary is coming up. That sure was a sad day. RIP Sylvia. My friend who knew the family personally went to the funeral where the riots broke out.

This only goes along with the late 90's "Death To America" riots held in Jersey City by hundreds (thousands?) of Muslims here. On 9/11, while the towers burned in full view everywhere in Jersey City, it is well documented that there were Muslims celebrating and dancing on their rooves. The next few weeks they investigated homes and found that the local mosque had ties to Al-Qaeda. Not to mention that the guy who led the `93 bombings lived here, a few blocks from me.

:mellow:
Wow. Sorry about Sylvia and thanks for your input.

I'm actually speechless... All I can say is that I hope she didn't die in vain. I hope her death served to make more people aware of the true nature of Islam. May her memory live on..

Edit: It is bad enough to refer to such stories without personally knowing the people involved. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to know that a friend got slaughtered and mutilated by Islamic maniacs in such a manner.

[mr. treat]

You said that the world is full of bad shit and that I should get over it. I actually agree with that. But if we condemn the vikings (or whoever) for raping war captives then we should equally condemn Muhammad and his companions for doing the same thing. That is the whole freaking point. I will get over it once people realize that Islam is amongst the bad shit the world is full of.

i'm saying we have no right to condemn anyone.

the most anybody can do is take responsibility for their own life, their own actions, and not point fingers.

[Stoned_Rider]

i'm saying we have no right to condemn anyone.

the most anybody can do is take responsibility for their own life, their own actions, and not point fingers.
Dude, over a billion people today are directly influenced by Muhammad, his deeds and sayings. Do we have no right to show people why he is not as lovely as his followers (and their sympathizers) make him out to be?

Edit: We are talking about a person who is considered the most influential figure in all of history! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100)

[Zephyrus055]

It's not just Islam.

Watch Richard Dawkins' documentary, "The Root of All Evil?"

[demagogic_schizoid]

It's not just Islam.

Watch Richard Dawkins' documentary, "The Root of All Evil?"

Watched it, disliked it intensely. Seems to me he was just as intolerant and dogmatic as those he condemned.

[demagogic_schizoid]

i'm saying we have no right to condemn anyone.

the most anybody can do is take responsibility for their own life, their own actions, and not point fingers.

So are you saying that if you had lived in the 1930s you would have been against condemning the rise of fascism, and not once done or said anything about it, even expressed distaste? What about if you had lived in apartheid South Africa? Or under Mao?

If you have any political opinions whatsoever, then you are by definition going against another creed. (in fact by telling people to "get over" islam, you are simply pushing your world view above another one which you find distasteful, whether or not you know it)

[LocoAko]

Wow. Sorry about Sylvia and thanks for your input.

I'm actually speechless... All I can say is that I hope she didn't die in vain. I hope her death served to make more people aware of the true nature of Islam. May her memory live on..

Edit: It is bad enough to refer to such stories without personally knowing the people involved. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to know that a friend got slaughtered and mutilated by Islamic maniacs in such a manner.

Thanks. I must say that I didn't really know her THAT well.... but it's kind of just weird to have someone you know murdered for a reason like THAT. I hate to hate the religion... because I know it really is just a few extremists. Then again... I was just debating this with my friend who compared Christianity to Islam and while every religion has kooks Muslims have WAY more. It can't be a coincidence.

I don't know. But how anyone in AMERICA could be celebrating while watching the towers burn is beyond me. :mad:

[Zephyrus055]

Watched it, disliked it intensely. Seems to me he was just as intolerant and dogmatic as those he condemned.
No, it was an awesome documentary.

[macr0]

Watched it, disliked it intensely. Seems to me he was just as intolerant and dogmatic as those he condemned.

In today's world, the only way to not appear dogmatic and intolerant is to say, "everyone, we just need to all get along no matter what people think!"

I don't buy that.

[janitor]

i find all religious belief to be stupid but comparing christianity to islam seems inherently flawed because jesus was a pacifist and muhammed was a murderer. how can islam ever become peaceful when it's core foundation is violent.

[demagogic_schizoid]

In today's world, the only way to not appear dogmatic and intolerant is to say, "everyone, we just need to all get along no matter what people think!"

I don't buy that.

Neither do I. Have you seen the documentary?

[mr. treat]

Dude, over a billion people today are directly influenced by Muhammad, his deeds and sayings. Do we have no right to show people why he is not as lovely as his followers (and their sympathizers) make him out to be?

just as much right as they do to follow him, i suppose. it's not islam that causes these problems, it's fundamental human nature. the only followers of islam i've met were all good people.


So are you saying that if you had lived in the 1930s you would have been against condemning the rise of fascism, and not once done or said anything about it, even expressed distaste? What about if you had lived in apartheid South Africa? Or under Mao?

i don't know, i wasn't alive in the 30s. how could i even speculate on those things?

[Nemesis]

No, it was an awesome documentary.
No, it really wasn't.

[macr0]

Neither do I. Have you seen the documentary?

Yeah, I've seen it. To me, Richard Dawkins is filling the job of "somebody's got to do it." However my views of Richard Dawkins are more than just another guy that got a spot on TV.

If someone's views align with mine, then I champion them. I find in the world around me so many champions of backasswardness.

Two other folks I champion include Dan Dennett and Steve Pinker. Now both of these guys wouldn't dare do what Richard Dawkins does. However, do they share his views? Absolutely!

All people feel the need to be part of a belief system that they share. All people enjoy when people who share their beliefs stand up for what they believe. If someone doesn't do this and colors everything jaded, he is depriving himself of a feeling given to us by nature that can give us great joy and peace.

"If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."
-- Malcolm X

[charred_heart]

Wow. Sorry about Sylvia and thanks for your input.

I'm actually speechless... All I can say is that I hope she didn't die in vain. I hope her death served to make more people aware of the true nature of Islam. May her memory live on..

Edit: It is bad enough to refer to such stories without personally knowing the people involved. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to know that a friend got slaughtered and mutilated by Islamic maniacs in such a manner.you keep pointing to Islam, while the perpetrators walk free. Shouldn't you be paying more attention to those who commit these acts?
Slitting throats is a special skill, requiring a special kind of mindset. That does not come just from reading the Quran, I know because I read the Quran.

[Nemesis]

yeah, cause your TEH GAY.

On a related note:
For muslim shariah law countries, what do you think of the idea of giving equal rights to gays while imposing a fine on public displays of affection? They probably stop people who do it anyway so why not use it as a bargaining chip? It sucks, but it's something the conservative muslims can stomach.
The idea is that gay people should be given the choice to live their lives however they see fit, but at the same time keep it private.

You might find this strange, muslim societies don't consider PDA an act of love, they see it as rude exhibitionism. Prudish, but that's how they feel.

What would be the downside to this? The other option would cause a volcanic eruption of opposition in a conservative muslim country - it will go nowhere.
Well, I personally find it to be rude exhibitionism as well in certain situations. A kiss on the cheek or a hug, no biggy. But two morons exchanging spit while I'm trying to walk? You had better be in the middle of a 20 year reunion in which you hadn't spoken.

I agree with you though. If people want to practice their religion, fine. I don't though, so you can stop pestering me about me going to Hell. Acutally, in fact, you can pester me about going to Hell, so long as you don't legislate punishment for the fact that I'm different from you. I have the same beef with Christianity.

[charred_heart]

Well, I personally find it to be rude exhibitionism as well in certain situations. A kiss on the cheek or a hug, no biggy. But two morons exchanging spit while I'm trying to walk? You had better be in the middle of a 20 year reunion in which you hadn't spoken.

I agree with you though. If people want to practice their religion, fine. I don't though, so you can stop pestering me about me going to Hell. Acutally, in fact, you can pester me about going to Hell, so long as you don't legislate punishment for the fact that I'm different from you. I have the same beef with Christianity.thanks for the input

I think it's unfair for a government to punish you for the way you are
they have no right.

[meshou]

thanks for the input

I think it's unfair for a government to punish you for the way you are
they have no right.I don't mean to draw a direct comparision, but there's a good amount of evidence that people who habitually commit crimes including murder are litterally brain damaged in a specific way. It's just the way they are, and if we could fix it, we could litterally cure them of the thing that made them commit the crime.

Likewise, mentally handicapped people sort of HAVE to be punsished for who they are continually. They CAN'T hold jobs or have normal relationships and every right most people hold dear.

Societies punish people for who and what they are all the time. I think there's another dimension to it, like whether there is any GOOD reason whatsoever to take away basic rights. In the case of gays and Moslems, no.

[Dom]

Well, I personally find it to be rude exhibitionism as well in certain situations. A kiss on the cheek or a hug, no biggy. But two morons exchanging spit while I'm trying to walk? You had better be in the middle of a 20 year reunion in which you hadn't spoken.

I agree with you though. If people want to practice their religion, fine. I don't though, so you can stop pestering me about me going to Hell. Acutally, in fact, you can pester me about going to Hell, so long as you don't legislate punishment for the fact that I'm different from you. I have the same beef with Christianity.

I have the same beef with many religions. One can not legislate morality and shouldn't try all you do is breed tyranny, I guess a democractically representative government making laws is prob the only fairish way to decide what should be right and wrong but it's still tricky.

Here Voluntary Euthanasia is Illegal, when I was a Christian I understood how others would argue it shouldn't be legalised but I felt differently, Who am I as Chrisitian to tell others what to do, if this thing is sinful then let them face God as is their choice, but they don't believe a word so why do I have the right to force them to live as though they do? Sometimes I think ethical issues, like this, shouldn't be legislated at all, and it should be left for the individual to decide.

If a doctor believes it's wrong he shouldn't be forced to do it for someone, etc etc...

but I always was an odd Christian...

[Stoned_Rider]

just as much right as they do to follow him, i suppose.
Oh, so we DO have a right to condemn Muhammad after all. Thanks for clearing it up.


it's not islam that causes these problems, it's fundamental human nature. the only followers of islam i've met were all good people.

I already went over this very same argument several times. You obviously have some catching up to do. The way I see it is: Good muslims exist despite of Islam, not because of it.

After leaving Islam, my whole fucking worldview made a 180 degree turn. I used to sympathize with terrorists, because I was a Muslim, now I don't. How would you explain that in terms of fundamental human nature?


you keep pointing to Islam, while the perpetrators walk free. Shouldn't you be paying more attention to those who commit these acts?
I would hunt them down and arrest them but unfortunately I don't work for American police. All I can do is point out the motive behind such killings. If it wasn't them, plenty of other Muslims would have done the exact same thing.


Slitting throats is a special skill, requiring a special kind of mindset. That does not come just from reading the Quran, I know because I read the Quran.
Quran 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length

Are you going to tell me your family never let you slit a sheep's throat on Eid day? It's exactly the same skill ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/south_asia_eid_festival/img/7.jpg

[meshou]

I have the same beef with many religions. One can not legislate morality and shouldn't try all you do is breed tyranny, I guess a democractically representative government making laws is prob the only fairish way to decide what should be right and wrong but it's still tricky.I thought morality was like the ONLY thing they ever legislated.

[Arioch]

Quran 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length

Are you going to tell me your family never let you slit a sheep's throat on Eid day? It's exactly the same skill ;)



Are you really comparing killing someone swiftly when you're in a war, fighting with swords to ambushing unarmed people in their own house and simply killing them?

And slitting a sheeps throat is quite a different thing then going after a living breathing human being. The differnce in mindset is huge, especially since you consider the fact that killing lifestock in other manner then slitting their throat is significantly more painful and stressful for the animal, and the fact that you're probably killing it for food or to sell it at the market.

If however you cannot seem to notice the difference between the two then... well I admit I would be somewhat worried.

[Stoned_Rider]

Are you really comparing killing someone swiftly when you're in a war, fighting with swords to ambushing unarmed people in their own house and simply killing them?

And slitting a sheeps throat is quite a different thing then going after a living breathing human being. The differnce in mindset is huge, especially since you consider the fact that killing lifestock in other manner then slitting their throat is significantly more painful and stressful for the animal, and the fact that you're probably killing it for food or to sell it at the market.

If however you cannot seem to notice the difference between the two then... well I admit I would be somewhat worried.

The reference to sheep was actually a joke. Yes, the difference in mindset is huge. It takes a mindset similar to that of Muhammad's in order to ambush unarmed people in their own house, regardless of age and gender, and simply kill them.


Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years.

"I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak

[BerberElla]

Hi Stoned Rider,

That wasn't the only critic that he had killed, he had a young mother killed for making a poem about him:


3. March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.

Mohammed hated being criticised, he would kill for it, his followers react the same way.

[Stoned_Rider]

Hi Sahara! Good to see you back :wave:

[BerberElla]

Hi Sahara! Good to see you back :wave:

Thanks, was enjoying the holidays.:)

[Nemesis]

I have the same beef with many religions. One can not legislate morality and shouldn't try all you do is breed tyranny, I guess a democractically representative government making laws is prob the only fairish way to decide what should be right and wrong but it's still tricky.

Here Voluntary Euthanasia is Illegal, when I was a Christian I understood how others would argue it shouldn't be legalised but I felt differently, Who am I as Chrisitian to tell others what to do, if this thing is sinful then let them face God as is their choice, but they don't believe a word so why do I have the right to force them to live as though they do? Sometimes I think ethical issues, like this, shouldn't be legislated at all, and it should be left for the individual to decide.

If a doctor believes it's wrong he shouldn't be forced to do it for someone, etc etc...

but I always was an odd Christian...
Can we please have a "high-five" smilie?

[Claverhouse]

I don't mean to draw a direct comparision, but there's a good amount of evidence that people who habitually commit crimes including murder are litterally brain damaged in a specific way. It's just the way they are, and if we could fix it, we could litterally cure them of the thing that made them commit the crime.

Correcting criminals with surgery and psychiatric treatment poses more problems than punishment ever will --- particularly if the establishment decides you are mentally ill and can be corrected.


Likewise, mentally handicapped people sort of HAVE to be punsished for who they are continually. They CAN'T hold jobs or have normal relationships and every right most people hold dear.

Do you want them to ?


And slitting a sheeps throat is quite a different thing then going after a living breathing human being. The differnce in mindset is huge, especially since you consider the fact that killing lifestock in other manner then slitting their throat is significantly more painful and stressful for the animal, and the fact that you're probably killing it for food or to sell it at the market.

If however you cannot seem to notice the difference between the two then... well I admit I would be somewhat worried.

I do not see the faintest difference, except that animals are far preferable to human beings, and can't fight back so much.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ShadyShady]

Thanks, was enjoying the holidays.:)

are you sahara knite? :ph34r:

[BerberElla]

are you sahara knite? :ph34r:

Who is Sahara knite?

[ShadyShady]

Who is Sahara knite?

She lives in england...ex-muslim...and a pornstar.

[BerberElla]

She lives in england...ex-muslim...and a pornstar.

:wtf: Well, all was well with the description until the pornstar part.

OMG, your not lying, I just did a search, the shame, the shame. I had no idea.

Well if I was a porn star I doubt i would have time to post on a forum.

[attila_the_hunny]

She lives in england...ex-muslim...and a pornstar.

Wow, porn stars have their own myspaces (http://www.myspace.com/saharaknite).

[mr. treat]

Oh, so we DO have a right to condemn Muhammad after all. Thanks for clearing it up.

i guess so, if one feels compelled to. i don't think anyone has the right to condemn anyone, which implies taking a moral high ground, but i'm not going to tell you not to do something you feel you need to do.


After leaving Islam, my whole fucking worldview made a 180 degree turn. I used to sympathize with terrorists, because I was a Muslim, now I don't. How would you explain that in terms of fundamental human nature?

that is all the explanation needed.

[demagogic_schizoid]

mr.treat - you say you are not condemning anyone - but whether or not you admit it you are coming into a discussion and trying to persuade people not to think or behave in a certain way - otherwise you wouldn't have made a post on a public forum regarding that issue. Clearly, there are some sorts of behaviour which you consider to be better than others - ie not condemning others as a posse to doing so.

Now, essentially, what is the difference between this, and believing that it is better not to be a muslim than to be one. The only difference between your post and the OP is the scale of the argument and the tone used. But essentially you are still trying to show that your point of view is superior to the other persons. This is entirely natural human behaviour - I don't think it's avoidable if we are to ever interact with anyone to completely avoid doing this on some level.

So I would suggest you are the one who is on a high horse, for thinking you are above doing the very thing you are doing.

[meshou]

Correcting criminals with surgery and psychiatric treatment poses more problems than punishment ever will --- particularly if the establishment decides you are mentally ill and can be corrected.Oh, I agree. It's still a punishment for "who they are."


Do you want them to ?Nope! Just pointing out that socities often and nessicarily punish people for who they are, and so that is (probably) not his actual objection.

[mr. treat]

...

perhaps you are right, but i am not going to blame my parents for it. i have nothing personal invested in the argument, unlike some others seem to.

[charred_heart]

This contradicts itself.

It suggests that this was the last part of the action that they were unsure of, if the rape itself was sinful then why do they even need to investigate this issue of withdrawal?

They were going to rape them, and they didn't cos they were told withdrawal would be wrong and they feared getting the women preggers, at no point does it seem implicit or otherwise, that the rape itself was sinfull.didn't see this before.

that is what they are asking, "if we withdraw maybe it's not rape". This kind of thinking comes from the logic that the only thing bad about rape is the likelyhood of it resulting in bastard offspring.
The prophet's answer was smart because it put doubt into their minds by showing them it's impossible to prevent this if God wills it.

The circumstances seem unique, from the question asked to where it was asked and to whom it was referring to. Maybe reminding a group with that mindset that rape is wrong would have been ineffective.

[Heleuiski]

didn't see this before.

that is what they are asking, "if we withdraw maybe it's not rape". This kind of thinking comes from the logic that the only thing bad about rape is the likelyhood of it resulting in bastard offspring.
The prophet's answer was smart because it put doubt into their minds by showing them it's impossible to prevent this if God wills it.

The circumstances seem unique, from the question asked to where it was asked and to whom it was referring to. Maybe reminding a group with that mindset that rape is wrong would have been ineffective.

I don't know, I think that's a weak argument.

[charred_heart]

I don't know, I think that's a weak argument.preaching doesn't work in every situation.
Come on, regular sex is a big deal in Islam and rape is a religious past-time?

[Stoned_Rider]

preaching doesn't work in every situation.
Come on, regular sex is a big deal in Islam and rape is a religious past-time?

Oops! You forgot to mention the part about sex with slaves and war captives!

[Heleuiski]

Oops! You forgot to mention the part about sex with slaves and war captives!

It says that in the Koran?
I don't remember that bit...

[charred_heart]

Oops! You forgot to mention the part about sex with slaves and war captives!and killing all the infidels wherever and whenever I see them?
Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I have to research this myself.

[Stoned_Rider]

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I have to research this myself.
By all means, be my guest! You'd be a fool for taking my word for it. I just assumed that you, as a Muslim, would have some kind of background on this topic, sorry! :rolleyes:

Anyways I'm anxious to hear about your findings.

This is for Helenski:

Quran 4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Quran 33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war

Quran 70:29-30 And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess ,- for (then) they are not to be blamed.

Quran 4:29 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess

Quran 23:5 Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame

[charred_heart]

By all means, be my guest! You'd be a fool for taking my word for it. I just assumed that you, as a Muslim, would have some kind of background on this topic, sorry! :rolleyes:

Anyways I'm anxious to hear about your findings.

This is for Helenski:

Quran 4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Quran 33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war

Quran 70:29-30 And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess ,- for (then) they are not to be blamed.

Quran 4:29 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess

Quran 23:5 Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame ok, I'm calling this religious guy I was referred to.

[wildcat]

ok, I'm calling this religious guy I was referred to.
It is not long hence the Christians waged war against each other. If a woman was a little odd, she was burned at the stake.

People are people.
Customs are customs.

[Stoned_Rider]

French critic of Islam in hiding

France's anti-terrorism authorities have launched an enquiry into death threats against a philosophy teacher who wrote an article criticising Islam.
Robert Redeker has been forced into hiding after making controversial remarks about the Prophet Muhammad.

Writing in France's Le Figaro, Mr Redeker described the religion's founder as "a merciless war leader".

Since publishing the article, he has been under police protection and forced to move between safe houses.

On Friday, the Paris prosecutor's office said it had opened a preliminary investigation into the threats to see if they were linked to terrorist activity.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin described the threats as "intolerable".

"We are in a democracy, everyone has the right to express his views freely - of course while respecting others," he said.

Punishment

Mr Redeker says that his personal details and home address are now available on Islamist websites.

His article was entitled "In the face of Islamist intimidation, what is the world to do?" and was written in reaction to Muslim protests following remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI.

The Pope has since apologised several times and said the views quoted were not his own.

In the article, published on 19 September, the French teacher describes the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as a religion which "exalts violence and hate".

Mr Redeker says that he fears he will not be able to come out of hiding for the immediate future.

"The Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on French territory as if I were guilty of a speech crime," he said.

Paris-based press watchdog group Reporters Without Borders said the choice not to publish Mr Redeker's article would have represented "a defeat for freedom of thought".

France has one of Europe's largest Muslim communities with an estimated total of six million people, or ten percent of the population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5393892.stm

No comment!