Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Options
1…34689…24

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Perhaps you'd care to put every single verse I've quoted into context? Or are you going to continue with hollow rebuttals?

    Well let's be honest here, your the one who quoted the verses with the very clear statement:
    His message was NOT love and peace.
    Therefore it is quite clearly your responsibility to a) understand the context yourself b) Quote the verse in context so as not to mislead.

    You've apparently failed on both counts. You are making the claim "His message was NOT love and peace" therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

    Let's take the first one. Why don't you try to put it into context yourself...?

    This is what you quoted
    Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

    This is all you need to know:

    1. Surat Al Anfal 8:9, 8:10, 8:11 - http://quran.com/8
    2. The Battle of Badr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
    3. Oh! And of course you'll to know the actual verse in full! I've bolded the important part that you (anti-Islamic site?) has taken out- http://quran.com/8/12
    Sahih International
    [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

    So let's see what you can come up with..............


  • Options
    #153
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    philologos wrote: »
    Brown Bomber has a point. If you are going to criticise the Qur'an or any other text you should make sure that you have a full knowledge of that text. It's like doing a book review without having read the book.

    Actually, he doesn't have a point - because he hasn't placed all of the above quotes into 'proper context'.


  • Options
    #154
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ...

    Can you put these in context while you're at it? Cheers.
    "It is the same whether or not you forwarn them, they will have no faith" (2:6).

    "God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2:15).

    A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24).

    They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2:85).

    "God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89).

    "They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punis hme nt awaits [them]" (2:90).

    "God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98).

    "The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105).

    "They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2:114).

    "Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122).

    "[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be the ir fate" (2:126).

    "The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2:142).

    "Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154).

    "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162).

    "They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168).

    "The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2:172).

    "Theirs shall be a woeful puni shment" (2:175).

    "How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176).

    "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers" (2:190-93).

    "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).

    "They will not cease to fight against you unt il they force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217-18).

    "God does not guide the evil-doers" (2:258).

    "God does not guide the unbelievers" (2:264).

    "The evil-doers shall have none to help them" (2:270).

    "God gives guidance to whom He will" (2:272).

    "Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge" {3:5).

    "As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire (3:10).

    "Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into
    Hell—an evil resting place!'" (3:12).

    "The only true faith in God's sight is Islam He that denies God's revelations should know that swift is God's reckoning" (3:19).

    "Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense" (3:28).

    "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they ut t er with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal"

    (3:118). "If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose ma r t y rs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels" (3:140).

    "Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdit ion We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers The Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51).

    "Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: 'Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words. . . . If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (y.156).

    "Never think that those who we slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God will not deny the
    faithful their reward" (3:169}.

    "Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them" (3:178).

    "Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3:195-96).

    "God has cursed them in their unbelief" (4:46).

    "God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God
    is guilty of a heinous sin. . . . Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: T h e se are better guided than the believers'" (4:50-51).

    "Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise" (4:55-56).

    "Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime" (5:57}.

    "That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. We have stirred among them enmity and hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection" (5:65).

    "God does not guide the unbelievers" {5:67).

    "That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of ma ny among them, But do not grieve for the unbelievers" (5:69).

    "You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wr a th of God and shall endure eternal torment.. You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmi ty to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and t h at the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians '" (5:80-82}.

    "[T]hose that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates
    of Hell" (5:86).

    "[TJhey deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn" (6:5).

    "We had made them more powerful in the land than yourselves [the Meccans], sent down for them abundant water from the sky and gave them rivers that rolled at their feet. Yet because t h ey sinned We destroyed them all and raised up other generations after them. If We sent down to you
    a Book inscribed on real parchment and they touched it with their own hands, the unbelievers would still assert: 'This is but plain sorcery.' They ask: ' Why has no angel been sent down to him [Muhammad] ?' If We had sent down an angel, their fate would have been sealed and they would have never been reprieved" (6:5-8).

    "Who is more wicked than the man who invents falsehoods about God or denies His revelations 1" (6:21).

    "Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs, even if they see t h em one and all. When they come to argue with you the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but old fictitious tales.' They forbid it and depart from it. They ruin none but themselves, though they do not perceive it. If you could see them when they are set before the Fire! They will say: 'Would that we could r e turn! Then we would not deny the revelations of our Lord and would be true believers' {6:23-27).

    "But if they were sent back, they would return to that which they have been forbidden. They are liars all" (6:29).

    "Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all" {6:35).

    "Deaf and dumb are those that deny Our revelations: they blunder about in darkness. God confounds whom He will, and guides to a straight path whom He pleases." (6:39)

    "[T]heir hearts were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe!" (6:43-45).

    "[Tjhose that deny Our revelations shall be punished for the ir misdeeds" (6:49).

    "Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief" (6:70).

    "Could you but see the wrongdoers when death overwhelms them! With hands outstretched, the angels will say: 'Yield up your souls. You shall be
    rewarded with the scourge of shame this day, for you have said of
    God what is untrue and scorned His revelations" (6:93).

    "Avoid the pagans. Had God pleased, they would not have worshipped idols .. .. We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the Truth since they refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in their wrongdoing. If We sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak to them , . .. and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise. . . . Thus have We assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished falsehoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so. Therefore leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what they say and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways" (6:107—12).

    "The devils will teach their votaries to argue with you. If you obey them you shall yourselves become idolaters, .. . God will humiliate the transgressors and meteout to them a grievous punishment for their scheming" (6:121-25).

    "God guide a man, He opens his bosom to Islam. But if he pleases to confound him, He makes his bosom small and narrow as though he were climbing up to heaven. Thus shall God lay the scourge on the unbelievers" (6:125).


  • Options
    #155
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    You don't weasel out that easily. I posted more than one quote.


  • Options
    #156
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Can you put these in context while you're at it? Cheers.

    :pac: That selections from the selective secularist Sam Harris innit'? That gave me a laugh.

    I'll tell you what take some quotes from Harris' full volume of works being critical of The Talmud and I'll put every single one in context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your doing exactly what Islamic extremists do. Quoting verses out of context. I have to wonder how you even came across these verses as you've said you've reached your conclusions on Islam through "watching actions & reactions". Did you google "violence. Quran"?
    Well I've read the Quran. More than once and the hadith(well two of them, Muslim twice). The Quran is quite a short read actually. Compared to the Christian texts. It's also surprisingly repetitive. Maybe that comes from it's pre written oral history. BTW not a criticism. It is what it is. It also follows no clear chronology, again likely the oral influence. It's not like the Gospels for example. The claim that it's a "clear book" is a spurious one in my humble. The hadith are harder going and can be contradictory and very disjointed.

    The contradictory aspect in the Quran comes out very much along the lines of this thread subject. One verse is all sweetness and light, the next all fires of hell, both spiritual and temporal. Allah is very much the god of the old testament in character. Lots of vengeance going on, with a large taste of unpredictability. "Hippie" Jesus he is not. The Jesus of the Gospels comes out with stuff and avoid coming out with stuff that are off limits to Allah(and Muhammed).

    The hadith as an insight into Muhammed is also contradictory. In one story he's again all sweetness and light and tolerance, in the next he's quite definitely not. His attitudes are very much the attitudes of a 7th century nomadic tribal Arab, albeit a very very clever and insightful one.

    As to the title of the thread? To quote the aforementioned Jesus "the tree is known by its fruit". I'd add it's known by it's roots and growth too. Islam is unusual in one big respect compared to the other Abrahamic faiths. How? It was an overtly political and martial faith from the get go and so was it's prophet. It's prophet profited* from it directly. He gained all too earthly power and its trappings in it's birth and growth. He prosecuted wars and raids on it's/his behalf and laid out how to share the booty from such wars and raids. He also garnered more for himself while he was at it. Muslim men can only(at a push) have 4 wives, he (by the order of Allah) had 12. Plus slaves, male and female. By his death he had conquered much of the Arabian lands. A large step up from a local if well respected trader. As a blueprint for empire building on the back of a faith you'd be hard pushed to find a more honed one.

    Is Islam a religion of peace? Well it's oft said that Islam means peace. It doesn't. Not quite. It means submission. Peace and submission are conflated in Arabic when compared to those words in the say European languages and psyche. Submission/peace to Allah. Submission/peace to his messenger. Submission/peace to his message. In an odd but true(IMHO) way Submission/peace to Islam. Those who dont submit/or be "peaceful" according to Islam's definitions are beyond the pale and are largely fair game in the hereafter and the here depending on context. So yes Islam is peace, but a different peace to the one a humanist, modern or even European Christian mind may conjure up.





    *ouch

    And that was my 20,000 post. Good Christ. :eek: :D

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #158
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :pac: That selections from the selective secularist Sam Harris innit'? That gave me a laugh.

    I'll tell you what take some quotes from Harris' full volume of works being critical of The Talmud and I'll put every single one in context.
    So, that's a no then? Quelle surprise.


  • Options
    #159
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You don't weasel out that easily. I posted more than one quote.

    Yes. Yes you did. Yet you've put none in context. What was the point of trying to prove a point with quotes taken out of context???


  • Options
    #160
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'll tell you what take some quotes from Harris' full volume of works being critical of The Talmud and I'll put every single one in context.
    Well context can often be a cloak for the weasel as well as the wise old owl. Context is oft dragged out as explanation.

    Actually maybe another difference in the Abrahamic faiths on this point. Very broadly speaking the other two have two distinct phases. The latter phase is a continuation of the former phase, with expansion and changes, that while adhere to the spirit of the first phase change the direction of it. So in Judaism* you have the Torah, which the Talmud expands on theologically and philosophically. In Christianity* you have the Old Testament, which the New expands on theologically and philosophically. There's a bigger expanse of evolution going on. One could argue the Quran is an expansion on the Old Testament(much more so than the Torah, IMHO Islam is more a Christian "heresy" than a Jewish one), but I'd argue that. I'd argue that it's a continuation without much of the expansion of the New Testament/Talmud.






    *any Jews or Christians out there are PMing each other going WTF at this :D

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #161
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So, that's a no then? Quelle surprise.

    WTF....? You hand-on-heart think it is a reasonable demand to sling out maybe 20 seperate verses from the Quran and say "put these in context"?

    All I've done is point out that text shouldn't be taken out of context to prove a point. Do you disagree?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    WTF....? You hand-on-heart think it is a reasonable demand to sling out maybe 20 seperate verses from the Quran and say "put these in context"?

    All I've done is point out that text shouldn't be taken out of context to prove a point. Do you disagree?
    No I don't.

    Do you admit that there are passages in the Qur'an that do not reflect a religion of peace? Or is it all taken out of context?


  • Options
    #163
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It pretty much amounts to the same thing though BB. Even if another punishment was "apostates shalt be showered in kittens", which is more likely to be followed human nature being what it is.

    Well no but the impression given is that there is a mandatory death sentence for apostasy. This is false.

    Can anyone give a figure of how many (ex) Muslims were killed for apostasy last year? Through proper Islamic procedure I mean.

    Also it can be taken from the statement that I quoted previous that all leavers of the Islamic faith are then fair game for death (extra Judicial vigilante killing or through a Shariah court). Again this is false.

    Goes without saying that I don't agree with infringements on freedom of religion. Especially were the punishment can mean a loss of life but I see apostasy from Islamic perspective as along the lines of the crime of treason from the Irish perspective; which still does to the best of my knowledge carry a death sentence upon conviction.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well there is a serious amount of backup for death to insulters from the very early stages of the faith itself. Criticism of Mohammed in his own lifetime shortened lives more than it didn't.

    Fair enough, but that wasn't what I'd quoted. His judgement was based on watching the actions and reactions from Islamic states and it's people. I don't think he was alive back then :pac:

    But even then it's not as black and white as some people would have you believe. I'll go out on a limb and say that the unpeaceful/intolerant actions of Muslims was the recent reaction of Afghans to the Pastor's Quran burning in the US. They attacked a UN compound and killed 10 UN workers. Horrific obviously but that only tells half the story in my opinion. These Muslims who were protesting have been living under a fairly brutal occupation by the US. This is reason enough alone IMO to riot and protest (but not kill): It was only a couple of thousand protestors from a region that lives hundreds of thousands. From these thousands of peaceful protestors only a handful were involved in the attack and amongst this small group there were Taliban infiltrators/agitators arrested according to official stories.

    His other point was that you cannot spit on an image of Muhammed in an Islamic state without serious reprisals. Now, he's the mod of a Republican forum here so I assume he speaks with some authority on the subject. I'd like to ask him could guarantee the safety of a stranger entering a staunchly Republican neighbourhood in the North who makes a very public display of burning the Tri-Colour?

    If the stranger was attacked does Catholocism then become a Religion of war/intolerance etc?

    Wibbs wrote: »
    There are some very clear examples of it too. The first printed bible was in the 1450's. The Muslim world was exposed to the printing press before Europe and yet the first printed Quran is in 1800 and it was printed in Russia. The first printed Quran in the Islamic world? Early 20th century in Egypt. The chasm is huge. Not just in printing. Science, medicine, engineering, politics, human rights all lagged behind the "christian" west.

    The problem is BB I can't see how they can have a reformation. The only way might be a majority swing to Quran only Muslims. That would "modernise" the entire Islamic lifestyle to a great degree. I think where many brought up in the Christian faith in the west fall down when thinking of Islam is there is this notion that "ah sure it's like Christianity. Same God you know". Muslim apologists will also make this claim. Some Muslims do too, but less so. There are fundamental differences between the two. Not so much religious ones. Islam is very much an all encompassing religion. The lifestyle is a major part and parcel of it. This lifestyle is pickled in 7th century Arabic thinking. The various dress codes for women and men would not look wrong 1300 years ago. The lifestyle trickles through every facet of life. How to dress, how and what to eat etc. Politically it's a very different animal too. The concept of separation of church and state can be hard to fathom in the culture. It was never set up like this. The faith is the state and how everyone operates in that state. When folks like dead one talk of a failure of modern Islamic states it's set against that background. Democracy is not particularly compatible with Islamic political thinking. The "perfect" Islamic state would be a theocracy run by a religious elite over which a Caliph would reign. Ballot boxes not required. That's more a "kaffir" notion. Of course there are Muslims and Muslim majority states where democracy is practiced, but they're more local, less Arabic versions of Islam.

    Christianity is different and has been from the start. While various christian churches and their leaders have exercised or tried to exercise political power, the faith itself provides an "out" for that while retaining the faith. Jesus came out with "give all to Caesar that's Caesar's" and "my kingdom is not of this earth", both statements clearly drawing a line between the religious and the secular powers and statements that would have choked in the throat of Mohammed. Even at the height of medieval church power both strands were there. A social and political reformation was a big part of this.

    Very interesting. Your broad knowledge is extremely impressive. I broadly agree with everything you've said and have been given food for thought on anything remaining. I've probably been giving the impression that IMO Islam is somehow perfect; I certainly don't think so. However, I do object to it's demonisation which sadly has become socially acceptable apparently.


  • Options
    #164
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No I don't.

    So why may I ask did you ask me to put into context Sam Harris' cherry-picked quotes?
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do you admit that there are passages in the Qur'an that do not reflect a religion of peace? Or is it all taken out of context?
    How could it all be taken out of context when taken as a whole?


  • Options
    #165
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Especially were the punishment can mean a loss of life but I see apostasy from Islamic perspective as along the lines of the crime of treason from the Irish perspective; which still does to the best of my knowledge carry a death sentence upon conviction.
    It used to, but it's been off the statute books for a while. I suppose that's another diff. Islam would be a good example of a very self protective theocracy that doesn't allow for change so readily. Not when it's mired as much to a time as it is to a deity. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists don't seek a return to an actual time of their source. You don't have Jews celebrating passover thinking "you know Jim we should move back to Egypt, ask them to make us slaves again, dress in rags and take bets on whether Ann can make mud bricks without straw. That should be a bit of craic". Or Christians thinking "hey lets all move to Galilee, dress like the locals and wait around for a Jewish lad to make with the wine. I've got 10 gallons of Ballygowan ready to rock". All have moved beyond that to one degree or other. The Islamic mind by comparison does in many ways. It harks back to and looks forward to a "perfect" Islamic state, which can never exist. In the face of that they seek the imperfect, the imperfect pickled in 7th century aspic.
    But even then it's not as black and white as some people would have you believe. I'll go out on a limb and say that the unpeaceful/intolerant actions of Muslims was the recent reaction of Afghans to the Pastor's Quran burning in the US. They attacked a UN compound and killed 10 UN workers. Horrific obviously but that only tells half the story in my opinion. These Muslims who were protesting have been living under a fairly brutal occupation by the US. This is reason enough alone IMO to riot and protest (but not kill): It was only a couple of thousand protestors from a region that lives hundreds of thousands. From these thousands of peaceful protestors only a handful were involved in the attack and amongst this small group there were Taliban infiltrators/agitators arrested according to official stories.
    Agreed. There was more emotion and politics than Islam going on. It may have been the blue touch paper, but it wasn't the gunpowder.

    If the stranger was attacked does Catholocism then become a Religion of war/intolerance etc?
    It would if such behaviour/instruction was coded in catholicism or was set as an example within it.
    However, I do object to it's demonisation which sadly has become socially acceptable apparently.
    Ditto. Especially demonisation of individual Muslims. Who for the (very) most part are just trying to get through the day like any of us.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #166
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So why may I ask did you ask me to put into context Sam Harris' cherry-picked quotes?

    To make a point, someone else quoted the Qur'an and immediately, and unsurprisingly, they're told they're not taking context into account. So I posted all those quotes to see if they're all being taken out of context. For a supposed religion of peace there sure are a lot of things that can be viewed as not being very peaceful.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How could it all be taken out of context when taken as a whole?

    You have a knack for answering a question with a question, I'd really appreciate a straight answer. Are there any passages in the Qur'an that are at odds with a religion of peace, or are all quotes associated with it that are used by critics, or so called ''anti-islamists'', being taken out of context?


  • Options
    #167
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I think this video (mostly aimed at the bible, not that it matters) covers the "Out of Context" defence pretty well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o


  • Options
    #168
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    If I said that to someone who's terrified of Nuclear Power how would they react? Likewise if I said it to someone voting on the Lisbon Treaty. That need-to- be-fully-qualified-before-criticising is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

    They might be able to comment on it, but ultimately those with the fullest knowledge will be in a better situation to argue. If someone was just arguing against / for the Lisbon Treaty based on pamphlets received they would be in a worse position to argue than the person who has read it.

    Likewise the person who is most knowledgeable about the Qur'anic texts has the better hand.

    The best position for the critic would actually be to criticise Islam-as-commonly-witnessed as opposed to the Qur'an. Likewise the best position of the critic of Christianity would be to criticise Christianity-as-commonly-witnessed rather than the Bible. That is unless they want to be well read in respect to either.


  • Options
    #169
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It used to, but it's been off the statute books for a while. I suppose that's another diff. Islam would be a good example of a very self protective theocracy that doesn't allow for change so readily. Not when it's mired as much to a time as it is to a deity. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists don't seek a return to an actual time of their source. You don't have Jews celebrating passover thinking "you know Jim we should move back to Egypt, ask them to make us slaves again, dress in rags and take bets on whether Ann can make mud bricks without straw. That should be a bit of craic". Or Christians thinking "hey lets all move to Galilee, dress like the locals and wait around for a Jewish lad to make with the wine. I've got 10 gallons of Ballygowan ready to rock". All have moved beyond that to one degree or other. The Islamic mind by comparison does in many ways. It harks back to and looks forward to a "perfect" Islamic state, which can never exist. In the face of that they seek the imperfect, the imperfect pickled in 7th century aspic.

    I don't see how that is so different to the Haredim tbh. They see themselves as part of an unbroken chain down from Moses and are completely dedicated to following halacha and due to their high birth rates have been predicted to become the majorty by 2050ish in Israel.

    I have a question for you though if you don't mind?

    If Islam is by default violent and radical why do you think Brezezinski had to spend so many US dollars setting up Madrassas in Pakistan to radicalise Muslims to fight in the US proxy war against the Soviets?


  • Options
    #170
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    To make a point, someone else quoted the Qur'an and immediately, and unsurprisingly, they're told they're not taking context into account.
    So your point was that it should be okay for people to spread misinformation/disinformation on a text they know nothing about (bar from hate sites) by regurgitating quotes taken out of context?

    And to do this you post a long list of quotes, again without any kind of context?
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So I posted all those quotes to see if they're all being taken out of context. For a supposed religion of peace there sure are a lot of things that can be viewed as not being very peaceful.

    I've already said it's not for me to put into context quotes from the Quran that somebody else has posted. It is for whoever has posted them to support whatever point that they themselves are trying to make. If it's just a simple copy & paste from Jihadwatch or Breivik's manifesto without they themselves trying to understand the context behind the text it is bias and ignorance pure and simple.

    I did take the first one as an example. It was presented as a commandment of Allah to "kill the infidel!". This wasn't the case as I found out by trying to put the text into context from unbiased sources. The reality was that it was explaining the divine intervention that led to a famous victory for the Muslims (believers) over the Meccanites (unbelievers) in the Battle of Badr. The Muslims were significantly outnumbered but they still won the battle. The verse relates to this. Supposedly Allah had his Angels fighting alongside the Muslims (believers) in the battle which led to victory. The message of violence was not one against infidels (you and me) but against the "unbelievers" in a specific battle.


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    You have a knack for answering a question with a question, I'd really appreciate a straight answer. Are there any passages in the Qur'an that are at odds with a religion of peace, or are all quotes associated with it that are used by critics, or so called ''anti-islamists'', being taken out of context?

    I'd assume going on the balance of probabilities that yes there is. Any farther comment would be from ignorance.

    So called anti-Islamists??

    Can we agree that the EDL are anti-Islamics?

    EDIT: In case your not familiar he is an interview with a member at a demo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx6lupC6WyE

    Here is a thread by an EDL member titled
    The Barbaric Quran and Hadith


    http://englishdefenceleague.org/forum/showthread.php?450-The-Barbaric-Quran-and-Hadith&p=2458
    Look familiar?
    Did you find this post helpful? ha_thumbsup.gif | ha_thumbsdn.gif
    This is why the Quran needs modernizing/rewritten anybody in my point of view who reads the barbaric things written in this sickening book and believes them to be the words of god are gonna end up pretty twisted and thinking its ok to hurt or kill/rape others of different beliefs .
    EDIT: Muslims have often argued with me when i point out these hadiths and quranic statements and say im taking them out of context , So how is the common modernized man supposed to take these verses ? because to me they are barbaric and sickening to say the least .


  • Options
    #171
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So your point was that it should be okay for people to spread misinformation/disinformation on a text they know nothing about (bar from hate sites) by regurgitating quotes taken out of context?

    No, it wasn't, my point was to show that not every quote is taken out of context, that some are exactly as they seem, which you've now admitted yourself.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd assume going on the balance of probabilities that yes there is. Any farther comment would be from ignorance.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So called anti-Islamists??

    Can we agree that the EDL are anti-Islamics?

    EDIT: In case your not familiar he is an interview with a member at a demo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx6lupC6WyE

    Here is a thread by an EDL member titled
    The Barbaric Quran and Hadith

    http://englishdefenceleague.org/forum/showthread.php?450-The-Barbaric-Quran-and-Hadith&p=2458
    Look familiar?

    Who cares? What difference is that to me? Because they're anti-islam then all who are anti-islam should be ignored? I think you'll find Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray have better arguments than that gobshíte, but then of course, how would you know?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No, it wasn't, my point was to show that not every quote is taken out of context, that some are exactly as they seem, which you've now admitted yourself.

    You do realise that posting quotes, no matter how big the list is without context does not demonstrate that "not every quote is taken out of context"???

    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Who cares? What difference is that to me? Because they're anti-islam then all who are anti-islam should be ignored?
    The point was that an EDL bigot has made exactly the same point as you have.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I think you'll find Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray have better arguments than that gobshíte, but then of course, how would you know?
    I've already stated that I am familiar with the hatefilled bile of both of these professional Islamaphobes.

    As for this pantomine of a debate it reeks of a setup to me.

    A debate on Islam funded by a CFR billionaire, produced by a former employee of Benjamin Netanyahu in the red corner the two aforementioned professional Islam hating propogandists and on the other an "Islamic" think-tank founder from the UK which receives government funding.

    Another co-founder being another CFR member Ed Hussain.
    The nature of Husain's own politics were on unmistakeable display during a recent edition of Radio 4's Any Questions, when he attacked multiculturalism and declared there were too many immigrants in the country. He also says he supported the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, but not what took place thereafter.


    Husain has, meanwhile, compared Hamas to the BNP, described the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist, criticised the director of MI5 for "pussyfooting around" with extremists, poured cold water on the idea that western policy in the Muslim world makes terror attacks in Britain and elsewhere more likely, dismissed the idea of Islamophobia and defended the government's decision to ban the leading Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi from Britain because he had defended Palestinian suicide attacks. Whatever else that amounts to, it's scarcely a voice of moderation.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/21/allmodcons

    The group has been rejected by Muslims in the UK:
    We represent a cross section of the Muslim community, and reject the simplistic narrative about the dangers of Islamism espoused by the Quilliam Foundation (Response, April 25). We believe this is just another establishment-backed attempt to divert attention from the main cause of radicalisation and extremism in Britain: the UK's disastrous foreign policy in the Muslim world, including its occupation of Muslim lands and its support for pro-western Muslim dictators. The foundation has no proven grassroots support within the Muslim community, although it does seem to have the ear of the powers that be, probably because it is telling them what they want to hear.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/26/uksecurity

    And his partner also a member of the establishment a campaigner for "Muslims for Obama". Obama proved he was no friend of Muslims before he even took office as he kept silent while the Israelis were committing war crimes against the civilians of Gaza pre-inaguration.


  • Options
    #173
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Have you actually watched the debate, or are you comfortable enough continuing your ad hominems on the debaters and insinuating that it's some kind of Zionist conspiracy to make Islam look bad? If you have actually watched it, you should have heard that they asked other Muslim clerics to be in the debate but they refused to sit on a panel opposite Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It seems these were the only two they could find that were "moderate" enough to take part in the debate. Who, if anyone, would have been worthy spokespeople for Islam in your view?


  • Options
    #174
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Wibbs wrote: »
    You do realise that verse is aimed at Jews in a historical context? And it's ok to kill in the case of "spreading mischief in the land"? That's a wide net being cast there.
    You didn't read the link which i gave..... did you? Perhaps you don't want to change your mind... see
    In any case, the Qur`an not only corrects the ethnocentric version but also improves the “universalist” version. In the latter, killing/saving a single person is like killing/saving a whole tribe or race that descends or could have descended from him. In the Qur`an the killing/saving a single person is like killing/saving of the whole humankind and not just the tribe or race descending from him. In this way the Qur`an takes the value of an individual human life to a new height. Some Christian missionaries and other prejudicial Jews and Christians fail to recognize this. They use the similarity between the Talmudic and Qur`anic passages to assert rather that the Prophet Muhammad took ideas from Jewish, Christian and other earlier sources and passed them on as divine revelation. For a more detailed discussion of this type of error, see my article, “The Prophet Muhammad and Earlier Religions, Especially Judaism and Christianity”.
    Now, again if a person kills any innocent person, he clearly violates teaching of all the prophets.... He has nothing to do with Islam or any prophet--- He follows his own religion --- as you are following your own man made religions
    Wibbs wrote: »
    OK so the Quran tells you the Quran is right? Brilliant logic. You do realise the other religions tell them they're right.
    There is much debate on this issue,
    The Qur`an by being based on a fresh experience with the divine, by transforming earlier stories and/or telling them in a new/correct spirit, and by stating earlier ideas differently and changing their relative value in the overall system has created something very new and powerful which first transformed the Arab nation and subsequently started a process of transforming the whole world which still continues and, according to Islamic belief, will continue till the end of history.
    It is interesting that the Qur`an itself addresses in many verses the relationship of Islam with earlier religious traditions. Thus it tells us that the Prophet of Islam did not come to introduce any innovation in religion (46:9) but teaches the same religion that was taught by earlier prophets (42:13) and that is based on unchanging fitrah or true nature of human beings (30:30). In earlier times prophets were raised among all nations (16:36).

    The similarity of the teachings of the true prophets of God concerns its essence but not all the details. The essence of all true religions is a relationship with the one transcendent and holy God, a moral life, and good deeds, with implicit or explicit belief in the hereafter and future judgment (5:69, 98:5). This does not change, but details of ritual procedures and regulations/conventions for organizing community life may differ from religion to religion (5:48, 22:67, 45:17). The true prophets of God also differ in the roles they perform in history. Some play a more foundational role, others more reforming or supporting role.
    http://www.islamicperspectives.com/ProphetMuhammad.htm
    Wibbs wrote: »
    So you do follow Mohammed then? According to Mohammed. Again with the brilliant logic. Actually they don't, they believe in three aspects of the same god. The Jews believed in many gods and Yahweh was at the top. Echoes of which you can still find in the old testament. God seems really bad at preserving his revelations. Except for Mohammeds of course. Third try is a charm.
    There is mention of Prophet of Muhammad in almost all previous scriptures--- i can show you it from Bible..... We follow Muhammad according Moses----According to Jesus--- According to All the prophet of God----
    Indeed, We have sent you with the truth as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And there was no nation but that there had passed within it a warner.
    http://quran.com/35/24
    Jesus:rolleyes:
    Jesus was prophet of God like many Prophets before him.... He can't help you.... Ask God, your creator, if you really want help.... I know you aren't christian
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Depends on your "desires" most people seem to do it pretty well. God or not.
    If you are dependent on you desires, then you desire what your "desires" desire.... I am sure you won't able to understand the sense
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Really? Then why did he need armies? Buddha didn't need armies or a religious state to spread initially. Jesus didn't need armies or a religious state to spread initially.
    What army you are talking about comrade, He didn't spread islam through sword but by character..... You can't change a person's mind through sword.... Try it, you won't be able to succeed.....
    Wibbs wrote: »
    All that came later and in those cases can be described as a corruption of the original message. Muhammed built up an army, waged war, conquered areas, killed and enslaved enemies. And you think this is spreading by peace?
    Again, If islam were to spread with sword then tell which force conquered Malaysian and Indonesian
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well I've read the Quran and two of the Hadith. I did so many years ago, long before this more recent Islamaphobia and it was an eye opener.
    have you read quran and two of hadith by yourself or someone else? Please provide an honest answer....
    Wibbs wrote: »
    There has never been one.
    It is impossible to create 100% peaceful society on earth... But you can create 90%......
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Including Muhammeds.
    Muhammad brought peace on earth but it the world which has chosen violence for itself....
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Looking at his and the first Islamic states they're not exactly good advertisements for peace. Lots of killing going on. IIRC three out of the first four caliphs were assassinated.
    They scarified their lives for peace..... you want peace then you must have to scarify yourself for peace..... You see, wibb, you can't attain peace living on bed of roses or by engaging in discussion on internet forams.... You have created a peaceful world which is full of fantasy ----a world which lacks the real peace in real world....


  • Options
    #175
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    so you are thankful that majority of the world is suffering, and I'm the corrupted one? :confused:
    you know in your heart, you are corrupted by wordily life--- You attach yourself to a world-- a world which has no permanent existence - and you even believe in it by saying "there is no after life" --- and you resist when i talk about cure--- a cure which provides you the source to resist worldly illusions-- a source by which the wordily life won't deceive-- Thanks to you---
    "Truly, the life of this world is nothing but a [quick passing] enjoyment, and verily, the Hereafter that is the home that will remain forever." [Qur'an, 40:39]
    A poet said: "Man should take the minimum possible of the worldly pleasures, because he is leaving for a fixed appointment; turn his eyes away from this life and its ornaments, make all the efforts to keep away from its lusts, because it is a place of temporary pleasures and trials, and all the people in it will perish."
    koth wrote: »
    I refer you to the quote you posted.
    See,
    "So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned?"
    http://quran.com/3/83 [/quote]
    Who are "they" in the verse... Human/disbelievers like you and me, quran has his own logic to make people understand.... God cleary says, all the thing in the universe follow God,--- See, death, is a compulsion, it's a law in the religion of God.... Every thing in the universe has to taste death and that is compulsion.... You can't resist death then what makes you to resist religion of God.... in the last of part of verse God says "they will be returned" Now when after death when you will return what you would say to God, what makes you not to believe in God's Deed (religion).... I am sure you would says a non intelligent evolution had created me..
    and about compulsion there is clear verse in quran.....
    There is no compulsion where deen is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false deities and believes in Allah has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara, 256)
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Who are you to judge them as hypocrites? They are following what Islam teaches them. What makes your view more correct than their view? Do you speak Arabic fluently out of curiosity?
    There are two types of hypocrites..
    1. By actions
    2. by heart.....
    if your actions goes against your belief than you hypocrite by actions... If you pretend to be muslim but in your heart you are christian/jew/athiest, then you are hypocrite by heart.... Now you have chosen actions of hypocrites to condemn islam... Their actions have have got nothing to with islam....
    dlofnep wrote: »
    His message was NOT love and peace.
    The verse which you posted, have context--- be honest, honesty is best policy, if you choose the way of dishonesty-- then it will make you more dishonest.... I can see "the ego" which is making you to be dishonest...
    dlofnep wrote: »
    So give over, and stop pretending Islam is a religion of peace, and that somehow these people are 'hypocrites'. They are doing what they have been told to do.
    Why should i pretend, I see Islam as a religion of peace---- a religion which is being scarified at the altar of hypocrisy--- in the dungeons of media
    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, he didn't. He spread Islam through fear and war. Have you actually read the Qur'an?
    tell me about the tale of Indonesia and Malaysia, comrade


  • Options
    #176
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    philologos wrote: »
    I have a question for dead one. Why do you keep using the term "nation of Islam"? Is it because Islam inherently has political aspirations or is it just a term used?

    The term "nation of islam" is used in reference to the nation of believers in the Islam . It contains the complete Islamic world. It represents actions of true believers not action of hypocrites
    there are three things to mentions while discussing
    1.agreement of the mind,
    2.agreement of the heart,
    3. agreement of arms.
    All the three above agreement should follow message of Prophet muhammad.... If you violate message of Muhammad even you are Muslim, you aren't included in nation of islam..... Right i hope you it would clear


  • Options
    #177
    old_aussie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    dead one wrote: »
    You see, wibb, you can't attain peace living on bed of roses or by engaging in discussion on internet forams.... You have created a peaceful world which is full of fantasy ----a world which lacks the real peace in real world....

    Then dead one, will you STOP engaging in discussion on internet forums so we can get some peace


  • Options
    #178
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    old_aussie wrote: »
    Then dead one, will you STOP engaging in discussion on internet forums so we can get some peace
    i ain't stopping anyone--- don't bold things out of context-- it won't bold you in real life--- Actually i am saying, peace needs sacrifice--- you can't attain peace by engaging discussion on internet only..... You have to keep real things in mind, in real world also..... Some people create fantasy on internet forum----a fantasy which can't apply to real world...


  • Options
    #179
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You do realise that posting quotes, no matter how big the list is without context does not demonstrate that "not every quote is taken out of context"???

    I realise that, I asked you to provide context, remember? You've since admitted instead that not everything is taken out of context, which is all I was looking to confirm.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The point was that an EDL bigot has made exactly the same point as you have.

    What point did I make?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've already stated that I am familiar with the hatefilled bile of both of these professional Islamaphobes.

    As for this pantomine of a debate it reeks of a setup to me.

    A debate on Islam funded by a CFR billionaire, produced by a former employee of Benjamin Netanyahu in the red corner the two aforementioned professional Islam hating propogandists and on the other an "Islamic" think-tank founder from the UK which receives government funding.

    Another co-founder being another CFR member Ed Hussain.



    The group has been rejected by Muslims in the UK:



    And his partner also a member of the establishment a campaigner for "Muslims for Obama". Obama proved he was no friend of Muslims before he even took office as he kept silent while the Israelis were committing war crimes against the civilians of Gaza pre-inaguration.

    Wrong forum maybe? Try here.


  • Options
    #180
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    you know in your heart, you are corrupted by wordily life--- You attach yourself to a world-- a world which has no permanent existence - and you even believe in it by saying "there is no after life" --- and you resist when i talk about cure--- a cure which provides you the source to resist worldly illusions-- a source by which the wordily life won't deceive-- Thanks to you---

    As i said before, you are thankful the majority of the world is suffering, and I'm the corrupt one :rolleyes:
    A poet said: "Man should take the minimum possible of the worldly pleasures, because he is leaving for a fixed appointment; turn his eyes away from this life and its ornaments, make all the efforts to keep away from its lusts, because it is a place of temporary pleasures and trials, and all the people in it will perish."

    Big woop, a repressed human being said something.
    See,
    "So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned?"
    http://quran.com/3/83
    Who are "they" in the verse... Human/disbelievers like you and me, quran has his own logic to make people understand.... God cleary says, all the thing in the universe follow God,--- See, death, is a compulsion, it's a law in the religion of God.... Every thing in the universe has to taste death and that is compulsion.... You can't resist death then what makes you to resist religion of God.... in the last of part of verse God says "they will be returned" Now when after death when you will return what you would say to God, what makes you not to believe in God's Deed (religion).... I am sure you would says a non intelligent evolution had created me..
    and about compulsion there is clear verse in quran.....

    Unless you've returned from the grave you've no proof of that.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    Unless you've returned from the grave you've no proof of that.
    Have you met with undead?--- I mean, what is proof that you won't raise again-- Can material science provide you the answer?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement