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

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Have you met with undead?--- I mean, what is proof that you won't raise again-- Can material science provide you the answer?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Anyways, back to the topic of the thread.

If people criticizing Islam can be accused of taking quotes out of context, then it's also equally possible that factions within the Islamic world could do the same to get young muslims to commit acts of violence.

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

and how would religious schools radicalise people? Would a Buddhist religious school make for militant nutters as easily? I seriously doubt BB. Like I said the founder of the faith himself was by turns violent and warlike. The guy was the head of a religious movement that required force of arms. He killed people and had people killed in the name of his Allah. Very very few religious founders came close to him on that score with the exception of some Old testament figures.

dead one wrote: »

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----

Many many christian and jewish theologians would beg to differ.

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.....

Really? So what about the raids on the camel trains, the battles he personally fought, the spoils of war? Muhammad never headed an army? You're joking right?

have you read quran and two of hadith by yourself or someone else? Please provide an honest answer....

By myself. Dunno what that's got to do with anything.

They scarified their lives for peace..... you want peace then you must have to scarify yourself for peace.....

They were killed in very mundane power struggles. Nothing "peaceful" about it. Like I said earlier in the thread, the Islamic psyche, in particular the ME one(which spread as far as the various "stans") has a different approach to peace as a concept.

old_aussie

dead one wrote: »

don't bold things out of context-- it won't bold you in real life

I didn't bold out of context, you whole sentence is there, it's exactly what you said, now you twisting your own words to suit yourself.:rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

and how would religious schools radicalise people?

Brainwashing. Start with the young.

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.



The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22?language=printer

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Anyways, back to the topic of the thread.

If people criticizing Islam can be accused of taking quotes out of context, then it's also equally possible that factions within the Islamic world could do the same to get young muslims to commit acts of violence.

Abolutely. And as I've just posted the non-Islamic world can also do the same to get young Muslims to commit acts of violence.

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuIZVazXBVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-PDrxtGxig

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

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.

Then, how can you safely say that ideas such as Thor, Freya are nonsensical when you have studied them in depth? Surely, you realise the impractical nature of the idea of having to familiarise yourself 100% with something that you deem to be bullsh1t?

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Brainwashing. Start with the young.

You're missing my point BB. Again rejig it and imagine if you were "to supply Bhutan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Buddhist teachings". Gonna be a real hard sell. Doubly so if the Bhutanies are up to some speed with the texts and the lifestyle of Buddha. Teacher: "The Buddha says go out and kill the enemies of Buddhism and bring the peace of Buddhism to all, like he did. He is your example". Kids: "WTF? Eh no he didn't you muppet".

In the case of Afghanies(and others) these people already read or memorised the Quran from cover to cover many times in their lives and know the way of the prophet intimately. Another mistake made - usually by the "Christian" west - is that their level of knowledge of the primary religious sources is low. That they're ignorant of much of the text. Like I dunno the average a la carte Catholic who can quote maybe a few phrases and themes, but has nothing like the intimate knowledge of a Gospel scholar. For many of these Muslim groups they've only one book in their lives and the Quran is it. It's a far more pervasive faith and I've met very few Muslims without a pretty good knowledge of it's teachings. Certainly far more than equivalent Christians as an average. Born againers the exceptions.

Converts to Islam are very often the most radical and they approach the subject with the zeal of first love. Never mind some illiterate hill farmer in the back of beyond, how do you convince otherwise intelligent well educated Muslims that the Quran and hadith are militant and aggressive. They can read for themselves. In all these cases how is it so easy to make a peaceful book and faith so radical and violent? The source material and the life of Muhammed, that's how IMHO.

The Buddha? Starts off rich as croesus, gets all trippy goes off to find himself, does so after some back and forth stuff and preaches peace, love, forgiveness and rejection of earthly desires, does this for many years and dies an old man surrounded by followers and tells them with his last breath to strive earnestly.

Jesus? Starts off and stays poor, gets all trippy goes off to find himself, does so and preaches peace, love, forgiveness and rejection of earthly desires, does this for a few years, loses the rag once with some unfortunate shopkeepers in a temple, is nailed to a tree to die in agony and with his last breath begs forgiveness from his god for those who put him there and all humanity just to cover all the bases.

Muhammed? Starts off poor enough, gains respect as a trader, gets all trippy, goes off to find himself and in the early days preaches peace, love, forgiveness and rejection of earthly desires, then when he gets some influence, begins raids, steals from other tribes, enslaves those they don't kill, builds enough followers to raise an army, adds some wives and finance along the way, builds more support and fights more wars and with his last breath tells his followers to drive the unbelievers out of Arabia.

Compare and contrast. Basically the radicals ain't licking this stuff from a stone. A comparison might be the more radical Jewish sects still marching to David and Moses' tune(both insular and aggressive nutters at times. Dave in particular. Indeed much more than Muhammed). Many of the more right wing Christian sects also take their cue from these guys. The second they get all prickish and aggressive and justify that, 99 times outa 100 they're quoting the Old Testament.

SamHarris

It certainly is not a religion of peace. Some of it's adhearance are peaceful, not the same thing by a long shot. Secular humanists have noticed for decades how much more conducive to violence Islam is than other major religions.

People argument that all religion can be used for whatever aims a speaker wishes is partly true, however it is by no means as easy to get a Buddisht to blow himself up in a bus as a Muslim.

The statistics speak for themselves in this regard. Even taking into account culture and soci-economic background, a UK Muslim is far more likely to rape than a non Muslim. This is a direct result of its misogonistic, anti-woman tenor.

The continued defence of the religion, based purely on the fact people think it came from the creator of the universe is dangerous and self evidently stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xj3R6GH3AY Another debate with the same idea behind it.

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the problems within Islam is Muslims complete lack of will to confront them - a majority of Muslims polled in every country did not believe 9/11 was carried out by Muslims. There is a constant victim mentality, that reinforces and encourages the continuing cycle of violence throughout Muslim lands, that occasionally leaks into the West, annoyingly.

SamHarris

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

When answering, keep in mind how you would answer if the question was 'anti-Jewish'.

I dont know if this has been said but anti Jewish implies a racial bias, one based on biology.

To be anti-Islamic is to be against an idea, a doctrine that has real consequences and effects on how people think. Much like being anti-communist or anti-fascist. It does not even have to mean you are anti-Mulsim per se.

dead one

koth wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Anyways, back to the topic of the thread.

If people criticizing Islam can be accused of taking quotes out of context, then it's also equally possible that factions within the Islamic world could do the same to get young muslims to commit acts of violence.

See, the theory of taking quotes out of context doesn't apply to quran only, If you apply the same to any book, you can corrupt whole ideology of that book, That's what majority of westerner are doing and this is greatest dishonesty on their part.... I give you practical of this theory.....Now pay attention what i write--- my attention are only to make you understand----
See suppose i say i am terrorist because i put terror in the hearts and minds of criminals/thieves/tyrants/dictators...... and then suddenly there comes a person--- Suppose his name is "WIZZ".... What Mr. WIZZ Do, He quotes my text out of context and then make his own context.... See he quotes my text in such ways as given below

Dead One wrote:

i am terrorist

Dead one you are terrorist, you are blah blah blah

---

Surely, the text which is quoted by Mr WIZZ is portraying negative effect on the minds--- That's how media is brainwashing million and billion of kid in the name of hypocrisy..... When the same kids grow up, they are living media zombies--- They are being controlled through the chain of media which were twisted by media in their minds long ago..... and yes the same theory applies to any muslim who misuses the quranic verse for their own agenda.... Right..

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Many many christian and jewish theologians would beg to differ.

i tell you why christian and Jewish theologians would beg to differ....
Because the writers of the Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a mixture of good and evil. The intelligent men of world do not believe what christian and jewish theologians say... Do you?
I aint attacking the character or reputation of theologian, but simply giving my ideas... I believe in message of Jesus, Jesus wrote no account of himself

Wibbs wrote: »

Really? So what about the raids on the camel trains, the battles he personally fought, the spoils of war? Muhammad never headed an army? You're joking right?

That's not true Wibbs, Yes, Muhammad headed an army for justice and peace because the non believers were not peaceful why ....

Wibbs wrote: »

raids on the camel trains, the battles he personally fought, the spoils of war?

why should he do that? Let see in detail.....If we compare the life of Muhammad before and after his mission as a Prophet, we will conclude that it is unreasonable to think that Muhammad was a false prophet who claimed Prophethood to attain material gains, greatness, glory, or power. Here are some point if you understand:-
Before his mission as a Prophet, Muhammad had no financial worries. As a successful and reputed merchant, he drew a satisfactory and comfortable income. After his mission as a Prophet and because of it, he became worse off materially. To clarify this, let us look at the following sayings on his life:
Muhammad's wife `A'ishah once said to her nephew, `Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, "O my nephew, we would sight three new moons in two months without lighting a fire (to cook a meal) in the Prophet's houses." Her nephew asked, "O Aunt, what sustained you?" She said, "The two black things, dates and water, but the Prophet had some neighbors of the Ansar who had milch camels and they used to send the Prophet some of the milk."
Anas, a Companion of Muhammad, said, "The Prophet did not eat at a table till he died, and he did not eat a thin nicely baked wheat bread till he died."
Muhammad's wife `A'ishah said, "The Prophet’s mattress on which he slept was made of leather stuffed with the fiber of the date-palm tree."
`Amr ibn Al-Harith, one of Muhammad's Companions, said that when the Prophet died, he left neither money nor anything else except his white riding mule, his arms, and a piece of land that he left to charity.
Muhammad lived this hard life till he died although the Muslim treasury was at his disposal, the greater part of the Arabian Peninsula was Muslim before he died, and the Muslims were victorious after eighteen years of his Mission.
Is it possible that Muhammad might have claimed Prophethood in order to attain status, greatness, and power?
The desire to enjoy status and power is usually associated with good food, fancy clothing, monumental palaces, colorful guards, and indisputable authority. Do any of these indicators apply to Muhammad? A few glimpses of his life that may help answer this question follow.
Despite his responsibilities as a Prophet, a teacher, a statesman, and a judge, Muhammad used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes, help with the household work, and visit poor people when they got sick. He also helped his Companions to dig a defensive trench by moving sand with them. His life was an amazing model of simplicity and humbleness.
Muhammad's followers loved him, respected him, and trusted him to an amazing degree. Yet he continued to emphasize that he should not be deified; only Allah was to be worshiped. His Companion Anas reported that there was no person whom they loved more than the Prophet Muhammad, yet when he came to them, they did not stand up for him because he hated their standing up for him as other people do with their great people.
Long before there was any prospect of success for Islam and at the outset of a long and painful era of torture, suffering, and persecution of Muhammad and his followers, he received an interesting offer. An envoy of the pagan leaders, `Utbah, came to him saying, "If you want money, we will collect enough money for you so that you will be the richest one of us. If you want leadership, we will take you as our leader and never decide on any matter without your approval. If you want a kingdom, we will crown you king over us..." Only one concession was required from Muhammad in return for that, to give up calling people to Islam and worshiping Allah alone without any partner. Wouldn't this offer be tempting to one pursuing worldly benefit? Was Muhammad hesitant when the offer was made? Did he turn it down as a bargaining strategy leaving the door open for a better offer? He answered with some verses of the Qur’an: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Ha. Mim. A revelation from (Allah), the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful; a Book whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who know, giving good news and warning, yet most of them turn away, so they do not listen." (Fussilat 41: 1-4) And he recited until verse 38.
On another occasion and in response to his uncle's plea to stop calling people to Islam, Muhammad's answer was as decisive and sincere: "I swear by the name of Allah, O Uncle, that if they place the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand in return for giving up this matter (calling people to Islam), I will never desist until either Allah makes it triumph or I perish defending it."
Muhammad and his few followers not only suffered from persecution for thirteen years, but the unbelievers even tried to kill Muhammad several times. On one occasion they attempted to kill him by dropping a large boulder on his head. Another time they poisoned his food. What could justify such a life of suffering and sacrifice even after he was fully triumphant over his adversaries? What could explain the humbleness and nobility that he demonstrated? Were they not due only with Allah's help and not to his own genius? Are these the characteristics of a power-hungry or self-centered man? Here is the link http://www.whymuhammad.com/es/Contents.aspx?AID=5955

Wibbs wrote: »

By myself. Dunno what that's got to do with anything.

Do you know Arabic?

dead one

old_aussie wrote: »

I didn't bold out of context, you whole sentence is there, it's exactly what you said, now you twisting your own words to suit yourself.:rolleyes:

You picked the whole sentence out of context then make your own context...... Have you ever wonder, what makes you to do that?
It is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay-

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

Because the writers of the Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a mixture of good and evil.

Barbarians? Really? So for example the highly educated Greek and Roman writers that collated the Gospels were barbarians? Never mind the Jewish scholars. They're barbarians in many things, yet some bunch of nomads miles from anywhere worth discussing were giants of intellect and culture? Ok..

The intelligent men of world do not believe what christian and jewish theologians say... Do you?

Which intelligent men? Or god forbid women... Most intelligent men would regard all three as filled with hearsay, invention, plagarism and superstition.

That's not true Wibbs, Yes, Muhammad headed an army for justice and peace because the non believers were not peaceful why ....

Justice and peace requires an army eh? Buddha, Krishna and Jesus seemed to get along alright without one. See folks different mentality surrounding "peace".

Before his mission as a Prophet, Muhammad had no financial worries. As a successful and reputed merchant, he drew a satisfactory and comfortable income. After his mission as a Prophet and because of it, he became worse off materially.

Well two things, first that was at the start of his ministry. There are broadly speaking "two" Muhammeds, the first is the peaceful religious figure, the second the martial figure. The more infuence the first one got the more martial he became. He goes from forgiving enemies to cutting the heads of a 1000 and selling their women and kids into slavery. Secondly the notion of him being poor is only one aspect. he had great power and headed a large army of followers. He went from local trader to leader of a growing nation.

Do you know Arabic?

Ahh here we go, the extra twist in the Islamic version of "context". God only speaks Arabic and his message is so vague it can't be translated. So much for it being a sim0le book without error.

coffee_cake

Wibbs wrote: »

Which intelligent men? Or god forbid women... Most intelligent men would regard all three as filled with hearsay, invention, plagarism and superstition.

Don't be silly wibbs, us women will just believe what we're told to believe by our good strong protectors and minders

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

It certainly is not a religion of peace.

Okay, let's see why...

SamHarris wrote: »

Some of it's adhearance are peaceful, not the same thing by a long shot.

By the same token some of it's adherents are violent, not the same as a religon of violene by a long shot. Agreed? Well you have no choice really unless you want to be a hypocrite. So where does that leave us? Some Muslims are violent and some Muslims are peaceful by nature and action. Just like...other people...?

SamHarris wrote: »

Secular humanists have noticed for decades how much more conducive to violence Islam is than other major religions.

I take it you are one of these elite few?

SamHarris wrote: »

People argument that all religion can be used for whatever aims a speaker wishes is partly true, however it is by no means as easy to get a Buddisht to blow himself up in a bus as a Muslim.

How do you know? Have you tried?

SamHarris wrote: »

The statistics speak for themselves in this regard.

Eh, what statistics?

SamHarris wrote: »

Even taking into account culture and soci-economic background, a UK Muslim is far more likely to rape than a non Muslim.

Hmmm. I suppose you can support this with non BNP sources?

SamHarris wrote: »

This is a direct result of its misogonistic, anti-woman tenor.

I look forward to your statistics on this too.

SamHarris wrote: »

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the problems within Islam is Muslims complete lack of will to confront them

This is false. For example, earlier in the thread I posted links to countless Muslim leaders denouncing violence, terrorism and 9-11

SamHarris wrote: »

- a majority of Muslims polled in every country did not believe 9/11 was carried out by Muslims.

I seriously doubt if any professional polling company asked respondents if they thought that 9-11 was carried out by "Muslims".

But again I await your source-

SamHarris wrote: »

There is a constant victim mentality, that reinforces and encourages the continuing cycle of violence throughout Muslim lands, that occasionally leaks into the West, annoyingly.

let's be honest here Sam, the US and Israel are encouraging the continuing cycle of violence in "Muslim lands". Not any imaginary victim mentality.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

I dont know if this has been said but anti Jewish implies a racial bias, one based on biology.

To be anti-Islamic is to be against an idea, a doctrine that has real consequences and effects on how people think. Much like being anti-communist or anti-fascist. It does not even have to mean you are anti-Mulsim per se.

But according to the ADL anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Where does that leave us?

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

You're missing my point BB. Again rejig it and imagine if you were "to supply Bhutan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Buddhist teachings". Gonna be a real hard sell. Doubly so if the Bhutanies are up to some speed with the texts and the lifestyle of Buddha. Teacher: "The Buddha says go out and kill the enemies of Buddhism and bring the peace of Buddhism to all, like he did. He is your example". Kids: "WTF? Eh no he didn't you muppet".

I do get where you are coming from but in the case of Afghanistan it's not a case of imagining sending militant textbooks as they were actually sent at a cost of 10's of millions of dollars. This was not an act of charity and there can only be one conclusion IMO why the US would send radical textbooks to Afghanistan at this time period.

Bhutan is an interesting case. They had their first crime wave recently only after it's people start watching TV; so I would imagine them to be as capable of being victims of conditioning as anyone else. The point I'm struggling to make here is that the education system in the wrong hands can (and apparently was ) be used as a tool to radicalise. Evidently Muslims weren't extreme enough for the US.

A Buddhist history lesson to radicalise could ignore Ashkora (or whatever his name is ) and glorify, I dunno the Samurais, who also chopped off the hands clean off from thieves as punishment and measured the strength of their blades by how many restrained torsos of captured prisoners they could cut clean through, or they could focus on the virtues of the Kamikazes (suicide bombers).

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Have you actually watched the debate,

I've now read from the transcript - well as much as I could stomach. Exactly as I expected - Sharia...terrorism...Hamas...etc. Well, with one exception. I assumed wrongly on the American girl. She did seem genuine but it was an intentionally impossible task for her IMO. It was effectively 3 vs 1 and the topic itself was heavily weighted against her "Is Islam a religion of peace?" is accusatory in nature and of course it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Added to that she was essentially a nobody arguing against seasoned debaters. It was debating WWF style with a pre-determined outcome IMO.

Standman wrote: »

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.

Do you always take the word of Douglas Murray? If so I think we've found the source of the problem.

Standman wrote: »

Who, if anyone, would have been worthy spokespeople for Islam in your view?

I wouldn't be looking for "spokespeople". They wouldn't even have to be Muslim, just without bigotry with a knowledge of and capable of being objective towards Islam. I've already mentioned Juan Cole and Professor As'ad who is an atheist, as is Tariq Ali could do a good job My main suggestion would be Jonathan Githens-Mazer http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/staff/githens-mazer/

dlofnep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But according to the ADL anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Where does that leave us?

Well - anyone who would equate opposition to Zionism to prejudice against Jews for their faith/ethnicity is a moron, and as such - the ADL are morons. They don't get to define anti-semitism.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the problems within Islam is Muslims complete lack of will to confront them - a majority of Muslims polled in every country did not believe 9/11 was carried out by Muslims. There is a constant victim mentality, that reinforces and encourages the continuing cycle of violence throughout Muslim lands, that occasionally leaks into the West, annoyingly.

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Barbarians? Really? So for example the highly educated Greek and Roman writers that collated the Gospels were barbarians? Never mind the Jewish scholars. They're barbarians in many things,

Yes Barbarians, Are you not blinded by your bias, Let see into the river of history...... Vicious punishments were imposed by all governments-- People were snatched asunder, damaged, burned. Every outrageous behavior was perpetrated in the name of justice----and the extent of pain was the extent of endurance--- These people thought that Maker would do as they would do. If it were in their might to keep the scapegoat alive for years in the flames, they would most hopefully have delivered the fagots....

Wibbs wrote: »

yet some bunch of nomads miles from anywhere worth discussing were giants of intellect and culture? Ok..

Here are some point how Prophet Muhammad changed the ignorant Arabs and made them the conquerer of world--- Let see facts, Don't send emptry arrow in the sky--- Let see arab world before arrival of Prophet
1. The most extraordinary aspect of the governmental life of Arabs before Islam was the total nonappearance of constitutional organization in any form. Since Arabs did not have a political organization in any shape, and since the ignorant Arabs were rebel by reaction, they were restricted in ceaseless warfare. War was a permanent house of the Arabian.... Wibbs, have you seen War--- I guess,you know nothing about War--- You know it when you suffer--- See you can't feel the pain of others unless you are in pain....
2. financially, the Jews were the ruler of Arabia. They were the masters of the best ownable property in Arabs, and they were the best agriculturalist in the Arab. They were also the businesspersons of such manufactories as existed in Arabia in those days, and they pleased a copyrights of the armaments industry. Slavery was an financial school of the ignorant. Male and female servants were sold like beasts, and they created the most exhausted class of the Arabian society. Landowners and money-lenders are most powerful . The interest rates charged by them on loans were excessive ,and were especially made to make them filthy and filthy, and the deadbeats poorer and poorer.
3. Arab was a male-governed society. Women had no rank of any kind other than as sex objects as you see today. A man could marry as many women as he wished. In case of death of man, his lad "inherited" all his brides except his own mom. A wild ritual of the Arabs was to bury their female kids alive. Even if an ignnorant did not want to bury his female kid alive, he still had to uphold this wild custom, being unable to resist social pressures. ---- As you are unable to accept truth because of your moderation/reputation/your customs---- Wasted reputations--- It wont help you
4. alcoholism was a habitual vice of the Arabs---With alcoholism (drunk) went their gambling---They were obsessive drinkers and obsessive gamblers. The family connection of the sexes were highly loose. Many females sold sex to make their living easy.
5. The time in the Arabian Past which introduced the arrival of Islam is recognized as the Times of Ignorance. Seeing by the creeds and the customs of the pagan arabe , it seems that it was a most suitable name. The Arabs were the followers of a collection of "religions" which can be categorized as such:
a. polytheists : . Majority in Arabs were idolist. They bowed down to idols and each clan had its own idol

---

b. Atheists This group was made up of the materialists and believed that the world was eternal. I don't have to go into your beliefs because you believe what you believe...
c. Zindiqs They were affected by the Persian dogma of dualism in nature. The say there are twin forces of good and evil or light and darkness and the two forces show two gods...
Here is link if you are interested: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dualism.htm
d. Sabines: Worshipper of Stars
e. Christian
f. Jews
g. Monotheists : They didn't worship idols--- They were true follower of religion of Abraham....
6. Arabs were weak in education before arival of islam.....
Now keeping all above point in mind---- imagine how Prophet Changed their lives and made them conqueror of World....

Wibbs wrote: »

Which intelligent men?

The honest one: Lets apply this rule of honesty on you intelligence: Are you honest in your intelligence or not

---

Let see in the mirror of history
You pasted this link at this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73369350&postcount=24
the link is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=player_embedded
The link which you choose to support your argument is prime example of intectuall decay--- why because you aren't honest with your intelligence?
Here is answer for your dishonest intelligence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUphBjiTfXo&feature=player_embedded

Wibbs wrote: »

Or god forbid women...

Intelligent Men don't display women's beauty in the market freedom--
Intelligent men don't flourish parts of women to attract customers
Intelligent men dont sell women in the name of freedom:
Intelligent men don't follow their desires?

---

Oh Lord, desires are intelligent than man

Wibbs wrote: »

Most intelligent men would regard all three as filled with hearsay, invention, plagarism and superstition.

I prepared my mind that the people, as well as for individuals, honesty in the long-run is the best policy. I prepared my mind that the mankind were entitled to know a man's honest thoughts.....

Wibbs wrote: »

Justice and peace requires an army eh? Buddha, Krishna and Jesus seemed to get along alright without one. See folks different mentality surrounding "peace".

What happened to Jesus in the End? Please

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh here we go, the extra twist in the Islamic version of "context". God only speaks Arabic and his message is so vague it can't be translated. So much for it being a sim0le book without error.

Ah here you go, How did you learn quran by yourself and two sources of hadith by yourself---- and you are hiding something from me? Do you know Arabic?-- We are going to end this soon

bluewolf wrote: »

Don't be silly wibbs, us women will just believe what we're told to believe by our good strong protectors and minders

Isn't "Silly" popular word in these days?

Genghiz Cohen

dead one wrote: »

b. Atheists This group was made up of the materialists and believed that the world was eternal. I don't have to go into your beliefs because I dont know what you believe.

:P

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Eh, what statistics?


Hmmm. I suppose you can support this with non BNP sources?

Yes I can. Well there are worrying trends in this. In 2010 in Norway, all non domestic rape and sexual assaults reported were by Muslim men on Norwegian women.
From Norwegian TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y

In the UK the recent discovery and conviction of groups of young men grooming younger women involved "Asian" extraction men and "English" extraction women. Bit of an insult to Asian men that. They weren't Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist or Christian. Example of two men in another two cases http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8157739/Asian-gang-prowled-streets-searching-for-rape-victims.html You'll note their names ain't Hindu. Never mind other well dodgy practices. In this case http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3295487.ece the marriage was in the first place was approved by the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. Similar trends have been observed in Holland and France.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I do get where you are coming from but in the case of Afghanistan it's not a case of imagining sending militant textbooks as they were actually sent at a cost of 10's of millions of dollars. This was not an act of charity and there can only be one conclusion IMO why the US would send radical textbooks to Afghanistan at this time period.

Yep to stir up advantageous(at the time) militant Islam. I still say that you could not do that with other religions to nearly the same degree using the actual official texts. It would be a significantly harder sell.

Bhutan is an interesting case. They had their first crime wave recently only after it's people start watching TV; so I would imagine them to be as capable of being victims of conditioning as anyone else.

Oh certainly, but I'd seriously debate that wall to wall TV of a Buddhist religious nature would cause such.

The point I'm struggling to make here is that the education system in the wrong hands can (and apparently was ) be used as a tool to radicalise. Evidently Muslims weren't extreme enough for the US.

Oh agreed, but how did they radicalise them? By turning up the religious angle. My point is that Islam as a faith is a far easier start point to drum up violent religious fervour using the examples in the accepted texts.

A Buddhist history lesson to radicalise could ignore Ashkora (or whatever his name is ) and glorify, I dunno the Samurais, who also chopped off the hands clean off from thieves as punishment and measured the strength of their blades by how many restrained torsos of captured prisoners they could cut clean through, or they could focus on the virtues of the Kamikazes (suicide bombers)

. Nope, still a very hard sell and quite a distorted view of the Samurai. Samurai wove many spiritual threads through their philosophy. It wasn't a Buddhist force. Indeed quite a number of samurai left the martial life the more they got into the religious end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai#Philosophy With Muslims the opposite appears to be the case. Ditto for old testament christians and radical jews. Kamikaze philosophy was based on Bushido, the way of the warrior. It had (Zen)Buddhist and Shinto elements but it wasn't a religious thing.

dead one wrote:

3. Arab was a male-governed society. Women had no rank of any kind other than as sex objects as you see today. A man could marry as many women as he wished. In case of death of man, his lad "inherited" all his brides except his own mom. A wild ritual of the Arabs was to bury their female kids alive.

I could go through each one of your claims one by one and dispatch them with other historical sources, but life is too short. On this particular point oft trotted out by Muslim historians, the operative word is Muslim. They're again reading and taking at face value what the Muslim sources say. No other external historical sources back this up. And there are a few. The Muslim sources themselves contradict this. Muhammeds first wife. Before he starts his religious mission he marries a woman. A powerful woman, a well respected businesswoman, a woman who commands trading missions, a woman who inherited that from her father. The usual "explanation" is that she was from a respectd family. Clearly no explanation at all if the Arabs were busy burying their female babies and selling them as sex objects who couldn't inherit anything. Plus how many powerful women like her come along after this Islamic "emancipation"?

Now keeping all above point in mind---- imagine how Prophet Changed their lives and made them conqueror of World....

He didn't or more accurately it didn't last very long. By the middle ages after a brief and highly impressive flowering of Islamic culture the christian west raced ahead in pretty much every single marker of advancing civilisation. It remains thus today.

What happened to Jesus in the End? Please

Well according to the early christian texts and external Roman and Jwish sources he was executed by Rome(The Christians then believe he rose from the dead, but that isn't historical). Muslims believe god switched him for someone else, a body double and he wasn't executed. Muslims who lived in another part of the world 700 years later. Which explanation is the most logical? When three independent and normally contradictory in agenda sources agree I'd go with the execution myself.

Ah here you go, How did you learn quran by yourself and two sources of hadith by yourself---- and you are hiding something from me? Do you know Arabic?--

No I don't know Arabic. I've read them in English. I've also read the life of the Buddha and the Old and New testaments and other religious works and I can't read Sanskrit, Hebrew nor Greek and my Latin is hardly up to the job. Hell I've read the Tain and can't speak Irish or read it so well and I am Irish. What's with the "hiding something" stuff. The Quran is a pretty short book by comparison to the others. The hadith are longer alright, but the two I read repeat each other on the story.

We are going to end this soon

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Yes Barbarians, Are you not blinded by your bias, Let see into the river of history...... Vicious punishments were imposed by all governments-- People were snatched asunder, damaged, burned. Every outrageous behavior was perpetrated in the name of justice----and the extent of pain was the extent of endurance--- These people thought that Maker would do as they would do. If it were in their might to keep the scapegoat alive for years in the flames, they would most hopefully have delivered the fagots....

Based on that, Muhammad was a barbarian too.

Here are some point how Prophet Muhammad changed the ignorant Arabs and made them the conquerer of world--- Let see facts, Don't send emptry arrow in the sky--- Let see arab world before arrival of Prophet
1. The most extraordinary aspect of the governmental life of Arabs before Islam was the total nonappearance of constitutional organization in any form. Since Arabs did not have a political organization in any shape, and since the ignorant Arabs were rebel by reaction, they were restricted in ceaseless warfare. War was a permanent house of the Arabian.... Wibbs, have you seen War--- I guess,you know nothing about War--- You know it when you suffer--- See you can't feel the pain of others unless you are in pain....

Not so, a quick google shows that governments existed in Arabia in the fourth century.

2. financially, the Jews were the ruler of Arabia. They were the masters of the best ownable property in Arabs, and they were the best agriculturalist in the Arab. They were also the businesspersons of such manufactories as existed in Arabia in those days, and they pleased a copyrights of the armaments industry. Slavery was an financial school of the ignorant. Male and female servants were sold like beasts, and they created the most exhausted class of the Arabian society. Landowners and money-lenders are most powerful . The interest rates charged by them on loans were excessive ,and were especially made to make them filthy and filthy, and the deadbeats poorer and poorer.

Haven't been able to find anything to back up your assertion that jews ruled Arabia. If anything, I'm finding that the Romans ruled part of Arabia almost up until the origin of Islam.

3. Arab was a male-governed society. Women had no rank of any kind other than as sex objects as you see today. A man could marry as many women as he wished. In case of death of man, his lad "inherited" all his brides except his own mom. A wild ritual of the Arabs was to bury their female kids alive. Even if an ignnorant did not want to bury his female kid alive, he still had to uphold this wild custom, being unable to resist social pressures. ---- As you are unable to accept truth because of your moderation/reputation/your customs---- Wasted reputations--- It wont help you

There's no agreement as to womens place in society in Arabia prior to Islam. One historian has used evidence from the ancient Arabian kingdom of Nabataea, she finds that Arab women in Nabataea had independent legal personalities. These rights were then reduced by the Roman and Greek empires and Islam maintained these reductions.

4. alcoholism was a habitual vice of the Arabs---With alcoholism (drunk) went their gambling---They were obsessive drinkers and obsessive gamblers. The family connection of the sexes were highly loose. Many females sold sex to make their living easy.

and yet they were a fairly advanced society in spite of their vices.

5. The time in the Arabian Past which introduced the arrival of Islam is recognized as the Times of Ignorance. Seeing by the creeds and the customs of the pagan arabe , it seems that it was a most suitable name. The Arabs were the followers of a collection of "religions" which can be categorized as such:
a. polytheists : . Majority in Arabs were idolist. They bowed down to idols and each clan had its own idol

---

b. Atheists This group was made up of the materialists and believed that the world was eternal. I don't have to go into your beliefs because you believe what you believe...
c. Zindiqs They were affected by the Persian dogma of dualism in nature. The say there are twin forces of good and evil or light and darkness and the two forces show two gods...
Here is link if you are interested: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dualism.htm
d. Sabines: Worshipper of Stars
e. Christian
f. Jews
g. Monotheists : They didn't worship idols--- They were true follower of religion of Abraham....

A persons religion doesn't make them ignorant. The Kingdom of Saba was hardly a place of ignorance. It was a kingdom that actually impressed the Romans.

6. Arabs were weak in education before arival of islam.....
Now keeping all above point in mind---- imagine how Prophet Changed their lives and made them conqueror of World....

I find that hard to believe considering governments existed prior to the rise of Islam.

Intelligent Men don't display women's beauty in the market freedom--
Intelligent men don't flourish parts of women to attract customers
Intelligent men dont sell women in the name of freedom:
Intelligent men don't follow their desires?

---

Oh Lord, desires are intelligent than man

I notice the underlying theme in those points is that men control women. And none of those points have anything to do with intelligence btw.

Undergod

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Eh, what statistics?

Possibly these ones.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Everyone else took care of my scources for me.

The vast majority of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim violence. As is the case in Afghanistan, Paksitan and any massacres one cares to mention in the Middle East carried out in the last few decades. Many inspired by their religion no less and direct quotes from the Koran/ hadiths.

You do realise what you are trying to debate, right? That Islam is a religion of peace? Your retort to that seems to be "other people kill people". Thats not addressing the topic at all.

Really you are a case study of my point that there is no sense of responsibility within the community, nor even an acknoledgment of the enormous problems within said community.


There is a great sense of personal affront if a Muslim community is wronged
thousands of miles away, however if great violence is done in the name of Islam (as almsot every day publicly it is, and every minute of every day women are held in servitude - justified specifially by it) the violence is instantly disowned as not part of the community or, worse, that "the Jews"/CIA/ other group did it. 9/11 is the best example of this as it is such a hot topic.

It is much more sinister than merely a tool used to consistantly do violence/justify rasicism and hatred it is routinely used as a shield to prevent questioning of those with these views.

SamHarris

dead one wrote: »

Yes Barbarians, Are you not blinded by your bias, Let see into the river of history...... Vicious punishments were imposed by all governments-- People were snatched asunder, damaged, burned. Every outrageous behavior was perpetrated in the name of justice----and the extent of pain was the extent of endurance--- These people thought that Maker would do as they would do. If it were in their might to keep the scapegoat alive for years in the flames, they would most hopefully have delivered the fagots....

Sounds very much like the Middle East, North Africa and South East Asia today...

Enkidu

dead one wrote: »

Ah here you go, How did you learn quran by yourself and two sources of hadith by yourself---- and you are hiding something from me? Do you know Arabic?-- We are going to end this soon

Do you know the appropriate Arabic either?
An issue frequently danced around by people who say the sort of stuff you're saying is that very few people on the planet know the correct Arabic.
Most people today speak a dialect of Arabic, which is really a continuum of languages, with most cross-dialect speech been done in MSA (Modern Standard Arabic). Of course the Quran, being so old, is written in none of these. Most scholars who read the Quran read it according to Classical Arabic which is what I presume you expect people to know before they can comment on the Quran.

Well, believe it or not, Classical Arabic isn't the true language of the Quran either. Classical Arabic was the standard of its day and Muhammad didn't speak the standard he spoke his own dialect.

In Muhammad's dialect:
1. There was no hamza sound. (a stop sound, think of a Cockney person saying butter, the -tt- is the hamza basically)
2. Dropped the final n in any noun ending with an n.
3. Instead of feminine nouns ending in t, they ended in h.

Virtually nobody reads the Quran according to the real pronunciation rules of Muhammad's dialect, instead using Classical Arabic. The only people who do are Afro-Asiatic experts. So unless you only trust Afro-Asiatic experts to read the Quran, I think you can allow people who have translations to comment.

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes I can. Well there are worrying trends in this. In 2010 in Norway, all non domestic rape and sexual assaults reported were by Muslim men on Norwegian women.
From Norwegian TV.

Ah Norwegian women:

Immediately after the attack numerous western news outlets and commentators initially blamed the Norway attack on Islamic militants. British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled, "Al Qaeda’s" Massacre, Norway’s 9/11.” The Wall Street Journal also initially blamed “jidhadists” reporting that, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Erik Erickson of FOX Radio said that he believed it was a Muslim terrorist who did the deed.

I think hypocrisy of media is already exposed in norway against muslim--- You need not to use hypocrisy of media against muslim--- It will make you more hypocrites (sorry to say)---- If you are interested then you can put your thoughts on this link, so that i can see what you can't see....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056356433&page=3

Wibbs wrote: »

In the UK the recent discovery and conviction of groups of young men grooming younger women involved "Asian" extraction men and "English" extraction women. Bit of an insult to Asian men that. They weren't Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist or Christian. Example of two men in another two cases http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8157739/Asian-gang-prowled-streets-searching-for-rape-victims.html You'll note their names ain't Hindu. Never mind other well dodgy practices. In this case http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3295487.ece the marriage was in the first place was approved by the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. Similar trends have been observed in Holland and France.

This is comment is specially for media and blind lovers of media----
You close mind BBC CNN- FOX- SKYWAY - Islamicphobes lovers need to start thinking for yourself and slap away the spoon that has been feeding your mind with propaganda--- Go educate yourself by someone who knows what he is talking about...Not by racist bigots-- Remember you would know only what a scum know if you learn from a scum---

Wibbs wrote: »

I could go through each one of your claims one by one and dispatch them with other historical sources, but life is too short. On this particular point oft trotted out by Muslim historians, the operative word is Muslim. They're again reading and taking at face value what the Muslim sources say. No other external historical sources back this up. And there are a few.

You see wibbs, you picked a special point from my quote and then you started all of your history--- again the old point? Is you history and points are free of bias?:) --- Even i will bust you with your special point :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote: »

The Muslim sources themselves contradict this. Muhammeds first wife. Before he starts his religious mission he marries a woman. A powerful woman, a well respected businesswoman, a woman who commands trading missions, a woman who inherited that from her father. The usual "explanation" is that she was from a respectd family.

See, muslim sources aren't not contradicting, it's you who are contradicting history--- See the red font--- It shows your great ignorance about muhammad-- Islam and history--- Why i bold it in red font because people would know how you are ignorant about Muhammad---- I will disapprove your claim by using a non Islamic history---- the source of my information is wiki (This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid )

Khadijah was from a noble family and at the time of Prophet Muhammad, she was a widow. Khadijah was very beautiful and she was also wealthy. For this reason, many men wanted her hand in marriage. However, Khadijah refused to marry them all. After being a widow, Khadijah lost her interest in marrying a second time. That was until Muhammad came into her life.
One day, Khadijah was looking for a person who would conduct business on her behalf in Syria. Since Muhammad was known to be a kind and honest person, his uncle, Abu Talib, got him the job. After Muhammad returned from Syria, Khadijah's servant told her how well Muhammad had conducted her business in Syria. Khadijah became impressed and it was said that Muhammad was the most honest person she ever met. So Khadijah sent her sister to Muhammad to ask him whether he would consider marriage to her. Muhammad was generally regarded as a kind and handsome man so it would have been seen as an honor for any woman to marry him. Muhammad agreed to the match and soon after, he and Khadijah married. The couple had a son by the name of Qasim, who died at a very young age (hence one of Muhammed's titles Abul Qasim, which translates to father of Qasim). However, afterwards Khadijah gave birth to their daughters Zainab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthum and Fatimah.----
You see wibbs, how you are ignorant by your bias--- Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever because they have choosen a way dishonesty to torch their reason--- You are enemy of Muhammad, i have no proplem but be an honest enemy--- don't throw/invent lies to torch your enemity

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly no explanation at all if the Arabs were busy burying their female babies and selling them as sex objects who couldn't inherit anything. Plus how many powerful women like her come along after this Islamic "emancipation"?

what does "Clearly no explanation" mean in your quote-- As you choose and pick special history to torch your own belief--- Isn't it dishonesty?

Before he starts his religious mission he marries a woman

Wibbs wrote: »

He didn't or more accurately it didn't last very long. By the middle ages after a brief and highly impressive flowering of Islamic culture the christian west raced ahead in pretty much every single marker of advancing civilisation. It remains thus today.

His inspirations brought about harmony and good fortune to the Middle East and all the Areas ruled by the Muslims, including Spain and Italy. During the these times, the great fortune was due to a huge extent from the teaching of Prophet who said, “To acquire knowledge travel into Chinese if essential .” This brought the people travel huge areas in order to seek more and there was great business and learning by seeing the people of Sub continent, Chinese, Persian, and the West. This peace spread to Spanish area where the Muslims governed for 700 years, and in fact, the many of the sailors present with Columbus were Muslims who had learned huge experience from their journey and business with the areas of India, Africa and China.
In these old good times, Evil Mooselms were excellent scientists and continued the effort of the Greeks by understanding them into Arabic. They utilized this knowledge as well as knowledge of creating paper from Chinese, of math from Sub Continent and they created the first University, University they say Al Azhar University, which after thsouand years still exist
In end, Prophet’s work inspired not only the moral and social life of the people, but also their scientific and financial living and there was huge good fortune brought about by following his teaching that came from Evil God. In the medieval period, the evil mooslems gave the building of knowledge to the Europe who were facing the Dark Ages and by using this wisdom, the Renaissance period began. The other good work created by the evil Mooslems was the magnificent architecture, art and calligraphy as Muhammad said that evil God loves beauty and the evil did everything beautifully to please evil God.
Now think what you said, General

Wibbs wrote: »

He didn't or more accurately it didn't last very long.

Wibbs wrote: »

No I don't know Arabic. I've read them in English.

Right, this is very clear, Be clear---- you don't know Arabic--right no problem with it, Now tell did you learn quran and two sources of hadith on internet or by actuall study--- I mean in real life from a hard copy of quran and hadith?

Wibbs wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I hope you'll get well soon

SamHarris wrote: »

Sounds very much like the Middle East, North Africa and South East Asia today...

The situation which you see in today world, is not because of Islam, It is because of foreign invasion into these lands--- They are greedy like hawks always looking to feed themselves on the blood of poor---- Because the blood of poor is sweet----Ah Delicious-- I want more poor blood---Take example of British invasion into subcontinent, they destroyed true islamic values....Sounds very much like the America and its allies are doing --- You should open your eyes comrade--- or your eyes will open you