If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

Terry · 02-08-2010 01:56PM

wes wrote: »

Really? You have? I find that hard to believe, but here you go:

It was many years ago.

Bible wrote:

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

Cheers. I couldn't remember which book it was in.

Now, I am sure not all Christians believe this should happen nowadays, and I am sure there is a context for the above as well.

Christians tend not to call for holy wars these days.
Well, except for Dubya and his worshippers, but he was proven wrong and shown to be a complete tool. It wasn't really a holy war though. Some people just fooled themselves into thinking they were doing the work of God.

Yes, it did 1400 years ago. Now to be fair, some Muslims consider it something that needs to be done in there here and now, but again it doesn't change my original point.

But it can't be changed. It's the divine word of Allah.

You present Islam as being unique to calling for the killing of unbelievers, which as I point out earlier in this post, you are simply wrong. What I find funny, is that you keep saying such things, and claim to have read the Bible, which considering you lack of knowledge of the book, I find hard to believe personally. If you don't want me to mention other Religions, then don't make such claims, as the only way to counter such a claim is to bring up other Religions that say the same things in there Holy texts. If you didn't make your claims regarding the Koran, being the only holy texts calling for the killing of unbelievers, I would never have brought up any other faiths holy texts, which do the same. So, if you want people to not talk about other faiths in this thread, then don't make such claims, as the only way to counter such a point is to discuss when others do the same.

You entire point was that Muslims try to spread there Religion and there holy book calls for the death of unbelievers, and that they are the only ones who do this. Which is simple factually incorrect.

My problem is that people make claims about Islam being uniquely doing one thing or other, which is a claim you made, and one I have shown to be simply incorrect.

Ok. Let me ask you this.
Do you know of any religion around today through which its followers regularly murder other people in the name of their god(s)?
I know of one.

wes · 02-08-2010 02:03PM

Wibbs wrote: »

No other faith founder took up arms, made war on those who didnt believe his message and personally oversaw the killings and enslavement of captives.

Again, you would be wrong, as Abraham or Mose would fit the title of a faith founder.

wes · 02-08-2010 02:11PM

Terry wrote: »

Christians tend not to call for holy wars these days.
Well, except for Dubya and his worshippers, but he was proven wrong and shown to be a complete tool. It wasn't really a holy war though. Some people just fooled themselves into thinking they were doing the work of God.

That and the LRA, and other such groups, and the likes of Radovan Karadzic. Still, I made no claims either way.

Terry wrote: »

But it can't be changed. It's the divine word of Allah.

Yes, and people disagree on the meaning, but again you will get that in all Religions.

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Let me ask you this.
Do you know of any religion around today through which its followers regularly murder other people in the name of their god(s)?
I know of one.

See your doing it again, the only way for me to counter the point is to mention other Religions, and groups. Just to make it clear, I am not making excuses, but you once again, are making claims of one group being uniquely violent, when compared to others.

Lets, Islam (you are clearly aware of there violence), Christianity (you aware of some of it, but I take violence against Children of being witches still happens in Africa, and even the UK), Hinduism (Anti Christian Pogroms, Anti-Muslim pogrom, Radical Hindu's attack Women in Pubs), Judaism (Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the regular IDF atrocities), and thats the ones i know off the top of my head. Plenty more if I was bothered enough to look for more examples.

Now, of course, I tend not to focus on the violence of one group and present it as if there the only ones who engage in violence, on a regular basis.

Then, there are the various secular and non-secular states engaged in wars all over the world, for all kinds of reason. Personally, I see little difference between waging war in the name of God or a countries flag. Plenty of violence the world over, for all kinds of reasons.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 02:15PM

wes wrote: »

Again, you would be wrong, as Abraham or Mose would fit the title of a faith founder.

Eh no I wouldnt be. OK Abraham? Who did he kill? Which armies did he lead? How many did he enslave? Oh yea the whole deal with the near sacrifice of his son to prove his faith was a bit out there, but anything else? I can't recall anything? Moses? Well in his case his god was the bloodthirsty one killing the egyptians kids etc. Him? AFAIR there was one battle, more a skirmish. Of course the Quranic version of him has him killing unbelievers too, but then again hardly surprising and its not in the Torah/Old testament. The former being the primary source. So nope, Muhammad is head and shoulders above them and indeed anyone else.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 02:24PM

wes wrote: »

See your doing it again, the only way for me to counter the point is to mention other Religions, and groups.

Hardly anything wrong with that. Comparison shows up similarities and differences.

Lets, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and thats the ones i know off the top of my head. Now, of course, I tend not to focus on the violence of one group and present it as if there the only ones who engage in violence, on a regular basis.

Oh they all do. NO argument there, but their faith founders didnt. If any value is to be gotten from faiths, the values of humanity and charity and non violence would or should be up there. There is no equivalent of the love your enemies/turn the other cheek in Islam and this is why it is a more dangerous startpoint as a faith.

Again did The Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Abraham, take up arms and wage war against their enemies? Did any of them have enemies assassinated by their orders? Did any of them drive out enemies/ethnically cleanse territories under their control? Did any of them end up at their death with a growing empire? Did any of them end up richer in possessions at the end? Did any of them have slaves? Did any of them have multiple wives by the end? That would be a resounding no across the board then.

wes · 02-08-2010 02:25PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no I wouldnt be. OK Abraham? Who did he kill? Which armies did he lead? How many did he enslave? Oh yea the whole deal with the near sacrifice of his son to prove his faith was a bit out there, but anything else? I can't recall anything? Moses? Well in his case his god was the bloodthirsty one killing the egyptians kids etc. Him? AFAIR there was one battle, more a skirmish. Of course the Quranic version of him has him killing unbelievers too, but then again hardly surprising and its not in the Torah/Old testament. The former being the primary source. So nope, Muhammad is head and shoulders above them and indeed anyone else.

No, sorry your still wrong, Mose ordered the deaths of those who worshiped the Golden Calf:

Exodus 32:25-29 (New International Version)

25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Anyway, this has gotten silly, with the constant goal post changing going on.

wes · 02-08-2010 02:31PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Hardly anything wrong with that. Comparison shows up similarities and differences.

Terry, complained about me mentioning other Religions earlier, and hence the comment.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh they all do. NO argument there, but their faith founders didnt. If any value is to be gotten from faiths, the values of humanity and charity and non violence would or should be up there. There is no equivalent of the love your enemies/turn the other cheek in Islam and this is why it is a more dangerous startpoint as a faith.

Again did The Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Abraham, take up arms and wage war against their enemies? Did any of them have enemies assassinated by their orders? Did any of them drive out enemies/ethnically cleanse territories under their control? Did any of them end up at their death with a growing empire? Did any of them end up richer in possessions at the end? Did any of them have slaves? Did any of them have multiple wives by the end? That would be a resounding no across the board then.

Sorry, but I already showed you to be wrong regarding faith founders, regarding Mose. This whole line of argument smacks of goal post changing and apologetics. Plenty of violence in the various Hindu holy texts, and also it would be impossible to pinpoint a faith founder in Hinduism btw, considering the many many versions. Abraham had multiple wives btw (Hagar being the 2nd one according to the Bible, but some say she was a concubine)....... and basically the various other prophets in Christianity and Judaism, did all those things you mention. So I don't see how them not being "faith founders" matter, all that violence is still in the Bible, from other leaders of those faiths who added to them, and are huge parts of the Bible.

Sorry, but this faith founder business is nonsense, the various other holy texts contain plenty of violence from various other prophets with in them, and to minimize this is simple apologetics.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 02:41PM

wes wrote: »

Sorry, but this faith founder business is nonsense, the various other holy texts contain plenty of violence from various other prophets with in them, and to ignore this is simple apologetics.

No it's hardly changing the goalposts. It's putting the spotlight on what outsiders may be fearful and suspicious of. The founder of Islam was an often violent man at the head of an inherently aggressive faith. To be named as one of his enemies would put your life in mortal danger. This comes out loud and clear from the faiths literature itself. The only source for the early faith is from within. His and his followers violence were well ahead of other faiths. Even those with vengeful violent types in them. The religion was born in blood and spread by it, yet it calls itself "the religion of peace"?. That simply doesnt compute. It doesnt compute further when the Prophet is held up to be the best example for all believers to follow.

wes · 02-08-2010 03:20PM

Wibbs wrote: »

No it's hardly changing the goalposts. It's putting the spotlight on what outsiders may be fearful and suspicious of. The founder of Islam was an often violent man at the head of an inherently aggressive faith. To be named as one of his enemies would put your life in mortal danger.

I am sorry, but the faith founder business is goal post changing. It lets you conveniently ignore huge chunk of violent passages from other faiths, which are often invoked by extremist members of those faiths.

Secondly, how do we even define a "faith founder"? Does Moses count for example? If he doesn't, then are his action diminished, or the actions of Joshua after him? Does all that violence suddenly not matter? Sorry, but I think you line of thinking doesn't make any sense to me, and why I call it a massive cop out. Suddenly Moses killing all those people can be ignored. Joshua's conquest of the various Canaanite kingdoms can now be ignored, as they apparently no longer matter. The fact that what you saying seeks to ignore the above is why it is a massive cop out. That violence isn't as bad some how, as they weren't "faith founders". Now, if those texts were left out of the Bible, then you would have a point, but there not, so they are very relevant.

Wibbs wrote: »

This comes out loud and clear from the faiths literature itself. The only source for the early faith is from within. His and his followers violence were well ahead of other faiths. Even those with vengeful violent types in them. The religion was born in blood and spread by it, yet it calls itself "the religion of peace"?. That simply doesnt compute. It doesnt compute further when the Prophet is held up to be the best example for all believers to follow.

Sorry, but your engage in a massive cop out. So basically, we ignore all the violent bits of the Bible etc as they didn't come from what you consider a faith founder (so Moses ordering the deaths of the golden calf worshipers don't count)? Also, if you want to get technical about things, Abraham is the faith founder for Islam, as Muhammad according to Muslims was just preaching what he preached. See, I can do the whole cop out thing as well just as easily, if I choose.

Again, plenty of violence in other Religious holy texts, and plenty of it carried out by various prophets and holy men, who were told to do as much by there deities. The entire faith founder business, is something you came up with so that we can ignore that stuff and place Islam as being uniquely violent, when that isn't the case.

The simple fact of the matter is that the violence in the Bible and other holy texts, hardly make them peaceful faiths, and the entire goal post changing "faith founder" business, doesn't change whats contained in there texts. Again, to go back to my point, Islam is hardly the only faith with violence in it, or uniquely violent or uniquely calling for the killing of unbelievers etc as some on here constantly insist.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 03:48PM

wes wrote: »

Secondly, how do we even define a "faith founder"? Does Moses count for example? If he doesn't, then are his action diminished, or the actions of Joshua after him? Does all that violence suddenly not matter?

It obviously matters far less. The actions of a member of a faith carry less weight than the actions of the one who starts it. As for a definition of founder? It depends on the faith in question. Like you pointed out with Hinduism this is a much greyer area. In religions like Christianity or Buddhism, well the clue in in the title I suppose so they're pretty clear.

In the case of Islam or Sikhism, god is revealed to one person and that person would be the founder, even though his name is not attached to the faith name itself. Judaism or a form of it would likely have existed, even if Moses or David hadnt. Christianity or Buddhism wouldnt have. It's unlikely Islam would have come about without Muhammed.

Sorry, but I think you line of thinking doesn't make any sense to me.

It comes down to first principles. The nature and morality of the faith goes hand in hand with the nature and morality of the one who started it. With those who follow and build on it adding to the mix.

Sorry, but your engage in a massive cop out. So basically, we ignore all the violent bits of the Bible etc as they didn't come from what you consider a faith founder (so Moses ordering the deaths of the golden calf worshipers don't count)?

I certainly don't. The Old testament is well represented with dodgy morals.

Also, if you want to get technical about things, Abraham is the faith founder for Islam, as Muhammad according to Muslims was just preaching what he preached. See, I can do the whole cop out thing as well just as easily, if I choose.

Yes but Muhammad added to it, in both theology and the violent parts.

Again, plenty of violence in other Religious holy texts, and plenty of it carried out by various prophets and holy men, who were told to do as much by there deities.

Not to nearly the same degree by the principle prophet though. He did it more and more consistently. Comparing him to Jesus or Buddha is comparing chalk and cheese. Buddha "If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community.". You'll note expelled not killed. Jesus was constantly on about loving your enemies and even stopped one of his followers from using violence to protect him "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Big diffs.

The entire faith founder business, is something you came up with so that we can ignore that stuff and place Islam as being uniquely violent, when that isn't the case.

I'm not ignoring anything. You seem hellbent on ignoring the clear differences though. While other faiths followers have been and are violent(indeed at times more violent than Muslims), their founders and their messages weren't.

Nodin · 02-08-2010 04:12PM

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Let me ask you this.
Do you know of any religion around today through which its followers regularly murder other people in the name of their god(s)?
I know of one.

I know of a few.

I'm throwing in the nun raping, 'ethnic cleansing' and church burning for free.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Current_Affairs/Current_affairs.html

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060908_Anti_Christian_Violence_India_terrorism.htm

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-officials-took-part-anti-muslim-violence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/31/stories/2007073154771000.htm

Wibbs wrote:

The religion was born in blood and spread by it.

How did Islam spread to Indonesia?

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 04:31PM

Nodin wrote: »

How did Islam spread to Indonesia?

By trade mostly and when a few rulers converted it really took hold. Not unlike Christianity and Rome or Christianity in Ireland and Scotland. In any event I was speaking of the early spread of Islam in it's foundation years and culture and in the centuries immediately following.

Mr. Presentable · 02-08-2010 04:34PM

That's 63 in dog years, so I see no problem.........

Ann22 · 02-08-2010 04:34PM

gbee wrote: »

Can't say I've heard that one.

This is a version of it here, I don't know where it came from or whether someone just made it up.
http://www.tparents.org/unews/unws9701/spider.htm

Odd that there's a similar story about Mohammad, here it is....

Muhammad and the Spider Web

Muhammad escaped the approaching soldiers through the cool desert nights and found his way by following the stars and watching the moon on his way to Medina. When morning would come, he would search for a place to hide to avoid the sun revealing him to those tracking him. As the soldiers of Mecca were close behind him, it was imperative that he hide from them during the day. He spied a cave among the cliffs through the black darkness of night. Muhammad crept inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile the soldiers of Mecca were hot on his heels and followed Muhammad's footsteps in the sand right to the mouth of the cave.

But in the hours that it had taken for the soldiers to ride their horses across the desert while Muhammad slept, God had caused a little spider to weave a great web across the mouth of the cave. The delicate threads of the web glistened and shone like tiny stars.

The soldiers were confused at the sight of the web. They couldn't figure out where Muhammad had escaped, but logically assumed that he either ascended into heaven or sunk down into the earth, because he could never have passed through the spider web without breaking the threads. Frustrated in losing their prey, the soldiers returned to Mecca empty-handed.

Muhammad stayed in the cave for three days to ensure that the soldiers were no longer following him. When he was certain that they were gone, he found another way out of the cave to avoid destroying the beautiful web that had protected him. As the moon and stars showed him the way, he finally arrived to safety in the northern city of Median, where he gained many new followers as he taught them about Islam.

Terry · 02-08-2010 04:49PM

wes wrote: »

Lets, Islam (you are clearly aware of there violence), Christianity (you aware of some of it, but I take violence against Children of being witches still happens in Africa, and even the UK), Hinduism (Anti Christian Pogroms, Anti-Muslim pogrom, Radical Hindu's attack Women in Pubs), Judaism (Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the regular IDF atrocities), and thats the ones i know off the top of my head. Plenty more if I was bothered enough to look for more examples.

Now, of course, I tend not to focus on the violence of one group and present it as if there the only ones who engage in violence, on a regular basis.

Then, there are the various secular and non-secular states engaged in wars all over the world, for all kinds of reason. Personally, I see little difference between waging war in the name of God or a countries flag. Plenty of violence the world over, for all kinds of reasons.

You're just linking to localised nutballs. With Islam you have entire countries following medieval literature.
Although I can't argue with you on Israel. Their treatment of the Palestinians is horrific.

Nodin wrote: »

I know of a few.

I'm throwing in the nun raping, 'ethnic cleansing' and church burning for free.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Current_Affairs/Current_affairs.html

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060908_Anti_Christian_Violence_India_terrorism.htm

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-officials-took-part-anti-muslim-violence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/31/stories/2007073154771000.htm

Again, localised events.
The last two were opinion pieces. You might as well link to Fox News as link to an opinion piece.

gbee · 02-08-2010 04:52PM

Ann22 wrote: »

This is a version of it here, I don't know where it came from or whether someone just made it up..

Thanks, no I'm afraid it's not a familiar story to me, and I've asked my family and it's not one they thought they heard either.

Funny thing we don't have cobwebs on our crosses or our cribs, I'm surprised that we don't venerate the spider. Interesting and nice little story and comparison though.

I didn't know Joseph was armed with a sword either.

Ann22 · 02-08-2010 04:56PM

gbee wrote: »

I didn't know Joseph was armed with a sword either.

It says he made one, I'd suppose he'd have to have some kind of weapon knowing they were in danger.

Nodin · 02-08-2010 05:09PM

Terry wrote: »

Again, localised events..

Its Hindu nationalism......but, if you want to go that way.......

What happens in Yemen does not happen in Syria, therefore the events are localised, QED.

Terry wrote: »

The last two were opinion pieces. You might as well link to Fox News as link to an opinion piece.

The second last referred to the destruction of a mosque.

The last referred to the expulsion of over 70,000 muslims from Tamil controlled territory.

You might have had the decency to refer to the two incidents in question, and their veracity, rather than play the "opinion piece" card, but I suppose that's a bit much to expect, given the circumstances.

Wibbs wrote:

By trade mostly and when a few rulers converted it really took hold. Not unlike Christianity and Rome or Christianity in Ireland and Scotland. In any event I was speaking of the early spread of Islam in it's foundation years and culture and in the centuries immediately following. .

Awful long way of saying 'I was making sweeping generalisation'.

It looked to me like you were trying to portray Islam as uniquely violent.......

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 06:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

Awful long way of saying 'I was making sweeping generalisation'.

It looked to me like you were trying to portray Islam as uniquely violent.......

Nope. Buddhism is a pacifist peaceful "faith", yet Buddhists have committed appalling acts. I don't conflate or confuse the two. Neither would I conflate or confuse all Muslims with early Islam and its modern fundi adherents, or not see how Islam could end up somewhere without recourse to the sword. That example doesn't negate my point about the majority of it's early spread in the middle east.

I was making a very precise point about the nature and morality of the culture that this faith sprang from. A faith that itself claims is a faith and morality that is for all mankind and time, starting with ground zero in Muhammad's time. So slavery, war, inequality of women to name but three are moral viewpoints you reckon should have been attached to a nascent faith that at the same time called itself a religion of peace? The simple fact is going by their own internal texts they were uniquely violent at the start. No other faith is comparable in it's birth.

Nodin · 02-08-2010 06:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

So slavery, war, inequality of women to name but three are moral viewpoints you reckon should have been attached to a nascent faith that at the same time called itself a religion of peace? The simple fact is going by their own internal texts they were uniquely violent at the start. No other faith is comparable in it's birth.

Christianity had slavery, war and inequality in it too, and it seemed to be big on the whole "peace" crap in theory as well....You'll recall that Roman christianity spread by outlawing and persecuting other faiths and sects. Theres nothing unique about Islam alas.

nullzero · 02-08-2010 07:44PM

Just another case of religion and paedophilia going hand in hand. All we have to do is choose which bunch of scumbags we want to align oursleves with.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 07:50PM

Nodin wrote: »

Christianity had slavery, war and inequality in it too, and it seemed to be big on the whole "peace" crap in theory as well....You'll recall that Roman christianity spread by outlawing and persecuting other faiths and sects. Theres nothing unique about Islam alas.

I agree they did, but again as my point has been all along, the founders of the faith most definitely did not. It only became a militaristic religion when rome got its hands on it centuries later. Indeed pre Constantine commentators waxed lyrically and derisively of the christians pacificism. They saw them as deluded hippies dangerous to the strength of Rome. So an aggressive militaristic person who believes in christianity, if they ask themselves honestly the question "what would jesus do?" Well it's a bit more problematic. Not nearly so much with Islam and Muhammed. Put it another way. Go back in time. Be around Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad and laugh publicly at their teachings. Whose reaction would you fear? Read the life stories of the three and get back to me.

Nodin · 02-08-2010 08:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree they did, but again as my point has been all along, the founders of the faith most definitely did not. It only became a militaristic religion when rome got its hands on it centuries later. Indeed pre Constantine commentators waxed lyrically and derisively of the christians pacificism. They saw them as deluded hippies dangerous to the strength of Rome. So an aggressive militaristic person who believes in christianity, if they ask themselves honestly the question "what would jesus do?" Well it's a bit more problematic. Not nearly so much with Islam and Muhammed. Put it another way. Go back in time. Be around Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad and laugh publicly at their teachings. Whose reaction would you fear? Read the life stories of the three and get back to me.

Well, theres no small number who reckon that Jesus was far more old testament than he's given credit for, so I'll take Buddha.

Wibbs · 02-08-2010 08:12PM

Yep of the three the least likely to be hazardous to ones health. Though of the middle eastern desert religions, jesus would be the most pacifist of the lot by a goodly margin.

wes · 02-08-2010 10:47PM

Terry wrote: »

You're just linking to localised nutballs. With Islam you have entire countries following medieval literature.

I think Nodin addressed this one better than I could. I can easily say the same thing as well btw. It seems clear to me that certain groups are given a free pass on here by some.

Terry wrote: »

Although I can't argue with you on Israel. Their treatment of the Palestinians is horrific.

Fair enough.

Cook!eMonster · 02-08-2010 10:58PM

meh, if shes old enough to bleed, shes bleedin' old enough

wes · 02-08-2010 10:59PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It obviously matters far less. The actions of a member of a faith carry less weight than the actions of the one who starts it. As for a definition of founder? It depends on the faith in question. Like you pointed out with Hinduism this is a much greyer area. In religions like Christianity or Buddhism, well the clue in in the title I suppose so they're pretty clear. In the case of Islam or Sikhism, god is revealed to one person and that person would be the founder, even though his name is not attached to the faith name itself. Judaism or a form of it would likely have existed, even if Moses or David hadnt. Christianity or Buddhism wouldnt have. It's unlikely Islam would have come about without Muhammed.

Again, if those faith completely ejected all that came before you would have a point, but they didn't and hence why that stuff still matters. You have come up with a cop out to present one Religion as being uniquely violent.

Wibbs wrote: »

It comes down to first principles. The nature and morality of the faith goes hand in hand with the nature and morality of the one who started it. With those who follow and build on it adding to the mix.

I certainly don't. The Old testament is well represented with dodgy morals. Yes but Muhammad added to it, in both theology and the violent parts.

Yes, and so did Moses, and Joshua etc, to the Bible, and yet apparently we are to ignore certain parts, as you don't consider them "faith founders", which is a cop out, that is being used solely to present one Religion as more violent than the others, which is nonsense.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not to nearly the same degree by the principle prophet though. He did it more and more consistently. Comparing him to Jesus or Buddha is comparing chalk and cheese. Buddha "If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community.". You'll note expelled not killed. Jesus was constantly on about loving your enemies and even stopped one of his followers from using violence to protect him "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Big diffs.
I'm not ignoring anything. You seem hellbent on ignoring the clear differences though. While other faiths followers have been and are violent(indeed at times more violent than Muslims), their founders and their messages weren't.

Seriously, you entire argument make no sense anymore. If I went to a Church, I would be told to read the Bible to learn about Christianity, and if I wanted to learn about Mormonism, they would say read the Book of Mormon, and I know there are violent passages contained within both of those texts, but apparently those books aren't the intended message of the various prophets of those Religions........ How exactly does that make sense??!?? Either they don't have any violence in them, or don't contain the message of there respective Religions, which make no sense, as why would they consider them authoritative holy texts then?

Also, I never compared Muhammad to Jesus or Bhudda, but I was comparing Religions, and there texts. You are the one making such comparisons.

Anyway, this has gotten silly at this point, as I have not made such comparisons, and I see no reason to continue this.

Terry · 02-08-2010 11:07PM

Nodin wrote: »

Well, theres no small number who reckon that Jesus was far more old testament than he's given credit for, so I'll take Buddha.

Can you explain why the Koran says that followers should kill non-believers?

Can you tell us why this is relevant today?

If it is not relevant today, would that not make the entire Koran redundant? After all, it is supposed to be the the undeniable word of Allah.

If you are going to reject one aspect of the Koran, how can you justify following the rest of it? Would that not be hypocritical?

How can you say in one breath that the Koran is the word of Allah, and then turn around and say that it is open to interpretation (which would imply that it is flawed)?

gbee · 02-08-2010 11:31PM

Terry wrote: »

Can you tell us why this is relevant today?

911 / Spain Train Bombings ....

Strange Loop · 02-08-2010 11:34PM

Terry wrote: »

Can you explain why the Koran says that followers should kill non-believers?

Can you tell us why this is relevant today?

If it is not relevant today, would that not make the entire Koran redundant? After all, it is supposed to be the the undeniable word of Allah.

I thought this was a good answer to those parts of the Koran, from Hivizman, in a current thread in the Islam forum...

For example, some Muslims (such as Osama bin Laden) have appealed to Surat at-Tawbah (9:5), which contains the words (in Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an) "slay the idolators wherever you find them", and have claimed that this verse abrogates (that is, cancels) the 200 or so verses in the Qur'an that call for peace, particularly between Muslims and those of other religions. However, the scholarly consensus is that these words relate only to certain tribes in Arabia who had broken treaties with the Muslims, and scholars point out that any former idolator who accepted Islam was to be allowed to go free. Also, the original Arabic word that is translated here as "idolators" - mushrikeen - is almost always used in the Qur'an to refer to the polytheist idol-worshippers of pre-Islamic Arabia, not to ahl al-kitab, People of the Book such as Jews and Christians.

If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

Comments