# Global Image of Islam ...



## Sukerkin (Nov 2, 2011)

When I read of religious terrorist/criminal incidents like this one, I am ever given to wonder if those that carry them out think for a moment on just how their actions will actually reflect upon their religion?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350

They may well be extremists nutters but what the general public reads is just that, yet again, followers of a faith are behaving in such a way as to make acceptance of them impossible.

My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict. The rest of the world should be able to depict what on earth they like, in accordance with the laws of the country they live in. Pretty simple.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2011)

Simple to a rational mind, not one steeped in "religion".  It wasn't so long ago that Christianity was executing people for 'heresy' for not believing as they do. In some places, "witches" are still killed by the local Christian groups.  50-100 years from now I expect Islam will be where Christianity is today. A bit tamer. Until then, fanatics will continue to do what fanatics always have unfortunately.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 2, 2011)

I agree with what is said.  I think I would paraphrase what Bob has said and propose that this is NOT a problem of religion per se.  Rather it is a problem of FANATICISM.

When people feel they are "right" about something to the extent that anyone who disagrees with them must be silenced, then this is what we get.  If these absurd and mindless acts were not ill-advisedly committed in the _supposed _name of a religion that would NEVER condone these acts in its central tenets, then it would be done in the name of race, or colour, or political ends or any number of things.  

*Indoctrination *into the MISINTERPRETED expressions of religion that leads to *fanaticism *is the problem, NOT religion.  

Just as you cannot blame Austrians for birthing Nazism, nor can you blame Islam for birthing fanaticism committed "supposedly" in its name.  That the two are undoubtedly linked creates neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for such continual wildly generalising conclusions in the minds of anyone except dumbass mainstream media and those that follow it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 2, 2011)

Well since we are talking a Global Image just for therecord these are the countries we are talking about








Islam is more than just the Middle East; there is even a rather substantial Islamic population in China in Yunnan province and Henan province


----------



## fangjian (Nov 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict. The rest of the world should be able to depict what on earth they like, in accordance with the laws of the country they live in. Pretty simple.



*Free Speech and Free Inquiry* is the most important concept for continued progress. It is often considered _rude_ to criticize another persons beliefs. This is where things need to change. And they are changing. I too, used to be under the spell of 'criticizing religions is disrespectful' until I finally came to my senses.  When in the world is it considered rude to criticize Socialism, Republicanism, Cosmology or *ANY* subject for that matter?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2011)

As with any large group, the misbehaving 1% will give the others a bad name. Except, of course lawyers, where the 99% give the 1% a bad name.


----------



## andy.m (Nov 2, 2011)

> My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict.


Totally agree, the rules of religion apply SOLELY to the followers of that religion . Worryingly, if you look, Islams calender, the date is only 1431. If you do a parallel date history, the Reformation is due. Just how bad was that from renaissance Europe. So I hope your right and things settle down quickly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough.



OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?


----------



## Jenna (Nov 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?


If it is a serious question XS, then I would suggest that to require a picture of one's deity or prophets is to encourage idolatry and which is a thing that is rife in many religions where statues, icons and images are worshipped over / or in place of the word of God.  This is the reason for the exhortation not to depict Mohammad.  Again, this is not Qur'anic doctrine per se.  And further, many Muslim people do not subscribe to this exhortation at all.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?



Beyond the fact that Islam-that is to say, the Koran, does not specifically forbid the depiction of Muhammad, this Islamic world is divided over this.Most Sunni will find any depictions of Muhammad distasteful, while most Shia accept respectful depictions. As for your very logical question, it's a matter of context, isn't it. I mean there's this:









and this:





and this:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2011)

At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 2, 2011)

how about a drawing that shows him marrying the 6 year old?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?


What? That? NO! That isn't Mohammad. He was taller...


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.


20+ years ago, Eddie Murphy had a bit about that... "Skin of bronze, hair like a wooly lamb... Jesus was a ******."


----------



## elder999 (Nov 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> how about a drawing that shows him marrying the 6 year old?


 She was 9. And?


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.



My brother in law has a T-shirt that says "My boss is a Jewish carpenter"  :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 2, 2011)

no, he married her at 6, consumated it at 9.

and yes we know, yo defend those actions





elder999 said:


> She was 9. And?


----------



## granfire (Nov 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, he married her at 6, consumated it at 9.
> 
> and yes we know, yo defend those actions



And you think that he is/was the only one over 1600 years ago conducting himself in this manner?
hell, it is rumored that Charlemagne had relations with his own daughters...the sword of Christianity himself....

And there are plenty of 'good church going people' these days, when we certainly know better who do the same thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2011)

The girl was 9 and Metheselah was 969, does anyone think perhaps that timespans and the way of counting the years perhaps were a little different from how we count it? Or it is much easier not to think about it and instantly condemn Islam? 
Moslems think a great deal about this, they argue back and forth as we do. Like a lot of things to do with politics and religions too many just generalise and see what they want to see.
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm


----------



## Jenna (Nov 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The girl was 9 and Metheselah was 969, does anyone think perhaps that timespans and the way of counting the years perhaps were a little different from how we count it? Or it is much easier not to think about it and instantly condemn Islam?


That is a valid inquiry Tez.  

I would say that Numbers play a far greater role in religious metaphor and ritual than we apprehend nowadays.  There is nothing wrong with these numbers.  There is only a problem with our ability to interpret those numbers correctly.  Those that advocate literal and decontextualised interpretation of ANY of the holy texts are at fault in their reasoning.

I think Tez, there are those that will condemn religions regardless of the potential for good, choosing instead to follow media guidelines and focus on the juicier contortions of the _true _Word of God.  That is just my opinion.  Though it is obvious just from reading some stuff around here.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 3, 2011)

From the Qu'ran:

*2:191* And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
*

4:91* Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

*5:33* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

*8:15* O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.
*8:16* Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless manoeuvring for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end.*8:17* Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.
*9:111* Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph

*There are many more similar verses. I would be up all night if I posted every instance of violence, anti-Christianity, anti-semitism, etc. So my question to anyone who thinks islam is an inherently peaceful religion, or that it's being taken out of context... have you read it?


*I'm not saying this isn't equally true of Jewish religion or Christianity. The Tanakh has some truely revolting passages of despicable acts, and Christianity has 2000 years of similar garbage. Even so, Islam, being cut from the same cloth, displayed many of the same vices.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 3, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> *There are many more similar verses. I would be up all night if I posted every instance of violence, anti-Christianity, anti-semitism, etc. So my question to anyone who thinks islam is an inherently peaceful religion, or that it's being taken out of context... have you read it?
> *


Yes. 

To cherrypick through verses -as you rightly say- without reference to the historical context will obviously yield the above kind of convenient "soundbite" that fuels and supports the horrifying actions of fanatics from the OP and many other atrocities committed supposedly in the name of religion throughout history.  

However, this conclusively proves that 1. humanity has a lust for violence -as if that were ever in doubt, and 2. that certain predisposed individuals do not approach their holy text with a prayerful and peaceful mindset of receiving.  None of the above isolated quotation a sufficient condition to prove that _religion _is at fault. The position that "religion is to blame" is a position itself based on dogma.  The fault lies entirely within the (often wilful) misinterpretation of holy texts for the interpreter's own nefarious ends. While holy texts recounting the violence of history, and the violent acts of the misinterpreters - though intersecting and though opponents naturally will relate them - are nonetheless two distinct aspects.

Qur'an is a book of peace.  Those that choose to interpret it otherwise and commit violent or criminal acts are BADLY at fault.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

i dont know if he was, and it is irellevant

it is child molestation, from a guy that went on to found a religion through force, that preaches converstion through force

it doesnt matter if achmed the camel vender did it to, since no one is killing anyone for drawing pictures of achmed

are they?

NO, they are not


FOR ****S SAKE, CANT YOU PEOPLE STAY ON SUBJECT?????? WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY HERE AND BRINGING IT INTO THE DISCUSSION IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MUDDY THE WATER AND DISTRACT FROM THE SUBJECT AND IT IS BLATANT MORAL RELATIVISM

and when people today molest kids THEY ARE SENT TO ****ING JAIL, not held up as a prophet

where is warren jeffs? JAIL

what happened to Koresh? SHOT IN THE HEAD

seriously, are you THAT desperate to defend islam that you will engage in outright dishonesty to accomplish it?

GAWD

friggin obtuse people make my head hurt




granfire said:


> And you think that he is/was the only one over 1600 years ago conducting himself in this manner?
> hell, it is rumored that Charlemagne had relations with his own daughters...the sword of Christianity himself....
> 
> And there are plenty of 'good church going people' these days, when we certainly know better who do the same thing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Qur'an is a book of peace.  Those that choose to interpret it otherwise and commit violent or criminal acts are BADLY at fault.



if you believe this you either 

1) havnt read it

or

2) are high as a kite

islam is an inherently violent religion based on an inherently violent book written by a man that preached violence and forced converstion and molested a little girl

THAT is the 100% truth, and none of it can be proven false.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if you believe this you either
> 
> 1) havnt read it
> 
> ...


ok


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2011)

Minds are made up, 'the only good Moslem is a dead one', no point in discussion, thoughtful research or even having a read of other's religious books. 
Little point in continuing with this really as all we are going to get is accusations of being high or stupid just because some of us want to explore a subject. It's not defending something to want to know more, it's not condoning child abuse by asking questions. Many don't believe there was a Mohammed, others believe that a lot of the Koran is mistranslated which could be feasable, I know that the Bible has much in it and left out because of the countless translations often with political overtones. 
Many Muslims live good lives, aren't violent or terrorists, why's that if they are devout Muslims? Many Buddhists are violent despite it being a religion of 'peace, why's that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2011)

Tez, don't try and contrast things, it's "muddying the waters".  Pointing out the fact that Judaism had -laws- that ordered the execution of non-virgins, children, and gays, encouraged child sex, and incest and that Christianity adopted most of those same rules is besides the fact. What we want here is not historical contrast, an understanding of the time Islam was created (where child brides were as common in the Christian world as any other culture), but more reasons to condemn what we fear and hate. As always. We must judge them not on how things were 1400 years ago, but by todays much different standards.  We can't let little things such as the fact that the age of consent in Japan is 13, 14 in several US states, and 12 for US travelers today distract us from the religions founders lawful marriage to what we call a child-bride these days distract us from our desire to find fault. Islam is obviously evil, and to prove that we must cherry pick some bits, while ignoring any contradictory bits, again. The fact that in this specific case Aishah may have been 13 when wed (due to possible mistakes in determining her age) is irrelevant. She has to be 6 in order to fuel our rage, because if she was 13 as some suggest, she would be the same age as tens of thousands of other girls when married, and this would dull our message of hatred.  No, we must focus on our mission, to spread the message that Islam is Evil, damn the torpedoes, facts and historical contrast.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 3, 2011)

Hi tez nothing in the Buddha teaching says to be violent That I have read. In fact many rules are against it Like the 5 commandments and 5 hellish sins. But why do some Buddhist act violent? To put it simply because they are not followingBuddha dharma and if you don't follow dharma You are not Buddhist


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tez, don't try and contrast things, it's "muddying the waters".  Pointing out the fact that Judaism had -laws- that ordered the execution of non-virgins, children, and gays, encouraged child sex, and incest and that Christianity adopted most of those same rules is besides the fact. What we want here is not historical contrast, an understanding of the time Islam was created (where child brides were as common in the Christian world as any other culture), but more reasons to condemn what we fear and hate. As always. We must judge them not on how things were 1400 years ago, but by todays much different standards.  We can't let little things such as the fact that the age of consent in Japan is 13, 14 in several US states, and 12 for US travelers today distract us from the religions founders lawful marriage to what we call a child-bride these days distract us from our desire to find fault. Islam is obviously evil, and to prove that we must cherry pick some bits, while ignoring any contradictory bits, again. The fact that in this specific case Aishah may have been 13 when wed (due to possible mistakes in determining her age) is irrelevant. She has to be 6 in order to fuel our rage, because if she was 13 as some suggest, she would be the same age as tens of thousands of other girls when married, and this would dull our message of hatred.  No, we must focus on our mission, to spread the message that Islam is Evil, damn the torpedoes, facts and historical contrast.



too freakin early to get sarcasm.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> too freakin early to get sarcasm.....


No kidding. I have to go shoot naked calendar models in 55 minutes and all I want to do is go back to bed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 3, 2011)

:splutters into his cup of tea:

OMG! It's a hard life for some, ain't it :lol:. For his working day, Bob gets naked women and I get 132kV AVC transformer configuration ... why does it strike me that the world is not fair?


----------



## Jenna (Nov 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :splutters into his cup of tea:
> 
> OMG! It's a hard life for some, ain't it :lol:. For his working day, Bob gets naked women and I get 132kV AVC transformer configuration ... why does it strike me that the world is not fair?


Naked _women_? Oh well, there is my happy reverie spoiled for the day!


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 3, 2011)

Well, to be fair, Bob didn't specify gender, so you might have the rights to your reverie back, Jenna .


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No kidding. I have to go shoot naked calendar models in 55 minutes and all I want to do is go back to bed.



Well.... ummm Bob.... you are talking photography right..... not firearms am I correct


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 3, 2011)

So the point I was making was that there is a lot of violence, antisemitism, antichristianity, gender bias, etc. in the Qu'ran. Yes I have read the whole thing, and yes I understand the cultural context. I'm not saying "the only good muslim is a dead muslim". There are a great many good muslims. And it often means they take a more modern stance on the Qu'ran. Meaning not literal, and updated to live in a world of non-muslims. But the Qu'ran itself is not a book of peace by any means, except for peace between muslims.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

Really makes the Amish radical visionaries and revolutionaries, and that really is appealing.


----------



## fangjian (Nov 3, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> So the point I was making was that there is a lot of violence, antisemitism, antichristianity, gender bias, etc. in the Qu'ran. Yes I have read the whole thing, and yes I understand the cultural context. I'm not saying "the only good muslim is a dead muslim"



When Islam is criticized, people always say 'oh you want to kill all Muslim'. *No! * Or if Christianity is criticized, you hear 'You think Christians are stupid'. *No!*

We target "*Islam*". We target the *Quran*. It directly says in there:*  there is a supernatural god and it wants you to kill people who don't believe like you do*. _(amongst other ridiculous things_)   And waddaya know?  People actually believe this and act on it. 

I don't understand why I have to _respect_ this.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Hi tez nothing in the Buddha teaching says to be violent That I have read. In fact many rules are against it Like the 5 commandments and 5 hellish sins. But why do some Buddhist act violent? To put it simply because they are not followingBuddha dharma and if you don't follow dharma You are not Buddhist



The thing is *they* say and believe  they are and there are Buddhist terrorists even if Buddhists and non Buddhist alike tell us these people aren't Buddhists. Look at Sri Lanka for an example as well.

What about Gandhi and his alleged peadophilia?
http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com/?p=414

No it's still easier to demonise one religion though it's interesting that some Muslims like the Libyans are 'worth' helping even though many of the rebels are radical Muslims fighting against a secular leader while other Muslims are evil and have to be destroyed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Hi tez nothing in the Buddha teaching says to be violent That I have read. In fact many rules are against it Like the 5 commandments and 5 hellish sins. But why do some Buddhist act violent? To put it simply because they are not followingBuddha dharma and if you don't follow dharma You are not Buddhist



have not seen nor heard of a Violent Taoist yet either


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 3, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> have not seen nor heard of a Violent Taoist yet either



Be The Uncarved Block...or else.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Be The Uncarved Block...or else.



:lol:

Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, don't do so well.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> When Islam is criticized, people always say 'oh you want to kill all Muslim'. *No! * Or if Christianity is criticized, you hear 'You think Christians are stupid'. *No!*
> 
> We target "*Islam*". We target the *Quran*. It directly says in there:*  there is a supernatural god and it wants you to kill people who don't believe like you do*. _(amongst other ridiculous things_)   And waddaya know?  People actually believe this and act on it.
> 
> I don't understand why I have to _respect_ this.



because they'd kill you if you don't?


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, to be fair, Bob didn't specify gender, so you might have the rights to your reverie back, Jenna .



nah, he said at one time he didn't like doing nekked guys. He would have to ask the Missus to do that.


(no, wait, nekked chicks coming by and you want to go to bed?!)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> nah, he said at one time he didn't like doing nekked guys. He would have to ask the Missus to do that.
> 
> 
> (no, wait, nekked chicks coming by and you want to go to bed?!)



What can I say, I'm old and tired enough that sleeps a priority and boobies aint, LOL. 


Back on topic though, one can argue that Islam is bad, that there are bad (by our standards) things in it, and that people use it as a reason to do bad things.
Fine. 
But don't ***** when someone points out that the -same- is true of other faiths.
Joseph Smith for example, married a number of 15 and 16 year olds. That was less than 200 years ago.
At least 1 US President married a 16 year old as well. (Again, less than 200 years ago).
The age of marriage consent in some parts of the US is under 12 (with the kids parents permission). That's today.
So someone 1400 years ago marrying someone in the range of 6-13, when the average life expectancy was mid-30's, is not unusual.
Does the idea disgust us today? Sure does. But that's by our standards, not the standards of the day.
Kids today are getting their periods at age 7-8. According to "Mother Nature" that means she's ready for action. Or "God" if you will. 
So, maybe our standard is wrong and natures is right. Or not.


Ok, "Kill the Unbelievers".
It's in the Christian Bible. We've discussed this before.

Kill the gays.
Ditto.

"Christians don't do the **** Muslims do."
Billycaca. They have, they do, and it's been cited.

"Muslims are high risk".
More Billycaca.  Walk through ChiTown, I bet it's not an Muslim that rolls ya. It's not Muslims lopping off heads in Cancun. Catholics maybe. In some areas, they are. In some they aren't, and understanding the actual risk factors and not the FUD thats pushed out is important. I'd rather know the -real- risk factors than run around in a panic. 

"Bob, you're just making excuses"
Humbug. You're just being paranoid. Unlike a certain Captain Solo, I love to know the odds, and the odds say I'll win the lottery before I have to worry about Islamic Terrorism.  I'm more likely to get cancer from a TSA screening. 

"Bob, you're an idiot".
Yup, and making my 3rd run for the White House.  Vote Pizza Party in 2012.  We may not be perfect, but we make a hella good pie.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, he married her at 6, consumated it at 9.
> 
> and yes we know, yo defend those actions



No, I don't defend them-I place them in cultural context. Otherwise, I'd have to condemn the Catholics for all the depredations of various popes, the entire populace of Mexico for the actions of the Aztecs, the entrie populace of Spain for the Spanish conquests of the New World and imposition of that *evil* Catholicism wherever they went, the entire populace of Poylnesians, Melanesians, and the tribes of Borneo for cannibalism, all Jews for the evil depravity of King David, all Mormons for the Mormon war and raids of 1857, and all Texans-*including you*-for the unforgivable sin of slave trading conducted by the likes of Jim Bowie.

You do see the logical disconnect, so much more eloquently expressed by Bob, don't you? 

Such marriages were common in a variety of cultures at the time, roughly 600 _****ing_ A.D., for ****'s sake-especially amongst the Bedouin tribes of which Mohammad was a member. it was thought to be the safest demonstration of virginity, of all things. Arabs did it, Europeans did it, Asians did it. It was not the norm, but it did happen-hence hundreds of years of discussion about whether Aisha was _actually_ six, or nine, or, in some instances, _nineteen_. For the record, sure-married at six, consummated at nine, and that's just _*icky*_, and a crime-_but it wasn't either of those things *1400* years ago.
_
If, on the other hand, _you_ should choose to condemn those adherents of Islam who might condone behavior like the Prophet's for men of today, I'm with you.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> We've discussed this before.


...pretty much sums it up for me.  Only I would suffix "_in the same way as before, and probably with the same outcome as before.  Or lack of_."


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

i hate you a little



Bob Hubbard said:


> No kidding. I have to go shoot naked calendar models in 55 minutes and all I want to do is go back to bed.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What can I say, I'm old and tired enough that sleeps a priority and boobies aint, LOL.
> 
> 
> Back on topic though, one can argue that Islam is bad, that there are bad (by our standards) things in it, and that people use it as a reason to do bad things.
> ...



Agreed I was going to go into that in length but opted for my Amish remark I made "_Really makes the Amish radical visionaries and revolutionaries, and that really is appealing."_ I think monotheistic religion, starting off with Judaism was very barbaric with the stoning for going to pray to the wrong god, etc. all the stories of killing and conquering and killing those not like you, killing if you didn't follow this or that law, God killing, and more killing of damn-near everything but the vegetation.  Christianity less barbaric, but still when tied to Judaism solving problems by killing. Muslim skipped Christ's perspective and took off where the Jews ended. That is why they are all still fighting to day because they still feel killing is the answer to the problem. And is why, abortion doctors where killed some years ago, and bombing of those clinics, cause some Christian still adhere to the ancient barbaric ways of the middle east culture, just as Muslim extremist do with terrorist groups  and the Jewish government with their war; which the Palestinians do too equally.  It is the people that shape that. They could abandon violence but their social and ancient religious dogma doesn't permit it. It doesn't tell them so other than parts of Christianity where Jesus models peace and even that is mixed into violence as a solution enough to justify Christian violence and all the kill done in the name of God, umm...and not Jesus.  See the over ride there.  

The thing that has lessened the ode to killing in the Jews and the Christian is secularism, and modernization of society.  Whereas the Muslims (those in the land of it's origin per se) have become more fanatical because of secularism and modernization white knuckling the their culture and religion. Yea, it helps to pull your head out of the sandbox and look around at the rest of the world seeing that you no longer ruler of what was your world at that time.   I known Muslims who have updated themselves to the world, and like many modern non-montheistic fanatics don't see killing as a solution. They realize the power of democracy, and education. I wouldn't fear them.  Who I fear is the extremists who still subscribe to killing as the solution to everything.  Who don't want to modernize etc. Be they Jew, Christian or Muslim.  

Right now we are dealing with the Muslim extremists lost in time, who don't realize they can't win against change now. They did for thousands of years, but global and modernization secession is creeping in. Something they will not be able to kill to solve what they is a problem. There cultural and life style will change. Their religion will change. Just as it has and is for Jews and Christians. Talk to the Christian agrarian sects who have been struggling really hard to preserve their way of life the last 40 years. 

In part what I see these wars we have will do, it forces contact with the outside, it shows the change is coming and they can't fight it. Because it is already happening. I see Iranian Muslim refugees here fresh on this soil in traditional dress, and in less than three months modify that dress to a moderate dress. I have seen some transform to soccer moms as well. Of course you have holds out. But the fact is change is already happening. In time this threat will be far less great as it is now. I have always said, since back in the 1970s with Ayatollah whats his face, we don't need to bomb them and wipe them off the face of the earth. What we need is to bomb them with is strip malls, fast food, and disneyland.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, I don't defend them-I place them in cultural context. Otherwise, I'd have to condemn the Catholics for all the depredations of various popes, the entire populace of Mexico for the actions of the Aztecs, the entrie populace of Spain for the Spanish conquests of the New World and imposition of that *evil* Catholicism wherever they went, the entire populace of Poylnesians, Melanesians, and the tribes of Borneo for cannibalism, all Jews for the evil depravity of King David, all Mormons for the Mormon war and raids of 1857, and all Texans-*including you*-for the unforgivable sin of slave trading conducted by the likes of Jim Bowie.
> 
> You do see the logical disconnect, so much more eloquently expressed by Bob, don't you?
> 
> ...



Dang you falling a heck of a hammer. But you forgot to include Africa on all counts of child marriage and others atrocities of it's own people from early on to the point of feeding the slave trade and beyond that you would otherwise condemn.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

this



fangjian said:


> When Islam is criticized, people always say 'oh you want to kill all Muslim'. *No! * Or if Christianity is criticized, you hear 'You think Christians are stupid'. *No!*
> 
> We target "*Islam*". We target the *Quran*. It directly says in there:*  there is a supernatural god and it wants you to kill people who don't believe like you do*. _(amongst other ridiculous things_)   And waddaya know?  People actually believe this and act on it.
> 
> I don't understand why I have to _respect_ this.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 3, 2011)

if you dont see a difference between 6 and 16, you are in for a rude awakening



Bob Hubbard said:


> Joseph Smith for example, married a number of 15 and 16 year olds. That was less than 200 years ago.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Agreed I was going to go into that in length but opted for my Amish remark I made "_Really makes the Amish radical visionaries and revolutionaries, and that really is appealing."_ I think monotheistic religion, starting off with Judaism was very barbaric with the stoning for going to pray to the wrong god, etc. all the stories of killing and conquering and killing those not like you, killing if you didn't follow this or that law, God killing, and more killing of damn-near everything but the vegetation. Christianity less barbaric, but still when tied to Judaism solving problems by killing. Muslim skipped Christ's perspective and took off where the Jews ended. That is why they are all still fighting to day because they still feel killing is the answer to the problem. And is why, abortion doctors where killed some years ago, and bombing of those clinics, cause some Christian still adhere to the ancient barbaric ways of the middle east culture, just as Muslim extremist do with terrorist groups and the Jewish government with their war; which the Palestinians do too equally. It is the people that shape that. They could abandon violence but their social and ancient religious dogma doesn't permit it. It doesn't tell them so other than parts of Christianity where Jesus models peace and even that is mixed into violence as a solution enough to justify Christian violence and all the kill done in the name of God, umm...and not Jesus. See the over ride there.
> 
> The thing that has lessened the ode to killing in the Jews and the Christian is secularism, and modernization of society. Whereas the Muslims (those in the land of it's origin per se) have become more fanatical because of secularism and modernization white knuckling the their culture and religion. Yea, it helps to pull your head out of the sandbox and look around at the rest of the world seeing that you no longer ruler of what was your world at that time. I known Muslims who have updated themselves to the world, and like many modern non-montheistic fanatics don't see killing as a solution. They realize the power of democracy, and education. I wouldn't fear them. Who I fear is the extremists who still subscribe to killing as the solution to everything. Who don't want to modernize etc. Be they Jew, Christian or Muslim.
> 
> ...




I don't think you understand Jewish law if you have taken it from Xtian books. 
http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm

And what is the Jewish government? If you mean the Israeli government I'd point out there's Xtians and Muslims in it.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think you understand Jewish law if you have taken it from Xtian books.
> http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm
> 
> And what is the Jewish government? If you mean the Israeli government I'd point out there's Xtians and Muslims in it.




I should have just kept my fingers off the keyboard, and stuck to the post that said, "_Really makes the Amish radical visionaries and revolutionaries, and that really is appealing."_ to another comment.:hb:

This topic is such a complicated topic and a minefield. On top of the fact am _*not*_ the most eloquent keyboardist, or qualified to delve into this topic as I did. :duh:

And sometimes you get in over your head, and only way out is to run.....am running.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Dang you falling a heck of a hammer. But you forgot to include Africa on all counts of child marriage and others atrocities of it's own people from early on to the point of feeding the slave trade and beyond that you would otherwise condemn.



Well, no, I didn't.

I left out a wide swath of man's inhumanity to his fellow man-it's the human condition, always has been, probably always will: the earth is one great big supparating, pus-filled wound of misery-a ball of dirt, encrusted with the bones of men.

And why is it that people have to bring up the whole "but the Africans practiced slavery and took part in the trade" thing every time the subject comes up, as if that excuses the whole of Europe and the United States from doing so? Or as though the "Africans" were one single tribe or nation, or thought of themselves as such?


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, no, I didn't.
> 
> I left out a wide swath of man's inhumanity to his fellow man-it's the human condition, always has been, probably always will: the earth is one great big supparating, pus-filled wound of misery-a ball of dirt, encrusted with the bones of men.
> 
> And why is it that people have to bring up the whole "but the Africans practiced slavery and took part in the trade" thing every time the subject comes up, as if that excuses the whole of Europe and the United States from doing so? Or as though the "Africans" were one single tribe or nation, or thought of themselves as such?



Head scratch.....ummm....you said 





> Otherwise, I'd have to condemn the Catholics for all the depredations of various popes, the entire populace of Mexico for the actions of the Aztecs, the entrie populace of Spain for the Spanish conquests of the New World and imposition of that *evil* Catholicism wherever they went, the entire populace of Poylnesians, Melanesians, and the tribes of Borneo for cannibalism, all Jews for the evil depravity of King David, all Mormons for the Mormon war and raids of 1857, and all Texans-*including you*-for the unforgivable sin of slave trading conducted by the likes of Jim Bowie.




And you left out Africa, Africa is a pretty big continent like the Egyptians possibly could be condemn for their treatment of Jews... The conquering of the Berbers by Turks, Vandals, Romans, and Arabs who imposed Arabic culture, language and religion up them, erasing their culture. Then there is the wars of the Sudan, Ethiopia, etc.   I didn't bring up slavery... my historical scope of slavery isn't the single condemnation of American slavery period; I didn't bring up Jim Bowie. Africa from north to south, east to west, has had slavery instituted longer than any other continent, fact is they did feed the slave trade you condemned. I just said you missed some things with that hammer of yours.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Head scratch.....ummm....you said
> 
> 
> And you left out Africa, Africa is a pretty big continent like the Egyptians possibly could be condemn for their treatment of Jews... The conquering of the Berbers by Turks, Vandals, Romans, and Arabs who imposed Arabic culture, language and religion up them, erasing their culture. Then there is the wars of the Sudan, Ethiopia, etc. I didn't bring up slavery... my historical scope of slavery isn't the single condemnation of American slavery period; I didn't bring up Jim Bowie. Africa from north to south, east to west, has had slavery instituted longer than any other continent, fact is they did feed the slave trade you condemned. I just said you missed some things with that hammer of yours.



And I didn't bring up the Armenian genocide, either. I didn't *miss* anything-I just posted a few examples to make a point.

One you've apparently missed......


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And I didn't bring up the Armenian genocide, either. I didn't *miss* anything-I just posted a few examples to make a point.
> 
> One you've apparently missed......



I could have brought up the Japanese (WWII) Romans, Vandals, Vikings, Germans. What is your point?  Then you had incomplete examples, and if you are going to blame people for terrible things, you just single out one specific thing and skim over the rest. African's who feed the slave trade, which was on an institution level on the continent,  is equally as bad as everyone involved in the chain. You can't blame Gregor Strasser and not equally blame Rudolf Hess for contributing to Hitler's notorious and infamous deeds.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> . You can't blame Gregor Strasser and not equally blame Rudolf Hess for contributing to Hitler's notorious and infamous deeds.



Nor can I blame the entire race of Germans-or Austrians._Nor should I_. That's the point you've missed,*again*,  apparently....


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Ok you didn't blame, you condemned, and you can't condemn a part and not the whole. No matter what.  You said. 





> ...for the unforgivable sin of slave trading conducted by the likes of Jim Bowie.


 Would that include the likes of the Africans who fed the slave trade? Yes of course it would.  They were at the start of the supply chain. They were upstream. They had been at slavery for centuries, before they seen a European. I didn't miss anything I was completing it providing more background, but you missed that too. :idunno:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I should have just kept my fingers off the keyboard, and stuck to the post that said, "_Really makes the Amish radical visionaries and revolutionaries, and that really is appealing."_ to another comment.:hb:
> 
> This topic is such a complicated topic and a minefield. On top of the fact am _*not*_ the most eloquent keyboardist, or qualified to delve into this topic as I did. :duh:
> 
> And sometimes you get in over your head, and only way out is to run.....am running.



Many people think they understand Jewish law, beliefs and customs from reading the Bible when in fact it leaves them very far from the mark. I think most non Jews imagine we are the same as Xtians but without the Jesus bit. The same may well be true of Muslims.

Running is always a good option, nothing wrong with that better than digging a hole!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2011)

I think the point is, historical context is important, and people always have been *****, and always will be.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if you dont see a difference between 6 and 16, you are in for a rude awakening



I do, but that wasn't my point.  (The 6 yr old is less likely to have braces? might be an observation but someone will get offended I'm sure)
There is a difference between 'married a 6 yr old' and 'shagged a 6 yr old'. I believe the law in question doesn't allow for the 'shagging' part until the girl starts her menstrual cycle, which is natures way of saying 'shes read to breed'.  As I don't recall the story ending with 'and she died on her wedding night', one might assume that either the groom was hung like a hamster, or things weren't consummated until nature indicated it was ok. But, even that's not my point. It was just that 'at the time, this was neither unusual or wrong'.  Today, in -our- society it is.   But that's 6,000+ miles and 1,400+ years later. We also no longer think cutting the hearts out of our war prisoners is cool but the Mayans and Aztecs were fine with it a couple hundred years ago.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Ok you didn't blame, you condemned, and you can't condemn a part and not the whole. No matter what. You said. Would that include the likes of the Africans who fed the slave trade? Yes of course it would. They were at the start of the supply chain. They were upstream. They had been at slavery for centuries, before they seen a European. I didn't miss anything I was completing it providing more background, but you missed that too. :idunno:



I didn't_ miss _*anything*. It didn't need "more background." The point was that I can no more blame any of those people: Mexicans for Aztecs,Spanish for Conquest, Texans for Jim Bowie, than one can blame Islam for Mohammad. 

Didn't you get splashed with the sarcasm dripping from my post?



Bob Hubbard said:


> I think the point is, historical context is important, and people always have been *****, and always will be.



What Bob said....:lfao:


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> When I read of religious terrorist/criminal incidents like this one, I am ever given to wonder if those that carry them out think for a moment on just how their actions will actually reflect upon their religion?



No. Because as you know it is because they think they are right, they are just, no matter what they say or do. Because religion bends to man, man doesn't bend to religion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 4, 2011)

Relativism  < There are 2 links there


Dont judge the past just by todays standards




> If judged by todays standards, even the greatest of our historical heroes become monsters


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Relativism < There are 2 links there
> 
> 
> Don&#8217;t judge the past just by today&#8217;s standards




Nice links, thank you.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

We say fanatical islam, we say evil Quran (I agree with of that). But where does that stem from, the people. Who are those people? The same people who started the other two religions and wrote texts before them. These people from that region were violent, and they still are thousands of years later.  The feel, violence solves problems. Now two of those religions have people are far more civilized than the one which hasn't caught on to the benefits of civilized behavior. You can't single out say Jim Bowie for the slave trade demonize him for what he did, you have to look at Africans their role and culture in slavery. Islam nutters reflects upon Judaism and Christianity, as they were nutters too. In fact the whole monotheistic religions at one time where no different. Thank God (i know) Judaism and Christianity become modernized and changed, unlike Islam who is full of people who don't want change and are still barbaric in the region of its origin and else where, i.e. am not going to be marked for death because I drew a picture of Abraham, or Christ in this high tech over saturated image world. Instead, I will have Jews and Christians mad at me as hornets, if I offend them. Thank God, I am not worried about Jews threatening me with death, as I do worry about some fanatical conservative nut job Christians threatening me with violence and death, who take the Old Testament literally. But that is individual cases and not on a global scale of Muslims. Remember Salman Rushdie? 

Tez, now you can rip me a new one.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> We say fanatical islam, we say evil Quran (I agree with of that). But where does that stem from, the people. Who are those people? The same people who started the other two religions and wrote texts before them. *These people from that region were violent, and they still are thousands of years later. The feel, violence solves problems*. Now two of those religions have people are far more civilized than the one which hasn't caught on to the benefits of civilized behavior. You can't single out say Jim Bowie for the slave trade demonize him for what he did, you have to look at Africans their role and culture in slavery. Islam nutters reflects upon Judaism and Christianity, as they were nutters too. In fact the whole monotheistic religions at one time where no different. Thank God (i know) Judaism and Christianity become modernized and changed, unlike Islam who is full of people who don't want change and are still barbaric in the region of its origin and else where, i.e. am not going to be marked for death because I drew a picture of Abraham, or Christ in this high tech over saturated image world. Instead, I will have Jews and Christians mad at me as hornets, if I offend them. Thank God, I am not worried about Jews threatening me with death, as I do worry about some fanatical conservative nut job Christians threatening me with violence and death, who take the Old Testament literally. But that is individual cases and not on a global scale of Muslims. Remember Salman Rushdie?
> 
> Tez, now you can rip me a new one.




Agggh! It's my birthday. my son has bought me chocs and a day pass for a spa so I'm going to chill lol! On the other hand I'm in Yorkshire and it's Mischief Night tonight so I may have something to say later!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8339617.stm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2011)

The sad thing about it all is that going back to the Global Image idea, we don't have an accurate image of the religion.
We don't see the 2.4 -BILLION- people that are just going about their lives like we do, in peace.
We see the 200,000 or so radicals who are out making a stink about things, making threats, making people afraid and panicky. We see the ones who are screaming death, destruction and whatnot.
And it is from them that we draw our picture.  It skews the perspective.
I -live- surrounded by Muslims. I shop at Muslim stores. I eat at Muslim eateries.  They are normal folks. Ok, so some of the women dress like ninjas. So do 1/20th of the folks on MartialTalk. Big deal. 
I don't feel threatened. I don't feel at risk. 
"They" are just as bothered by this "image", more so in fact.
Because to them, it is an incorrect image of what their faith is -today-.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 4, 2011)

It strikes me that the views of some on here are limited to what is received onto their various devices?  Opinions formed from a narrow range of sources cannot surely be relied upon for accuracy?  In this age of information, there is no excuse for badly-informed or partly-informed ignorance. Are you always satisfied by what you are told?

Rhetorically, I wonder how many on this thread have established their opinions based upon firsthand facts and how many upon agenda-driven media and governmental agencies.  Of course, when even the governments are patently islamophobic under their public masks, I guess the mindless mass has little option except to sheep along.  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/all/1

So... Once more with feeling, just as guns do not kill people; people kill people, so also, *religion does not kill people*; *religious zealots kill people*.

Islam is a religion of peace. Those that commit criminal acts do so with contempt for The Word.  If they tell you otherwise, brandish it across their bodies, burn flags to prove it or if it is claimed such in your media, disregard it. Islam is a religion of peace. Throughout history fanatics and zealots have used their variant religions as the most blasphemous shield of convenience for their cruelty, personal or cultural or even _national _hatred and racism.  Yet none of these acts were ever committed according to The Word of God.  To suggest otherwise is to speak with a mouthful of what someone else has put there; it is to generalise the acts of the deluded and the criminally violent and extrapolate it to encompass the teachings of God.  Such generalisations while convenient and fitting neatly into sixty second news roundups and propaganda for the inevitability of major war in the Middle East are hardly the position of anyone with the nous to paint a picture for theirselves of true multi-dimensional objectivity.

That the west is islamophobic does not mean that Islam is a religion of anything other than peace. That you choose to believe every picture you have painted for you by your news bulletins and siphon out those that do not fit wil ensure that your slanted picture of Islam holds eternally true.  That criminal acts have been committed by those purportedly "supporting" Islam simply proves that people as individuals and societies and nations like to homogenise, exclude, ostracise and hate "other" people.  None of these acts have anything to do with the intended crux of the Word of God in the context of C21st existence.  They have everything to do with our bloodlust and need to hate each other.  I mean, you probably hate me for suggesting this.  Or at least would condescend to pity me for my incorrect view.  That is fine.  I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.

The Word of God is peace.

Ultimately, I do not care what religion.  Religion is not God.  Religion is ritual. Religion is not needed to know God in the personal sense.  So I do care what religion you love or you hate.  Or which you believe is wrong and which is right.  That argument is facile and limited, concerning ONLY Man and human notions and neither God nor holy notions in the truest sense.

If you avow hatred of another (as witnessed in many of these posts), then you do not know God.  Perhaps you do not care to.  That is fine also.  Nevertheless, religious or not, in avowing hatred of others you neither understand the Word of God, nor should you feel aloof about being in some way "better" than those fanatically blasphemous and often violent individuals about whom this thread was initially about.  If you hate, then you are no better than they.

I seek to prove nothing to you.  Thi sis a one-post-no-follow-up deal.  If you hate Islam.  That is fine.  If you hate religion, that is fine also.  Hate me too that is ok.  I am only trying to present a some kind of symmetry.  

Blindly following the propaganda that we are spun by those agencies and cabals with their own agendas of corporation and control is how humanity through the ages has ended up committing one genocide and holocaust after another. * 

This is exactly where we are heading now*.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So... Once more with feeling, just as guns do not kill people; people kill people, so also, *religion does not kill people*; *religious zealots kill people*.
> 
> Islam is a religion of peace. Those that commit criminal acts do so with contempt for The Word. .



Even if I could rep you, Jenna-_I couldn't rep you *enough.*_ :asian:


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Agggh! It's my birthday. my son has bought me chocs and a day pass for a spa so I'm going to chill lol! On the other hand I'm in Yorkshire and it's Mischief Night tonight so I may have something to say later!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8339617.stm



Happy birthday, don't rip into when your in a good mood, it loses the effect....


----------



## fangjian (Nov 4, 2011)

Christians, Muslims, Theists etc. 

I know that 99% of you are decent people. 

But here's the thing. A large % of you all, feel that my children deserved to be tortured. Since you hold bizarre and sick beliefs like this, we *CAN NOT* be friends. 

Oops now I'm gettin off topic. 

I think the global image of Islam form everyone else's perspective is negative because a decent portion of regular law abiding Muslims show sympathy for the terrorists. Like the Christians who target abortion clinics. Most Christians wouldn't do something like that, but there are many who show sympathy to the criminal. I think it's more widespread in Islam though.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Christians, Muslims, Theists etc.
> 
> I know that 99% of you are decent people.
> 
> ...



And these guys? Where do they fall in with people's perceptions?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12504162


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> It strikes me that the views of some on here are limited to what is received onto their various devices?  Opinions formed from a narrow range of sources cannot surely be relied upon for accuracy?  In this age of information, there is no excuse for badly-informed or partly-informed ignorance. Are you always satisfied by what you are told?
> 
> Rhetorically, I wonder how many on this thread have established their opinions based upon firsthand facts and how many upon agenda-driven media and governmental agencies.  Of course, when even the governments are patently islamophobic under their public masks, I guess the mindless mass has little option except to sheep along.  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/all/1
> 
> ...



Good points. Like I said this isn't an easy issue to discuss. Not matter what your view is you're bound to piss some one off, hopefully it isn't some wacko fanatic organization or individual wanting you dead because of it. 

The core of the issue is there are fanatical religious people out there of the monotheistic belief that subscribe to their violent and barbaric cultural, who have maintained that for thousands of years, do I really need to give the example? 

Then there are those who use such culture of which the monotheistic religion came from to justify their violence, especially if it conflicts with their beliefs, just as the previous groups who are not of the same culture, the just another deviation off the same root. We know who they are. 

Then there are those of the same culture and monotheistic who fathered these beliefs. And if you piss them off the worse that happens is they don't share their Fast food breakfast bagel sandwich with you, with a few intangible yiddish slurs.  Who if you pissed off thousands of years ago, they would have stoned you to death. But they don't do that anymore. 

Does this apply to all people? No of course not, just to Pen and Teller.  Seriously, Pen isn't a nice guy. But, seriously this of course doesn't apply to everyone, as other generalizations and assumptions don't apply.  Again this is really difficult to talk about, it is a minefield, and I think that works in favor for some. When you squelch the dialogue in any way, nothing changes (refering to OP topic).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2011)

*MOD NOTE:
Editor issue posts have been moved to the Support area.  *


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> It strikes me that the views of some on here are limited to what is received onto their various devices? Opinions formed from a narrow range of sources cannot surely be relied upon for accuracy? In this age of information, there is no excuse for badly-informed or partly-informed ignorance. Are you always satisfied by what you are told?
> 
> Rhetorically, I wonder how many on this thread have established their opinions based upon firsthand facts and how many upon agenda-driven media and governmental agencies. Of course, when even the governments are patently islamophobic under their public masks, I guess the mindless mass has little option except to sheep along. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/all/1
> 
> ...



*QFT.....*and to get  the thread back on track....and because everyone should read the young lady's wisdom.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Islam is a religion of peace.



no, it isnt, and you need to wake up, OR quit telling that lie

the koran preached murder, rape and violence from start to end, and it preaches conversion BY FORCE

thats the FACTS, your wishfull thinking is irellevant.



Jenna said:


> That the west is islamophobic does not mean that Islam is a religion of anything other than peace.



it isnt islamophobia when they are in fact trying to kill you because thier book TELLS THEM TO KILL YOU IF YOU DONT CONVERT

****, you need to learn to tell the truth, or you need to learn the truth, because the crap you are talking ISNT TRUE


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> *religion does not kill people*; *religious zealots kill people*.



this religion actually DOES tell it's people to kill people.

and they do


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

except that she is wrong 



elder999 said:


> *QFT.....*and to get  the thread back on track....and because everyone should read the young lady's wisdom.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 4, 2011)

Please calm down, John.  You're working up a head of 'typing steam' that will fast-track you to the ban-hammer.  This is not the old Study, the rules of conduct are much more stringent now.

I don't know why it is so that you are so much more fiery these days than you used to be but it does no harm to damp the coals, for you can make your point much more clearly with calm words than with intemperate ones.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, it isnt, and you need to wake up, OR quit telling that lie
> 
> the koran preached murder, rape and violence from start to end, and it preaches conversion BY FORCE
> 
> ...



1)Have you considered, even for a second, that maybe-just maybe-Jenna is a Muslim? Have you considered the very valued members who don't post here anymore because of postings like this one of yours? Please do.(For the record, I don't know if she is or isn't, but consider that if she is, your post insults her.)

2)Muslims instruct goodness and rule out evil as to Allah's command to "command what is right and forbid what is wrong" (Surah Luqman, 17) and call people to the path of Allah with words of purity. Yet, believers know Allah guides to the right way (Surah Al-Qasas, 56), so after elucidating the truth they leave people to their own freedom of conscience. The contrary is out of the question, because trying to make someone Muslim by means of pressure, threat or force is primarily against the essence of Islam._There is no compulsion in religion._ Like a great many other religious texts, the Koran is full of contradictions: while you can cite verses that are exhortations to war, and to convert unbelievers and bring death to those who refuse to convert, you can also find a great many verses that say this very thing, that there is no compulsion-that such conversions are false, and those who force them are false Muslims.



			
				GOD(Allah) said:
			
		

> &#8220;*Let there be no compulsion in religion.* Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.&#8221; _Sûrah al-Baqarah_: 256
> 
> 
> "If it had been your Lord&#8217;s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?&#8221; _Sûrah Yûnus_: 99
> ...



By cherry-picking and finding verses that justify your hatred for you, John, you're doing the same thing those false Muslims do to justify their terrorism. The fact that they believe what they preach, and get others to, and call it "Islam," does not make it or their actions Islam, anymore than the actions of the Westboro Baptist church and abortion-clinic bombers are Christian.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> except that she is wrong



and you're full of bile. As with many religious things there are many views, you chose the one that feeds your hatred. I asked before and got no answer what of the many Muslim soldiers that are in the British Forces and who are dying in Afghan? 

http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html#point1


Point 1: Does the Quran instruct Muslims to kill Non-Muslims?
*Significance of the definite article "Al" (i.e., "the")*​A friend of mine once told me that the Quran instructs Muslims to kill all Infidels. I agreed with him that violent interpretations of the Quran exist and permeate many of our Islamic books. My friend then quoted the following 3 verses to prove his point.
Quran: _{The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101}_
Quran _{Prophet, make war on the infidels Sura 66: 9} _
Quran _{Never be a helper to the disbelievers Sura 28:86}_
​I thanked my friend for making this point as well as indicating these verses, and then responded as follows: 

Comments: 
Clearly, the above verses can incite much animosity and subsequent violence vis-a-vis all non-Muslims. Accepted literally - and uncritically - these verses lend themselves to the unjust persecution of otherwise innocent people, whose only crime is being non-Muslim. However, a pivotal matter of linguistic importance is often overlooked: the significance and usage of the definite article, "al" (i.e., "the"), which precedes the various disparaging Arabic words - kafirun, mushrikun - that describe non-believers in the Quran and which are often translated as "non-believers," "infidels," "idolaters," or "polytheists." Furthermore, in Arabic, the definite article is physically attached to the word it describes. 
See below: 
Quran:_ {The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101} _
Quran _{Prophet, make war on the infidels Sura 66: 9 _
Quran_ {Never be a helper to the disbelievers Sura 28:86}_
​The exact Arabic expression in these verses - indeed, in every verse that talks of the non-believer - is "Al-Kaferrin" or "Al-la-dhina Kafaru." The use of "Al-" or "Al-la-dhina" limits the verse (and thus commandment) to 1) a specific time and place in historyand 2) a specific group of people who were obstacles to the establishment of Islam in its nascent phase. It is these two factors that caused these verses to be revealed. Had the intentions of the Quran been to extend the application of these verses in perpetuity, it would have used the expression "Man Kafar," rather than "Al-Kafereen" or "Al-La-dhina Kafaru". The former, "Man Kafar," literally means any one who does not believe in God; while the latter, "Al-Kafereen," - the infidels - denotes a specific group of people: they who fought Prophet Mohamed in the early stages of Islam.

Moreover, the overriding principle which must ultimately guide our understanding of these verses is the constant Quranic reminder that good Muslims do not initiate violence against others so long as the latter do not provoke hostilities.
Quran 2:190 _Fight in the cause of God those who start fighting you, but do not transgress limits (or start the attack); for God loveth not transgressors. _​Indeed, according to other verses, even if a Muslim deemed someone an infidel, according to the Quran, he is still obligated to:

1. Behave with courtesy : 
Consider, for instance, the following verse, which is supposed to instruct Muslims as to how they should deal with non-Muslims in the midst of hostilities (such as war): 9:6 And if any of the Idolatries (who are fighting you) seeks thy protection, grant him protection, so that he might [be able to] hear the word of God [from thee]; and thereupon convey him to a place where he can feel secure:
If Muslims are to behave with such clemency and magnanimity vis-a-vis the infidel during times of war and conflict, how much more should be expected of their interactions with non-Muslims during times of peace?

2. Respect his freedom of choice to be a "Disbeliever" - as this is a right bestowed upon humanity by God:
Quran 18:29 proclaims, "The truth is from your Lord": it is the free will of any person to believe (in God) or to be an Infidel (Un believer). 

3. Even if a Muslim should be convinced that someone is a non-believer, still he must accept that his fate is in the hands of God alone, since no one human can condemn another - this must be left to the judgment of God. 
Quran 88:25-26 for behold, unto (ONLY) Us (means God) will be their return, Then it will be for (ONLY) Us to Judge (humans).
22:17 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians (can mean an ancient religion or people with no specific religion), Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God (alone) is witness of all things. 

The significance of the definite article ("al") or the substantive pronoun ("al-la dhina") which confines the aforementioned verses to a specific time and place - that is, the past, history - as well as against a specific people (i.e., the polytheists of the Arabian peninsula), is also key to understanding those many other verses that are often cited to incite violence against non-Muslims:
1- The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101
2- Make war on The infidels who dwell around you Sura 9:123
3- When you meet The Infidels in the battlefield, strike off their heads Sura 47:4
4- Mohamed is Alla's apostale. Those who follow him are ruthless to The infidels Sura 48:29
5- Prophet, make war on The infidels Sura 66: 9
6- Never be a helper to The disbelievers Sura 28:86
7- Kill The disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191) 
8- 9:29 [And] fight against those (Al-La-Zina) who - despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] [40] -do not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, [41] and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them] [42] till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]. [43]
9- 47:4 Therefore, when you meet The infidels (unbelievers), [4] smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; [5] but thereafter [set them free,] either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: [6] 

*
*


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

eh. I dont think so, but whatever



Sukerkin said:


> Please calm down, John.  You're working up a head of 'typing steam' that will fast-track you to the ban-hammer.  This is not the old Study, the rules of conduct are much more stringent now.
> 
> I don't know why it is so that you are so much more fiery these days than you used to be but it does no harm to damp the coals, for you can make your point much more clearly with calm words than with intemperate ones.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 4, 2011)

Jeff, i do not care if she is or isnt, if the truth offends her, maybe she should ask herself why she follows a religion whose teachings offend her so much.

and give me a break, i BARELY post AT ALL anymore, so if anyone left, screw them, it isnt on me. I am barely around these days, and that is a FACT

everything i said is factually correct and you know it. the koran preaches violence. it COMMANDS violence against the infidel. there is no wiggle room on that. 

sure the bible says some of the same crap, and the people that actually follow the twisted parts? they earn my ire too. and you know it, so dont pretend otherwise.

but a LOT of people follow the "bad stuff" from the koran, you know it, i know it, everyone knows it.. you all are just too scared of sounding mean to say it.

oh, and Tez? did i do something to give you the impression i cared what you thought?



elder999 said:


> 1)Have you considered, even for a second, that maybe-just maybe-Jenna is a Muslim? Have you considered the very valued members who don't post here anymore because of postings like this one of yours? Please do.(For the record, I don't know if she is or isn't, but consider that if she is, your post insults her.)
> 
> 2)Muslims instruct goodness and rule out evil as to Allah's command to "command what is right and forbid what is wrong" (Surah Luqman, 17) and call people to the path of Allah with words of purity. Yet, believers know Allah guides to the right way (Surah Al-Qasas, 56), so after elucidating the truth they leave people to their own freedom of conscience. The contrary is out of the question, because trying to make someone Muslim by means of pressure, threat or force is primarily against the essence of Islam._There is no compulsion in religion._ Like a great many other religious texts, the Koran is full of contradictions: while you can cite verses that are exhortations to war, and to convert unbelievers and bring death to those who refuse to convert, you can also find a great many verses that say this very thing, that there is no compulsion-that such conversions are false, and those who force them are false Muslims.
> 
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff, i do not care if she is or isnt, if the truth offends her, maybe she should ask herself why she follows a religion whose teachings offend her so much.



That you don't care who is offended is obvious. This forum is supposed to be at least somewhat friendly, though-for the record, I think she's a Christian, but-_unlike some_-I *truly *do not care. 



Twin Fist said:


> and give me a break, i BARELY post AT ALL anymore, so if anyone left, screw them, it isnt on me. I am barely around these days, and that is a FACT



THere are those who are not around at all anymore-one was Muslim-and they are missed-just as *you* were during your apparently forced absence from the Study. 

It's as I said, though; they're not here because of _*posts *like yours_-not necessarily _just_ yours, or yours at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2011)

*Admin Note:*
Twin Fist no longer has access to The Study and it's subsections.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

It's clear there are Muslims who want to destroy the non Muslim world, it's also equally clear that there are Muslims who don't and want to live in peace. The problem is to control one without hurting the other. We have the same problem with other religions and beliefs, it's a universal human problem. when you get a belief you get fanatics. You even get fanatics with non beliefs!
Hating all Muslims isn't going to solve the problem of the violently inclined Muslims, ranting isn't going to sort out the problem either, while you're busy ranting someone comes up behind you and biff you're down. We need to take a calm look at Islam, find out who believes what for one thing, like other religions (or any group of any type) there are various groups and even sub groups. Find out who we can work with, who we can't and who really are the enemy. I don't think anyone here disputes the fact of Islamist Jihadists and their type, we aren't shutting out eyes to the dangers there but tarring all Muslims as dangerous is in it self dangerous. 
On the face of it Israelis and Arabs are 'enemies' but every day in many small ways they get on, they work together and co exist. It can be done and on a bigger scale it just needs a cool head, and a willingness to take that first step.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Ignore, too risky.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Admin Note:*
> Twin Fist no longer has access to The Study and it's subsections.



I'll honestly miss him-I valued the contrast of some of his opinions, and sometimes agreed with him.

More to the point, he'll not be able to benefit from the likes of Jenna's gentle wisdom, and perhaps see things differently....

....but I can't say I'm surprised.

[yt]IkJqKOb0ZhY[/yt]


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 5, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> No. Because as you know it is because they think they are right, they are just, no matter what they say or do. Because religion bends to man, man doesn't bend to religion.



Both things happen.


----------

