Islam

[penguins4me]

That phrase of mine was very poorly worded. I am not comparing Islam to anything. I am merely using its own writings to point out what it is. It is up to the reader(s) to decide just what to think about a religion which requires violence and murder of non-muslims, world domination, and counts as moral abuse of women as well as deceit.

Thus far, aside from two actual arguments - "there is no complusion" and "not all muslims practice true Islam", the former which is rebutted by abrogation and the latter which doesn't actually address the root issue - you've done nothing but make illogical, irrational statements or insult me by way of implication. I'm finding it vastly amusing that someone who supports the proper meaning of the Second Amendment reverts to the same emotional, illogical way of thinking anti-gunners use when presented with facts relating to both the meaning/intent of the amendment, as well as other logical pro-gun/freedom arguments.
On top of that, you question the use of Mohammad Habib Shakir's translation of the Koran, but then intentionally select a translation by what appears to be an off-the-wall Arabic numerologist who claimed Islam to be utterly corrupted, competely rejects the Hadith and Sunna's validity (a radical view), and proclaimed himself to be the authoritative information source for Allah. Regardless:

First, Khalifa's Koranic translations which don't clearly concur with the more well-known translations nor my assertions:

The last word on relations with non-muslims, relative to chronological order

009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

009.123 O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you - let them find you stern - and know that GOD is with the righteous.

Khalifa's version appears to suggest self-defense only.

War against non-muslims until Islam is the only religion; not believing in Allah is a punishable offense

008.038 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for  them).
008.039 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah  altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

008.038 Tell those who disbelieved: if they stop, all their past will be forgiven. But if they return, they will incur the same fate as their previous counterparts.
008.039 You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.

Khalifa's version of the first verse still requires non-muslims to "believe", though the last verse omits the idea that Islam should be the world's only religion.

Forbidding friendships with non-muslims

004.088 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
004.089 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

004.088 Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites (among you)? GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.
004.089 They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

Khalifa's version implies the fighting as being in self defense, yet still forbids friendships with "disbelievers" and explicitly states that Allah is a deceitful god.


Now on to Khalifa's version of a few (of many) verses which still condemn Islam as an evil religion:

Koran open to Statanic influence and corruption; abrogation

022.052 Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:

022.052 We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

"Oppression" as defined by the Koran; 'oppression is worse than murder'

002.217 They ask you about the Sacred Months and fighting therein: say, "Fighting therein is a sacrilege. However, repelling from the path of GOD and disbelieving in Him and in the sanctity of the Sacred Masjid, and evicting its people, are greater sacrileges in the sight of GOD. Oppression is worse than murder." They will always fight you to revert you from your religion, if they can. Those among you who revert from their religion, and die as disbelievers, have nullified their works in this life and the Hereafter. These are the dwellers of Hell, wherein they abide forever.

Did you catch that? Fighting - murdering - is better than not believing in Mohammed, according to the Koran. In fact, it is defined as "oppression". Perhaps you'd care to review the first few verses I'd quoted above, but keep in mind this new fact that, to a true muslim, one's refusal to believe in Mohammad is "oppression", reason enough to fight in "self-defense" (004.008, 008.039). Hm.

If you're willing to address my assertions directly, this should be enough to get started with.

[MaineShark]

That phrase of mine was very poorly worded. I am not comparing Islam to anything. I am merely using its own writings to point out what it is. It is up to the reader(s) to decide just what to think about a religion which requires violence and murder of non-muslims, world domination, and counts as moral abuse of women as well as deceit.

Ah, yes, when you make blatantly-incorrect statements, that?s just poor wording.

Thus far, aside from two actual arguments - "there is no complusion" and "not all muslims practice true Islam", the former which is rebutted by abrogation and the latter which doesn't actually address the root issue - you've done nothing but make illogical, irrational statements or insult me by way of implication. I'm finding it vastly amusing that someone who supports the proper meaning of the Second Amendment reverts to the same emotional, illogical way of thinking anti-gunners use when presented with facts relating to both the meaning/intent of the amendment, as well as other logical pro-gun/freedom arguments.

Amusing.  Nonsensical, but amusing.

On top of that, you question the use of Mohammad Habib Shakir's translation of the Koran, but then intentionally select a translation by what appears to be an off-the-wall Arabic numerologist who claimed Islam to be utterly corrupted, competely rejects the Hadith and Sunna's validity (a radical view), and proclaimed himself to be the authoritative information source for Allah. Regardless:

I didn?t just ?question the use of? Shakir?s translation.  Anyone who uses that translation is obviously utterly ignorant.  The translation appeared after Sharkir?s death, and Shakir always maintained that it was gravely wrong to attempt to translate the Koran.  It is an obvious falsification, and no one who is competent to discuss religious theory would use it.

As far as Khalifa?s translation... well, didn?t someone say that there was no translation out there which opposed violence?

And since when does any Muslim follow the Hadith and Sunnah?

Oh, but I forget, you like books purported to be a given person?s words, even though that person opposed them in life, and they appeared well after his death.  Those are obviously the most accurate sort of books.

First, Khalifa's Koranic translations which don't clearly concur with the more well-known translations nor my assertions:

The last word on relations with non-muslims, relative to chronological order

009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

009.123 O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you - let them find you stern - and know that GOD is with the righteous.

Khalifa's version appears to suggest self-defense only.

Wow!  Crazy!  Exactly what I said!

War against non-muslims until Islam is the only religion; not believing in Allah is a punishable offense

008.038 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for  them).
008.039 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah  altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

008.038 Tell those who disbelieved: if they stop, all their past will be forgiven. But if they return, they will incur the same fate as their previous counterparts.
008.039 You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.

Khalifa's version of the first verse still requires non-muslims to "believe", though the last verse omits the idea that Islam should be the world's only religion.

Where, precisely, does that require non-Muslims to believe?  If they disbelieve, Allah will send them to hell.  That?s what the passage says, if you bother to read the preceding verses.  If they don?t believe in Allah, I expect that doesn?t constitute a huge threat to them...

Forbidding friendships with non-muslims

004.088 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
004.089 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

004.088 Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites (among you)? GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.
004.089 They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

Khalifa's version implies the fighting as being in self defense, yet still forbids friendships with "disbelievers" and explicitly states that Allah is a deceitful god.

Now, where does it ?explicitly state? that?

Now on to Khalifa's version of a few (of many) verses which still condemn Islam as an evil religion:

Koran open to Statanic influence and corruption; abrogation

022.052 Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:

022.052 We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

Actually, if one can read and comprehend English, one sees that stating that all previous texts were influenced by Satan, and that the Koran is the path away from Satan.

"Oppression" as defined by the Koran; 'oppression is worse than murder'

002.217 They ask you about the Sacred Months and fighting therein: say, "Fighting therein is a sacrilege. However, repelling from the path of GOD and disbelieving in Him and in the sanctity of the Sacred Masjid, and evicting its people, are greater sacrileges in the sight of GOD. Oppression is worse than murder." They will always fight you to revert you from your religion, if they can. Those among you who revert from their religion, and die as disbelievers, have nullified their works in this life and the Hereafter. These are the dwellers of Hell, wherein they abide forever.

Did you catch that? Fighting - murdering - is better than not believing in Mohammed, according to the Koran. In fact, it is defined as "oppression". Perhaps you'd care to review the first few verses I'd quoted above, but keep in mind this new fact that, to a true muslim, one's refusal to believe in Mohammad is "oppression", reason enough to fight in "self-defense" (004.008, 008.039). Hm.

Yes, just ?disbelieving? is oppression.  That?s exactly what it says.  Of course, as before, if one can actually read and comprehend English, one sees something different.  To be an oppressor under that rule, one would have to be disbelieve in God (not just in Islam), and then force people from prayer.  Catch that force part?  That?s what makes it oppression.  Not simply that someone exists, and doesn?t believe in Allah.

Joe

[penguins4me]

Shakir's translation is fairly widespread, hence my usage of it. Frankly, I don't care about the politics surrounding its emergence, nor care overmuch about it, specifically, so regardless of your opinions of its use, it is a moot point. I'm confident that Khalifa's translation holds plenty of condemnation for Islam.

Regarding Allah being explicitly deceitful:

GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.

Actually, if one can read and comprehend English, one sees that stating that all previous texts were influenced by Satan, and that the Koran is the path away from Satan.

Of course, one must take the word of a text which has been corrupted by Satan to believe that the current version is free of corruption. I believe you can see the problem with that logic.

To be an oppressor under that rule, one would have to be disbelieve in God (not just in Islam), and then force people from prayer.

Considering that the Kaaba belonged to people other than Mohammed at the time, "forcing people from prayer" equates to evicting trespassers from privately-held land you own. Oppression! Not to mention: "what, you won't let me pray here? I kill you!". Nice.

I concede your point regarding Khalifa's version of 8.38-39 - and trot out 9.5 instead:

009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

009.005 Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Watered down or not, this clearly states that non-muslims must, at least, "observe prayers" and pay them money before muslims will "let them go", since some non-muslims have, at some point in the last 1600 years, "refused to make peace". "Allah is Forgiver, Most Merciful", as long as you moon the moon and cough up the dough.

[MaineShark]

Shakir's translation is fairly widespread, hence my usage of it. Frankly, I don't care about the politics surrounding its emergence, nor care overmuch about it, specifically, so regardless of your opinions of its use, it is a moot point. I'm confident that Khalifa's translation holds plenty of condemnation for Islam.

Yeah, honestly is certainly a moot point with some people...

Regarding Allah being explicitly deceitful:

GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.

And...?  Do you have no comprehension of Islam, at all?  The basic tenet of Islam is that this life is a test, to determine worthiness for Heaven or Hell in the afterlife; this who submit to God?s will are sent to Heaven, those who do not are sent to Hell.  Hence, everything is this world is supposed to test the Muslim.

C?mon, that?s the absolute basic theory of Islam.  Are you that ignorant?

Actually, if one can read and comprehend English, one sees that stating that all previous texts were influenced by Satan, and that the Koran is the path away from Satan.

Of course, one must take the word of a text which has been corrupted by Satan to believe that the current version is free of corruption. I believe you can see the problem with that logic.

I can see a problem with comprehension of the English language.

?Previous texts? = the Jewish and Christian texts.

To be an oppressor under that rule, one would have to be disbelieve in God (not just in Islam), and then force people from prayer.

Considering that the Kaaba belonged to people other than Mohammed at the time, "forcing people from prayer" equates to evicting trespassers from privately-held land you own. Oppression! Not to mention: "what, you won't let me pray here? I kill you!". Nice.

Amusing.

I concede your point regarding Khalifa's version of 8.38-39 - and trot out 9.5 instead:

009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

009.005 Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Watered down or not, this clearly states that non-muslims must, at least, "observe prayers" and pay them money before muslims will "let them go", since some non-muslims have, at some point in the last 1600 years, "refused to make peace". "Allah is Forgiver, Most Merciful", as long as you moon the moon and cough up the dough.

No, it states that idol worshippers if they refuse to behave peacefully.  It does not say ?all non-Muslims? or somesuch.

And it does not say ?anyone who belongs to a group that has, at some point in the past, not been peaceful,? although that?s what you seem to imagine it says.  I suggest attending Freshman English at a local high school...

Joe

[powerchuter]

Quote from Objectivist:

If your country attacks another, you can't whine and moan, "But I didn't want to attack you, only my government wanted to."

Newsflash:  Iraq didn't attack us.

I wasn't refering to iraq, I was talking about Afghanistan and Iran, who by supporting terorirsm DID attack us. And Iraq was refusing to allow inspection of their weapons programs. Pre-emptive self defense is a must in a world of idiots and dictators.

ONLY PROBLEM IS Bush is doing Iraq all wrong. He needs to learn a lesson from our methods in WWII against Germany and Japan.

-Objectivist

Based on your logic we should be bombing ourselves...
America is the biggest terrorist organization the world has ever seen...
For the very reasons you are referring to...our operatives incited WW1 and WW2...
And most every other conflict in the world via our military-industrial complex and the CIA...
And then after alot of money was made, and alot of suffering occurred...
We even nuked some of them...

America, the only country actively pursuing the nuclear holocaust business via Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and depleted uranium around the world!

Hey, if you don't bow down to the American Imperialistic Empire, we'll just invade, blast, and nuke you til you come around to our point of view...  And don't you dare price your oil in Euros like Saddam or we'll invade your country too!

Heck, our own citizens are too stupid to see 911 was a total set-up scam...lol...what a bunch of idiots!
Can we say "The criminal elite that gave us Pearl Harbor strike again"...I'm sure you can...

You war-mongers are all the same...You should all beat yourselves to death to save us the trouble...

[penguins4me]

Apologies in advance for the nasty nested quoting.

Regarding Allah being explicitly deceitful:

GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.

And...?  Do you have no comprehension of Islam, at all?  The basic tenet of Islam is that this life is a test, to determine worthiness for Heaven or Hell in the afterlife; this who submit to God?s will are sent to Heaven, those who do not are sent to Hell.  Hence, everything is this world is supposed to test the Muslim.

C?mon, that?s the absolute basic theory of Islam.  Are you that ignorant?

"Life is a test" may be the distilled version, but Islam maintains that Allah pre-ordains everything, that some he has chosen for paradise, others he has chosen for hell - humans' courses of action are already determined - they have no free will. Several Koranic passages confirm that Allah deceives/tricks/leads/drags people to hell. This is not important from an "Islam is evil" perspective as it is from "Allah is not YHWH", which Mohammad tried to maintain to the contrary. My references for this include:

068.001 Nun. By the Pen and the (Record) which (men) write,-

068.001 NuN, the pen, and what they (the people) write.

As explained by Tabari I:202:

There are people who consider predestination untrue. Then they consider the Qur'an untrue.... People merely carry out what is a foregone conclusion, decided by predestination and written down by the Pen.

097.001 Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination.

097.001 We revealed it in the Night of Destiny.

As you recall, the Pen wrote down all there was to be before it ever happened. Again, from Tabari I:198

I heard Muhammad say: 'The first thing created by Allah was the Pen. And Allah said to it: "Write!" It proceeded at that very hour to write whatever is going to be.'

By hook or by crook, what Allah has said will happen will happen. For further reference, see Koran 056.041-050 of Khalifa's, et al; 056.060, 074.031, Tabari I:199, and a particularly curious one:

002.216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

002.216 Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. GOD knows while you do not know.

Actually, if one can read and comprehend English, one sees that stating that all previous texts were influenced by Satan, and that the Koran is the path away from Satan.
Of course, one must take the word of a text which has been corrupted by Satan to believe that the current version is free of corruption. I believe you can see the problem with that logic.

I can see a problem with comprehension of the English language. ?Previous texts? = the Jewish and Christian texts.

That is your assertion, and it is incorrect - using the Tabari for reference indicates that these words were uttered by Mohammad after he spent approximately a year living as a high-ranking pagan in Mecca while his few followers were camped out at Medina. When his followers heard about what was going on back in Mecca, they trekked back and confronted him, and the passage here was Mohammad's response/justification. The passages here were referencing Mohammad's own words (and actions), words which eventually became the Koran.

To be an oppressor under that rule, one would have to be disbelieve in God (not just in Islam), and then force people from prayer.

Considering that the Kaaba belonged to people other than Mohammed at the time, "forcing people from prayer" equates to evicting trespassers from privately-held land you own. Oppression! Not to mention: "what, you won't let me pray here? I kill you!". Nice.

Amusing.

Even with Khalifa's diluted version, and in the absolute best-case reading of that passage, you're suggesting that taking lives is an appropriate response to "repelling from the path of GOD (converting/keeping from Islam) AND disbelieving in Allah and in the sanctity of the Sacred Masjid (Kaaba), AND evicting its people (from a shrine they eventually took by force)"? This is a religion of peace?


Regarding Koran 009.005, the "verse of the sword":

First, but less important, is this issue:

And it does not say ?anyone who belongs to a group that has, at some point in the past, not been peaceful,? although that?s what you seem to imagine it says.

Actually, since there is no stipulation for the cessation of fighting until the aggressors "do the prayers and pay the tax", it does indeed say such. Several European countries participated in the Crusades, and they're not all praying the prayers and paying the Jizyah, so do tell me where it allows jihadis to stop fighting non-compliant once-aggressors? Yet, this is overshadowed by the following:

No, it states that idol worshippers if they refuse to behave peacefully.  It does not say ?all non-Muslims? or somesuch.

We went over this before, remember? There are two primary groups that the Koran deals with: muslims, believers, etc., and non-muslims, disbelievers, idol worshippers, etc. There are sub-groups of the non-muslims, but they are all treated the same way in the end. Do you spend more time on something other than Allah, such as a job, family, a hobby, politics, etc.? Sorry, that's an idol. You evil idol worshipper, you! Oh, but let's not quibble over such a trivial matter when even Khalifa spells it out clearly for us just a bit later:

009.029 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

009.029 You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Well, I'll be - nearly an exact duplicate of the previous passage, but now the victims are "those who do not believe in Allah". Is Islam's true nature becoming apparent yet?

[money dollars]

We went over this before, remember? There are two primary groups that the Koran deals with: muslims, believers, etc., and non-muslims, disbelievers, idol worshippers, etc.

You make it sound so black and white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

It is, according to Muslims, up to God to decide who is Muslim and who is not.

Are you familiar with halal food, the permissible things a muslim may eat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal

Explicitly Forbidden Substances
...
Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but God (There is debate regarding the permissibility of meat slaughtered by Christians or Jews)

[penguins4me]

An older tidbit:

Oh, but I forget, you like books purported to be a given person?s words, even though that person opposed them in life, and they appeared well after his death.  Those are obviously the most accurate sort of books.

Books such as... the Koran itself, perhaps? The Koran is supposed to be Allah's words as given to Mohammad - it was passed on only as recitals until either Mohammad's last years, or a short time after his expiration. I just though that to be interesting enough to point out.


money dollars, encyclopedias - especially wikipedia - are not authoritative sources. For comparison, according to the content-free encyclopedia, muslims are supposedly the originators and carriers of the HI virus.

Encyclopedias can be great resources for use in finding authoritative sources, though. ;)

-edit
Allah does indeed decide who is muslim and who is not... via Allah's predestination. Humans have no say in the matter whatsoever. I'd listed multiple Koranic references to this a post or two back.

[EJinCT]

All this talk of Jihad these days and how "evil" Islam is; what of the...

Inquisition, Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc....

Extremist/Ignorant elements, no matter the religion/philosophy, can be a threat to freedom.

Killing in the name of god has been happening since long before Christianity and Islam were even concieved. Killing is part of mans nature and trying to blame that on any book seems exceedingly ludacrous to me.

IMO, the Bible and Koran were both composed by human hands, through human minds; and as such how could they contain the unlimited intent of the "creator"? Both books are interpretations of what the authors experienced. In the case of the bible it is even more complicated by the fact that it has gone through several linguistic translations and all the difficulties that entails. Mankind is flawed and as such anything that is created is liable to fail or be erroneus.

The limits of the human condition do not allow for complete understanding of the totality of creation. They were both compiled during times when mankinds conciousness was not nearly at the level it is at present. Mankind, as a whole, could only comprehend a small fraction of 3rd dimensional life at that time.

I feel people should look for the similarities in religions/philosophies and extol those instead of focusing on the divisions; how I see it anyway... Flowers were created, not to be different, but to be beautiful.



:Disclaimer: I'm not meaning to bash anyone. My personal belief is all religions/philosophies are but a slice of the pie. All should be used to help each of us gain a better understanding of our realtionship with the rest of creation.

[penguins4me]

This thread is about Islam. I've asserted that Islam is not a religion of peace - that it requires violence from its adherents. Violence in the name of Islam is often sugar-coated by the media/in the news, with spokespersons constantly blaming the violent acts of some muslims on "extremeism", "fanaticism", or some other excuse, when, in fact, the Koran and other "divinely inspired" scriptures require it of a true follower of Islam. True, the Koran does try to lay claim to the Bible, but it does so by only keeping the names intact while corrupting everything else; the God of the Bible also has a completely different nature than the Allah of the Koran, despite Mohammad's claims to the contrary. The only reason I've mentioned the Bible at all is because Mohammad co-opted material from it wholesale.

[EJinCT]

penguins4me, I'm just wondering, how many Muslims are you acquainted with and how much time have you spent with them? Is your position backed up by personal experience or only by what you have read and hear/see in the media?

I've had Muslim friends and they were in no may violent; and they do not share your interpretation of the Koran.
In fact, I have yet to meet any of these violent Muslims. All that I have met, have been congenial, modest, friendly and generous people. Even out of those that I have met, that I did not personally know, not once did any of them refer to me as an Infidel or treat me any different than I treated them. Surely none of them tried to be violent with me.


You contend that Islam is not a religion of peace; IMO, that is your interpretation; and that is gained through others interpretations and translations. It's akin to the telephone game.

That is the danger of assuming what is written is to be taken literally and applied to all situations. Most religious texts were written with vivid imagery and fantastical events to capture peoples attention and gain adherents. All the major religious scripts have been tainted by those who would lead others astray and seek control over them. I feel they all contain slivers of truth for those that can discern them, and a wise man can read between the lines and gain understanding of their true nature.

If Islam is as violent as you claim, then why are there Jewish/Christian Arabs and Persians still living in their home countries; shouldn't they, by default, have been killed? Why are Christians and Jews tolerated and allowed to continue living in Islamic societies?


One of the major reasons why I do not adhere to any organized religion is that there are too many people with limited perspectives, who cannot reason for themselves and must take everything at face value.


If one honestly feels threatened by every Muslim, than I honestly feel sorry for them.

[penguins4me]

EJinCT: sigh. Read this thread. If I were to repeat myself, it'd be another page or two longer.

Short answer: I say you're wrong. Read to find out why. If you have a point to contend with, address it specifically.

[EJinCT]

If you have a point to contend with, address it specifically.

I thought I was doing just that...

I've asserted that Islam is not a religion of peace - that it requires violence from its adherents.

From what I read it seems to me that your position is not based on real-world personal experience. IMO, no matter what religious text, one must read between the lines and read beyond the words, as well as know the history/culture that surrounds them and the audience they were written for.

Your interpretation of Islam seems to be from second hand information and does not seem to be derived from study of an Arabic Quran. My interpretation of Islam is derived from interaction with Muslims and minor study of translations of the Quran.

If I am mistaken feel free to correct me. IME, truth, like reality, is highly subjective and totally dependant upon the perspective of the viewer.


We can agree to disagree then, but I never claimed I am right and you are wrong.

[penguins4me]

I tried, but couldn't let this go:

From what I read it seems to me that your position is not based on real-world personal experience.

As an argument, this is irrelevant and the logic is flawed. I need not have personal experience to know that allowing my hand to come into contact with a red-hot stove element is likely to leave my flesh charred and scorched. I need not have personal experience to see that some folks who claim to follow Islam are rioting, pillaging, murdering, etc. in France, Sweden, the Philippines, Thailand, etc. Oh, Iraq and the West Bank, too.

Your interpretation of Islam seems to be from second hand information and does not seem to be derived from study of an Arabic Quran.

Again with the "untranslatable" bullcrap:

There is no way to justify the absolute warlike rhetoric by claiming that "the Koran cannot be translated" - to say otherwise is to claim up is down and black is white, etc. Arabic is not some ancient, mystical language. It arose out of Aramaic, a few hundred years after Rome destroyed the Jews' temple. It *can* and *has* been translated, and there are many translations to choose from. ALL condemn Islam as a violent, evil religion. Further, the Koran is "not translatable" because it (in the original Arabic) is filled with errors, scientific errors, and conflicting accounts of singular events - it is "not translatable" because it is crap! - and the head honchos know it, hence this provably and fatally flawed argument.

To clarify that last sentence: the "untranslatable" argument appears to stem from all the contradictions, scientific errors, corrupted versions of Bible stories, etc. contained within the Koran. Rather than change the original text, etc., Islamic advocates simply use the "untranslatable" bullcrap argument to attempt to raise the bar to a point where very few will bother to disprove their false claims... except for the fact that there are already several Koranic translations available.

I'm also not stating that someone, somewhere could not possibly use the Koran to advocate a peaceful Islam - I'm stating that such a person is ignoring (or ignorant of) the later passages commanding muslims to wage war against non-muslims.

I'm not agreeing to disagree with you - I'm using the Koran to show that true Islam is a violent (and evil) religion.

[tracysaboe]

Christianity was a pacifistic religion for the 1st 3 centuries after Jesus death -- untill it got corrupted by marrying the State.

Here's a relevent recent commentary on the subject.
A Military Chaplain Repents
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mccarthy5.html

Even just war theory has no Biblical support -- even though just war theory is much less agressive the current policies.

Maine is right in the sense that all religions can be twisted by powers mongers and perverted into justifications for violence. By that standard he's correct.

But if you actually read what the Bible says --specifically the New Testiment. It doesn't say anything about killing the unbeliever. It does say to love the unbeliever and wittness to him and show him a better way of life. The Koran actually explicitly states to kill the unbeliever.

Hence, theologically Islam is more violent.

However given the past 1700 years of Corruption of the Christian Religion by mainstream church organization and government pandering, Christianity has definitly been used to promote war and violence as well. However, it should be noted this wa done in perversion to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testement.

Tracy