Just what is going on in the world!

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=442555&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

I just do not get it. Three little puppies...... I guess we will offend PETA.

[The Avon Lady]

Update (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015679.php).

Beh-deep beh-deep beh-deep - that's all, folks!

[STEED]

Now Kirklees Council has stepped in to allow the pigs a reprieve.


What a surprise from a council as they are the PC suspects most of the time. :roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

Update (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015679.php).

Beh-deep beh-deep beh-deep - that's all, folks!

Hooray! Chaulk one up for the pigs.

[SUBMAN1]

PETA? Please use their proper name - Animal Crackers!

[AVGWarhawk]

PETA? Please use their proper name - Animal Crackers!

:rotfl:

[Letum]

pfft! what idiots the school are!

But yesterday Islamic leaders condemned the politically correct move as misguided and said decisions like this were turning Muslims into 'misfits' in society.

"misguided" is a understatement!
The school was clearly doing what it thought was the correct thing, but banning the 3 pigs was actually very un-PC!

Enthusiasm with out wisdom me thinks. :roll:

[Penelope_Grey]

Its dumb! Just like wanting to rename Christmas. :roll:

doing stupid stuff like this will cause a heck of a lot more problems than it will solve. Not that there are any problems to need solving, and as for them small minority that are offended. Tough. When in Rome! Do as the Romans do, and if you don't want to do what the Romans do, or you can't agree with what the Romans do, thou hast but one recourse: Leave Rome.

[SUBMAN1]

Its dumb! Just like wanting to rename Christmas. :roll:

doing stupid stuff like this will cause a heck of a lot more problems than it will solve. Not that there are any problems to need solving, and as for them small minority that are offended. Tough. When in Rome! Do as the Romans do, and if you don't want to do what the Romans do, or you can't agree with what the Romans do, thou hast but one recourse: Leave Rome.

Well said!

[STEED]

Its dumb! Just like wanting to rename Christmas. :roll:

doing stupid stuff like this will cause a heck of a lot more problems than it will solve. Not that there are any problems to need solving, and as for them small minority that are offended. Tough.

Winter festival anyone. :roll:

Tell that to the yogurt eaters who knit socks all day and stand behind there curtains thinking up new ways to make us all :hulk: :hulk: I am sick of these slime balls.

[KevinB]

Its dumb! Just like wanting to rename Christmas. :roll:

doing stupid stuff like this will cause a heck of a lot more problems than it will solve. Not that there are any problems to need solving, and as for them small minority that are offended. Tough.

Winter festival anyone. :roll:

Tell that to the yogurt eaters who knit socks all day and stand behind there curtains thinking up new ways to make us all :hulk: :hulk: I am sick of these slime balls.


Absolutely. These are the same cretins who belong to the Gordon Brown club, if it can be taxed it will be. In their case if they can think up some politcally crass thing then they will enforce it.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Next they'll close all the Church of England Primary Schools and turn them into "Religious Tolerance Centers"

[SUBMAN1]

UK's future?

http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/img/front_2_poster_1.jpg

[Skybird]

Next they'll close all the Church of England Primary Schools and turn them into "Religious Tolerance Centers"Why not closing the church itself, while we are at it. "If I am non-existant, I can't offend anyone."

[The Avon Lady]

Its dumb! Just like wanting to rename Christmas. :roll:

doing stupid stuff like this will cause a heck of a lot more problems than it will solve. Not that there are any problems to need solving, and as for them small minority that are offended. Tough. When in Rome! Do as the Romans do, and if you don't want to do what the Romans do, or you can't agree with what the Romans do, thou hast but one recourse: Leave Rome.
That was all fine and dandy until Rome fell.

Good luck, Europe!

[Letum]

When in Rome! Do as the Romans do That was all fine and dandy until Rome fell.


One could even argue that the Roman Empire degenerated due to the Romans just doing what Romans do in Rome and failing to adapt the the changing circumstances of the world around them. ;)

There is little good meta-reasoning to that old motto.


Anyway, most of the Muslims in England are English, so they are doing what the English do!

[The Avon Lady]

Anyway, most of the Muslims in England are English, so they are doing what the English do!
Perhaps.

What's that in your rearview mirror (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/story/0,,2000984,00.html)? :hmm:

[Penelope_Grey]

I maintain a sort of... unease about the Muslim presence and the way they are spreading. I know its not right that being Muslim does not automatically make you a bad person or a terrorist and I believe to treat people fairly, but, when you almost get blew up in a certain London bombing, I think tis hard to keep 100% objectivity.

[STEED]

Evil is evil and that is a fact, if you can not spot what ever form it takes you better wake up and fast.

[SUBMAN1]

I maintain a sort of... unease about the Muslim presence and the way they are spreading. I know its not right that being Muslim does not automatically make you a bad person or a terrorist and I believe to treat people fairly, but, when you almost get blew up in a certain London bombing, I think tis hard to keep 100% objectivity.

They all study from a book called the Koran. This book to them is not written by man with gods guidance as people believe of the Bible, they beleive it to be the word of Allah himself - sort of like Mohammad was possesed while it was written by Allah - and Mohammad had no say in what was written. It is hard for a Muslim to discount this fact.... Which means...

-S

[The Avon Lady]

They all study from a book called the Koran.
Actually so many don't and are completely irreligious and unaware of what Islam says. This is very similar to the majority of Jews today, who are super ignorant of the Bible's content, Jewish history and law.
This book to them is not written by man with gods guidance as people believe of the Bible
Judaism believes that the Torah was given word for word from G-d to Moses. To the best of my recollection, Christianity never argued with this. Jesus certainly didn't.

[The Avon Lady]

I think tis hard to keep 100% objectivity.
You can be 100% objective and hate Islam with a passion.

Please note my use of the word "Islam" and not "Muslims".

[SUBMAN1]

Actually so many don't and are completely irreligious and unaware of what Islam says. Yeah, I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of reading and writing skills present in many third world countires. This probably makes many in Islam easy to control.

Judaism believes that the Torah was given word for word from G-d to Moses. To the best of my recollection, Christianity never argued with this. Jesus certainly didn't.
Maybe, but I've never heard of that. Not sure why Christianity would argue that though when it is for another religion, even if it is a similar religion, so I don't see your point there - you lost me. This is like saying that Mohammed wrote word for word that of Allah. Not sure Christianity is going to argue that either - its pointless.

-S

PS. Ahhh! Hello - you mean the ten commandments. click click click - light bulb goes off. That's Apples and Oranges. You are talking about a few things Moses was commanded to right down. In the Koran, the entire book is said to have been written by god. That means every last little passage. This is the problem - they beleive it to every last little word. Not just a small list of rules to live by.

[Penelope_Grey]

So what is the difference between being Islamic and being a Muslim?

[The Avon Lady]

Actually so many don't and are completely irreligious and unaware of what Islam says.
Yeah, I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of reading and writing skills present in many third world countires. This probably makes many in Islam easy to control.
While this is true, I was referring to Muslims in the west.
Judaism believes that the Torah was given word for word from G-d to Moses. To the best of my recollection, Christianity never argued with this. Jesus certainly didn't.
Maybe, but I've never heard of that. Not sure why Christianity would argue that though when it is for another religion, even if it is a similar religion, so I don't see your point there - you lost me. This is like saying that Mohammed wrote word for word that of Allah. Not sure Christianity is going to argue that either - its pointless.
Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Islam is a sort of offshoot of both. But Christianity doesn't recognize any legitmacy of Islam.

Muslims claim that Mohamed was Alah's direct and accurate messenger. Christians and Jews most certainly don't. However, Christianity and Judaism believe the Torah to be the direct and accurate word of G-d in a similar way. So your prior statement is certainly not true of Judaism and likely not of Christianity in this regard.
So what is the difference between being Islamic and being a Muslim?One can be born a Muslim and be completely ignorant of what Islam entails. One can also be a Muslim and be an apostate against Islam. Just 2 elementary examples.

[SUBMAN1]

So what is the difference between being Islamic and being a Muslim?

Quite a bit I beleive, but I am sure someone here knows more than I. Islamic beleive the Koran - or proper spelling I think is Qu^ran or so is pure and that everything should follow it to a T. Muslims however don't quite follw things perfectly and may have different customs and views that conflict with the Qu^ran. Am I spelling that right? This does not mean they won't turn out to be a terrorists or something, just that they seem to have more freedom to do what they want.

At least this is my take on it.

-S

[ASWnut101]

You use an accent sign, not the up arrow.:up:


Like this: Qu`ran

Not like this: Qu^ran


But I don't know how it is actually spelled. I'm sure thats how it goes, though.

[Letum]

So what is the difference between being Islamic and being a Muslim?
Quite a bit I beleive, but I am sure someone here knows more than I. Islamic beleive the Koran - or proper spelling I think is Qu^ran or so is pure and that everything should follow it to a T. Muslims however don't quite follw things perfectly and may have different customs and views that conflict with the Qu^ran. Am I spelling that right? This does not mean they won't turn out to be a terrorists or something, just that they seem to have more freedom to do what they want.

At least this is my take on it.

-S

No! totally wrong! Where did you hear that?


They are just grammatical terms.
A Muslim is, by definition, a follower of the Islamic faith.

There is no difference at all between being a Muslim and being a follower of the islamic faith.

[Skybird]

There is no difference between Islam, Muslim, Mohammedanism. Western medias as well as Western politics since the time of European imperialism have divided these terms into moire sub-categories than there are in reality.

Not every "Christian" follows the teaching of the "Christ". Nevertheless he claims to be Christian, wile the truth is he maybe is not, and he has lacking understanding of what it means to be Christian (in the meaning of following the example set by the "Christ").

Not every Mohammedan truly follows the teachings of Muhammad as well, nevertheless he claims to be Mohammedan. Problem is he may not be aware that he already is violating basic principles of his "faith", ignores what it negative in it, and adds things that are positive, but have nothing to do with Muhammad's teachings. the vast majority of Mohammedans I knew or know in the West are like this. Nevertheless they pose a problem, a very severe problem, because by lacking knowledge they propagate in good intention a faith that is anything but compatible with western civilisation and ethics and philosophy. If we follow their argumentation that is basing on an idea of Islam that in the form they describe it does not exist, we deadlock ourselves in helplessness against the spreading of this dangerous and deeply inhumane ideology.

That is one of the reasons why I am so adamant in my referring back to the old, but academically highly precise terminology concerning Islam and calling it "Mohammedanism". We desperately need to win back intellectual clearness about what it is we talk about. Else our illusions hinder us to defend ourselves against it, for we fail to see the need for that. Since Islam is highly anti-intellectual and severely handicapped concerning objective self-analysis, we shall at no cost trust it's self-description. It is massively distorted, and driven by it's own totalitarian agenda that neither knows cultural tolerance, nor peace understood as a coexistence that expresses a value in itself. In the end there can only be peace, so said Muhammad, when there is nothing els left than Islam and thus nothing is left that is different and could question it. No other ideology's demand - including Rome or the Nazis - to rule all world and mankind ever was so uncompromisingly total and complete like this one.

[The Avon Lady]

Now that Skybird's back, I can go out shopping. :p

[Skybird]

Women...

[RedMenace]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiclious.

[STEED]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiclious.


Well I hate TV adverts so much I punched my mates TV and knocked to the floor, by the way it still works. As for my fist ouch the pain.

[RedMenace]

Uh.... k?:-?

[STEED]

Uh.... k?:-?

Well that must make me a TV,advertphobia. :rotfl:

[RedMenace]

And this is why, children, you should not do heroin.:yep:

[Letum]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiculous.

I hear ya, I think it is just a handful of people here tho.

[The Avon Lady]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiculous.
I hear ya, I think it is just a handful of people here tho.
Please point out the so-called "Islamophobia" here, either one of you.

[Letum]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiculous. I hear ya, I think it is just a handful of people here tho. Please point out the so-called "Islamophobia" here, either one of you.
I would rather not, I don't want to embarrass or offend anyone.
Feel free to take a a look for your self tho, after all with 1200+ people visiting the forum we must have all diffrent kinds of people, so of course we will have some Islamophobes!

Im sure no one would think you where Islamophobic tho Avon. :up:

[RedMenace]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiculous. I hear ya, I think it is just a handful of people here tho. Please point out the so-called "Islamophobia" here, either one of you.

"You can be 100% objective and hate Islam with a passion."

I'm pretty sure you are alluding to yourself here in this quote, though I might be mistaken?

And, well, this technically isn't the forum itself, but that site you always link to, jihadwatch or something, it's OBVIOUSLY very Islamophobic. The mere name of the site itself shows that.

[The Avon Lady]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiculous. I hear ya, I think it is just a handful of people here tho. Please point out the so-called "Islamophobia" here, either one of you.

"You can be 100% objective and hate Islam with a passion."

I'm pretty sure you are alluding to yourself here in this quote, though I might be mistaken?

And, well, this technically isn't the forum itself, but that site you always link to, jihadwatch or something, it's OBVIOUSLY very Islamophobic. The mere name of the site itself shows that.
Let me help you further:

pho·bi·a /ˈfoʊbiə/ [foh-bee-uh]
–noun a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

[Origin: 1780–90; extracted from nouns ending in -phobia]

—Synonyms aversion, hatred.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Please explain why my comment is irrational or why the name of a site called JihadWatch.com (http://www.jihadwatch.com/) is irrational. Saying that the site is "OBVIOUSLY very Islamophobic" is irrational in itself. Why is this obvious (and in upper-case letters, no less)? :hmm:

If anything, you may be suffering from factophobia. :know:

[RedMenace]

"—Synonyms aversion, hatred."

[The Avon Lady]

"—Synonyms aversion, hatred."

Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that such is the normal use of the term phobia.

In which case, you are saying that a phobia may be very rational indeed. So, what's wrong with that? According to your usage of the term phobia, being Islamophobic is nothing wrong in itself.

Waiting...........................

[AVGWarhawk]

Wow, all this over some sausage and bacon.

Is Islamaphobia even a word?

[STEED]

Wow, all this over some sausage and bacon.

Is Islamaphobia even a word?
Islamophobia is a neologism defined as the phenomenon of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media). The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 90s

Looks like it is.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have never heard of this word. Learn something new every day. Anyway, I'm not a phobe of any kind.....well except hard work:yep:....hardworkaphobic:o

[SUBMAN1]

No! totally wrong! Where did you hear that?


They are just grammatical terms.
A Muslim is, by definition, a follower of the Islamic faith.

There is no difference at all between being a Muslim and being a follower of the islamic faith.
Hmm. Not so sure about that. Looking it up, here is what I come with as viewed by an actual Muslim:

-S



Islamic Values vs. Muslim Values

An Article written by : Atiq Ebady

The misconceptions that surround Islam in this day and age are too great to number.
A repeated scene is that of a Muslim having a discussion with a non-Muslim and trying to explain that Muslims are not terrorists, Muslims are not wife-beaters, that these actions are the deeds of a few which are then unjustly imposed on the whole Muslim population. But if the whole Muslim population had presented themselves in an Islamic manner in the first place, the reputation of a Muslim would be far too virtuous to allow the misdeeds of a few to tarnish the image of the whole Muslim world. But Muslims generally do not present Islamic values, they present Muslim values; and the difference between these two can sometimes be as vivid as night and day.

...

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=44

[The Avon Lady]

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=44
One word: Da'wa.

[SUBMAN1]

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=44 One word: Da'wa.
Definition: In Islam, da'wa means a "call" or "invitation," and has been used to refer to a person being "called" to follow Islam. However, it has developed into the idea of a "mission" or "propaganda," either in a political or religious sense.

So what exactly are you refering to?

[Penelope_Grey]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiclious.

I might be Islamaphobic though I try not to be I try to remember people are people immaterial, but, the 7th of July changed my life forever.

I don't believe in violence and I like peaceful solutions, but, I think I have come to realise lately, that no matter how much I try to hide it, how much I try to deny it, there is a dark side in me, and some day all my ideals will crumble away and I will unleash that side, which is Kinda why I like the Incredible Hulk for those keeping score, he reminds me of me.

I don't believe in religion anyway, it causes far too much trouble.

[AVGWarhawk]

Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiclious.
I might be Islamaphobic though I try not to be I try to remember people are people immaterial, but, the 7th of July changed my life forever.

I don't believe in violence and I like peaceful solutions, but, I think I have come to realise lately, that no matter how much I try to hide it, how much I try to deny it, there is a dark side in me, and some day all my ideals will crumble away and I will unleash that side, which is Kinda why I like the Incredible Hulk for those keeping score, he reminds me of me.

I don't believe in religion anyway, it causes far too much trouble.

She is ready to come to the dark side.............

[The Avon Lady]

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=44 One word: Da'wa.
Definition: In Islam, da'wa means a "call" or "invitation," and has been used to refer to a person being "called" to follow Islam. However, it has developed into the idea of a "mission" or "propaganda," either in a political or religious sense.

So what exactly are you refering to?

This (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013171.php) is applicable to the article you linked to and quoted.

[RedMenace]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.

[fatty]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.

About as rational as citing sites like this (http://www.jewwatch.com/). There's probably a "watch" for everything under the sun.

[RedMenace]

Yes, but I don't see anyone on these forums citing things like jewwatch, only jihadwatch.

[fatty]

I know, sorry if I didn't flesh out my thought enough there :oops:

I put the site forth because I think both make broad generalizations and are IMHO are equal insofar as aim and slant. But JewWatch is perhaps more startling because it doesn't really try to beat around the bush about what it's doing. They are still equally narrow, equally irrational, and equally depressing.

I am seeing things your way, RedMenace. I personally don't think it's healthy for such a niche forum like ours to be ostracising this large group which includes a number of gamers I'm happy to call friends.

[RedMenace]

Ah, I got the meaning behind your first post after a second read, and yes, I agree. I too know people of the Islamic faith who I proudly call my friends.

[The Noob]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pBtqKvhxdkc

[Skybird]

Red Menace,

I would like to know if you can summarize what you know about the content of Islamic ideology, and it's history during the last 1 and a half millenia (including the civil war and the Islamic conquest), and if you have any experiences with people and life in Islamic countries, not only in western subcultures. If you are competent to judge what assessment of Islam is "islamophobic" and what not, you necessarily must have a certain minimum base knowledge about this. I myself am not completely uneducated on these things and may be allowed to claim that I gained both academical, theoretical knowledge as well as practical experience, but I am always willing to learn something new. Since you indirectly referred to me without doubt when saying "Wow, I can't believe the amount of Islamophobia on these forums. It's ridiclious." immediately after my posting, i may ask you to share your knowledge with me/us.

I admit, saying "I know a someone and he is a kind guy" is not good enough for me. I too worked with Muslim people both in Europe and in the Orient, and sometimes called them my buddies, on rare occasions even trusted them for my wellbeing and life. The point is that they did not represent true Islam as being "founded" or "taught" by Muhammad and ruled in the Quran and Hadith (what did not stop them to believe they were). But these scriptures necessarily are the decisive criterion to judge what Islam is, and what not. they are the heritage of Muhammad, and in Islam everything revolves around the examples set by Muhammad, and the orders that he gave (no matter if he called them God-given or not).

I am no racist ignorrant, Red Menace, and I base directly on history and Islamic scriptures when criticising Islam so uncomprimisingly. when i say Islam educates people to be stupid I do not say by that that all people being born in Arabia are "stupid" by birth. I say that the culture surrounding them tries to make them stupid after being born with not more or less mental capacity than other people, too. The more I learned about Islam, the more alarmed I was, and the more I felt disgusted by it. Several years back, when I had come back from a one longer stay in Iran, I was like you and like those people that today are considered to be "politically correct on Islam": well-meaning, sure that it is good and fine, and tolerant on others, and that West and Islam can peacefully coexsit and form one fine alliance, and that I just need to press harder to "truly" understand it's peaceful nature. but I collided with facts from history and scripture time an again when thinking that way. Many memories and experiences of contradiction I carried with me from my trips and readings, remained. Not before I gave up my well-meaning, conflict-fearring illusions these contradictions dissappeared. When I allowed myself to neutrally look at Islam and put all the many things and fragments from books and work and travels together, all of a sudden it all fell into it's place and formed one smooth, complete image without contradicting details. But it was a grim picture I saw.

I could also refer to the social realities in Europe, at least in Germany where I know some developements from close range in some cities. I coudl tell you about the problems musliom communities cause in our schools, and in cities like Berlin, Frankfurt, for i have contqacts into these "scenes" (I was a psychologist once and still know many colleagues from the field of social work). Wjhat I see is simply this: Islam does not integrate, and that is totally in congruence with Muhammad's demands as expressed in quran and Hadith, as I see it. Islam forms parrallel socieities and uses them as a base for ongoing slow, colonisation. It does not adopt to the rles of a new place it arrived a, but tries to rearrange that place to make it like the islamic place it has come from. And that is nothing else but an ongoing aggression against the home culture of the hosting place.

While there are things like "ChinaTown" and "Little Italy" in the west as well (it is more an american than a european story), Asiens, most of Africans, almost all south-, middle- and nortamericans, Russian and australians do not give us these kinds of problems when migrating in our countries. When such problems arise in our societies, chances are extremely high that the involved ethnicities have an Islamic background.

You can call that islamophobia with a loose tongue, this is (still) a democracy and everybody is free to have his own opinion, no matter what. The question is that for quality: can somebody found his opinion by solid, logical argument, or is he just expressing some hear-say that has replaced any knowledge. the western debate on Islam is basing on a totally horrifying lack of knowledge about Islam, and almost every public discussion I see on TV therefore has it's most absurd and comical face, therefore. the intellectual distortions people perform in order to talk Islam good and nice and West-compatible (or the absence of any knowledge about it while the mouth and toingue is still working in overclocked mode) are causing me pain by simply listening to them.

We had been here and at this point of discussion many, many times in recent years, and that'S why I do not repeat again all what I already have repeated many times over these years. I just would be thankful if you would eventually give me the benefit of doubt and maybe assume that I have less subjective and uneducated reasons to criticise Islam than you maybe think, before calling me or anyone opposing Islam an "Islamophobe". You could also call me scientologyphobic, or Bushphobic, or Naziphobic, then - but what does it do for good?

[RedMenace]

I'd say I know a fair-bit about Islam, and honestly, the Qur'an is as peaceful/war-like as any religious text. Actually, in comparison with the Old Testament/Torah, I'd say that Qur'an has a MUCH more likeable version of God.

All in all, I'd like to say again, that you also seem to be racist, my friend.

"I too worked with Muslim people both in Europe and in the Orient, and sometimes called them my buddies, on rare occasions even trusted them for my wellbeing and life."

What is this? "On rare occasions"? I'm not sure exactly sure what you meant by that, but I think you meant to that say that in general you mistrust people because of their heritage/nationality? If that's not Islamophobic, or even Arabophobic, then I don't know what that this.

[Skybird]

This racist that I am meant that he had not seen many occasions when the situation ruled to trust others: effectvely when we could not handle a prsent issue all by ourselves.

You may be true when saying the Quran is as violant as the Tora or Old Testament, I don't care for these. But you hide the important difference: that in the Western culture as well as the churches, no one is depending on the old "eye for and eye" principle anymore, and the self-understanding of modern Christians is not defined by the sex, drugs and rock'n roll chapters of the old testament anymore, and that Jesus went beyond the teaching of the old scriptures and very much ended their tradition, that'S why he is called the bearer of glad tidings. You talk about the past, "my friend". On the other hand, such a developement has not taken place in Islam, the Quran was and is the basis of Islamic self-understanding, therefore it got locked in the thinking pattern and knowledge-horizon of over a millenium ago. Could you show me a western nation that is ruled accopridng to the ancient laws descrobed in hte early parts of the Old Testament? Hardly. Could you show me a Western nation where religion and poltiics is not ruled to be strictly independeant from each other by constitutional law and order? Hardly.

And now this little racist over here scratches your dirty little name off his to-be-replied-list of names. For my taste your tongue is a little bit too loose in calling people phobic of these idologies, and racist concerning other people. You attack individual people. I talked about heart and core of an ideology. Think about that important difference before you offend foreign people the next time by labelling them as racists, laserbrain.

[Penelope_Grey]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.

I'm afraid of Islam because I nearly got blew up in the name of it. Simple as.

[Enigma]

I stood at the base of the smoldering towers, and a good friend and Navy man was killed while eating his breakfast at his desk job in the Pentagon. It does have an effect on you, and on how you see the world, and how you interpret others....but I'm not afraid of Islam. I'm afraid of crazy people. Theres enough crazy christian whites in this country to kill many many people in the name of any great myth, and have done so.

Fear crazy in all its forms. :know:

[STEED]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.

I'm afraid of Islam because I nearly got blew up in the name of it. Simple as.

You should not fear it as that is what they want.

I could had been a victim of the IRA bandstand bomb in London back in 1981/2 I was there the day before it went off. As a school kid we reacted in a typical school kid manor, as an adult I found it to be unnerving.

[Enigma]

I could had been a victim of the IRA bandstand bomb in London back in 1981/2 I was there the day before it went off. As a school kid we reacted in a typical school kid manor, as an adult I found it to be unnerving.

I can relate....

Having grown up in the UK, my father came very close on more than one occasion to being blown up by the IRA in london, or killed in the Kings Cross fire...

It wasn't until I lived through 9/11 as an American citizen that I looked at those days in the 80's in London and recognized the danger, and how lucky I was to have my Father in one piece. 9/11 produced tons of memoriess of being a kid and not really understanding how and why things were as they were in London at that time, but as an adult, I think of my Mother waiting to find out if Dad was ok after a bombing, and it sends chills down my spine.

I wish I still had a childs eyes sometimes. :-?

[Skybird]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.

I'm afraid of Islam because I nearly got blew up in the name of it. Simple as.

You must try harder to understand Islam's holy wisdom when trying to dominate your society, or even kill you. According to the Damast epigraph on his grave, Saladin (Sahaladdin) "cleaned the earth from the dirt of the infidels", and once after a battle won, he told his followers that he would pay each of them a certain ammount of money if they grab themsleves a prisoner and kill him in the presence of Sahaladdin. And that is what happened for the rest of the day, a fresh and funny beheading party, and every head falling was payed for with a handful of coins, and many of the soldiers and clerics alike on that day earned themselves a fortune.
Saladin also is seen as an icon of Islam, for he mercilessly enforced the rule of Sharia inside Muslim community, and enforced the totalitarian rule of Islamic dogma, he is also responsible for the killing of many promising "reformers" and "alternative thinkers" that tried to analyse or transcend Muslim dogma, most famous victim was the mystic Surawardhi, who was killed in the late 12th century. Saladin was called the ruler with the iron fist (sounds familiar if comparing to some contemporary disctators, maybe?) , and all thisbrutal stuff made Saladin very popular in Islam until today. He is seens as a hero, and not despite but because of his deeds he is seen like that.

It is not acceptable that you do not see the religious side in dirt like you being blown up, Penelope. Instead you are expected to hail Sahaladdin as a prime example of tolerance and cultural coexistence, like so many idiots in the West use to do, including most famous examples of Goethe ("Eastern Diwan") and Lessing ("Nathan"), in both men's writings he is turned into almost a saint that has nothing to do with the grim historical facts). Voltaire was once like that, too, but later seem to have understand what it was he was so well-meaning about, and since then he had no more friendly, but highly unfriendly words only for Islam (different to Goethe and Lessing, Voltaire illustated by that that he was a racist... :dead:)

You should be thankful if one day the task of blowing you up will be successful, penelope, because without dirt like you the earth necessarily will be a cleaner place. You must work on your wellmeaning and tolerance, or do you want to die as an ignorrant "racist"?

[Sarcasm off]

Enigma and Steed are right, fear craziness in all it'S forms, but fear shall not become commander of your deeds and actions. Fear can make you see that it's red alert, but beyond that it is a bad advisor. Meet Islam with unforgiving determination and an uncompromised demand of reciprocity, because it will find and exploit every weakness of yours, no matter how long it takes, and is driven by that belief that it only would be for the best of all mankind if all mankind is submitted and dominated by islam. Stepping back, and an obedience that is hurrying on ahead while mistaking this to be "tolerance" is not an option. That is the Islamic understanding of "peace": the absence of anything that could ask unwelcomed question about Islam and question it's self-perception while tolerance means (historically) a status of discriminatory and humiliating submission (which is a formulated demand in scripture). Needless to say that this has nothing to do with our understanding of peace and tolerance.

All what I said does not mean that you cannot meet a Muslim person whom is in favour of Wetsern liberties and vlaues, and is a friendly guy and a good buddy. The qustion you should ask is only this: is he really fully aware of the details of his faith he claims to be his own, or is it that he maybe just has created his own private representaion of something that in this form nerver existed, does not existed, and has nothign to do with the Islam as ruled by Muhammad and descriobed in Quran and Hadith/Sharia? Is he aware of the contradictions and collisions in details between Islam and Western lifestyle and indentiy and ethics, or does he just gloss over them?

A study in Britain some months ago found over one third of the muslim community finding violence acceptable if it helpts to piush Sharia in Britain (over the half amongst the young men) . In Germany'y Berlin, more than half of the turkish schoolboys openly support honour-killing in the name of sharia and Turkish identity, and over one third of the turkish girls agreeed, too. Thrpoughout Germany, Muslim communities try to enforce their presence in areas and regions where no Muslim lives and where 90% and more of the local residnets tell them they do not want them to build a mosque in their part of the city. Islam has not the smallest buzsines dthere, but claims the right to enforce it'S presence within communites that do not want it. It does not take any respect for the wishes of the residents. It is about pushing through a principle - that westerns must step back in the face of Islam. We are expected t learn that we need to give ground, that we are not allowed to resist, that it all is Islam's roght top claim all and everything, everyhwere, even against the total opposition of local population where not a single muslims lives.

Since three months, I work in a citizen's action group that is fighting against a muslim community here that has bought additional ground around it's mosque by making wrong statemnts about the identity of the buyer, and the intended use. Tjhe former owner agreed to the deal by the explicit condition that the groudn shall not be given further to the mosque and being sued to increase it. But they want to increase the mosque at all costs, in a section of the city that consists of only one-family houses, and is not a bit Muslim at all. Islam has not the smallest cause in that part of the city, nothing. The present mosque already caused confrontations, and residents there repeatedly got intimidated and offended. The court case is about document forgery, pretending of false facts, manipulating the deal and betrayal. their speaker even had the nerve to say that if they would not have done this, how they would have been able then to push through the increasing of the mosque? What is most depressing is - that the judge so far has not refused that logic. We are thinking about putting a file of objection on the grounds of suspected bias. You see, no matter how much trouble it causes, and how much confrontation - Islam must be pressed through, even against the opposition of the infidels that once were the owners of their homes.

BTW, we are all racists. Islamophopbic anyway. And probabaly also paranoid.

[Tchocky]

I could had been a victim of the IRA bandstand bomb in London back in 1981/2 I was there the day before it went off. As a school kid we reacted in a typical school kid manor, as an adult I found it to be unnerving.
I can relate....

Having grown up in the UK, my father came very close on more than one occasion to being blown up by the IRA in london, or killed in the Kings Cross fire...

Strange, all of my experience of terrorism is from the other side. Stopped on the roads, interrogated, body-searched, guns pointed every which way. Most of that from those in service of the Queen. Never been near a bomb going off, yet lived next door to bombers. Weird.

[SUBMAN1]

How can a fear of Islam be in any way rational? That's like being afraid of 1/6th of the world population. That's like being afraid of the sky.
Here are some reasons:

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.

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.

The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

I'd say I know a fair-bit about Islam, and honestly, the Qur'an is as peaceful/war-like as any religious text.

Still beleive that?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here are some more good ones - it looks like beating your wife up is OK as long as they do not agree with you - which means, like why would you want to beat her up anyway if she agreed with you in the first place? :lol: :

The men are made responsible for the women, ** and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. I guess if you are Christian or Jew, that is a bad thing - unless you pay retribution of course:

The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.


Just reading this Quran is making me sick.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

I have often found that if you want to make and keep friends, never talk of politics and religion.:yep:

[Penelope_Grey]

I have often found that if you want to make and keep friends, never talk of politics and religion.:yep:

ain't that the gospel truth, pardon the pun. :rotfl:

[Skybird]

I have often found that if you want to make and keep friends, never talk of politics and religion.:yep:

In the months of my absence from this forum I stumbled (was invited) into a non-public forum without realising that it was an ultra-hardcore white nazi forum. I did not realise it, since we exchanged friendly phrases and common stuff only on which to agree you really must not be an extremist of any kind. But when they thought they were sure of mine we started with certain political themes - and the masks fell down.

Sometimes it is very good to talk about politics and religion - nothing makes you aware any faster what kind of type you are talking to and what he is about, and if you really would like to make him your friend and keep up the friendship - or better avoid that at all costs. Not every stranger you meet in a forum you want to call a friend.

To my defense I must make it clear that I fired a broadside and left that forum of theirs immediately.

[RedMenace]

Skybird, I apoligize if I had offended you, I admit my tounge might have been a bit sharp, but you must understand, when you say that Islam is a dangerous religion in itself, I find that odd, for I have met maybe hundreds of Muslims in my lifetime, and not one of them ever went for my throat.

I do not deny that Muslim extremists exist, that would be ridiclious to deny such a fact, but you must understand that extremists make up the tiniest minority of Muslims, the tiniest tiniest minority. The problem is, these extremists are also the loudest. They don't speak with words or letters, but with bombs and weapons.

That's why this Islamophobia disgusts me, you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam. But 99.9% of Muslims are normal people, its that 0.1% that you should hate.

[fatty]

Qur'an stuff
Oh please. There are equally disconcerting passages in the Old and New Testaments. I don't see the majority of Christians forbidding their women to speak in church (1Cor 14:34), why would you expect the majority of Muslims to crucify disbelievers?

...you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam.
Yep! It builds the support base for the real bad guys.

[Skybird]

Skybird, I apoligize if I had offended you, I admit my tounge might have been a bit sharp, but you must understand, when you say that Islam is a dangerous religion in itself, I find that odd, for I have met maybe hundreds of Muslims in my lifetime, and not one of them ever went for my throat.

I do not deny that Muslim extremists exist, that would be ridiclious to deny such a fact, but you must understand that extremists make up the tiniest minority of Muslims, the tiniest tiniest minority. The problem is, these extremists are also the loudest. They don't speak with words or letters, but with bombs and weapons.

That's why this Islamophobia disgusts me, you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam. But 99.9% of Muslims are normal people, its that 0.1% that you should hate.
I accept your apology. No need to talk about it again.

No, I am not fooled by extremists. You hear little from me about the terror of extremists. Terror itself is not what could brake or threaten our societies. The damage is done by the medias hyoping the hysteria around it.

But I talk about the ideology. The violence in Islam is not there despite Islam's teachings, but because of it's teachings. It is a very grim, unforgiving, and aggressive "religion", tailored to religiously excuse ongoing "conquest" and at that time back then, to bolster Muhammad's personal power and position. The history of Islam is not so aggressive because it violates it's teachings, but because it honours them. Even at Muhammad's lifetimes Muslims already attacked other Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Later this excuse was further perverted to justify the slave trading in northern Africa - Muslim slave traders were the most brutal of all times.

Compare that to the Western history, were wars and violence were not ordered or justified by Jesus (Muhammad called for around 60-70 wars and tribal attacks during his lifetime, committed mass murder and genocide, ordered murder of personal critics, already had slaughtered men before he appeared the first time as a Kahin on the stage, and traded prisoners like goods - later in the medieval some Muslim rulers used the skulls and skeletons of infidel enemy as material to build towers and walls), but were done in explicit violation of the Christian message. when considering this, how can you seriously tell people Islam is as peaceful as any other religion? When you consider the character and deeds of the historical Muhammad, how can you say his heritage is a message of peace to the world? Muhammad last but not least spread his influence on the Arabian peninsula by intimidation, bloodshed and terror! His own secretaries repeatedly fled from him to save their lives when noticing certain details that indicated how very much Muhammad was lieing to the people when telling them about Allah! That initially he may have been motivated by wanting to overcome the grown social injustice and communal tension that came as a consequence of the growing privileges of the monopole-like position of the Qurayish cannot hide that he became a murderous gangster in the later times.

What is considered to be Christianity, not only had the old testament, but as a consequence of Jesus' appearing there is the new testament as well. Compared to that, Islam has no new testament, it is stuck with the blood-dripping Violante old testament exclusively. It also knows no figure that compares to the revolutionizing importance that Jesus had for the Christians (and "founding" Christianity so to speak: no Christ, no Christianity). The medieval church tried to suppress with fire and sword any kind of heresy or thinking that could endanger its political and earthly interests and power ambitions, but after some time it more and more had to give ground to the development of Western reason, Western philosophy, there was the influence of the Renaissance and age of enlightenment. ISLAM NEVER HAD COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENTS! It is stuck where the Christian church was - in the medieval. That is because it was far more successful in keeping those ways of doing alive by which both Islam and churches in the beginning tried to fight heresy and secure their power status: the overwhelming majority of possible reformers, promising alternative thinkers, people wishing to develop and modernise the Islamic dogma - got murder, arrested or executed.

And while all this unfold and remained until the present, you see a constant ongoing ethnically cleansing in territories that are held by Islam. In all Muslim nations, foreign religions and cultural representation from abroad is declining since centuries. In all nations there is sometimes more, sometimes less pressure put onto Christian or Jewish communities. Never, nowhere, these communities were increasing (with the exception of the Jews fleeing into the Ottoman empire and being welcomed only because they brought the knowledge about the superior western weapon technology with them). While you are forbidden to carry a bible in your suitcase when visiting Saudi Arabia, Islam aggressively pushes into the West, claiming rights for itself that it refuses to others.

I had written longer essays, even separately posted texts of up to 25 pages about the creation and development of the Quran and Hadith, the problems the introduction of "ideosynkritische" punctuation brought to these texts and prevented any kind of "authenticity", and on other details of Islamic history like for example it's understanding of law and values completely colliding with our Western values and communal structures ordered by our constitutions (which base on completely different set of basic ethical and moral preconditions to which Islamic moral is simply this: hostile), so please understand that I do not write all this stuff again (forum members would lynch me for trying that, btw.).

There were some Germans who initially fell for the Nazis without realising how evil an ideology it was. They only saw the positive things in it: Hitler created new jobs, the youth was caught by the youth organisations and their weekend activities which was about adventurous expeditions into the forest, there was a promise of national pride again. nothing wrong in that if only Hitler would have left it to this. Such Nazis were a problem, and were not: They were are a problem because by being fooled and blinded they actively supported the Nazi regime, or had sympathies for it - lacking insight into the regime does not spare them from their share of responsibility, imo. They were not a problem in that they were no perpetrators by conviction, no evil" people. They were stupid maybe, or blind, and later did not wish to admit the nature of Nazism for not having to admit that they were guilty to some serious degree. - But do these people change the general evil nature of Nazism? I ask this with regard to what westerners call "moderate Muslims". I must remind you that many of the hate preachers, "fundamentalists" and activists of today - do not leave the ground of Islamic teaching and scripture when they fire their tirades against us. whereas the way of relaxed living of scaled moderate, Western Muslims is not what Muhammad has ordered people to do. You will find it hard to find justifications in the Curran why western democratic open societies and Muhammadanism could be regarded as compatible. the grim truth is that those you call extremists are more representative for Islam than those Westernized Muslims who had soften up their faith so much that in earlier times they would have been in danger of being accused and maybe killed by their own communities.

I was alonger while in Turkey, and Iran. Outside the Western-style cities and tourist traps, in the poor countryside, I found Islam like it really is meant by Quran and Hadith and Sharia. It is very much alive, accumulating more and more power and pressure, and it is grim, very grim. True Islam has nothing to do with the well-meaning illusions so many westerners have. even many Muslims are not having a complete picture of their religion. For example they do not know that as Muslims in Muslim countries they are not free but have an unavoidable obligation to treat dhimmis, people of the book (Jews and Christians) in a discriminating, intentionally humiliating way in order to make them feel humiliated and humbled and inferior. they also do not know that they are not free to choose if they wish to engage in active fighting against us infidels, or not. But as a matter of fact the Quran defines it as an obligation, and Muhammad named the hesitant ones as fools that only fear death and killing because they do not know what really is good for themselves. "Moderate" Muslims refusing to do so - are violating their faith. You see, this is just as an example why I do speak about the ideology, not the individual man. In Islam, Quran and Hadith are an authority that is non-negotiable, undiscussable, the uncompromised centre of authority. That both are not authentic, have been changed millions of times, have been manipulated and tailored by many, does not change that they are perceived as if the quran has been coming directly from Allah, "as is". In the end it all is not about quran, which was caused by Muhammad, or Hadith, which was caused by Muhammad, or Allah, who was identified and defined by Muhammad - in the end it all focuses on Muhammad as the the centre and origin of all Islam. That's why I call it Mohammedanism, like the academical tradition also often did until some decades ago.

This criticism of Islam is as much racist as would be criticism of Neonazis be called racist. I can only say it with - i think it was - Voltaire: "Islam is the most stupid of all religions", and I would add: "it is also the by far most aggressive and dangerous one".

This is a selection of (German) literature that I have given earlier before, in one of those longer essay. I would recommend these for a beginning, especially the books by Raddatz, if you happen to understand German.
Some of the books are available in English as well. Reading the itself Quran should be supported by an academical, competent analysis to make you aware of the inner contradictions and contradicting statements that are sometimes separated not only by paragraphs and pages, but whole chapters (Suras). A novice can easily jump them and never learn about them that way. for example it is said at one position that Muslims are forbidden to commit suicide. This quote then is given as an example that the quran prohibits suicide attacks and this terrorism cannot be seen as representative for Islam - Islam is not guilty and responsible for terror. Wrong! Because at another position Muhammad explicitly encourages, excuses and demands that fighters shall not fear to get killed if only they fight against the infidels, for heavenly pleasure will be theirs in paradise. Islam very well permits and excuses suicide attacks - I would even conclude it demands them just one example of a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. Only a public not knowing about such things can be deceived by that. Which unfortunately is the case.

Literature:



Bürgel, Johann: - Allmacht und Mächtigkeit: Religion und Welt im Islam. 1991

Deschner, K.-H.: - Das Christentum im Urteil seiner Gegner. (Islam-relevant chapters). 1986

Goldziher, Ignaz: - Muhammedanische Studien 1+2, 1971 (a standard work and must-read)

Lewis, Bernard: - Die Welt der Ungläubigen, 1983 (Lewis is another most essential author)
- Die politische Sprache im Islam. 1991
Nagel, Tilman: - Staat und Glaubensgemeinschaft im Islam, Band1, 1981
- Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, 1994
- Die islamische Welt bis 1500. 1998
Raddatz, Peter: - Von Gott zu Allah? Christentum und Islam in der liberalen

Fortschrittsgesellschaft. 2001
- Von Allah zum Terror? Der Djihad und die Deformierung des Westens. 2002
- Allahs Schleier – Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen. 2003
Scholl-Latour, Peter: - Kampf dem Terror – Kampf dem Islam? Chronik eines
unbegrenzten Krieges. 2002
Tibi, Bassam: - Kreuzzug und Djihad. Der Islam und die christliche Welt. 2001

- Die Krise des modernen Islam: Eine vorindustrielle Kultur im wissenschaftlich- technischen
Zeitalter. Islamischer Fundamentalismus als Antwort auf eine doppelte Krise. 2000

[Skybird]

Qur'an stuff
Oh please. There are equally disconcerting passages in the Old and New Testaments. I don't see the majority of Christians forbidding their women to speak in church (1Cor 14:34), why would you expect the majority of Muslims to crucify disbelievers?

...you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam.
Yep! It builds the support base for the real bad guys.
The term "Christianity" comes from "Christ". The teaching of the Christ is not covered in all bible, only in the the four Gospels - everything else in the old and new testament has nothing to do with Jesus. After Jesus came Paul and massively abused Jesus' heritage to make it a tool by which he ursurpated (sp?) his power and influence.

That is why I strictly separate "church" and "Christinity". The christ has not founded a church, nor is the church always the honest broker of the Christ's teachings. As I see it, most of the time it is not. It makes Jesus appear as a softie-salesman for marshmallows.

So, can you tell us then about "equally disconcerting passages" in the four gospels and especially in the preachings of Jesus? Has jesus called for whipping your wife, launching wars of aggression, and treat other people of different faiths in a discriminating, humiliating manner?

Or has Buddha, while we are at it?

;) The church is one thing. The Christian message often is something very different.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh please. There are equally disconcerting passages in the Old and New Testaments. I don't see the majority of Christians forbidding their women to speak in church (1Cor 14:34), why would you expect the majority of Muslims to crucify disbelievers?
Because they are - turn on the news.

By the way - the bible doesn't have equally disconcerting passages.

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird, I apoligize if I had offended you, I admit my tounge might have been a bit sharp, but you must understand, when you say that Islam is a dangerous religion in itself, I find that odd, for I have met maybe hundreds of Muslims in my lifetime, and not one of them ever went for my throat.

I do not deny that Muslim extremists exist, that would be ridiclious to deny such a fact, but you must understand that extremists make up the tiniest minority of Muslims, the tiniest tiniest minority. The problem is, these extremists are also the loudest. They don't speak with words or letters, but with bombs and weapons.

That's why this Islamophobia disgusts me, you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam. But 99.9% of Muslims are normal people, its that 0.1% that you should hate.

They are called to follow the Quran to be pure. This extremism is part of it.

The 9/11 hijackers were said by their neighbors to be the nicest people they have ever met - do not let this fool you.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

The 9/11 hijackers were said by their neighbors to be the nicest people they have ever met - do not let this fool you.

-S

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing...

[Enigma]

Also, beware of men in womens clothing.

[kiwi_2005]

Also, beware of men in womens clothing.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Also, beware of men in womens clothing.
Yeah! Freaks! :rotfl::rotfl:

Way to break up the seriousness of the thread! Always a joker...

[Skybird]

:damn:

:-j

[Letum]

Oh please. There are equally disconcerting passages in the Old and New Testaments. I don't see the majority of Christians forbidding their women to speak in church (1Cor 14:34), why would you expect the majority of Muslims to crucify disbelievers?
Because they are - turn on the news.

By the way - the bible doesn't have equally disconcerting passages.

Perhaps not for you, that does not surprise me.
However I personally find several passages of the bible equally disconcerting. (not in the 4 gospels btw, they are illogical, but not scary in the way the Torah, qu'ran and bible are.

[STEED]

Also, beware of men in womens clothing.

Don't look. :eek:

[SUBMAN1]

Perhaps not for you, that does not surprise me.
However I personally find several passages of the bible equally disconcerting. (not in the 4 gospels btw, they are illogical, but not scary in the way the Torah, qu'ran and bible are.
Please enlighten us. I do not know of a passage that requires me or anyone else to go out and kill Muslims if one were Christian. Need I repost the relevant passages from the Quran?

-S

[Skybird]

Found this one, and found it illustrative for the way Islam debates about itself with heavy bias, and opportunistaically switching on or off details that hinders it glorious self-perception. The author of this essay exemplary illustrates the reason why I say time and again you cannot understand why Islam is what it is if you do not refer and compare to it's history and Muhammad. The historically "real" history, and the "real" Muhammad.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/hassaballa_violence1.htm


INTRODUCTION

Since the 9/11 attacks and the continuing terrorism carried out by Muslims worldwide, Muslims living in the West have made considerable effort to portray Islam as a peaceful religion. They argue that the Muslim terrorists have "hijacked" Islam, i.e. that they are not behaving as true Muslims, and are committing acts condemned by Islamic teachings. They further state that the violent verses in the Quran are defensive and that the Quran needs to be understood in its proper context to in order to realize that Islam is truly a peaceful religion.

One such Muslim apologist is Hesham A. Hassaballa, regularly featured on Beliefnet. He wrote an article entitled, "What the Quran Really Says About Violence", which was published on Beliefnet on 23 August 2002: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/111/story_11172_1.html (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/111/story_11172_1.html)
After reading his article it was obvious that the readers won’t have a true understanding of what the Quran really says about violence. Instead they will only know Hassaballa’s opinion, an opinion that is unsupported by historical references and devoid of actual context. In fact, Hassaballa commits the very mistakes and errors that he accuses others of committing.

I am going to examine his article, break it down into a number of points, and discuss some of his errors. This article is long and I’ll have it posted as a series. I’ve taken the liberty to correct some of his spelling errors. My quotations of Hassaballa's work will be in blue color text, and quoted references will be in bold green text.

I challenge you, the reader, to search out the Islamic references that I quote. Do your own research and study, think for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you on such a crucial issue.

If Islam is indeed a religion of aggressive violence then all non-Muslim peoples have reason to be concerned.

As a prelude, pause, take a second, and have a look around the entire world. Wherever you have a critical mass of Muslims living in a non-Muslim area you have Islamic violence. Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, Christians in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Indonesia, animists in Sudan, Jews in Israel, atheists in France and Turkey, people in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, whites, blacks, browns, etc., have all been murdered by devout Muslims. Islamic terrorism is here on a worldwide scale and it does not discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, or religion. No non-Muslims have been spared from Muhammad’s sword, the sword of Islam.

UNDERSTANDING THE QURAN

The Quran says many things about many issues. Many verses are intended for specific people, specific events, specific periods of time, etc, and are not intended to be universally applied, nor are they universal declarations. If you want to understand the Quran you’ll have to know not only the context of the verse, but also its application, chronological setting, and "continued validity". Otherwise anyone can quote the Quran out of context to prove their point.

I used the term, "continued validity" because the Quran has a peculiar doctrine of self cancellation, or "abrogation". This means that certain Quranic verses cancel out, or abrogate, other Quranic verses. Many times over a simple 23 year period, Muhammad’s "Allah" changed His mind, and changed the rules of the game. Hence what Muhammad spoke in the 15th year as the Quran may have been cancelled out by what he spoke in the 21st year. Christians and Jews should not approach the study of the Quran as they do their own Scriptures because its theological paradigm is not the same.



The Encyclopedia of Islam states on abrogation:"Rather than attempting to explain away the inconsistencies in passages giving regulations for the Muslim community, Kuran scholars and jurists came to acknowledge the differences, while arguing that the latest verse on any subject "abrogated" all earlier verses that contradicted it. A classic example involves the Kuranic teaching or regulation on drinking wine, where V, 90, which has a strong statement against the practice, came to be interpreted as a prohibition, abrogating II, 219, and IV, 43, which appear to allow it". Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. [1]


Therefore in order to understand what the Quran really teaches about violence, one must know whether or not the verses in question have been abrogated. If they have been abrogated then their continued validity and application is null and void.

I want to examine and discuss not only the specific contexts of the Quran’s passages; I also want to show you Muhammad’s actions. Did Muhammad act in an aggressive, violent way against non-Muslims? I’m going to draw upon an incident near the end of Muhammad’s life that will show exactly which Quranic injunctions concerning violence he believed to be from Allah, and applicable, for himself and today’s Muslims. Remember, actions speak louder than words.


(...) (two pages) (...)


Conclusion

I have a criticism of Beliefnet. They have posted an inaccurate Muslim’s work as authentic teachings on Islam but they have not bothered to present the other side of the story. Why?
They have presented many pro and con articles on Christianity, even hosted a theological debate between a Christian, Ben Witherington, and non-Christian, Elaine Pagels. They’ve posted articles that criticize Christianity strongly. But Beliefnet remains silent when it comes to a simple article or discussion presenting the violent teachings of Islam. It chooses to allow its readers to wallow in the pit of ignorance.
Don’t depend on modern, Western Muslim writers, like Hassaballa, to tell you the truth: they hardly ever will. Rather, listen to the ex-Muslims who will tell you the truth:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm (http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm)
http://answering-islam.org/Testimonies/ (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Testimonies/index.html)
When the Muslim terrorists begin to car bomb and terrorize here in America, Steve Waldman and Deborah Caldwell will bear responsibility because as writers on Islam, they’ve allowed their political or personal prejudices, to keep them silent and not tell Americans about Islam’s dark side. They’ve fed America and the West the bread of deception, leavened with the yeast of credulity, and seasoned with oblivion. The Muslim terrorists are dedicated, devout, and daring. They are rooted in the Quran and Muhammad’s lifestyle. Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, is a poison in humanity’s soul.

[Letum]

Please enlighten us. I do not know of a passage that requires me or anyone else to go out and kill Muslims if one were Christian. Need I repost the relevant passages from the Quran?

-S

I can give you many old testament quotes that require the killing of people of different faiths.
Before you dismiss the old testament as being defunct for Christians or that it have different meanings, remember the words of Paul, John and Luke in the new testament:

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Now on to the old testament!
There are many more than I can copy and paste into one topic with out it becoming a meaningless wall of text, so I will be highly selective:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)


I can provide many more if you like!

[The Noob]

Also, beware of men in womens clothing.
And Pro-Gamers in noobs clothing... :arrgh!:

[Enigma]

As a die hard "West Wing" fan, this conversation of how we interpret various versions of the bible immediatly made me think of this classic scene from the show...
The scene finds the president stopping in on a White House gathering of radio talk personalities. As Bartlet struggles though a speech extolling the gabbers’ contributions to the airwaves, Bartlet is distracted by the sight of a Dr. Laura-like radio psychologist seated nearby.


President Josiah Bartlet (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000640/): I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946464/): I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000640/): Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946464/): 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000640/): Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[SUBMAN1]

I can provide many more if you like!

See that is where you are wrong. The Old Testament is more of a History lesson in relation to the New - only included as a historical reference for Christianity. The New Testament completely replaces the Old in every shape and form. You should know this, and your quotes you provided in the New Testament do not condone those older Jewish teachings. They are mearly provided as a way to see how things were.

Your quotes also provide no bearing on the subject. Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.

-S

[Letum]

As a die hard "West Wing" fan, this conversation of how we interpret various versions of the bible immediatly made me think of this classic scene from the show...
The scene finds the president stopping in on a White House gathering of radio talk personalities. As Bartlet struggles though a speech extolling the gabbers’ contributions to the airwaves, Bartlet is distracted by the sight of a Dr. Laura-like radio psychologist seated nearby.


President Josiah Bartlet (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000640/): I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

[.....}



hehe, thats funny. :D

It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not.
The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not.

The reason we have Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, but few christian religiously motivated terrorists, is not because the Qu'ran encourages murder more than Bible does. The reasons are cultural and political.

[SUBMAN1]

hehe, thats funny. :D

It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not. The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not.

The reason we have Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, but few christian religiously motivated terrorists, is not because the Qu'ran encourages murder more than Bible does. The reasons are cultural and political.

It does not. Please get your facts straight.

-S

[Letum]

See that is where you are wrong. The Old Testament is more of a History lesson in relation to the New. - only included as a historical reference for Christianity.
Where in the bible does it say that?
This is a personal interpretation of the bible.

"there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


The New Testament completely replaces the Old in every shape and form.
Not according to the bible:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)


You should know this, and your quotes you provided in the New Testament do not condone those older Jewish teachings. They are mearly provided as a way to see how things were.
They do not need to condone them at all! They fully support them!

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)




Your quotes also provide no bearing on the subject. Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.
My quotes where a reply to this quote:

Please enlighten us. I do not know of a passage that requires me or anyone else to go out and kill Muslims if one were Christian. Need I repost the relevant passages from the Quran?

In what way do bible passages about the killing of people who are of different religions not have a bearing on the subject?



Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.....?


*edit*

hehe, thats funny. :D
[...]
It does not. Please get your facts straight.
In what way does it not?

[SUBMAN1]

This is a personal interpretation of the bible.

Not at all. All of Christianity is based on the New Testament (only) - yet you challenge that belief.

Anyway, yes it is written that the old is just that - the old:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13

That's black and white enough for you? I'm sure you will say, some people still practice the old - you'd be right - the Jewish people still do.


In what way do bible passages about the killing of people who are of different religions not have a bearing on the subject?

When they don't talk about people killing people. Duh! :D



I'm not sure what you mean by this.....?

See below


*edit*

In what way does it not?

Because you quote the old, which is based on the Jewish religion, not Christianity to make your points.

[Letum]

This is a personal interpretation of the bible.
Not at all. All of Christianity is based on the New Testament (only) - yet you challenge that belief.
If this is not a personal interpretation of the bible then show me where it says this in the bible.



Anyway, yes it is written that the old is just that - the old:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13

That's black and white enough for you?

The New covenant is not the same as the new testement and the old covenant is not the same as the old testement.
They are totaly diffrent things!
A covenant is a agreement with god.

The old testement contains sevral covenants. (covenant of Lot, covenant of Noah, covenant of David, etc), but the old testement is not a covenant it's self. Therefore Hebrews 8:13 is irrelivent.

[SUBMAN1]

The New covenant is not the same as the new testement and the old covenant is not the same as the old testement.
They are totaly diffrent things!
A covenant is a agreement with god.

The old testement contains sevral covenants. (covenant of Lot, covenant of Noah, covenant of David, etc), but the old testement is not a covenant it's self. Therefore Hebrews 8:13 is irrelivent.

Thanks - you just showed us what you understand about Christianity.

-S

PS. A little clue - You're wrong! :D

[Letum]

The New covenant is not the same as the new testement [....]
Thanks - you just showed us what you understand about Christianity.

-S

PS. A little clue - You're wrong! :D


Are you sure?
In what way?

My refrances are my 14 years as a Christian in the Church of England and:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/what_is_covenant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=covenant&section=0&version=nas&showtools=1&language=en

[SUBMAN1]

Are you sure?
In what way?

My refrances are my 14 years as a Christian in the Church of England and:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/what_is_covenant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=covenant&section=0&version=nas&showtools=1&language=en


Allright - I am not sure I have the energy to get into this (can you tell I am avoiding it?) because I didn't sleep good last night, but lets start. I think churches sometimes say whatever they want if it can hold sway over you (hence the creation of more athiest because of this in my theory), but here is the nitty gritty first:


The Old Covenant has been Abolished and Replaced with the New Covenant
A further reading of the New Testament confirms the above interpretation. Dozens of passages throughout the books of the New Testament declare that the old covenant has been "taken away" and replaced with "a better covenant." The following are some examples:

Hebrews 10:9: …He took away the first covenant to establish the second. Hebrews 8:13: In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 7:18-19: A former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect; but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 8:6-7: Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better than the old covenant, since it is founded on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Hebrews 7:22: This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Hebrews 9:15: He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant…
Galatians 3:13: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.
Colossians 2:14: Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
2 Corinthians 3:5-6: …our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Romans 7:4-6: Therefore, you also have become dead to the law through Christ… Now that we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
John 1:17: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets reigned until the time of John: and since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man strives to go in.
From a review of the above verses, we see that the first covenant has been “taken away,” that it has “become obsolete,” that it has been “annulled,” and that it has “vanished away.” On the other hand, the new covenant is “a better covenant,” it is “much more excellent than the old,” and it provides a “better hope.”
Jesus Specifically Abolished and Broke Several Mosaic Laws
It has already been shown that Jesus abolished the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye:”

Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. Likewise, Jesus also abolished and broke several other Mosaic Laws. Provided below are several examples of instances where Jesus either spoke or acted against the Mosaic Law.
Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning the Gathering of Food on the Sabbath
In the Old Testament, the collection of food on the Sabbath is strictly forbidden:

Exodus 16:28-29: The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day. In the Gospel of Mark, however, Jesus and his disciples broke this Mosaic commandment. Challenged by the Pharisees, Jesus justified their actions:

Mark 2:23-27: One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" …And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning Divorce
The following is the Mosaic Law concerning divorce:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, if she then finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, let him then write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her, and send her out of the house. In the same sermon in which Jesus replaced the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye,” and using similar language, Jesus also replaced the old regulation of divorce with a new one:

Matthew 5-31-32: It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning the Taking of Oaths
The Mosaic Law permitted the taking of oaths, so long as no one broke his oath:

Numbers 30:1-2: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, "This is what the Lord has commanded. If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth." Directly after Jesus’ comments on divorce and before his comments on “eye for an eye,” Jesus replaced the Mosaic Law concerning the taking of oaths:

Matthew 5:33-37: Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn." But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Let what you say be simply "Yes" or "No"; anything more than this comes from evil. Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning Adultery
In the Gospel of John, Jesus was directly confronted by a situation in which the Mosaic Law required the stoning of an adulteress. Instead of following the Mosaic Law, Jesus acted in accordance with his new ethic of love:

John 8:3-11: The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" …Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." Conclusion
For all the faults of Moses and the laws of the old covenant, it must be remembered that they served as a preparation for the coming of Christ. In fact, Moses predicted the coming of Christ:

Acts 3:22: Moses said, “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to Him in whatever he tells you.” If we must “listen to Him in whatever he tells” us, we must examine once again what he has told us:
Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Under the old covenant, the proper response to an enemy was to return any injury done with equal physical retaliation, “eye for an eye.” Jesus, however, asserted that although in the past “eye for an eye” had been taught as a proper response to an enemy, his followers should “not resist an evil person.” Exactly how should Christians treat their enemies? This is the next issue which must be examined. Please read The New Testament Promotes the Absolute Love of Enemies.

[Skybird]

Leturm,

Let's put some of your quote a bit back into context:

John 10,33
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Puts it a little bit in perspective, I think.

Luke 16,17
14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. 16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Puts it a little bit into perspective, I think.

As is known by now, I only consider the Gospels to be the Christian thing in Christianity, and the rest pf the bible quotes for that reason I do not pay much attention to. It is of interest for historical reasons only.

Leturm, you cannot deny the fact that there existed no Christianity before Jesus ("the Christ") appeared. There was no "Christian religion" before, there were a number of cults that related to stories of the old testament and it's tradition, but the new testament did not exist. Also, what Paul and others put into the scripture by their own interpretation of Jesus - has no real authority concerning the teaching of Jesus. Call it Paul ism, or "Letter-ism" or whatever. But Paul was not Jesus, nor was anyone else.

And finally, you quoted it yourself:

"Matthew 5,17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil.
Here Jesus gave it all a very different meaning. He said that the old law is fulfilled, and fulfilling something means to bring it to a (fulfilled) END. Something new begins. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, or the prophets, or to carry on in that tradition, because abolishing as well as keeping a tradition means to grant it an authority that Jesus rejected with determination. And if you get a feeling for it, you realise that the new thing that began was that Jesus was transcending the old meaning of words like "God" and "Father", using the same old vocabulary - but in a totally new and different meaning. He moved beyond the old word-believing conception of belief and pointed at things beyond the original meaning for these words - but the word itself is not the goal he pointed at, where as before, it very much was. Before Jesus, you had a faith basing on personal cult around an idol ("God" as a separate being), after Jesus, you had a faith in the meaning of trust into the devine essence of existence that all existence is emvbedded into, embraced by, is caused and developed thorugh it. the "perosnal" quality, the idol, is no longer there, is transcended. This is the revolution, the glad tiding - the funeral of the old patriarchalic, tyrannic vulcan gods. If you read the gospels carefully, and not in a word-believing state of mind, you relaize that jesus very much was aware of the risk of being m isunderstood when putting things into words. But he had no other words availöable than those that formed the language of his time. - that is why both in Zen and in principle inchristian mystic as well a tradition is propagated that does not depend on words and scriptures. Both try to point at that you necessarily miss reality if you try to fix it in words. It's like trying to grab water, or focue on a single wave - but the river always is in flow, their is not a single wave ever staying in a constant form, shape, condition. nor solid forms - only movement.


„Man shall see God in all things, and shall accustom his soul to always see God in his soul, in his striving, and in his love. Take care of how you are turned towards God when you are in the church, or in your cabin: keep up the same mood and carry it amongst the crowd, the hustle and the dissimilarity. [...] In all your works you shall have a steady soul, and a steady confidence, and a steady love for God. If you were that serene, no one could hinder you to be aware of God’s presence at all times.“ (Meister Eckhart)[1] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=454369&posted=1#_ftn1)
(my faulty translation)



„The One Essence that could be known,

Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invisible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder




Is the gate to all understanding.” (Lao Tse)

(my translation from my new German interpretation)


You said: "It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not. The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not."

Can you show us please where Jesus gave orders and demanded thing like Muhammad did? I refer to the Islam-essay I had linked to above. Could you find equivalents in Jesus' (or Buddha's) teachings? where Muhammad ordered violence, wars of attack, raids, murder, and set up restriction only when he was "outgunned" (as the author put it), while lifting these restrictions again when being strong again - Jesus and Buddha not only did not authorised the use of these kinds of violence for the purpose of attack and enforced miss ionising - they also recommended to remain passive and non-violent even when becoming victim of aggression. Jesus even illustrated that by the example of his own life (and proclaimed death). Could you find that attitude in Islam scripture - anywhere? - You cannot.

If you have a sense of moral, as you defined it, you follow the teaching of Jesus. If you have a sense of morale, you violate the teaching of Muhammad, and abandon it. That simply is the essential, vital difference between Jesus and Buddha on the one side, and Al Capone and Muhammad on the other side.

What would you answer the author of that essay that I linked to? He referred to Islamic scripture and literature with far more expertise than I can call my own, and shows the many errors in the comments of that Muslim commentator he was taking on. Could you comment on his remarks and counter them - or do you pick the easy way and ignore them altogether?

Or would you like to try your luck with some apostates of Islam, that urges Westerners so desperately to ban their self-deceiving naivety and see the harsh face of it, a face that is hostile to all and everything that is not Islam itself? The essay links to according sites, and there are more around d the web. What do you answer those ex-Muslims that left that club under serious difficulties and threats for their lives? are they wrong in their criticism? You say Westwern reloigion and Islam compares, are two of a same kind, in a way. They urge you that exactly this is not true. Some of them risk their lifes for that conviction they found. I talked two Muslims into leaving islam, and it came at a heavy priuce for them, their families almost broke with them. I do not know what paths two other have choosen in whom I raised at least some serious doubt. these apostates are rsiking much. Do you have the nerve to tell them that they are wrong, and that you know Islam better than they themselves while they had to give it such painful considerations? they live under threats and getting cursed by their people - and you telling them Islam is not so harmful at all?

In Buddhism, you do not need to gain any club membership. In modern churches, the young human being born must be made a member of Christianity by a ritual, it is not automatically like that, and parents can even leave it to the kid to grow up and then decide itself what it wants to choose and follow. - In Islam, you are automatically being born as a Muslim if your father and mother are Muslim, and you are forbidden by death penalty to ever leave it. Your fate is sealed the moment you mom and dad laid down together. You are not getting asked, you have no choice - you get decided. that is humiliating, and degrading, and inhumane. It turns you effectively into a thing, without the right to decide yourself. A slave. Islam POSSESSES you. that (and it's absolute intolerance for all that is not Islam) is why I call it totalitarian . - By that ruling, Muhammad made sure that future generations still would follow his authority, and that every opposition to Muhammad could be brandmarked as heresy and thus getting burned out with sword and fire without people daring to ask questions.

I would really like to see what you have to say on the many, many examples the author of the essay above is giving. He is no blind fanatic, and obviously knows very well what he is talking about. I know some of the literature he lists at the end, at least by name, I know where to sort in some of the authors. This is far more competence on display than what I can show up with. Read it, and let us know your thoughts about it.

[Penelope_Grey]

See kids... this is why Mummy and Daddy don't want you studying RE in school! :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

See kids... this is why Mummy and Daddy don't want you studying RE in school! :rotfl:

Lost me? THis is just a misunderstanding is all. Why teach anything at that rate since some texts are much more complicated in school? I've seen some!

-S

[Penelope_Grey]

whoa... whoa whoa... as you US peeps say... time out! LOL I was just cracking a joke.:D

[Letum]

[....]

Arrrgh! Ive just spend the last 2.5+ hours researching and writing a reply and then I accidentally closed the Browser window. :damn:

I'll try and re-writing it when my moral is a bit higher.

[Skybird]

I know that too well! I feel with you, Letum. Two out of three times I leave it all alone in such cases. Sometimes the cosmos is mean to you. Mean and dirty. :lol:

[Skybird]

Just in... brandnew...

German court cites Quran in divorce case, using the couples Marrocan origin to base the sentence on Islamic law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473017,00.html


He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It's a religion thing, she argued. (...) "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"

This can't be true. I feel paralysed.

[Letum]

Just in... brandnew...

German court cites Quran in divorce case, using the couples Marrocan origin to base the sentence on Islamic law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473017,00.html


He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It's a religion thing, she argued. (...) "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"
This can't be true. I feel paralysed.


That's as mental as allowing a jew to stone someone to death because they worked on the sabbath! :doh:

Isn't Germany supposed to be secular?

[Skybird]

That's as mental as allowing a jew to stone someone to death because they worked on the sabbath! :doh:
Isn't Germany supposed to be secular?
Germans are idiots, and they are that with enthusiasm, due to their "eternally guilty"-complex. We believe we have an obligation to save all world and to pay for all world's sins and debts. WWII really has destroyed German culture, forever. We are no Germans today, we are carricatures of our former selfs.

Scratch "secular" from the books, that was the past, we now live in the 2007, and 2007 is "tolerant without limits", "tolerant as to outruling our own identity", "tolerant as to relativise all and everything until no scale and standard is left". I don't know what shocked me more - the news itself or the paragraph where they said that this is not the first time that foreign culture's laws overrule German laws at court. I did not know that.

This story is really a hit below the belt. More and more often I feel betrayed of living in Germany. Not because of the Nazi past, but because of the shameful present, and the ongoing deconstruction of European heritage I am forced to witness. Strange thing is - I never was a nationalistically feeling man. Must be this "Nibelungen-Treue"-thing... :dead: Or culturally induced melancholy.

[The Avon Lady]

Just in... brandnew...

German court cites Quran in divorce case, using the couples Marrocan origin to base the sentence on Islamic law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473017,00.html


He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It's a religion thing, she argued. (...) "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"

This can't be true. I feel paralysed.
Did you see this in any of the German papers?

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5817/10627431mb2.jpg
"Oh, it’s a custom from the old country?! Why didn’t you say so!"

:p
That's as mental as allowing a jew to stone someone to death because they worked on the sabbath!
I don't know what is "mental" about this. I also don't understand the comparison to the case in Germany.

I also think you're most likely very ignorant on the subject of both the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish capital laws.

[Skybird]

The judge has been withdrawn by higher authorities by now. Also, several private persons have instituted legal proceeedings on the ground of perversion of the ground of justice ("Rechtsbeugung") against that judge (a woman).

However, the ministre of justice (a woman) said that this is a unique case, and a first - which obviously is not true, as has been shown by many medias, and has been confirmed by several different concerned groups, and even politicans of all parties. How could a minstre of justice dare to lie so openly just to make it appear all harmless...

An interesting confrontation took place (a duel over the distance, so to speak), between the newly founded central commitee of Muslim apostates (!), confirming that Quran indeed allows the beating of women, while a speaker of the central committee of Muslims said Quran does not allow it.

Quran is very clear in words concerning even demanding the whipping of women if they do not obey their husband's will and are not at his service. No official voice dared to stand up against the obvious lie the central committee of Muslims was giving to the public. And they even released a "translation" of the passage in question that I almost did not recognize, that much it distorted and reformulated the text, that just to be sure I compared with several online versions of the Quran. It was a redefinition of Qurans course by almost 180°. Damn liers. Mind you, we speak of one and the same passage. I still wait for public protest, instead I had to witness first reactions by private persons, articulating their relief over the forged Quran passage that "obviously Quran is not that bad at all and even compares to Western laws, values and standards."

:dead:

[The Avon Lady]

Quran is very clear in words concerning even demanding the whipping of women if they do not obey their husband's will and are not at his service.
Abra Cadabra - problem gone (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2129015920070323?pageNumber=1). Poof! :roll:

Skybird, can you give us detailed information on Germany's ARD TV starting a new weekly(?) show "The Islamic World"?

[Skybird]

Quran is very clear in words concerning even demanding the whipping of women if they do not obey their husband's will and are not at his service.
Abra Cadabra - problem gone (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2129015920070323?pageNumber=1). Poof! :roll:

Skybird, can you give us detailed information on Germany's ARD TV starting a new weekly(?) show "The Islamic World"?
Haven't noticed that. Do you have a German title? I heared they plan a daily soap starring an integrated family or hero/heroine demonstrating the problems it/he/she has with German society, but I red that on the fly only. I am not in looking much TV, or study the program, what I see mostly is by random chance, or I have been told before. And daily soaps are a guarantee to keep me away anyhow.