View Full Version : Mosque invester gave money to terror group.BIG SHOCK!
Bubblehead1980
09-03-10, 02:06 PM
I am absolutely shocked:har:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/03/ground-zero-mosque-investor-contributed-designated-terror-group/
GoldenRivet
09-03-10, 02:50 PM
The Muslim religion is a cancer on the world :shifty:
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 02:52 PM
Every religion is.
The Third Man
09-03-10, 02:58 PM
The Muslim religion is a cancer on the world :shifty:
Islam is not a religion. It is a code of ethics for criminals, espoused by the criminal who is called Mohammed, to control his criminal exercise. it included the subservance of women, the tribute of lesser men, and the execution of non-believers in his absolute rule.
Have you seen The God Father?
AVGWarhawk
09-03-10, 03:05 PM
Every religion is.
Some are a bit more aggressive than others. :O:
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 03:07 PM
Now they are, but there is more than a fair share of blodshed in every religions history. Islam will reach that point some day in the future.
Platapus
09-03-10, 03:22 PM
"The donations came two years before the federal government shut down HLF and designated it a terror group."
Tribesman
09-03-10, 03:25 PM
I am absolutely shocked
Are you equally shocked that the US was giving money to the very same "charities"?
AVGWarhawk
09-03-10, 03:50 PM
Are you equally shocked that the US was giving money to the very same "charities"?
Yes, sometimes we are dumb like that. :DL
Skybird
09-03-10, 04:23 PM
the "Cordoba Initiative is known by the examining mind to have close ties and links to ultraorthodox jihadi and terror groups. I said that several times now, and provided link. so indeed - surprise here.
I assume the same peopple that ebfore argued that this mosque is just a bulding like any other, will see no porblem with this terror link. It remains to be a building like any other. :88)
Now they are, but there is more than a fair share of blodshed in every religions history.
Just that jewish and chrisatian mkissions of withc-hunting and inquisition and religious supression by war and torture are over since - how long was it?
Islam will reach that point some day in the future.Two questions.
1. What will be left of Islam, then? Jesus never taught inquisition, war and torture. Buddha didn't as well. But Muhammad did. A small but not unimportant difference.
2. What do we do until then? Submit, so that while we all become Muslim (the precondition for peace in islam's understanding), no need is there anymore to use force against us?
Yes, the West has seen it's share of barbarism and bloodshed. The imporant point is that we are beyiodn that, and that we have learned a bot from that, and that we now see that things like colonialism and inaqwuisition are evil. Islam still does not see that. So your agument is an attempt in vein to excuse it by relativising it, and arguing with a guilt-complex that the West in your opinion should have - instead of focussing on the violence commited today by Islam.
Tribesman
09-03-10, 04:25 PM
the "Cordoba Initiative is known by the examining mind
Examining mind:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 04:31 PM
The day I submit to religious nonsense is the day I shall commit suicide. But Islam needs to be treated equally to every other religion in the public sphere, no special treatment, just equality.
And again you fall back on the fallacy of speaking of islam as if it was a single entity, it is not, there are various forms of islam and various interpretations of it, the only way to ensure good will etc. is to trade with them as Lance has repeatedly stated, this is an area where I absolutely agree with him.
As to what will be left of islam by that point, why the same hollow shell that modern christianity is, some of their rites will differ, but that is about it.
The bottom line is, everyone has the right to belive what ever bull**** they want, in that respect islam is no different than christianity.
Edit: Freedom isnt really worth much if it is only available to some but closed to others, if free men have to die to keep it that way then that is the price we must pay.
Biggles
09-03-10, 04:41 PM
"The donations came two years before the federal government shut down HLF and designated it a terror group."
I guess noone noticed this then...or perhaps they choose not to...
I guess noone noticed this then...or perhaps they choose not to...
Platapus did.
But why let facts get in the way?
Skybird
09-03-10, 04:45 PM
The day I submit to religious nonsense is the day I shall commit suicide. But Islam needs to be treated equally to every other religion in the public sphere, no special treatment, just equality.
No equality for Nazis and Islam and scientoloigy and psycho-sects, Stalinists, etc. Sorry.
And again you fall back on the fallacy of speaking of islam as if it was a single entity, it is not, there are various forms of islam and various interpretations of it,
He who runs into a wall, rubs his head and denies there is a wall, cannot be helped.
the only way to ensure good will etc. is to trade with them as Lance has repeatedly stated, this is an area where I absolutely agree with him.
Good will towards totalitarianism - is not clever, no matter the cloathes it dresses itself in.
As to what will be left of islam by that point, why the same hollow shell that modern christianity is, some of their rites will differ, but that is about it.
And another poor soul thinking that Islam compares to Chrstian history. Sigh.
The bottom line is, everyone has the right to belive what ever bull**** they want, in that respect islam is no different than christianity.
If they do it inside their four walls, do not absue their chikldren to infest them while they still cannot resist, and do not hold slaves, fine. where they become part of a movement that chnages the world and the soiciety of the country and culture I live in, my tolerance comes to an abrupt end, immediately.
Edit: Freedom isnt really worth much if it is only available to some but closed to others, if free men have to die to keep it that way then that is the price we must pay.
And another obscure thimnker in the tradiiton of steve with whom I just went through all this (so I will not do it all again). Read my sig, and if you have a solution to it, let us know. Until then I rate you as a Mitläufer of those who want to destroy freedom, because if not by desire than by effect that is what you assist in.
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 04:48 PM
Fighting against windmills never did anyone any good, the threat you precieve is just that, a precieved threat.
Schroeder
09-03-10, 05:01 PM
Fighting against windmills never did anyone any good, the threat you precieve is just that, a precieved threat.
You shouldn't dismiss it that easily. I'm not sure how things look like in Estonia but in my town the Islamic presence has grown way stronger over the last 20 years. You can't get into the city anymore without bumping into dozens of Muslims (and it's a small city). A mosque has been build and we have a Mili Görüs "culture centre" (they are under surveillance by the constitution protection for tendencies to plan to overthrow the democratic constitution btw.). Islam is definitely not on it's way down in Germany and western Europe (ask the Dutch and British). I don't think that I will live to see the day that a centre European country turns into a Islamic state, but I fear for my grandchildren.
Stealth Hunter
09-03-10, 05:01 PM
Just that jewish and chrisatian mkissions of withc-hunting and inquisition and religious supression by war and torture are over since - how long was it?
Actually, there are still Christian witch hunters operating in the world, particularly in Africa and Asia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/five-suspected-witches-bu_n_170685.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24759141/
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100826083556ente.nb/topstory.html
http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/070716/recourse-rare-witch-hunt-victims-in-india
Fighting against windmills never did anyone any good, the threat you precieve is just that, a precieved threat.
Indeed. Of course, you're always going to have a horde of radicals out there dedicated to their own sentiments and beliefs- regardless of whether or not their beliefs are rational or for that matter factual. This is as universal a law as gravity- and it has no boundaries. It is not constrained just to one thing, but many things: religion, politics, the list is practically endless. It doesn't matter what side they're on, you can never reason with a radical.
Religion. The ROOT of ALL EViL!
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 05:05 PM
You shouldn't dismiss it that easily. I'm not sure how things look like in Estonia but in my town the Islamic presence has grown way stronger over the last 20 years. You can't get into the city anymore without bumping into dozens of Muslims (and it's a small city). A mosque has been build and we have a Mili Görüs "culture centre" (they are under surveillance by the constitution protection for tendencies to plan to overthrow the democratic constitution btw.). Islam is definitely not on it's way down in Germany and western Europe (ask the Dutch and British). I don't think that I will live to see the day that a centre European country turns into a Islamic state, but I fear for my grandchildren.
Imigrants dont come here because the weather sucks as much as our socieal welfare. Right now the Estonian muslim comunity is about 0.5% of the population and about 70-80% of people are non religious.
Stealth Hunter
09-03-10, 05:06 PM
Religion. The ROOT of ALL EViL!
George Carlin had it figured out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Some good principles, some bad principles, some sensible ideas, some absolutely bats*** insane ideas. Good and bad people following these principles and ideas (others not) all around.
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 05:08 PM
Mr. Connoly allso got the gist of religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY
Religion. The ROOT of ALL EViL!
Bugger off, If I do something evil its because I DID SOMETHING EVIL, not because Ares or Zeus told me to. You should be blaming the people doing the evil instead of the excuses the evildoers use to justify their evil.
People will always find reasons to burn others to death and getting rid of religion won't stop that, religion just happens to be an easy excuse beacuse no matter what religion you are you can always go ranting around like a lunatic stabbing people and screaming "JESUS/THOR/MUHAMMED/BUDDHA/CHARLES DARWIN/WHATEVER/ TOLD ME TO STAB YOU"
Stealth Hunter
09-03-10, 05:10 PM
Mr. Connoly allso got the gist of religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY
Billy's accent certainly inspires. He's like Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart. And yes, he is quite right too.
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 05:10 PM
Bugger off, If I do something evil its because I DID SOMETHING EVIL, not because Ares or Zeus told me to. You should be blaming the people doing the evil instead of the excuses the evildoers use to justify their evil.
I agree, but religion does provide a convenient excuse and a tool for ambitious men with which to controll masses. In the end the individual is responsible for his or her actions.
Bugger off, If I do something evil its because I DID SOMETHING EVIL, not because Ares or Zeus told me to. You should be blaming the people doing the evil instead of the excuses the evildoers use to justify their evil.
"Bugger Off" LOL :har:
809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Oftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides. Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two.
Stealth Hunter
09-03-10, 05:17 PM
"Bugger Off" LOL
809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Oftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides. Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two.
Pretty much this. Although Hitler was not an Atheist (a Catholic, actually, by his own practices with an interest in occultism) and did not start the Second World War because of religion. Anybody who would try to argue that is a complete ignoramus of world history. Open Wikipedia and find out how it began OR, better yet, watch a documentary where no reading is required. Stalin, as well, targeted people in his Great Purge who were dissidents- not because of his religious beliefs.
antikristuseke
09-03-10, 05:19 PM
Some people were targeted due to their ethnicity aswell under Stalins regime, my grandmother was one of them.
I didn't state Hitler started the war because of religion. I was comparing his war and Stalins genocides, to those killed in the name of religion.
Stealth Hunter
09-03-10, 05:26 PM
That, too. He was quite similar to Hitler, in that respect. The only real place they differed on was their racial ideologies, something which was never much of a concern to Stalin.
I didn't state Hitler started the war because of religion. I was comparing his war and Stalins genocides, to those killed in the name of religion.
I know... I was adding on to your post...
Tribesman
09-03-10, 06:09 PM
He who runs into a wall, rubs his head and denies there is a wall, cannot be helped.
He who cannot help posting lie after lie after lie and claims its the truth needs some serious treatment from a head doctor:yeah:
Castout
09-04-10, 02:28 AM
Every religion is.
nah but crook politicians are the cancer of society
but I guess that is what hell is for
809 million people have died in religious wars. two.
And how many of those wars were motivated by religion and religion alone?
I guess I get you though, in your eyes the surface reason given for killing someone is obviously the sole reason for the kill, thus if I go around killing people screaming "FOR FOX NEWS" I can get fox banned because people like you will show up and start protesting Fox for causing murder.
Maybe someone should go around killing people in the name of Glenn Beck, then we can finally get rid of him.
On a serious note, Religion or No religion I doubt it would of stopped us killing each other, we humans have been going at each other for a long time over thousands of reasons, hell, we've gone to war over a chick on at least one occasion. We don't need religion to kill each other, it just happens to be an easy excuse.
Zachstar
09-04-10, 04:07 AM
I am absolutely shocked:har:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/03/ground-zero-mosque-investor-contributed-designated-terror-group/
Nice way to NOT read the article and make a sensationalist headline.
He gave money to the group along with MANY other americans thinking they were donating to a charity. He is a victim of a con not a terrorist funder.
And of course your "Source" is Fox news. BIG SHOCK!
I must say that if in Israel a TV person was so biased and use HIS show for political reason he would lose his job in notime.
It is very funny show - FOX NEWS .
The blonds are nice.
thus if I go around killing people screaming "FOR FOX NEWS" I can get fox banned because people like you will show up and start protesting Fox for causing murder.
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard all week. :har:.
Bubblehead1980
09-04-10, 03:43 PM
Nice way to NOT read the article and make a sensationalist headline.
He gave money to the group along with MANY other americans thinking they were donating to a charity. He is a victim of a con not a terrorist funder.
And of course your "Source" is Fox news. BIG SHOCK!
Oh I read it and don't try to make this guy a victim, jesus tap dancing christ.
Ive never knowingly watched Fox news but I have heard many say that they are crap?
Im not calling this particular case into question - just generally speaking.
Are they well respected in the U.S?
Edit: Just googled them and the fourth suggestion down was: 'fox news bias' and that just the tip of the iceburg it would seem :(
Tribesman
09-04-10, 04:59 PM
Oh I read it and don't try to make this guy a victim, jesus tap dancing christ.
So you read it and just didn't think, what a surprise.
Raptor1
09-04-10, 05:16 PM
809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Where does this figure come from?
Tribesman
09-04-10, 05:29 PM
Where does this figure come from?
Its the one you pick from the place between 808 million and 810 million.
Platapus
09-04-10, 07:01 PM
Ive never knowingly watched Fox news but I have heard many say that they are crap?
Don't confuse Fox News with the commentators on Fox.
Fox News is no better nor worse than any of the other news stations. The commentators, however, represent an extremist viewpoint that is popular (and marketable) to their customer base.
mookiemookie
09-04-10, 07:42 PM
Oh dear...
News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner
So Fox News is being funded by terror dollars too? BIG SHOCK! (note to the dense: this is sarcasm. I really don't believe Fox is being funded by terror dollars, and I don't really think this story is the smoking gun indictment of Fox News. I'm just proving a point.)
It just goes to show you can prove an association with anyone if you want to "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" it enough. This is garbage.
Takeda Shingen
09-04-10, 07:48 PM
ZOMG FOX NEWS SUPPORTS TERRORISM!!!!!1!!111111!11!!oneoneoneone
EDIT: Not meant as a shot at mookie, rather a shot at the hysterics of the 'Obama is a closet muslim/foreigner/socialist/communist/fascist/serial rapist/child eater/cyborg/andriod/vampire' crowd.
mookiemookie
09-04-10, 08:20 PM
ZOMG FOX NEWS SUPPORTS TERRORISM!!!!!1!!111111!11!!oneoneoneone
EDIT: Not meant as a shot at mookie, rather a shot at the hysterics of the 'Obama is a closet muslim/foreigner/socialist/communist/fascist/serial rapist/child eater/cyborg/andriod/vampire' crowd.
I'd vote for a cyborg president.
Takeda Shingen
09-04-10, 08:21 PM
I'd vote for a cyborg president.
That would be pretty freaking awesome.
Zachstar
09-04-10, 11:02 PM
Oh dear...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner
So Fox News is being funded by terror dollars too? BIG SHOCK! (note to the dense: this is sarcasm. I really don't believe Fox is being funded by terror dollars, and I don't really think this story is the smoking gun indictment of Fox News. I'm just proving a point.)
It just goes to show you can prove an association with anyone if you want to "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" it enough. This is garbage.
And that is about that for this sensationalist and untrue topic. Walked right into that one 1980 maybe next time don't use Fox News and you MIGHT have better luck. Tho doubtful if you keep making topic headers look so wrongfully sensationalist.
Stealth Hunter
09-04-10, 11:05 PM
Where does this figure come from?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
Just to list off some of the historical events in the past with religious motivations or a heavy focus on religion that have resulted in the deaths of human beings:
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
Final tally: 809,215,732.
Raptor1
09-05-10, 03:18 AM
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
Just to list off some of the historical events in the past with religious motivations or a heavy focus on religion that have resulted in the deaths of human beings:
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
Final tally: 809,215,732.
Err...
First of all, plenty of these aren't wars. Secondly, most of these don't have reliable documentation, so the number can't be as exact as that. Thirdly, some of those which are wars aren't even religious wars to begin with.
---
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Aren't you listing the Crusades on the bottom of this list?
Algeria, 1992-
Fair enough.
Baha'is, 1848-54
Right, not a war.
Bosnia, 1992-95
Ethnic war.
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
You can almost pass this off as one, yet religion wasn't the main point of the Boxer Rebellion.
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Not a war and hardly documented.
Croatia, 1991-92
Ethnic war.
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
Err...fine, see Christian Romans.
English Civil War, 1642-46
While several of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms could be passed as religious wars, the English Civil War was the one which wasn't a religious war.
EDIT: Ah, right. The Third English Civil War might be counted a religious war too, but this list seems only to include only the First...
Holocaust, 1938-45
Really?
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
Yes, fair enough
India, 1992-2002
Don't know about that either.
India: Suttee & Thugs
What?
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Fair enough.
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iran is a country, not a religious war. Though it is true they executed some people in the name of religion.
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Alright.
Jews, 1348
Guess so, though not a war.
Jonestown, 1978
Alright, not a war.
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Fine.
Martyrs, generally
What?
Molucca Is., 1999-
Fine.
Mongolia, 1937-39
Communists suppressing religion, that does not count. Also, not a war.
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Barely. Not a war.
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
Not a war. Though the latter happened during the Russian Civil War, it was hardly a religious war.
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Not a war.
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
This was also a country, not a religious war.
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Fine.
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
I know not of this one.
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Not a war.
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Fair enough.
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
While this is one of the deadliest conflicts to have a claim to being a religious war, by the latter (And probably deadliest) half of the war Catholic France was fighting for the Protestants and the Protestant German states fought for the HRE, so it loses credibility. The main cause for most of the civilian casualties, the mercenaries, fought for both sides whether they were Protestant or Catholic.
Tudor England
Country, not a religious war. The Tudor dynasty executed plenty of people, hardly all of them for religious reasons.
Vietnam, 1800s
So there were religious killings, not a war.
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Not a war. Hardly well documented.
Xhosa, 1857
Curious event, but not a religious war.
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Mmmph, I'm assuming you mean the Umayyad invasions of Europe. Calling that a religious war would not be far fetched, but it's not exactly accurate either.
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Almost fair enough, this is mostly an ethnic conflict.
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Not a war, really. I guess some parts of it are.
Crusades, 1095-1291
Fine.
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
This could be passed as a religious war, but it wasn't really about religion.
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
I know not of this one either.
---
In fact, if I take the very highest estimates for the deadliest conflicts which could claim to be religious in history (Namely the Taiping Rebellion, the Thirty Years' War, the French Wars of Religion and the Crusades), the tally (48 million or so) would barely reach the low estimates for WWII. You can take this number and multiply it by 10 times and barely reach half this purported 809 million.
Skybird
09-05-10, 04:29 AM
The longest-lasting, most bloody religious conflict is missing in that list for some strange reason.
Islamic civil war
656 - present.
The various wars and conquests during the Islamic expansion along the African northern coast, the attacks on Europe, and the expansion at north-eastern dirction into persia and India also must be seen in the light of aggression motivated by and intended to spread religion. It is the most enduring, longest lasting history of a military conquest ever in human history. With partly changed weapons and partly different tactics this mission is going on today.
Tribesman
09-05-10, 09:07 AM
So if there is only one islam, always has been and always will be then what is this fictional civil war Sky refers to?
Unless of course it means that he is demonstrating that he was talking crap all along:up:
So if there is only one islam, always has been and always will be then what is this fictional civil war Sky refers to?
Unless of course it means that he is demonstrating that he was talking crap all along:up:
Who said their was one Islam?, thats a good one! :haha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_sects
It not a civil war no - but Yes muslims have killed more muslims than anyone else has.
Every relegion has many differents sects and yes, sometime they kill each other....
Northern Ireland anyone?
antikristuseke
09-05-10, 02:28 PM
Skybird regularly refers to islam as a singular entity in his rants.
Skybird
09-05-10, 03:01 PM
Skybird regularly refers to islam as a singular entity in his rants.
I am referring to the fact that whenever Islam raises challenges and demands to the West and complains about not being given the special rights it constantly demands and whenever it feels offended (which is constantly the the case), the islamic collective - the Ummah - for some strange reason always is standing united in either support for or absent counter-comment to such superioristic claims. The silence of so-called "moderate" Muslims right is the problem, becasue by its silence it allows, and opportunistically supports this processing. And that is why I hold them as respnoisble as so-called "radicals". By effect, there is no difference between both. Both cause the spreading of Islam, and the intimidation of others.
What else to expect if you have been indoctrinated since your early childhood to think in confomrity with Islam'S claim for general validity?
I also refer to the fact that the Quran and Sharia neither know nor leave room for the diversity that learning-resistant, western fools because they rate their own ideologically motivated dreaming over reality, constantly try to summon, and that the global behavior of the Ummah is in full correspondence with this.
What guys like you do is: self-hypnotising. Muhammad did not laid downt he fundemant of a multicultural society or a demicratic order with several different opinion camnps. He formed, and wanted, and enforced by intimidation and assassination, an order of totalitarian unity where the collective is all and the individual is nothing. Strength by enforced totalitarian unity - that simple it is, and the global reaction scheme of the Ummah shows that this indeed is the dominant guideline of Islam's attitude towards the rest of the world.
Stealth Hunter
09-05-10, 03:59 PM
First of all, plenty of these aren't wars.
historical events in the past with religious motivations or a heavy focus on religion that have resulted in the deaths of human beings
Secondly, most of these don't have reliable documentation, so the number can't be as exact as that.
Actually, his sources page points out where the information for each war originates from- citing multiple ones for individual aspects of these events. To quote a brief excerpt from one of them:
Albigensian Crusade (1208-49)
Rummel: 200,000 democides
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History: 1,000,000
Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History: 1,000,000 Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians slain
Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (1998): 1,000,000
Individual incidents:
PGtH: 20,000 massacred in Beziers.
Ellerbe:
Beziers: 20-100,000
St. Nazair: 12,000
Tolouse: 10,000
Newton: 20-100,000 massacred in Beziers.
Sumption, Albigensian Crusade (1978): <5,000 k. by Inquisition [ca. 1229-1279]
The numbers are very specific having been recorded for each individual incident; most of these events were well-documented by historians of the past and indeed the people who took part in them (in this case, see Raymond VII of Toulouse). As far as "reliable" sources go, define what a reliable source is to you and which ones you would prefer.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
Thirdly, some of those which are wars aren't even religious wars to begin with
Which is precisely why they are not cited as wars by myself nor him- but as events/conflicts where religion was either a heavy focus or a central theme.
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Aren't you listing the Crusades on the bottom of this list?
At the bottom in terms of numbers? This would hardly be at the bottom, if that were the case. A million Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians were tortured and killed.
Baha'is, 1848-54
Right, not a war.
Indeed. A religious massacre.
Persia (1848-54)
16 Dec. 1979 Washington Post: 20,000 Babis (Baha'is) massacred. (also http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babis)
Bosnia, 1992-95
Ethnic war.
Which was based on religion as well. If you really think the people of Lasva Valley were being targeted just because of their race, you really should look more into their religious beliefs (which were one of the main reasons why they were persecuted- as Wikipedia points out).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C5%A1va_Valley_ethnic_cleansing
The specific numbers for this come to be:
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95): 175 000
Total
U.S. State Dept.: 250,000 (Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996 [http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1996_hrp_report/bosniahe.html])
29 April 1999 AP: 250,000
Compton's Encyclopedia: 200,000
6 April 2002 Times [London]: 200,000, incl...
D. in siege of Sarajevo: 15,000
Massacred in Srebrenica: 8,000
MEDIAN: ca. 175,000
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights: more than 160,000 (Annual Report 1997 [http://www.ihf-hr.org/ar97bos.htm])
Dan Smith (The State of War and Peace Atlas 1997) uses the Bosnian War as the example of how difficult it is to estimate accurate death tolls, but in the end, he settles for 150,000.
B&J: >60,000
George Kenney, The Bosnia Calculation (NY Times Magazine, 23 April 1995): 25,000 to 60,000 ([http://suc.suc.org/politics/myth/articles/042395.George_Kenney.html])
Srebrenica
6 July 2000 LA Times:
4,700 bodies exhumed
Internat. Red Cross estimates total of 7,079 k.
Amal Masovic's B-H govt. commission: 8,400
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
You can almost pass this off as one, yet religion wasn't the main point of the Boxer Rebellion.
Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901): 115 000
Rummel:
War: 10,000
Democide: 105,000
TOTAL: 115,000
Hammond: In North China, 32,000 Chinese Christians killed, plus 200 missionaries.
Small & Singer, battle deaths:
China: 2000
Japan: 622
Russia: 302
UK: 34
France: 24
USA: 21
TOTAL: 3,003
32,000 Chinese Christians alone killed for their beliefs, along with 200 other missionaries (you might want to read up on why the German Empire asked for Tsingtao from the Qing Empire, on that final note).
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Not a war and hardly documented.
Since when is this limited to just wars? Nobody ever said these numbers were based off wars alone. At least, I never did. Anyway:
Christian Martyrs:
Gibbon Decline & Fall v2chXVI: < 2,000 k. under Roman persecution.
Ludwig Hertling ("Die Zahl de Märtyrer bis 313", 1944) estimated 100,000 Christians killed between 30 and 313 CE. (cited -- unfavorably -- by David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere, 1998)
Croatia, 1991-92
Ethnic war.
You might want to refresh your definition one what the term "ethnic" means, as well, before you try to drag that word up too much in the future.
An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_%28sociology%29) of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage), consisting of a common language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), a common culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture) (often including a shared religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)) and a tradition of common ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ancestry) (corresponding to a history of endogamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
But on, the final :
Croatia (1991-92)
War of Independence
3,000 (1994 Britannica Annual)
6,000 - 10,000 (SIPRI 1994)
25,000 (Our Times)
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
Err...fine, see Christian Romans.
Roman expediton against Gepids: 60,000
12,000 Roman POWs massacred
614 CE - Persian Shah Chosroes allows massacre of 90,000 Christians in Jerusalem
622-28 CE - War between Heraclius and Persians: 200,000 soldiers
514 CE - Religious War: "exterminated" 65,000 "fellow-Christians"
20,000 Sarmatians and 100,000 Roman subjects in Sarmatian War
Monophysite riot in Alexandria: 200,000 Christians k.
Volume Five:
32,000 Bulgarians k. in Thrace
Siege of Amorium: 70,000 Moslem and 30,000 Christians.
ca. 850 CE - 100,000 Paulicans executed by Empress Theodora
In Italy, k by Hungarians: 20,000 (to p.166)
Marcianopolis, or Peristhlaba: 8,500 Russians
Catholic Encyclopedia
"Jerusalem": >90,000 Christians died when city fell to Persians, 614 BCE
Notable Doctrinal Conflicts within Early Christianity
From Gibbon, above
Constantinople: Riot between Arians and Catholics: 3,150 trampled.
514 CE - Religious War: Rebellion of Vitalian "exterminated" 65,000 "fellow-Christians"
538 CE - 300,000 Catholics massacred by Arians in Milan
Monophysite riot in Alexandria: 200,000 Christians k.
ca. 850 CE - 100,000 Paulicans executed by Empress Theodora
TOTAL: 665,000
English Civil War, 1642-46
While several of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms could be passed as religious wars, the English Civil War was the one which wasn't a religious war.
Breaking the end numbers down:
Bishop's Wars: 1,000 killed
Ireland
Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars (1992)
Petty's 1672 estimate of dead in Ireland, covering 10/1641-10/1653:
Protestants d. by war, dis., malnu.: 112,000, incl. 37,000 massacred at outbreak.
Catholic d.: 504,000
Holocaust, 1938-45
Really?
Maybe you haven't opened a history book in a while, but the primary targets of the Holocaust were followers of Judaism... precisely because of their religious faith. Here are some of the differing figures on the total numbers killed:
Extermination of the Jews:
Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
Brzezinski: 5,000,000
Chirot: 5,100,000
3,000,000 in death camps.
1,300,000 massacred.
800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
Rummel: 5,291,000
Grenville: 5-6M
Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
P. Johnson: 5,800,000
Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
Urlanis: 6M
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
Yes, fair enough
What do you mean "fair enough"? It was a straight-out war over religion, French Catholics vs. French Calvinists and other Protestants.
France, Religious Wars, Catholic vs. Huguenot (1562-1598)
Robert J. Knecht The French Religious Wars, 1562-1598 (2000): Deaths during the wars estimated at 2M to 4M
India, 1992-2002
Don't know about that either.
Riots between Hindus and Muslims. A very common occurrence there. Numbers killed go anywhere in 1992 alone from 2,000 to 3,000.
1992 Ayodha mosque
2 March 2002 AP: 2,000
2 March 2002 Irish Times: >2,000 k.
1 March 2002 National Post: >3,000 (1992-93)
1993 Bombay: >800 (2 March 2002 AP; 4 April 2002 Montreal Gazette)
2002 Gujerat: >800 (4 April 2002 Montreal Gazette)
India: Suttee & Thugs
What?
See the Suttee and Thuggee cults.
Suttee (Sati) (from time immemorial to 1829)
Sakuntala Narasimhan, Sati: widow burning in India
7941 widows burned alive in the Bengal Presidency, 1815-28
According to Rammohun Roy, almost ten times more incidents in Bengal than elsewhere
ANALYSIS: This indicates that there were some 8735 (=1.1 x 7941) satis in all of India in 14 years, or around 62,400 in a century. Naturally, this should be adjusted for population changes, shifting religious traditions, etc., but it does point to a century total numbered in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands or mere thousands.
Thuggee (Thagi) (13th C. to ca. 1838)
13 Oct. 2001 Toronto Star: 1M people strangled. (Points out that some modern scholars doubt the full, legendary extent of the cult, perhaps even its existence. This debate has quashed the publication of a new book, The Wayfarers: Human Sacrifice Throughout Time And Around The World by Daniel Wood, which is too bad because you can never have too many children's books about human sacrifice.)
6 Jan. 2001 Birmingham Post: Worst known serial killer in history was Indian Thug Behram, who strangled at least 931 victims in the Uttar Pradesh district of India 1790-1840
Kevin Rushby (Children of Kali: Through India in Search of Bandits, the Thug Cult and the British Raj (2002)) considers the Thugs a myth.
14 May 2005 Daily Telegraph (London) review of Thug: the True Story of India's Murderous Cult by Mike Dash: "James [Sleeman] calculated that Thugs had killed 50,000 people a year for up to 700 years, Dash arrives at a more reasonable figure of perhaps 50,000 victims in total."
Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (1998)
British authorities est. 40,000 Thug-related homicides in 1812 alone.
4,500 Thugs convicted, and 110 executed, 1830-48
George Bruce, The Stranglers: The cult of Thuggee and its overthrow in British India (1968)
40,000 travellers died in India in 1812, "as indeed they had done every year that records had been kept."
Estimated 4-5,000 Thugs in India, early 19thC
Individual tallies
Thug Rumzam: 604 killings in 21 years
He led gangs of 30-40, and saw 80-90 murders/year
Thug Buhram: 931 killings in 40 years
One gang of 125 in 3 months of 1831 murdered 108 victims.
Another gang of 60 in 8 months of 1831 murdered 201 victims.
unnamed gang of 50 members in Jubbulpore Dist.
Thug Feringeea spent some time with one gang of 100, another gang of 150.
In one grove, randomly selected as a campsite by Capt. Sleeman, the Brits found 17 bodies from 3 different attacks.
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iran is a country, not a religious war.
I know... look who you're talking to... it a theocratic country where the aspects of religion run everything in daily life, from the clothes you're permitted to wear to the haircuts you can and cannot get.
Though it is true they executed some people in the name of religion.
To use the word "some" is blatantly dishonest. This is a country that will put you in prison if you're caught drinking alcohol- because of warped interpretations about the Qur'an. That's if you're lucky. These numbers, based off my own experiences, seem relatively accurate and within the correct range of the numbers imprisoned and killed for religious crimes.
26 June 2000 The Nation, review of Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions
In 1st 28 months, Revolutionary Tribunals executed 757
In 6 months after June 1981 Mojahedin uporising, the Revolutionary Tribunals executed 2,665 political prisoners. The executions totaled 7,943 by June 1985
Mass executions of 1988. "Former prisoners and opposition groups put the death toll between 5,000 and 6,000. Amnesty International estimates the total to be more than 2,500"
8,000 executed, 1979-80 (Timeframe, P.Johnson)
10,000 to 12,000 executed, 1984-88 (11 Dec. 1988, Toronto Star)
SIPRI 1988: 6,000 to 20,000 executed dissidents, 1979-87
Harff & Gurr: 10- 20,000 Mujahadeen, Kurds, Baha'is (1981-88)
28 Jan. 1983 Christian Science Monitor: 20,000 k. during "past 18 months"
Bulloch & Morris, The Gulf War (1989): Autumn 1988, executions following Mujahedin uprising:
Mujah. claim 12,000 k, but this may include battle deaths in July.
Amnesty Int.: at least 1,000
authors: "true figure" closer to 5,000
Ploughshares 2000: >10,000 k. in Mujahadeen conflict since 1979
21 June 1986 Washington Post cites the following
Amnesty International estimates 6,108 executions or more.
People's Mujaheddin of Iran accused regime of 50,000 executions
Rummel estimates 56,000 democides of all kinds, 1979-87
NOTE: Most of these numbers do not seem to overlap with the death tolls from the conflicts with the Kurds (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Kurdistan2) or Iraq (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Iran-Iraq).
Jonestown, 1978
Alright, not a war.
[B]Guyana, Jonestown (1978)
Mass suicide of the People's Temple
Crime Library: 913 [http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial4/jonestown/]
[quote=Raptor1]
Jews, 1348
Guess so, though not a war.
Nope. Scapegoats for the Black Death. The Jews and their "heathen" religion did it lol.
Trager, People's Chronology: 2,000 hanged in Strasbourg
Davies: 2,000 in Strasbourg; as many as 12,000 in Mainz
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 2,000 in Strasbourg; 6,000 in Mainz
Martyrs, generally
What?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm#Martyrs
They've either died in the name of their religion or because of their religion.
Mongolia, 1937-39
Communists suppressing religion, that does not count.
It does, actually. If religion was involved in any way in one of these events and was consequently a driving factor or one of primary factors, among others, that resulted in the deaths of humans, they are on this list.
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Barely. Not a war.
The Troubles was a conflict between the Protestant Unionists and the Catholic Nationalists. Deaths break down to be:
According to D.Smith:
1970-74: 1,132
1975-79: 850
1980-84: 415
1985-89: 363
1990-94: 400
TOTAL: 3,160
On 20 Jan. 1998, the New York Times gave the score as 3,235.
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
Not a war. Though the latter happened during the Russian Civil War, it was hardly a religious war.
Romanov Regime:
Tsar Nikolai: ~1,070,000 democides; including 75,000 Turks/Kurds massacred, 83,000 deportees (German/Turkish/Kurdish) dead; another 95,000 democides which occurred independently of WW1. Some 2,000 of these were killed in Jewish pogroms.
Eckhardt, civil conflicts in 1905-06:
Pogrom, Russians vs Jews: 2,000
Peasants & Workers vs Govt: 1,000
James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): Pogroms in Russia kill some 50,000 Jews by 1909 ("1905")
OnWar.com: Pogroms in Russia (1903) k. 50,000 Jews
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Not a war.
A religious massacre.
Encarta hedges its bets by giving the death toll as 2 to 100 thousand.
The 15th edition of Britannica (1992) does too: 2 to 70 thousand, although it explains that the low number comes from an unnamed "Catholic apologist", while the high number comes from a contemporary Huguenot, Duke de Sully
The 11th edition of Britannica (1911) was more certain: 50,000 in the whole of France
Davies: 2,000 in Paris
Catholic Encyclopedia: 2000 in Paris; 6000-8000 nationwide
Richard Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars 1559-1715: 3,000 k in Paris, 10,000 k in provinces.
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History: 10,000
Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 10,000 in Paris; 6,000 in Rouen; 100,000 nationwide.
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 5,000 k in Paris, 25,000-100,000 nationwide.
Rummel: 36,000 democides
Trager, People's Chronology: 50,000
MEDIAN: 3,000 in Paris; 36,000 nationwide
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
This was also a country, not a religious war.
China, Shang Dynasty (ca. 1750-1050 BCE)
July 2003 Nat. Geographic: 13,000 human sacrifices in last 250 years of rule (ca. 1300-1050 BCE)
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
I know not of this one.
India, Sikh uprising (1982-91)
SIPRI 1997: 16,000 (1983-89)
9 May 1993 Fort Worth Star-Telegram: 20,000
Clodfelter (massacre, Golden Temple, Amritsar, 1982)
Sikh militants: 492-780 k.
Indian soldiers: 84-220 k
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Not a war.
Just another series of religious killings.
Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.
An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
PGtH: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedländer)
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
Britannica: 2,000
Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 35,534 burned.
Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 32,000 burned
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 32,000 k. by burning; 20,226 k. before 1540
Wertham: 250,000
Rummel: 350,000 deaths overall.
MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torq.; 32,000 all told.
Punished by all means, not death.
Fox: 309,000
P. Johnson: 341,000
Motley: 114,401
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
While this is one of the deadliest conflicts to have a claim to being a religious war, by the latter (And probably deadliest) half of the war Catholic France was fighting for the Protestants and the Protestant German states fought for the HRE, so it loses credibility. The main cause for most of the civilian casualties, the mercenaries, fought for both sides whether they were Protestant or Catholic.
Regardless of who fought for who, the Thirty Years War, the Huguenot Rebellions in particular, were motivated over politics as much as they were religion (see the killings of Jesuits in Catholic Bavaria, In fact, on that note, it was the Treaty of Augsberg that resulted from the war which declared Lutheranism was to be officially recognized throughout Europe (but not Calvinism). Later, in addition to the aforementioned treaty, the Treaty of Westphalia allowed each individual state in the Holy Roman Empire to declare its own religion. It would be foolish to mistake the religious differences between these nations and states as a factor which did not fuel the fires of the war.
Population Loss
R.J. Rummel: 11.5M total deaths in the war (half democides)
Richard Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars 1559-1715: Empire was 7-8M fewer
C.V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War (1938): "The old legend that the population dropped from sixteen to four million people, rests on imagination: both figures are incorrect. The German Empire, including Alsace but excluding the Netherlands and Bohemia, probably numbered about twenty-one millions in 1618, and rather less than thirteen and a half millions in 1648. [A loss of 7½ million.] Certain authorities believe that the loss was less, but these are for the most part writers of a militaristic epoch, anxious to destroy the ugly scarecrow which throws so long a shadow over the glorious past."
Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003): Population of Germany went from 21M to13.5M. [a loss of 7.5M]
Geoffrey Parker, The Thirty Years War (1984): The population declined from 20M to 16 or 17M -- a loss of 3 or 4 million.
Colin McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History "Germany" (1978): Population inside modern borders of Germany, 2M fewer.
MEDIAN: Of the six estimates of the overall loss of population, the median is 7½M.
These numbers are not including military deaths:
Clodfelter: "one source" estimates 350,000 k. in battle
Urlanis
K. in Battle: 180,000
Military. Killed and died: 600,000
Levy, War in the Modern Great Power System: 2,071,000 battle d.
Tudor England
Country, not a religious war. The Tudor dynasty executed plenty of people, hardly all of them for religious reasons.
Who ever said it had to be all of them? If they were executed for religious reasons, they were victims of religious persecution- HENCE why they are included in the final tally.
Henry VIII (r.1509-47)
Lacey Baldwin Smith, Treason in Tudor England (1986): total of 308 "traitors" executed, 1532-40
Holinshed, Description of England: 72,000 "great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues" hung under Henry. Traitors and enemies of the state are implicitly excluded from this total. [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1577harrison-england.html#Chapter XVII]
NOTE: Although it's common to accuse Henry of 72,000 (http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl=en&q=%2272%2C000%22+%22henry+viii%22&btnG=Google+Search) executions, the description of his victims sometimes drifts from common criminals to Catholics (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=catholics+%2272%2C000%22+%22henry+viii%22&btnG=Google+Search), and the venue from nationwide to just Tyburn gallows (http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl=en&q=%2272%2C000%22+%22henry+viii%22+Tyburn&btnG=Google+Search) in London.
Rummel: 560 executions per year (i.e. ca. 21,840)
Mary I (r.1553-58)
Lacey Baldwin Smith: 132 traitors executed under Q M
Morgan, Oxford History of Britain: >287 Protestants after 2/1555, and "others died in prison."
Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603)
Lacey Baldwin Smith: 183 traitors executed under Q E
Catholic Encyclopedia: 189 Catholics executed + 32 Franciscans were starved to death = 221 [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm]
Vietnam, 1800s
So there were religious killings, not a war.
Religious wars, religious killings. Regardless of what you want to spin them as, fact is they were over religion and resulted in death.
Vietnam, Persecution of Christians (ca. 1832-1887)
LC [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/vntoc.html]: Punitive bombardment of Da Nang by French warships, 1847: ca.10,000 Vietnamese k.
GEM [http://www.pitt.edu/~ibcmod/gem/vietnamdata.htm] Christians executed 1848-60
25 European priests
3,000 Vietnamese priests
>30,000 Vietnamese Catholics
Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07765a.htm]
Killed 1857-62
40,000 Christians d. of ill-treatment, starvation, etc.
115 VN priests + 100 VN nuns
Christians killed, 1885, partial
E. Cochin China: 24,000
S. Cochin China: 8585 massacred in Quang-tri
S. Tong-king: 4799 executed + 1181 of hunger and misery
(1883-4): 400+
[Est. Total: >40,000]
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Not a war. Hardly well documented.
You'd be surprised what surviving documents from the witch craze in Europe have revealed over the years.
Witch Hunts (1400-1800)
Wertham: 20,000
Jenny Gibbons [http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a1.html] cites:
Levack: 60,000
Hutton: 40,000
Barstow: 100,000, "but her reasoning was flawed" (i.e. too high.)
Davies, Norman, Europe A History: 50,000
Rummel: 100,000
Bethancourt: The Killings of Witches, lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 and 500,000 people were killed as witches. [http://www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm?]
M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 9,000,000 burned for witchcraft.
5 Jan. 1999 Deutsche Presse-Agentur: review of Wolfgang Behringer's Hexen: Glaube - Verfolgung - Vermarktung:
estimates cited favorably
Thomas Brady: 40-50,000
Merry Wiesner: 50-100,000
Behringer, at lowest: 30,000
estimates cited unfavorably
Gottfried Christian Voigt (1740-1791) extrapolated from his section of Germany to calculate 9,442,994 witches killed throughout Europe. From this came the common estimate of 9M (http://www.google.com/search%3Fq=million+witches+burned&hl=en).
Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): 9M
Friederike Mueller-Reimerdes (1935): 9-10M
Erika Wisselinck: 6-13 Million
MEDIAN: Of the 15 estimate listed here, the median is 100,000. If we limit it to just the ten estimates that are cited favorably, the median falls between 50,000 and 60,000.
Note the median part in particular. The number killed is indisputably in the tens of thousands region- if not >100,000.
Xhosa, 1857
Curious event, but not a religious war.
South Africa, Xhosa self-destruction (1857)
LC: Following a prophecy, Xhosa sacrificed almost all of their cattle and grain. 40,000 starved to death as a result. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/zatoc.html]
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Mmmph, I'm assuming you mean the Umayyad invasions of Europe. Calling that a religious war would not be far fetched, but it's not exactly accurate either.
Thank heaven then I'm not calling it a religious war.
Arab Outbreak, et seq. (7th Century CE and beyond)
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5:
661 CE - Disputed succession to Caliphate: Ali lost 25,000; Moawiyah (Muawiya) lost 45,000
Conquest of Yemen: 1200 Moslems k. in 1st assault; 10,000 Infidels k. in 2nd
Battle of Cadesia: 7,500 Saracens
635 CE - Battle conquering Syria: 470 Arabs + 50,000 Romans k
636 CE - Battle of Yermuk: 4,030 Moslems buried
638 CE - 3,000 defenders k in siege of Allepo.
642 CE - Siege of Alexandria: 23,000 Saracens
Battle of Xeres, Spain: 16,000 Saracens
Siege of Constantinople: 30,000
838 CE - Siege of Amorium: 70,000 Moslem and 30,000 Christians.
Motassem sacrifices 200,000 lives
929 CE - Carmathian rebellion in Arabia: 20,000 pilgrims left to die in the desert; 30,000 put to the sword in Mecca.
First Turkish raid into East Roman Empire: 130,000 Christians
1076 CE - Atsiz the Carizmian conquers Jerusalem: 3,000 massacred
[TOTAL: 698,200 listed in these episodes here.]
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Almost fair enough, this is mostly an ethnic conflict.
Again, review what the word "ethnic" means before you start using it so much.
Israel has been almost continuously at war throughout its existence. Here's the tally:
Wars:
War of Independence, 1948
Singer:
Israel: 3,000
Egypt: 2,000
Syria: 1,000
Jordan: 1,000
Iraq: 500
Lebanon: 500
TOTAL: 8,000
Eckhardt: 8,000
B&J
Jewish military: 4,000
Jewish civilians: 2,000
8,000 Arabs
TOTAL: 14,000
WPA3
Israel: 6,000
Arabs: 15,000
TOTAL: 21,000
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("Israel MFA"): 6,373 Israelis KIA [http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00us0]
5 March 1991 AP
Israel: 6,200
Arabs: 2,000 regular soldiers + thousands irregulars
[MEDIAN TOTAL: 8,200]
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Not a war, really. I guess some parts of it are.
They're part of a Jihad. Do you know what a Jihad is? I guess not.
United States and elsewhere, jihadist terrorism (1993- )
1st World Trade Ctr Bombing (26 February 1993): 6 k. (Snopes [http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm])
Riyadh bomb (13 Nov. 1995): 5 Americans, 2 Indians k.; 4 suspects executed. (Snopes)
Khobar Towers (25 June 1996): 19 k (Snopes [http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm])
US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 7 Aug. 1998
18 May 2001 NY Times: 224 k.
Snopes: 224
23 Sept. 2001 St. Petersburg Times: 213 k. in Nairobi; 11 in Dar es Salaam
22 Dec. 2000 USA Today: 301 k., incl. 11 USAns
19 Dec. 1999 Newsday: 259 k.
USS Cole, Oct. 2000
17 US sailors k. + 2 bombers (Snopes, also Washington Post (7 July 2001))
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:
10 Jan. 2002 CBS [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/10/archive/main323918.shtml]
WTC, official NYC count: 2,893
AP
WTC: 2,794, incl. 2 jets
Pentagon: 184
Pennsylvania: 40
Total: 3,018, not incl. 19 hijackers on 4 planes
23 Aug. 2002 USA Today
WTC
NYC Police Dept: 2,823
NYC Medical Examiner: 2,819
Newday: 2,814
USA Today: 2,801
AP: 2,786
Elsewhere (not incl. hijackers)
Pentagon: 184
Pennsylvania: 40
29 Oct. 2003 NY Times: NYC officials trim 40 names off the list of dead in the WTC collapse. New total: 2,749-2,752
Bali bombing, 12 Oct. 2002
12 Oct. 2003 CNN: 202 k.
Madrid subway bombing, 11 March 2004
20 April 2004 CNN: 190
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
This could be passed as a religious war, but it wasn't really about religion.
To quote Wikipedia:
During the 16th century, Protestantism rapidly gained ground in northern Europe. Dutch Protestants, after initial repression, were tolerated by local authorities.[7] By the 1560s, the Protestant community had become a significant influence in the Netherlands, although it clearly formed a minority then.[8][9] In a society dependent on trade, freedom and tolerance were considered essential. Nevertheless, Charles V, and later Philip II, felt it was their duty to fight Protestantism,[4] which was considered a heresy by the Catholic Church. The harsh measures led to increasing grievances in the Netherlands, where the local governments had embarked on a course of peaceful coexistence. In the second half of the century, the situation escalated. Philip sent troops to crush the rebellion and make the Netherlands once more a Catholic region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt
Dutch Revolt (1566-1609)
Gibbon Decline & Fall v2: 100,000 executed under Charles V, in Netherlands
John Lothrop Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic (1855)
Alva boasted of 18,600 executions in Neth.
Sack of Antwerp (1576): 8,000 k
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910) [http://ebed.etf.cuni.cz/mirrors/ccel/ccel/s/schaff/history/2_ch02.htm#_edn54]
Dutch martyrs under the Duke of Alva: 50,000 (acc2 P. Sarpi) or 100,000 (acc2 Grotius)
Britannica, 11th ed. (1911) "Alva": Duke of Alva boasted of executing 18,000 persons in 6 years, not incl. k. battles and massacres.
Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (1977): 100,000 k. by Alva
Halley's Bible Handbook, 24th ed. (1965): 100,000 massacred under Charles V and Philip II
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
I know not of this one either.
Nigeria (1990- )
4 July 1991 Financial Times (London):
69 executed after failed coup.
800 killed in Bauchi in fighting, Moslem/Chr. ("April", 1991)
Dan Smith: 1,000 Ogonis killed in clashes with Andonis, 1993
Ploughshares 2000: 3,000 total in religious conflict, incl. 2,000 in 2000.
Religious riots in Kaduna, Feb. 2000: 2,000 k. (24 May 2000 AP)
Religious riots in Kano, May 2004: 500-600 (mostly Xians) k. (13 May 2004 Reuters)
Nigerian communal clashes: A govt. survey says that 53,787 killed 7 Sept. 2001-18 May 2004. (mostly Christian farmers vs. Muslim animal herders in the central Plateau state) (7 Oct. 2004 BBC)
In fact, if I take the very highest estimates for the deadliest conflicts which could claim to be religious in history (Namely the Taiping Rebellion, the Thirty Years' War, the French Wars of Religion and the Crusades), the tally (48 million or so) would barely reach the low estimates for WWII. You can take this number and multiply it by 10 times and barely reach half this purported 809 million.
Of course, you're not tallying up the numbers of all those who died as a result of religious events on the complete list with the specific numbers list- you're using the three deadliest out of a list of over two-dozen. When you do, the final tally comes up, again, to be at least 809,215,732 people killed for their religious beliefs or as a result of their religious beliefs in recorded history. This is not being modest and using the median figures available, that much is true. Even so, the numbers are still going to be in the hundreds of millions (I calculated, rounding to the nearest thousand, it is at least 612,617,000), regardless if I'm EXTRA generous and take the smallest figures available for each event and add them together AND exclude events where whether or not religious motivation was an important factor in question (in which case it is at least 114,572,000). This chap's website has got the numbers figured out. Deal with it.
Aramike
09-05-10, 04:31 PM
Wait, Stealth Hunter, are you suggesting that religion has been used a tool for political power? Shocking!!!
I mean, humans wouldn't have any reason whatsoever, without religion, to want to force others to follow different ideologies, surrender land/resources, etc, right?
[/sarcasm]
As an atheist I find it disturbing how ANTI-THEISTs always attempt to roots the problems throughout human history with religion, rather than attempting to understand the actual motivations behind those problems. Like anti-theists, I believe that God and the contructs around God (read: religion) are man-made and are certainly intended to serve a purpose. No doubt those purposes are often vile. However, only a fool would state that the world would have been more peaceful without religion.
Religious wars generally center around more than mere ideology. Land, resources, and subjugation are central themes for most every conflict throughout human history. It is naive and, quite frankly, simple-minded to believe that land, resources, and subjugation motivations wouldn't exist without religion. And, while religion is certainly used as moral justification for many conflicts, morality itself is a human construct so the point is moot.
The human condition is the cause of conflict - the fact is that, at the end of the day, we often want what others have.
So perhaps anti-theists, we should choose a new scapegoat. I vote for weapons. Should we list every conflict in which weapons were used as justification for why weapons are bad? Actually, I think that would be a better scapegoat than religions, because without weapons most conflicts throughout history would have been pointless.
Clearly there's a flaw in that logic - but no more than the blaming of religion.
Tribesman
09-05-10, 05:08 PM
Who said their was one Islam?, thats a good one!
Skybird obviously, there is only one islam and there always has been and it is the fundamentalist version which even though is a fairly recent occurance just happens to be the only one to ever existed.
So that civil war sky mentions cannot have happened as it cannot have been muslims fighting each other as there is only the one sort and they were not in existance back then even though they have always existed:yeah:
Skybird obviously, there is only one islam and there always has been and it is the fundamentalist version which even though is a fairly recent occurance just happens to be the only one to ever existed.
So that civil war sky mentions cannot have happened as it cannot have been muslims fighting each other as there is only the one sort and they were not in existance back then even though they have always existed:yeah:
lol!
Stealth Hunter
09-05-10, 05:38 PM
Wait, Stealth Hunter, are you suggesting that religion has been used a tool for political power?
Nope. Just pointing out some of the historical events surrounding it that have resulted in the deaths of humans. Nothing more, nothing less.
I mean, humans wouldn't have any reason whatsoever, without religion, to want to force others to follow different ideologies, surrender land/resources, etc, right?
Not really. Although what does this have to do with my original points?
As an atheist I find it disturbing how ANTI-THEISTs always attempt to roots the problems throughout human history with religion, rather than attempting to understand the actual motivations behind those problems. Like anti-theists, I believe that God and the contructs around God (read: religion) are man-made and are certainly intended to serve a purpose.
You're not an Atheist- if you believe that the concept of a supreme deity and religion are man-made. Atheism is a philosophical lack of belief entirely, not a belief in disbelief (or, for that matter, really a belief in anything). That being said, to say that anti-Theists "always" attempt to tie the problems civilizations have faced in history to religion is a grossly incorrect generalization. Regardless, it is an undeniable statement that religion has caused a lot of problems in history and has led to a lot of bad things.
No doubt those purposes are often vile.
Yep.
However, only a fool would state that the world would have been more peaceful without religion.
Thank the heavens then nobody here has stated this then. Although, you do have to admit, to all the people who have been victims of religious persecution, like Jean Delvaux and Elizabeth Clarke, the prospect of no religion certainly would not seem so bad.
Religious wars generally center around more than mere ideology.
Of course, we're not just discussing wars. We're discussing religious violence in history as a whole. From that all-encompassing perspective, ideological leanings play a far more significant role than they would otherwise be given credit for. Particularly in individual cases.
Land, resources, and subjugation are central themes for most every conflict throughout human history. It is naive and, quite frankly, simple-minded to believe that land, resources, and subjugation motivations wouldn't exist without religion.
Of course, it's far more sensible to argue and fight and kill over tangible things which can be used and have real value in this world than it is to argue and fight and kill over mythological nonsense which does not exist (at least not materially or in any fashion which affects us omnipotently- strictly ideologically). Such things as land and resources have real importance to our survival and progression as a species (they supply food, our raw materials for tools and such, etc.); it's the law of nature. There really isn't a necessary importance to religion. It's just one of those things that people get caught up in because they find prospects of it appealing. What prospects, exactly, vary, but otherwise there is very little difference to be had. What's so sickening about it is how many people have killed and have been killed and been persecuted in the name of something so extraordinary unimportant to our existence.
And, while religion is certainly used as moral justification for many conflicts, morality itself is a human construct so the point is moot. The human condition is the cause of conflict - the fact is that, at the end of the day, we often want what others have.
Morality at its core is a biological behavior that has been borne out of our species' evolutionary struggle for survival via working together with one another. It's an observable habit in nature between other species of organisms as well.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html#6
It's only when you start tacking rules and myths onto it like you do with religion that it becomes a human construct. When you start preaching these rules and myths, you will naturally convince people to believe in them. Do this long enough, you get fanatics. It's true with some things more than others- just as it's true some things are necessary to the continuation of our species and others are not (indeed, many of the other things actually being detrimental to our survival and making it trivial).
So perhaps anti-theists, we should choose a new scapegoat. I vote for weapons. Should we list every conflict in which weapons were used as justification for why weapons are bad? Actually, I think that would be a better scapegoat than religions, because without weapons most conflicts throughout history would have been pointless.
Clearly there's a flaw in that logic - but no more than the blaming of religion.
Yes, there is evident flaw in this logic- although there's more to be had there than there is in arguing against religion, the most prominent point being that weapons are tools which are necessary to our survival. Everything from guns to spears- we use them to defend ourselves, we use them to hunt, we use them to fight when the need arises, etc. Rather than argue against weapons because of their usage in conflicts, why not argue that we should try to avoid conflict as much as is possible because of the negative impacts each one inflicts on our species? But I digress.
Raptor1
09-05-10, 06:03 PM
Right, I'm not going to quote all of Stealth Hunter's previous post, so I'll just write my stuff in points:
Yes, he has sources, note that his sources vary considerably on several points depending on the estimate of who wrote them.
Many of the things he lists can go into other subjects. The list has the Albigensian Crusade and the Crusades, for example, the former of which was part of the latter.
'heavy focus'? Was somebody killed because of his religion or not? Sure, religion can play some role in almost every conflict, but taking a conflict between two sides of opposing religions and calling it a religious war regardless of what it was fought for is missing the point.
Ethnic wars. Yes, religion plays some part in them, but the point is that those wars were fought not specifically because the other people have a different faith from them, but because they have a different culture, ancestry, language and so forth.
The Bishop's Wars and the Irish Confederate Wars were both parts of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, but they were not specifically part of the First English Civil War. This is exactly what I said.
Perhaps you need to read your history books. Jews were killed in the Holocaust whether they were Judaists, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or whatever else. They were killed specifically because they were ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish.
Yes, fair enough, the French Wars of Religion were a real religious war, fought for real religious reasons.
Martyrs? How many of these overlap with other religious wars or conflicts, exactly?
Can't see your point. People were killed because they had a religion, not because the religion of somebody else told him to kill them (As such a religion does not exist). Their deaths were caused by religion, but it was not responsible for their deaths.
Perhaps the Tsar's regime killed a million people, but very few of them were because of religion.
Your point about the Thirty Years' War is moot. The German states had right to determine their own religion since the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. This right was repealed by the Edict of Restitution in 1629, which was subsequently repealed itself in the Peace of Prague in 1635. After this point, there was nothing religious about the Thirty Years' War. EDIT: Well, okay, that's not very accurate. There was some religious conflict after the Peace of Prague.
Regardless of the above, the vast majority of deaths in the Thirty Years' War were caused by rampaging mercenaries. People were not killed by them because of religion, but rather because the mercenaries were simply looting and killing for their own gain.
The final tally for the Tudors includes all executions, not only those which were accused of religion.
Yes, I'm aware of what a jihad is.
The Dutch Revolt had plenty of religious reasons, but it was ultimately not the point of the war.
My main points are these:
Factor said that 809 million people died as a result of religious wars, this is highly inaccurate.
I was using the deadliest conflicts and showed them to be nowhere near your tally even multiplied by 10 times because nothing comes close to them in terms of casualties.
I can't see these numbers addeing up to anywhere near 809 million, but I don't have time to add them all up now.
Aramike
09-05-10, 07:29 PM
You're not an Atheist- if you believe that the concept of a supreme deity and religion are man-made. Atheism is a philosophical lack of belief entirely, not a belief in disbelief (or, for that matter, really a belief in anything). We're not going to get very far if you either don't know or intend to pervert the definition of words in the English language.
Here's a link to Webster's definition of atheism. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
I'm pretty sure your definition isn't in the ballpark, and I'm especially certain that I am still an athiest.
...and yes, I still think religion and the concept of a supreme deity is man-made, as should ANY athiest (else where did it come from? A deity? Or was there just some magic rock that told us what religion was, and we went along with it?)
I'll address the rest of your points after you address your clear misunderstanding of the term "athiest" as if you'll just make up definitions for anything, it seems pointless to discuss it.
You're not an Atheist- if you believe that the concept of a supreme deity and religion are man-made.
Yes you are.
In my eyes your average Christian, Muslim, Jew etc is no a better or worse example of human being than your average Atheist.
You get problems when someone becomes an extreamist, doesnt matter what they are extreamist about (it can be literally anything)
They have been lead to believe in (X) and they have put all their faith into it to the point that they have tunnel vision and the objective part of their brain is closed for business.
Their arrogance exceeds unimaginable levels and they will be damned if they could possibly be wrong in anyway.
A very dangerous state of mind imho.
Aramike
09-05-10, 08:20 PM
Ethnic wars. Yes, religion plays some part in them, but the point is that those wars were fought not specifically because the other people have a different faith from them, but because they have a different culture, ancestry, language and so forth.Exactly. But the key point anti-theists like emphasise is always religion at the expense of any other causal factors. They, like Stealth Hunter, pursue this point with extreme dedication (I mean, dude - look at his posts). One could call such devotion "religious", ironically.
CaptainMattJ.
09-05-10, 08:52 PM
And how many of those wars were motivated by religion and religion alone?
I guess I get you though, in your eyes the surface reason given for killing someone is obviously the sole reason for the kill, thus if I go around killing people screaming "FOR FOX NEWS" I can get fox banned because people like you will show up and start protesting Fox for causing murder.
Maybe someone should go around killing people in the name of Glenn Beck, then we can finally get rid of him.
On a serious note, Religion or No religion I doubt it would of stopped us killing each other, we humans have been going at each other for a long time over thousands of reasons, hell, we've gone to war over a chick on at least one occasion. We don't need religion to kill each other, it just happens to be an easy excuse.
religion IS an excuse. it also brainwashes the weak. if you were a peasant working in the fields 2000 years ago, starving,sick diseased, tired, and owned by someone and someone told you theres going to be a nirvana when you die if you do this, i bet youd take it. ahell of alot of religious freaks today are religious because of tradition and their parents own brainwashing.
REligion has to be the most retarded thing mans ever created. the only good that EVER comes from it is hope, which considering all the other crap that comes with religion, isnt all that great.
Especially any1 praying at a sports game? its bad enough Theyre praying to their roof, But Even if God was real, you think hed Give a FLYING F**K about a touchdown when people are getting raped,murdered, stabbed, cheated on, starving and famine, and diseased. what a nightmare.
Aramike
09-05-10, 11:01 PM
REligion has to be the most retarded thing mans ever created. the only good that EVER comes from it is hope, which considering all the other crap that comes with religion, isnt all that great.Comments like that come pretty close, but not suprising from a typical anti-theist with a religous devotion to the concept.
Religion, like any other social construct of man has both its flaws and great strengths. According to you, all religion provides positively is hope. Are you intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand what you're talking about?
Religion gives those who ascribe to it the concept that they are accountable to an authority beyond that of man. Should that authority be just and benign, this is a good thing. It is when that authority is evil, totalitarian, and/or intolerant that it becomes a bad thing.
Now, that authority (read: deity) like any other authority is represented by men. ANY authority is a human construct, be it the President of the United States or the Pope (of course, the latter is my belief and I respect those who believe that the Pope represents God). As such, that authority, like any authority, is going to be bonded to human failings. (We'll also leave the fact that the concept of authority itself is consistant throughout civilization to a different discussion).
Ergo, as all authority is by men, those authorities which are "bad" are man, just as well as those which are "good". The common denominator is man. Anti-theists such as yourself tend to acknowledge all of the "bad" authorities associated with religion while sweeping aside all of the "good" authorities as irrelevent.
Ultimately though, you tend to belong to a group which follows what I would consider "bad" authority, albeit not driven by any deity - that is what I call "generalized intolerance". You've seen the harm that religion has done and have therefore declared that all religion must be bad. You've marginalized any who ascribe to such beliefs as "retarded" despite what those beliefs may have led to each individual doing.
And, all along, you've never actually thought it through - while the Crusades, for instance, were waged in Christ's name, you've never bothered to educate yourself and understand that the man that was Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, would never have wanted such a thing.
So, in other words, you've decided to believe those who would pervert the source rather than the source itself. What's "retarded" again?
TLAM Strike
09-05-10, 11:26 PM
That would be pretty freaking awesome. I second that! :salute:
Religion. The ROOT of ALL EViL! Except for Evil Science! :rock: Which is after all the most awesome form of both Evil and Science possible.
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3963/nazisuperscienceu.jpg
Skybird
09-06-10, 02:50 AM
Religion can claim the demand that it must convert the other.
This can be for two reasons:
1. a leading hierarchy of powerful people claims this although the relgious doctrine does not support such claims. Example: Jesus' teachings -> christian missionisng in South and middle america, and the secondary meaning of the crusades (which originally primarily were an attempt to conquer back what was lost to Islamic land-taking in palestine - later they degenerated to the purely political-financial carving for wealth indeed. Jesus hardly would have authporised any crusade alltogether, as aramike said. so even the first crusades were politically ambitioned, though n still not as infested with personall glory-hunting as later ones).
2. a given ideology already includes in its teaching that it must take over the world (and bring peace to it by eliminating all differences). Example: Islam.
Religion can claim the demand that it must convert the other.
Yeah? and the same goes for politics, it happens every election - in every democracy. are they not trying to convert people to get their vote?
Remember the cold war? - the U.S did everything in its power to establish a pro capitalist govenment in any country with a weak regime, espcially if like Vietnam it was on the brink of setting up a communist govenment.
Likewise the U.S.S.R was pulling simliar stunts to spread soviet communism, (while west tried to contain it.)
And dont even get me started on British and European Colonianism.
So many seem to point the finger at Islam for making a bid for a systematic world take over, convieniently forgetting that infact Islam is doing very little on the scale of 'enforcing systems and beliefs' compared to what Western governments & Soveriegnty have done in the past.
As for Muslims tollerance of non-muslims, the scale is huge.
Some want to embrace other cultures and some want to change them. But you simply cannot say that 'Islam want to accomplish X, Y and Z', just as you cant say 'the Americans want to accomplish X, Y and Z - you are talking about millions of very different inderviduals with perhaps only one thing in common.
I am a 'liberal' but to I always get along with and tolerate ALL other liberals? Absolutley not.
On top of that holy books like the Bible, Quaran etc, are 90% open to 'interpretation' everyone just selectivly interprets what they want to (including Skybird)
So is it not a bit hypocrital to be demonising relegion alone as the root of all evil? (as if no-one has ever been killed in the name of money for example)
People will always force ideals and start wars with or without it.
No system is perfect.
Tribesman
09-06-10, 03:56 AM
2. a given ideology already includes in its teaching that it must take over the world (and bring peace to it by eliminating all differences). Example: Islam.
Thats the international communism isn't it.:doh:
However if it was Islam how does that equate with the provisions for freedom of religion which obviously cannot exist as that would be a difference if it was more than one religion which was allowed.
Blimey if the had to allow differences like other religions then that would mean they would have to set up a special tax system for those that were outside the church tax, and since clearly in the one true translation into german there is nothing like that in their religious texts or Sky would know about it.:rotfl2:
Konovalov
09-06-10, 06:20 AM
Indeed Tribesman. :yep: And what supports this? Let's see.
Surah 11, Ayah 118
If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind One People, but elected not to.
Surah 49, Ayah 13
O mankind! We created You from a single (pair) Of a male and female, And made you into Nations and tribes, that Ye may know each other (so that we can learn from one another) Not that ye may despise each other.
Surah 2, Ayah 256
Let there be no compulsion In religion. (Compulsion is incompatible with religion as religion depends on faith and will and such things would be meaningless if induced by force).
Surah 109, Ayah 6
To you be your way, And to me mine.
Ciao. :)
krashkart
09-06-10, 09:58 AM
Interesting passages. :yep::)
Yeah? and the same goes for politics, it happens every election - in every democracy. are they not trying to convert people to get their vote?
.
At least you have choice.
Remember the cold war? - the U.S did everything in its power to establish a pro capitalist govenment in any country with a weak regime, espcially if like Vietnam it was on the brink of setting up a communist govenment.
Likewise the U.S.S.R was pulling simliar stunts to spread soviet communism, (while west tried to contain it.)
And dont even get me started on British and European Colonianism.
.
Thanx USA for fighting commies and natzis - the guys just with diffrent point of view.
If America did not fight them im not sure you would not even know what Internet is-to write the above.
British Colonialism is a past -why is that ?
So many seem to point the finger at Islam for making a bid for a systematic world take over, convieniently forgetting that infact Islam is doing very little on the scale of 'enforcing systems and beliefs' compared to what Western governments & Soveriegnty have done in the past.
.
In the past...should we go back to this times?
As for Muslims tollerance of non-muslims, the scale is huge.
Some want to embrace other cultures and some want to change them. But you simply cannot say that 'Islam want to accomplish X, Y and Z', just as you cant say 'the Americans want to accomplish X, Y and Z - you are talking about millions of very different inderviduals with perhaps only one thing in common.
.
If you have one billion people and lets say only 10% are trouble makers you have nothing to worry about you say.
On top of that holy books like the Bible, Quaran etc, are 90% open to 'interpretation' everyone just selectivly interprets what they want to (including Skybird)
.
Thats true to some degree as much as its good thing it can be bad as we all know.
Question is which side is the most noisy and influential.
Extremist are usually much more active while tolerant or moderate people just go about they own lives or debate .
So is it not a bit hypocrital to be demonising relegion alone as the root of all evil? (as if no-one has ever been killed in the name of money for example)
People will always force ideals and start wars with or without it.
No system is perfect.
No system is perfect but current one is the least evil.
I think who ever came up with the mosque on Ground Zero knew exactly what it will cause.
Konovalov
09-06-10, 11:47 AM
the mosque on Ground Zero
It's two blocks away and not on the site of the former WTC buildings now called Ground Zero.
At least you have choice.
When was the last time a relegious fantatic put a gun to head and forced you to convert? 99.9% of preachers will try to teach those who are willing to be taught, but it is still 'your choice' if you want to convert or not.
If the intention of Terrorism is a means to try and convert someone forcefully - Well that sure works, because Islam is now so massively popular in the USA post 9/11 <insert scarcasm>
People cannot be 'bombed' in to submission, it only causes them to become more angry, hateful, intolerant and yet more resiliant than ever.
Look at WW2, look at Israel, Northern Ireland etc. It does not work and it never has.
Hence why the coalition forces in Iraq and Afganistan, have being trying to win the war using the 'hearts and minds' tactic - because it is something that can actually work.
Thanx USA for fighting commies and natzis - the guys just with diffrent point of view.
If America did not fight them im not sure you would not even know what Internet is-to write the above.
British Colonialism is a past -why is that ?
For WW2 I thanks to the USA AND Russia for fighting the nazis.
For the Cold war, I say thanks to the USA and Russia for not fighting each other, (other wise we would not be here at all.)
I am not saying that the USA / EU / captialists are bad or evil, I am mearly pointing out that they/we stick our noses where it they not wanted and mess with peoples affairs out of our own self intreast - just as relegious groups have done.
British colonialism is a past at the request of the USA (for Britain to give it up before they joined the war against Hitler)
And I am glad they did, the USA were RIGHT to use that on many levels. I dont know exactly what the U.S intentions were behind it, but IMHO it was for the best.
Of course the USA has done many good deeds as a nation, just not all of the time obviously, nobody can be perfect.
In the past...should we go back to this times?
Do you mean? should we convieniently forget/discard the less glamourous parts of our history so that we dont upset ourselves?
I suppose we can if we want, but its still 'denial'.
If you have one billion people and lets say only 10% are trouble makers you have nothing to worry about you say.
No, Im saying it is wrong to assume that other 90% are guilty until proven innocent based on the actions of the 10%.
Thats true to some degree as much as its good thing it can be bad as we all know.
Question is which side is the most noisy and influential.
Extremist are usually much more active while tolerant or moderate people just go about they own lives or debate .
Sure, that i can agree with.
No system is perfect but current one is the least evil.
What Capitalsim? the one that exploits the third world for cheap labour and produces the most waste & polution?
Now, I am a capitalist myself and there are many thing I love about it :) -but im just being objective here. My point being that its always debatable as to who is the lesser evil...
I think who ever came up with the mosque on Ground Zero knew exactly what it will cause.
Not so sure, remember that its not proposed to be on ground zero (the actual footprint of the WTC complex) it is going to be two blocks away.
Nobody cared about the mosque that was housed inside the WTC complex prior to its destruction - including the terrorists for that matter. :shifty:
Skybird
09-06-10, 01:57 PM
Yeah? and the same goes for politics, it happens every election - in every democracy. are they not trying to convert people to get their vote?
Remember the cold war? - the U.S did everything in its power to establish a pro capitalist govenment in any country with a weak regime, espcially if like Vietnam it was on the brink of setting up a
communist govenment.
Likewise the U.S.S.R was pulling simliar stunts to spread soviet communism, (while west tried to contain it.)
And dont even get me started on British and European Colonianism.
So many seem to point the finger at Islam for making a bid for a systematic world take over, convieniently forgetting that infact Islam is doing very little on the scale of 'enforcing systems and beliefs'
compared to what Western governments & Soveriegnty have done in the past.
As for Muslims tollerance of non-muslims, the scale is huge.
Some want to embrace other cultures and some want to change them. But you simply cannot say that 'Islam want to accomplish X, Y and Z', just as you cant say 'the Americans want to accomplish
X, Y and Z - you are talking about millions of very different inderviduals with perhaps only one thing in common.
I am a 'liberal' but to I always get along with and tolerate ALL other liberals? Absolutley not.
On top of that holy books like the Bible, Quaran etc, are 90% open to 'interpretation' everyone just selectivly interprets what they want to (including Skybird)
So is it not a bit hypocrital to be demonising relegion alone as the root of all evil? (as if no-one has ever been killed in the name of money for example)
People will always force ideals and start wars with or without it.
No system is perfect.
1. The totalitarian system of the Nazis is neither ennobled nor minimised in terror by poining at the totalitarian system that Stalin has established.
2. The inclusion of a explicit call for subjugation of others and manipulation of the own group does not compare to the same thing being done somewhere else but in explicit legal and/or ethical
abuse of laws and morals standards who are against this. In the first case, immorality and intolerance are a collective duty of a society. In the second case, it is a crime.
3. An evil that is present today does not get relativised by hinting out that a comparable evil has been done by others in the past.
Surah 11, Ayah 118
If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind One People, but elected not to.
Surah 49, Ayah 13
O mankind! We created You from a single (pair) Of a male and female, And made you into Nations and tribes, that Ye may know each other (so that we can learn from one another) Not that ye may
despise each other.
Surah 2, Ayah 256
Let there be no compulsion In religion. (Compulsion is incompatible with religion as religion depends on faith and will and such things would be meaningless if induced by force).
Surah 109, Ayah 6
To you be your way, And to me mine.
Let's have a quote war, then. I save myself some time and just copy material from TheReligionOfPeace.com. I accept that because I have read same comments in other sources, books, as well, and see them as valid. for you it would not make a difference anyway, jnom matter what my source is - you have decided to ignore contradictions, opposing quotes and context, mand instead are detemrined to take the context-free individual senetmce as literal as possible. And that is a big mistake. But for that you you will not care either.
The oft-quoted Qur’anic verse “let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256)
002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
takes a serious beating against the reality of Muhammad’s later years. The prophet of Islam had no real power when this seemingly tolerant passage was “revealed”. Things were much different, however, by the time the ninth Sura was recited, which explicitly calls for forcing others into prayer and paying the jizya (9:29).
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Examples from Muhammad’s life prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not opposed to forcible conversions and even ordered them once he had the military authority to do so,
Continuing the story of Abu Sufyan (see Myth: Muhammad always Chose Peace over War), when the Meccan leader visited the Muslim army camp in 630 in an attempt to convince Muhammad not to make war, he was chased into their prophet's presence at the point of a sword. There he was “invited” to embrace Islam:
[Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq 814)
No word of admonishment from Muhammad is recorded. The prophet of Islam fully accepted the “conversion” and immediately made use of Abu Sufyan to further his political goals. (Abu Sufyan and his progeny had the last laugh, however, as they went on to inherit the Muslim empire and murder the prophet's favorite grandchildren... but that is a different story).
After he had conquered Mecca, Muhammad began ordering the executions of those who had insulted him or apostatized. One of these was his former scribe, Abdullah bin Sa’d, who transcribed Muhammad's “revelations” from Allah, but lost his faith in the "prophet" when the latter adopted editing changes that he suggested (Allah’s word was supposed to be unalterable). Abdullah saved himself by reverting back to Islam in Muhammad’s presence at Mecca as the prophet of Islam waited for someone to strike off his head:
The apostle remained silent for a long time til finally he said ‘yes.’ When Uthman [and Abdullah] had left, he said to his companions who were sitting around him, “I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!” One of the Ansar said, “Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of Allah?” He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing. (Ibn Ishaq 819).
Several poets were murdered by Muhammad at Mecca for the crime of having mocked him. Another such poet, named Ka’b bin Zuhayr, saved his own skin by converting to Islam after finding no other way to avoid execution. (Ibn Ishaq 888-889).
The Hadith also records that many other Meccans converted to Islam under obvious duress. As one apprehensive observer noted to Muhammad at the time:
(They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). (Sahih Muslim 4453)
These sorts of conversions were fully recognized by Muhammad, as proven by this hadith, in which he rebukes a soldier for killing a person who had "converted" merely to save his life:
Allah's Apostle sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them. I and an Ansari man followed a man from among them and when we took him over, he said, "La ilaha illal-Lah." On hearing that, the Ansari man stopped, but I killed him by stabbing him with my spear. When we returned, the Prophet came to know about that and he said, "O Usama! Did you kill him after he had said "La ilaha ilal-Lah?" I said, "But he said so only to save himself." The Prophet kept on repeating that so often that I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day. (Bukhari 59:568)
(Note that Muhammad was not in the least bit concerned that the victims were slaughtered while fleeing the Muslim army. This is another strike against the myth that Muslims are only supposed to fight in self-defense).
By this time Muhammad was spreading Islam by any means necessary. He was even using captured wealth to buy loyalty:
Allah's Apostle gave (gifts) to some people to the exclusion of some others. The latter seemed to be displeased by that. The Prophet said, "I give to some people, lest they should deviate from True Faith” (Bukhari 53:373).
Muhammad actually captured a man’s wife and children, then used them as leverage to force his conversion:
The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq 879)
Islam was being cheapened. It was no longer a religion, but rather a political allegiance established by force. Muhammad sent one of his men to Yemen with a military force, where a local pagan leader was told, “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." (Bukhari 59:643)
Neither was there any heartfelt religious conviction in the reluctant “conversion” of the Thaqif tribe, for example:
[The Thaqif leaders said to one another] “We are in an impasse. You have seen how the affair of this man [Muhammad] has progressed. All the Arabs have accepted Islam and you lack the power to fight them… don’t you see that your herds are not safe; none of you can go out without being cut off.” (Ibn Ishaq 915)
Their solution was to “accept Islam,” and so they sent their couriers to Muhammad to announce their conversion, ask for a promise that they would no longer by harassed by the Muslims, and request a grace period before they had to 'give up' their old religion:
The riders of Thaqif had come to make their submission and accept Islam on the apostle’s conditions provided that they could get a document guaranteeing their people and their land and animals… Among the things they asked the apostle was that they should be allowed to retain their idol al-Lat undestroyed for three years. The apostle refused, and they continued to ask him for a year or two and he refused… (Ibn Ishaq 916)
Obviously the Thaqif were not acting out of a true belief in Islam, but rather from the desperation in which non-Muslims Arabs were finding themselves in the wake of Muslim aggression. Muhammad had the power and he was directing his armies to wipe out those who would not submit to Islam.
“Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah,” were his instructions to one of his military leaders (Ibn Ishaq 992). Muhammad also congratulated a faraway king on accepting Islam and “killing the polytheists” under his reign, even as he directed another military leader to “invite” a neighboring tribe to Islam and then slaughter them if they refused:
Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. (Ibn Ishaq 959)
Khalid’s famous announcement, “If you accept Islam then you will be safe,” is echoed by Jihadists like Osama bin Laden to this day.
---
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if
they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down.
Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but
if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. See below.
Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion" This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of
conversion to Islam.
Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." The key phrase is to fight
until "religion be only for Allah."
Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..." The
last part is the Shahada, or profession of faith in Islam.
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold
yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from
them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
Bukhari (8:387) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla
and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"
Bukhari (53:392) - "While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will
be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise
you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's
Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning
(accounts) will be done by Allah."
Bukhari (60:40) - "...:And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." 'Affliction' of Muslims is explicitly defined here being a condition in which others
worship a different god other than Allah. Muslims are commanded to use violence to 'rectify' the situation.
Bukhari (59:643) - "Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!" Words of a military leader that Muhammad sent on an expedition with the mission
of destroying a local religion in Yemen.
Ibn Ishaq 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it
from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be
safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. The text goes on to say that Khalid taught the al-Harith about Islam after their "conversion," proving that it was based on fear of slaughter
rather than a free and intelligent decision.
Following his flirtation with preaching relative peace and tolerance at Mecca - a 13-year disaster that netted less than 100 followers - mostly friends and family - Muhammad changed tactics during the last ten years. Once he obtained the power to do so, he began forcing others to accept his claims about himself or be put to death. In many places in the Hadith, he tells his followers that he has been commanded by Allah to fight unbelievers until they spoke the Shahada (profession of faith in Islam).
During these later years, Muhammad did not seem at all bothered by conversions that were made under obvious duress. This included that of his sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. According to Muslim historians, when he went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was ordered instead to embrace Islam. The exact words spoken to him in Muhammad's presence were, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head" - Ibn Ishaq 814). He did.
The entire city of Mecca followed suit, even though the residents and leaders detested Muhammad. Nearly all of them "converted" to Islam the day that he marched through their city with an army so dominant that little resistance was offered. Only the most credulous of Muslims would believe that the city's religious epiphany just happened to coincide with the sword at their necks.
Meccans who would not change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city following that last Haj (Quran 9:5). The Christians and Jews living in Arabia at the time suffered the same fate on Muhammad's order (after his death). The choice was given to them to either accept Islam or leave their land at the point of a sword (Sahih Muslim 19:4366).
The Jews at Khaybar were not at war with Muhammad when he ordered his warriors to attack them. Even his faithful son-in-law, Ali, whom he chose to head the mission was somewhat perplexed as to the pretext on which they were to assault this peaceful farming community so far away from Medina:
Muhammad said: 'Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory', and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger' (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)
The Jews were caught entirely be surprise, of course. Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves by the prophet of Islam to his men. Muhammad even took a woman for himself (after ordering the death of her husband).
Before he died, Muhammad sent his warriors against pagan Arab tribes, such as the al-Harith, demanding that they either convert to Islam or be wiped out (naturally, they opted for the Religion of Peace). On his deathbed, he cursed Christians and Jews (Bukhari (8:427)).
Muslims are taught to follow in the way of Muhammad. A Muslim under the reign of Umar put it this way "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute)" Bukhari (53:386). Down through the centuries Muslims have forced Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans and others to accept Islam, either by bluntly offering them death as an alternative, or by making their lives so miserable (ie. taxes, denial of rights...) that the conquered convert to Islam under the strain.
Forced conversions persist among extremists. Recently in Egypt, a Christian girl was kidnapped and told that she would be raped if she did not convert. In 2010, an 11-year-old Christian boy in Pakistan was kept enslaved in chains (1, 2) by his Muslim landlord, who proudly told the world that he would liberate the lad if he embraced Islam.
Neither of these examples of attempted forced conversion was condemned by Islamic organizations, even in the West. From the Muslim perspective, the victim in each case still technically retains the choice as to convert or not. In fact, some might even laud the Pakistani slave-owner for being magnanimous in offering freedom and debt relief to his subject for embracing Islam.
Since Muslims believe so sincerely that their religion is truth, they often can't help but feel, on some level, that forced conversion is more of a favor done to the subject - a case of the end justifying the means.
It is also important to note the critical role that jizya plays in Islamic conversion. Paying a "tax" to Muslims is the only avenue of escape for those who don't want to leave their religion, according to the Qur'an. This answers the question of why Muhammad, his companions, and subsequent Muslim armies didn't force everyone to convert to Islam.
As Muhammad realized with the Jews of Khaybar, who were allowed to keep their farming community provided they directed the profits of their labor to him, it was often more lucrative to leave local economies in place rather than killing every male who wouldn't convert. This became the loose rule for the Muslim armies that swept across Christian, Jewish, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist lands in the decades that followed. The money that was collected was then used to further Islamic expansion.
As Muhammad put it: "My sustenance is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya" (another translation: "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.") The hadith has been quoted by al-Qaeda and is found in the original version of Bukhari and Ahmad (5114 or 4869, depending on the translation).
Another point to keep in mind is the distinction between speaking and believing. Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they say they believe in Allah (or pay the Jizya), but there seems to be a tacit understanding that belief itself can't be forced (ie. "there is no compulsion in religion"). Nevertheless, once a subjugated individual outwardly converts to Islam under the strain of taxes and discrimination, they are not allowed to recant upon penalty of death. Their children must also be raised Muslim. And, if they aren't, then it is a sign of apostasy - subject to death.
This is how Islam managed to spread so successfully within conquered populations to ratios in the high 90th percentiles over native religion.
It is interesting to note that Muhammad's later practice of ordering people to profess their belief in him proved disastrous both for his own family and the legacy of his religion. By the time of his death, his empire included a great many people and tribes who had accepted his rule merely to avoid war and slavery. Many of them wanted out after he died, and several wars were immediately fought, resulting in thousands of deaths and cementing Islam's legacy of violent intolerance.
Incredibly, even Muhammad's sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan may have gotten the last laugh. So ambitious was the prophet of Islam that he accepted his former foe's outward profession of allegiance (at the point of a sword) in order to expand his empire. Yet, it was Abu Sufyan's own children who ultimately benefited - at the expense of Muhammad's.
Abu Sufyan's son, Muawiyah, inherited the empire after defeating Muhammad's adopted son, Ali. He also poisoned Hasan, one of the prophet's two favorite grandsons. Abu Sufyan's grandson, Yazid, became the next caliph and promptly had the head of Muhammad's other favorite grandson, Hussein, brought to him on a platter.
Such are the perils of forcing others to say that you are a prophet, when they prefer to believe otherwise.
----
Skybird
09-06-10, 02:06 PM
And for German readers, from one of the best books on Islam available today (Raddatz: "Von Gott zu Allah"; first book of a trilogy whose other titles are "Von Allah zum Terror", "Der Schleier des Islam")
In den vergangenen drei Jahrzehnten hat
sich eine Sonderform der Kommunikation gebildet, die
sich "Dialog mit dem Islam" nennt. Spezialisten der
Kirchen, Politik, Universitäten, Wirtschaft sowie
zahlreichen anderen Instituten finden hier ein stabiles
Auskommen. Einzige Voraussetzung für garantierten
Erfolg war bisher das unbeirrte Festhalten an einigen
wenigen Dogmen: "Der Islam ist tolerant -
Fundamentalismus ist nicht Islam - Islam bedeutet
Frieden". Dabei wird behauptet, dass es "den Islam"
auf Grund seiner Vielfalt eigentlich nicht gebe, "der
Islam" dennoch geradezu monolithisch tolerant sei.
Als die durch Osama bin Ladens
Selbstmord-Terroristen gekaperten Flugzeuge in die
Türme des World Trade Center einschlugen und
Tausende Unschuldiger unter sich begruben, schienen
die Ideen des Friedens und der Toleranz für einen
Moment aus dem Gleichgewicht geraten zu sein.
Nur wenige Tage nach dem 11. September bildete
sich eine Solidaritätsfront für den islamistischen
Zentralrat der Muslime, der den bislang favorisierten
Islamistenkader der Milli Görüsh ablöste und nicht
wenigen die Frage aufdrängte, wie auf diese Weise
eigentlich die Mehrheitsinteressen der "gemäßigten
Muslime" zu Wort kommen sollten. Bundespräsident
Johannes Rau, Innenminister Otto Schily, Kardinal Karl
Lehmann, EKD-Präses Manfred Kock, sogar Paul
Spiegel, der Zentralratspräsident der Juden in
Deutschland, und viele andere rückten entschlossen
zusammen und erneuerten das Dialog-Credo lauter als
je zuvor: Kanzler Schröder brachte dieses Credo auf
einen knappen Nenner: "Die Anschläge haben - das
wissen wir - nichts, aber auch gar nichts mit Religion
zu tun."
Wirklich nicht? Wichtigste Vertreter des Islam
scheinen da ganz anderer Meinung zu sein. Abgesehen
davon, dass schon im Jahre 1996 die Religionsbehörde
von Medina den Dialog mit Nichtmuslimen mit
Glaubensabfall gleichsetzte, stellte M. Tantawi,
Präsident der Azhar-Universität in Kairo, nach dem
Anschlag fest, dass auch Fundamentalisten als
Angehörige des Islam gälten, weil sie fest auf dem
Boden des Koran stünden. Zudem bestätigte Scheich
Qaradhawi, Rechtsautorität am Golf, dass der
Selbstmord im Einsatz für den Islam als
verdienstvolles Verhalten einzustufen sei, das zum
direkten Übergang ins Paradies berechtige. Der Kampf
für die Interessen und die Ausbreitung des Islam
(Dschihad) gehöre zu den vornehmsten Pflichten des
Gläubigen, weil er einen Dienst an der Gemeinschaft
darstelle, dem sich kein gläubiger Muslim entziehen
könne. Mit den Wahrnehmungen des Dialogs von
Frieden und Toleranz haben diese Feststellungen
wenig zu tun.
Wie ist dann die erkennbare Kluft zwischen
islamischer Wirklichkeit und dialogischer Wunschwelt
zu deuten? Welcher Art von Vernunft folgen die
Vertreter eines Dialogs, der offensichtlich so wenig
Kenntnis vom realen Kontext und Selbstbild der
Muslime nehmen will?
Ein Beispiel für die hier immer wieder zu
beobachtende Vorgehensweise betrifft die Begründung
für die zentrale Dialogfiktion der islamischen Toleranz.
In monotoner Wiederholung werden hier im
Wesentlichen drei Aspekte herangezogen:
1. Im Kalifat von Cordoba sei eine kulturelle
Hochblüte im Zusammenleben von Muslimen, Christen
und Juden erreicht worden.
2. Der Schutzvertrag für die christlich/jüdischen
Minderheiten (Dhimma) habe diesen Toleranz und
Eigenständigkeit gesichert.
3. Allein der koranische Satz, nach dem es "keinen
Zwang im Glauben" gebe (2/256), bestätige
unzweifelhaft die Glaubensfreiheit und Toleranz im
Islam.
Aussage 1 trifft in dem Sinne zu, dass einige wenige
der andalusischen Kalifen - vornehmlich im
10. Jahrhundert - als tolerant gelten können,
allerdings die "Tradition" der Christenverfolgung nur
entsprechend kurzfristig unterbrochen haben, die
durch die nachfolgenden Almohaden aus Nordafrika
umso brutaler aufgegriffen wurde.
Aussage 2 trifft in dem Sinne zu, dass Christen und
Juden als "Schriftbesitzer" eine Sonderbehandlung
erfahren, indem sie nicht wie die Heiden sofort zu
töten sind. Dies hinderte in der Geschichte nicht an
zahlreichen Benachteiligungen und Repressalien,
welche die Angehörigen beider
Glaubensgemeinschaften drastisch reduzierten und
sich bis in unsere Tage mit regelrechten Massakern an
Christen in Sudan, Nigeria und Indonesien fortsetzten.
Aussage 3 trifft in dem Sinne zu, dass "kein Zwang
im Glauben" eine Aussage des Koran ist und daher nur
für Muslime gilt, die ihren Glauben den Regeln
entsprechend, das heißt "uneingeschränkt", ausüben.
Wer allerdings seinen Glauben verlassen will, riskiert im
Islam sein Leben.
Der Kampf für die Ausbreitung des Islam gehört
zu den vornehmsten Pflichten des Gläubigen, weil
er einen Dienst an der Gemeinschaft darstellt.
Das Auffallende an dieser Art von "Argumentation"
ist die willkürliche Auswahl der "Beweise" und ihre
fehlende Verbindung mit der realen Geschichte sowie -
und dies ist entscheidend - mit dem Selbstverständnis
der Muslime. Diese leben aus ihrer Geschichte, die
immer auch Heilsgeschichte ist. Der Koran und sein
Verkünder Muhammad, das Wort Allahs und der durch
ihn geforderte Dschihad, der Kampf gegen die
Ungläubigen, sind ihnen unmittelbar gegenwärtig und
vom Propheten selbst vorgelebt worden. Nicht zuletzt
hatte dieser in den 20er-Jahren des 7. Jahrhunderts
unbequeme Kritiker durch Auftragsmörder beseitigen
und in einem beispiellosen Massenmord zwischen
700 und 900 Juden in Medina umbringen lassen. Da
der Koran das unveränderbare Gesetz und Muhammad
das unübersteigbare Vorbild der Muslime ist, bildet der
Dschihad in diesem konkreten Sinne auch heute, wie
Scheich Qaradhawi und viele seiner Kollegen weltweit
nicht müde werden zu bestätigen, die unausweichliche
Pflicht eines jeden Gläubigen.
Gerade diesen für die Diskussion in der deutschen
Gesellschaft wesentlichen Aspekt blenden die
führenden Dialogvertreter gezielt aus. Unlängst ließ die
"Fachstelle Dialog" der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
an alle Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestages eine
Darstellung über "Islam und Gewalt" verteilen, in der
ein weiterer Stereotyp des Dialogs noch einmal
ausführlich wiederholt wird. Es handelt sich hier um die
seit Jahrzehnten tief eingeschliffene Floskel, derzufolge
der Dschihad eine "Anstrengung im Glauben" darstelle,
womit allerdings - insbesondere in den Augen der
Muslime - die Grenzen zum Absurden überschritten
werden.
Nach den Koran-Kommentaren und der Tradition
des Propheten (Hadith) bedeutet Dschihad in
allererster Linie der Kampf gegen die Ungläubigen und
damit für die Ausbreitung des Islam. Der Löwenanteil
der Aussagen ruft zu Aggression und zum Teil zur
Tötung der Nichtmuslime auf und behandelt vor allem
Fragen der Beuteverteilung. Zur weiteren
Verschleierung der Tatsachen zieht der Dialog die
Unterscheidung zwischen dem "großen" und dem
"kleinen" Dschihad heran, wobei Ersterer sich auf den
islamisch-mystischen Sprachgebrauch im Sinne einer
Anstrengung um die "Läuterung der Seele" bezieht.
Letzterer bedeutet den eigentlichen Kampf, der in
unserer Zeit außer Gebrauch gekommen sein und im
Grunde keine Rolle mehr spielen soll.
Es ist an der Zeit, die Kompetenz des Dialogs und
der deutschen Islampolitik insgesamt einer
genaueren Prüfung zu unterziehen.
Hier ist interessant zu wissen, dass auch Sayyid
Qutb, der von Nasser im Jahre 1956 hingerichtete
Radikalmuslim und Vorbildgestalt der radikalen
Muslimbruderschaft, den "großen Dschihad" durchaus
kennt und ihn als Läuterung der Seele im Sinne einer
notwendigen, inneren Vorbereitung auf den
kompromisslosen Kampf gegen die Ungläubigen
fordert. Interessant ist dabei, dass es diese
Muslimbrüder sind, die nun von den gesellschaftlich
Verantwortlichen hofiert und gefördert werden. Denn
nach dem Islamistenkader der türkischen
Milli-Görüsh-Gemeinschaft ist es jetzt der "Zentralrat
der Muslime in Deutschland", der sich der besonderen
Gunst des deutschen Islamdialogs erfreut. Dabei ist zu
berücksichtigen, dass die islamischen Organisationen
in Deutschland weniger als ein Prozent aller in
Deutschland lebenden Muslime vertreten. Der
Zentralrat steht unter Leitung von Nadim Elias, dem
nicht nur die Mitgliedschaft bei den Muslimbrüdern
nachgesagt wird, sondern der auch Vorsitzender der
saudisch finanzierten Bilal-Moschee in Aachen ist, die
unter Beobachtung des Verfassungsschutzes steht.
Indem also wichtigste Repräsentanten der
deutschen Gesellschaft den Islamismus in Deutschland
fördern, schaffen sie genau den Schutzraum für die
Entwicklung und Vorbereitung islamischer Gewalt, wie
er durch die Ermittlungen nach dem Terroranschlag zu
Tage getreten ist. An der Ideologie der zwanghaften
Islamtoleranz hat dies zunächst nichts geändert, so
dass immer mehr Türken angesichts des islamistischen
- und arabischen - Übergewichts ihre Religionsfreiheit
mit Recht gefährdet sehen. Auch die Juden in
Deutschland zeigen sich besorgt, weil sie hinter der
stereotypen Radikalisierung des Dialogs einen neuen
Antisemitismus befürchten.
Nicht zuletzt handelte es sich beim Verteiler der
bischöflichen Gewaltstudie an das Parlament um die
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, deren türkischer Ableger
in Istanbul vor wenigen Wochen unter Anklage gestellt
wurde. Ihr wirft der Generalanwalt der
Staatssicherheitsbehörden "islamistische" und damit
"staatsfeindliche" Umtriebe vor. Aus dem gleichen
Grunde hatte Staatspräsident Ecevit Kanzler Schröder
bereits 2000 um die Schließung des Deutschen
Orient-Instituts in Hamburg gebeten, weil dessen
Leiter sich seit Jahren für islamistische und
"antitürkische" Kräfte einsetze. Letzterer hatte nicht
nur ein Einreiseverbot in die Türkei zu überstehen,
sondern irritierte schon seit längerem seine Umgebung
mit Begriffen wie "Menschrechtsarroganz", die
westliche Gesprächspartner im Umgang mit dem Islam
zu vermeiden hätten.
Im Interesse einer demokratischen Mitsprache
scheint es an der Zeit, nicht nur diese
Zusammenhänge, sondern die Kompetenz des Dialogs
und der deutschen Islampolitik insgesamt einer
genaueren Prüfung zu unterziehen.
The quoted passage is the summary of a chapter in Raddatz' book "Von Gott zu Allah" which was published in a newspaper in 2002, the book is the first part of a trilogy that I sometimes consider to be the best and most profound academic analysis on key concepts of Islam and it's history and sexual role model, comparing Islam to the history of Christianity while describing both. No easy read, but for German readers the most profound books I would recommend.
Raddatz is sometimes to be seen on TV, when he dared to leave the US and returned to europe under heavy protection.
He leaves his opponents in the dust on such occasions.
"No compulsion in religion" is adressing the devout Muslim, since it is a quote from the Quran. For soembody already being devout and obedient, indeed the faith jas no enforced aspect at all. But damned you are if you are not sharing this faith. Then you either pay proteciton koney and accept to be made feeling inferior and sub,itted, or you miust be killed and overthrown. Leaving islam - is an offence punsihed by death penalty. No compulsion in relgion? that is a lie like the demand of peace and freedom is: peace estalbished by extinction of all difference and all opposition to islam, freedom enforced by totalitarian uniformity and collectivism. "Gleichschaltung" the Nazis called that. And the "Schutzbefohlenheit" for the poeple of the book was as much an act of tolerance and equality as was the Warsaw ghetto a paradise ghetto. living in submission and mandatory discirmination ö- that is what it means for those rejecting islam and accepting it's patronising protection.
When was the last time a relegious fantatic put a gun to head and forced you to convert? 99.9% of preachers will try to teach those who are willing to be taught, but it is still 'your choice' if you want to convert or not.
Take a closer look at history of middle east....
If the intention of Terrorism is a means to try and convert someone forcefully - Well that sure works, because Islam is now so massively popular in the USA post 9/11 <insert scarcasm>
The point is not to make Islam popular.
Point is to make Islam stronger.
Point is to make others hate Muslims so that it will be harder for them to assimilate or be tolerant.
People cannot be 'bombed' in to submission, it only causes them to become more angry, hateful, intolerant and yet more resiliant than ever.
Look at WW2, look at Israel, Northern Ireland etc. It does not work and it never has.
Hence why the coalition forces in Iraq and Afganistan, have being trying to win the war using the 'hearts and minds' tactic - because it is something that can actually work.
Did it work?
Bombing & hatred - Israelis know about it a lot.
Islamic extremists are always happy to get bombed preferebly in civilian arias.
Sometimes they force no choice situations-thats terrorism...
For WW2 I thanks to the USA AND Russia for fighting the nazis.
For the Cold war, I say thanks to the USA and Russia for not fighting each other, (other wise we would not be here at all.)
Thanks USA for not benign passive.
I am not saying that the USA / EU / captialists are bad or evil, I am mearly pointing out that they/we stick our noses where it they not wanted and mess with peoples affairs out of our own self intreast - just as relegious groups have done.
So should we justify the religious groups because of that....
Do you mean? should we convieniently forget/discard the less glamourous parts of our history so that we dont upset ourselves?
I suppose we can if we want, but its still 'denial'.
Actually i was thinking about learning from history.
No, Im saying it is wrong to assume that other 90% are guilty until proven innocent based on the actions of the 10%.
Thats true...but lets not pretend every thing is OK.
This 10%? made a nut house of middle east.
What Capitalsim? the one that exploits the third world for cheap labour and produces the most waste & polution?
Now, I am a capitalist myself and there are many thing I love about it :) -but im just being objective here. My point being that its always debatable as to who is the lesser evil...
Thats the point every one tries to be objective but fanatics dont play it nice.
Not so sure, remember that its not proposed to be on ground zero (the actual footprint of the WTC complex) it is going to be two blocks away.
Nobody cared about the mosque that was housed inside the WTC complex prior to its destruction - including the terrorists for that matter. :shifty:
Associating a mosque with ground zero in public is kind of suicidal bombing-not much imagination needed to forecast outcome.
Again spreading hatred.
Wonder what it did to American Muslims.
Tribesman
09-06-10, 03:11 PM
Once again a wall of bullexcrement from Skybird and once again he takes material from hate filled bigots.:har:
CaptainMattJ.
09-06-10, 03:44 PM
Comments like that come pretty close, but not suprising from a typical anti-theist with a religous devotion to the concept.
Religion, like any other social construct of man has both its flaws and great strengths. According to you, all religion provides positively is hope. Are you intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand what you're talking about?
Religion gives those who ascribe to it the concept that they are accountable to an authority beyond that of man. Should that authority be just and benign, this is a good thing. It is when that authority is evil, totalitarian, and/or intolerant that it becomes a bad thing.
Now, that authority (read: deity) like any other authority is represented by men. ANY authority is a human construct, be it the President of the United States or the Pope (of course, the latter is my belief and I respect those who believe that the Pope represents God). As such, that authority, like any authority, is going to be bonded to human failings. (We'll also leave the fact that the concept of authority itself is consistant throughout civilization to a different discussion).
Ergo, as all authority is by men, those authorities which are "bad" are man, just as well as those which are "good". The common denominator is man. Anti-theists such as yourself tend to acknowledge all of the "bad" authorities associated with religion while sweeping aside all of the "good" authorities as irrelevent.
Ultimately though, you tend to belong to a group which follows what I would consider "bad" authority, albeit not driven by any deity - that is what I call "generalized intolerance". You've seen the harm that religion has done and have therefore declared that all religion must be bad. You've marginalized any who ascribe to such beliefs as "retarded" despite what those beliefs may have led to each individual doing.
And, all along, you've never actually thought it through - while the Crusades, for instance, were waged in Christ's name, you've never bothered to educate yourself and understand that the man that was Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, would never have wanted such a thing.
So, in other words, you've decided to believe those who would pervert the source rather than the source itself. What's "retarded" again?
I havent declared al religion to be bad, however a massive portion of it is. It doesnt matter if they use religion fr excuses to war, the fact that it CAN be used as an excuse is terrible in and of itself. sure its brought some happiness and hope, but the fact that religion is often used in hatred is unbelievable. People often get into fights and, of course, WARS because people didnt believe the same bull they do. THe Basic concept of religion is good, but religion in general is a MASSIVE MASSIVE example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The Islamic religion's original concept was filled with good morals and good ethics, like TREATING WOMAN WITH RESPECT. Look what Islam has become now. Now its been twisted and mamed into a disgusting, revolting way of living. Religion is a tool to control weak masses, i.e the general population. THere arent that many religious people who believe in the basic concept of it, rather then the Bull**** thats been pilled on over the millenium by people with power andthose who know how to manipulate people. according to this crap, everything i do is a sin and i must apoligize for living my life. i must also worship thin air having ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Scientific proof. Who says that the entire jesus story isnt a massive lie. Religious "leaders" at one point said that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around US. once a dude had scientific proof, they Banished him and his research because if the masses found out they were WRONG, then theyd lose power and respect to a degree. Just proof of how they used religion to control people who didnt think for themselves or were too weak to. Religion also banishes to THIS DAY the though of evolution. They think we spawed out of thin air with brains and reason. that wouldnt be the thinking of a person who thinks for himself with Facts.
Religion's cons outweigh any benifits. therefore, religion is a cancer on this world as stated before. Mind you that religion also at one point completely banished the thought of alien lifeform. there is NO chance that there ISNT aliens in the universe. NO chance. Its not a question of if, but when. Aliens such a depicted as little green men from mars is BS, but there ARE OTHER LIFEFORMS and thats a fact. It could range from microbacteria to freaking interstellar traveling aliens. Theres no chance that in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE theres no other life forms. it may not even be in this galaxy, but it sure as hell is out there.
Religion and Lies make aliens a superstitous concept. If people thought for themsleves and saw FACT and REASON, i bet you dam near everyone would believe it.
Aramike
09-06-10, 03:54 PM
I havent declared al religion to be bad, however a massive portion of it is. It doesnt matter if they use religion fr excuses to war, the fact that it CAN be used as an excuse is terrible in and of itself. sure its brought some happiness and hope, but the fact that religion is often used in hatred is unbelievable. People often get into fights and, of course, WARS because people didnt believe the same bull they do. THe Basic concept of religion is good, but religion in general is a MASSIVE MASSIVE example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The Islamic religion's original concept was filled with good morals and good ethics, like TREATING WOMAN WITH RESPECT. Look what Islam has become now. Now its been twisted and mamed into a disgusting, revolting way of living. Religion is a tool to control weak masses, i.e the general population. THere arent that many religious people who believe in the basic concept of it, rather then the Bull**** thats been pilled on over the millenium by people with power andthose who know how to manipulate people. according to this crap, everything i do is a sin and i must apoligize for living my life. i must also worship thin air having ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Scientific proof. Who says that the entire jesus story isnt a massive lie. Religious "leaders" at one point said that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around US. once a dude had scientific proof, they Banished him and his research because if the masses found out they were WRONG, then theyd lose power and respect to a degree. Just proof of how they used religion to control people who didnt think for themselves or were too weak to. Religion also banishes to THIS DAY the though of evolution. They think we spawed out of thin air with brains and reason. that wouldnt be the thinking of a person who thinks for himself with Facts.
Religion's cons outweigh any benifits. therefore, religion is a cancer on this world as stated before. Mind you that religion also at one point completely banished the thought of alien lifeform. there is NO chance that there ISNT aliens in the universe. NO chance. Its not a question of if, but when. Aliens such a depicted as little green men from mars is BS, but there ARE OTHER LIFEFORMS and thats a fact. It could range from microbacteria to freaking interstellar traveling aliens. Theres no chance that in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE theres no other life forms. it may not even be in this galaxy, but it sure as hell is out there.
Religion and Lies make aliens a superstitous concept. If people thought for themsleves and saw FACT and REASON, i bet you dam near everyone would believe it.You are so religiously devoted to your anti-theism it is ironically comical. You have absolutely no citations, no proof, no anything to back up what you're saying - nothing beyond exclusionary supposition supported on a base of inference.
Your understanding of religion is far to limited for you to support any indictment. Example:Religion's cons outweigh any benifits. therefore, religion is a cancer on this world as stated before.Here you make an unsupported statement, than use it is support for a conclusion. That makes no sense.
By the way, "religious leaders" were not the ones who originated the geocentric view of the universe. Greek mathematicians were. And your understanding of Islam is a joke, although I agree with the conclusion that Islam is inherently evil (I just come to that conclusion not through a detailed process of thought rather than the knee jerk "bad, BAD" methodology you employ.
Konovalov
09-06-10, 04:29 PM
Let's have a quote war, then. I save myself some time and just copy material from TheReligionOfPeace.com. I accept that because I have read same comments in other sources, books, as well, and see them as valid. for you it would not make a difference anyway, jnom matter what my source is - you have decided to ignore contradictions, opposing quotes and context, mand instead are detemrined to take the context-free individual senetmce as literal as possible. And that is a big mistake. But for that you you will not care either.
Quote wars, I think not. Quranic interpretation (tafsir) and contexualisation I am all for. :yep: I'll come back on this when I have an opportunity. Time is precious right now and sleep is in short supply in the last few days of Ramzan. :)
Tribesman
09-06-10, 04:47 PM
Konovolov, don't you find it funny that Sky mentions contradictory texts and the need for interpretations when he says there can only be one interpretation and the texts are clear and precise.
Its even funnier that he says you are getting the wrong interpretation because you take it literally yet he says the fundy nuts get it right in his opinion because they take it literally.
Could it be that Skys phobia has led his claims to be even more contradictory of his claims?
Konovalov
09-07-10, 02:34 AM
The thought had occurred to me. I've experienced these kind of debates before with the same sort of argument presented by a couple of wacky guys from Anjem Choudary's seedy group who keep changing their name to wiggle around the law. Anyway back to work. Got a Customs audit today which should be fun. Hopefully my staff haven't let me down. :damn:
Religion had it's run, let science lead the future.......
Tribesman
09-07-10, 03:05 AM
I've experienced these kind of debates before with the same sort of argument presented by a couple of wacky guys from Anjem Choudary's seedy group who keep changing their name to wiggle around the law.
Thats the real irony, Skybird is on the very same page as the nuts he says are crazy.
Aramike
09-07-10, 07:05 AM
Religion had it's run, let science lead the future.......Umm ... okay, we'll get right on that. :yeah:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.