"Obama is acting like Bush"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Fish

Yeah, but when the OT turns out to be fraud, where does that let the NT? let

Several key parts of the four Gospels - for example the sermon on the mountain - speak for themselves even if ignoring the rest of the Gospels completely. You do not need historical contexts to see something valuable in them - that's why it does not matter whether they are authentic or not, and whether Jesus is a historc figure, or just a fiction. But for explaining the shape and content of the Old Testament as well as the Quran, you cannot avoid refering to historical contexts and circumstances. You cannot understand what the Quran says what it says if you ignore the figure of Muhammad. Only within the context of Muhammad's life, the shape and form of Quran makes any sense in that it can be explained why it is like it is. and since the Quran is understood to be Allah'S will, this means that Allah is limited by the intention that muhammad has put into the term.

Max had it absolutely correct when saying that the Quran is highly contradictory in itself. You can find a red guiding line only when seeing it through the life and biography of Muhammad, and superimpose Muhammad's intention over it, else it does not make any sense, and is just confused. But what you get when using Muhammad as the key to interprete it, is a conqueror's agenda who keeps his forces together by cheating and intimidation, and who prevented weakness and caused unified strength by declaring any straying off from muhammad's path a religious crime that causes most unforgiven penalties - it is not a transcending message by a holy man, but works as a tool for disciplinary penalties to keep the hierarchy and command structure of an army intact. And from that perspective the Quran all of a sudden makes a lot of sense, even more when considering that there have been several versions of the Quran who all got tailored and changed a bit by local rulers to use it to legitimise their own powerpolitics, like Muhammad did. The Quran is a document that serves as justification for Islam's claim for power and dominance - that is it's primary purpose, and that'S what it pretty much is limited to. And no matter how inferior in style and kitschig in language it is - this one purpose it serves with remarkable efficiency. But it is a work of totalitarian politics. I often said that Islam is more politics than religion.

That's what I mean when saying that in Islam, in the end all and everything is about Muhammad - not about Allah, not about Quran, not about Sharia. Because all these things go back to Muhammad whose mouth has founded them and without whom terms like Allah or Islam simply would not be known today. In that meaning I also refer to Islam as Muhammedanism - not to intentionally stirr emotions and offend people, but because it is the most precise and reasonable description of what Islam is - a personal cult rooted in the life and personality of and focussed on Muhammad. Until the world war, the term Muhammedanism was in common use to refer to Islam. that Muslims do not like it, can be explained. It reminds them of what their proclaimed devine religion in fact is about: and that is neither a superior devine entitity, nor a book of divine laws and rules that existed already from the beginning of time on. Muhammad is not just an announcer proclaiming the showact to come - Muhammad is the very star of the show itself. And that Islam cannot accept without giving up the basis of it's own identity.I personally have always seen Islam unable to reform without giving up what actually makes it "Islam". In other words: you can only reform Islam based on Quran and Muhammad - by bringing it to an end. and if it is not basing on Muhammad and the Quran, than it is not Islam. It makes no sense to define Islam any different if the term should have any meaning.

Go figure the problems coming from that.

[Shearwater]

The way I see it, most of Obama's behaviour in the current situation can be explained the following way: US interests (or those of the West in general) stay the same, even if political leaders change. Electing a president in one country (the US) doesn't change the political situation in the other country (Iran) all by itself.
That applies even more to Iran because Mr Ahmadinejad is, so to speak, only the tip of the iceberg, viz. an authoritarian regime thinly disguised as "theocracy". And even if someone else takes over in Iran, changes will not be dramatic because it's the system.
Don't confuse the government of a country (both in the US and in Iran) with long-term national interests.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Was Jesus a murderer and bandit like muhammad? A conqueror and warmonger?

Uh... he conquered Death, Skybird. Jeez.

[Shearwater]

Unfortunately, this thread is turning into yet another debate in the line of "Which religion do you believe to be the most prone to violence?" (I'm exaggerating here alright, but it the discussion has certainly gone astray).
Just to make one thing perfectly clear (from my point of view): This is not about religion in the least. If at all, religion is used to make the authority of the ruling class in Iran unquestionable by turning legitimate criticism and opposition into blasphemy. It is an abuse of religion, which could be done with any of them, and has been (even Buddhism). There are certainly both people for and people against Ahmadinejad who claim to be good muslims.

How about Obama is acting like Obama? The honey moon is over.