What to call Islam, or, Fun with Theology

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit

And NO, it's NOT "Muslims", who kill people you mentioned. There is a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. There is also a difference between a Jew (or an Israeli) and Baruch Goldstein. There is a difference between a Christian and Josef Mengele. As well as not every Russian's name is Josif Stalin. There are more than billion Muslims in the world, and there are these few guys who put bombs in restaurants. Do not mix these terms, please. Muslim is not equal to terrorist, terrorist is not equal to Muslim. And has never been.

As has often been said, not every Muslim is a terrorist but nowdays the majority of terrorists are Muslims.

The reason? Judge for yourself:

"Unfortunately, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.

These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:

• Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists:

• Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:

• It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse:

• The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…
  Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream."
- [url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015300.php]Robert Spencer, JihadWatch

[Tchocky]

Avon, the concept of jihad may be more firmly established in Islam than some would have us believe, and labeling jihadists as extremist or fringe groups could then be said to be inaccurate, but it doesnt address the gap between doctrine and practice.

Jihad (the lesser jihad - war with non-muslims) is " the Islamic mainstream.", but the majority of Muslims do not put it into practice.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Jihad (the lesser jihad - war with non-muslims) is " the Islamic mainstream.", but the majority of Muslims do not put it into practice.

But the majority of Islam, as you call it, nevertheless is remarkably silent about the "extremist" minority that drums on very big bongos to form the world's impression of Islam. The majority does actively resist any codemnation of the minority's deeds. They resist the extremist's deed being labelled as terror. They reject any self-checking and critical analysis of Islam being the origin of such violant thoughts. They nevertheless for the most insist on everybody respecting the respectability of Islam, and the authority of Islamic views and values. they insist on their hosting nations to change accoridng to their Islamic homes, instead of adopting themseves to their new "home" of choice (that' why many of them are no immigrants, but colonists). And here these harmless peaceful majority of Islam suffers a serious question: if they do not want to be seen as violant extremists, why are they so hesitant about taking care of those violant ones in their middle, and why do they still insist on wanting to be seen as followers of a criminal figure like Muhammad, whose criminal repuation I have summed up repeatedly, so that I must not do it again? BTW, it is a problem of demography, too, for in the West the young ones currently are on the way to form the majority of Muhammedan population (this will continue for the coming decades), and in many European countries is said to be far more radicalised and truly Muhammedan than their parent generation. If in Berlin almost fifty percent of young Muhammedans say they want Sharia domkinating in Germany, and that they respect honour killing in families, and if in Britain two or three month ago a study found one third (or was it even more?) of Muhammedans supporting the idea of using violance if it helps to enforce sharia in Britain, and if in America a majority of Muhameddans so far may reject the idea of using violance (for they are more rich and educated than in Europe), but at the same time express their expectation that a new califat state will be raised in America by influencing education and oublic opinion and win the takeover of the US peacefully, and over a longer period of time, than all this ARE problems. - The radicals are not there despite Islam's teachings, but because of it. And the overwhelming majority of Muhameddans worldwide obviously have something against holding them responsible for the evil seeds they sow. And this is the point when I do not care if they throw bombs themselves, or just refuse to hinder those who throw bombs in their names, and help to carry on the violant thinking by deceiving people and themselves about the true nature of Islam and Muhammed's as a historically correct figure - the guilt is the same for me. In fact they are indirectly supporitng the radical's deeds by making them appear as hrmless and not representative for Islamic teaching: and this simply is wrong. It is an (probably involuntary) deception maneuver. - Neonazis today have not commited murder in KZs, and have not served in SS divisions, and did not fought for Hitler. But they keep alive the thinking that all this did not happen or was just and fine, and that Hitler was anything but a brutal opressor. for me, they are the same bad breed as those Nazis back then who experienced the Hitler era and acted during it's reign. Stupidity does not save you from being held responsible nevertheless (at least not in my book). - Reciprocity, guys, reciprocity. Let us build a church or a Jewish temple in Islamic countries for every Muhammedan mosque or culture centre being built in Europe since the early 60s (2nd Vatican council). Practise the same level of non-discrim,ination of Muhameddans in Europe as Christians, Jews and ethnic minorites are enjoying in Mohammedan countries. Put up that demand to Muhammedan countries, and see their heads becoming red, and global uproar and threats and flag burning and death to the West! and intimidation and mass hysteria and death for infidels! and allahu akbar and demands for apology and disrespect for Muhammad shall be revenged, and bla and bla and bla. Dare to practice reciprocity and let them taste their own medicine. Make them feel where their way of thinking leads them to. Why should they change, why should they learn, when they are always getting saved from the bad consequences of their queer ideology's selfish thinking, taking that saving as a sign of their Allah and that they are on the right way? How could such a behavior of the West be recognised as anything else but weakness and surrender, an inviation to press even harder? It IS weakness, born from fear and lacking understanding. Fear is a bad advisor, a saying tells us. So instead, demand compensation for the massive outlays the Western nations have agreed to in the last fourty years. when that debt is equalized, then start to practice accoridng to strict reciprocity. One chruch for one mosque, one Jewish synagoge for one Muhammedan culture centre. If then it shows that they remain tolerant and peaceful and agree to reform their societies and open them to other cultures like they enjoy the freedom to do in the West (while refusing to allow the same in their own places), then I am willing to talk again. Not earlier.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

@Ishmael
Very interesting post, indeed. Thanks for that!


@MadMike
I don't consider the www.state.gov webservice to be a proper source of facts nor opinions here. I just don't believe it after all these lies of George's administration. And I'd bet many share my opinion here. And, on the other side, the descripted reminds very closely what the USA did many times: supporting Iraq using biological/chemical weapons against Iran, as an example... A country with its own sins should not give lessons of proper behaviour to others. Especially if the lesson would be given with military means.


@The Avon Lady
Let me quote some Catholic scriptures originating from the ancient and medieval times (like the quotes from your post). Compare them to today's practice of Catholic church. Take into consideration, that Islam, like any other ideology and religion, evolves and changes. Do not treat medieval superstitions as current beliefs of the Muslim population.

Tertulian (160-220) Father of the Church: "A woman is a godless fury of lust".
Saint Clemens of Alexandria (~150-~215): "A woman should be ashamed of the fact of her existance".
Saint Augustine of Hippo (Aurelius Augustinus, 354-430), Father of the Church: "A woman is a minor being, not created in the shape and similarity of God. It is an order of nature, that she should serve the man".
Saint Anselm of Canterbury (~1034–1109): "If you could open the woman's body and see her interior and all the regions of her body, you would see yourself, how vile is her tissue under the milk-white skin of a creature".
Albertus Magnus (Saint Albert the Great, ~1193-1280): "A woman doesn't know fidelity. Believe me, if you ever believe her, you will be dissapointed".
Thomas Aquinas (Saint Thomas of Aquino, ~1225–1274): "A woman is only useful for giving birth and can serve in the house."; "Women are a mistake of nature. They have too much humidity in them and the temperature of their body is a proof of their physical impairment. They are a kind of a handicaped, fruitless, unsuccessful man. The only fullfilling of the human kind is a man himself".
Enea Silvio (pope Pius II, 1458-1464): When you see a woman, think of it as a devil. It's a kind of hell."
Abraham a Santa Clara (1644-1709): "A beautiful and well-dressed woman is a temple built over a big sewage pit. Who would like to worship the sh*t like the god?"

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But the majority of Islam, as you call it, nevertheless is remarkably silent about the "extremist" minority that drums on very big bongos to form the world's impression of Islam. The majority does actively resist any codemnation of the minority's deeds. They resist the extremist's deed being labelled as terror. They reject any self-checking and critical analysis of Islam being the origin of such violant thoughts. They nevertheless for the most insist on everybody respecting the respectability of Islam, and the authority of Islamic views and values. they insist on their hosting nations to change accoridng to their Islamic homes, instead of adopting themseves to their new "home" of choice (that' why many of them are no immigrants, but colonists). And here these harmless peaceful majority of Islam suffers a serious question: if they do not want to be seen as violant extremists, why are they so hesitant about taking care of those violant ones in their middle, and why do they still insist on wanting to be seen as followers of a criminal figure like Muhammad, whose criminal repuation I have summed up repeatedly, so that I must not do it again?

1. You won't find many discussions between Muslims in BBC, right? Nor you won't find there even shortened reports from the mainstream press of Arabic countries. So don't say that they don't condemn terrorism and terrorists while they actually do. In fact the majority of Arabic (or other Muslim) countries treats Muslim extremists willing to use means of terror as the major threat. Some of these countries have even joined the "anti-terror coalition", didn't they? Follow news from Egypt, for example. Or just any other stabilised Arabic country. Or Indonesia, the biggest 'Muslim' country in the world. The terorists are being hunted, imprisoned, killed, hung, torn apart by mob, or at least expelled. But the Western press and other media focus on these few guys who talk and think in the categories of Medieval times. Why should a certain Muslim feel any commonwealth with them? Do you feel any with the guys that wish to hang blacks "because the Bible states they are slaves", or bring Christianity to the rest of the world by any means? I'd doubt it. So WHY should you feel sorry for their deeds?

2. Muhammad a criminal? :rotfl: Good point, really good one. So he should burn in hell with his comrades: Moses and Jozue. As well as Abraham, who lied to Egyptians and gave them his wife, like she was a slave. And applying to what law is he a criiminal? American? Christian? Maybe... UK law? Find a king of a European nation that hasn't commited 'crimes' in the past. That would be a tough job. And find a people that doesn't name streets with their kings' names.

Ahistorism word is the sponsor of today's programme!

3. As I've allready stated before, calling Muslims 'Muhammedans' is highly offensive to them. I doubt you wish to offend, so I'd suggest to skip this term.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If then it shows that they remain tolerant and peaceful and agree to reform their societies and open them to other cultures like they enjoy the freedom to do in the West (while refusing to allow the same in their own places), then I am willing to talk again. Not earlier.

And what are you going to do? Ban building mosques? Expell Muslims from European and North American countries? Or maybe even ruin the mosques they've allready built there? What's the point, what would you like the Westerners to do now?

[Skybird]

I make it short, since I am tired of endlessly repeating myself over the years, and am tired of this western craving for endlessly relativising things in an most indiscriminated and simplistic manner until no standards are left anymore that could define what to tolerate - and what better not.

Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit

Islam, like any other ideology and religion, evolves and changes.

No. It was extremely successful in preventing exactly this. Mostly with brute force. It was successful where the church in the medieval finally failed, and thus had to allow certain chnages and developements that finally led to the modern Western order of values, cultural arts, laws and liberties, economical and scientific capabilities, freedoms, and forms of politcal and social ruling. The societies in Islamic countries, especially on small communal and family level, still reflect the social order of the Arab tribes in the early medieval. Islam is better not judged on the basis of some tourist ressorts that give a Westenrized impression in order to make cash by that. In Turkey, for example, 80-85% of the populationm lives outside the great cities, in the poor countrysdie and rough Anatolia. The level of ultra-orthodox hardcore-Islam I witnessed there was almost shocking. Using a time machine and travel back one thousand years couldn't create a greater impression. To comparable degree I say the same about Iran, only that here in the great cities the traditional european, especially French influence from past times is more present. In Turkish cities, the attenpts to appear western-style are more focussed on the immediate present.

Do not treat medieval superstitions as current beliefs of the Muslim population.

Check your reality, you definetly do not live on the same planet as I do. I have had longer stays in Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Marocco, Jordan, and shorter hops into some more, and also did quite a lot of reading and studying. Both my personal impression and the assessement of western research and academics are referring to exactly this superstitous nature of Islam even in the present, and nthat this has seen almost no major chnages over the past 10-12 centuries. You try to give Islam an appearance that makes it comparable to Western developements in history. But the history oif Islam in fact is a history of stangnation and constant self-iteration instead of critical self-analysis. Everything in Idlam is cenrttred around Muhammad. The Quran - Muhammad is the origin. Hadith - Muhammad is the origin. Sharia - internal part of the Hadith - Muhammad is origin. The concept of Allah - Muhammad is the origin. All "theological" basis of Islam came from the moth of muhammad, and he often spoke them out when he was in need to justify what he was doing. "I do it because it is Allah'S will." "I do it becasue Allah, Gabriel or the little green man told me so." "You shall not doubt me for I fulfill the will of Allah." etc etc etc. It is self-justification, nothing more. The example to live by for the faithful - is Muhammad's life, or better: the way Islam glorifies him in an attempt to gloss him over and ignore the brutality and crime that dominated Muhammad's life.

Like those that follow the teachings of the Christ are called Christians, and followers of Buddha are called Buddhists, I insist on using the old academic term for Islam that was common language until the last worldwar, roughly, and that is "Muhammedanism", because we talk of peopole following what muhammad has told them to do, and if they are offended by that precise definition, that is okay for me for I am used that Islam and Muhammedans are alwys offended by something, by anthing, or if they cannot have their way or are rejected to be seen as equals if they have nothing to offer that makes them a civilisation of equal quality and values.

Muhammad secured his power by teaching an social educatioin that kept people in ignorrance and felt it to be a sin to seek for answers outside of Muhammad's personal system of thoughts. In this, Muhammad was by a far lead the most successful opressor of all human history. He still rules the world and have his ways - even from the other side of the grave. Disgusting.
Anyone demanding me to see that as a civilisation of equal value - I laugh in his face.

Just for your information, I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. Old dust like abraham and Joshua does not interest me. If you want to trade, find references to violance, war and submission directly from Siddharta, or Jesus. From the bible I only accept one part to be Christian: the four gospels. What was before cannot be Christian, for christ was non-existent before. What came after that, must not be Christaina, for Jesus was no more there.

Quran, on the other hand, is a Muhammad-exclusive production. Even if it got distorted, diversified, ursurped, reviewed, changed and distorted in the first four centuries. And much of the violance in the name of Islam is directly motivated, based and founded in Quranic scriptures. And before you refer to BBC again to welaen what I say: yes, I have red the better part of Quran, and even more important: several historcial analysis and comments on it that got me into it. For me it is not more than extremely dangerous, often self-contradictoy Kitsch, and in that combination, truly unique.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Like those that follow the teachings of the Christ are called Christians, and followers of Buddha are called Buddhists, I insist on using the old academic term for Islam that was common language until the last worldwar, roughly, and that is "Muhammedanism", because we talk of peopole following what muhammad has told them to do, and if they are offended by that precise definition, that is okay for me for I am used that Islam and Muhammedans are alwys offended by something, by anthing, or if they cannot have their way or are rejected to be seen as equals if they have nothing to offer that makes them a civilisation of equal quality and values.

There is a major difference: while Jesus called Christ has been and is worshipped as the god himself by Christians (but a few flavours of, like Jehova's Witnesses), Muhammad is not worshipped, he is not even 'saint'. Thus the term 'Muhammedanism' has not been used for quite many years now, as it's not proper. It origins from Medieval European superstition of Muslims worhipping 'Baphomet' and similar crap.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit

There is a major difference: while Jesus called Christ has been and is worshipped as the god himself by Christians (but a few flavours of, like Jehova's Witnesses), Muhammad is not worshipped, he is not even 'saint'. Thus the term 'Muhammedanism' has not been used for quite many years now, as it's not proper. It origins from Medieval European superstition of Muslims worhipping 'Baphomet' and similar crap.

Since Skybird didn't say that anyone worshipped Mohamed, you post is irrelevant and the term 'Mohammedanism' is and always has been valid. See Dictionary.com.

Another distraction tossed aside.

[Dante80]

From the same page.

the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion"

Sorry, but if this term is offensive to Muslims, why repeat it?....

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Dante80

From the same page.

Sorry, but if this term is offensive to Muslims, why repeat it?....

What's interesting is that the very same definition itself states that it is a religion based on the teachings of Muhammad; hence the term. Nowhere here is there a reference of the worship of Muhammad himself as a deity, which is what was claimed here by Abd. That is all.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

What's interesting is that the very same definition itself states that it is a religion based on the teachings of Muhammad; hence the term. Nowhere here is there a reference of the worship of Muhammad himself as a deity, which is what was claimed here by Abd. That is all.

Again I'll explain in simpler words:
It was stated, that Christians are called Christians because of Christ, so Muslims could be as well called Muhammedans because of Muhammad. This reasoning is flawed, as - as stated above - there is a major difference between roles played by Jesus called Christ and Muhammad in Christian and Muslim religions, accordingly. Christ is worshipped, thus Christianism, Muhammad is not, thus not Muhammedanism.

But as I see some people here are not going to skip using the term, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. Those who don't wish to insult anyone nor to use terms that have been "tossed aside" by Western researchers and experts will just not use it, as there are other apropriate terms. Amen.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit

Again I'll explain in simpler words:
It was stated, that Christians are called Christians because of Christ, so Muslims could be as well called Muhammedans because of Muhammad. This reasoning is flawed, as - as stated above - there is a major difference between roles played by Jesus called Christ and Muhammad in Christian and Muslim religions, accordingly. Christ is worshipped, thus Christianism, Muhammad is not, thus not Muhammedanism.

But as I see some people here are not going to skip using the term, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. Those who don't wish to insult anyone nor to use terms that have been "tossed aside" by Western researchers and experts will just not use it, as there are other apropriate terms. Amen.

Stalin also was not worshipped as a deity, but still his followers are called Stalinists. Buddha originally was not worshipped as a God, but there are "buddhists". Those who believe in democracy are called "democrats".

Get over it, you defend a lost cause.

Muhammedans may worship this or that, it is not important, the point is they obey what Muhammad told them to obey, they worhsip what he defined is worth to be worshipped. You can turn and twist it as you want, not Allah, not Abraham, not Gabriel not the sriptures is the central thing in Islam, but Muhammad, he is the orgin, the centre, the cause. If he would have died as a young boy, there would be nothing like Allah, and Islam, that much divine and omnipresent it all is... Muhammad has defined all and everything what Islam is about. Later, kings and local rulers used parts of his system to found their own power basis by referring to the authority of Muhammad - like Paul did, and the churches. The scriptures of Islam, Quran and Hadith, as far as I am aware, do not tell any story of "Allah" revealing himself directly to any other man or woman on earth than Muhammad, never. He did never adress mankind himself, he never revealed himself. This is what makes Muhammad the central figure of Islam, the undispensable figure, if you want - he claimed to be the only witness of that Allah exists. Without Muhammad - no Allah, no Quran, no nothing. They even would not be missed. It is for pure random chance only, I suppose, that being elected by Allah to act as the divine master's voice suited Muhammad's personal power interests and egocentric agendas so nicely and perfectly.

The only one making flawed statements here is you. It is amazing how willingly you accept to give up simple academical precision and definition, to put it behind religious demands like in the dark age of Europe, were it was very much the same. One could thing about giving up the decimal system in mathematics, so that the diabolic number 6 no longer would have to be in use. Oh this wonderful thing called political correctness... but you are doing damage, it is no harmless thing that you demand. For you defend a way that demands everything that argues Islam's self-percpetion to be givcen up, for reasons of "not offending Islam", and showing "tolerance". Islam is a highly irrationall, selfcentred system of bitter inner contradictions and circular logic, it ask all questions about itself in a way that from the very beginning it is clear that it will get only self-verification as an answer. That any kind of objective analysis and critical reason from moutside is perceived as highly threatening and miust be prevented at all costs, is only understandable. But to allow this demand means to prevent any negative consequences that directly derive from Islam being the way it is - so that there is no reason and no motivation left to look critically and analytically at itself. You do not ask questions if you do not know that there are reasons to ask questions. It simply does not come to your mind. And this way of limiting oneself and crippeling human reason and intellect hardly can be an acceptable answer to backwardness and medieval superstition that demands to be treated as an equal to the western civilisation and set up demands to rule all man and all world, in the end - by referring to the words of an old desert bandit who lived one and a half millenia ago and labelled his very earthly powerpolitics as "religion" to silence any opposition and criticism.

[ASWnut101]

Gizzmoe/TK: possible to split?

This was a topic about the boat and the iranian revolutionary guard,and such. Enough with the religion stuff, please?

[Takeda Shingen]

Once again, *POOF*

May this thread live longer than the previous split.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

how about everyone in the world jus turns atheist that way we will stop future wars from happening:hmm: