US embassies attacked

But its only the Muslims of Islam that go around blowing up buildings, with suicide bombers etc

So what is it about the doctrine about Islam that seems to allow this and even promote this?

Or you can turn round and say that these are not the true Muslims like warriorofart said, but then CrowZer0 said there are not true Muslims, so whats the party line?

And if there is such a distaste for the extremists by the moderates, then why don't the moderates get together and get rid of them?

Again this comes back to the authority problem in Islam.

Raz
 
Good. It'd still be one less excuse though and the less excuses there are the easier it is to narrow down who the real ass-wipes are because the less there is to hide behind.
Those christian idiots that refuse to have gay couples in their B&B.
At the moment they say it's against their religious beliefs but without that religious crutch they'd have to just admit they were homophobic (hell...without their religious beliefs they might not end up being a homophobes in the first place!).
 
Razgriz, what version of the Qur'an are you reading? Because your quotes are unbelievably wrong. There are plenty of online
English Quran's, please make sure you double check any verses you post before posting nonsense.


In the above post I relied on the research of Dr Sam Harris, could you take just the verses I highlighted and show how they are not really as I said they were?

There is no such thing as a "true muslim". You are either a muslim or not, if you accept and attain to the five pillars of Islam, you are a mulsim.

Warriorofanart said yes there was

Have you ever read the old testament in the Bible or the Torah? You will notice that they are exactly the same across the Abrahamic religions.

Yes I find all religions distatestful at best, especially the three great monotheisims, though I did find Judiasims encouraging of questioning slightly different.

But yes they all contain justification for slavery, genocide as well as many other dispicable acts.

As well they also contain some good stories for acting as life advice, though so do the Analacts of Confusious.





Your comment on Apostates is not mentioned in the Qur'an. But it was quite clear from your posts you weren't very learned on the subject, if you wish I can get into it.

As I already acknowledged the bit about Apostasy is in the Hadith's and different views from different scholars are expressed on it, some believe woman should not be killed.

Some believe you should be imprisoned untill you repent.


And finally I did not say it should be labelled a religion of peace, I was saying it was foolish for people to do so. It teaches various aspects of life as Dr Ramadan says, and humans are by nature violent so it deals with violence as well as many other things.

Raz
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Terrorism
http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/tp/Religious-terrorism.htm

It's far from just the Muslims.



Same question as above, for all other religious acts of terrorism.

I very much doubt there's a single religion which hasn't at some point has atrocities carried out in it's name.

I also very much doubt there's any political theory that hasn't had the same.

For that matter any cause, whatsoever, has most likely had at least one atrocity carried out in the name of furthering it.



See above. Same question related to all other terrorist groups.

If there's any cause to which you subscribe, ask yourself why you don't get together with other moderates to quash the extremists of the cause.



The condemnation and contempt that these people receive is one of the best ways to fight such views, but unfortunately it often makes their views more extreme and gives them the view that they are the righteous underdogs, fighting against a corrupt world.

There are no easy wins.
 
Razgriz;1074670996]


Not what I said at all, I said that religious zealots are not the only ones responsible for those offences, I didn't once claim atheism had anything to do with Stalin or Mao's actions, if anything you just further illustrated my points, that religion isn't the only cause.



I have done plenty of research on Hitler, and the third reich. Where did I claim Hitler was an Atheist? I only highlighted three prominent Megalomaniacs, control freaks and hypocrites who weren't religiously motivated. I wasn't making an argument of Atheism vs Religion, I think you missed the point. I have read excerpts of Hitler's Millenial Reich, I have read Mein Kampf and I have also read Zweites Buch. I have also studied in depth the Weimar Republic or the second reich if you please. Don't assume I make statements about something I have no clue on.



I didn't claim Hitler was an atheist, I wasn't making an argument for against organized religion.



I could basically write you a biography of Stalin's life, albeit a very suofftopicrised version.



No it wasn't, I think you might need to read it again. Your reply to this post may explain where you get some of your ideas/views and responses from.

It was quite clear from the Hitchen's debate you posted earlier (yes I watched most of it). That you failed to see any of the counter arguments, and also failed to understand what Hitchen's was saying and then basically reworded some of his arguments and put them out as your own, out of context backed up by a quick google of anti-Islamic literature. I was a bit disappointed to see your arguments and stance was so transparent.

I would suggest, what you suggested to me, to do some research. Preferably from objective or mixed sources, not research supporting your argument while ignoring all of the counter arguments.
 
The Qur'an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy, with severe punishment to be imposed in the hereafter, but not mentioning explicitly any earthly penalty for apostates. Except 16:106-109, the verses that discuss apostasy all appear in surahs identified as Madinan, that is, they belong to the period when the Islamic state had been established.


I n practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the reintroduction of relatively harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony of regular courts. The punishments include amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy. In 1980, Pakistan, under the leadership of President Zia-ul-Haq, the Federal Shariat Court was created and given jurisdiction to examine any existing law to ensure it was not repugnant to Islam[58] and in its early acts it passed ordinances that included five that explicitly targeted religious minorities: a law against blasphemy; a law punishing the defiling of the Qur'an; a prohibition against insulting the wives, family, or companions of the Prophet of Islam; and two laws specifically restricting the activities of Ahmadis, who were declared non-Muslims.

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


Richard Dawkins - Apostasy In Islam Carries The Death Penalty - YouTube
 
Sorry that was a wake up post lol, first thing I seen this morning.

My bad.


"I would suggest, what you suggested to me, to do some research. Preferably from objective or mixed sources, not research supporting your argument while ignoring all of the counter arguments."

Would you be kind enough to suggest some, objective sources?

Raz
 
I posted the link so you can see some of the other Scholars who hold opposing views, not all believe it should carry the death penalty etc

and I meant to edit my previous post not quote it... fail
 
My reason for posting at all in this thread was when warriorofanart said.

"Then the protesters are all bunch of dumbasses. Violence is never justified in Islam except in self-defense and it has to be the absolute LAST resort. If the protesters were "religious," then this wouldn't have happened. They're just using it as an excuse to vent off frustration and whatnot, exactly what Holy said.

My condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed."


My problem here is it comes across as if he saying they are not true Muslims. If I am misquoting here I apologise.

It seems a common excuse, "Oh ignore them they are not the true believers of Islam"

Though credit to WOA, he does condemn them etc, and as I said the Libyan council came out in condemnation of them.

- So my 2 points were,

1:Who are the true Muslims, or/and is it not fair to say that no one has
the right to say that "he is a true Muslim" or "she is not a true Muslim"

2: Religion is not a religion of peace and it does not claim to be. I never said it did, or that it didn't, I think that this is a western PC phrase that has been generated and used wrongly.



Raz
 
For me personally I was tired of being told what Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supposed to be and how they should be studied. So I went straight to the sources. You would have to be more specific as to what you would like an objective source on, but I have read different excerpts and parts of the Talmud and Torah, I have read the King Jame's Bible a few times, and cross referenced with a few others, I have also read various versions of the Qur'an.

I found this book interesting Amazon.com: The Bible, the Qur'an and Science: (La Bible, le Coran et la Science) The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, translated from the French (9780935782493): Maurice Bucaille, Alastair D. Pannell: Books I have read and watched a lot of stuff that spewed anti Islamic sentiments like Fitnah, I read the counter arguments, I have also studied the three major sects of Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestant. I have also studied and read the Vedas, looked at ancient religions and mythology going from Celtic, pagan, Norse, Teutonic, gaul , some Mayan, I have looked at a lot of Conspiracy theories, sometimes for entertainment sometimes just to cross reference the information. I wouldn't know where to start to tell you to look at something objective. In light of anti-Islamic propaganda, I would suggest going straight into the history if Islam, the spread of Islam looking at the true Khilafah, and the Rashidun, and the history of different sects, the major disparities between Sunni and Shi'a muslims, the schools of thought regarding most Al-Quaeda terrorist networks (wahabism), looking at Hanafai, Hanbali, Sufi schools of thought to grasp an Idea of what Islam is, how it developed and how it is practised in different countries.

The most major spread of Islamic beliefs you will find when scholars disagreed during the middle ages and the split between the Arab/Egyptian caliphs, Ottoman empire (which was the longest lasting), and the Almovarids in North Africa going into the south of Spain.

This is derailing the thread a little, if there is some specific sources you would like, feel free to PM me.
 
I see. So basically..."don't do anything now but when you die you're buggered"?
And there's no compulsion in Islam? Hmmm.
 
Read Zen at War by Brian Victoria.Any religion can be hijacked by people with a political agenda.

In the UK we have problems with extremists in closed Muslim communities.The moderates don't do anything about it because they are quite rightly scared of the extremists.These extremists go around making sure people are fasting during Ramadan,that women are covered up and other such things which are no more than interferring in people's affairs.
 
What about Jainism?
I think Gandhi and Martin Luther King borrowed certain Jain principles (non violence) but as I understand it it'd be impossible to justify violence and/or suicide bombing using Jain doctrine or ideas.
 
As I see it, Islam has been, can be and is an expansionary religion. Christians would expand their religion with missionary and with the sword. But now they do it missionary (In the vast majority). Muslims have spread by the sword and to some extent by the word, and are now still trying to spread with the sword and with the word.

The word comes usually from Saudia Arabia wahabi propaganda that they've fueled with the Oil money. The interesting difference between the sword of Chritisantiy and the sword of Islam is that there is no longer a governing body like there still is with Chrsitainity . There is no Vatican church, there are religious schools and terrorist organizations but these hardly a khalipate.

Which is a good thing, becaause in the past khalipas have tried to conquer lands. With the Quranic and hadiths backup of the east and weast belong to Allah. Subdue the lands until pay submit. Why God does not do this? Why he delegates this violence to humans? Is because Islam was born in Arabia, by desert dwellers who could only grow with the means of raids. Sometimes with words.

The problem with Islam as I see it is a specific one. Sadly the All-Knowing and All-Mercifiul God did not extend his love to others and only to a certain group, and a certain man, but he still wishes the entire world submits because he can stand that others worship other (false) gods. He can't stand you having imaginary friends. Than him. The Quran does say about tolerance for those of the old book that's not the same thing.

Of course not all Muslims are dangerous, this would be an insult to the inherent goodness of many people, empathy and reciprocity that we have from nature and that we share with other maofftopicls. #

And I dont think i have come across saying all Muslims are evil etc, I do have Muslim friends most of which in Amsterdam not the UK just by virtue of were I have traveled. We have a lot of interesting discussions ^_^


Since Jain was mentioned: please ingore the first image its actually part of a lecture by Sam Harris

Sam Harris: Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace - YouTube

Again this second one talks more about the Prophet, the uploader styled the title a bit sadly, but the content is there

Sam Harris tears down Muslim apologetics.....again. - YouTube

If CZ or WOA would like to give us some material that puts Sam Harris wrong I would be interested to see.
 
http://jainhistory.tripod.com/dare.html

It is a non violent doctrine but even they have a limit to their tolerance.
 
I'm not concerned about religious mobs in middle eastern countries. Most of these people just young poorly educated men who have nothing else in their life. What worries me is what reaction this can be used to justify. There are certain sections within the pentagon who would like to see a total annihiliation of Islam. How long is it before someone starts proposing solution to the problem?


The Bear.
 
Slow down a little with the number of posts Razgriz , I post one reply only to see you have posted three more!



They may be Muslims, and many Muslims may condemn them by saying they are not "true Muslims" because their understanding and teachings of Islam are very different to the people who commit atrocious crimes behind the veil of their religion. When the IRA commit crimes in the name of Catholicism (or for it against a protestant north), I don't see them labelled as "Christian terrorists" or "Christian extremists". The entire Christian world are not responsible, do not need to apologize or in any way agree with their actions. Why is Islam tarnished in this light? Mostly because of anti-Islamic propaganda in general, and the media. Also a lack of understanding or knowledge regarding the subject. The Libyan council would need to come out in condemnation, but I can assure you the 110 million Muslims in India, the 60 million in China, or the 1 billion on the planet did not agree with these attacks, and do not need to apologize for them.

Same with Jain extremists in Hinduism, who make a minority, or "Zionists" by Jews across the planet. When Stalin/Mao committed acts in the name of Communism, they were not representing the beliefs of Marx or Lenin, but the portrayed it as such. It became East vs West, and the West capitalized on this with the cold war. The same can be seen of Islam currently, you might want to take a look at the clash of civilizations by Samuel Huntington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

Looking at history, IR, (Hitler's propganda tactics), it is quite obvious to see what is happening at the moment.



I have already explained, someone who is a Muslim must adhere to the five pillars of Islam, that would technically make them a Muslim. Same as how a Christian must accept the holy trinity and Jesus Christ as the son of God. Like the 10 coofftopicndments, and the seven deadly sins. There are also 70 major sins in Islam. (First google link to give you an idea). http://www.allaahuakbar.net/important_issues_of_islaam/major_sins.htm

2. Murder. (Major sin).

29. Committing suicide (Suicide bombing is a major no no).

If you want to get an idea of what motivates the likes of Osama Bin Laden and a lot of Wahabis, if you can get your hand on Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, he is seen as the father of "Islamic fundamentalism". Is someone who is idolosied by the likes of Al-Quaeda and Bin Laden, his views and this book was so controversial, on it's release it was banned in the 60's in Egypt and many other predominantly Muslim countries, but grew in popularity amongst "Muslim intellectuals" as most banned works do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq It is a very philosophical book, very difficult to get through and quite powerful, it's Hitler's Mein Kampf only better written with Philosophy and History and twisting of the Qur'an and Hadiths. This is usually the book where anti-Islamic sentiments, quotes from the Qur'an are taken, this would be your best counter argument.



If you take a look at Shariah law, the Khilafah, the history of Caliphates, the Qur'an, you may understand it better as a religion of Peace. Many scholars claim so, Imams and Aleems in Islam do not have a higher power like priests and cardinals may have in Catholicism in regards to the Pope. So there are differing views and consensus depending on the school, but predominantly they preach peace. Take it as you will, if you want to take a look at some of the violent history of Islam, again look at the Rashidun and the Calpihs, a good read would be the book Letters of the Prophet, actual letters sent by Muhhumad to other world leaders at the time. The Jihad that was then, and the spread of Islam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhaofftopicd's_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State

Here is an E-copy on a quick google search for it http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20letters%20of%20the%20Prophet%20Muhaofftopicd%20to%20the%20Kings%20beyond%20Arabia.pdf There is no copyright or intellectual property in Islam, so it is legally available to share.


I hope this clarifies some of the things for you?
 
Back
Top