Do me this dignity, a final word

[alchemi2]

I never said that ALL Muslims condone violence. Nor did i say that the MAJORITY of Muslims support violence but there are certainly more that a FEW which is why i said MANY.

The Fundamentalists in the Islamic faith are a large group and support conversion by the sword.

The number Islamic Fundamentalist certainly out weight the number of Christian Fundamentalists.

When referring to Muslim extremists it should be remembered we are not just talking about terrorists or small splinter cells. There are many recognised groups that are seen as part of the governments of middle eastern countries and are often supported by the common people in those countries.

[Gobalopper]

emprworm will know because I told him via email back when he was originally banned.

[nemafakei]

[modhat]Ah, sorry, alch. Forgot to reply to that. I was going to email once the ban expires, i.e. in a day or two, to say 'welcome back, please take the time just to check over the rules', but as the voice of Gob has superceded that, I think it'd be a bit redundant.[/modhat]

"There are many recognised groups that are seen as part of the governments of middle eastern countries and are often supported by the common people in those countries."

Pff. Most governments of employ essentially terrorist tactics (or subcontract). The fact that some are also dominated by nonsecular muslim groups (or try to use Islam as an excuse) is neither here nor there.

[erjin999]

Exactly. Look at the CIA, does that not ever use terrorist techniques or use 3rd parties to carry out it works ?

[Andrew]

Pope asked to convert to Islam

"We say to the pope - whether you apologise or not is irrelevant, as apologies make no difference to us."

Yep.

Exactly. Look at the CIA, does that not ever use terrorist techniques or use 3rd parties to carry out it works ?

You mean the tens of thousands of people that they have held in secret prisons throughout the world? ;)

[erjin999]

No

But thats not good either

But please note I am not saying two wrongs make a right or anything either (quite clearly I think).

[GUNWOUNDS]

I just find it hilarious that when Muslims are accused of being violent..... they get angry and riot and prove beyond a doubt that they ARE violent.  How can these educated people not see how they are playing into the beliefs of the people who they are disagreeing with?  Its pure idiocy. 

Pope:  Islam is a violent religion

Muslims: Take that back or we will pray too Allah to give us the power to slit your throats, spill your wine, put a head tax on you, make your money ours, and kill those who dont convert!!

Pope: Oh, I was wrong... doesnt get anymore peaceful than that.

Its like if i offended blacks by saying they are theives .......and then blacks went out and rioted and looted department stores.  The irony is so thick you could choke on a teaspoon of it.

Guns

[Acriku]

I just find it hilarious that when Muslims are accused of being violent..... they get angry and riot and prove beyond a doubt that they ARE violent.  How can these educated people not see how they are playing into the beliefs of the people who they are disagreeing with?

Its like if i offended blacks by saying they are theives .......and then blacks went out and rioted and looted department stores.  The irony is so thick you could choke on a teaspoon of it.

Guns

I find it hilarious that when a minority speaks out against those who insult Islam, inciting violence, etc, everybody assumes it's the entire religion and followers saying that.

If we believed everything where minority was able to make public (and thus the majority believes the same), then we'd be in a lot of trouble with people like Jerry Falwell, the extreme Christian fundamentalists, etc.

To tell you the truth, Christians are notorious for terrorism as well. Just look at the abortion clinics they've blown up. But do you see everyone deciding it must be the religion's fault or the followers' fault in entirety based on what the minority of Christians have done? Hell no. Talk about your double standards.

[GUNWOUNDS]

@Erjin --->  You can police yourselves..... we do police our pedophiles... we aggressively pursue, convict and imprison them.... and even give some chemical castration.   The problem is that muslims will never police themselves.... because deep down in their hearts they most likely agree with what their radical brothers are doing.  Commoners in middle eastern countries routinely say DEATH TO AMERICA.  These arent radicals... its what these people have been raised to believe since childhood.  I would say that Moderate or peaceful Islam doesnt really exist or its really the minority.  I would say "Radical Elements" of Islam are the predominant Islamic force.  You can say theoretically that Islam is a peaceful religion, but are we really analyzing the Qu'ran properly?  Are any of us here really familiar with Islam?  I would say that the Qu'ran may have peaceful parts but when measured against other religious texts it probably is the more violent of the bunch.  Christianity has Jesus the ultimate pacifist.  Islam has Mohammed the skilled swordsman.  Its no wonder you have the present day Hamas, Mujahideen, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

Guns

[Acriku]

@Erjin --->  You can police yourselves..... we do police our pedophiles... we agressively pursue, convict and imprison them.... and even give some chemical castration.  The problem is that muslims will never police themselves.... because deep down in their hearts they most likely agree with what their radical brothers are doing.  Commmoners in middle eastern countries routinely say DEATH TO AMERICA.  These arent radicals... its what these peopel ahve been raised to believe since childhood.  I would say that Moderate or peaceful Islam doesnt really exist or its really the minority.  I would say "Radical Elements" of Islam are the predominant Islamic force.  You can say theoretically that Islam is a peaceful religion, but are we really analyzing the Qu'ran properly?  Are any of us here really familiar with Islam?  I would say that the Qu'ran may have peaceful parts but when measured against other religious texts it probably is the more violent of the bunch.  Christianity has Jesus the ultimate pacifist.  Islam has Mohammed the skilled swordsman.  Its no wonder you have the present day Hamas, Mujahideen, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

Guns

Of course, we can take Christian texts out of context as well to justify the terrorism struck upon abortion clinics:

Matthew 10:34

    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 22:36

    He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Revelation 19:11

    And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Luke 12:51

    Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This is fun!!

[GUNWOUNDS]

I find it hilarious that when a minority speaks out against those who insult Islam, inciting violence, etc, everybody assumes it's the entire religion and followers saying that.

If we believed everything where minority was able to make public (and thus the majority believes the same), then we'd be in a lot of trouble with people like Jerry Falwell, the extreme Christian fundamentalists, etc.

To tell you the truth, Christians are notorious for terrorism as well. Just look at the abortion clinics they've blown up. But do you see everyone deciding it must be the religion's fault or the followers' fault in entirety based on what the minority of Christians have done? Hell no. Talk about your double standards.

The difference is that when the abortion clinic bombings occur the majority of christians are not "rooting" for the bomber.   The Majority of Muslims did not condemn the 9/11 attacks, when our space shuttle exploded many Islamic countries clerical figures stated that it was God's punishment on the infidel, and the public didnt disagree.  You have all the palestinians who voted HAMAS into the government.... you have Lebanese who allowed Hezbollah to be part of parliament.   These Average muslims citizens are embracing their radical elements, instead of condemning it.

The difference is that if someone said christianity was violent.... i doubt you would see christians setting cars on fire and blowing up buildings.... even radical christians.  Our radical elements really ARE nutcases.  Whereas the radical elements of Islam are NOT always nutcase.  Many of them are normal, average, people.  Didnt you read about the Jill Carrol story?  The reporter who was kidnapped by the mujahideen and later released?  I remember an excerpt where the main ringleader who concerted the bombings of american targets in Iraq, sat her down at his dinner table and ate dinner with her and told her why they were successful.  He stated that he can plant his bombs and then come home and eat with his family and relax.  While the American Troops cant do that.  They are stuck in the military base with sh!tty food, no spouse to make love to, and crappy accomodations.  He said he gets to eat homecooked meals, make love to his wife, and sleep in his comfortable house, after a good day of bombing.

 The mujahideen's wife said she couldnt wait to become a suicide bomber.  She isnt a nutcase.... just a poor misled woman who thinks she is going to heaven by killing herself.  These are NOT nutcases.... these are real Muslim people who feel they are doing what is RIGHT.

Again.... i'm not referring to 100% of muslims.... but there does seem to be a fundamental flaw with Islam or how it is interpreted.  Also the number of abortion clinic bombings cant even be compared to the magnitude of violence caused by muslims.

In the last 30 years "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings (combined)."... that may sound like alot but its peanuts compared to toppling the twin towers (billions of dollars), and the amount of violence in the middle east for as long as any of us have been alive.  That right there shows how chritian violence most likely is isolated minorities who may or may not be nutcases.  Whereas the muslim violence seems to be a more rooted and saturated problem that needs SERIOUS addressing, by themselves and the REST of the world.  Comparing Christian violence and Islasmic violence is apples and oranges.  Islam is clearly in need of reform.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Of course, we can take Christian texts out of context as well to justify the terrorism struck upon abortion clinics:

Matthew 10:34

    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 22:36

    He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Revelation 19:11

    And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Luke 12:51

    Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This is fun!!

You are quoting from king james most likely which is why the quotes sound so awkward. In plain english they make much more sense.

1.) The phrase about division is when Jesus is simply stating that because you are a christian ... other who may not agree with your faith will be disagreeable with you.... this is an excellent example of what happened to Chatfish.  Her parents faith is different from her own... and therefore there is division.  Jesus was basically stating the obvious.

2.) The "Sword" here means your faiths or God's word...its metaphorical... meaning arm yourself with the knowledge of God.  It doesnt have physical sword meaning... HOWEVER in the Qu'ran you could find a literal "sword verse".... thats the difference between christianity and islam.  Christian verse are many times poetic and use metaphors and  parables.    Whereas Islam bluntly says decapitate your enemy.  No poetry or metaphors there.

You can have fun making misleading statements..... but thats not the point here... we all know you can take stuff out of context and make it sound terrible.  But thats not what this discussion is about.... its about real fundamental problems with Islam and its practice in Modern Society.  Try and see if you can debate the topic at hand.  Or continue to play games.... who cares really.... these types of threads degenerate anyways.  Why should anyone take them seriously.

Guns

[Acriku]

The point, gunwounds, was to display how easy it is to take things out of context for your own pleasure. Some would argue that that exact thing is being done against Islam, using the Qu'ran. I'm simply showing you how it feels.

All I am showing you is that what you describe to be an ugly part of Islam is in fact a very human thing, where the same thing can happen (and does) in seemingly peaceful religions like Christianity. The minority always has the largest voice.

[gunner154]

I'll have to go with Acriku- on this one. Both religions are victims of having things in their holy books taken out of context. And to begin with, Islam is NOT a violent religion. For obvious reasons, radicals exist who are taking the Qu'ran out of context to manipulate people.

The analogies are all appropriate. Just because people screw things up doesn't mean the thing itself is screwed up. It's highly debatable as to argue whether Muslims are violent or not (to argue so is to make a hasty generalisation), since it is quite fair to dismiss radicals as non-Muslims since they do not understand their holy book in the first place. This is despite it being a somewhat truistic argument, but it has been the whole point of the debate.

To argue whether Islam is a violent religion or not, is a whole new issue altogether, because Islam was never intended to be a violent religion, fundamentally. What we see in the world today might not necessarily be Islam put into practice.

[alchemi2]

So what your saying is that many of the top religious leaders of the Muslim faith do not understand or have incorrectly interpretted their most holy of books! Well thanks for clearing that one up, i stupidly believed that Muslim clerics, Imam's and Ayatollahs to name but a few, were well versed in the the content and interpretation of their own Qu'ran.

Christs teaching are for peaceful conversion and love thy neighbour, the old testament on the other hand, is all for eye for an eye and God was bloodthirst and vengeful.

[gunner154]

So what your saying is that many of the top religious leaders of the Muslim faith do not understand or have incorrectly interpretted their most holy of books!

No, but that they have pretty much misconstrued much of what they read in their holy books.

[nemafakei]

You've got it the wrong way round, alch. Go into any religious text looking for a specific answer and you'll find what you want. No-one looks at the Qu'ran and thinks "hey, violence is great", but the sort of people who are happy to use violence as a tool and have power as their goal will look at the Qu'ran and think "My views are vindicated": and these ruthless people are the ones who will proceed up the ranks (or they will make for powerful leaders outside of formal religion). And in certain areas of the world, the hierarchy is strong.

Now let's look at christianity. Which strands have historically and presently been the most violent, the most supportive of war and so on? The Russian Orthodox church, with its connections to the Tsar, the Catholic church from the crusades to support for Franco, to a lesser degree the Church of England and its affiliates have also been known to endorse violence. The least peaceful? Methodists (depending where you go) are somewhat more pacifist, and Quakers place a lot of emphasis on pacifism. That's a pretty good correlation. Now, if there were any christian church as powerful and as oligarchichal as those in Iran, I have no doubt it would be as strong-worded (and would probably rely a lot more on the OT!).

[alchemi2]

Right just to clarify the situation, I'm not pro Christianity, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians, who resort to extreme methods to get their point across and often resort to violence. These people though are a small minority within the Christian faith.

My only point through out this whole debate on Islam (which for me was secondary to this thread original point), is that violence and intolerance is very prevalent within the Islamic faith and that the fundamentalist line is not only accepted but covers a large proportion Islamic population.

Whilst i accept that ruthless people will use religious text to justify their actions, you need to accept that, if a religions tenets are so easily and widely used to create prejudice, intolerance, violence and dehumanise people then it will create extremist tendances within its own ranks and it will then naturally be judged on their behaviour.

[nemafakei]

"I'm not pro Christianity,"

My point with the christian comparison was that the denominations of christianity with stronger hierarchies are also the most comfortable with violence, and that the same is true of islam - it's just historical accident has meant that a good number of the world's theocracies are muslim.

"it will then naturally be judged on their behaviour"

Oh, yes. I accept entirely that people *will* make such judgements. The only point I disagree on is whether we *should* judge texts by their worst possible interpretations.

"within the Islamic faith"

Is this a deliberate turn of phrase, or do you mean it in the sense of 'within the world's muslims'. Otherwise it's a different question entirely.

[Acriku]

Right just to clarify the situation, I'm not pro Christianity, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians, who resort to extreme methods to get their point across and often resort to violence. These people though are a small minority within the Christian faith.

My only point through out this whole debate on Islam (which for me was secondary to this thread original point), is that violence and intolerance is very prevalent within the Islamic faith and that the fundamentalist line is not only accepted but covers a large proportion Islamic population.

Whilst i accept that ruthless people will use religious text to justify their actions, you need to accept that, if a religions tenets are so easily and widely used to create prejudice, intolerance, violence and dehumanise people then it will create extremist tendances within its own ranks and it will then naturally be judged on their behaviour.

We can talk all day about how a good portion of Muslims are violent, use terrorism, etc, and how easily the Qu'ran can be construed into justifying violent tendencies, but where are the facts to support all of this? Where's the demographic picture that shows that a significant portion of Muslims are violent and "animalic"?

When you consider that there are more than a billion Muslims in this world, if Islam can be construed so easily and at heart is a violent religion, we'd see (imo) a thousand times more violence in the world. Seriously, the number of active terrorists vs. the number of Muslims is staggeringly small.

Also, what tenets of Islam are violent? Are justifying inhumane acts?

I'm not saying there aren't, but it'd be good for all of us if we actually describe what we're saying with examples.

[Digital Guerrilla]

emprworm will know because I told him via email back when he was originally banned.

There is the answer so all of Wormie's bitching is a mute point about his ban. As for the Muslim-Christian debate as you were

[nemafakei]

"There is the answer so all of Wormie's considerate personing is a mute point about his ban"

In Empr's defence, it's not necessarily moot, as I suspect Gob sent the email not the second I clicked the button, but after empr had evaded his ban and been dungeonised for a week.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Here's something to chew on

http://www.citizensoldier.org/72virgins.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,631332,00.html

While suicide is forbidden, martyrdom is everywhere praised, welcomed, and urged: "By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in His way..."; "The Prophet said, 'Nobody who enters Paradise will ever like to return to this world even if he were offered everything, except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed 10 times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him'."

Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."

No F'n wonder they are in such a hurry to strap on a C-4 Vest.

Apparently its not just the Qu'ran that we should be analyzing... it seems the Hadith is also worth of analysis seeing as how it is a collection of documents from Mohammed himself the most sacred of prophets (who authored much of the Qu'ran) and the Hadith makes up the Second most authoritative document in Islam.

Any writings or sayings of Jesus are all contained within the Bible... however.. if any of Christ's personal work was compiled into a seperate text i am sure it would be taken just as serious by christians today as the Hadith is taken seriously by the Muslims.  Worth looking into. 

Edit-  It may be of note.. if you get to the end of that article... all of this Islamic violence could be over a very simple mis-translation.  It seems if you read some of those Suras in Syriac ...rather than Arabic... it turns out that the verses mean.... The matyrs will receive chilled white raisins (as a drink) opposed to the boiling drinks offered to the damned.   It seems all the Muslims blowing themselves up for 72 virgins and an eternal  erection will be sorely disappointed.  However the Qu'ran is stated to only be genuinely understood in Arabic ...not Syriac...... so this new manipulation of the scriptures to make them less materialistic and sexual is still debatable ............ ;D

Guns

Interesting.

[nemafakei]

Trust you to find the most graphic descriptions. It's certainly interesting, though bear in mind two things: first, whichever version you adopt, the question is not so much what the reward is as the what it is that's being rewarded, and secondly, again, whichever version you permit, you've got to wonder if this isn't just florid language or metaphor. I understand there has been a greater tendency within the traditional study of the Qu'ran than other religious texts to take it literally and exclude the possibility of metaphor, which is a shame, I think.

[GUNWOUNDS]

True.... its not really the reward but what is being rewarded that is the question...i agree... however the reward itself is STILL interesting as it shows some insight to the author's character.  Obviously a reward of raisins is not so vulgar as the "delicious vaginas".  Or if the reward was that the muslim got to resurrect an enemy and decapitate him 72 times... you'd have to wonder if that reward wasnt just the slightest bit violent.  ;)  SO yes the actions being rewarded are the main question.... but the reward itself can show some insight to what that faith considers to be "good".  AS a reward is something "good".