Why I Am Not A Muslim [Archive]

headscratcher4

5th August 2002, 11:24 AM

the history of violence and intolerance.

Yes, but that is certainly true of Western Christianity. I am not trying to defend Islam... its current use by nationalist movements in the Middle East as a justification for murder and oppression is clearly abhorrent.

However, when talking about history, keep a couple of things in mind. Until fairly recently (the 2oth Century) Muslims were at least as tolerant if not more so than much of Western culture. Remember, it was the Ottoman sultans who invited the Jews chased out of Europe to Constantinople where they lived in relative harmony with the other religions of that empire.

Remember that many Christians in the Balkans and across the Middle East welcomed the Islamic invasion because they believed (and with some justification) that the Muslims would let them worship according to their beliefs -- unlike Christian leadership in Rome or Byzantine Constantinople.

Keep in mind that at a time when Christians were assembling to launch the crusades, Muslims in Baghdad and other centers of learning were saving Plato, Aristotle as well as medical knowledge, math, engineering, etc. all of which contributed to the eventual renaissance (sp) that swept Europe beginning in the 15th Century.

Anyway, there is much to condemn in Islam, much that is illogical, fallacious, bigoted and promotes ignorance...just like most religions. I think a fair analysis of history would show you that Muslims suffer from many of the same faults, as do most religions, not less, but certainly not more.

Bjorn

5th August 2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Can you give me some examples? Hi Baker,

A random pick from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top
came up with this.

Cannibalism
Lev.26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."
Dt.28:53 "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
Dt.28:57 "And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them."
2 Kg.6:28-29 "This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him."
Is.9:19-20 "Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm."
Is.49:26 "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine."
Jer.19:9 " And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend."
Ezek.5:10 "Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."
Mic.3:2-3 "Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."
Zech.11:9 "I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another."

Don't you see how someone with a negative attitude towards Christianity could've made some nice points from this?

I'm sorry I don't have the time to give a lot more examples, but check the link and read some of it and you'll see what I mean.

And we haven't even mentioned killings and wars done on behalf of Christianity - they would make some nice chapters in the book. :(

Earthborn

5th August 2002, 02:08 PM

Let's see what the ACTUAL Koran says shall we? After all we wouldn't want to discount a book because of some internet quotes that could have easily been edited or taken entirely out of context...

I used this website: Online Koran (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/)
If anyone challenges the translation in this, I'll be glad to hear it.

(emphasis mine)

Quoted by ex-mulim now atheist:

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.” (Quran47.4).

Actual Soura:
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Clearly this shows that in war a Muslim warrior is to take prisoners, not kill them. The way the ex-muslim quoted this Soura it seems that Muslims are to kill all unbelievers they meet, while the actual Soura speaks about taking them captive when in battle! Sounds like two different things to me.

Quoted by ex-muslim, now atheist:
"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God [i.e. moshrekin.] wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."(Quran 9:5)

Actual Soura:
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This Soura is quoted much better. Let's not forget however that the bible isn't too keen on 'idolaters' itself!

However, if we assume that 'slay' means to kill someone (as my dictionary does) both versions of the Soura make no sense! You can't kill someone first and then expect them to repent and pay taxes, can you? I suspect that by 'slaying' these verse mean 'conquering'. Of course it could be that this verse really doesn't make sense, I haven't read it in its original Arabic (looks all Greek to me)

I'm quite sick of all these misquoted and invented Koran quotes that are circulating on the internet to 'prove' that Islam is a violent religion. Surely there is enough that's actually in the Koran to criticize? We don't have to invent our own, do we?

This sort of misrepresentation of the Koran is all too easily used by people who want to demonize the entire Muslim community, making them look like they're all terrorists.
What those people are forgetting that, even if the Koran is full of violent stuff, it is irrelevant, because it is not the Koran that defines the Muslim faith. It is defined by the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are peacefull and caring: religion is (and I'm sure atheists will agree) what you make of it yourself...

Bjorn

5th August 2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Let's see what the ACTUAL Koran says shall we? After all we wouldn't want to discount a book because of some internet quotes that could have easily been edited or taken entirely out of context...

Earthborn, we agree. It is probably both easy and tempting to cheat a bit about Islam right now, like Baker's review showed us.

On the other hand, at least for the Bible, i don't think we have to invent anything to find quotes that could (and should?) ridicule the religion, at least to modern people.

More from the http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm
_______________
Religious Tolerance
Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
2 Chr.15:13 "whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
_________________________

It wouldn't look good after being twisted a bit by a heathen! (Fact is, it looks bad enough as it is ...) :)

susheel

6th August 2002, 12:23 AM

Actually Baker, "Why I am not a Christian" has already been published. It was the title of a lecture by none other than Bertrand Russel:
Here is the text. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm)

Incidentally a google search of 'Why I am not a Christian' gave me this (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=why+I%27m+not+a+christian&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off)

There is also another interesting book by a professor from Hyderabad who I had the honour of interacting with a lot:

Why I am not a Hindu (http://www.mergingcurrents.com/book2052.html)

6th August 2002, 12:31 AM

And then there's also Sura 109 (title translated alternatively as "The Unbelievers" or "The Disbelievers"):

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Peter Soderqvist

6th August 2002, 02:45 AM

TO EARTHBORN

Soderqvist1: Usama Bin Laden has only done what the holy Koran has told him to do! Fair use of quote from the Koran, by the University of Virginia!

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.”

"3.85": And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

5.51": O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

"4.56": (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.74": Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

"8.12": When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html

The holy Koran resources on Internet are in accord with the University of Virginia. For instance, your English Translation, Translated by M. H. Shakir, on their home Side, is the same as your Koran reference.
http://www.quran.org.uk/

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to willfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic components. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels. Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet].
http://www.secularhumanism.org/wtc.htm

DESIGN FOR A FAITH BASED MISSILE BY RICHARD DAWKINS
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisiacal escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed sexual promises—ludicrous and degrading to women though they are—and is it any wonder that naïve and frustrated young men are clamoring to be selected for suicide missions?

There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organization, or priesthood, it is very very cheap. Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliché: mindless cowardice. Mindless may be a suitable word for the vandalizing of a telephone booth. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11th. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East, which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_22_1.html

:(

Baker

6th August 2002, 10:32 AM

Bjorn I have seen you take the Islam side in many threads what is your need to defend them?
For everyone else this is a link to some of the most well known skeptics of Islam.
http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/index.htm

Bjorn

6th August 2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Baker
Bjorn I have seen you take the Islam side in many threads what is your need to defend them?
For everyone else this is a link to some of the most well known skeptics of Islam.
http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/index.htm Hi Baker,

Yes, I am aware that it might look as I am an eager defender of Islam - which I am not.

However, when Christians/Americans (rightfully maybe) accuse Islam for being this or that, I think it is proper to point out that Christianity certainly is no better.

Christians, when reminded about terrible things done in the name of God, tend to say "don't blame Christianity as a religion, blame those individuals that got it wrong".

I think it is fair if muslims are allowed to say the same. It does not mean I agree.

Victor Danilchenko

6th August 2002, 10:47 AM

[agrees with Bjorn]

Baker

6th August 2002, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hi Baker,

Yes, I am aware that it might look as I am an eager defender of Islam - which I am not.

However, when Christians/Americans (rightfully maybe) accuse Islam for being this or that, I think it is proper to point out that Christianity certainly is no better.

Christians, when reminded about terrible things done in the name of God, tend to say "don't blame Christianity as a religion, blame those individuals that got it wrong".

I think it is fair if muslims are allowed to say the same. It does not mean I agree.

I’m not taking the Christian view of Islam I go by former muslims.
True Christians have there tainted past also just reading the Koran it shows you they wish to take what ever means possible to spread there religion.

Bjorn

6th August 2002, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Baker

I’m not taking the Christian view of Islam I go by former muslims.
True Christians have there tainted past also just reading the Koran it shows you they wish to take what ever means possible to spread there religion. Hi Baker,

In these days of anger and hate towards muslim terrorists, it seems adequate and even necessary to point out that 'our' religion is no better.

Your words 'they wish to take what ever means possible to spread there religion' might be true, but so is this quote from the Bible:

"whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
:(

Pahansiri

6th August 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Baker
I read this book about a year ago it gives you a good incite into the world of Islam written by an ex-Muslim now atheist.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/muslimfreethinkers/why_i_am_not_a_muslim.htm" target="_new">
review </a>

Greetings Baker.

One needs to remember that Islam and the Quran were developed from the OT. The first arising of hate between the groups is when the Jews rejected Mohammad?s desire to be recognized by the Jews as part of the family if you will. In fact Ramadan is the direct effect of the Jews not allowing the Muslims to partake in Jewish holidays.

It is sad to see any beliefs attacking others but often you see it and here is an example of a Christian pointing fingers at Muslims, saying their book contains such evil things. The fact is of course the OT if far move violent then Quran and the NT is about the same as the Quran.

Please remember that the stories of Moses is him wandering though the desert for many many years killing anyone who was not like them, men, woman and children. The only ones not spared were virgins who were taken as slaves. One typical example is

Numbers 25:4-9,
when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: 'Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun.' Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

You asked for examples of Judeo-Christian passages that were similar to the one from the Quran you posted. I can give to you hundreds maybe a thousand or more. Please do except just a few examples that are in the same tone as the one you posted from the Quran. What to do with people not like you.

Do you kill gay people as you are told too?
Leviticus 20:13 "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Why can not you stone a someone like Sylvia Brown to death as you are told by the Bible?

Leviticus 20:27 "`A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

But then it says in
Numbers 35:17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
Strange???

And silly, but more sad then silly and more contradictions as then again it says

Deuteronomy 17:5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death

Here in Leviticus you must kill any one who is not Christian, says anything against Christian or is no longer Christian.

Leviticus 24:16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

And this Deuteronomy 13:10 Stone him to death, because tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Again I don?t wish to go on for many pages but consider

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor

I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

In closing please remember when ever you point the finger at someone 3 point back at you.

Just what I believe and I mean no disrespect

wolfgirl

6th August 2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
In these days of anger and hate towards muslim terrorists, it seems adequate and even necessary to point out that 'our' religion is no better.I could be wrong, as I don't know Baker or his/her ideology. But it didn't seem to me that Baker was defending xianity. I certainly wasn't. I would say the same things about either. I myself think that both xianity and Islam are ridiculous and more evil than good. I would more likely say, "why I am not religious" than "why I am not a muslim" or "why I am not a xian."

P.S. I don't think there's anything wrong with "anger and hate toward muslim terrorists," as long as that anger and hate doesn't extend to all muslims.

Bjorn

6th August 2002, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by wolfgirl
I could be wrong, as I don't know Baker or his/her ideology. But it didn't seem to me that Baker was defending xianity. I certainly wasn't. I would say the same things about either. I myself think that both xianity and Islam are ridiculous and more evil than good. I would more likely say, "why I am not religious" than "why I am not a muslim" or "why I am not a xian."

P.S. I don't think there's anything wrong with "anger and hate toward muslim terrorists," as long as that anger and hate doesn't extend to all muslims. Good points - I agree that Baker is not defending Christianity in his post.

(On the other hand, he does the same mistake by asking me why I defended Islam - while I was basically attacking Christianity).

However and in general - attacks on Islam make me, living in the "Cristian part' of the world, react by thinking 'so what about our own religion? Why is this guy attacking Islam and not Christianity?'

If one wants to find stupid quotes in a wholy book, one doesn't have to look further than the Bible.

And, there might be nothing wrong with "anger and hate toward muslim terrorists," as long as that anger and hate doesn't extend to all muslims.

But I would much prefer 'Anger and hate toward terrorists.'

Pahansiri

6th August 2002, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn

But I would much prefer 'Anger and hate toward terrorists.'

I would agree but may take it just a bit futher, anger and dislike of actions that cause suffering to any being. Hate is what is the fuel of ones who hate if I hold on to this fuel I will in time become what I dislike or see as wrong.

Just what I believe.

I must also say I read this page too fast and if I assumed something wrong as it concerns Baker please know my friend I am sorry.

Baker

7th August 2002, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hi Baker,

In these days of anger and hate towards muslim terrorists, it seems adequate and even necessary to point out that 'our' religion is no better.

Your words 'they wish to take what ever means possible to spread there religion' might be true, but so is this quote from the Bible:

"whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
:(
Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA?

Pahansiri

7th August 2002, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA?

Again this statement is like your first to which I responded to, it is hypocrisy. If you are a Christian then history shows clearly to you the effects, suffering and death that were caused by forced Christian conversions. Many in this country complained so when years ago we set aside a day for MLK ( I am not saying you id in anyway), yet we have had for so many years a day for Columbus who was a wicked man who was a slave trader and killed thousands of native peoples who would not convert to Christianity. History points out thousands of these events, one can not hide from the inquisitions, crusades, or burnings etc these being just a few. Vlad the impaler, the ruler from Romania, the model for Dracula was called the greatest Christian solder of his time by the Pope of that time, he killed hundreds of thousands.

Why is it right for Christians to force their beliefs on others and not Islam? I don?t think it is right for anyone or any belief to force their beliefs on anyone.

Again when you point the finger at another 3 point back.

Dorman

7th August 2002, 05:07 AM

Baker:
Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA?

... and can you tell me the religion that has shown the fastest average growth rate in the world over the past 2000 years ?

stamenflicker

7th August 2002, 07:07 AM

Well, I see two fundamental flaws throughout this thread. The first, and I think it has been mentioned elsewhere in another thread, is that fundamentalism is the death knell of the human spirit. It is the nail in the coffin on progress. It is bloody. With fundamentalism in any religion, or ideology [such as communism] for that matter, there can be no room to question, investigate, explore, or even grow. The answers are by definition already available.

Second, and I think more importantly, I've seen here the inability to understand that culture and religion are so tightly woven together that only the sharpest minds can untangle them while within any given epoch. Hindsight is 20-20. It's easy for any group to look back and accuse a religious group or whoever of being stupid, violent, bloody, whatever.

The fact is someday someone will look back on this society and find many stupid people. To connect this to the thread I started, I can imagine that one day people will look back and wonder why we decided to drug 1/4 of our children due to "Attention Deficit Disorder." It will be seen as a mild form of slavery. Most likely some of the best minds in history would have been diagnosed with this disorder and had their thoughts "drug"-ed out of them. The problem is that we no longer have a space for the ADD child to develop, he's outside of the box of education and therefore must be controlled. Curiosuly, ADD is primarly an American phenomenon. We are brutes, bullies, and torturers in this regard, or at least we'll be seen as such. IMO.

But pick your issue and you'll see that people are usually unlikely to see beyond the horizon, or world view, constructed for them. Hebrews' reality was one of "chosen-ness" by God. If you think you have been chosen by God and your neighbor has not, why not lop off his head? If you are the righteous one, then he is the infidel. Lop off his head. If you are the German nation supreme, lop off their heads.

The error in this thread is the assumption that people make conscious choices to be or do these things. Sometimes they do sure, but more often than not they can see no other alternatives to even make an active choice. Ancient man did not have our reasoning skills. It's a joke to apply our skills backward upon them.

A final problem is the unity of power (state) and any ideology. These will demand the limit of freedoms, unless of course freedom is your ideology as it is here. We only need to look to the middle ages, or to Stalin's Russia, or to China's assualt on Cambodia to see the truth of this statement.

Flick

Bjorn

7th August 2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA? Baker,

No, I cannot, but the question coming from you I would guess the answer is Islam?

This question, like the rest of your postings in this thread, indicates that you have a fear of Islam - or that Islam somehow is a worse alternative than Christianity.

Is my assumption correct?

If so, why do you have such feelings? Please explain.

If not, why do you pick on Islam when Christianity is so much bigger, both in the US and the total world?

Earthborn

7th August 2002, 05:38 PM

Usama Bin Laden has only done what the holy Koran has told him to do! Oh, yeah. You must mean Soura 10243:2344:
"Steal some of the flying machines from the idolators and fly them in the two towers that form the idol of the Great Saitan. Kill thousands of infidels, don't spare their wives and children! For Allah is Mercifull, Wise!"

Well, I don't think so. I doubt Usama ever read it. How do I know? I just made it up myself!

The problem is that Usama Bin Laden wants you to believe he just acted out what the Koran says. Claiming you just act out of what millions of people believe is the will of God is easier than convincing people that he's right when he just says he made it up.

But if the Holy Koran is so clear in promoting such acts, how is it possible that others who read the same book come to the exact opposite conclusion? Muslims AGAINST Terrorism (http://www.matusa.org/home.asp)

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
Well, who the heck does Ibn Waraq think he is? And why is his opinion valued higher than all those people who believe terrorism is unislamic?
I just showed that some of the Koran verses he uses to prove that
(“A sincerely religious man is often an exceedingly bad man”) This fact applies to no one more than to Muslims.
are just made up or very poorly translated. Why would you want to take this man still seriously? Just because he is 'now an atheist' ?
DESIGN FOR A FAITH BASED MISSILE BY RICHARD DAWKINS
Quite an interesting opinion. Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Maybe Dawkins was inspired by it. Or vice versa.

Problem of course is that Richard Dawkins is not an expert on geopolitics. I'd take his word on everything that has to do with evolution, but on this sissue I don't think his opinion his of any more value than that of a random taxidriver or construction worker.

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.”

{snip)

"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The holy Koran resources on Internet are in accord with the University of Virginia. For instance, your English Translation, Translated by M. H. Shakir, on their home Side, is the same as your Koran reference.

As I said: "Surely there is enough that's actually in the Koran to criticize?"
I think it is fair if muslims are allowed to say the same. It does not mean I agree.
Hear, hear! And I say that atheists are allowed to say the same about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. Or does one of you think these atrocities prove that atheism is inherently evil?
I’m not taking the Christian view of Islam I go by former muslims.
One former muslim. Who thinks he can write a better Koran than Mohammed (peace be upon him)!
Hey, why don't we write brand new Bibles, Torahs, Bagavad-Gitas or other religious works and use its verses against the religious people who we claim believe these books? Wouldn't that be great? We wouldn't have to wade through thousands of peacefull and reasonable verses to find the occasional verse that could be interpreted as violent!

Or maybe we just need a www.skepticsannotatedkoran.com
Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA? Well, it appears you haven't been long in the skeptic business have you? If you were then you would have known that 'fastest growing' almost always means 'still very small'. As used in newsitem 'Whateverball: the fastest growing sport in the World', Jack taught his brother to play whateverball. Effect: 100% increase in the number of Whateverball players. "Newsflash: Whateverball doubles in popularity!"

If you are afraid of Islam, you shouldn't worry about 'fastest growing'. The growth will probably slow down later. You should not worry about Islam in the United States until a majority of people is outraged about removing "ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Bjorn

7th August 2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn

If you are afraid of Islam, you shouldn't worry about 'fastest growing'. The growth will probably slow down later. You should not worry about Islam in the United States until a majority of people is outraged about removing "ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH" from the Pledge of Allegiance. :) :)

Nine points from me - what about you, Baker?

headscratcher4

8th August 2002, 06:53 AM

I thought that this editorial from today's Washington Post might be of some interest to those engaging in this discussion....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57379-2002Aug7.html

wolfgirl

8th August 2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
But if the Holy Koran is so clear in promoting such acts, how is it possible that others who read the same book come to the exact opposite conclusion?The same way that some people (Fred Phelps and his ilk being the most extreme example, but Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. will do as well) declare that the Bible says "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Will Burn in Hell" and use that Bible as their excuse for picketing the funerals of homosexuals, etc., while others say that that same Bible's kind and munificent god loves all people equally and that gay people can be married in the church and so on.

These mythological books can be interpreted in many ways to defend almost any position. Most mainstream xians will say Fred Phelps' views don't reflect their god's views, but others will insist that they do. Who can say which is right, since it's just an old book?

That's why I disdain all fundamentalist religions, not just xianity or Islam. Any religion that claims that their god is better than some other god (or that their god tells them what to do or that the followers of another religion or lifestyle are evil or infidels or what have you) has the potential of its followers doing violence in the name of that god. Let's not get into a politically correct position of defending Islam because not all Muslims are violent. Not all xians are backwards, either, but we don't generally defend the xian religion. We should fear all of this myth-based ideology as it is all dangerous.

Bjorn

8th August 2002, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by wolfgirl
The same way that some people (Fred Phelps and his ilk being the most extreme example, but Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. will do as well) declare that the Bible says "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Will Burn in Hell" and use that Bible as their excuse for picketing the funerals of homosexuals, etc., while others say that that same Bible's kind and munificent god loves all people equally and that gay people can be married in the church and so on.

These mythological books can be interpreted in many ways to defend almost any position. Most mainstream xians will say Fred Phelps' views don't reflect their god's views, but others will insist that they do. Who can say which is right, since it's just an old book?

That's why I disdain all fundamentalist religions, not just xianity or Islam. Any religion that claims that their god is better than some other god (or that their god tells them what to do or that the followers of another religion or lifestyle are evil or infidels or what have you) has the potential of its followers doing violence in the name of that god. Let's not get into a politically correct position of defending Islam because not all Muslims are violent. Not all xians are backwards, either, but we don't generally defend the xian religion. We should fear all of this myth-based ideology as it is all dangerous. In my opinion, very well said. :)

Tricky

8th August 2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Again when you point the finger at another 3 point back.
Well, that kind of depends on the orientation of your hand, doesn't it? I mean, if you point to someone to the left of you (using your right hand) your other three fingers either point to the right or to the front, depending on how much you curl them.

(apologies, Pahansiri, but I've always hated that corny cliché) ;)

Originally posted by Baker
Tell me can you name the fastest growing religion in the USA?

Depends on how you measure it. Percentage-wise of all religions with several thousand members, it's probably Neo-Paganism. However, if Franko started a cult and got two people to join it, Logical Deism would have increased by 200%.

Personally, I am a believer in pedantism.

Pahansiri

8th August 2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, that kind of depends on the orientation of your hand, doesn't it? I mean, if you point to someone to the left of you (using your right hand) your other three fingers either point to the right or to the front, depending on how much you curl them.

(apologies, Pahansiri, but I've always hated that corny cliché) ;)

Personally, I am a believer in pedantism.

Hello my friend Tricky..

NO need to apologize and some good points to ponder. I just tried to point the finger at one of my Greyhounds from many angles. From many of the angles it is VERY true my remaining 3 fingers did when curled tightly not point back at me.

Well not all of me. Each time I tried this experiment I did find that my fingers when curled tightly did in fact point back at the center of MY hand/palm. I thought, "That is MY palm is it not? So am I not pointing back at me?"

I also noticed that one of the times when pointing to the left with my right hand there was a mirror in front of me and could feel the rays from my fingers passing through my hand and into the mirror then pointing back at the reflection of me.

BUT then I said to myself " Self" He is right you are Buddhist, you do not believe in a self, no soul, no set being. After death there will be no more Mark Bertrand/Pahansiri just whet you believe is a primordial consciousness and that is ever changing, not at all set and fixed so you can never have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself as there is no self?

But then I also thought Pahan you're just a big dork shut up and say "you're right Tricky I'm such a dork", But then I thought if there is no me then I'm not just a big dork.

But then I thought " hey Franko keeps calling be a pussy, maybe I am a pussy." But no, I looked in the mirror again, you know the one that was in front of me during my experiment and there I was, well the body I am in that is impermanent and dying all the time. I looked and said to myself:

"Self you have 2 cats and you don?t look like either one of then. But that body is impermanent, changing ever second so that can not be self".:(

But then I thought "Maybe he means like a Vagina" But no, I looked in the mirror again, you know the one that was in front of me during my experiment and there I was, well the body I am in that is impermanent and dying all the time. I looked and said to myself "Self you know what a Vagina looks like and you aint that".:eek:

But then I thought to myself "Self, just do what many do when another person does not think or believe as they do, just call Tricky names, tell him he is WRONG but offer no proof and totally go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what is being talked about":rolleyes:

But then I thought to myself " No"

:D It is a silly cliché

Baker

8th September 2002, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker,

No, I cannot, but the question coming from you I would guess the answer is Islam?

This question, like the rest of your postings in this thread, indicates that you have a fear of Islam - or that Islam somehow is a worse alternative than Christianity.

Is my assumption correct?

If so, why do you have such feelings? Please explain.

If not, why do you pick on Islam when Christianity is so much bigger, both in the US and the total world?

Does Christianity have worldwide network of terrorist?

How many countries have governments that are run by Christians and make their laws under Christian beliefs?

Why are there so many Human Rights violations in Muslim countries?

Do Christianity convert to Muslims and get threatened with the death penalty?

Egypt alone offers a number of examples. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, a professor of literature who wrote that certain references in the Qur'an to supernatural phenomena should be read as metaphors, found his marriage dissolved by an Egyptian court on the grounds that his writings proved him an apostate. (According to Islamic law, a Muslim woman may not be married to a non-Muslim.)

Pahansiri

8th September 2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Does Christianity have worldwide network of terrorist?

How many countries have governments that are run by Christians and make their laws under Christian beliefs?

Why are there so many Human Rights violations in Muslim countries?

Do Christianity convert to Muslims and get threatened with the death penalty?

Greetings my friend. Please know I do not mean to disrespect your belief and will not pain with a broad brush as you have done ALL Christians.

You ask Does Christianity have worldwide network of terrorist?

No just as Islam does not. There are factions within that religion that do just as there in Your Christian beliefs. I am sure you have heard of Northern Ireland, in the US the FBI identifies or tracks 500 or so hate groups. The vast majority of these groups are (90+%) religious and of that by far the most are Christian Identity groups. I am very sure you have heard of the KKK, Church of the Creator etc? Does this mean all Christians are like this NO, does the hateful Muslims mean all are NO.

Uoy ask the following 3
{quote]How many countries have governments that are run by Christians and make their laws under Christian beliefs?

Why are there so many Human Rights violations in Muslim countries?

Do Christianity convert to Muslims and get threatened with the death penalty?[/quote]

I will answer all three with this. In the past all 3 would be very true of Christianity. We need only look at history to see this in clear example, crusades, inquisitions, convert or die policies of the Catholic Church, what was done in so many countries forcing conversions and killing who would not. Just see what was don to the Indians of this country. I could go on for hours.

You will say that was in the past, that is true but these lives had the same value of yours or mine. But to my point.

Islam is an Old Testament religion, based upon and developed from your Old Testament. The very things you condemn as you should as treatment of woman etc is very much Old Testament all these things and much more evil hate and treatment of beings is found there as I and other clearly point out above. To repeat it would be redundant.

Many Christians will say that Christ changes these laws a new convenient, that would contradict the Bible as it is said that Christ said: do not think I came to change the laws, I came to fulfill them.

The attacks on each other will end when we all end the attacks on each other.

Just what I believe. Be well and happy

Bjorn

8th September 2002, 05:07 PM

Baker,
Does Christianity have worldwide network of terrorist? I certainly don't hope so.

Some Muslim fundamentalists are terrorists. Some Christians are as well (I think you have to be one to kill abortion doctors or the pregnant girls, just to mention one example).

I am NOT trying to say that the percentage (of 'terrorists') is equal among people of different faiths, I'm trying to say that you'll find terrorists within many of them.

To answer more directly: No, Christianity as such does not have a worldwide network of terrorists. Neither has Islam.

How many countries have governments that are run by Christians and make their laws under Christian beliefs?A good point.

I really don't know how many of our laws (in Europe and the US) that are based on our Christian heritage, but there must be plenty of them.

Jews were not allowed entry to quite a few European countries until ... (can't find the year), sex outside marriage and sex between two males have been and probably are still prohibited in many 'Christian' countries (at least in many states in the US).

The Danish queen MUST be a Christian, so must the Norwegian king.

Now the essence of your question seems to be that it is somehow wrong if a country makes its laws under Christian beliefs. I couldn't agree more, however IMHO we'll find ourselves in a minority in the US.

Why are there so many Human Rights violations in Muslim countries? I take it you mean 'so many' as opposed to 'not-so-many' in non-muslim countries?

I think you should come up with some backing of that claim, maybe Amnesty International could be a place to look?

Do Christianity convert to Muslims and get threatened with the death penalty? No, I hope not.

And the same goes for 'most' muslim countries - you'll not be threatened with the death penalty. I'm not saying it won't happen anywhere, but it is certainly not the common rule.

The fact is, your own example goes like this:

Egypt alone offers a number of examples. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, a professor of literature who wrote that certain references in the Qur'an to supernatural phenomena should be read as metaphors, found his marriage dissolved by an Egyptian court on the grounds that his writings proved him an apostate. (According to Islamic law, a Muslim woman may not be married to a non-Muslim.) 'He found his marriage dissolved'.

'Marriage dissolved' cannot possibly be as bad as death penalty?

Supercharts

9th September 2002, 06:54 PM

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian man cut off his seven- year-old daughter's head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle, the Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper said on Sunday.

A post-mortem, however, showed the girl was still a virgin.

"The motive behind the killing was to defend my honor, fame, and dignity," the paper quoted the father as saying.

Rape often goes unreported in Iran where the conservative society sees it as bringing shame on the victim and family.

Local people have called for the man, who has been arrested, to be hanged, but under Iran's Islamic law only the father of the victim has the right to demand the death sentence.

The paper said the father, named as Khazir, has three wives.

WanderingKnight

9th September 2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Does Christianity have worldwide network of terrorist?

No. But ask someone from Northern Ireland about Terrorism and religious differences. There's Christians on both sides of that divide.

How many countries have governments that are run by Christians and make their laws under Christian beliefs?

How is this relevant? There are certainly people in the US who want America to be a Christian Theocracy.

Why are there so many Human Rights violations in Muslim countries?
I think that the problem is that there are human rights violation a-plenty in any authoritarian nation, both those with secular and religious dictatorships.

Do Christianity convert to Muslims and get threatened with the death penalty?
Not sure I follow this sentence... are you saying that Christians who convert to Islam are threatened?

Egypt alone offers a number of examples. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, a professor of literature who wrote that certain references in the Qur'an to supernatural phenomena should be read as metaphors, found his marriage dissolved by an Egyptian court on the grounds that his writings proved him an apostate. (According to Islamic law, a Muslim woman may not be married to a non-Muslim.)
Wow, dissolved his marriage? That's telling him.

My point is, why blame Islam for what isolated people do? that's like blaming current Christians for the crusades. Or saying that because some fundamentalists blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, single mothers et al (I'm looking at you, Falwell), then all Christians are misogynistic ********?

Baker

14th September 2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker,
To answer more directly: No, Christianity as such does not have a worldwide network of terrorists. Neither has Islam.

Neither has Islam?
Are you saying that you have never heard of Al Qaida?

A good point.

I really don't know how many of our laws (in Europe and the US) that are based on our Christian heritage, but there must be plenty of them.

Jews were not allowed entry to quite a few European countries until ... (can't find the year), sex outside marriage and sex between two males have been and probably are still prohibited in many 'Christian' countries (at least in many states in the US).

The Danish queen MUST be a Christian, so must the Norwegian king.

Now the essence of your question seems to be that it is somehow wrong if a country makes its laws under Christian beliefs. I couldn't agree more, however IMHO we'll find ourselves in a minority in the US.

I mean where Christian governments dominate the country as most Muslim countries do. Where none Muslims must pay higher taxes and are considered 2nd class citizens that is if they are aloud at all.

I'm not a Christian but you want to compare it to Islam so I'm complying with you!

I take it you mean 'so many' as opposed to 'not-so-many' in non-muslim countries?

I think you should come up with some backing of that claim, maybe Amnesty International could be a place to look?

I have and Amnesty International has many good examples.

No, I hope not.

And the same goes for 'most' muslim countries - you'll not be threatened with the death penalty. I'm not saying it won't happen anywhere, but it is certainly not the common rule.

How many countries does it take to be wrong?

The fact is, your own example goes like this:

'He found his marriage dissolved'.

'Marriage dissolved' cannot possibly be as bad as death penalty?

Yes its not as bad as the death penalty but its still wrong.

Have you read Randi’s commentary this week let me share one of the articles with you?

"Freethought Today" also reports that a court in Lahore, Pakistan, has sentenced a young Muslim to death for making "derogatory statements" about the Prophet Mohammed and Islam. These "crimes" included pointing out that some of Mohammed's actions violated the teachings of Islam, such as marrying scores of wives even although Islam limits the number to four. He also observed that Islam prohibits alcohol use, while Allah in the Koran promises wine in the afterlife to good believers. Scores of people are arrested every year in Pakistan for blasphemy.

Questions: is this court telling us that Mohammed did not violate the rules of the religion he himself founded? Or is this hapless youth being executed merely for telling the truth? Perhaps telling the truth when it's unpopular, is a capital crime in Pakistan? If a Moslem were to take five wives, would he, too, be executed? Is sinning (drinking wine) okay in Paradise? If so, what other crimes/sins are then allowed in that exalted state? More crickets.....

My borrowed thoughts from "Freethought Today" end with their note that during a recent broadcast in the UK, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins called the notion of a creator "infantile," saying, "Humanity can now leave the crybaby phase and finally come of age." I've written to Professor Dawkins asking if I might use a transcript of his address here on our web page. This man knows how to call it like it is. Bravo!

Bjorn

14th September 2002, 04:04 PM

Baker
Neither has Islam?
Are you saying that you have never heard of Al Qaida?
Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida? Is Christianity behind the Christian fundamentalists?

I mean where Christian governments dominate the country as most Muslim countries do. Where none Muslims must pay higher taxes and are considered 2nd class citizens that is if they are aloud at all. Please give examples of the tax systems, many countries please (since you write like it is 'most').

Considered 2nd class citizens? I can quote a former president, the father of the present one, who said that he didn't consider atheists citizens of the US at all, not even 2nd class.

I have and Amnesty International has many good examples. Why don't you give us some then? Examples of how Amnesty says that we have more violations in Muslim countries than in the others?

How many countries does it take to be wrong? If one is enough, you lost already.

From what I could see you were dead wrong on the first one you provided - the guy wasn't exactly killed but his marriage was 'dissolved'. Why did you give us an example that proved something different from what you were claiming?

You claimed, please prove - and again, give us more than one country please.

Yahzi

14th September 2002, 04:37 PM

Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida?
Linking Al Qaida to Islam is like linking the KKK to Christianity.

Which is, um, pretty much accurate.

Damn... what was my point again?

Baker

15th September 2002, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker
Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida? Is Christianity behind the Christian fundamentalists?

The Christian fundamentalists don't have a network of terrorist cells all over the world not all muslims or behind Al Qaida but you never hear muslim clerics speaking out against them and if you noticed in most Islamic countries they protested in favor of Bin laden.

Considered 2nd class citizens? I can quote a former president, the father of the present one, who said that he didn't consider atheists citizens of the US at all, not even 2nd class.

I don't recall hearing this but did he make laws to back his statement?
And take rights away from atheists?
And you keep avoiding my question how many Christian ruled countries are there?
And make all laws from the bible?

Why don't you give us some then? Examples of how Amnesty says that we have more violations in Muslim countries than in the others?.

Look at the list they don't provide stats on types of governments just the violations but there is a lot they don't report.

If one is enough, you lost already.

I have no idea what your saying here?

From what I could see you were dead wrong on the first one you provided - the guy wasn't exactly killed but his marriage was 'dissolved'. Why did you give us an example that proved something different from what you were claiming?
I did I say he was a muslim convert to Christianity?
I don't see how I proved something different from what I was claiming?

You claimed, please prove - and again, give us more than one country please.
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan to name a few.

Peter Soderqvist

15th September 2002, 11:52 PM

TO BJORN

Bjorn wrote on page 1, 09-15-2002 12:04 AM: Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida? Is Christianity behind the Christian fundamentalists?

Soderqvist1: I will put it in this way!
Al-Qaida 's behavior is more in accord with what is literally stated in the holy Koran, than the modern Islamic behavior is. Analogically, the young earther, or the flat-earth movement, is literally more in accord with the bible, than modern Christianity is. Tautologically, fundamentalism stems from some scriptural fundament, and modernism have thus no base in the fundament!

When the fundament is rejected, why don't they skip it all together?

Baker

16th May 2003, 01:11 PM

I know this is an old thread but there are many posts left unanswered from when I originally started this thread.

Originally posted by headscratcher4

However, when talking about history, keep a couple of things in mind. Until fairly recently (the 2oth Century) Muslims were at least as tolerant if not more so than much of Western culture. Remember, it was the Ottoman sultans who invited the Jews chased out of Europe to Constantinople where they lived in relative harmony with the other religions of that empire.

Well, yes, Christians in the Balkans and Middle East were SAID to have welcomed the Islamic invasions -- by Muslim historical accounts of those events. Their own historical sources -- or what was left of them after the Muslim invaders did their best to destroy their histories and cultures -- often tell quite a different tale. Ever read Michael of Syria? Ever wonder why the Spanish -- even to this day -- refer to the woman who started the civil war that led to the Muslims conquest of Spain as "The Whore"? Or why Spain considers its greatest "Muslim fighter," El Cid, to be its national hero? If Spaniards "welcomed" their invasion by marrauding North African Muslims," why would they name their greatest "Muslim fighter" as their national hero? But the politically correct line on Islam insists that the Spanish adored the Muslim occupiers, although they fought a 500-year brutal civil war to get rid of them. Makes no sense at all, just like a lot of politically correct "thinking."

And why is it that some of the Eastern European states jumped at independence from the Ottomans the minute a savior (in the person of Orthodox Russia) showed up to rescue them? Why was the word "Turk" (which Europeans used interchangeably with the word "Muslim" at the time) a scare word in Europe for centuries if the Ottomans were such kind and wonderful people?

Remember that many Christians in the Balkans and across the Middle East welcomed the Islamic invasion because they believed (and with some justification) that the Muslims would let them worship according to their beliefs -- unlike Christian leadership in Rome or Byzantine Constantinople.

You have an Islamic version of history ...
The Massacres of the Khilafah (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html)

Keep in mind that at a time when Christians were assembling to launch the crusades, Muslims in Baghdad and other centers of learning were saving Plato, Aristotle as well as medical knowledge, math, engineering, etc. all of which contributed to the eventual renaissance (sp) that swept Europe beginning in the 15th Century.

Well, keep in mind that when Muslims were assembling to launch brutal and primitive and vicious jihadi attacks on Christians in Europe in the 700s-800s, the Byzantines were already quite well-versed in Plato, Aristotle, etc., because Greek was their native language. Also, Byzantine exiles who fled to Italy after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 contributed far more to the European Renaissance than "Muslim centers of learning."

Sounds like you've been reading the Karen Armstrong version of Islamic history, headscratcher. Sorry, but it ain't the truth.

Anyway, there is much to condemn in Islam, much that is illogical, fallacious, bigoted and promotes ignorance...just like most religions. I think a fair analysis of history would show you that Muslims suffer from many of the same faults, as do most religions, not less, but certainly not more.

Try living as a woman in an Arab Muslim nation and see how long you hold that view ... Or as a Sudanese Dinka tribesperson.. or as a Pakistani Hindu .. or a Nigerian Christian.

I dunno why it is but Muslims and Islamic apologists are forever defending Islam as it exists in the 21st century by comparing it to Christianity as it existed in the 14th century.

Baker

16th May 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn

I just showed that some of the Koran verses he uses to prove that

are just made up or very poorly translated. Why would you want to take this man still seriously? Just because he is 'now an atheist' ?

Quite an interesting opinion. Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Maybe Dawkins was inspired by it. Or vice versa.

Problem of course is that Richard Dawkins is not an expert on geopolitics. I'd take his word on everything that has to do with evolution, but on this sissue I don't think his opinion his of any more value than that of a random taxidriver or construction worker.

As I said: "Surely there is enough that's actually in the Koran to criticize?"

Hear, hear! And I say that atheists are allowed to say the same about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. Or does one of you think these atrocities prove that atheism is inherently evil?

One former muslim. Who thinks he can write a better Koran than Mohammed (peace be upon him)!
Hey, why don't we write brand new Bibles, Torahs, Bagavad-Gitas or other religious works and use its verses against the religious people who we claim believe these books? Wouldn't that be great? We wouldn't have to wade through thousands of peacefull and reasonable verses to find the occasional verse that could be interpreted as violent!

Or maybe we just need a www.skepticsannotatedkoran.com
Well, it appears you haven't been long in the skeptic business have you? If you were then you would have known that 'fastest growing' almost always means 'still very small'. As used in newsitem 'Whateverball: the fastest growing sport in the World', Jack taught his brother to play whateverball. Effect: 100% increase in the number of Whateverball players. "Newsflash: Whateverball doubles in popularity!"

If you are afraid of Islam, you shouldn't worry about 'fastest growing'. The growth will probably slow down later. You should not worry about Islam in the United States until a majority of people is outraged about removing "ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In light of Peter Soderqvist quotations from the Quran and the Hadith, how many of the 1.2 billion Muslims believe that those verses are hideous and a crime against humanity? How many Muslims are willing to come out in the open and admit that something must be done to explain those verses and the behavior of Mohammed and his gang? Can we put an end to those verses? Can we at least get you to admit that what Mohammed and his gang did to those innocent people was wrong? Also, can we completely ban stoning of anyone, chopping off of hands and beheading?

Yahzi

16th May 2003, 06:53 PM

Baker
Can we at least get you to admit that what Mohammed and his gang did to those innocent people was wrong?
At what point did anyone dispute this?

Nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly. What they argued was that Islam was indistinguishable from Christianity when it came to providing justifications for violence.

How is it that you cannot comprehend that, as atheists, we despise all religions for promoting violence? How is it that you cannot comprehend that Islam and Christianity are the same does not constitute a defense of Islam?

Are you stupid or just retarded?

Also, can we completely ban stoning of anyone, chopping off of hands and beheading?

The Bible advocates plenty of stoning and chopping. As atheists, we agree that all holy books should be abandoded.

How many Muslims are willing to come out in the open and admit that something must be done to explain those verses and the behavior of Mohammed and his gang?
How many Xians are willing to condone the "kill everything that breathes" in the Bible?

What is your malfunction, dude?

Yahzi

16th May 2003, 07:15 PM

I dunno why it is but Muslims and Islamic apologists are forever defending Islam as it exists in the 21st century by comparing it to Christianity as it existed in the 14th century.
Why don't you try comparing the Islam of the 14th century to the Xianity of today?

Baker

16th May 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Baker

At what point did anyone dispute this?

I was asking a question not making a claim.

Nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly. What they argued was that Islam was indistinguishable from Christianity when it came to providing justifications for violence.

I agree the Bible recounts of terrible acts of violence committed by Moses and Joshua and most religions have violence associated in their annals. I am not a religious person and do not support any one of them. Even though not all of the religions call for killing the disbelievers like Islam does, they are all the cause of disunity and much bloodshed amongst the humankind.
Muslims, when face the dismal status of women in their religion console themselves with the fact that other religions also have discriminatory teachings about women, and the Christians take comfort in the fact that woman in Islam are nothing but man's property.
In addition, the verses in question are in the Old Testament the resolution, embraced by even the Christian fundamentalists: Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament)

How is it that you cannot comprehend that, as atheists, we despise all religions for promoting violence? How is it that you cannot comprehend that Islam and Christianity are the same does not constitute a defense of Islam?.

Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself. Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations. For a Muslim all wars are religious wars. Christians do not go terrorizing people shouting Jesus is great, the Muslims always shout Allah u Akbar to get ready for killing.

Are you stupid or just retarded?

Now we have to resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the topic.

The Bible advocates plenty of stoning and chopping. As atheists, we agree that all holy books should be abandoded.

How many Xians are willing to condone the "kill everything that breathes" in the Bible?

What is your malfunction, dude?

They have its called the New Testament.

Why don't you try comparing the Islam of the 14th century to the Xianity of today?

How does this answer my question?
Islam of the 14th century is not much different then it is today.

Yahzi

16th May 2003, 11:02 PM

Baked
I was asking a question not making a claim.
Why are you asking irrelevant questions? Does it advance the conversation if I suddenly ask, "Why do all you people hate fried eggs?"

Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself.
What? The Crusades were not inspired by religion itself? The abortion doctors that have been shot were not inspired by religion itself?

This is either a) true of both Xianity and Islam, or b) false of both, depending on how esoteric you want to be about "inspired by." The point remains that despite your pathetic apologies for Christianity, it is virtually indistinguishable from its bastard step child Islam.

This claim of yours belies a bias that is incompatable with your claim to be religiously neutral. It is the statement of a Christian fundamentalist.

Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations.
Nowhere in sura 107-108 does it say to kill the people of other lands. The Old Testament is replete with such exhortations.

The fact that you need to compare 4 chapters of the Bible - excluding all else - to the entire Quran demonstrates that even you understand you are full of sh*t.

Last time I checked, the Bible didn't mean just the four chapters you like. Of course, if a Muslim made the same argument, you'd scream bloody foul. Something's foul here, that's for certain.

Islam of the 14th century is not much different then it is today.
This is true in exactly the same sense and degree that the statement, "Christianity of the 14th century is not much different then it is today." I.e., in the sense that it is utterly false.

Making a statement like this indicates that you actually know nothing at all of historical Islam. One suspects that your ignorance of history and theology is not necessarily limited to that narrow field, however.

Just a clue: 10th century Islam was a liberal faith. It did not turn fascist and fundamentalist until after the Islamic world was ravaged by invaders (mostly Mongols, but the Crusades were not inconsequential).

I am not a religious person and do not support any one of them.
Then why do you so vigorously resist the comparison of Christianity and Islam, despite all the facts?

They have its called the New Testament.
The New Testament is also a holy book. Hence we treat it with the same disdain. Doh.

Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament)
As I suspected, your theology is as shallow as your history. I will let a certain respected theologian refute this particular idiocy for me:

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Yes, I realize that Paul allegedly released you from the law, but this little confusion between your doctrine and your holy book might serve to illustrate why quoting verses out of context just isn't very illuminating. Ya think?

No, seriously, do you think? Because it doesn't show.

DialecticMaterialist

17th May 2003, 11:58 AM

http://secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm

Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard

Also it's been pointed out many times that the earlier wiritngs in the Koran express a more tolerant attitude(since Islam was a small cult) and the latter a more militant stance.

Also Islam very much promotes what they call "self-defense" saying many of the violent scriptures promote "self-defense" what they fail to mention is that an attack on Islam is a very vague thing, ranging from initiated violence to a vocal criticism to walking onto a sacred land.

DialecticMaterialist

17th May 2003, 12:01 PM

I am not trying to defend Islam... its current use by nationalist movements in the Middle East as a justification for murder and oppression is clearly abhorrent.

Nonsense. Positing that Islam turned bad due to nationalist hijacking it is reverse causation.

DialecticMaterialist

17th May 2003, 12:23 PM

Well if we are going to quote the passage why not quote the WHOLE passage?

47: 4. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who
believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does ALLAH set forth for men
their lessons by similitudes.
47: 5. And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their
necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among
them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a
favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is
the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have punished them
Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those
who are killed in the way of ALLAH - HE will never render their works vain.
47: 6. HE will guide them to success and will improve their condition.
47: 7. And will admit them into the Garden which HE has made known to them.
47: 8. O ye who believe ! if you help the cause of ALLAH, HE will help you
and will make your steps firm.
47: 9. But those who disbelieve, perdition is their lot; and HE will make
their works vain.
47: 10. That is because they hate what ALLAH has revealed; so HE has made
their works vain.

There are also other translations of this verse:

Koran :
Whenyou meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off thei rheads and, when you have laid them low,bind your captives firmly.Then grant them theirfreedom or take ransom from them,until War shal llay down her burdens.

As well as the one that excludes mention of battle or jihad(which seems to be an after thought). I wonder which one Islamic apologists would adopt?

Even given your interpretation/translation though:

Where did Jesus say to smite people in regular battle?

And why is the battle to be a regular thing?

And if you kill infidels in regular battle, you are then rewarded. How nice.

By Earthbound:

However, if we assume that 'slay' means to kill someone (as my dictionary does) both versions of the Soura make no sense! You can't kill someone first and then expect them to repent and pay taxes, can you? I suspect that by 'slaying' these verse mean 'conquering'. Of course it could be that this verse really doesn't make sense, I haven't read it in its original Arabic (looks all Greek to me)

Why is the second verse better? Because you like it? Also how does it not make sense? You can take them as captives and such, THEN slay them. We don't have to change the meaning of the words for it to make sense.

What I'm irritated by is Muslim apologists who for some reason think that a religion created by a warlord is going to be very peaceful and create an almost endless amount of superfluous assumptions to support the said conclusion.

DialecticMaterialist

17th May 2003, 12:31 PM

earthbound:

Hear, hear! And I say that atheists are allowed to say the same about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. Or does one of you think these atrocities prove that atheism is inherently evil?

Apples and oranges. That's similiar to saying if you can blame "Nazism" for something then you can likewise blame "Non-Nazism" for everything else. Blaming a postivie doctrine is very different the blaming a negative doctrine.

wolfgirl:

These mythological books can be interpreted in many ways to defend almost any position. Most mainstream xians will say Fred Phelps' views don't reflect their god's views, but others will insist that they do. Who can say which is right, since it's just an old book?

That's a bit simplistic. Positing that all religions are equal is just nonsense. Sure christianity may be militant(n tradition only) but is it as militant as Islam culturally and in realm of scripture? Nope. All religions can be abused but some are more easily abused/used then others.

That's why I disdain all fundamentalist religions, not just xianity or Islam. Any religion that claims that their god is better than some other god (or that their god tells them what to do or that the followers of another religion or lifestyle are evil or infidels or what have you) has the potential of its followers doing violence in the name of that god. Let's not get into a politically correct position of defending Islam because not all Muslims are violent. Not all xians are backwards, either, but we don't generally defend the xian religion. We should fear all of this myth-based ideology as it is all dangerous.

I agree with you in all points save one, according to that all monotheist religions are fundamentalist as they all believe their God is the one true, best god. Especially Abrahamic ones that do teach followers that non-believers are in some way evil.

triadboy

17th May 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
And with bad intentions, I think it would be fully possible to write just as bad about Christianity, quotes about killings and all. :(

Of course! Are you kidding? The Old Testament is the motherlode!

Baker

17th May 2003, 02:28 PM

You are trying the same tired old defense of Islam we have all seen before, you have realised that Islam is utterly indefensible so you resort to comparing it to Christianity instead... the supposition being "since Christianity is just as bad we cannot attack Islam" ... If you love Islam so much try defending it on it's merits, If you hate Christianity so much try attacking on a Christianity forum.

Originally posted by Yahzi

What? The Crusades were not inspired by religion itself?

The crusades are past their use-by date .. try defending Islam as it exists today by comparing it to Christianity as it exists today ... like this next pathetic attempt you make -

The abortion doctors that have been shot were not inspired by religion itself?

ahh .. here we go.. The pro-life guys who actually advocate (or make apologies for) the murder of abortion doctors are a MINISCULE percentage of Christians.

The Muslims who advocate Shar'iah governed societies, who advocate (and practise) circumcision of young girls, who advocate barbaric punishments for crimes like .. having sex with one's lover, who perpetuate the most widespread, sexist and oppressive regime in existence .. ARE IN THE MAJORITY! .. They are the MAINSTREAM of their faith.. not some "out there" fringe group.

Do you understand that the number of girls circumcised in Egypt alone is in the 90 - 95 percent range?

Do you understand that, while David Koresh was a fanatical idiot who managed to muster the support of a couple of dozen followers to hold off the FBI for a few days, Khomeni was a fanatical idiot who mustered the support of a few million people and overthrew the government of Iran? .. There is simply no comparison to be made here.

Just a clue: 10th century Islam was a liberal faith. It did not turn fascist and fundamentalist until after the Islamic world was ravaged by invaders (mostly Mongols, but the Crusades were not inconsequential).

Where in hell did you learn your history?!? .. in a freaking Madrassa???

How the hell do you think Islam made it across Persia and into Asia? How did it get North into the Balkans? How did it get south into Africa and west into Europe? .. by wind?

Just a clue: Try telling your version of history to the Hindus, Mandeans, Coptics, Sabians, Persians, Zorastrians, Jews, North Africans and the Christian Europeans.

In 1400 years Islam has never seen a day of peace... and little wonder since Jihad (WAR) is one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith.

Then why do you so vigorously resist the comparison of Christianity and Islam...

Because I'm so used to Islamic apologists attempting to defend Islam by chatting about the Crusades.

No, seriously, do you think? Because it doesn't show.

Well nobody could expect you to readily identify analytical thought.

Earthborn

17th May 2003, 03:42 PM

Apples and oranges. That's similiar to saying if you can blame "Nazism" for something then you can likewise blame "Non-Nazism" for everything else. Blaming a postivie doctrine is very different the blaming a negative doctrine.I have no idea what you are trying to say here... :confused:

I think this statement is perfectly valid. 'Positive doctrine' or 'negative doctrine', those are both doctrines. And the people who hold that doctrine should be allowed to say that atrocities done in name of that doctrine are using a perversion of that doctrine: atheists are allowed to say that Stalin doesn't represent atheism, Muslims are allowed to say Osama doesn't represent Islam, Christians are allowed to say that abortion-doctor-killers don't represent christianity.

Whether I believe in Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them) or not makes no difference: I still don't have to apoligize for any person who does something wrong and just happens to agree with me on Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them).Why is the second verse better? Because you like it?I did not say that I like it. I even think that it is already bad as it is.Also how does it not make sense? You can take them as captives and such, THEN slay them.That just isn't compatible with: leave their way free to them, is it?What I'm irritated by is Muslim apologists who for some reason think that a religion created by a warlord is going to be very peacefulI didn't claim Islam is peaceful, I claimed that this Ibn Warraq guy uses the worst possible interpretations at best, and fabrications at worst to prove that it is violent.

I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful. Trying to argue that it is a violent religion might become a selfulfilling prophecy:

"Why are you angry?/Why is your religion so violent?"
"I'm not angry./My religion isn't violent."
"Yes, you are./Yes it is."
"No, I'm really not./No, it really isn't."
"But you sound angry./Your religion appears violent."
"No, I don't./No, it doesn't."
"Yes, you do/Yes, it does."
...
"When are you going to stop arguing that
I am angry/my religion is violent?"
"When you are going to admit it."
"But I'm not going to! It isn't true!"
"Yes, it is."
"Oh, please shut up."
"No, I won't. Because
you are angy/your religion is violent
and I know it."
"Shut up or I'll kick you out... :mad:"
"I told you
you were an angry/your religion is violent"
"Aaargh!"

So people, stop arguing that Islam is a violent religion, because arguing that it is could very well backfire.The Muslims who advocate Shar'iah governed societies, who advocate (and practise) circumcision of young girls, who advocate barbaric punishments for crimes like .. having sex with one's lover, who perpetuate the most widespread, sexist and oppressive regime in existence .. ARE IN THE MAJORITY! .. They are the MAINSTREAM of their faith.. not some "out there" fringe group.Do you have any evidence to back it up? And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?Do you understand that the number of girls circumcised in Egypt alone is in the 90 - 95 percent range?I am sure you have some sources to back it up. But even if you do... How about some figures on the percentage of female circumcission for the entire Muslim population? I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.How the hell do you think Islam made it across Persia and into Asia? How did it get North into the Balkans? How did it get south into Africa and west into Europe? .. by wind?I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

DialecticMaterialist

17th May 2003, 09:32 PM

I think this statement is perfectly valid. 'Positive doctrine' or 'negative doctrine', those are both doctrines.

Yes but one leaves the room a lot more open then the other.

And the people who hold that doctrine should be allowed to say that atrocities done in name of that doctrine are using a perversion of that doctrine: atheists are allowed to say that Stalin doesn't represent atheism, Muslims are allowed to say Osama doesn't represent Islam, Christians are allowed to say that abortion-doctor-killers don't represent christianity.

Or we can recognize relevant differences between the two categories. Blaming a postive doctrine and negative doctrine are two totally different things.

According to what you're saying any racist can dismiss atrocities or hate crimes done by racist people as "perversions" of their doctrine. And they can then say "Well if you are going to say racists do bad things, then I'm going to say non-racists do bad things."

But there is a huge difference between blaming racism and non-racism for something. Racism is a postive doctrine with specific beliefs and values, which then become the rationale for specific actions. Nonracism, or nonanything however is not a tenet of specific beliefs or values: in short the door is still very wide open on what you can believe. Hence blaming a positive doctrine is allowed since it does prescribe a certain course of action, whereas a negative one does not.

If we are going to make a valid analogy, we should posit Stalin and Mao as representing Marxists, not atheists.

Whether I believe in Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them) or not makes no difference:[/quoute]

Yes it does. Lets say I believe in Nazism vs Deism, there is a big difference in the content of my belief. Do you think these belief systems are mere labels devoid of specific meaning?

[quote] I still don't have to apoligize for any person who does something wrong and just happens to agree with me on Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them).

Perhaps not, as long as your belief or tradition stemming from that belief does not get any more specific then this. But if you believe in the "Pink Unicorn God as described by Charles Manson" who among many other things tends to advocate the killing of Muslims, then you do have some explaining to do.

I did not say that I like it. I even think that it is already bad as it is.

So what made it better?

That just isn't compatible with: leave their way free to them, is it?

If they as a group are subdued it is. Or maybe he meant to do all the above? Also lets imagine it does mean conquest....does that make it better or worse?

IMO it is now advocating outright invasion of the non-believers. So much better then outright slaughter I guess.

I didn't claim Islam is peaceful, I claimed that this Ibn Warraq guy uses the worst possible interpretations at best, and fabrications at worst to prove that it is violent.

And what do you have to prove this? 1 *possible* misquote.

Lets say you are right...so what? Ever heard of: making a mistake?

I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful.

Their actions and history beg to differ. Many of them you should note don't even define Islam as a religion, like many Christians, does that mean we take Islam out of the religious studies class?

I think they are better defined by their traditions, their beliefs and their scriptures, then by some invented minority definition.

Trying to argue that it is a violent religion might become a selfulfilling prophecy:

Too late.

To date:

There is no real strong muslim democracy.

All Muslim nations have a terrible record for abusing women.

Many, many Muslims, even in the US still strongly believe its ok to use violence in matters of religion. Try drawing a picture of Mohommad, or being a Muslims "apostate" and see how many death threats you get.

Christians may be militant at times, but I've never heard of them declaring a Fatwah in recent times, or mailing hundreds of death threats to a Hawaiin Professor for dressing up like Jesus.

So people, stop arguing that Islam is a violent religion, because arguing that it is could very well backfire.

So we should turn on the blinds for such far fetched expediency?

I think to effictively deal with it we must recognize that it *is* a violent religion. Could it imporve? Sure. But that doesn't mean we can simply pretend the violent aspects of it do not exist.

Do you have any evidence to back it up?

Look at every Muslims country.

And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?

Nature or Nurture?

It's obviously both. Geopolitics and Islam in the Arab world are closely linked.

I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.

You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

From Amnesty International:

An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk of mutilation - approximately 6,000 per day. It is practised extensively in Africa and is common in some countries in the Middle East.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Now I admit, it's not all over the Muslim world. And it may not have stemmed from Islam itself, but Islam has given it a religious rationale.

However, in those Muslim countries where it is practice, FGM is often justified by two controversial sayings of the Prophet Mohammed that seem to favor sunna circumcision.

Gee, I wonder why the are controversial? Is it due to an innacurrate reading of the Koran...or because certain people see how barbaric the practice is?

You can also notice the Muslim (what god "really meant") reasoning against female circumcision is very ad hoc.

http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact241.html

Also this does not rule out the fact that Muslim women are basically slaves in their country.(Which in Pakistan for example can literally be bought and sold-the definition of slavery.)

Forced marriage of young girls continues to be reported and while slavery is illegal in Pakistan, girls and women continue to be traded to settle debts or conflicts.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA330082002

And Pakistan is one of the more liberal Muslim nations.

I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

Really? What about Marxism spread by force via Mao and Stalin?

And actually force very much helps spread religion. I currently in fact know of no religion spread by trade. Christianity was spread by missionary efforts. Tibetan Buddhism by Mongolian Khans.

It's not exactly like Charles Martel was fighting off Muslim traders.

__________________

Baker

17th May 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn

Do you have any evidence to back it up? And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?

FGM in Egypt is being kept in place by Muslim clerics.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, continued to be widespread in Egypt despite government condemnation of the practice. A demographic and health survey funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and released in late 1996 estimated that 97 percent of girls in Egypt undergo FGM.

Following the health minister=s July announcement, a doctor and professor at Ein Shams University, Munir Mohamed Fawzy, filed a lawsuit against Minister Sallem challenging the ban on FGM as unconstitutional; Fawzy argued that FGM is both required by Islamic law and medically desirable.
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/egypt.html

I am sure you have some sources to back it up. But even if you do... How about some figures on the percentage of female circumcission for the entire Muslim population? I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.

The majority of Muslim women might remain uncircumcised but that doesn't make it less tarnished.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), sometimes known as female circumcision, is still widespread in areas of Africa and the Middle East
Thus virginity - which is considered especially important by Moslem men - can be proven before the bride price is paid to the father
http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/inter/fgm.htm

I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

Islam was mostly spread by the sword. Constantinople was attacked 3 times before it finally fell. The Sindh (first Muslim conquest on the Subcontinent) was attacked 10 times before it fell.

Even in Indonesia, the willing converts were only about half the population; when they got strong enough they started a bloody civil war that forced out the former non-Muslim rulers and their followers. (Many went into exile in Bali, which is why Bali is today mostly Hindu.)

You should study some real history, Earthborn, but I guess you are more content to stay with your fantasy history of Islam.

Earthborn

17th May 2003, 10:54 PM

Strangely enough, some of the text you cite does not appear in the articles you link to. Please check whether you have linked to the correct articles.

The first article does contain this:In a positive development for women’s and children’s rights, on December 28, 1997, the State Council, Egypt’s highest administrative court, upheld the Ministry of Health ban on female circumcision, which a lower court ruled illegal last year. The high court found that “circumcision of girls is not an individual right under Islamic law because there is nothing in the Koran which authorizes it and nothing in the Sunna....henceforth, it is illegal for anyone to carry out circumcision operations, even if the girl or her parents agree to it.”Emphasis mine.

I'll assume you simply linked to the wrong site. So let's see the quote you used:Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, continued to be widespread in Egypt despite government condemnation of the practice. A demographic and health survey funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and released in late 1996 estimated that 97 percent of girls in Egypt undergo FGM.Changing the emphasis changes the argument. Bad enough though... I like to know how FGM is defined. All of it is bad, but some of what can be considered FGM is worse than others.Islam was mostly spread by the sword. Constantinople was attacked 3 times before it finally fell. The Sindh (first Muslim conquest on the Subcontinent) was attacked 10 times before it fell.

Even in Indonesia, the willing converts were only about half the population; when they got strong enough they started a bloody civil war that forced out the former non-Muslim rulers and their followers. (Many went into exile in Bali, which is why Bali is today mostly Hindu.)These are some examples fo violence used. It does not necessarily disprove that Islamic culture was spread by non-violent means.

All empires spread by trade because the sword is not enough to spread it: you need an economy too. This is true of the most violent empires also, like the Mongols or the Roman empire.

DialecticMaterialist

18th May 2003, 01:34 AM

All empires spread by trade because the sword is not enough to spread it: you need an economy too. This is true of the most violent empires also, like the Mongols or the Roman empire.

I hardly believe I read that. Yes all empires have an economy....that doesn't automatically mean the religion was spread by trade.

Religious people need language too, does it then make sense to say Islam was spread by language? I suppose it was, but is that really what we are talking about?

Just because a religion relies on something does not mean it was spread by it.

Yahzi

18th May 2003, 02:15 PM

Baked
the supposition being "since Christianity is just as bad we cannot attack Islam" ...

Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?

:eek:

We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.

Earthborn

18th May 2003, 04:46 PM

I hardly believe I read that. Yes all empires have an economy....that doesn't automatically mean the religion was spread by trade.What do you think is a more effective way to convert people: put a sword against their necks, saying 'covert or die' or by buying stuff from them showing your economic superiority making them think 'I wanna be just like that guy' ?Religious people need language too, does it then make sense to say Islam was spread by language? I suppose it was, but is that really what we are talking about?I think the language was much more important than violence in spreadin Islam.Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?

We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.Not all of us. Some of us only attack the most extreme forms of both religions.

DialecticMaterialist

18th May 2003, 06:45 PM

What do you think is a more effective way to convert people: put a sword against their necks, saying 'covert or die' or by buying stuff from them showing your economic superiority making them think 'I wanna be just like that guy' ?

Depends on the situation. I personally for example don't see a rich Christian and say "Boy I'd like to be Christian too."

However if a gun was held to my head and they said "Go to Church or die." Then maybe I'd go to Church.

I think the language was much more important than violence in spreadin Islam.

You missed the point. The point was that something being necessary to support such a movement does not mean it spread the movement.

Another example: People that murder breath air. But that doesn't mean murder is caused by breathing air.

Empires which spread their religion may trade, but that doesn't mean the religion was spread by trade.

Peter Soderqvist

18th May 2003, 10:53 PM

TO BAKER

You wrote on page 2, 05-17-2003 04:58 AM: Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself. Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations. For a Muslim all wars are religious wars. Christians do not go terrorizing people shouting Jesus is great, the Muslims always shout Allah u Akbar to get ready for killing.

Soderqvist1: You are wrong!

2 Chronicels.15: 13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top

The Koran and the Bible at the University of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Soderqvist1: The first link above is a smorgasbord of biblical criticism!
Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!
Take your pick?

Earthborn

18th May 2003, 11:21 PM

Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!Excluded Middle Fallacy! :)

About as good as "It's Jesus or Evolution!"...

Earthborn

18th May 2003, 11:29 PM

However if a gun was held to my head and they said "Go to Church or die." Then maybe I'd go to Church.But would you actually change your religion? And would the person who put the gun to your head believe you changed your religion? Or would he quickly consider you the same as the Spanish Catholics considered the Converso Jews, wanting to form an Inquisition?

Peter Soderqvist

19th May 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Excluded Middle Fallacy! :)

About as good as "It's Jesus or Evolution!"...

Soderqvist1: Either quantum theory is a correct description about quantum phenomena, or the theory is flawed? Every known phenomenon in the quantum world is consistent with the theory, there is no exception, and therefore this theory is valid! But the Biblical Story of Creation is in the main, ruled out by modern science, therefore, the biblical description is definitely invalid! Can you elaborate what you really mean with Excluded Middle Fallacy? The Aristotelian law of the excluded middle is consistent in a syllogistic framework! A member who only belongs to one set can be formalized in syllogistic framework!

The law of the excluded middle is invalid when a membership is fuzzy! The bible is fuzzy according to you reply, in the sense that it belongs to both human invention, and the inerrant world of god, if we assume that god is inerrant! Members in this case are sentences in the bible, either it is a member in the set of god's statements, or it is a member in the set of human inventions! Where do you draw the line between the inerrant word of god, and human invention in the bible? Why exactly there? Which statements in the bible are god's statements, and which are humans'? :D

Earthborn

19th May 2003, 01:11 AM

Excluded Middle Fallacy From Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilitiesYou created two extremes:
Inerrant Word of God-----------------------Human Invention

You do not consider these possibilities:
- Heavily edited and badly translated word of God
- Human invention inspired by God
- Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history and no longer fully applicable.
- Word of the Devil
Or any other possiblity humans have invented to reconcile apperant errors in the Bible with their belief in God.

Yahzi

19th May 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
- Heavily edited and badly translated word of God
- Human invention inspired by God
- Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history and no longer fully applicable.
- Word of the Devil

Actually, no.

If it's heavily edited translation, that qualifies as an "invention" of the editors. Ask any author.

If it's invention "inspired" by God, well, what isn't?

If it's not applicable, then it's not the word of God now.

If it's the word of the Devil, well, that still makes it the word of a god. We atheists aren't all that picky about what you call your imaginary friends.

The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry. Nobody has any use for a Bible that is only partially the word of God, without any method for deciding which parts are and which aren't. That would be like me giving you 5,000 dollar bills and telling you half of them are fake and will land you in prison if you try to spend them, but the only way you can find out if one is fake is by trying to spend it. Can I in any meaningful way claim to have enriched you by $2,500?

The fundies at least got that right - the Bible is either a divine miracle of transmission, or Christianity is meaningless. Sure you can believe in god without the Bible: you just can't be Christian. And if all you want is to believe in god without actually specifying what god means, well, heck, I believe in god too. And I can prove the existance of my god beyond all conceivable doubt. Of course, I define god as "cheese graters," but hey, as long as we are using the word to mean absolutely anything at any given time, what's wrong with grated cheese?

Claiming parts of the Bible are the true word of god is like claiming parts of the ocean are safe to drink - just drink around the salt, ok?

Peter Soderqvist

19th May 2003, 01:55 AM

TO EARTHBORN

05-19-2003 09:11 AM: Carl Sagan Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities!

Soderqvist1: I have 7 books by Carl Sagan, and I am on page 140 in his The demon hunted world as your link has referred to, these extremes can be summed as black or white orientation, in a fuzzy world there real phenomena are fractional rater than black or white!

You created two extremes:
Inerrant Word of God-----------------------Human Invention!

Soderqvist1: Yes the bible is less fuzzy in that way!

You do not consider these possibilities: - Heavily edited, and badly translated word of God, - Human invention inspired by God, - Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history, and no longer fully applicable. - Word of the Devil, or any other possibility humans has invented to reconcile apparent errors in the Bible with their belief in God.

Soderqvist1: There is no set with heavily edited and correctly translated word of god in you list? Who is to be blamed for that? But you have increased the number of sets, yet you have not delivered any means to how we can recognize these memberships here, what criteria do you use for instance, to discriminate between heavily edited, and the rest of the various sets? How can we discriminate internally between the rests of these sets?

Baker

19th May 2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Baked

Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?

:eek:

We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.

Since when do you speak for everyone?
Did you miss this comment made by Earthborn?

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful.

Can you replie without adding ad hominem attacks?
Like using Baked to replied to my posts.

Earthborn

19th May 2003, 02:57 AM

If it's heavily edited translation, that qualifies as an "invention" of the editors. Ask any author.I am. And when that happened in the past I usually asked: "What the heck did they do with my work?". God might very well feel the same way.If it's invention "inspired" by God, well, what isn't?I don't know. Is anything inspired by God?If it's not applicable, then it's not the word of God now.Yes, it is, it is just one of his older works.If it's the word of the Devil, well, that still makes it the word of a god.TrueThe Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry.Excluded middle fallacy! ;)Nobody has any use for a Bible that is only partially the word of God, without any method for deciding which parts are and which aren't.I did not claim anyone has. But I can imagine such a use: to just pick and choose what you like.That would be like me giving you 5,000 dollar bills and telling you half of them are fake and will land you in prison if you try to spend them, but the only way you can find out if one is fake is by trying to spend it. Can I in any meaningful way claim to have enriched you by $2,500?Either there is a way to determine what is fake or there isn't. (And no that is in this case no excluded middle fallacy!) If a shop can detect the fakes, then there must be a way I can too... I'll just have to buy one of the detectors they are using from my own savings.
If it is impossible for me to detect the fakes, it's also for any shop and thus you have enriched me with $5000. I prefer 10 notes of 500 euro over 5000 dollar bills, thank you very much. (Assuming 1 EUR=1 USD)The Bible is either a divine miracle of transmission, or Christianity is meaningless.Excluded middle fallacy! There are many Christian who believe the Bible is not a divine miracle and still believe Jesus' ideas were quite good.Sure you can believe in god without the Bible: you just can't be Christian.Why not?And if all you want is to believe in god without actually specifying what god means, well, heck, I believe in god too. And I can prove the existance of my god beyond all conceivable doubt. Of course, I define god as "cheese graters," but hey, as long as we are using the word to mean absolutely anything at any given time, what's wrong with grated cheese?Who am I to judge you on your religious beliefs. If you believe God is grated cheese, you are completely entitled to that belief. (I actually think it is the devil and you are a devil worshipper)Claiming parts of the Bible are the true word of god is like claiming parts of the ocean are safe to drink - just drink around the salt, ok?Desalination plants prove that most parts of the ocean are safe to drink, and they are seperable from the parts that aren't. So the analogy doesn't hold. ;)There is no set with heavily edited and correctly translated word of god in you list?There is under "Or any other possiblity humans have invented to reconcile apperant errors in the Bible with their belief in God."But you have increased the number of sets, yet you have not delivered any means to how we can recognize these memberships hereCorrectwhat criteria do you use for instance, to discriminate between heavily edited, and the rest of the various sets?I don't. Easy, huh? :DHow can we discriminate internally between the rests of these sets?Beats me. I just said there were other possible sets. Never claimed there are any objectively measurable differences between them. :)

Peter Soderqvist

19th May 2003, 03:03 AM

The set of haters have at least two members, namely, Yahzi, and Soderqvist!
We hate them (The fundamentalists), because they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away, and all visitors with these criteria belong to our set, and my hate is less, or trivial, where the believers are modern, because the religious fundaments are on the way out there! ;)

Baker

19th May 2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO BAKER

Soderqvist1: You are wrong!

2 Chronicels.15: 13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top

The Koran and the Bible at the University of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Soderqvist1: The first link above is a smorgasbord of biblical criticism!
Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!
Take your pick?

Sorry I don’t understand the statement you are trying to make here?
Are these more quotes from the Old Testament?

Peter Soderqvist

19th May 2003, 03:28 AM

TO EARTHBORN

You wrote on page 2, 05-19-2003 10:57 AM:
Yahzi. The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry.

Earthborn: Excluded middle fallacy! ;)

Soderqvist1: I propose that the included middle is the errant word of god!
Now, do you know any way to discriminate between these three sets?
If there is no way to discriminate between these sets, it is reasonable to conclude that, that the only real set is mythology! :D

Peter Soderqvist

19th May 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Sorry I don’t understand the statement you are trying to make here?
Are these more quotes from the Old Testament?

Soderqvist1: Yes the quote is from the OT!
Look at Earthborn 's way of reasoning, and so grasp the meaning!

Yahzi

19th May 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Since when do you speak for everyone?
Did you miss this comment made by Earthborn?

Can you replie without adding ad hominem attacks?
Like using Baked to replied to my posts.
1. I feel safe in asserting that the atheist position opposes Islam and Christianity with equal fervor.

2. Earthborn's quote is entirely appropriate, since you have already decided to allow the majority of Christians to define what their religion is. You aren't interested in isolated quotes from the Old Testament: why would an ordinary Muslim be interested in isolated quotes from the Quran?

3. It looks like you are beginning to grasp the fact that when an atheist compares Islam to Christianity, he isn't defending Islam. I am duly impressed.

Yahzi

19th May 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
IExcluded middle fallacy! There are many Christian who believe the Bible is not a divine miracle and still believe Jesus' ideas were quite good.

You keep saying this, and I keep refuting the reasons you offer to demonstrate it.

There are many Christians who believe that Jesus was Buddha in a previous life. I think we can objectively state that those people really shouldn't consider themselves Christians. Of course, it's politically incorrect to suggest that a drunken homeless bum should not be allowed to label himself a "sober real estate tycoon." Just like god is a word that can be redefined at a moment's notice to mean anything, some people think Christianity ought to be a label that applies to anyone who wants it, regardless of whether it has any meaning. This renders all debate impossible, and indeed even communication. So for the purpose of this thread, we will pretend that being a Christian actually means something. In which case, all those people who think that Jesus was a pretty clever dude, but not uniquely divine, are not Christians.

But I can imagine such a use: to just pick and choose what you like.
This logically contradicts the notion that some parts of the Bible are objectively true.

You have now admitted that without a method for discerning the true parts from the false parts, either a) the whole thing has to be true, or b) none of it can be taken as true without corroborating evidence. Since that evidence is not forthcoming, this means that none of it can be taken as true. Which. Is. The. Point.

Why not?
Because being Christian means something. You might as well ask, why can't people who don't believe in god be Christian? The label "Christian" does not mean "people I like." It means something.

Why am I having an argument with a person that doesn't think words should have fixed meanings?

If you believe God is grated cheese, you are completely entitled to that belief.
Why look, here is the new-age nonsense I carefully argued against in the very first paragraph.

Earthborn, I am the true Christian. You are a Satanist, a Nazi, a pedophile, a rapist, a theif, a liar, a hypocrite, ugly, fat, stupid, retarded, greasy, smelly, and just plain worthless. Note: in true new age fashion, my personal definition of all the adjectives in the preceeding two sentences is "human being." Don't tell me I can't define and apply labels any way I want, that would be encroaching on my freedom to be a complete idiot.

Desalination plants prove that most parts of the ocean are safe to drink, and they are seperable from the parts that aren't. So the analogy doesn't hold.
The analogy holds perfectly. Provide a desalination plant for the Bible, and you win the argument.

The fact that you don't understand that a desalination plant separates the water from the salt does not bode well for the future of this conversation.

Never claimed there are any objectively measurable differences between them.
I will go on repeating this until it sinks in:

"If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existance, then we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason."

Baker

19th May 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

1. I feel safe in asserting that the atheist position opposes Islam and Christianity with equal fervor.

So you do claim to speak for all atheist try viewing the P&CE forum you will find quite a few that don’t find them equal.

2. Earthborn's quote is entirely appropriate, since you have already decided to allow the majority of Christians to define what their religion is. You aren't interested in isolated quotes from the Old Testament: why would an ordinary Muslim be interested in isolated quotes from the Quran?[B][QUOTE]

You made the claim that nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly.
Islam contains such phrases in both the Koran and Hadiths.
Christians wrote the New Testament not the Old Testament

[B][QUOTE]
3. It looks like you are beginning to grasp the fact that when an atheist compares Islam to Christianity, he isn't defending Islam. I am duly impressed.

I’m not the one who brought Christianity into the argument the thread was named after a book.

Earthborn

19th May 2003, 10:51 PM

There are many Christians who believe that Jesus was Buddha in a previous life. I think we can objectively state that those people really shouldn't consider themselves Christians.Why are Christians not allowed to define their own religion? Why are you trying to do it for them? What is objective about religion anyway?Of course, it's politically incorrect to suggest that a drunken homeless bum should not be allowed to label himself a "sober real estate tycoon."This analogy doesn't hold, because the words 'drunken', 'homeless', 'sober' and 'real estate tycoon' are words that have definitions we all largely agree on. 'Christian' is not such a word: there are many people who consider themselves christian (even atheists (http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/christian.html) !), while some people who consider themselves christians do not agree that other people who consider themselves christians are actually christians (just look at how Jack Chick sees Roman Catholics).So for the purpose of this thread, we will pretend that being a Christian actually means something. In which case, all those people who think that Jesus was a pretty clever dude, but not uniquely divine, are not Christians.But that is an entirely arbitrary defintion. It is simply you defining for someone else what their religion is. "I think we should allow Christians themselves to define what their religion is..."This logically contradicts the notion that some parts of the Bible are objectively true.Which, if you weren't so obsessed with disagreeing with me, you can easily see that I never claimed it.Why look, here is the new-age nonsense I carefully argued against in the very first paragraph.It is not New Age nonsense, it is religious tolerance. It is not defining for someone else what they should believe. It would only become New Age nonsense if I would unquestioningly accept it when you claim grated cheese can perform divine miracles that defy the laws of physics.Why am I having an argument with a person that doesn't think words should have fixed meanings?I would love it if words had fixed meanings, but some words don't! The word Christian means something different for different people.The analogy holds perfectly. Provide a desalination plant for the Bible, and you win the argument.The analogy falls because there is no 'desalination' plant for the Bible! How hard is that to see?
Your analogy said that you can't seperate the drinkable parts from the undrinkable parts of the ocean, just as you can't seperate the truth from the nonsense in the Bible. The analogy does not hold, because you can seperate the salt from the water in the ocean, but you can't seperate the truth from the nonsense in the Bible.The fact that you don't understand that a desalination plant separates the water from the salt does not bode well for the future of this conversation.I understand perfectly well, you misunderstood me. I just changed the meaning of what constitutes a 'part of the ocean' to mean individual molecules and ions. Some parts of the ocean are drinkable: the water parts. Other parts of the ocean are not: the salt parts. Surely the :) should have ticked you off that I was just playing with words?