Islam !

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Hate to say this still happens Rubi. I've read of it recently in Indonesia. It came to me by way of my affiliation with genital integrity organizations. Men and women forcibly "converted" and forcibly circumcised. I have news articles I can probably find if anyone wants to call my bluff.

Yes, it does still happen.
You have groups that, still on divine mission, are going to force believers of other faiths to convert or be subject to strong sanctions.
As a rule these are groups that have established control in quite small areas ... another example of the extremist phenomenon.
But it's not, for example, the Indonesian government.
There's nothing like Suleiman leading soldiers of the Ottoman Empire into unconquered lands.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
Whereas the topic of this thread is rubbish, an intelligent discussion on the varying impacts of Islam on non-Muslims, and Muslims, over the centuries, is not.

Even though there were numerous conversions (forced and not) to Islam during the height of their cultural dominance in the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, Islam did allow for "People of the Book" (aka dhimmis) to live, less equally, among them so long as they paid a poll tax or (jizya). In fact this treatment of Christians, and Jews (later Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Sikhs were added to the list) was not very different from the Codes put forth under the Emperor Justinian in 529. There are numerous sources, including the historian Bernard Lewis, who cite that Code as the basis for the Pact of Umar, and progenitor for all legal relations for non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

The Dhimmis were only afforded second class, or apartheid like existence, which included that they could not work in the military, or in agriculture; could not bear arms; could not testify in Shari'a courts, and could not own camels, or horses. Lewis cities various Hadiths which allow for pluralism in Islam, although historically there were often over ridden by rulers who, when their regimes fell in stature, used the sword, rather than these laws, to enforce their rule.

As to conversion, many Christians (as well as Zoroastrians in Persia) converted not at the point of the sword, but in order to maintain, and inherit property, which was generally not allowed for dhimmis. This was often the case in the Balkans where Christianity was not as firmly entrenched, prior to the Ottoman invasion, as it was in Western Europe. Jews who had already be regulated to a second class status by both the Romans, and Christians, largely did not convert (except in SouthWestern Europe during the reign of Almohades - 12th century), as the new boss was largely the same as the old. The Sunni Muslims abided by the historical interpretations of these laws: Hanafi, Maliki, Shai'fi, and Hanbali, dating from rulings in the 8th & 9th centuries, whereas the Shities followed, and still do, a living scholar, as we see with the inequities capriciously dispensed to even other Muslims by Ali Khameni, Iran's Vali e Faqih, or Supreme Leader.

As to the Ottomans, they are, and were a different kind of Muslim. Since they are not Arabs, they had different cultural and linguistic traditions, but did not always impose them (using a Roman-like system of local jurisprudence) as their Empire grew to encompass most of the Middle East from 800AD to it's demise in WWI. With regards to the dhimmis under Ottoman rule they generally allowed for 3 separate but equal courts: Shar'ia, Dhimmis, and Merchant, but by the mid 19th century, the Empire relaxed the rules to allow dhimmi to bring suits against Muslims, and to transfer property in the Shari's courts, rather than in their own. All those egalitarianism's began to disappear during first, the Crimean, and then, the first World War, which is when the pogroms, (genocides) occurred against the Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians.

The referenced current forced conversions (Indonesia) are unfortunately not historically aberrant, but certainly don't represent the majority of Muslim thought, cultural, religious, or legal precedent. As with most people's who find themselves, and their culture, on the decline - or excluded from not their own political system, but also the world's, they resort to desperate measures to regain, at least in their own minds, some sense of control, or order, no matter how repulsive, damaging and wrong it maybe to everyone else.

It is ironic that in our notion of a progressive (and it's inference of greater civil rights) arch of Western history, we ignore our own political imperialism (also done at the point of a gun, or sword), and it's impact around the world. Despite of the massive expenditure of lives, and money to install American's true religion: democracy, in Iraq; Iran, with all it's Shi'ite follow-the-leader volatility, was voluntarily farther along the path towards democracy, till it was derailed by Anglo-US installation of the Shah, deposing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Massadegh. No wonder Iranians deposed the Shah, kicked the US out, and resent any US remarks about their own political inconsistencies, and harsh treatment of their citizens.
 

davis67

1st Like
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Posts
67
Media
33
Likes
1
Points
93
Location
Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
silly topic with some very interesting observations...bottom line is it's impossible to ban beliefs or thoughts....and the idea that all or even most Muslims are terrorists isn't as frightening as the idea that someone would actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists. There are many paranoid, scared, simple minded people among us.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason, Mohammed did not "dictate" the Qu'ran.

Qu'ran a verbal noun (ma&#7779;dar) of the Arabic verb qara`a (Arabic: &#1602;&#1585;&#1571;), meaning “he read” or “he recited”. Arabians relied heavily on oral tradition. The texts weren't compiled in writing until just after Mohammed's death. The compilation itself likely something prompted by the deaths of about seventy of the reciters in battle during a time of many wars. Both the time between hearing and comitting the sura to text and the circumstances when they were put into writing allows for some distortion to have occurred.

I'm with Rubi and my Middle Eastern Studies teacher, Dr. Ismail. I still have my notes from that course and Dr. Ismail stated that the Koran was completed before the death of Mohammad. Perhaps he was wrong, but the man was from Turkey and a Muslim so I figured he knew better than I did.

The "fight" and violence you referenced from the suras are in relation to neighbouring pagan tribes and cities. Moses also demanded the slaughter of the Midianites (men, women AND children), purportedly on god's instruction, for the sin of heathen sacrifice. I think we can agree he wasn't muslim.

These were not mere skirmishes. Mohammad conquered an enormous territory by his death in 634 CE having started from being an outcast from his own tribe. I'm a bit puzzled why you're putting the word, fight, in quotes. This man led real and true armies; very effective armies. Whether they were pagans or not is of no difference. These are still people, many of whom had no argument with the Hashemites because the Hashemites were part of their greater peoples, the Quraysh. The first people Mohammad put to the sword were the people of his own tribe.

It's all fine and dandy to quote words as you find them but if you put those words in their historical context the meaning of those words become clearer and less easy to misrepresent.

Which is why the Hadith has such weight. The Hadith reinforces the teachings of Mohammad while giving additional instruction on how to best follow Islaimic law.

The meaning of the words have not changed in 1400 years. That's why we still see stonings, hand choppings, beheadings, hareems, and the oppression of non-Muslims, gays, and women in theocratic countries. While Europe was living in slop, Islam was conquering the Mediterranean and the middle east. It's true that Pythagoras was Greek, but the reason we still have his theorum is because it was preserved by the scholars of the Islamic empire. Scientific inquiry, mathematics, astronomy, geography, and medicine flourished during the empire. If I had a time machine and was dropped into medieval Europe, I'd get my ass down to Spain or Egypt so I could live in relative peace and relative cultural advancement. Education and literacy were highly prized during the Islamic Empire and unlike Christianity, there were no theocratic prohbitions on learning.

The reason I point this out is because the Koran was well-documented from the start. Islam's beginnings are not lost in the mist of time by any means and that documentation survived intact to the present day. There is no misrepresentation in what was meant, no anonymous scribe or monk who decided to substitute one phrase or entire sections of the Koran because he didn't like what was said.

Fact. Islam considers Judaism and Christianity progenitors, the same way Christianity sees Judaism. Islam, the religion, has never targeted Jews and Christians as foes nor defined them as unbelievers.

That interpretation is a tool used by extremists and xenophobes.

Tell that to the Christians defending Byzantium or the people of the Balkans and Spain; or to the present day Christians of The Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, and a few other places. The Zoroastrians and Baha'i of Iran are in the same boat. All are have faced persecution and forced conversion at the point of the sword or gun. The famed Janissaries, the personal guard of the Ottoman sultans, were the sons of Christians living in Ottoman territories. Each year families would have to give-up their sons to the sultan. These boys, who ranged in age from 8 to 18 were taken from their homes and forcibly converted to Islam. They never saw their families again. This blood debt to the sultan was called the dev&#351;irme and even today, speaking that word in the Chrisitan Balkans will rile tempers. This practice, which started in the 7th century CE, did not end until 1826.

These are facts, not xenophobic rants.

I don't understand why you're comparing the treatment of the Peoples of the Book by Islam, to the treatment of Jews by Christians because Christians have slaughtered Jews at a whim and forced conversion on them whenever it pleased Christians to do so. Talk to Sephardic Jews of their history. It's generally not pleasant. No Jew ever had any theocratic or legal protection beyond what various Christian rulers gave them. Jews and Christians did have various rights but only if they lived within the realm of the Islamic empire and at no time were they given anything resembling equal rights. Even though the Jannisaries were circumcised, plucked of hair, made to profess Islam, and went into battle shouting, "Allahu Akbar!," they were never permitted to wear beards as those who were born Muslim. They were permitted to have moustaches and that forever marked them as lesser Muslims even though they came to wield enormous power within the Ottoman empire itself.

Jason,

I am not very knowledgeable about comparative religion. Yet, I am skeptical of any analysis or scholarship that characterizes an entire religion with quotes from 1400 years ago. One of the reasons I am agnostic, is due to the belief that this sort of thinking has created untold misery.

I think you just threw ammunition to the real idiots, such as the OP, sorry to say.

There is no need to throw ammunition at idiots. It's already there. The roots of Islam are born in a philosophy, even an imperative to commit violence and war, "at the point of the sword," as they say. Islam has reformed through the centuries much as other religions have. They change interpretations to suit the norms of the day. Not all people do so. There are still very strict sects of all major religions and that includes Islam. Where Islam differs from most, but not all, is that a fundamentalist Muslim has a blatant command to go forth and commit violence and war on unbelievers by The Prophet himself. This is a problem I do not think will go away any time soon and that's due to a number of factors, not all having to do with the inherent tenets of Islam itself. The Saudis continually fund the establishment of fundamentalist madrassas all over the world, including the USA. These are the only source of education for many people all over the developing world where there is no public education. The Saudis have to do this because they derive their moral authority to be custodians of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina (both in Saudi Arabia) from the very fundamentalist Wahabbi sect who are seen to be very pious (if strict) in the eyes of Arabian muslims.

This root of violence is also why there is so little outcry amongst more mainstream Islamic leaders in the face of fundamentalist violence. They really can't argue that what these people are doing is wrong because the fundamentalists are backed by the Koran itself. It's unfortunate, but true.

The, "idiots," as you call them are those who believe that all Muslims believe in fundamentalism. Clearly they don't. As has been noted, the 9/11 attacks were a complete failure for al Qaeda as they did not result in an uprising of Muslims everywhere. The vast bulk of Islam was horrified though not necessarily surprised or even saddened. Many Muslims felt the US needed a comeuppance, if not by such an extreme measure. Happily, many more felt that the murder of innocents was wrong and that bin Laden is a dangerous headcase.

The idiots also don't know that Islam is much like any other major world religion in that there are vastly different divisions and sects devoted to particular Koranic teachings and reformist philosophies. As my Sufi friend likes to remind people, he'd be branded a heretic in more than a few conservative Muslim countries and prevented from practicing sufism openly. Even in Islam, there are huge disagreements beyond the more widely known Shia/Sunni schism. Islam has sects of enormously broad range, roughly equaling the breadth between Unitarianism and Legionaries of Christ in Christianity or Liberal Judaism and Hasidic Orthodoxy in Judaism or Theraveda and Zen in Buddhism.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
As to conversion, many Christians (as well as Zoroastrians in Persia) converted not at the point of the sword, but in order to maintain, and inherit property, which was generally not allowed for dhimmis.

I imagine you mean that a dhimmi could not inherit from a Muslim.
A Christian son, say, could inherit from his Christian father ... to that extent, inheritance was certainly allowed.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
(continued)

Islam, in general, has done a terrible PR job in the US. Most Americans don't know or aren't aware they know any Muslims, mosques and Islamic societies have done a horrible job of refuting the 9/11 attacks, and making media-awareness part of their job in helping Americans understand what Islam is in the US. It may be unfair that Americans do not trust Islam or Muslims, but there is no celestial parent to go crying at to make things fair. It's incumbent upon Muslims to educate and ameliorate America's perceptions of Islam, as most Muslims practice it, as being a religion of violence and persecution. The same is largely true in Europe where Muslim populations definitely feel themselves to be unwelcome outsiders. It's my fear that unless this happens, there will be more violence directed against Muslims as the canyon of distrust widens.

The distrust is not without reason. On TV we saw 9/11, we saw the Paris riots, and just recently a plot to bomb an air national guard base and shoot down C-5 Galaxys by a group of American-born Muslims was thwarted. We've heard or read the various suras of the Koran condoning violence, seen Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 and attack Israeli people, dress their kids in human bomb costumes, hear about beheadings, stonings, executions of children, the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, and frankly, the image of Islam here in the US is one of a backward, violent, ignorant, and repulsive culture that stands against everything western. It doesn't help that the media latches on to self-proclaimed Muslim clerics who say they hate the west and everything it stands for. When that's the message, rightly or wrongly, that reaches the great majority of your immediate neighbors, that's a big problem for you. To paraphrase Cervantes, whether the rock hits the Muslim or the Muslim hits the rock, it's always going to turn out badly for the Muslim. Mainstream Muslims, and particularly Muslims living in the west, have got to open communication with the west or risk allowing the extremists continue to do it for them to the deteriment of relations on both sides.
 
Last edited:

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, it does still happen.
You have groups that, still on divine mission, are going to force believers of other faiths to convert or be subject to strong sanctions.
As a rule these are groups that have established control in quite small areas ... another example of the extremist phenomenon.
But it's not, for example, the Indonesian government.
There's nothing like Suleiman leading soldiers of the Ottoman Empire into unconquered lands.

In the southern Philippines the government has no control, the Islamic insurgency have formed de facto governments. This is true in also in Nigeria and Sudan.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Whereas the topic of this thread is rubbish, an intelligent discussion on the varying impacts of Islam on non-Muslims, and Muslims, over the centuries, is not.

Even though there were numerous conversions (forced and not) to Islam during the height of their cultural dominance in the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, Islam did allow for "People of the Book" (aka dhimmis) to live, less equally, among them so long as they paid a poll tax or (jizya). In fact this treatment of Christians, and Jews (later Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Sikhs were added to the list) was not very different from the Codes put forth under the Emperor Justinian in 529. There are numerous sources, including the historian Bernard Lewis, who cite that Code as the basis for the Pact of Umar, and progenitor for all legal relations for non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

The Dhimmis were only afforded second class, or apartheid like existence, which included that they could not work in the military, or in agriculture; could not bear arms; could not testify in Shari'a courts, and could not own camels, or horses. Lewis cities various Hadiths which allow for pluralism in Islam, although historically there were often over ridden by rulers who, when their regimes fell in stature, used the sword, rather than these laws, to enforce their rule.

As to conversion, many Christians (as well as Zoroastrians in Persia) converted not at the point of the sword, but in order to maintain, and inherit property, which was generally not allowed for dhimmis. This was often the case in the Balkans where Christianity was not as firmly entrenched, prior to the Ottoman invasion, as it was in Western Europe. Jews who had already be regulated to a second class status by both the Romans, and Christians, largely did not convert (except in SouthWestern Europe during the reign of Almohades - 12th century), as the new boss was largely the same as the old. The Sunni Muslims abided by the historical interpretations of these laws: Hanafi, Maliki, Shai'fi, and Hanbali, dating from rulings in the 8th & 9th centuries, whereas the Shities followed, and still do, a living scholar, as we see with the inequities capriciously dispensed to even other Muslims by Ali Khameni, Iran's Vali e Faqih, or Supreme Leader.

As to the Ottomans, they are, and were a different kind of Muslim. Since they are not Arabs, they had different cultural and linguistic traditions, but did not always impose them (using a Roman-like system of local jurisprudence) as their Empire grew to encompass most of the Middle East from 800AD to it's demise in WWI. With regards to the dhimmis under Ottoman rule they generally allowed for 3 separate but equal courts: Shar'ia, Dhimmis, and Merchant, but by the mid 19th century, the Empire relaxed the rules to allow dhimmi to bring suits against Muslims, and to transfer property in the Shari's courts, rather than in their own. All those egalitarianism's began to disappear during first, the Crimean, and then, the first World War, which is when the pogroms, (genocides) occurred against the Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians.

The referenced current forced conversions (Indonesia) are unfortunately not historically aberrant, but certainly don't represent the majority of Muslim thought, cultural, religious, or legal precedent. As with most people's who find themselves, and their culture, on the decline - or excluded from not their own political system, but also the world's, they resort to desperate measures to regain, at least in their own minds, some sense of control, or order, no matter how repulsive, damaging and wrong it maybe to everyone else.

It is ironic that in our notion of a progressive (and it's inference of greater civil rights) arch of Western history, we ignore our own political imperialism (also done at the point of a gun, or sword), and it's impact around the world. Despite of the massive expenditure of lives, and money to install American's true religion: democracy, in Iraq; Iran, with all it's Shi'ite follow-the-leader volatility, was voluntarily farther along the path towards democracy, till it was derailed by Anglo-US installation of the Shah, deposing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Massadegh. No wonder Iranians deposed the Shah, kicked the US out, and resent any US remarks about their own political inconsistencies, and harsh treatment of their citizens.

Really excellent post! Thank you! Are you seeing any.... oh you're straight. Shit! All the good ones...
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
53
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Some peeps say that it had been written down, and those writings were assembled just after his death.
So, in a sense, he may indeed have 'dictated' the work.
I have difficulty with the term dictation being applied as it doesn't fit the culture of oral tradition nor does it gel with any mental picture of a man relating to his family and friends that god has just spoken to him through an angel.

Mohamed (face rapturous): "Allah! there is no god but He! To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names."
Mohamed pauses (serious expression): "Two Ls in Allah. Have you got that? Good. Spelling is important, there are 98 names left."

I just can't see it.

Further, for those who know Arabic and have heard the Qu'ran in it's original tongue what is most often remarked upon is it's lyrical flow, something that would have aided memory for those following the oral tradition.

Certainly his accounts were written down, but the question of precisely when is up for dispute. I could write lyrics of a song days or weeks after hearing it. Even if I write the lyrics down while listening to it, it's not a case of dictation but of transcription. And I may even transcribe it wrong...

"Wrapped up like a douche, another rumour in the night", anyone?



Well, Muslims wouldn't agree. They include even Abraham as a Muslim.
Er, yeah...sort of...but not as a "follower of Islam" Muslim. Abraham is revered by Muslims as one of god's prophets(along with Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and others) and the person who gave Muslims their name as "Muslims" (those who submit to God). Since he did submit and snipped his son, by his own coinage of the term, sure, he's a Muslim. If you're going to apply the term that way then all devout Jews and Christians are Muslims also.


For anyone to consider him a Muslim in terms of following the pillars of the Islam (which didn't exist yet) would be an odd bit of backdating. That's as valid as baptism of the dead.

True, but the point of allowing warfare against neighbouring non-Muslim peoples was to express Allah's willing in extending the reach of Islam.
Unless you are Allah, Mohamed or one other transcribers you can't know what the point was. Speculating, though, yes, that seems obvious. My personal belief is that all religions are based on the desire to solidify a power-base for a community and the best way to do so is to have a shared belief system or sacred knowledge to rally them. The more gathered to your belief system the stronger the power-base. Religion, politics, popped collars in New Jersey, whatever.


To this day, non-Muslim lands are classified as Dar al-Harb, the House of War, the places still not subservient to Muslim control.
Not by the religion. This term does not appear in the Qu'ran.

It's an aftermarket customization.
The 'God hates fags' belief is held by many Christians despite the lack of supporting evidence in the Bible for such a conclusion. It's aftermarket customization to their own bias.
Doesn't make either view right but it's not right to paint the religion for the twisted versions some hold of it.
That said, virtually no Muslims nowadays consider it their duty to conquer all those places for the sake of bringing them into Allah's circle.
(Some do, though ... but those are extremists still living in earlier centuries.)
Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Jews and Christians certainly did not get equal rights ... and often don't to this day have equal rights.
Putting this in perspective could get long.


From the beginning, even before Mohamed had his revelations. Safety in numbers. Jewish diaspora might seek to join an Arabic tribe for improved safety, shared resources, etc. A group of 20 outsiders would not be given equal say or treatment as the 100 or so tribes people who would be loosely related to each other. Think n00bs and established site members. Fair? Maybe not, but human nature all the same.

Later, as the newly Islam tribe grew and conquered other pagan tribes the Jewish living with the pagan tribes would be considered the conquered as well and as such lesser. Possibly even made slaves with the surviving pagans.

Say another tribe accepted Islam and converted. The Jewish living with that tribe would be absorbed also but again the numbers wouldn't be sufficient to hold as much weight as the Muslim tribes people (shared belief + strength in numbers). Human nature again.

Present day the predominantly Muslim areas that I can think of which deny equal rights to non Muslims are still ruled on a tribal system. It's pretty damn hard to get people to give up that kind of power structure when they've had it so long and it's worked so well for them.

Speaking of present day do Iraqis still have a curfew imposed by US troops? I'd call that a denial of rights and it's not even a conquest, just stabilization. Operation freedom?

They are considered to have at best a partial view of the truth, still captive of less evolved belief systems that deny the perfecting maturation that Mohammad, through the good offices of Gabriel and Allah himself, allegedly brought to humanity.
Yes. And?

New religions are amalgams or rewrites of old one's or pulled straight out of one's ass (Thank you, L. Ron). Christians believe that Jews are missing out on Christ's 'truth', while the Jews must presume Christians are deluded to believe that Christ was divine.

Don't all religions condescend to the tenets of the others? I'm suddenly thinking of the highlander movies, "there can be only one", but in this case it's the path to truth.

And there have been times when Muslims have attempted to spread Islam into Christian lands at sword point ... say, during the early days of the Ottoman Empire.
Of course, that's a long time ago.

Sure, there may have been pockets of that but from what I've read of the Ottoman empire (a fair bit actually) it was a land grab, pure and simple. More land, more people, more wealth accumulated, more power. Jews and Christians were welcomed, particularly in the city centers to help develop a flourishing merchant base. They were not required to convert to Islam. In the lands seized often the Christians of the non ruling classes welcomed their dominion because they were less stringent than their fellow christian overlords. Again, these people were not required to convert. The Ottomans were ruthless to win the battles and take over the desired land but they were also smart enough to know that killing someone who could otherwise work and produce revenue for them, just because they didn't say, "I love, Allah", was counterproductive.

"My religion or death", is something that is so often laid at the feet of the Muslims but I find that Christians are just as guilty if not more of this practice. The inquisition is one very dramatic example. And those kindly missionaries guiding the heathens of Africa and the North & South Americas didn't meander their way to those in need of salvation, they accompanied conquering war parties who decimated the native populations. Safety in numbers again. The natives adopted Christianity to create a common denominator.

Short version:
The qu'ran - not "dictated". I just can't accept that term.
Moses - not Muslim.
Abraham - "
Jews and Christians - Not designated foes nor unbelievers
Muslims and bloody wars - Yep. They and everyone else were doing it.

And religion is stupid.
 
Last edited:

BIGBULL29

Worshipped Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
7,603
Media
52
Likes
14,214
Points
343
Location
State College (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
Read the Koran. Unlike Jesus who reformed the hideous old laws of the Old Testament, the Koran is considered the word of God himself as dictated to Mohammad. There is no reformation of interpretation:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." -Koran 2:216

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." - Koran 2:191-193

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" - Koran 3:151

"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - Koran 3:56

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - Koran 8:12

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -Koran 9:29

"And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" - Koran 9:30

"Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew. If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" - Koran 9:41-42

"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." -Koran 9:5

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" -Koran 5:33

Then there are the Hadith, the sayings of the prophet Mohammad:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." - Bukhari 52:177

The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." - Bukhari 52:256

There are three Hadith quotes which state that Mohammad was told of the killing of women and children and each time he said, "they are from them," meaning that since they were the offspring and wives and pagan men that there was no sin in killing them.

And most shocking:

&#8220;Allah said, &#8216;A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.&#8217;&#8221; - Ibn Ishaq 327

"Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." - Ibn Ishaq 992
I have grave concern with a religion which promotes these sorts of tenets. I am well aware that the Catholic and various Protestant churches have committed horrible acts in the name of Christianity, yet I do not believe Jesus himself would have condoned the acts based upon the gospels left to us. Even discounting the entries in the Hadith, which are other people (allegedly) quoting Mohammad, we're left with some deeply troubling writings indisputably written by Mohammad himself who claimed to be taking dictation from an angel. To be a devout Muslim means to be something other than what most Muslims (happily) practice. If Muslim terrorists are killing innocents in the name of God, it appears to me and many others, that they are acting as instructed by God himself according to the gospel of Mohammad. There's no getting around it.

Great post, Jason!

The truth of the matter is that many liberal folks who defend Islam fail to see the forest for the trees (don't know why as mainstream Islam abhors homosexuality, women in power, etc). They immediately want to attack Christianity for its horrible sins of the past to take the heat off modern-day Muslims. Christianity's past sins are irrelevant here, but Islam's current sins are not. Just look at how awfully Muslim women are treated in Islamic countries? And many in those countries are moderately Islamic?:eek: Are any mainstream Christian groups currently treating women like that? You know the answer.

I don't any of any well-organized terrorist group currently affiliated with Christianity. I mean there are plenty of whacko Christians and Christian denominations who don't at all follow the real teachings of Jesus, but that is not very relevant here.

Germany thought of banning scientology. I don't blame them. Any cult-like group reminds them of Nazi Germany.

I would like to ban those polygamist colonies in the US.

Freedom of religion is great, but to what degree?
 
Last edited:

B_ccc888

Experimental Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
103
This is not issue about Liberals vs. Cons

It's about the facts on Islam.............

Islam is not religion of peace at all, how can there be peace if it teaches
intolerance, ignorance, arrogance and nihilistic approach on those who don't belong the same sects.

Those liberals who believe Islam is "peaceful"

OK folks, try to go to Saudi Arabia, bring a Bible, preach Atheism and be Gay !

May Allah be in your side :biggrin1:
 

B_ccc888

Experimental Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
103
Great post, Jason!

The truth of the matter is that many liberal folks who defend Islam fail to see the forest for the trees (don't know why as mainstream Islam abhors homosexuality, women in power, etc). They immediately want to attack Christianity for its horrible sins of the past to take the heat off modern-day Muslims. Christianity's past sins are irrelevant here, but Islam's current sins are not. Just look at how awfully Muslim women are treated in Islamic countries? And many in those countries are moderately Islamic?:eek: Are any mainstream Christian groups currently treating women like that? You know the answer.

I don't any of any well-organized terrorist group currently affiliated with Christianity. I mean there are plenty of whacko Christians and Christian denominations who don't at all follow the real teachings of Jesus, but that is not very relevant here.

Germany thought of banning scientology. I don't blame them. Any cult-like group reminds them of Nazi Germany.

I would like to ban those polygamist colonies in the US.

Freedom of religion is great, but to what degree?


MUSLIMS living in Western nations always complaint about "discrimination and persecution"

so ugrateful compared how they treat NON MUSLIM minorities there in their homelands.

It's sick and make me puke how selfish and hypocrite they're

Even in Communist China, Chinese government has shown so much tolerance on this hate cult

Let's see if any Islamic nations can allow Communism and Atheism flourish there.
 

B_ccc888

Experimental Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
103
silly topic with some very interesting observations...bottom line is it's impossible to ban beliefs or thoughts....and the idea that all or even most Muslims are terrorists isn't as frightening as the idea that someone would actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists. There are many paranoid, scared, simple minded people among us.


Well, we can fight Islam not with military might only but through enlightenment and counter propaganda.

Keep drawing cartoons about Mr. Moh. their prophet

Keep exposing how they're liars and selfish holier than thou hypocrites always demanding rights when they're minorities

but never respect others' right when they're in power and majority.

Keep expose their masses that in many nations we guarantee religious freedom not by empty promises but by our constitutions while

they always lie about Islam being tolerant to others.
 

B_ccc888

Experimental Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
103
Muslim dictators such as Iranian President can't stand unscripted Q&A
sessions

Asked why they executed gays in Iran

What this "Holly Liar" said ?

There's no GAYS in my country like your country, no perverts in Iran

yeah right :biggrin1:

Because I hang them all, after sucking my holly cock as repentance punishment :cool:
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
In the southern Philippines the government has no control, the Islamic insurgency have formed de facto governments. This is true in also in Nigeria and Sudan.
I know. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to. You are not mentioning any nation as such.
I have difficulty with the term dictation being applied as it doesn't fit the culture of oral tradition nor does it gel with any mental picture of a man relating to his family and friends that god has just spoken to him through an angel.
You are being too literal.
There were scribes who had studied both Gregg AND Pitman shorthand, who took down the words of Gabriel as Mohammad spoke them.

You should know this.
Certainly his accounts were written down, but the question of precisely when is up for dispute. I could write lyrics of a song days or weeks after hearing it. Even if I write the lyrics down while listening to it, it's not a case of dictation but of transcription. And I may even transcribe it wrong...
Have a cookie ...
Er, yeah...sort of...but not as a "follower of Islam" Muslim. Abraham is revered by Muslims as one of god's prophets(along with Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and others) and the person who gave Muslims their name as "Muslims" (those who submit to God). Since he did submit and snipped his son, by his own coinage of the term, sure, he's a Muslim. If you're going to apply the term that way then all devout Jews and Christians are Muslims also...
For anyone to consider him a Muslim in terms of following the pillars of the Islam (which didn't exist yet) would be an odd bit of backdating. That's as valid as baptism of the dead.
Ahz jus' sayin' ... and you're right, they do backdate.
They consider all of the prophets as prophets of Allah, and therefore as Muslims, an honour I don't think they extend to your friendly neighbourhood rabbi.
As valid as baptism of the dead?
Well, how valid is that?
But sure ... it's probably just about as valid, you can say persuasively to this non-Muslim dude yo' talkin' to.

Unless you are Allah, Mohamed or one other transcribers you can't know what the point was. Speculating, though, yes, that seems obvious.

I'm talking about the claims in the Quran. Allah is pleased as the circle of his believers is extended.
My personal belief is that all religions are based on the desire to solidify a power-base for a community and the best way to do so is to have a shared belief system or sacred knowledge to rally them. The more gathered to your belief system the stronger the power-base. Religion, politics, popped collars in New Jersey, whatever.
I have no problem with that.
Not by the religion. This term does not appear in the Qu'ran.
It's an aftermarket customization.
The 'God hates fags' belief is held by many Christians despite the lack of supporting evidence in the Bible for such a conclusion. It's aftermarket customization to their own bias.
Doesn't make either view right but it's not right to paint the religion for the twisted versions some hold of it.
Twisted versions that 'some' hold of it?
It's not to be compared to the 'God hates fags' nonsense that some twisted Christians spout.
It comes from Hadith and from quite generally accepted Muslim theology.
That said, as I added,
"virtually no Muslims nowadays consider it their duty to conquer all those places for the sake of bringing them into Allah's circle.
"(Some do, though ... but those are extremists still living in earlier centuries.)
"
The religion and the Quran are not identical.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Eeeeeeeeek ... there was more.
Okay, let's look at the short version.


Short version:
The qu'ran - not "dictated". I just can't accept that term.
Well, I don't hugely disagree.
My own original post said,
"in a sense, he may indeed have 'dictated' the work," which is to say, I acknowledge, through both the phrase "in a sense" and through putting "dictated" in quotation marks that a literal definition of "dictation" would probably not match what happened.
Happy? Need a cookie?
In a looser sense, something quite like dictation may well have occurred.
You know, L., I lied ... there were no Gregg- or Pitman-trained stenos back then.

Moses - not Muslim.
Abraham - "
Fine. All I said, and what I repeat, is "Well, Muslims wouldn't agree. They include even Abraham as a Muslim."
If you don't buy that, it's irrelevant to my claim. I'm talking about Muslim belief, not yours.
Jews and Christians - Not designated foes nor unbelievers
Full-fledged foes, everywhere in the Muslim world? No. But treated as foes in many places, such as in the Morocco and the Yemen of many centuries ago. (Actually, it is hard to give an account of how the dhimmi actually were treated, because local variations were immense.)
Not treated as unbelievers? To be sure, they were also People of the Book, so they were not unbelievers in the way, say, that Hindus and Buddhists were long considered. There was certainly overlap between the beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims. But Jews and Christians did not accept the Islamic creed ... the Shahada ("There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet"), and that is intrinsically a difference in belief.
Of course, there are many other differences in belief.

Muslims and bloody wars - Yep. They and everyone else were doing it.
Yes. But adherents of other religions did not find their particular violence so specifically sanctioned by their holy books.
I don't dispute that peeps throughout history have always found a short reach to some justification for turning to violence. They have not usually been all that picky.


And religion is stupid.
Yup.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I asked four Muslims of my acquaintance if Abraham and Moses were Muslims. Two of them basically laughed and called me a crazy yabanci. Another one asked me, "Are you fucking stupid?" But that's always his answer.

The last one said he'd think about it but he didn't see how that could be, because those Prophets lived thousands of years before Mohammed. He asked if Christians thought of Abraham as a Jew or as a Christian? His opinion was that it was illogical, although he wasn't surprised that, a) some Muslims might try to claim it, and b) that some westerners think it is a widely held belief.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I asked four Muslims of my acquaintance if Abraham and Moses were Muslims. <snip >
The last one said he'd think about it but he didn't see how that could be, because those Prophets lived thousands of years before Mohammed. He asked if Christians thought of Abraham as a Jew or as a Christian? His opinion was that it was illogical, although he wasn't surprised that, a) some Muslims might try to claim it, and b) that some westerners think it is a widely held belief.
I think some Muslims do try to claim it ... but I think it's more a belief on the clerical level.
Common sense of course denies it ... I do get that.
There are a few quotes from the Quran that seem to assert that Abraham was a Muslim. Here are two:

Quran 22:78: It is the religion of your father Abraham who has called you MUSLIM from before and in this (revelation).

Quran 2: 132
And this was the advice that Abraham left to his sons and so did Jacob; "O my sons! Allah has chosen the faith for you; then die not except in the faith of Islam." (Quran 2:132)

Supposedly, some Muslims also believe that Adam was a Muslim.

Can 'Muslim' here have the same meaning as when we say King Abdullah is a Muslim? I don't see how, Vince. But just what it does mean, I don't know.