The Energon Pub

KAMJIIN wrote:The Bible is full of that. Read the Old Testament sometime, it's a real eye opener.

Yes it is. You'll hopefully take notice of one of half dozen threads I've posted in decrying just how terrible The Bible is. There are things in there that no sane human being could possibly believe. I think religion is a terribly harmful force in the world today. Christianity, Islam, Scientology, all of them. This particular thread is about why Islam represents a threat.

KAMJIIN wrote:If you want to quote the Quran like that to back up your point I can do the same with the Old Testament.

So can I. Chapter and verse. It's terrible stuff. The New Testament as well as the old. Christianity and Islam, demonstrably harmful.

KAMJIIN wrote:Bottom line is, you hate Moslems. Gotcha, point made.

I do believe you've missed the point entirely. I'm not criticizing Muslims. I'm criticizing the beliefs in the Koran. I have no trouble distinguishing between a person and their beliefs. The person can be the nicest guy or gal you'll ever meet, but the beliefs in the Koran are downright evil. I wish no harm on any Muslim. I refuse to respect a belief system that calls for my death. And yes, that's true of Christianity as well. Hence, my complete and utter lack of respect for Christianity. If you want to talk about Christianity, then by all means, jump into one of half-dozen threads on this page.

KAMJIIN wrote:Now, won't some nice mod lock this thread before someone fires with both barrels.

Now where, oh where, can we find a mod at this hour? *Looks up at the list of Philosopher's Forum mods* Oh, well I'll be, it looks like we've found one. I'm a mod. And I'm not locking a thread that has the potential for some excellent discussion.

I should point out, in the event you want to continue your line of discussion, that by comparing Christianity to Islam, you're not really defending Islam. If it was your intention to vilify Christianity, then well done.

Smooth, I disagree with your tone in this thread. I feel you are being overly and unnecessarily sarcastic. You started a discussion, but you are then defending your points with anger and other such hostility. "Please come back when you have looked the word up in a dictionary." comes readily to mind.

I feel your tone is unbecoming of a mod, that's all.



And Shadowman, you should show your Muslim friends this thread, specifically Smooth's posts and Hoosier Daddy's posts.

I am really curious to know what they would think.

Thanks for the input. I'm still fairly new at this. To be fair, I'd made the thread before I became a Mod.

I too would like to see what a follower of Islam thinks of this thread. You disagree with the way I've chosen to present my evidence, but you can't argue with the evidence itself.

Please be careful what you post and the way in which you post it. Any sort of 'hate speech' is a violation of the board rules and will result in disciplinary actions.

Debate is meant to be civil, so let's keep it that way.

I know this is the philosophers forum and debate is welcome but man, this is too much..

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... t=545&sid=

Keep a cool head or the thread will be locked and appropriate warnings will be issued.

This is one reason why I hate discussion Religion and politics... So many views and opinions..

I can't see a way that Smooth is wrong at all. i've read every post in the thread and nothing tells me that Islam isn't a primarily violent religion as much as the next. Sure, Christians and the like did some bad stuff back in the day but I care about OUR day and age, and right now Islam is the threat as much as Christians were in the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.

I can't see how anyone here can in there right mind defend the fanatics and the religious beliefs that do (as Smooth researched) call for the extinciton of our way of life and everything in it. Before reading on and then replying, think as we do: logically. What Smooth says is not jsut best for us but for everyone, muslims included; like the women soon to be stoned to death and the suicide bombers in training.

The solution: educate the muslim world over time as Christians and everyone else was educated about how religious wars arn't a good thing. Someone said that we were intolerant of toher's religion? No, THEY ARE! Instruct them in tolerance of OUR beliefs, should you have one.

The radical and nearly implausible solution: Eliminate religion altogether. It does nothing but cause conflict as you can see in this thread and on a much larger scale. That's just my thoughts, I'm not completely advocating it.

Skyshadowprimus is right, cut it off at the source. if the Bible got a new, watered-down and less violent Testament then why not the same for Islam? Weed out the violence of the Koran and you have the Muslim verison of the Bible.

It's all very logical and reasonable in the end.

The Christians have a saying for my feelings on Islam. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I think that's quite appropriate. There can be no argument that Islam does not propose any number of violences towards people who don't believe what they believe. This is a fact. It's not a judgment on the people practice it. It's a judgment of the book itself. Just a negative review of a Stephen King novel is not an attack on the book's author or reader.

Professor Smooth wrote:The Christians have a saying for my feelings on Islam. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I think that's quite appropriate. There can be no argument that Islam does not propose any number of violences towards people who don't believe what they believe. This is a fact. It's not a judgment on the people practice it. It's a judgment of the book itself. Just a negative review of a Stephen King novel is not an attack on the book's author or reader.

Okay, so I guess the Muslim people I knew were trying to kill me?

Shadowman wrote:
Okay, so I guess the Muslim people I knew were trying to kill me?

Did you even read the post you quoted?

They were not trying to kill you, but their holy book tells them they should. What a holy book SAYS and what what people DO are two different things. It's not Arabs or people from the Middle East that need to be stopped, it's ISLAM.

Shadowman wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:The Christians have a saying for my feelings on Islam. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I think that's quite appropriate. There can be no argument that Islam does not propose any number of violences towards people who don't believe what they believe. This is a fact. It's not a judgment on the people practice it. It's a judgment of the book itself. Just a negative review of a Stephen King novel is not an attack on the book's author or reader.

Okay, so I guess the Muslim people I knew were trying to kill me?

If they aren't, then they aren't really true Muslims, according to their own holy book.

But that's a good thing. It means your friends actually happen to be intelligent human beings.

Dark Zarak wrote:You are over-reacting.

Not really...

In a pure, unedited translation of the Koran from ancient Arabic, Muhammed does a lot of talking. For one thing, the Koran is written as a conversation between Muhammed and Allah in Meccan and Medinan phases... basically chronological. One big difference between these two phases is the support that Islam had.

In the beginning, Muhammed was at the very start of gaining support for the new religion and therefore had no backing to make bold statements or actions against anyone. However, once the following became greater and greater, the rhetoric became more violent. That is a fact proven by the Koran itself. Muhammed did not preach such love. For example:

In that time period there was a Jewish poet named K'ab bin Al-Ashraf, who according the Muhammed's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women". Ibn Ishaq for those who don't know, was a Muslim historian accredited with "the first to collect the accounts of the expeditions of the Messenger of Allah and record them".

In response, Muhammed asked his followers, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt allah and His Apostle?" - According to "Sahih Muslim" - in my citation here it is the version translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi and Kitab Bhavan with the revised edition of 2000. the Sahih Muslim is one of the Sunni Six Major Hadith collections.

In response to that Muhammed found a follower named Muhammad bin Maslama who offered and did indeed kill K'ab, afterwhich Muhammed issued a blanket command saying "Kill any Jew that falls into your power."

The Koran has many war-like verses. And due to the fact that a vast amount of these verses appear in much later parts of the Koran, according to Islam they abrogate, or cancel, verses which may contradict them. Such as having a peaceful view, then a more violent view, towards a situation. Since the more violent view is the most latest way of looking at the situation it therefore takes the place of the earlier peaceful view. Another example:

Verse 9:5 says "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". The "poor-due" is "zakat" which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and regulates religious tithes. Such a payment as expressed in verse 9:29 "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 the Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".

It is a glaring view compared to what some may think. In the Meccan phase, which was the first segment of Muhammed's career as prophet he just called people to Islam. The later Medinan suras are less poetic and are much longer, and deal with law and ritual, as well as exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is where the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, known as "nashk" comes in, that tells that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims, as stated for example in verse 2:106 "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" That leaves the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword (9:5) as the last sura revealed, which implements abrogation by what it says compared to earlier suras.

In such violence and jihad, Muhammed said himself, according to the writing "Surat at-Tawba: Repentance" stating "Muhammad was firm about the necessity of jihad not only for himself personally, but for every Muslim. He warned believers that 'he who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity."

These teachings are also Islamic law, and are not allowed to be reinterpreted, or looked at for more than one meaning. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide belong to one of the four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence, the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi'i. Centuries ago these schools formulated their own laws on such matters of jihad and how it was to be conducted. With that, it is a commonly accepted principle in the Islamic world that the "gates of ijtihad," or free inquiry into the Koran and Islamic tradition in order to discover Allah's rulings, has been closed for centuries. Islamic authority has never allowed these "gates" to be reopened, and therefore not allowing new meanings to be looked at.

Ibn Kathir was an Islamic scholar who was famous for the commentary he wrote on the Koran which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammed, and sayings of the sahaba, Muhammed's companions, to verses of the Koran. According to him, tolerance came in the form of Christians making a pact with Umar ibn al-Khattab who was caliph from 634-644, and pleding to:

"We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monestary, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims."

Facts are everywhere. Facts according to Muhammed's own words, according to the Koran itself, according to Islamic law and authority...Islam is not open for interpretation. That's the law and ruling of the religion. With the citations I made, there are plent more of them out there.

Interesting, Ikavadas.

I read the whole post. I was not aware of any of that stuff.


But I'm funny that way because I am so cynical about things, but then I'll all of a sudden want to trust and believe other things.

The answer, as someone said, is to educate them more. The Middle East has such an isolationist additude about the western world. It's easy to hate something you don't understand.

Dark Zarak wrote:Interesting, Ikavadas.

I read the whole post. I was not aware of any of that stuff.


But I'm funny that way because I am so cynical about things, but then I'll all of a sudden want to trust and believe other things.

The answer, as someone said, is to educate them more. The Middle East has such an isolationist additude about the western world. It's easy to hate something you don't understand.

Exactly as I wrote. They don't accept Western (or Eastern) views so they attacked us on 9/11, this is like deja-vu looking back about 50 years. The Japanese were isolationists and they attacked Pearly Harbor. It's almost like a repaeat in history.(*note: it was a comparison, nothing more.) So ignorance of one's 'enemy' ultimately leads to conflict. The older Islamists don't want to be helped or educated, hence why they fight. Which is why its best to start em young.

Why not just stop all beliefs? it would be just as easy.

Dark Zarak wrote:The answer, as someone said, is to educate them more. The Middle East has such an isolationist additude about the western world. It's easy to hate something you don't understand.

This is a very wise statement, but as i said before, this is a seventh century religion. education is rejected totally. they dont just hate it, they eradicate it from their lives.

anything that could be attributed to pulling Islam out of the dark ages is actively cut out of thier culture. in many cases, subscribing to westernism or capitolism or whatever can be punishable by death.

Education is what is needed, for sure, but that is gonna take soooo long. In Australia the debate gets very heated. we are a very multicultural society. every now and then some muftah gets on the front page saying "your women are disgusting, cover them up or shoot them. all of you, convert now!" or something totally radical and ridiculous like that. Maybe there childrens childrens children will start caring about football and beer more than Islam and forget about that type of sh+t.

Assimilation is not cool for many islamic people. even adjusting their way of life in the most insignificant of ways is 'too much! too disrespectful to allah!" how do you educate that?? i.e. wearing full face covering inside a bank. simple reason, we can all see why, but if that affects someones religious practises, something has to give, doesnt it?

fortunately i hear on radio talk shows some young islamic students etc describing their anger about the way some of their older generation won't try and help muslims succesfully assimilate into the culture. these kids are keen. they like the western life that they are experiencing here. some of them want to change it!!! they like it, but call for other young australians to be like them.

anyway, i agree with you. education is the answer, but what a hard road!! i believe it will take as long as it did with christianity. yep hundredsd of years.
[/i]

The true saving grace is a younger generation. At least Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran are now made up of near 60% of their populations below the age of 35, some even more so and younger, and many of them like western culture-- individual freedoms, democracy, cellphones, TV, cold Coca-Cola-- and realize how stupid their forefathers are, for the individual restrictions if not the views of infidels. They are just biding their time until the old men don't have the power to kill them for mass rebellion anymore. And change will come.

i_amtrunks wrote:Why not just stop all beliefs? it would be just as easy.

If only...

Dark Zarak wrote:
And Shadowman, you should show your Muslim friends this thread, specifically Smooth's posts and Hoosier Daddy's posts.

I am really curious to know what they would think.

By all means bring in some Muslims so I can present what my work aquaintences have said because I want to see what othe Muslims have to say. Because quite frankly the things being said are down right scary. Just as a tip of the iceberg they claim that democracy is what ruined this country and that is why we are under attack. I find that offensive and ridiculous. Democracy is why they are able to be here with green cards making our money to send back to Yamen. (the ones I work with all come from Yamen) and then they go on to tell me that Islam does not allow for magicians. Magicians should all be killed right now was exclaimed by them. Because someone COULD confuse a magician as a diety and that would be worshiping a false idol and a person pretending to be a god. By all means I'd love some Muslims outside of the 15 or 20 that I know personally to see what their veiws are because I have a ton of questions.

Professor Smooth wrote:

KAMJIIN wrote:The Bible is full of that. Read the Old Testament sometime, it's a real eye opener.

Yes it is. You'll hopefully take notice of one of half dozen threads I've posted in decrying just how terrible The Bible is. There are things in there that no sane human being could possibly believe. I think religion is a terribly harmful force in the world today. Christianity, Islam, Scientology, all of them. This particular thread is about why Islam represents a threat.

That bit was for Hoosier Daddy, who jumped in all high and mighty without reading the rest of the thread to understand what was going on, and swearing his holy book said nothing of the sort. Let he who is without sin type thing.

Religion is not harmful...people are.

Professor Smooth wrote:I do believe you've missed the point entirely. I'm not criticizing Muslims. I'm criticizing the beliefs in the Koran. I have no trouble distinguishing between a person and their beliefs. The person can be the nicest guy or gal you'll ever meet, but the beliefs in the Koran are downright evil. I wish no harm on any Muslim. I refuse to respect a belief system that calls for my death. And yes, that's true of Christianity as well. Hence, my complete and utter lack of respect for Christianity. If you want to talk about Christianity, then by all means, jump into one of half-dozen threads on this page. I should point out, in the event you want to continue your line of discussion, that by comparing Christianity to Islam, you're not really defending Islam. If it was your intention to vilify Christianity, then well done.

You are not criticizing Moslems? That is exactly what you were doing. You have yet to draw any distinction between a Terrorist who cherry picks his holy book to find justification for the evil he carries out, and an average Joe who believes in a philosophical viewpoint that makes him a better person (in some cases). Your opening posts were outright attacks against Moslems. You are painting all of them with the same brush. Surely you have enough intelligence to understand things aren't that black and white. And as for me attempting to "villify" Christianity, there is no need to twist my words. I drew a paralell. If you read those verses in context with the entire chapter they are not nearly so damning as one cherry picked line. Times back then were crappy, as the texts point out. People did terrible things, most of the time without dragging religion into the equation. As many will tell you, I have defended Christians on many occasions when the topic drifted off subject and into Christian bashing. Humans murder each other for land, money and (in some parts of New Jersey) for someting as small as a pair of shoes. Should shoes, land and money be stopped as well.

Professor Smooth wrote:Now where, oh where, can we find a mod at this hour? *Looks up at the list of Philosopher's Forum mods* Oh, well I'll be, it looks like we've found one. I'm a mod. And I'm not locking a thread that has the potential for some excellent discussion.

At the time the discussion began, you were NOT a mod, as you yourself pointed out. Also your tone was confrontational, insulting, belligerent and plain mean-spirited. I responded in kind. And it does have the potential for some excellent discussion, provided it is kept civil.

Congratulations on the promotion, btw.

Also, i'd like to see the referances of the Bible where God orders his people to march on and kill those who don't believe such as the jewsish or Christian values. I assume you guys are speaking of what is in Deuteronomy. If so, go ahead and post the verses you want to use and i'll debunk it. Because atheists love to use that book taken out of context to "prove" Judeo Christian values are just like Islam. I'll be happy to put it back into context and show that those making the claims are wrong. Please enlighten me and allow me to put the kibosh on it.

Please Hoosier Daddy, read entire thread, read entire post.

Sheeesh.

Professor Smooth's argument only makes sense in context of a vilification of religion generally, with Islam as the case in point. As has been mentioned, the Old Testament also details divinely mandated slaughter of unbelievers, and it does not stand alone. I'd like to engage his argument on its own terms on two points.

It's curious that Prof. Smooth claims not to be quoting the citations of violence from the Koran out of context--I see no context surrounding them. Perhaps he means that having the context would not change the interpretation. Well and good: practically all of those quotes appear to me to concern a person's spiritual fate. The statements strike me as more comparable to common Christian beliefs that unbelievers will go to hell, not because believers will or should send them there, but because they have not accepted divine grace. I don't much care for that view of God, but to argue that these quotes advocate violence would require, well, context.

It is also curious that Smooth would suggest that women receive worse treatment in the Koran than in Jewish and Christian foundational texts. This assertion suggests to me that he has not read the Koran. Although it is easy enough to produce quotes from the Koran which appear to denigrate women, by my reading it distinguishes itself from Jewish and Christian texts in its specifying rights for women and in putting them in most regards on more equal footing than in, for example, the letters of Paul. I was surprised. Read it.

The fact that so many Muslim fundamentalists spite the Koran in the relations of gender they enforce drives home a significant problem in Smooth's mode of critique: the equation of a faith with its grounding text, and moreover with a particular way of interpreting that text. Even within conservative Islam, there are four accepted and significantly different interpretive schools, such that it borders on nonsensical to claim that the meaning of the Koran is at any point transparent or singular. Religion lies in practice, of which the interpretation of the Koran is only one component.

After all this, I find Islamic fundamentalism no less distressing than many. Yet this fundamentalism does not emerge as a necessary outgrowth of the Koran any more than its contemporary and equally disturbing Christian counterpart formed as a necessary result of the Bible. Histories of perceived marginalization helped produce both. Attempting to "educate" away Christianity or Islam will not weaken either fundamentalism. Instead, such efforts would add to their root causes, and likely make them worse. Now, requiring that all schoolchildren read the holy books of their own religion and of others--that'd be a good idea.

I would hope there is a better justification for an entire religion than "other religions are bad too." Believe me, if you want to say that all religion has been a force for evil, then I'm right there with you.

KAMJIIN wrote:Please Hoosier Daddy, read entire thread, read entire post.

Sheeesh.

What are you talking about? Many people in this thread and other are saying that the Bible tells us to march on and kill those who don't believe in God as we do. All I'm asking is for someone who's making those claims to show me where it says that. It seems to be too much to ask. And the reason why is because most atheists go to left wing atheist web sites to get their info about the Bible and that is where the Bible is taken so far out of context that it ridiculous. I can dispute those people. And I'm doing to proove that P. Smooth is correct about the Quaran (even though he thinks the bible is just as bad). Now, I've read every post in this thread and you telling me to read every post makes no sense because I asked a simple question that has no sense in you telling me to read posts. I'll present the question again. If you're going to attack the bible then do the research and learn it first. Don't get your info from some website with an agenda to destroy it. Here's the same question again.

Tell me where in the Bible does God tell us to march on and kill those who believe differantly then we do. (here's a hint, you may want to check Dueteronomy)Tell me where so that we can match it up to the Quran that DOES say to march on and kill those who don't believe the way they do. And the Quran even goes into detail about how to kill those who don't. By chopping off their heads. Why do you think Al Queda keeps showing videos of captured westerners getting their heads chopped off?

The problem is, the Bible promotes it by indirect action. God kills, and tells the Israelites to kill, but it doesn't usually go 'hey, you, ya-- the guy reading this-- go smack your neighbor with this book.' People can still take (the rather offbased) claim 'well... he only wanted people to kill then.' Or... 'Well, Jesus edited that out that need later.' But we don't have that here.

Since it's basically the conversations and instructions of Muhammed, that's what the Quaran generally does when it has references to violence. 'Hey, you, I'm the last prophet, the final messenger--this ain't gonna change--and the final message is to kill everyone who doesn't believe this message.'

DesalationReborn wrote:The problem is, the Bible promotes it by indirect action. God kills, and tells the Israelites to kill, but it doesn't usually go 'hey, you, ya-- the guy reading this-- go smack your neighbor with this book.' People can still take (the rather offbased) claim 'well... he only wanted people to kill then.' Or... 'Well, Jesus edited that out that need later.' But we don't have that here.

Since it's basically the conversations and instructions of Muhammed, that's what the Quaran generally does when it has references to violence. 'Hey, you, I'm the last prophet, the final messenger--this ain't gonna change--and the final message is to kill everyone who doesn't believe this message.'

But you have to take into account that in the Bible when God tells the Isrealites to kill someone it isn't for them to just go kill them based on the opposite belief, but rather God is telling the Isrealites that "hey, murder is wrong but war is necessary and if you have to kill in war then it isn't a sin and if someone is trying to take over your land and force differant beliefs on you then by all means, kill them to stop them." And as far as God killing the only defense I have to that is we aren't supposed to do what God does we are supposed to follow the rules he laid out for us to follow.

Plus, many people think that the new testament erased the need for us to kill during war but it didn't. The new testament also points out that there are times when war is unavoidable and the need to kill in was is justified. One must be able to defend themselves.