Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 90

Thread: Hate Speech?

  1. #1
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Hate Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    In regards Islam, while I believe that most Muslims will probably never cause serious harm to others, I can never accept that Islam is essentially a fundamentally acceptable ideology. It is a religion that was founded by a warlord who wanted the whole world to submit to Islam or be killed and who condoned the carrying out of acts of terror against his enemies: The first pillar of Islam requires Muslims to accept him as the messenger of their God.
    The Prophet (saws) was not a warlord, Islam is a religion that brings peace to mankind:

    And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Quran 8.61)
    And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (Quran 9.6)
    People of other faiths are protected in Islam and lived peacefully under Islamic rule for many years. And yet it's the supposedly "peaceful" secular Western countries that have caused massive war, oppression, and bloodshed over the last century and earlier.

  2. #2
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The Prophet (saws) was not a warlord, Islam is a religion that brings peace to mankind:
    The Qur'an's idea of peace is only achievable according to it if everyone is a Muslim, and it tells followers to go out of their way to inflict violence:

    "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" ~ Quran (2:191-193)

    "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive 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." ~ Quran (9:5)

    "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." ~ Quran (3:151)

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

    "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain." ~ Quran (4:104)

    "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." ~ Quran (8:67)

    "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." ~ Quran (5:33)

    "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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." ~ Quran (9:29)

    "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" Quran (9:41-42)

    "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." ~ Quran (66:9)

    "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." ~ Quran (47:3-4)

    "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." ~ Quran (48:17)

    Christian doctrine by contrast has Jesus specifically telling his followers not to commit acts of violence (although he did not forbid a career in the military).

    I believe if Muhammad had truly understood Christian doctrine, he would have considered it total blasphemy and would not have considered Christians to be People of the Book, as he did not seem to understand that Christians considered Christ to be god.

    While the Qur'an often contradicts itself about how non-Muslims should be treated, it is indisputable that it has unambiguous decrees to commit acts of violence against people who are otherwise peaceful, e.g. "heretics", pagans, polytheists, atheists, Jews & Christians, and anybody deemed as a deviant according to Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    People of other faiths are protected in Islam and lived peacefully under Islamic rule for many years. And yet it's the supposedly "peaceful" secular Western countries that have caused massive war, oppression, and bloodshed over the last century and earlier.
    Saying that people guided by other ideologies that are as bad or worse than Islam is not a good defence. I would say those people were also misguided. The fact is, the history of Islam from the time of Muhammad has been driven by continuous war, inspired in large part by the Qur'an and associated texts. If Muslims want to break that drive, they must have a Reformation.

  3. #3
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If Islam is a religion of peace, why does its god say it will inflict terror on those who do not believe and encourage its followers to do the same, and why does its god intend to torture those who do not believe in Hell?

    Considering how Muslims are expected to go out of their way to fight and kill the opponents of their god, can it be said categorically for example that the Qur'an forbids terrorist attacks?

  4. #4
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it would be beneficial to give a blanket defence of "the West" because groups of countries are so diverse, there are many distinct definitions of "the West", and many variables may be at play (e.g. the amount of poverty in a country).

    It would be easier to point out that Islamic countries generally do poorly in terms of democratic and economic freedoms:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

    (As far as I can tell, Indonesia in 49th place out of 167 countries is the highest Muslim majority country on the Democracy Index).

    I would also point out that the 20th century per capita was the most peaceful (complete) century in history. The proportion of people in poverty has massively decreased over the last 100 years, and the proportion of people in democracies has significantly increased. I do not believe on the whole that Islamic doctrine is conducive to peaceful pluralism.

  5. #5
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The Qur'an's idea of peace is only achievable according to it if everyone is a Muslim, and it tells followers to go out of their way to inflict violence:

    "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" ~ Quran (2:191-193)
    It says right in the verse that this is in retaliation for expelling the believers from their homes.

    Az-Zalimun means wrongdoers, it does not mean polytheists here. If Allah meant polytheists He would have said "al-mushrikun" which is the word for polytheists in Arabic.

    "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive 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." ~ Quran (9:5)
    This verse is immediately followed by the one I quoted above:

    And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (Quran 9.6)
    "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." ~ Quran (3:151)

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

    "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain." ~ Quran (4:104)

    "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." ~ Quran (8:67)

    "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." ~ Quran (5:33)
    You can see again here that this is referring to war of retaliation against those who specifically fight against Islam and do acts of terror and corruption.

    "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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." ~ Quran (9:29)
    The jizya is merely a tax for the People of the Book, who are protected in Islam and allowed to freely practice their religion.

    I believe if Muhammad had truly understood Christian doctrine, he would have considered it total blasphemy and would not have considered Christians to be People of the Book, as he did not seem to understand that Christians considered Christ to be god.
    This is a bizarre and patently false claim -- the Qur'an specifically mentions the fact that Christians claim Jesus to be a god:

    They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. (Quran 5.72)
    And when the son of Mary was presented as an example [of a deity worshipped besides Allah], immediately your people laughed aloud. And they said, "Are our gods better, or is he?" They did not present the comparison except for [mere] argument. (Qur'an 43.57-58)
    If you are still confused about this issue, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) signed a peace treaty with Christians that exists to this day, you can read it yourself:

    http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com...-st-catherine/

    “This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”
    Respect for other religions is a basic tenet of Islam:

    And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. (Qur'an 6.108)
    Islam is calling people to live in peace and respect with one another, without oppression based on religion or anything else.

    Here is some more context for the verses that you have quoted out of context:

    R0xuMfQ.jpg

  6. #6
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    It says right in the verse that this is in retaliation for expelling the believers from their homes.

    Az-Zalimun means wrongdoers, it does not mean polytheists here. If Allah meant polytheists He would have said "al-mushrikun" which is the word for polytheists in Arabic.
    The verse can be used to justify attacking anybody who occupies land formerly owned or ruled by Islam.

    Your explanation does not detract from the qur'an's intent to make the whole world ruled by Islam, and its expectation that Muslims go out of their way to kill non-believers.

  7. #7
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You can see again here that this is referring to war of retaliation against those who specifically fight against Islam and do acts of terror and corruption.
    The verse can be used to justify the brutal murder of those who speak out against Islam, such as myself.

    Verses such as:

    "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." ~ Quran (33:60-62)

    Emphasise this point.

    In addition:
    "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" ~ Quran (2:191-193)

    Makes it clear that disbelief/disorder etc. is worse than killing. Hardly a peaceful doctrine that is conducive to pluralistic societies.

  8. #8
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Respect for other religions is a basic tenet of Islam:

    Islam is calling people to live in peace and respect with one another, without oppression based on religion or anything else.

    Here is some more context for the verses that you have quoted out of context:

    R0xuMfQ.jpg
    Killing heretics of your own religion, polytheists, pagans, atheists etc. is not respectful, nor is obliging them to pay tax. Aside from murder, the qur'an permits lying to non-Muslims, and claimed to be the one true Abrahamic faith, that was distorted by Jews and Christians.

  9. #9
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If you are still confused about this issue, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) signed a peace treaty with Christians that exists to this day, you can read it yourself:

    http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com...-st-catherine/
    Highly likely to be false.

  10. #10
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Here is some more context for the verses that you have quoted out of context:

    R0xuMfQ.jpg
    This ignores the fact that the early Muslims caused alarm in peaceful cities such as Medina, and went out of their way to attack and steal from the caravans of peaceful merchants.

  11. #11
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are very few tangible places and people mentioned in the Qur'an, and most of the arguments that verses were only referring to specific incidents come from commentary centuries later. To say that the violence was acceptable because of a specific incident is not a defence: it only confirms that if Islam was enforced worldwide, as the Qur'an decrees, then this would be a general state of affairs.

    And again, unlike Christian doctrine, which tells followers to "turn the other cheek" and not commit violence, the qur'an is full of various atrocities.

  12. #12
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Disbelief/unrest is worse than killing..." is hardly the doctrine of a peaceful ideology that is tolerant of conflicting ideologies and lifestyles.

  13. #13
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This is a bizarre and patently false claim -- the Qur'an specifically mentions the fact that Christians claim Jesus to be a god:
    Ah yes, I see the Qur'an says:
    They (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: "Allah has begotten a son (children)." Glory be to Him! He is Rich (Free of all wants). His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. No warrant you have for this. Do you say against Allah what you know not.

    Say: "Verily, those who invent lie against Allah will never be successful" -

    A brief enjoyment in this world! - and then unto Us will be their return, then We shall make them taste the severest torment because they used to disbelieve [in Allah, belie His Messengers, deny and challenge His Ayat (proofs, signs, verses, etc.)].
    ~ Qur'an 10:68-70

    But this does not strike me as at all respectful.

    About the Jews, the Qur'an says even worse things:
    "Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun, and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud." ~ Qur'an 5:82

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    frankly, is this not an example? there are people who would call some of @Subteigh's statements "hate speech" and attempt to shut those statements down. this would then mean that debate could not occur. and increasingly people could carry on with a growing dark world of secret thoughts in their heads that they cannot say for fear of the consequences, and perhaps cannot even admit to themselves (not helpful for having a clear head).

  15. #15
    summerprincess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    US
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    553
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Islam may be violent but are you even acknowledging Judaism here? Christianity has a peaceful message but the Bible, especially the Old Testament (which many Christians and Orthodox Jews believe is the inerrant word of God, not myths and fables) is more violent than the Qur'an.

  16. #16
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If Islam is a religion of peace, why does its god say it will inflict terror on those who do not believe and encourage its followers to do the same, and why does its god intend to torture those who do not believe in Hell?
    Allah is the Most Merciful but he is also the Most Just. Should people who do wrong not experience any repercussion for that? In your country I'm sure you have jails and legal punishments for people who commit crimes. It's the same thing with Allah's law.

    Considering how Muslims are expected to go out of their way to fight and kill the opponents of their god, can it be said categorically for example that the Qur'an forbids terrorist attacks?
    I addressed the reasons for fighting in Islam above. Killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, nor is committing suicide: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful." (Qur'an 4.29). The terrorist attacks we see now in the world have nothing to do with Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't think it would be beneficial to give a blanket defence of "the West" because groups of countries are so diverse, there are many distinct definitions of "the West", and many variables may be at play (e.g. the amount of poverty in a country).

    It would be easier to point out that Islamic countries generally do poorly in terms of democratic and economic freedoms:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
    Indexes created by the same Western countries to propagandize their way of life? The same countries that purposely destabilized Islamic countries and other countries around the world, installing often violent dictators in place of democratic governments? Adolf ****** was elected democratically, Donald Trump was elected democratically. Slavery was legal in the United States under a supposedly democratic system. Democracy is no guarantee against oppression.

    [QUOTE=Subteigh;1159242]Killing heretics of your own religion, polytheists, pagans, atheists etc. is not respectful, nor is obliging them to pay tax.

    Paying tax is a form of disrespect to one's religion now? Ridiculous. Everyone is required to pay taxes in your country, if you don't the government will put you in jail.

    Aside from murder, the qur'an permits lying to non-Muslims
    This is a lie, it says nothing of the sort. You should actually read the Qur'an before making these absurd claims.

    and claimed to be the one true Abrahamic faith, that was distorted by Jews and Christians.
    This is true, we believe that scholars of the past religions forgot parts of their scripture or changed them for worldly gain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    There are very few tangible places and people mentioned in the Qur'an, and most of the arguments that verses were only referring to specific incidents come from commentary centuries later. To say that the violence was acceptable because of a specific incident is not a defence: it only confirms that if Islam was enforced worldwide, as the Qur'an decrees, then this would be a general state of affairs.
    Islamic law is based not only on the Qur'an, it's based on hadith and the practice of the Prophet (saws), and this is the consensus of the Islamic community. If you take the verses out of context you won't understand what they're really saying. All of this is directly based on accounts passed down from the Prophet himself (saws).

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Ah yes, I see the Qur'an says:
    They (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: "Allah has begotten a son (children)." Glory be to Him! He is Rich (Free of all wants). His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. No warrant you have for this. Do you say against Allah what you know not.

    Say: "Verily, those who invent lie against Allah will never be successful" -

    A brief enjoyment in this world! - and then unto Us will be their return, then We shall make them taste the severest torment because they used to disbelieve [in Allah, belie His Messengers, deny and challenge His Ayat (proofs, signs, verses, etc.)].
    ~ Qur'an 10:68-70

    But this does not strike me as at all respectful.

    About the Jews, the Qur'an says even worse things:
    "Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun, and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud." ~ Qur'an 5:82
    The Jews said things about Allah that are not befitting of Him: that His hand is tied (i.e. that he cannot influence the creation after it has been started), that He is rich and they are poor. These are all mentioned in the Qur'an. Despite all that (and the claims of the Christians that Jesus is God), they are still protected under Islamic law as People of the Book. Allah doesn't wrong people by punishing them any more than the government wrongs criminals by punishing them. And in fact He is even more merciful than that since He is constantly providing and caring for them in this world despite the things they say. "But Allah speaks the truth and He guides to the way." (Quran 33.4)

  17. #17
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the context of all these religious books is sort of lost to us, not entirely lost but lost enough that no one seems to be able to definitively interpret anything. This is Christianity, but just look at this for a really egregious example of what I mean:

    Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV)

    82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
    2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
    3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
    4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
    5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
    6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
    7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



    It seems to explicitly be referring to a divine council ("ye shall die like men" = they're not men, for one thing, line 5 seems to be referring to the earth as separate from where the congregation is now and to be referring to all people as knowing nothing), or else it's a bizarre but cool metaphor, and in any case there's no context and a ton of debate over what exactly it means.

  18. #18
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Allah is the Most Merciful but he is also the Most Just. Should people who do wrong not experience any repercussion for that? In your country I'm sure you have jails and legal punishments for people who commit crimes. It's the same thing with Allah's law.
    I believe torture is wrong in any circumstance. Other religions and philosophies are able to have ideologies that do not advocate violence of any kind, I do not see why Islam should be considered especially peaceful.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I addressed the reasons for fighting in Islam above. Killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, nor is committing suicide: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful." (Qur'an 4.29). The terrorist attacks we see now in the world have nothing to do with Islam.
    I'm not aware of any ideology that condones the killing of "innocent" people. With Islam and other similar ideologies, who is deemed "innocent" is a rather small group. Muhammad for example is said to have believed there would be 73 sects of Islam, 72 of which would be heretical, and thus groups against which violence was legitimate (in his eyes).

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Indexes created by the same Western countries to propagandize their way of life? The same countries that purposely destabilized Islamic countries and other countries around the world, installing often violent dictators in place of democratic governments? Adolf ****** was elected democratically, Donald Trump was elected democratically. Slavery was legal in the United States under a supposedly democratic system. Democracy is no guarantee against oppression.
    No: The United Nations recognises the right to vote and the right not to be tortured as inalienable human rights. Not just a "Western" thing.

    The Democracy Index covers five measures: "Electoral process and pluralism", "Functioning of Government", "Political Participation", "Political culture", and "Civil liberties". For many reasons, Germany at the time of ******'s rise to power would not score highly on these measures.

    I believe that a move towards democracy generally moves states away from oppression and warfare.

  19. #19
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Paying tax is a form of disrespect to one's religion now? Ridiculous. Everyone is required to pay taxes in your country, if you don't the government will put you in jail.
    The Muslims were not required to pay the tax...

    If Muslims were required to pay a tax in your country purely because they were Muslim, I do not believe you would consider that a sign of respect.

  20. #20
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    frankly, is this not an example? there are people who would call some of @Subteigh's statements "hate speech" and attempt to shut those statements down.
    His statements are also an example of what I was saying before: speech is a privilege that can be abused to spread ignorance and lies just as much as it can be used for truth and edification.

  21. #21
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This is a lie, it says nothing of the sort. You should actually read the Qur'an before making these absurd claims.
    "And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve." ~ Qur'an 9:3

    The Qur'an also says that Allah is "the Best Deceiver."

  22. #22
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Islamic law is based not only on the Qur'an, it's based on hadith and the practice of the Prophet (saws), and this is the consensus of the Islamic community. If you take the verses out of context you won't understand what they're really saying. All of this is directly based on accounts passed down from the Prophet himself (saws).
    What Muhammad actually believed, if it is of any worth, cannot really be ascertained readily. There is no complete qur'an that dates from his lifetime, and perhaps not even for two centuries after his death. What does exist in all probability is what Muhammad's various successors considered most political expedient.

  23. #23
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The Jews said things about Allah that are not befitting of Him: that His hand is tied (i.e. that he cannot influence the creation after it has been started), that He is rich and they are poor. These are all mentioned in the Qur'an. Despite all that (and the claims of the Christians that Jesus is God), they are still protected under Islamic law as People of the Book. Allah doesn't wrong people by punishing them any more than the government wrongs criminals by punishing them. And in fact He is even more merciful than that since He is constantly providing and caring for them in this world despite the things they say. "But Allah speaks the truth and He guides to the way." (Quran 33.4)
    When Islamic doctrine considers Christians and Jews liars, the Jews their worst enemy, and atheists as being worse than animals, I cannot agree that Islam is respectful of other beliefs. Judging from the actions of the early Muslims, and reading the qur'an, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that the early Muslims genuinely intended their religion to be one of the sword, one of continuous fighting until there was worship only for Allah.

  24. #24
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by summerprincess View Post
    Islam may be violent but are you even acknowledging Judaism here? Christianity has a peaceful message but the Bible, especially the Old Testament (which many Christians and Orthodox Jews believe is the inerrant word of God, not myths and fables) is more violent than the Qur'an.
    There are supposed to be 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, and 14 million Jews (such figures are generally inflated as religions tend to include the extremely young in their totals). Based on this alone, hardly any time should be spent critiquing Judaism.

    I would say that many of the problems with Christianity and Islam come from them being proselyting religions, while Judaism has been far more insular in its nature. It is true that the god of the Old Testament was a warmonger, but since the days of the Babylonian exile...and then Roman rule, and the rule of other invaders, Judaism as a religion has been comparatively subdued in terms of antagonism.

    The god and prophet of the Islamic religion calls for its followers to wage war against the non-believers, as an indefinite expectation: it actually says that their god could defeat its enemies itself, but puts them there as a test of faith. (It additionally says that Christians and Jews exist in order to take up spaces in hell, rather than Muslims going there). This makes Islam a perennial problem, unlike with Judaism: the idea of "peace" in Islam only comes about when there is no one to contradict its ideology.

    Additionally, Christianity and Islam both hold the Old Testament patriarchs, kings, prophets, and judges in common to a certain extent, so many criticisms of one Abrahamic religion are often true of the others.

  25. #25
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    His statements are also an example of what I was saying before: speech is a privilege that can be abused to spread ignorance and lies just as much as it can be used for truth and edification.
    I consider Islam to be a clear example of a group of people distorting stories (albeit fictional) for its own ends, with the even graver problem of being a vehicle and a driver of hate speech. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jewish mythological accounts were a distortion of the "true religion".

  26. #26
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The Muslims were not required to pay the tax...

    If Muslims were required to pay a tax in your country purely because they were Muslim, I do not believe you would consider that a sign of respect.
    Again you are displaying your utter ignorance. Everyone pays a tax in an Islamic state: Muslims pay zakat (one of the five pillars of Islam) and non-Muslims pay jizya. Taxing is "disrespectful", are you kidding me?

    I'm not aware of any ideology that condones the killing of "innocent" people. With Islam and other similar ideologies, who is deemed "innocent" is a rather small group. Muhammad for example is said to have believed there would be 73 sects of Islam, 72 of which would be heretical, and thus groups against which violence was legitimate (in his eyes).
    We believe in fighting against wrong beliefs like this through words, not violence. The statement by the Prophet (saws) does NOT say that misguided sects are "groups against which violence was legitimate." Shia are a sect of Islam yet they have coexisted with Sunnis peacefully (although people who have used religion for political ends have done otherwise). What happens to them in the next life is a different story, it's up to Allah.

    No: The United Nations recognises the right to vote and the right not to be tortured as inalienable human rights. Not just a "Western" thing.

    The Democracy Index covers five measures: "Electoral process and pluralism", "Functioning of Government", "Political Participation", "Political culture", and "Civil liberties". For many reasons, Germany at the time of ******'s rise to power would not score highly on these measures.

    I believe that a move towards democracy generally moves states away from oppression and warfare.
    I can't tell if you're being facetious here or not. Democracy is obviously a modern, Western concept. The UN Security Council gives extra power to certain countries: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States -- most of them Western and none of which are Islamic countries, meaning that they don't represent the values of ~1.6 billion people in the world. How can such an organization claim to be universal? If that wasn't enough, I know for a fact that the UN, as well as the US, have pressured Islamic countries to alter their laws and curb religious freedoms of Muslims to conform with Western values. There is no sense pretending that the UN is some kind of benign, neutral arbiter of what justice is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    "And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve." ~ Qur'an 9:3
    Whatever you are implying, this is referring to the end of the treaty with the polytheists, lying is NOT permissible in Islam.

    Explanation here: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2584&Itemid=64

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    What Muhammad actually believed, if it is of any worth, cannot really be ascertained readily. There is no complete qur'an that dates from his lifetime, and perhaps not even for two centuries after his death. What does exist in all probability is what Muhammad's various successors considered most political expedient.
    Completely false. Qur'an manuscripts have been scientifically dated to within, or shortly after, the lifetime of the Prophet (saws):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmin...ran_manuscript
    http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/lat...-22-07-15.aspx

    I'm not going to bother to continue to responding to your obviously fabricated and false claims about Islam, I have no more time for this since you can obviously fabricate them at an astounding rate (presumably by copying blurbs from Islamophobic websites).

    Anyone who is interested in learning the truth about Islam can feel free to ask me or read the wiki here.

  27. #27
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Again you are displaying your utter ignorance. Everyone pays a tax in an Islamic state: Muslims pay zakat (one of the five pillars of Islam) and non-Muslims pay jizya. Taxing is "disrespectful", are you kidding me?
    The tax was always intended to enforce submission, and generally had acts of degradation associated with it. It was not a tax among equals in any sense.

  28. #28
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmin...ran_manuscript
    http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/lat...-22-07-15.aspx

    I'm not going to bother to continue to responding to your obviously fabricated and false claims about Islam, I have no more time for this since you can obviously fabricate them at an astounding rate (presumably by copying blurbs from Islamophobic websites).

    Anyone who is interested in learning the truth about Islam can feel free to ask me or read the wiki here.
    The Birmingham manuscript only includes a few pages, it is hardly a whole qur'an.

    Tom Holland on the subject:
    p. 841 Adorning the walls of the Dome of the Rock, fashioned out of cubes of brilliant gold, inscriptions proclaimed the core tenets of the Amir’s faith: the prophethood of Muhammad, and the sheer folly of believing, as did the Christians in their blindness, that God might conceivably be Three. Much of what was written consisted of excerpts patched together from the Prophet’s own revelations: the earliest surviving examples of phrases from the Qur’an. Posterity would claim that it was Uthman, decades previously, who had first collected and pieced these together, to compile what was from that moment on a fully formed scripture—but the snatches of verse patched together by Abd al-Malik on the Dome of the Rock suggest something rather different. So too, of course, does the resounding lack of even a single Qur’anic inscription dating from the reigns of his predecessors; and so too do the scattered hints from contemporaries. Christian scholars, noting for the first time the existence of writings attributed to Muhammad, described them not as a single book but rather as a jumble of fragments with such titles as “The Cow,” “The Woman” and “God’s She-Camel.”c If true, then who might have been tracking down these various scraps of text, and piecing them together? Certainly, that Abd al-Malik’s reign had indeed seen the Qur’an subjected to a state-sponsored makeover was something that no Muslim scholar would subsequently think to deny. In the vanguard of this editing process, as of so much else, was Al-Hajjaj. Peerless warrior, formidable governor, he would also enjoy a splendid posthumous reputation as a proof-reader of the Qur’an. Some traditions, however, would ascribe to him a role infinitely more intriguing. Rejecting the presumption that God, in the wake of Muhammad’s death, no longer permitted His purposes to be known through the agency of mortals, Al-Hajjaj is said to have retorted, “I work only by inspiration!” Ever the loyal servant, though, he always emphasised that his own role in collecting, collating and distributing the revelations of Muhammad—heaven-sanctioned though it might be—was as nothing compared to that of Abd al-Malik. In fact, so Al-Hajjaj declared flatly, his master “stood higher in God’s view than did the angels and prophets.”
    note c: A monk in Iraq, writing in the early eighth century, alludes to a “Qur’an” but also to other writings by Muhammad, including a “Book of the Cow.” John of Damascus, a high-ranking civil servant in the last years of Abd al-Malik’s reign who took a deep interest in his master’s faith, also refers to a “Book” composed by Muhammad, together with various other texts that had supposedly been written by him. “The Cow” ended up as the title of a sura in the Qur’an; “The Woman” seems to be the same text as the sura that appears under the title “Women” in the Qur’an; “God’s She-Camel,” despite scattered references throughout the holy book to such a beast, bears no resemblance to any existing Qur’anic sura.
    p. 657 So how is it, in a book supposedly composed there in Muhammad’s lifetime, that the monotheisms of the far-distant Fertile Crescent should have been given such a starring role? It is all very mysterious; and made even more so by the fact that Mecca is not alone in seeming to have had a spectrally low profile in the early decades of the Arab Empire. So too did the Qur’an itself. As with the reputed birthplace of the Prophet, so with the compendium of his revelations: there is not a single mention of it in writings of the period. In the first flush of the Ishmaelite takeover, the Patriarch of Antioch assumed that his new masters’ holy book was the Torah. Such a presumption, of course, might well have reflected nothing more than wilful blindness—except that it was far from being confined to bishops. More than a century after the death of Muhammad, Muslims—as they were now starting to call themselves—might betray a very similar ignorance. Even as Christian bureaucrats, tracking the peculiar beliefs of their Arab overlords, began to note the existence of various “frivolous tales” composed by Muhammad, Muslim scholars, in their concern to identify precisely what the Prophet might have taught, were still perfectly capable of overlooking the Qur’an altogether. How, for instance, did God wish adulterers to be punished? To this question, hadith after hadith provided the same unyielding answer as was to be found in the Torah: He wished them to be stoned. Yet this was not at all what was taught in the Qur’an. There, it could be read that God, “ever-compassionate,” merely wished adulterers to be given “a hundred lashes.” How to explain such a discrepancy? If the Qur’an truly originated in the lifetime of Muhammad, and had been preserved and cherished by his followers ever since as the unchanging word of God, why was it that so many Muslim jurists—and prominent ones at that—had disregarded it as a source for their rulings? The mystery seems only compounded by the complete absence of any commentaries on the Qur’an prior to the ninth Christian century, and by the fact that even then different communities of the faithful preserved different versions of the holy text.a Perhaps it is hardly surprising, then, that many a scholar today, confronted by the dogma which teaches that the Qur’an derives unaltered and immaculate from the lifetime of Muhammad, should be tempted to raise an eyebrow, at the very least.

  29. #29
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Whatever you are implying, this is referring to the end of the treaty with the polytheists, lying is NOT permissible in Islam.

    Explanation here: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2584&Itemid=64
    It indisputably says that Allah is the Best Deciever.

    There is also a hadith that says:
    'That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.' ~ Sahih Bukhari 49:857

    and another that says:
    'Narrated 'Ali:

    Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."' ~ Sahih Bukhari 84:64-65

    and another that says:
    'Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

    The Prophet said, "War is deceit."' ~ Sahih Bukhari 52:269

  30. #30
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I can't tell if you're being facetious here or not. Democracy is obviously a modern, Western concept. The UN Security Council gives extra power to certain countries: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States -- most of them Western and none of which are Islamic countries, meaning that they don't represent the values of ~1.6 billion people in the world. How can such an organization claim to be universal? If that wasn't enough, I know for a fact that the UN, as well as the US, have pressured Islamic countries to alter their laws and curb religious freedoms of Muslims to conform with Western values. There is no sense pretending that the UN is some kind of benign, neutral arbiter of what justice is.
    The UN may not be perfect, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, the right to a fair trial, the freedom of speech, "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion", freedom of movement to each individual.

    I don't agree with the idea of permanent Security Council members, but I would be especially opposed to the idea of an undemocratic country being a permanent Security Council member. What would be the point of having a country that does not even try to represent the will of its own people?

  31. #31
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    We believe in fighting against wrong beliefs like this through words, not violence. The statement by the Prophet (saws) does NOT say that misguided sects are "groups against which violence was legitimate." Shia are a sect of Islam yet they have coexisted with Sunnis peacefully (although people who have used religion for political ends have done otherwise). What happens to them in the next life is a different story, it's up to Allah.
    I do not believe that Islamic countries have been historically peaceful towards members of different Islamic sects, even when they've not being waging war against the enemies of Islam. In most, if not all Muslim countries, there are significant tensions between Sunnis and Shias where they both exist in significant numbers, rather different from the relatively peaceful co-existence between Catholics, Protestants, atheists etc. in most European countries.

    I still cannot ignore the fact that the qur'an says that 'disbelief/unrest is worse than killing', and demands anyone who contradicts the Islamic theocracy (even if it is merely by having an interpretation that is deemed heretical) of a settlement or state is to be brutally murdered.

  32. #32
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush while I clearly significantly disagree with your interpretation of Islam and think you misguided, I do not doubt that you are fundamentally a decent person (although I do not believe it is because of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish doctrine), and I do not think you should be brutally murdered and tortured in hell for disagreeing with me.

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I am definitely pro-free speech. I think it's important to separate hate speech from denial of whatever rights are in play (by institutions, including business - the provision of services by private entities is pervasive and fundamental and so should be considered an institution) based on personal qualities, though. One is what you say and one is what you do, how you treat somebody.
    okay, so you split it up by private entities having rules internally about what people can say/do inside their space. however, in public space there would obviously not be limitations on free speech? i mean i guess i can't object to that in any way because the private entity *does* own the space.

  34. #34
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,999
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    okay, so you split it up by private entities having rules internally about what people can say/do inside their space. however, in public space there would obviously not be limitations on free speech? i mean i guess i can't object to that in any way because the private entity *does* own the space.
    Yes, the institution has an obligation to serve(to the best of their ability) and the individual does not. But what I'm also doing here is providing a right for hate speech by individuals in institutions, so long as their main obligations to serve(and I mean main obligation in a very narrow, abstract sense) are not broken.

  35. #35
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the verse in the Qur'an which says:
    "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." ~ Qur'an (8:12) sounds like a timeless command rather than something that is only relevant to a particular situation in the distant past. It is akin to saying "I will terrorise my enemies in the afterlife, therefore you should do the same, now."

    It would be peculiar for Allah to only terrorise the enemies of one particular incident, rather than all of them.

    In my view, the cutting off of heads and fingertips, the torture of people in this life and the next, and the command that those who wage war against Allah and his messenger should be "murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned." ~ "Quran (5:33), does not strike me as the ideology of a merciful and just being.

  36. #36
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some definitions of warlord include:
    • A military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy.

    • A high military officer in a warlike nation.

    • A local ruler or bandit leader usually where the government is weak.


    Considering that during Muhammad's lifetime alone, he and his followers conquered essentially the entire Arabian peninsula, it is difficult to see how the term "warlord" is not applicable to Muhammad, unless it is meant that he is only allowed to be assigned one role and that this must be "prophet" or similar (which I do not personally agree with).

    That he conquered much of the Arabian peninsula hardly suggests the actions of someone who desired a peaceful ideology, or that his actions were a matter of self-defence. That he had the hypocrisy to cause alarm and disorder in Mecca (in the lands of others) and then attack and steal from the caravans of peaceful Meccan merchants would make warlord a perfectly apt appellation.

    If you compare Muhammad to someone like Jesus or Plato or Zoroaster, they are not known by a list of battles, as with Muhammad:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ns_of_Muhammad

  37. #37
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,172
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not see how torture can ever be justified, as it is fundamentally wrong. Action against wrongs should be about deterrence and rehabilitation. In the case of torturing people in hell, it obviously does not act as a deterrent: it merely punishes those who were acting in accordance with their nature. It also does not rehabilitate, because it does not conduce people to reform, it only counters a wrong with an even greater wrong.

    I do not see why it would be merciful and just to torture those who are acting in accordance with their nature, or how it can be merciful and just to torture those who will not be reformed by such a method.

    Whether the torture is eternal or not is a separate issue, but also worthy of note. Simply, an eternal punishment can never be merciful and just.

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i haven't gotten around to reading anything from islam, but we've probably all been sold a lie about it anyway. the middle east is the mess it is because of the western world in large part that has been controlling/rearranging its governments and national boundaries, invading its lands, killing its peoples, etc. rather than blaming islam for the extremism that emerges in unstable regions, maybe we should look at the actual causes. i found a book: https://www.amazon.com/Unmaking-Midd.../dp/0520261704

    Jeremy Salt offers the background essential for understanding the Middle East today by chronicling the long and bloody history of Western intervention in Arab lands. In lucid detail, he examines the major events that have shaped the region—ranging from the French in Algeria and the British in Egypt in the nineteenth century to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and to the continuing war in Iraq. Linking all of these together, Salt paints a damning picture of a sustained campaign by Western powers to dominate the Middle East by whatever means necessary. Throughout, he emphasizes the human cost of the policies put in place to preserve "Western interests" or in the name of bringing civilization, democracy, or freedom to the region. Making use of extensive research in U.S. and British archives that reveals what politicians were deciding behind closed doors, and why, this is a book that will change the way we see the Middle East.

  39. #39
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    760 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    What subteigh does I don't think qualifies as restrict-able hate speech, if he was inciting people to kill/abuse Muslims then it does go into that territory. Subteigh can of course veer into that territory easily with his speech acts, and many people of various types do, but thus far he has not.

  40. #40
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,478
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have some time so I will make a few more comments on the subject.

    No serious scholar believes that the Qur'an has been altered in any way -- the Birmingham manuscript, while not complete, confirms this. There is no evidence of any alteration. Muslims -- Sunnis, Shi'a, etc. -- all use the same Qur'an to this day. In every city in the Muslim world there are small children who have memorized the entire Qur'an and can correct you if you make even a single mistake. The Qur'an was memorized by many during the lifetime of the Prophet (saws), it was also written on scraps later on, but the recitation existed before the physical book.

    Allah describes Himself in the Qur'an as "khayrul-maakireen" which means the Best Planner or Plotter. Makr means deception in the sense of a concealed or secret plan -- this is a reference to how Allah has a plan for each creature in the afterlife, yet they are not aware of what their eventual fate will be. The idea that this justifies lying is completely absurd -- Allah does not lie nor does He command anyone to lie, lying is the worst offense in Islam:

    "And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah?" (Qur'an 11.18)

    "And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]." (Qur'an 2.42)

    "And with the truth We have sent the Qur'an down, and with the truth it has descended." (Qur'an 17.105)

    "Say, "Are there of your 'partners' any who guides to the truth?" Say, "Allah guides to the truth." (Qur'an 10.35)

    "And Allah will establish the truth by His words" (Quran 10.82)

    "And the one who has brought the truth and [they who] believed in it - those are the righteous." (Qur'an 39.33)

    "Rather, the Prophet has come with the truth" (Qur'an 37.37)

    One of Allah's 99 names is The Truth -- how could He command anyone to lie? Deception in wartime is an obvious fact -- no army is going to tell their enemy where their troops are, for example. This is just common sense. The hadith about inventing good information just means that it's ok to tell a white lie, it doesn't mean lying about anything of serious importance. There is a long scholarly tradition in Islam based on cross-referencing hadiths, checking their authenticity, and referring to the context of Qur'anic verses to derive their meaning and bounds. It's not something you can just look at and figure out without serious study and knowledge of the Arabic language, which has words with many multiple meanings based on context.
    Last edited by Exodus; 11-22-2016 at 08:51 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •