On Moderate Muslims

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:42 am

First topic message reminder :

Ever since the Islamic atrocity of 9/11 (some would argue even before that), it has become fashionable to run after "moderate" Muslims, to court them, to highly value their views, to appease them to the point of losing freedoms won through centuries of bloodshed and activism. And yet at some point we must ask ourselves, have we been chasing a mirage all along? Fareed Zakaria explains:

Over the past decade, the United States helped organize Iraq’s “moderates” — the Shiite-dominated government — giving them tens of billions of dollars in aid and supplying and training their army. But, it turned out, the moderates weren’t that moderate. As they became authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements grew and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS gained tacit or active support. This has been a familiar pattern throughout the region.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support “moderates.” The problem is that there are actually very few of them.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/on-moderate-Muslims.html

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:15 am

thhat passage above, about war and aggression...is it an earlier or later statement....

you see thats the trouble ben..picking and choosing your quotes...

If it is an earlier saying and there is sa later one which says otherwise then this one is not applicable, due to the concept of his later 2instructions "abrogating" the earlier ones....

this is why islam is the religion of the deciever

the quran should be slimmed down to the sayings of the last perhaps 5 years of his existance THEN we coul;d have a reasonable view of it....

It is a trueism that the beginnings are full of "love your fellow man" and "srtict rules of conduct in all things" but the later parts are all slash and burn and violence...with little or no restraint and these later parts totally override the earlier...there is no getting away from it and no "arguing" if an earlier saying says do this and a later one says do that.....then the Muslim MUST do that...........

by Raggamuffin Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:52 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Seriously did you swallow a thick pill tonight?
I am not making any claim on what is a true believer, but a literal believer, as all have different views and interpretations on the faith, but a literal believer will take all of the religious works, the bible and Quran for example as the word of God and the views of God, supreme over others, which means no matter how they intepret, their views cannot be wrong to them, because they are divinely commanded to them.
I really do not how to dumb this down enough for you to understand and yes I can state as such, because this is a fact, as already pointed out to you.

So there are no Christians who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and yet would believe it un-Christian to disown a gay child?

I don't know how a thread about Muslims has turned into one about Christians, but Jesus said we should judge for ourselves what is right.

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:51 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Except Islamic scripture clearly instructs followers to fight non believers......

Actually that's only in cases of self-defense:

Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is permitted only in self-defence.

The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting.

Rules of War*
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
*2:190 All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 60:8-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.

[5:87] O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.

[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

[4:90] ... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.

The Quran also reminds the submitters (Muslims in Arabic) that they should not be provoked by past animosity into committing acts of aggression (5:2). Additionally, God insists that submitters (Muslims) must be absolutely sure before striking in the cause of God (4:94). Anyone who offers one peace, cannot be attacked.

[4:94] O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/striving/wars.html

Thanks for posting that Ben.

There are clear limits in Islam when it comes to warfare and they can never be breached.

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:56 am

victorisnotamused wrote:thhat passage above, about war and aggression...is it an earlier or later statement....

you see thats the trouble ben..picking and choosing your quotes...

If it is an earlier saying and there is sa later one which says otherwise then this one is not applicable, due to the concept of his later 2instructions "abrogating" the earlier ones....

this is why islam is the religion of the deciever

the quran should be slimmed down to the sayings of the last perhaps 5 years of his existance THEN we coul;d have a reasonable view of it....

It is a trueism that the beginnings are full of "love your fellow man" and "srtict rules of conduct in all things" but the later parts are all slash and burn and violence...with little or no restraint and these later parts totally override the earlier...there is no getting away from it and no "arguing" if an earlier saying says do this and a later one says do that.....then the Muslim MUST do that...........

There is no abrogation of revelation 'within' the Quran.

What the Quran abrogates is previous scriptures such as the Torah and the Injil.

There is only 1 commandment in the Quran that changed over time and it relates to the prohibition of alcohol. Instead of going cold turkey, followers were asked to moderate first.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:05 pm

Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Seems you forgot this bit.....

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:22 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:And you've basically accused me of excusing or supporting everything from terrorism to rape the past few days. I don't know if you actually realize what you're saying at this point, or how another person would take such accusations.

No I am basically accusing you of forfeiting your liberal values when you defend religions and here is the worst part. You are comfortable in being highly critical of Christianity, of which I am the same, but seem to recoil in abject horror at the thought of doing the same in regards to Islam.

You keep ogoing on about a minority, welll this maybe the case in the west but when it comes to prejudiced views and criminal laws, many Muslims agree on what constitues a crime and its punishements, which when you look at deeper is no different to what IS believe. The only difference between IS and other Muslims, is that they actually kill people, yet both believe in the death penalty for apostacy for example. You can ignore these facts all you like,mbut the reality is within many Muslim countries there is complete discrimination towards many groups and punishements for something we would not constitue as a crime.

So yes I am asking why are you sacrificing your liberal values to defend a ny faith, that is at odds with Liberal views, because you are, where her you provide on eview point on Jihad. Where actually you miss the point of armed Jihad is applicable in Islam, this then is the bases for any interpretation on then violence. You may have many Muslims claim it is defensive, but as seen it only takes the view point argued of some Muslims dying in a Muslim country to call about an wage global war. The reality is like other faiths, Islam is in dire need of reformation, as in its present state is incompatiable with liberal views. This has much to do with their also their poor view to back hadiths, none of which are from the time of Muhammad himself, but they blindly back soome, which in many cases contradict, but also propvide views to commit much of the violence. The reality is, in both the Bible and Quran sexual slavery is endorsed, punishments for many groups of people, all of which the reality is Christianity has no power within law anymore, yet Islam stioll does and is committing human rights violations to many people.

Yes we all know there is a substancial amount of Muslims that live in peace and are not violent, but the doctrines of its faith allow for it, of which is being used by extremists, which means Muslims need to get their act togther and reform their faith into the 21st century.

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:45 pm

"Yes we all know there is a substancial amount of Muslims that live in peace and are not violent, but the doctrines of its faith allow for it, of which is being used by extremists, which means Muslims need to get their act togther and reform their faith into the 21st century."

This is why you are as bad as any extremist, Muslim or otherwise.

People like you and maher are effectively saying that Muslims who do not act violently are bad Muslims, as they don't 'seem' to follow the Quran.

That's the same BS Mentor and Smelly used to spew.

And no, most Muslims do not believe in the death penalty for apostasy. You even quoted a verse which I unequivocally debunked. But you ignored this as some sort of 'progressive' translation - where in fact it was the correct translation.

But people like you 'prefer' the mistranslation of extremists.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:59 pm

Oh my, what a fail of a response, just talking about me.
No I see what is wrong with religion and how in many Muslim majority countries, the laws are based upon religious babblle with is discrminating. I am not claiming who is right but how a book and supporting written works have a bases for violence, in armed Jihad, of which is never condemned ny hardly any scholars. This is what you ignore, the fact is this principle is being used, you may disagree with thgeir interpretation, but the fact is this base point is used.

So how is the laws govering the death penalty for apapostacy, homosexuality ect a mistranslation? I think you best take this up with many Muslim countries, of which if you did, your life would be threatened, all of which you ignore, as some Muslims are trying to reform and change perceptions, but they are facing massive opposition.

All this you ignore, I am all for Islam to reform and am against discrmination to Muslim, but will defend against any imposing discrminating views.

I suggest you live with this, which is why I am critical of many faiths, including Christianity and Judiams, which has even worse with Herem, but how many countries have their laws dictated by religious laws?

Never mind you keep failing to understand the problems

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Seems you forgot this bit.....

So what about this then?

And is it right to say that those Muslims who follow this to the letter are not proper Muslims...!?

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Seems you forgot this bit.....

So what about this then?

And is it right to say that those Muslims who follow this to the letter are not proper Muslims...!?

It's called historical context and jurisprudence, Tommy. Look that up.

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:01 pm

Brasidas wrote:Oh my, what a fail of a response, just talking about me.
No I see what is wrong with religion and how in many Muslim majority countries, the laws are based upon religious babblle with is discrminating. I am not claiming who is right but how a book and supporting written works have a bases for violence, in armed Jihad, of which is never condemned ny hardly any scholars. This is what you ignore, the fact is this principle is being used, you may disagree with thgeir interpretation, but the fact is this base point is used.

So how is the laws govering the death penalty for apapostacy, homosexuality ect a mistranslation? I think you best take this up with many Muslim countries, of which if you did, your life would be threatened, all of which you ignore, as some Muslims are trying to reform and change perceptions, but they are facing massive opposition.

All this you ignore, I am all for Islam to reform and am against discrmination to Muslim, but will defend against any imposing discrminating views.

I suggest you live with this, which is why I am critical of many faiths, including Christianity and Judiams, which has even worse with Herem, but how many countries have their laws dictated by religious laws?

Never mind you keep failing to understand the problems

And you demonstrate another problem where you confuse the vast majority of Muslims with 'their government'.

Don't be naive. They're not the same. Just as the UK government, despite being part of a democracy, don't represent 'us'.

You showed me a verse regarding apostasy (supposedly) and it didn't mention any 'legal punishment'.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:26 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

So what about this then?

And is it right to say that those Muslims who follow this to the letter are not proper Muslims...!?

It's called historical context and jurisprudence, Tommy. Look that up.

No it's called reality as it is what is happening now in many places and has done for centuries.....

Maybe you should look that up.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:07 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Oh my, what a fail of a response, just talking about me.
No I see what is wrong with religion and how in many Muslim majority countries, the laws are based upon religious babblle with is discrminating. I am not claiming who is right but how a book and supporting written works have a bases for violence, in armed Jihad, of which is never condemned ny hardly any scholars. This is what you ignore, the fact is this principle is being used, you may disagree with thgeir interpretation, but the fact is this base point is used.

So how is the laws govering the death penalty for apapostacy, homosexuality ect a mistranslation? I think you best take this up with many Muslim countries, of which if you did, your life would be threatened, all of which you ignore, as some Muslims are trying to reform and change perceptions, but they are facing massive opposition.

All this you ignore, I am all for Islam to reform and am against discrmination to Muslim, but will defend against any imposing discrminating views.

I suggest you live with this, which is why I am critical of many faiths, including Christianity and Judiams, which has even worse with Herem, but how many countries have their laws dictated by religious laws?

Never mind you keep failing to understand the problems

And you demonstrate another problem where you confuse the vast majority of Muslims with 'their government'.

Don't be naive. They're not the same. Just as the UK government, despite being part of a democracy, don't represent 'us'.

You showed me a verse regarding apostasy (supposedly) and it didn't mention any 'legal punishment'.

Well then explain why it is a punishment in apostasy and homosexuality in some Muslim countries with the vast majority still as a crime punishable? You see I back your progressive ways, but clearly many scholars back the view of the death penalty, and I have no seen millions of Muslims i any of these countries organizing mass protests at this version of Islam, especially when we have polls of for example 80% Pakistani's backing such a law. Now whilst this view is clearly a minority is some Muslim countries, it is a majority in other Muslim countries, where you cannot even be critical of Islam, without being lynch mobbed in some countries on pain of death with uttering any view which challenges Islam or Muhammad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-Muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/

What is appalling is you are ignoring these facts, again, as seen there are many Muslims in some that are also appalled at these views, but some constantly stand out and there is clearly little voice or views to oppose these views of Islam. Clearly there is much persecution based around beliefs in Islam, all of which you ignore and if you do not want such things done in the name of your religion, maybe it is time Muslims started standing up not in hundreds, but millions to counter this wrong view. At present all we see is those who rightly state it is wrong are drowned by hysteria over bigotry. I am not of any view to stigmatize Muslims as others do, because many hold different beliefs, this does not mean though that I should not speak out about wrongs in Islam, as I do with Christianity and Judaism

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:10 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Oh my, what a fail of a response, just talking about me.
No I see what is wrong with religion and how in many Muslim majority countries, the laws are based upon religious babblle with is discrminating. I am not claiming who is right but how a book and supporting written works have a bases for violence, in armed Jihad, of which is never condemned ny hardly any scholars. This is what you ignore, the fact is this principle is being used, you may disagree with thgeir interpretation, but the fact is this base point is used.

So how is the laws govering the death penalty for apapostacy, homosexuality ect a mistranslation? I think you best take this up with many Muslim countries, of which if you did, your life would be threatened, all of which you ignore, as some Muslims are trying to reform and change perceptions, but they are facing massive opposition.

All this you ignore, I am all for Islam to reform and am against discrmination to Muslim, but will defend against any imposing discrminating views.

I suggest you live with this, which is why I am critical of many faiths, including Christianity and Judiams, which has even worse with Herem, but how many countries have their laws dictated by religious laws?

Never mind you keep failing to understand the problems

And you demonstrate another problem where you confuse the vast majority of Muslims with 'their government'.

Don't be naive. They're not the same. Just as the UK government, despite being part of a democracy, don't represent 'us'.

You showed me a verse regarding apostasy (supposedly) and it didn't mention any 'legal punishment'.

Well then explain why it is a punishment in apostasy and homosexuality in some Muslim countries with the vast majority still as a crime punishable? You see I back your progressive ways, but clearly many scholars back the view of the death penalty, and I have no seen millions of Muslims i any of these countries organizing mass protests at this version of Islam, especially when we have polls of for example 80% Pakistani's backing such a law. Now whilst this view is clearly a minority is some Muslim countries, it is a majority in other Muslim countries, where you cannot even be critical of Islam, without being lynch mobbed in some countries on pain of death with uttering any view which challenges Islam or Muhammad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-Muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/

What is appalling is you are ignoring these facts, again, as seen there are many Muslims in some that are also appalled at these views, but some constantly stand out and there is clearly little voice or views to oppose these views of Islam. Clearly there is much persecution based around beliefs in Islam, all of which you ignore and if you do not want such things done in the name of your religion, maybe it is time Muslims started standing up not in hundreds, but millions to counter this wrong view. At present all we see is those who rightly state it is wrong are drowned by hysteria over bigotry. I am not of any view to stigmatize Muslims as others do, because many hold different beliefs, this does not mean though that I should not speak out about wrongs in Islam, as I do with Christianity and Judaism

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It's called historical context and jurisprudence, Tommy. Look that up.

No it's called reality as it is what is happening now in many places and has done for centuries.....

Maybe you should look that up.

No in this instance he is right because historical works show your view is wrong, this is not a verse to mean killing any non-Muslims, because it clearly was about those who refused to pay, of which women and children, the old were exempt. It is though and does show how such verses can be easily corrupted, which is what Zack fails to see.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:59 pm

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Seems you forgot this bit.....

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

The vast majority of Christians don't believe that quote from Jesus means "pick up a sword and kill those who don't believe in me with it" (at least not today). I think the same benefit of the doubt should be extended to the vast majority of Muslims, most of whom don't live in an all-Muslim country and most of whom don't ever fight non-Muslims.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Seems you forgot this bit.....

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

The vast majority of Christians don't believe that quote from Jesus means "pick up a sword and kill those who don't believe in me with it" (at least not today). I think the same benefit of the doubt should be extended to the vast majority of Muslims, most of whom don't live in an all-Muslim country and most of whom don't ever fight non-Muslims.

Except the point is once many Christians did.
What is the difference? We still have these verses in both faiths and have both been used to justify violence. Hell at one point it was believed even if a Christian city did not surrender, it was divinely ordained, that the city according to Deuteronomy laws by Christian Kings and their subjects, that they could liquidate the city, including women and children. It shows how easily such views and beliefs can be based off what is seen as the word of a deity, if he can commit harem/genocide, so can his followers.

So what has changed for Christians, for one, less literal followers, and second, secular views have had to fight them tooth and nail to to overcome their prejudices through the last two centuries to help gain rights all of which was hindered by literal religious people. Leaving them to this day with little power or influence in Governments. It is secular views that have advanced society socially and where religious people are enjoying the benefits of them, that many believe in God, but do not take the works as the total word of god.
The problem is always found in literal belief and how in these books, either can be used for the worst prejudiced violence.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:01 pm

That is a rather abstract quote and obviously metaphorical, but the quote I posted is a direct instruction to fight and persecute others.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:That is a rather abstract quote and obviously metaphorical, but the quote I posted is a direct instruction to fight and persecute others.

You see this is where you get confused, you may see the verse one way, but many Christians before and some today still do, view it in a literal way. Which is basically your argument on the Islamic verse, it shows both verses can be used and justified to commit violence. In other words these verses enable violence, but to argue off the correct meaning is plain absurd, especially when the same counter for against arguments can be made on the meaning of verses from any faith.The thing that is important is that they are seen by some as the word of God and also used to justify violence by some to them again in the name of God

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:36 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:That is a rather abstract quote and obviously metaphorical, but the quote I posted is a direct instruction to fight and persecute others.

You see this is where you get confused, you may see the verse one way, but many Christians before and some today still do, view it in a literal way. Which is basically your argument on the Islamic verse, it shows both verses can be used and justified to commit violence. In other words these verses enable violence, but to argue off the correct meaning is plain absurd, especially when the same counter for against arguments can be made on the meaning of verses from any faith.The thing that is important is that they are seen by some as the word of God and also used to justify violence by some to them again in the name of God

that's true... neither can claim moral superiority, Particularity not in the case of what their texts allow.

I generally Agree with what you're saying particularly the secularism actually creating the benefits parts.....

but I think Zack makes a fair point that you lump people in with their gov't which considering how far from public will OUR democracies are willing to go it is a bit unfair to apply it to people how may not even get to vote.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:46 am

I don't agree, The sword is definately metaphorical when considered in context.

It is about breaking away from the norm in following Jesus and how that may cause division and hostilitiy from others when doing so.

While the Koran quote is clear as a direct instruction to fight non believers etc, persecute them, convert, pay jizya or die.

This has happened for centuries and still happening now.....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-iraq-security-christians-idUKKBN0FN29N20140718

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/egypts-Muslim-brotherhood-convert-islam-or-pay-jiz/

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:43 am

Well consider HE LITERALLY SAY "I AM NOT HERE FOR PEACE"

it is telling You to Make WAR because Jesus does not exist for Peace.... Because BOTH books are contradictory rubbish

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:03 am

Not at all.

If everything was so hunky doory and great then Jesus wouldn't have arrived at all....

He was saying that things needed changing and this would inevitably bring some conflict.

All metaphorical as Jesus never advocated violence in any way.

Never participated in violence in any way.

In fact......

Matthew 26:52

While the Koran quote is completely unambiguous in it being clear as a direct instruction to fight non believers etc, persecute them, convert, pay jizya or die.

Qur'an (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 Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This has happened for centuries, undeniable evidence to back this up, and still happening exactly the same now.....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-iraq-security-christians-idUKKBN0FN29N20140718

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/egypts-Muslim-brotherhood-convert-islam-or-pay-jiz/

Anyone denying this is either a liar or a fool....

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:19 am

yeah Umm that thing that wasn't great was the coming of the ROMAN EMPIRE
and the START OF WESTERN CIVILISATION....
WHICH JESUS WAS AGAINST!!!!! Because he was an Arab after all.

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end (Luke 22:35-38)

that second one LITERARY say the same thing as the one you keep writing from the Koran

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:43 am

Tommy, if you grant Christianity the benefit of the doubt, why won't you grant the same thing to Muslims? That's just bigotry. After all, the Pope once told the Christian world to conquer the "heathen world," by murdering it if necessary.

You go back a few centuries and the Christian community were the biggest terrorists the world has ever seen, including now. No Muslim group has ever managed to wipe out tens of millions of non-believers. Christians accomplished that in a few decades. Muslim terrorist murderers are a shit-stain compared to Christian terrorist murderers.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:50 am

Was there any instruction to violence...???

No.

More a warning that there may be trouble ahead.... and which is clear if taken again in context....

While the Koran quote is directly instructing violence against non believers etc.....

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:51 am

extended on what Ben Said

Islam successfully taken by the sword how many continents ... umm NONE
Christians successfully took by the sword... at least 3 And that excludes Europe which is technically the 4th but if it wasn't for the War like Europeans being Christian maybe Christians would not have been so violent.

Cause same applies
other nations/ethnicities successfully taken over continents.... None
Europeans.... at least 3 others taken by force

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:55 am

And Ben... I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt...

Just telling it how it is....

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:35 am

That site you keep citing as a source is a well-known hotbed of Islam-phobia ... much like your own warped mind.

At least my own warped mind can still tell good from evil ... what's your excuse? Retardation? Mental fatigue? Age? Drunk posts? (the last I could at least understand, as I rely on whiskey/cognac/tequila just to deal with uninformed insane people ...)

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:03 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

You see this is where you get confused, you may see the verse one way, but many Christians before and some today still do, view it in a literal way. Which is basically your argument on the Islamic verse, it shows both verses can be used and justified to commit violence. In other words these verses enable violence, but to argue off the correct meaning is plain absurd, especially when the same counter for against arguments can be made on the meaning of verses from any faith.The thing that is important is that they are seen by some as the word of God and also used to justify violence by some to them again in the name of God

that's true... neither can claim moral superiority, Particularity not in the case of what their texts allow.

I generally Agree with what you're saying particularly the secularism actually creating the benefits parts.....

but I think Zack makes a fair point that you lump people in with their gov't which considering how far from public will OUR democracies are willing to go it is a bit unfair to apply it to people how may not even get to vote.

[quote]

You are both missing the point basing a view on levels of numbers, not considering the fact there are Muslims that support these views and of where it is even taught by the majority of Muslim Imans in certain nations. You see this is what is wrong with defending religions where it loses site of actual problems, it bases its defense around those who are good, never understanding why some are bad, stating that because a majority is good, then this is all that matters. That does not deal with the issue and hopes the issue goes away, it does not, because we still have those who support and teach such views. When clearly in the world, there is not exactly many movements looking to challenge the religious perceptions held in some Muslim counties which clearly do discriminate within their laws. This is a fact and it matters not what is the right interpretation of the verses, what matters is who wins the better argument over how it should be interpreted, because then it is easier to show how a religion should be followed and again at present those Muslims that disagree with extremism, are not vocal enough or have the financial backing to tackle the rhetoric of the Salafist movement. This has all mainly stemmed from the Salafist movement where its doctrine and view of Islam is evident in the vast majority of Muslim countries that have extremism. This extremism is real and believed and thus people are ignoring the fact of this problem. This is not about clubbing together people, but how in some parts of the Muslim world, this is clearly not an issue but for where it is a problem, where there views of a faith, hold the most appalling discriminating views of others.

It is time people started recognising this and not excusing it is not happening based around a majority of Good or peaceful Muslims, who need to start to do something where they claim others are hijacking their faith, well best they start standing up and being counted, as yet the protest is minimal.

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:06 am

Liberals tend to defend defenseless minorities when they're under attack. Not, in general, murderers. Sometimes, the message gets mixed up, but I'd rather one murderer go free than 100 innocent people suffer because of what that murderer did.

There's no excuse for bloodshed, but I'll stand up for anybody's right to live peacefully while simultaneously believing in whatever crazy shit they want to.

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:11 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Liberals tend to defend defenseless minorities when they're under attack. Not, in general, murderers. Sometimes, the message gets mixed up, but I'd rather one murderer go free than 100 innocent people suffer because of what that murderer did.

There's no excuse for bloodshed, but I'll stand up for anybody's right to live peacefully while simultaneously believing in whatever crazy shit they want to.

Again we are not talking about the minority in both our countries, because the smallest would be the extremist Ben, and I am certain you do not stand up for the minority of extremists, the majority is the good Muslims, which you are neglecting. I certainly do not stand up for far right extremists, who are a minority, do you? They can believe in what they like, it does matter though when that belief is expressed onto others in the form of discrimination to the point of violence.
The fact that such views should be eradicated through education , whether political or religious extremism is what matters, to take the view people can believe in what they like again is just ignoring the problem and where hateful views lead to. I would not allow one murderer to go free, because they could be responsible for a thousand deaths compared to one hundred people who may suffer if we kept the murderer locked up.
Again your view is to not deal with a problem that not only affects a nation but affects the majority of the minority group of good Muslims themselves.

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:33 am

I don't stand up for extremists of any stripe. As for the peaceful Muslim majority, they have my sympathy, as they seem to be the target when people are too frightened to confront the actual bad guys. I understand, few people want to take on the actual bully; they prefer to go after anybody they can associate with the bully instead. That's why so many innocent people died in our 9/11 attacks -- al Qaeda knew they wouldn't stand a chance against the people they really hate. So they killed the loosely-affiliated instead.

I will never stand, though, for the view that people can or should be punished for what they believe, unless they hurt others on the basis of that, because nobody can know whether someone is incalcitrant in their beliefs or not. I would say that an individual himself can't even know; there are plenty of cases to back that up. Just look up "ex-terrorist," "ex-neo-nazi," etc. to see how people can change their views.

Seeing that people can be reformed, I tend to believe we should refrain from extreme action against them, especially as that tends to make the people saying they represent justice equally bad.

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:46 am

The fact you are ignoring is in some Muslim countries people are being discriminated against for what the believe which is sanctioned in religious law, their version of it. Nobody is saying people should be punished for what they believe, but such views should be countered vocally and with great criticism if they are against the very principles of equality.
Also you do not stop genocide by sitting on the ly-lines allowing it to happen, where it is a problem for both Muslims and non Muslims alike.

Again what people are doing is being critical of religions, which clearly are thier core have problems, and yet you seem to view this as wrong, when it is not wrong to show the faults within systems and beliefs, basically we are being condemned for stating what a problem is. If that problem is used to also entice violence and hate, that is wrong, but this is not the case with myself and others, who are expressing the glaring problems that exist within religion where it has written documents that do allow for people to think they can commit violence. Thus to be vocal about this is very important and is not a view which you think it is to attack a minority. If a minority holds a view that clearly discriminates, whether far right, far left, or religious, then I will be vocal, because other minority groups suffer at their hands.

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:46 am

Good day to you

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:55 am

I'm not ignoring what's happening, but there's not much I can do.

You'll see if you look into my stats and posts that I've posted here about the atrocities committed by ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda and those who support oppressive Sharia law.

I don't know why you're trying to paint a false portrait of me and what I stand for, but anybody who investigates can see the truth for themselves.

I really hope that anybody who's serious about trying to get the true measure of me will look at what I've said, rather than your antagonistic and overly simplistic accusations.

I have always liked you as a member and poster, and I don't understand why you're trying to do this to me, but I'm going to fight it as long as you keep it up.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not ignoring what's happening, but there's not much I can do.

You'll see if you look into my stats and posts that I've posted here about the atrocities committed by ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda and those who support oppressive Sharia law.

I don't know why you're trying to paint a false portrait of me and what I stand for, but anybody who investigates can see the truth for themselves.

I really hope that anybody who's serious about trying to get the true measure of me will look at what I've said, rather than your antagonistic and overly simplistic accusations.

I have always liked you as a member and poster, and I don't understand why you're trying to do this to me, but I'm going to fight it as long as you keep it up.

Because if you disagree with the sanctimonious and arrogant people like Didge, then you are either stupid or sinister.

Atheist Fundamentalism

https://youtu.be/PwpwEFmkZCc

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:50 pm

In Islam you have a concept known as Ummah Wasitiyyah - or the society (ummah) of the 'justly balanced' - also known as the middle ground.

Justice is based on rationale (jurisprudence). Moderation is more subjective.

That is the difference.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:25 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:That site you keep citing as a source is a well-known hotbed of Islam-phobia ... much like your own warped mind.

At least my own warped mind can still tell good from evil ... what's your excuse? Retardation? Mental fatigue? Age? Drunk posts? (the last I could at least understand, as I rely on whiskey/cognac/tequila just to deal with uninformed insane people ...)

That link is full of other links to actual real news stories.

Oh, I get it.... any site that tells the truth on Islam is islamaphobic right...!?

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:34 pm

Right, lets get things into perspective, people are not understanding much here, so lets help break this down for people, where Ben you are clearly not understanding what I am saying when if you hold liberal views they will conflict if you are not critical of religions, that has religious views that conflict with the well being and equality of people.

We know that in all 3 abrahamic faiths, things are seen as a sin, from homosexuality, to believing in another god or gods to leaving the faith. Women are viewed as second to men, with a view to be seen a obedient, all based around being born second. These are undeniable main views held within these faiths based off a literal belief. They even back slavery and the death penalty. The problem then is on how followers also see that the deities and prophets have acted out the most severe punishments to people. Now they either ignore these parts or agree with their actions.

Now where religion is the bases for law, we see how these views and beliefs are incorporated into law, whether in the past and today. What has changed in the west is that secularism, has fought to bring about equality and well being of which literal believers have tried to deny and hinder and fight every step of the way. The evidence of this is still happening in the west where we see those of religious literal belief try to deny gay marriage.

Now of course there are Muslims, Christians and Jews that do not hold to these literal views, in fact they have incorporated secular views to make their religious views compatible, bring about a version of their religions, that allows for equality and well being. But the fact of the matter is and we can argue all day long about the meaning of verses, which is another fundamental flaw in religion, where it would be clear cut, is that it allows for people to be prejudiced and at its worst violent, all of which they can argue and justify based off how prophets and this deity acts.
The reason things are better today as stated is because secular views have made for better understanding, one not constrained by mythical beliefs of violent vengeful gods.

Now to me the views in these 3 faiths conflict clearly with liberal views, hence why I say that when you are not critical of Islam, which you certainly are of Christianity Ben, you would be then in conflict with your liberal views. I once did the same and have seen how I was contradicting myself when I did so. I am not talking about extremist groups here but again the dogmatic views held within religion I am not doing it to make people fearful of the followers of these faiths and you know full well when you are Critical of Christianity, nobody calls you a bigot or racist. It shows we are placing a shield around Islam from criticism, which to some extent has to do with those using the criticism of Islam to castigate all those that follow Islam, with a view to promoting a view to hate Muslims. That is clearly wrong and prejudiced also. What is also wrong i to club those who hold non discriminating views in the same category. In the west, teaching that certain views and laws found within that faith are wrong and at odds with well being and equality. Just as we strive daily to teach what is wrong with racism, homophobia, sexism etc. We wish to have a time where people do not hold such poor prejudice views, but when it comes to Islam, it seems, some people believe to do so would be wrong as they wrongly think they are being prejudice to Muslims. So what is more important here, holding onto the beliefs we hold dear for equality, or trying to adhere to them, but make exceptions for religions? Either what is written is wrong and denies equality, or we allow for loop holes in religion to allow for inequality?

Now do you see? I am sorry but here is one of the worst hypocritical view points, because we are all critical of many things, be it Nazism, antisemitism, prejudice to Muslims etc.
Take Zack, who I have always looked at as reasonable and a friend, where before I was highly critical rightly so of both Christianity and Judaism, using this to defend against views on Islam, he was fine with this and never once called me a bigot. Take the view point also that within Islam, it is highly critical of both Christianity and Judaism, to the point the main aspect of a believer is to be critical and to then show that other faiths are wrong and that there faith is the right one and to convert to their faiths, Now does anyone call them a bigot for being so highly critical of other faiths to the point they use this to convert people?

No.
It shows that where Zack was happy to be my friend, he cannot allow for me to be critical of his faith, because he is passionate about his faith, it will allow him to lose his friendship based on me be critical of his faith, though I doubt he has lost many Christian friends, where he has been critical of their faith. Do you see the contradiction? Again this is the problem with religion where people hold literal view points, to claim anything in their faith is wrong, then it brings their whole faith into question, where all I am doing is trying to better the world where if you wish for a better word., convert or allow for him to see his faith is no more than a man made myth as they all are and to not be constrained by commands and laws written in a book 1400 years ago. He can convert people using criticism, and is no bigot, I am though to him a bigot for trying to convert him.

Sorry but to me it is the duty of any person that holds liberal views to be critical of the abrahamic faiths, with the view point to change the perceptions of people to bring arund equality, I am not concerned if people still believe in religion, but wish to help bring about equality views and well being.

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:43 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not ignoring what's happening, but there's not much I can do.

You'll see if you look into my stats and posts that I've posted here about the atrocities committed by ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda and those who support oppressive Sharia law.

I don't know why you're trying to paint a false portrait of me and what I stand for, but anybody who investigates can see the truth for themselves.

I really hope that anybody who's serious about trying to get the true measure of me will look at what I've said, rather than your antagonistic and overly simplistic accusations.

I have always liked you as a member and poster, and I don't understand why you're trying to do this to me, but I'm going to fight it as long as you keep it up.

Because if you disagree with the sanctimonious and arrogant people like Didge, then you are either stupid or sinister.

Atheist Fundamentalism

https://youtu.be/PwpwEFmkZCc

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:49 pm

For a debate between them, for those interested, choose for yourself who is right:

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:06 pm

Brasidas wrote:Right, lets get things into perspective, people are not understanding much here, so lets help break this down for people, where Ben you are clearly not understanding what I am saying when if you hold liberal views they will conflict if you are not critical of religions, that has religious views that conflict with the well being and equality of people.

We know that in all 3 abrahamic faiths, things are seen as a sin, from homosexuality, to believing in another god or gods to leaving the faith. Women are viewed as second to men, with a view to be seen a obedient, all based around being born second. These are undeniable main views held within these faiths based off a literal belief. They even back slavery and the death penalty. The problem then is on how followers also see that the deities and prophets have acted out the most severe punishments to people. Now they either ignore these parts or agree with their actions.

Now where religion is the bases for law, we see how these views and beliefs are incorporated into law, whether in the past and today. What has changed in the west is that secularism, has fought to bring about equality and well being of which literal believers have tried to deny and hinder and fight every step of the way. The evidence of this is still happening in the west where we see those of religious literal belief try to deny gay marriage.

Now of course there are Muslims, Christians and Jews that do not hold to these literal views, in fact they have incorporated secular views to make their religious views compatible, bring about a version of their religions, that allows for equality and well being. But the fact of the matter is and we can argue all day long about the meaning of verses, which is another fundamental flaw in religion, where it would be clear cut, is that it allows for people to be prejudiced and at its worst violent, all of which they can argue and justify based off how prophets and this deity acts.
The reason things are better today as stated is because secular views have made for better understanding, one not constrained by mythical beliefs of violent vengeful gods.

Now to me the views in these 3 faiths conflict clearly with liberal views, hence why I say that when you are not critical of Islam, which you certainly are of Christianity Ben, you would be then in conflict with your liberal views. I once did the same and have seen how I was contradicting myself when I did so. I am not talking about extremist groups here but again the dogmatic views held within religion I am not doing it to make people fearful of the followers of these faiths and you know full well when you are Critical of Christianity, nobody calls you a bigot or racist. It shows we are placing a shield around Islam from criticism, which to some extent has to do with those using the criticism of Islam to castigate all those that follow Islam, with a view to promoting a view to hate Muslims. That is clearly wrong and prejudiced also. What is also wrong i to club those who hold non discriminating views in the same category. In the west, teaching that certain views and laws found within that faith are wrong and at odds with well being and equality. Just as we strive daily to teach what is wrong with racism, homophobia, sexism etc. We wish to have a time where people do not hold such poor prejudice views, but when it comes to Islam, it seems, some people believe to do so would be wrong as they wrongly think they are being prejudice to Muslims. So what is more important here, holding onto the beliefs we hold dear for equality, or trying to adhere to them, but make exceptions for religions? Either what is written is wrong and denies equality, or we allow for loop holes in religion to allow for inequality?

Now do you see? I am sorry but here is one of the worst hypocritical view points, because we are all critical of many things, be it Nazism, antisemitism, prejudice to Muslims etc.
Take Zack, who I have always looked at as reasonable and a friend, where before I was highly critical rightly so of both Christianity and Judaism, using this to defend against views on Islam, he was fine with this and never once called me a bigot. Take the view point also that within Islam, it is highly critical of both Christianity and Judaism, to the point the main aspect of a believer is to be critical and to then show that other faiths are wrong and that there faith is the right one and to convert to their faiths, Now does anyone call them a bigot for being so highly critical of other faiths to the point they use this to convert people?

No.
It shows that where Zack was happy to be my friend, he cannot allow for me to be critical of his faith, because he is passionate about his faith, it will allow him to lose his friendship based on me be critical of his faith, though I doubt he has lost many Christian friends, where he has been critical of their faith. Do you see the contradiction? Again this is the problem with religion where people hold literal view points, to claim anything in their faith is wrong, then it brings their whole faith into question, where all I am doing is trying to better the world where if you wish for a better word., convert or allow for him to see his faith is no more than a man made myth as they all are and to not be constrained by commands and laws written in a book 1400 years ago. He can convert people using criticism, and is no bigot, I am though to him a bigot for trying to convert him.

Sorry but to me it is the duty of any person that holds liberal views to be critical of the abrahamic faiths, with the view point to change the perceptions of people to bring arund equality, I am not concerned if people still believe in religion, but wish to help bring about equality views and well being.

I'll tell you what the problem with your view point Didge. You're one of those who think that just because one is against one thing and doesn't appear to be against a similar thing, then that person is a hypocrite. I'm reminded of the time when you charged me with such hypocrisy because I was protesting against the Gaza invasion but did not 'appear' to care about Muslim oppression in Muslim countries. Not only is this unfair but unrealistic. You have to prioritise. You can't do it all at once (progression).

Similarly with liberals, just because they are against prejudice against Muslims, doesn't mean they're not critical of Islam also. But again it's about progression. Liberals (and Islam for that matter) understand that you cannot change the world and society overnight. They're not called progressives for nothing.

And I don't mind anyone criticising my faith. Or I wouldn't have tolerated Smelly. But people who seem to be as arrogant as you are not on my wavelength.

Most of my Christian friends are either lapsed Catholics or Anglicans who don't take their faith seriously. I have a few religious Christian friends and I don't have a problem with any of them, even if we discuss theology (although we mainly talk about regular stuff).

by Guest Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:17 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Right, lets get things into perspective, people are not understanding much here, so lets help break this down for people, where Ben you are clearly not understanding what I am saying when if you hold liberal views they will conflict if you are not critical of religions, that has religious views that conflict with the well being and equality of people.

We know that in all 3 abrahamic faiths, things are seen as a sin, from homosexuality, to believing in another god or gods to leaving the faith. Women are viewed as second to men, with a view to be seen a obedient, all based around being born second. These are undeniable main views held within these faiths based off a literal belief. They even back slavery and the death penalty. The problem then is on how followers also see that the deities and prophets have acted out the most severe punishments to people. Now they either ignore these parts or agree with their actions.

Now where religion is the bases for law, we see how these views and beliefs are incorporated into law, whether in the past and today. What has changed in the west is that secularism, has fought to bring about equality and well being of which literal believers have tried to deny and hinder and fight every step of the way. The evidence of this is still happening in the west where we see those of religious literal belief try to deny gay marriage.

Now of course there are Muslims, Christians and Jews that do not hold to these literal views, in fact they have incorporated secular views to make their religious views compatible, bring about a version of their religions, that allows for equality and well being. But the fact of the matter is and we can argue all day long about the meaning of verses, which is another fundamental flaw in religion, where it would be clear cut, is that it allows for people to be prejudiced and at its worst violent, all of which they can argue and justify based off how prophets and this deity acts.
The reason things are better today as stated is because secular views have made for better understanding, one not constrained by mythical beliefs of violent vengeful gods.

Now to me the views in these 3 faiths conflict clearly with liberal views, hence why I say that when you are not critical of Islam, which you certainly are of Christianity Ben, you would be then in conflict with your liberal views. I once did the same and have seen how I was contradicting myself when I did so. I am not talking about extremist groups here but again the dogmatic views held within religion I am not doing it to make people fearful of the followers of these faiths and you know full well when you are Critical of Christianity, nobody calls you a bigot or racist. It shows we are placing a shield around Islam from criticism, which to some extent has to do with those using the criticism of Islam to castigate all those that follow Islam, with a view to promoting a view to hate Muslims. That is clearly wrong and prejudiced also. What is also wrong i to club those who hold non discriminating views in the same category. In the west, teaching that certain views and laws found within that faith are wrong and at odds with well being and equality. Just as we strive daily to teach what is wrong with racism, homophobia, sexism etc. We wish to have a time where people do not hold such poor prejudice views, but when it comes to Islam, it seems, some people believe to do so would be wrong as they wrongly think they are being prejudice to Muslims. So what is more important here, holding onto the beliefs we hold dear for equality, or trying to adhere to them, but make exceptions for religions? Either what is written is wrong and denies equality, or we allow for loop holes in religion to allow for inequality?

Now do you see? I am sorry but here is one of the worst hypocritical view points, because we are all critical of many things, be it Nazism, antisemitism, prejudice to Muslims etc.
Take Zack, who I have always looked at as reasonable and a friend, where before I was highly critical rightly so of both Christianity and Judaism, using this to defend against views on Islam, he was fine with this and never once called me a bigot. Take the view point also that within Islam, it is highly critical of both Christianity and Judaism, to the point the main aspect of a believer is to be critical and to then show that other faiths are wrong and that there faith is the right one and to convert to their faiths, Now does anyone call them a bigot for being so highly critical of other faiths to the point they use this to convert people?

No.
It shows that where Zack was happy to be my friend, he cannot allow for me to be critical of his faith, because he is passionate about his faith, it will allow him to lose his friendship based on me be critical of his faith, though I doubt he has lost many Christian friends, where he has been critical of their faith. Do you see the contradiction? Again this is the problem with religion where people hold literal view points, to claim anything in their faith is wrong, then it brings their whole faith into question, where all I am doing is trying to better the world where if you wish for a better word., convert or allow for him to see his faith is no more than a man made myth as they all are and to not be constrained by commands and laws written in a book 1400 years ago. He can convert people using criticism, and is no bigot, I am though to him a bigot for trying to convert him.

Sorry but to me it is the duty of any person that holds liberal views to be critical of the abrahamic faiths, with the view point to change the perceptions of people to bring arund equality, I am not concerned if people still believe in religion, but wish to help bring about equality views and well being.

I'll tell you what the problem with your view point Didge. You're one of those who think that just because one is against one thing and doesn't appear to be against a similar thing, then that person is a hypocrite. I'm reminded of the time when you charged me with such hypocrisy because I was protesting against the Gaza invasion but did not 'appear' to care about Muslim oppression in Muslim countries. Not only is this unfair but unrealistic. You have to prioritise. You can't do it all at once (progression).

Similarly with liberals, just because they are against prejudice against Muslims, doesn't mean they're not critical of Islam also. But again it's about progression. Liberals (and Islam for that matter) understand that you cannot change the world and society overnight. They're not called progressives for nothing.

And I don't mind anyone criticising my faith. Or I wouldn't have tolerated Smelly. But people who seem to be as arrogant as you are not on my wavelength.

Most of my Christian friends are either lapsed Catholics or Anglicans who don't take their faith seriously. I have a few religious Christian friends and I don't have a problem with any of them, even if we discuss theology (although we mainly talk about regular stuff).

But as seen you are critical of their faiths, and the whole bases for converting people will be using critical view points of either non-belief or another faith. So to call me a bigot is basically calling Islam bigoted or any religion that seeks to convert. The fact is you have gone over the top, granted I have in my responses back to you, on the views I am holding, which I am right to be critical to what I see fundamentally wrong with the 3 main faiths and I again do not deny that sometimes I have been hypocritical but at least can admit when I am or wrong on things. The fact is even though you are progressive, many other religious people are not and it is based around a literal belief, which there is no denying there is a problem with this.

I take your view on Gaza, and is a fair point, but I guess to me, but as seen can easily be used to back a view of hypocrisy onto Muslims, when there is not a common theme to do so on many other aspects that would be seen to be wrong, Surely you can also see that if there is little protest this can be used against you, whether that is right to say with me is true, as it was unfair of me, I admit, you actually provide those who are actually prejudiced against you to use this as ammunition against Muslims. Again nobody is saying you should have to justify yourself for wrongs done by some extremist Muslims or even need to say that you disagree with their views, but as you do follow Islam, I ca ask and challenge view points which are clearly at odds with equality found within main stream Islam. To me the very basic aspect of belief in one deity with no room for no other, is the foundations of prejudice, based off nothing that has any evidence, but belief, where those who follow other religions different to you, hold the same beliefs that other faiths are heresy and wrong, to the view point they will be punished eternally. This view as you well know can and does enable hatred.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:41 pm

So much pointless antagonism.....
Sad

the Great Rainbow Serpent doesn't care what we think anyway
On Moderate Muslims - Page 2 Rainbow_Serpent_by_Sphynxette

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:03 pm

Islam at work

http://news.sky.com/story/1368753/iranian-dog-owners-could-face-74-lashes

by Lone Wolf Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:17 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Except Islamic scripture clearly instructs followers to fight non believers......

Actually that's only in cases of self-defense:

Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is permitted only in self-defence.

The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting.
.................................

http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/striving/wars.html

TOMMY M. is nothing more than an uneducated fuckwit whose sole intention in regard to other nationalities and religions is to start fights and look to join the next crusades against Islam...

THOUGH, of course, being the spineless little maggot that he is, all of his fighting will be done from behind his keyboard, as we've come to expect on here..

(PATHETIC little no-brain twat showed his total ineptness and incompetence last weekend when celebrating his imagined "victory" against me ~ only problem there being that he was trying to credit me with certain points in his crowing abuse that, unfortunately for Tommy, others had made over in another thread. JUST to prove his total lack of comprehension and analytical abilities in everything he reads. NO DOUBT as usual, Tommy M.'s defence will be to claim "more twaddle" and "lying ****" against his detractors..).
TOMMY still remains the thickest numbskull on this forum ! lol!

by Guest Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:32 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:In Islam you have a concept known as Ummah Wasitiyyah - or the society (ummah) of the 'justly balanced' - also known as the middle ground.

Justice is based on rationale (jurisprudence). Moderation is more subjective.

That is the difference.

what rationale (jurisprudence??? as you make it) is there in throwing homosexuals off cliffs? or crushing them under a wall NONE

what rationale is there that prescribes beheading for apostasy NONE

what rationale is there that says there is no compulsion in islam, and in the same voice prevents christian (or other) activities? NONE

what ratioanle is there in stoning a woman to death "for not screaming louder" when she is raped NONE

what rational is there for stoning to death someone for adultery... NONE

what rational is there for refusing to allow a christian to bring a bible with him when visiting your country NONE

by Eilzel Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:26 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:There is no such thing as moderate Christians or Muslim as they are based around their political views and literal views, so it is irrelevant whether they are violent or non-violent, they all share one the same passion if literal, living by man made myths, which do affect millions daily, especially when religion is applicable to criminal law. So actually many live poor lives based around literal beliefs, that affect millions daily with discrimination and abuse, centered around religious law.
Maybe you need a map, based on human rights where religion has control, that would be more telling, as basing murder rates off countries that suppress coverage of denials, is not a true reflection of the criminal matters of that nation.

That's not true
a moderate religious person places family and state before their religion, it is not that hard a concept really people place different values on different aspects.
Some will place religion above politics, some will have a basic humanity that will always exceed either religious or politic rhetoric.
I believe we can work with any one that values family over religion and politics, and the vast majority of people will put their family first.

Most people will put family first out of pure humanistic/animal instincts- its a beautiful fact those of us who believe in the innate goodness of humanity can take hope from.

HOWEVER, anyone who is TRULY religious would put their religion/god way above the state. The state is an artificial construct- god is everything. If you believe in a god and yet would put your loyalty to the country you happened to be born in before that god; well then seriously wtf?

God is immortality- if you REALLY believe in him (especially for Christians, Muslims and Jews), then your national identity should fall way short of religious identity.

If we are to take Biblical or Koranic texts at their face value, then REAL Judeo-Christian believers should also put them above family too.

'Moderate' is a useful term for non-violent, non-hateful religious types. But it is clearly hard to define beyond that.

by Sponsored content