Religion is for the weak, all this fighting about/for various religions dos not make much sense to me.
Religion is just a tool used be a privy select few to control your orifices.
If the worlds 3 main religions were followed as written then there would be no war nor conflict in general.
Religion was invented to control violence in the world.
Just some thoughts from an avid observer.
[quote]WIP wrote:
I’ve seen some reference made regarding the Quran.
Please quote the relevant verses and I will explain what they mean. You can’t just say the Quran says this or that without:
The reason why some verses appear dubious is because of the above mentioned factors, thus, I will clarify each of these points regarding any verse in question.
Fire away.[/quote]
Ok, what did I say? Next thing, all the verses you’ve been quoting were…taken out of context!!! I see this coming a mile away.
Maybe one of the guys who actually did the quoting will oblige. What were the verses in question again?
edit- never mind. You already did. Thanks. Let’s see what he says.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Gotti, was, after all, taken down, so can we expect the same fate for the Muslim criminals in, say, our lifetime?
Look at it this way: if the cops were storming innocent people’s buildings, shooting at them with the occasional rape here and there, how much longer would the capture have taken?[/quote]
So, if the police force is corrupt, the criminal is no longer a criminal. Is that how it works in the muslim world?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Thank you for the offer WIP. That is very gracious of you. Would you explain this one. Please.
“Forbidden to you are…married women, except those you own as slaves.” (Surah 4:20-, 24-)
[/quote]
Islam is a bit more forgiving in this area than Judaism. In Islam there isn’t any punishment for having sex with a married slave girl, whereas if you’re a Jew, and you have sex with your married slave girl, you have to bring a male sheep to a priest and offer it to God. See Leviticus 19:20-22.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Perhaps you’re right. Just a few million… But those “knuckleheads” (islamic extremists) have hijacked your peaceful religion.
What does my religion have to do with anything? This thread is about Islam, not my religion.
I think he meant “your” as meaning the religion you are sticking up for in this thread. [/quote]
If I were the only white man defending black people in a room filled with bigots complaining about “niggers,” would it follow that “my race” is black?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If I were the only white man defending black people in a room filled with bigots complaining about “niggers,” would it follow that “my race” is black?[/quote]
Your race would not be black, but it would be correct to say that the black people are “your” people.
Hmm. I don’t know about that, Genghis, but in any case, I think it’s a moot point. I think our friend Tokoya assumed that because I refused to condemn Islam, I must be a Muslim myself, hence his (probably sarcastic) use of the phrase “your peaceful religion.”
I had to chuckle at that, because my religion is not terribly peaceful.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
This is an idiotic argument. It’s like saying, if the non-criminal Americans are tne majority, why don’t they wipe out the criminals?
The next time that those criminals gather together in a public place to hear the head criminal tell them why and how they should commit criminal acts, I’m sure we will.
I don’t know, it took the FBI years of surveillance and infiltration to take down John Gotti. Everyone knew where Gotti lived, and he and the other bosses regularly gathered in public places (restaurants) to talk about their criminal activities. And as far as I know, the Mafia members in New York were at the time outnumbered by the non-Mafia members.
So your point is that the “good” Muslims haven’t had enough time? But the efforts are being made?
Gotti, was, after all, taken down, so can we expect the same fate for the Muslim criminals in, say, our lifetime?
Also, V, it seems to me (maybe I’m wrong) that many of these “bad” Muslims (those preaching death to non-believers, for example) aren’t exactly hiding their activities, but rather openly engaging in them (unlike Gotti).
(At the risk of sounding like a simpleton) I wonder if many “true” Muslims stand outside mosques that preach hate and violence, and actively and vocally condemn such teachings.
[/quote]
My point is that the New Yorkers who were uninvolved in organized crime, didn’t dare act against Gotti or the Gambino family, even though they vastly outnumbered the Gambino family about a million to one, and even though John Gotti was a highly visible public figure.
Okay, a different tack. Let’s forget about all New Yorkers and only focus on Roman Catholics.
As far as I know, the Roman Catholic faith condemns murder, gambling, prostitution, and drugs. The Gambino family openly engaged in all of these activities. Furthermore, most of the Gambino family, we may assume, are Roman Catholic.
Don’t all Roman Catholics (at least, those who are not a member of an organized crime family) have a duty to actively combat the Gambino family, inasmuch as the Gambinos (Gambini?) are committing criminal acts while also professing the Catholic faith?
According to your argument, they do. So why is the Gambino family still around? Somebody is not doing his job.
Christianity sorted itself out - or Europe sorted it out - a long time ago. It didn’t happen overnight.
Whatever the problems are that Islam is facing - they’re not going to be sorted out tomorrow. It’s actually hypocritical to expect otherwise…
Also, and I apologise if this is dragging up an old topic which perhaps we’d rather let go, but now I too am simply amazed at the propensity some posters have in finding lixy - or his posts - so incredibly offensive, so aggressive.
I’m looking back at the last couple of pages and I’m reading comments about muslims having to ‘mend their evil ways’ - and other stuff which basically equates to the same meaning. It baffles me…
It’s as if calling muslims, or Islam, ‘evil’, is not also an insult but instead - an established fact, an intrinsic property of the religion. It ceases to be an insult.
Surely, if you dish it out, you’ve got to be able to take it in return…?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Gotti, was, after all, taken down, so can we expect the same fate for the Muslim criminals in, say, our lifetime?
Look at it this way: if the cops were storming innocent people’s buildings, shooting at them with the occasional rape here and there, how much longer would the capture have taken?
Lost me. I can only assume you are talking about Iraq? But certainly that’s way too limited a view…
And, are you saying the efforts ARE being made, analogous to the FBI’s?[/quote]
Well, of course. Not a month goes by without the Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Egyptian, Jordanian, etc. police or people catching a bunch of those criminals. In my town alone, there have been more citizen arrests than I can count.
Yes, I was referring to Iraq being a portion of the neighborhood in that NY story. And I don’t see why you say it’s a limited view. The US started by bombing and killing innocent Iraqi civilians, calling them collateral damage and refusing even to make public the body count.
Then, a bunch of “Muslims” start swarming the country proclaiming to avenge the dead and drive the invader out. The average Iraqi - justly - sees it as a consequence to your invasion. I can promise you that if you were an Iraqi, you’ll be shooting at the Americans just the same. There’s this much-publicized so-called “awakening” movement that’s not shooting at them anymore and turning against Al-Qaeda and the resistance.
Well, that’s pure bribery. The day you stop giving them guns is the day they will use those weapons you provided to shoot at the invaders, thereby reverting to their natural state.
The independent places where Al-Qaeda is tolerated are well known: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Those are the only places where they walk the streets with total impunity. If they went public in any other place, they’ll be rooted out faster than you can say “sweet bippy”.
And yet, you keep handing out weapons to the Wahabis and undermining everybody else (see Iraq or Iran). That’s the elephant in the room and the root of plenty of conspiracy theories.
And thanks to Saudi petrodollars, there are plenty of Wahabi mosques all over the world preaching hatred and other such things. So if a terrorist attack took place tomorrow in Paris, it’ll likely be carried out by French dudes. And if NY is targeted again, Americans will be behind it. And that’s the reason you should keep an eye on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
That’s encouraging to hear. Thank you for the info.
Can I take it to a slightly more subtle level? What about those who don’t actively commit spectacular “crimes,” but force women to dress (or not dress) certain ways, or who see non-Muslims as “infidels” and so feel no compunction toward some of the “criminal” acts? Or who oppress women or other minorities in other ways? [/quote]
You’ll have to be more specific. There’s a difference between forcing your 13 year old daughter from dressing like a whore (which my atheist brother does) and going around in the streets to harass strangers.
As for the “infidel” part, you will also have to be specific about the “criminal” acts you are talking about. Meanwhile, I’ll refer you to the Wiki:
In Islam, the Arabic word kafir (�?ا�?ر) refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Because the term is considered derogatory,[8] Muslim scholars discourage its usage due to the Quran’s command to use kind words.[9] It is even a punishable offence to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law. [8]
[quote]Yes, I was referring to Iraq being a portion of the neighborhood in that NY story. And I don’t see why you say it’s a limited view.
I said that because we are discussing Islam. I don’t see how you can limit the discussion to one, single, somewhat exceptional case. [/quote]
Exceptional my eye! The West has always undermined Arab nationalism in favor of the whackjob Islamists. It is only after 9/11 that the US started considering a change of policy.
Discussing Iraq is not putting a limit on the discussion. It has been the single most important factor in fueling the extremist movement in the last five years. Since the situation in the Occupied Territories will never get resolved in my opinion, it is the decisive case.
Sorry about that.
[quote]The independent places where Al-Qaeda is tolerated are well known: Saudi Arabia
I realize this might be tough, but do you have any sort of documentation of this? [/quote]
It’s hard not to sound condescending when you start asking such questions, after blurting out all kinds of insinuations about “true” and “good” Muslims. Really!
The only countries to ever recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (with its satellite state, the UAE). That should be verifiable anywhere (try the CIA World Factbook).
Like I said, more than I can count. All of whom were driven by the gratuitous American invasion of Iraq. I was there when it all started. I talked to them, and witnessed the transformation happen as the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad. That’s why I get so mad at American obliviousness to the extent of damage the Iraq war has done. You call it “one, single, somewhat exceptional case”. I call it the most destructive thing to happen to progressists, reformists, Feminists, Muslims and everyone trying to build channels of communitcation between the Arab/Islamic world and the West. And it’s not like I can take comfort in the undeniable fact that, in time, it will bite the US in the ass. Washington seems determined to actively let history repeat itself.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Perhaps you’re right. Just a few million… But those “knuckleheads” (islamic extremists) have hijacked your peaceful religion.
What does my religion have to do with anything? This thread is about Islam, not my religion.
I think he meant “your” as meaning the religion you are sticking up for in this thread.
If I were the only white man defending black people in a room filled with bigots complaining about “niggers,” would it follow that “my race” is black?[/quote]
Substitute “this” with “your” religion.
Examples listed referring to islamist extremists because each act is committed by a Muslim for the cause of Islam (as perceived by the attacker). These are not nominal members of the faith killing for money or pride. These are people who kill because they believe that doing so advances the cause of Islam.
Nice try playing the race / racism card. Not sure who you were referring to, but it’s weak. This used inappropriately by critics who don’t have fact and logic to offer in its place. It is a tactic of illusion, usually designed to inflate the apparent impact of an argument that lacks underlying support.
Islam, of course, has nothing to do with either genetics or race. Only an ignorant person would believe otherwise.
I don’t believe that the delicate and petulant sensibilities of islamists have precedence over the awful violence committed in their religion’s name each and every day.
Good luck with your theory though. CAIR would applaud you for it.
Some really weird stretches here to dismiss the disproportionate threat of Islamic Jihad.
Look, this started with the bloody hands of the robber-bandit Mohammad. So, let’s not delude ourselves.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hmm. I don’t know about that, Genghis, but in any case, I think it’s a moot point. I think our friend Tokoya assumed that because I refused to condemn Islam, I must be a Muslim myself, hence his (probably sarcastic) use of the phrase “your peaceful religion.”
I had to chuckle at that, because my religion is not terribly peaceful.[/quote]
Yeah, maybe he could speak for himself. That was my take on it. I could be wrong.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Some really weird stretches here to dismiss the disproportionate threat of Islamic Jihad. [/quote]
What do you mean by “disproportionate”?
[quote]red bull wrote:
Surely, if you dish it out, you’ve got to be able to take it in return…?
[/quote]
I agree. If someone constantly bashes America and Americans they should likewise be able to take it in return.