THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: FlameOfCallandor on June 13, 2007, 12:25:44 PM
-
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632089,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632089,00.html)
Hamas and Fatah may have passed the point of no return: The unprecedented viciousness of the renewed fighting between the rival Palestinian factions in Gaza makes any new cease-fire difficult to envisage; this time, it may be a fight to the death.
Since the new clashes erupted on Sunday, gangs have tossed their enemies alive off 15-story buildings, shot down one another's children, and burst into hospitals to finish off wounded foes lying helplessly in bed. The revenge motive alone could now be enough to sustain the civil war.
These arent just thug gangs, these are two rival political groups. Can you imagine if democrats and republicans were killing each other's kids?
-
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632089,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632089,00.html)
Hamas and Fatah may have passed the point of no return: The unprecedented viciousness of the renewed fighting between the rival Palestinian factions in Gaza makes any new cease-fire difficult to envisage; this time, it may be a fight to the death.
Since the new clashes erupted on Sunday, gangs have tossed their enemies alive off 15-story buildings, shot down one another's children, and burst into hospitals to finish off wounded foes lying helplessly in bed. The revenge motive alone could now be enough to sustain the civil war.
These arent just thug gangs, these are two rival political groups. Can you imagine if democrats and republicans were killing each other's kids?
Islam is a vile religion, like all Abrahamic religions, but this seems to be all about power and politics.
-
you're judging islam based on palestinians who have been fighting for 40 years?
ban please.
-
yeah, this isn't islam, this is politics -- land rights and family feuds. islam is what they get around to observing when they're done killing each other, or, like christians, need to justify their barbarism retroactively.
-
I see the OP bookmarked Little Green Footballs...
-
reading lgf should merit a ban, actually. at least freepers are hilariously insane. lgf devotees are a seething, self-loathing brand of reactionary hate.
-
reading lgf should merit a ban, actually. at least freepers are hilariously insane. lgf devotees are a seething, self-loathing brand of reactionary hate.
Yeah, I can't get over how they sarcastically call Islam the "religion of peace", when Catholic extremists bombing abortion clinics are just as bad. Pot, meet kettle.
-
reading lgf should merit a ban, actually. at least freepers are hilariously insane. lgf devotees are a seething, self-loathing brand of reactionary hate.
Yeah, I can't get over how they sarcastically call Islam the "religion of peace", when Catholic extremists bombing abortion clinics are just as bad. Pot, meet kettle.
Is FoC a Catholic?
And anyway, how often do Catholics bomb abortion clinics? I mean really!
-
I got it from digg.com
I'm not catholic.
-
Oops! Imagine that, a FoC thread backfiring!
Honestly guys, lepering him is the right move. He can contact someone else to make a thread for him whenever he wants to post his movie junk, and it would save us shit like this and his lack of sex drive fiasco from the other day.
-
Oops! Imagine that, a FoC thread backfiring!
Honestly guys, lepering him is the right move. He can contact someone else to make a thread for him whenever he wants to post his movie junk, and it would save us shit like this and his lack of sex drive fiasco from the other day.
How did this thread backfire on my. Drinky said I posted on little green footballs which isnt true and the another post agrees with me.
-
i didn't say you posted there. i said you read it, and i'd be frankly surprised if you didn't, given the ignorance expressed in your political opinions.
-
I never eve heard of the website. I got it from Digg.com
It is a TIME article many people read TIME.
-
FoC has gone on record on thinking Islam is a violent religion and is biased against the whole religion. Why argue this point? He won't budge.
-
FoC has gone on record on thinking Islam is a violent religion and is biased against the whole religion. Why argue this point? He won't budge.
The Qur'an and the Hadith have plenty of violent passages, as does the Bible, and many people don't simply gloss over these passages.
-
foc has also gone on record as a total clueless tardwit in general. at this point in his whimpering internet career, it's better to just humiliate him rather than correct him.
-
there isn't any point. I only posted to ask for him to be banned.
malek, you make a good point but both of those groups are just as fucked up. they want power. this doesn't have anything to do with religion. pretty much no violent act in the israel/palestine region does. why not ban/leper FOC?
-
there isn't any point. I only posted to ask for him to be banned.
malek, you make a good point but both of those groups are just as fucked up. they want power. this doesn't have anything to do with religion. pretty much no violent act in the israel/palestine region does. why not ban/leper FOC?
Why would I be banned? People here make broad generalizations about christianity all the time and its usually about something nowhere near as serious as the killing babies.
-
don't worry; we take am nintenho about as seriously as we take you.
-
malek, you make a good point but both of those groups are just as fucked up. they want power. this doesn't have anything to do with religion.
I know, and that's what I wrote earlier when I was the first to reply to this thread. My response to Cheebs had nothing o do with the Palestinian news story.
-
well I assume foc has somewhere he's trying to go connecting religion and...this. somehow.
-
You dumb fuck, FoC. You even said it yourself:
These arent just thug gangs, these are two rival political groups. Can you imagine if democrats and republicans were killing each other's kids?
Religion wha?
-
I dont get your point TVC. Most Republicans and Democrats would consider themselves christian. These political factions in the middle east are muslim. We dont kill each others children for power they do.
I'm not saying that every Muslim is violent but there is a common thread with all the violence.
-
you think two politically motivated terrorist groups in palestine have anything to do with religion?
I really can't make that sound less dumb.
-
It's about politics more than it is about religion. Most republicans and democrats consider themselves Christian? Does that mean that all political conflicts in the US are a matter of religion?
The common thread to the violence in the middle east would likely be thousands and thousands of years of political turmoil partnered with the factionalization structures, like tribes and what not, that the people there have used to group themselves for just as long. It's always been cutthroat there.
-
Then how come Muslim violence isn't limited to just the Middle East? Indonesia, Spain, New York and Great Britain all say hello.
The conflict is about politics, but these two factions are doing something that seems to be common amongst their religion.
Like I have said before years of political turmoil does not make it all right to kill babies and innocent people.
-
the common thread is ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, LAND RIGHTS, CLASS WARFARE, and FAMILY STRUGGLES. take away the islam and they'd still be killing each other, only with a different justification.
-
Then how come Muslim violence isn't limited to just the Middle East? Indonesia, Spain, New York and Great Britain all say hello.
The conflict is about politics, but these two factions are doing something that seems to be common amongst their religion.
Like I have said before years of political turmoil does not make it all right to kill babies and innocent people.
common amongst their religion.
common amongst their religion.
common amongst their religion.
common amongst their religion.
Uh, yesh, FoC.
Anyway, the hard core indoctrinated are tools to highly politicized religious leaders. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Muslims generally take their religion very seriously, and there are people that will take advantage of that.
Not that I don't have some very basic problems with Islam, but saying HURR HURR VIOLENCE IS COMMON AMONGST THEM, really isn't one of them. That's really almost like saying Americans have a tendency towards violence.
-
I think foc is too dumb to understand the basic difference between having a religion that explains why to worship a god and being born into a race in the real fucking world.
-
I think foc is too dumb to understand the basic difference between having a religion that explains why to worship a god and being born into a race in the real fucking world.
What the hell does that eve mean.
-
Anyway, the hard core indoctrinated are tools to highly politicized religious leaders. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Muslims generally take their religion very seriously, and there are people that will take advantage of that.
Not that I don't have some very basic problems with Islam, but saying HURR HURR VIOLENCE IS COMMON AMONGST THEM, really isn't one of them. That's really almost like saying Americans have a tendency towards violence.
I think you bring up some good points. The problem is I dont see any Muslim leaders preachinf for peace or non violence. It just doesnt happen.
-
the incredible racism in this thread is giving me a rash
-
then you haven't read shit, foc, if you don't think there are vocal moderate voices in the larger islamic community, and you're more deliberately ignorant than previously assumed. that's like tarring all christians with the values of the SBC. google Tariq Ramadan and be enlightened, yokel.
-
Anyway, the hard core indoctrinated are tools to highly politicized religious leaders. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Muslims generally take their religion very seriously, and there are people that will take advantage of that.
Not that I don't have some very basic problems with Islam, but saying HURR HURR VIOLENCE IS COMMON AMONGST THEM, really isn't one of them. That's really almost like saying Americans have a tendency towards violence.
I think you bring up some good points. The problem is I dont see any Muslim leaders preachinf for peace or non violence. It just doesnt happen.
Like that's any different than any other field? Here in the US we only hear about the teenagers shooting up schools, not the ones delivering Meals on Wheels.
The assertation that most Muslims are violent is ridiculous, tantamount to saying that all US citizens are violent due to the number of civilians killed in Iraq.
-
Dude, Christians don't resort to political violence as much as Muslims, because Christians are more likely to live in first world countries with relatively stable democratic institutions. And no, they didn't get those institutions because of their religion.
Even if some leaders use religious rhetoric in their appeals for social justice (MLK etc.), progress has come from the secular political process, not any new revelations from God or rediscovered holy texts. Giving Christianity credit for social change doesn't pass the giggle test.
The problem is I dont see any Muslim leaders preachinf for peace or non violence. It just doesnt happen.
y halo thar confirmation bias
-
Another disgusting attack on Islam by our very own FoC. Dude I think you're a fun guy, but this ignorance has formed an undeniable pattern.
Not all Muslims are violent sadists; I'm willing to bet you've never had a discussion with a Muslim. Jihad and racial violence are not apart of Islam's five pillars of faith, and the Koran makes it pretty clear than suicide is an instance ticket to hell; what does that say about suicide bombers hm?
This issue of land isn't going to be definitively settled anytime soon; as a Christian I have my own views on how it will be settled, and I will leave that up to the "landlord" of that particular land. Until then of course I'd like to see the most peaceful negotionation settled on by both parties.
Dude, Christians don't resort to political violence as much as Muslims, because Christians are more likely to live in first world countries with relatively stable democratic institutions. And no, they didn't get those institutions because of their religion.
To be fair, Christians in oppressive countries like China don't resort to violence either. Still they are certainly not free of violent behavior, as the Crusades and Inquisitions show.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
-
Doesn't happen? Or you don't hear about it? Because those are two fundamentally different things FoC.
Show me some articles. I'm open to change my mind.
-
Doesn't happen? Or you don't hear about it? Because those are two fundamentally different things FoC.
Show me some articles. I'm open to change my mind.
Drinky gave you a name.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
Hm, that's not what underground missionaries have told me throughout the years...
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan)
Ramadan works primarily on Islamic theology and the position of Muslims in Europe. In general he believes in constantly reinterpreting the Qur'an in order to correctly understand Islamic philosophy. He also emphasises the difference between religion and culture, which he believes are too often confused. Relatedly, he thinks that citizenship and religion are two separate concepts which should not be mixed. He claims that there is no conflict between being a Muslim and a European at the same time; a Muslim must accept the laws of his country, except in rare circumstances.
He emphasizes a Muslim's responsibility to his community, whether it be Islamic or not. He criticizes the 'us vs. them' mentality that some Muslims advocate against the West. He also advocates having Muslim scholars in the West who are versed in Western mores, and not relying on religious studies that come only from the Islamic world. He wants more Islamic philosophy written in European languages. He thinks that European Muslims' reliance on an "external" Islam, leaves them feeling inadequate and impure, which is one of the main causes of alienation from European culture.
He has condemned suicide bombing and violence as a tactic.[14] Perhaps more importantly, he believes that terrorism is never justifiable, even though it is sometimes understandable.
Im impressed. I wish there were more people like him.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
Hm, that's not what underground missionaries have told me throughout the years...
It's not as free as the US, of course. Also, to be religious means you give up all or most of your rights to be politically active, which is an idea that I think requires some legit examination. True separation of Church and State. Maybe their implementation is a bit extreme, but a similar measure would be necessary to truly keep religion from making politics all fucked up.
Im impressed. I wish there were more people like him.
... I'm not even responding to you anymore.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
Hm, that's not what underground missionaries have told me throughout the years...
you must be a yokal, not as well educated as drinky and TVC. Where do you get off? huh? huh?
-
the Koran makes it pretty clear than suicide is an instance ticket to hell; what does that say about suicide bombers hm?
The Koran may vaguely prohibit suicide, 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:49). However the Koran has many more verses which extol martyrdom. For example, 'Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him'(4:74).
So the 'suicide bomber' would agree with you, that suicide is wrong, but dying for God is an entirely different matter. I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
They jail pastors quite frequently actually.
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
They jail pastors quite frequently actually.
Would these pastors be talking shit about the government?
-
China isn't as anti-religion as you (or most Americans) think it is, PD. They backed down on stifling religion after Mao and the Cultural Revolution were out of the picture.
Hm, that's not what underground missionaries have told me throughout the years...
gee, and "underground missionaries" don't have a serious agenda?
-
the Koran makes it pretty clear than suicide is an instance ticket to hell; what does that say about suicide bombers hm?
The Koran may vaguely prohibit suicide, 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:49). However the Koran has many more verses which extol martyrdom. For example, 'Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him'(4:74).
So the 'suicide bomber' would agree with you, that suicide is wrong, but dying for God is an entirely different matter. I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
The Koran also prohibits the shedding of innocent blood so your argument is void.
I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
That's a pretty weak comeback, especially from you :lol
-
the Koran makes it pretty clear than suicide is an instance ticket to hell; what does that say about suicide bombers hm?
The Koran may vaguely prohibit suicide, 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:49). However the Koran has many more verses which extol martyrdom. For example, 'Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him'(4:74).
So the 'suicide bomber' would agree with you, that suicide is wrong, but dying for God is an entirely different matter. I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
The Koran also prohibits the shedding of innocent blood so your argument is void.
I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
That's a pretty weak comeback, especially from you :lol
And who decides who is innocent? The fundamentalist can point to many passages that justify the killing of 'innocents'. "No we don't kill innocents, we kill unbelievers and oppressors."
-
the Koran makes it pretty clear than suicide is an instance ticket to hell; what does that say about suicide bombers hm?
The Koran may vaguely prohibit suicide, 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:49). However the Koran has many more verses which extol martyrdom. For example, 'Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him'(4:74).
So the 'suicide bomber' would agree with you, that suicide is wrong, but dying for God is an entirely different matter. I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
The Koran also prohibits the shedding of innocent blood so your argument is void.
I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
That's a pretty weak comeback, especially from you :lol
And who decides who is innocent? The fundamentalist can point to many passages that justify the killing of 'innocents'. "No we don't kill innocents, we kill unbelievers and oppressors."
A fundamentalist can justify nearly anything using the bible or Koran; that doesn't make it right, or accurate. In most cases fundamentalists are dead wrong, whether they be Calvinists or hardline Wahabists. At the end of the day it's pretty clear that the Koran not only forbids suicide but also forbids the killing of innocents - like say slamming a plane into a building. The very practice is in strict violation of the five pillars of faith
-
A fundamentalist can justify nearly anything using the bible or Koran; that doesn't make it right, or accurate.
As a Christian, wouldn't treating the Koran and hadith as holy be wrong and inaccurate in the first place?
-
A fundamentalist can justify nearly anything using the bible or Koran; that doesn't make it right, or accurate.
As a Christian, wouldn't treating the Koran and hadith as holy be wrong and inaccurate in the first place?
Where did I treat the Koran as holy? I have nothing but respect for all religions, and when I see one getting attacked based on dishonest or in-correct information I don't hesitate to defend it. In some ways I see it as a civil rights issue, and an attack on one religion effects me whether I'm a member of it or not.
-
A fundamentalist can justify nearly anything using the bible or Koran; that doesn't make it right, or accurate. In most cases fundamentalists are dead wrong, whether they be Calvinists or hardline Wahabists. At the end of the day it's pretty clear that the Koran not only forbids suicide but also forbids the killing of innocents - like say slamming a plane into a building. The very practice is in strict violation of the five pillars of faith
A fundamentalist reading is more honest than a faux-secular-humanist reading. The holy books of the Abrahamic religions are filled with vile garbage and some people choose not to ignore the vile. If one thinks these books are the word of God, or inspired word of God, then how can you actually ignore to follow some of these words?
And I can not believe you went back to the Islam prohibits suicide argument. Is 'Do not destroy yourselves' very definitive ? Especially with all the verses that support martyrdom? It seems pretty clear that the prohibition against suicide has plenty of asterisks.
AGAIN, innocent according to whom? The oppressors and aggressors?
Do you know what the Five Pillars are? How does killing infidels directly contradict any of the duties?
A fundamentalist can justify nearly anything using the bible or Koran; that doesn't make it right, or accurate.
As a Christian, wouldn't treating the Koran and hadith as holy be wrong and inaccurate in the first place?
Where did I treat the Koran as holy? I have nothing but respect for all religions, and when I see one getting attacked based on dishonest or in-correct information I don't hesitate to defend it. In some ways I see it as a civil rights issue, and an attack on one religion effects me whether I'm a member of it or not.
So a verbal critique of a religion is now a civil rights violation?
-
faux-secular-humanist reading
These fucking people piss me off more than anyone.
-
And I can not believe you went back to the Islam prohibits suicide argument. Is 'Do not destroy yourselves' very definitive ? Especially with all the verses that support martyrdom? It seems pretty clear that the prohibition against suicide has plenty of asterisks.
AGAIN, innocent according to whom? The oppressors and aggressors?
The Prophet said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire." Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." Sahih Bukhari 2:445
Where's the asterisk in that?
So a verbal critique of a religion is now a civil rights violation?
It's not a critique when it contains either dishonest or untrue information, such as FoC's comments. If people have a problem with religion fine; I know I'm not going to change your mind. My problem simply occurs when people use that distaste for religion to propogate lies. The biggest lie going in the anti-Islam movement is that it is a violent religion. It's not, and its pillars of faith demonstrate that.
-
And I can not believe you went back to the Islam prohibits suicide argument. Is 'Do not destroy yourselves' very definitive ? Especially with all the verses that support martyrdom? It seems pretty clear that the prohibition against suicide has plenty of asterisks.
AGAIN, innocent according to whom? The oppressors and aggressors?
The Prophet said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire." Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." Sahih Bukhari 2:445
Where's the asterisk in that?
That's from the Hadith, not from the Koran.
And you are missing the point. The mujahidins, or whoever, do not believe they are committing suicide like some little emo boys from California. NO, they are performing an act of martyrdom, dying in a Jihad for Allah. They won't get punished by God for their actions, far from it. THEY WILL GET REWARDED. So whether Islam prohibits suicide is irrelevant since, in their eyes, they are not committing suicide.
-
Where did I treat the Koran as holy? I have nothing but respect for all religions, and when I see one getting attacked based on dishonest or in-correct information I don't hesitate to defend it. In some ways I see it as a civil rights issue, and an attack on one religion effects me whether I'm a member of it or not.
My point is that, by saying that certain interpretations of the Koran are wrong/inaccurate, there must be an interpretation that is right/accurate.
Now, it's clear to see why you'd believe that about the Bible. Because you believe in God, and that the Bible is based on revelations from God. So obviously God was intending to get a certain message through, and that message is the correct interpretation.
However, you don't think the Koran is holy. God did not dictate it. It is the product of humans, falsely claiming it to be from God. In which case, why would there not be room for interpretation, especially considering all the disagreements throughout history?
On what basis does one assume that there is One True Reading of the Koran?
-
On what basis does one assume that there is One True Reading of the Koran?
Clearly, the reading that is most sympathetic to organized religion is the One True Reading.
-
And I can not believe you went back to the Islam prohibits suicide argument. Is 'Do not destroy yourselves' very definitive ? Especially with all the verses that support martyrdom? It seems pretty clear that the prohibition against suicide has plenty of asterisks.
AGAIN, innocent according to whom? The oppressors and aggressors?
The Prophet said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire." Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." Sahih Bukhari 2:445
Where's the asterisk in that?
That's from the Hadith, not from the Koran.
And you are missing the point. The mujahidins, or whoever, do not believe they are committing suicide like some little emo boys from California. NO, they are performing an act of martyrdom, dying in a Jihad for Allah. They won't get punished by God for their actions, far from it. THEY WILL GET REWARDED. So whether Islam prohibits suicide is irrelevant since, in their eyes, they are not committing suicide.
"Do not kill yourselves, for Allah is compassionate towards you. Whoever does so, in transgression and wrongfully, We shall roast in a fire, and that is an easy matter for Allah." (an-Nisaa 4:29-30)
Once again how does the actions of a cult prove what they are doing is right (in accordance with Islam)? You still haven't made the connection, and the verse sums it up. So...what's your point?
I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem as if we can start the "tribulation clock" and bring about the rapture. I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem like Christians today are to give 10% of their wealth to the church. I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem like people are either predisposed for salvation or damnation and there's nothing they can do...that doesn't make it accurate. Every religion suffers from the flaws of man, interpeting things.
My point is that, by saying that certain interpretations of the Koran are wrong/inaccurate, there must be an interpretation that is right/accurate.
Now, it's clear to see why you'd believe that about the Bible. Because you believe in God, and that the Bible is based on revelations from God. So obviously God was intending to get a certain message through, and that message is the correct interpretation.
However, you don't think the Koran is holy. God did not dictate it. It is the product of humans, falsely claiming it to be from God. In which case, why would there not be room for interpretation, especially considering all the disagreements throughout history?
On what basis does one assume that there is One True Reading of the Koran?
Interesting point. I don't believe the Koran is holy or the word of god, and on the opposite side of the spectrum Muslims feel the same way about the Bible. That being said, the Koran was written with a distint message. According to Muslims it is God's words, as written down by Mohammed. I look at it from that perspective when I read the Koran and talk to my Muslim friends. The Bible for instance makes it pretty clear that Jesus is the son of God. Even from an outside view it would be nigh impossible to deny that; what I am saying is that while you may not believe the Bible at all, you would be hard pressed to read it and come to the conclusion that it doesn't teach that Jesus is the son of God.
Suicide in Islam is faced with of a definitive answer, obviously. Despite that, we must first ask what does the text actually say. There are many verses in the Koran which not only preach against suicide but also the spilling of innocent blood. The Koran also makes it clear that the faith is to be defended when threatened; if one's ability to serve Allah is taken away, it must be taken back. You'd be hard pressed to find any respected Islamic scholars who feel the US deserved 911 based on that interpetation. The Koran teaches that those responsible for that breach are to be attacked; not the innocent
Both Islam and Christianity have certain articles of faith which aren't really open to interpetation. With Islam - Allah is god, Mohammed is his prophet, etc. With Christianity - Sola Scriptura, the death burial and ressurection of Christ, substitutionary atonement , etc. There are of course sects of Christianity that disagree with some of these articles. Calvinists for instance don't honestly believe in substitutionary atonement; I would label them as a cult of Christianity, and I consider it to be as blaphemous as you can get. And after being trapped in a car with one during a 4 hour trip to Chicago I'm not too fond of them, although I would still disagree peacefully.
-
"Do not kill yourselves, for Allah is compassionate towards you. Whoever does so, in transgression and wrongfully, We shall roast in a fire, and that is an easy matter for Allah." (an-Nisaa 4:29-30)
Once again how does the actions of a cult prove what they are doing is right (in accordance with Islam)? You still haven't made the connection, and the verse sums it up. So...what's your point?
I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem as if we can start the "tribulation clock" and bring about the rapture. I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem like Christians today are to give 10% of their wealth to the church. I can pluck a verse out the Bible and make it seem like people are either predisposed for salvation or damnation and there's nothing they can do...that doesn't make it accurate. Every religion suffers from the flaws of man, interpeting things.
Thanks for showing us that the Hadith forbids suicide, yet again.
Does Islam forbid the taking of one's life? Clearly, according to the Hadith, yes. But according to both the Koran and the Hadith it is okay to take one's life for a greater cause. So the following belief by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi is not shocking:
"Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death.
In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: 'Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise.'
"While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah...
-
Hey, I'm catholic and I don't bomb abortion clinics.
YOUR WORLD HAS JUST BEEN ROCKED!
-
The Koran may vaguely prohibit suicide, 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:49). However the Koran has many
more verses which extol martyrdom. For example, 'Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him'(4:74).
So the 'suicide bomber' would agree with you, that suicide is wrong, but dying for God is an entirely different matter. I guess, being a Christian, you are an expert at picking and choosing the passages that fit your argument.
it says that you can die in the name of god. that doesn't mean suicide. that's supposed to justify when somebody does something knowing they're going to die since they refuse to do anything unislamic (some "propaganda" I saw showed people being killed if they didn't look for salvation in idols). I didn't read much of the koran but in the beginning it says you can't kill, force, or attack anybody to make them change their religion.
-
And I can not believe you went back to the Islam prohibits suicide argument. Is 'Do not destroy yourselves' very definitive ? Especially with all the verses that support martyrdom? It seems pretty clear that the prohibition against suicide has plenty of asterisks.
AGAIN, innocent according to whom? The oppressors and aggressors?
The Prophet said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire." Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." Sahih Bukhari 2:445
Where's the asterisk in that?
That's from the Hadith, not from the Koran.
And you are missing the point. The mujahidins, or whoever, do not believe they are committing suicide like some little emo boys from California. NO, they are performing an act of martyrdom, dying in a Jihad for Allah. They won't get punished by God for their actions, far from it. THEY WILL GET REWARDED. So whether Islam prohibits suicide is irrelevant since, in their eyes, they are not committing suicide.
"Do not kill yourselves, for Allah is compassionate towards you. Whoever does so, in transgression and wrongfully, We shall roast in a fire, and that is an easy matter for Allah." (an-Nisaa 4:29-30)
Define "in transgression and wrongfully."
-
This thread gives me a headache.
-
An-Nisa is apart of the Koran Malek. You're grasping at straws.
About suicide, Quran is very clear: "Do not kill yourselves as God has been to you very merciful" (4:29). Taking away the life should be the domain of the One who lives life. True, there is Pain and suffering at the terminal end of an illness, but we believe there is reward from God for those who patiently persevere in suffering (Quran 39:10 and 31:17).
http://www.islam-usa.com/e2.html
it says that you can die in the name of god. that doesn't mean suicide. that's supposed to justify when somebody does something knowing they're going to die since they refuse to do anything unislamic (some "propaganda" I saw showed people being killed if they didn't look for salvation in idols). I didn't read much of the koran but in the beginning it says you can't kill, force, or attack anybody to make them change their religion.
Exactly.
With respect to the quote you posted Malek, it once again fails to take into account innocent blood such as women and children. Which is interesting because if I remember correctly, in the Bible God tells the Israelites to kill all the Philestines, women and children included.
-
Me: They (terrorists) don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
Me: They don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
Me: They don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
Me: They don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
Me: They don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
Me: They don't see it as suicide
PD: Suicide is forbidden
-
Indeed.
Not only is it forbidden, but the practice of murdering women and children is as well. So you tell me how walking into a coffe shop and blowing yourself up is justified.
-
Indeed.
Not only is it forbidden, but the practice of murdering women and children is as well. So you tell me how walking into a coffe shop and blowing yourself up is justified.
Maybe they see it as a sacrifice? They sacrifice themselves for their land and people. That's suicide but then it's not.
-
Indeed.
Not only is it forbidden, but the practice of murdering women and children is as well. So you tell me how walking into a coffe shop and blowing yourself up is justified.
Maybe they see it as a sacrifice? They sacrifice themselves for their land and people. That's suicide but then it's not.
But does that justify it? That is the question. TD Jakes doesn't see himself as a fraud either; that doesn't make him "right".
If suicide is essentially outlawwed by the Koran, how could anyone argue that suicide bombing is justified? Logically it makes no sense.
-
On suicide: I think there's definitely a difference between the suicide that's prohibited in holy texts (traditional Goodbye Cruel World suicide), and suicide bombings, which are essentially acts of homicide or war. In the second case, sacrificing one's own life is necessary, but incidental to the purpose of the act. Sacrificing one's life to accomplish something is generally thought of as different from suicide.
The larger (meta-)issue is of nonbelievers giving themselves the authority to decide what is really part of a religion.
When someone says "The terrorists aren't really Muslims," 99 times out of 100 they're trying to rhetorically separate the Terrorists from the Muslims, as a way of arguing against racist or culture-war reactions to terrorist acts.
PD's worried about racism and is generally defensive about organized religion in general. Yes, it's true that lies about a religious group can be tools in oppressing that group, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion) but this is different.
The fact is, unless you personally believe the word of Allah, and that there is one true interpretation of it, then Islam is whatever practicing Muslims make of it, just like any religion is defined by the actual practice. Some believe this, some believe that, etc. Sticking your nose in to tell one group that they're wrong is a bit presumptuous, and futile to boot.
The use of homicide/suicide bombings is open to interpretation in Islam. How do we know? Because different Muslims interpret it differently. QED.
-
But does that justify it? That is the question. TD Jakes doesn't see himself as a fraud either; that doesn't make him "right".
If suicide is essentially outlawwed by the Koran, how could anyone argue that suicide bombing is justified? Logically it makes no sense.
When the Spartans fought against the Persian army with only 300 men, they were basically marching into their deaths. This could essentially be seen as suicide since they knew they were going to die. Of course, the men were also sacrificing themselves for their people and city, which was a very justifiable action. They were standing up for what they believed in to honor their way of life and people.
If a soldier were to charge into a group of enemy soldiers with an armed grenade, this would be justifiable. The soldier chooses to kill a large amount of the enemy in the name of his/her nation while giving his own life. The same thing could be said for suicide bombing, of course the enemy consists of civilians. I'm not sure what beliefs you would have to have to consider civilians the enemy. Oh well. I tried here.
-
this is the worst thread ever.
-
this is the worst thread ever.
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3305/iconcheckww6.gif)
-
this is the worst thread ever.
OH GOD WHY DID I TRY TO BE PHILOSOPHER I AM FAILURE!
-
this is the worst thread ever.
OH GOD WHY DID I TRY TO BE PHILOSOPHER I AM FAILURE!
because casino royale sucks :'(
you were too busy to watch CoM with me last night :'(
Instead I watched Dead Silence alone. :'(
-
because casino royale sucks :'(
you were too busy to watch CoM with me last night :'(
Instead I watched Dead Silence alone. :'(
I sowwy. We'll watch it tonight!
-
On suicide: I think there's definitely a difference between the suicide that's prohibited in holy texts (traditional Goodbye Cruel World suicide), and suicide bombings, which are essentially acts of homicide or war. In the second case, sacrificing one's own life is necessary, but incidental to the purpose of the act. Sacrificing one's life to accomplish something is generally thought of as different from suicide.
The larger (meta-)issue is of nonbelievers giving themselves the authority to decide what is really part of a religion.
When someone says "The terrorists aren't really Muslims," 99 times out of 100 they're trying to rhetorically separate the Terrorists from the Muslims, as a way of arguing against racist or culture-war reactions to terrorist acts.
PD's worried about racism and is generally defensive about organized religion in general. Yes, it's true that lies about a religious group can be tools in oppressing that group, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion) but this is different.
The fact is, unless you personally believe the word of Allah, and that there is one true interpretation of it, then Islam is whatever practicing Muslims make of it, just like any religion is defined by the actual practice. Some believe this, some believe that, etc. Sticking your nose in to tell one group that they're wrong is a bit presumptuous, and futile to boot.
The use of homicide/suicide bombings is open to interpretation in Islam. How do we know? Because different Muslims interpret it differently. QED.
I disagree. Is substitutionary atonement open to interpretation in Christianity because a small cult disagrees with it?
A more middle of the road question: would you say the practice of killing innocents with suicide bombings is sanctioned by Islam? Suicide bombings through the last few years have often been aimed at bystanders, and according to the Koran the killing of innocents is not permitted...
I wouldn't say I'm defensive of organized religion per se. More often than not I find myself agreeing with the idea that there is nothing wrong with religion, but the particular organization of it (and man's interpetation) is usually the problem. I'm definitely a supporter of religion in general and feel that it's something that does a lot of good. You can look through history and find many instances of instutitions of religion such as the Vatican doing terrible things and not making the world a better place.
-
It's open to interpretation if someone is able to interpret it multiple ways. It ceases to be open to interpretation only on the level of personal belief. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
From a perspective that doesn't believe there's truth in the Bible (for example) it's not hard to have that opinion. But there are things in the Bible that aren't open to interpetation at all, and Muslims feel the same way about their religion as well.
-
WTF are you babbling about Spartan for. They were fighting other combatants. You could call it suicide in that they were doomed but they killed other soldiers. This is completely different than the despicable act of committing suicide to kill innocent people.
-
It's open to interpretation if someone is able to interpret it multiple ways. It ceases to be open to interpretation only on the level of personal belief. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
From a perspective that doesn't believe there's truth in the Bible (for example) it's not hard to have that opinion. But there are things in the Bible that aren't open to interpretation at all, and Muslims feel the same way about their religion as well.
I'll tell you right now something that is not open for interpretation. Killing innocent people is wrong. I dont give a shit if some prophets told you it was ok. You just dont do that shit.
-
I've found that muslims are a lot more likely to believe in suicide bombings than evolution and a lot of them believe in evolution.
-
GTFO THIS CHRISTIAN COUNTRY :violin
-
I disagree. Is substitutionary atonement open to interpretation in Christianity because a small cult disagrees with it?
Aha.
In a case like that, I'd say "Almost all of Group A believes in X, except for Group B, which considers itself part of Group A, although Group C within Group A considers them to be apostates."
Remember, as a nonbeliever, I view religions as belief systems. There is no True Word Of God against which to measure someone's beliefs, and therefor there is no Objectively True Christianity, or Objectively True Islam. As human creations, they're defined by humans.
Yes, they're tied to holy texts. Yes, the texts are generally static. Some parts seem pretty clear to an outsider, and some beliefs are fairly consistent throughout different groups/locations/times within a religion.
But trying to sort out a single, objectively defined philosophy from a holy text? If people who actually believe it's the word of God can't do it, I'm not going to pretend I can. Plus, I don't believe it's true anyway, which makes the task doubly moot.
If significant numbers of people who consider themselves to be part of the same religion disagree on an issue, then BY DEFINITION that issue doesn't disqualify someone from being a "real" Christian/Muslim/whatever. It is what they say it is. And if they disagree, then it's multiple things.
If you want to start making fatwas, it's a short ride until you have to decide whether the Sunnis or the Shiites aren't "real Muslims."
As for the Koran sanctioning the "killing of innocents," I have no idea. I haven't read it, and I'm not planning to. I would suspect the main source of intra-Islam disagreement is in the definition of "innocents."