Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

"Your behavior when you post here is that of a complete jerk--"

You should talk. While I admire your intellect and I agree with your posts, you've had your head buried in books for so long that you never learned a basic social skill: how to discuss things politely. Every time someone won't kow tow to your "superior" academic skills you begin with the personal insults. Now I order you to go to the apologies thread and apologise to Foxfyre. :wink:

0 Replies

Ehm could it be harmful for me when I'm kind of agreeing with panzade Confused

0 Replies

Be afraid...be very afraid!

0 Replies

0 Replies

Nonsense, Panzade--that reaction on my part is reserved for those, and Fox is the major offender in the absense of Scrat, who create strawmen from what i've written. You believe what you like, it won't change the deep and abiding contempt i entertain for Fox and all of her self-serving nonsense.

0 Replies

<blot>

One more try.

Christianity has extremists.

Islam has extremists.

Can either group actually find examples from the life or words of Mohammad or Christ, which support their violence--therefore rightfully claiming the 'religious compulsion' to commit these crimes ?

If a Buddhist massacres his parents, and says he did it in the name of Buddha, will he find passages or an example in Gautama's post-awareness life that condones his actions--?

A quote--
You, however, have been going through some hilarious contortions in your feeble attempt to assert that one can demonstrate that islamic teaching is directly responsible for an unusual degree of homicidal fanaticism among muslims.
My response--
If it's so feeble, why have YOU contorted so, instead of swiping this issue down. Surely that would have been much more time effective. Islamic teaching IS directly responsible for an unusual degree of homocidal fanaticism among Muslims. That is true. The teachings DO mold the followers OF ALL RELIGIONS. Why is Islam different? Why not look at what Mohammad wrote and did, and what today's Muslims say about it?
A quote--
By trying to make the simple-minded case that one can explain this all by comparing the alleged teachings of the alleged "Jesus" to the alleged teaching of Mohammed, you are indeed trying to pedal a "my religion is superior" bill of goods.
My response---
Nope, trying to give evidence that Mohammad's teachings and example constitute a religious compulsion of the followers to do as he did and said to do. And that the focal figure in Christianity rejected violence--and offers Christian followers no excuse, based on their religion, to commit violence.

Another quote--
I am not putting down christianity and defending islam, and your asserting as much does not make it true. What i am pointing out is two things: that both historically and contemporarily, christians have shown as much blood-lust in the name of religion as have muslims, and that assertions about a comparison of the two doctrines is a red herring which has the added property of being a assertion of doctrinal superiority.

Wrong. I'm not claiming or even thinking of 'superiority'. I am claiming Mohammad wrote that murder was OK in certain circumstances, and Jesus did not. I'm claiming that Mohammad wrote that he killed hundreds of Jews, and Jesus did not. I'm claiming that Mohammad broke rules he made for others, Jesus did not. I am claiming that Mohammad's followers get their rules and examples of behavior from Mohammad, and this leads to their increased violence in the world.
Quote--
The entire point of this thread is the behavior of muslims, not the doctrines of Mohammed.
Response---
The doctrines of Mohammad have a direct cause in the behavior of Muslims. Even they would tell you that.

----
I also find it confounding that some give Christ such a tiny footnote in the meaning of Christianity. Christianity was born with Christ. There was no Christianity before Him.

Also, would like to see the quotes or example of Christ, which Eric Rudolph or abortion clinic bombers can point to and claim their behavior as a religious compulsion...

0 Replies

You seem to miss the point altogether, once again, Sofia. Precisely because the fanatic is motivated by their personal hatreds and predilections, references to scripture are meaningless in explaining what people such as Eric Rudolph do. You are making my point for me--the murderous fanatic is not motivated by religious doctrine, but simply uses it as an excuse, and is usually obliged to use a perversion thereof.

0 Replies

Was agreeing with someone about something, and decided to skip it. It was confusing...
-----

Anyway, Setanta you are finally getting close to my point.

You said fanatics CAN'T find scriptural excuses to commit violence.

You are mistaken. Mohammad sprinkled several calls to murder for Muslims, and plenty of rape, pedophilia... A Muslim can EASILY find Mohammad's direction to kill non-Muslims, Jews and any Muslim, who rejects the faith. This is a major reason you'll never hear a Muslim denouncing Mohammad. Look at Salmon Rushdie...

I state that directly due to Mohammad's life and writings--Muslims feel compelled and condoned in the commission of several crimes--and hatred of non-Muslims.

0 Replies

What's the insult, Sofia? Saying that you miss the point completely? How is anyone to disagree with you if they don't point out where they feel you are wrong. To insult you would to call you stupid. I haven't done so, i've simply said you miss the point. Now, telling Fox i think she acts like a jerk was an insult, and an intentional one. I get quickly sick and tired of the ludicrous strawmen she creates from what i write. I have tried to engage you in debate, and when what you write seems wrong to me i point it out, and state why i think it is wrong.

That's no insult.

0 Replies

(I was agreeing that you get over into personal territory rather quickly, and was agreeing with Panzade's post 88394, but then didn't want to pile on you, so edited.

It wasn't about how you treated me, though it is increasingly snotty of late.

Anyway, I would respect you so much more if you could make your points without insulting anyone. But, I am aware you may not be pining for my respect.)

I wish you well. Am off to eat Chicken Soup, as I am stuffy and cranky.

0 Replies

Easy there, Set. You are streering close to the rocks and shoals that Aunt Bee and C.I. ran afoul of. You could be banned for getting too personal. Lower the temperature of the rhetoric, it makes for more productive discussion.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You seem to miss the point altogether, once again, Sofia. Precisely because the fanatic is motivated by their personal hatreds and predilections, references to scripture are meaningless in explaining what people such as Eric Rudolph do. You are making my point for me--the murderous fanatic is not motivated by religious doctrine, but simply uses it as an excuse, and is usually obliged to use a perversion thereof.

Odd dog.

From previous posts, I was under the impression that you had a thing for history.
Has someone hijacked Setana?
Did you kill the dog?
Because, other than your blistering wierd condemnations, you are making no sense whatsoever.
You seem to think that "Eric Rudolph" is a person of particular importance in proving something violent about Christianity.
He is not.
You seem to think that Islam does not condone violence.
It does.
It would be relatively simple to cite proofs or refutations to either of the above points.
Why don't you?

0 Replies

Moishe.

Quote:

You seem to think that "Eric Rudolph" is a person of particular importance in proving something violent about Christianity.
He is not.
You seem to think that Islam does not condone violence.
It does.
It would be relatively simple to cite proofs or refutations to either of the above points.
Why don't you?

First off, if I was you I wouldn't go calling either of your assertions points.

Eric Rudolph, amongst others, certainly is important in demonstrating that there are violent elements within the christian community. Not so much because HE exists, but because of the support he got from christians.

As for the second assertion, all I can offer is a counter assertion.

Islam does not condone violence any more than the christianity or judaism.

0 Replies

Just thought I'd share an interesting quote.

When a man gets offended when no offense was intended he is a fool. When a man gets offended when offense IS intended he is a bigger fool.

That's not word for word. Aint it a great quote though?

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Islam does not condone violence any more than the christianity or judaism.

Okay, let's examine that.
In the Tanach, generally called the "old testament," there is quite a bit of death, violence, destruction and mayhem, which is commonly understood as being commanded by G-d.
Most reasonable people would agree that this phase of Jewish history ended, at the very latest, with the destruction of the 2nd Temple in about 67 C.E.
There was no more "old testament" written about Judaism or commands from G-d to destroy or kill or committ violent acts after this time.
So, for the last two thousand years, Jews have not been using their scriptures to kill people. As a matter of fact, Jews have been using their scriptures to indicate that G-d wants them to lay low and stay out of trouble.
The modern State of Israel does not use any scripture to justify its "violent" acts. Israel is a secular state (unfortunately, but that's only my opinion).
Violence in the New Tesatament is very limited and not preached as a positive action other than by parable.
The later interpretation of the scriptures by Christian rulers to condone violence is considered specious today by almost all Christian theologians and leaders.
Violence, destruction and mayhem, today, in Christianity, is considered abbhorrent and abberant behavior. It is not justified in the New Testament.

Violence and killing was considered justified in the Koran. It is justified and codified in both hadith and Sharia Law today. By many and various sects of Islam.
That's the fact Jack.

0 Replies

It's Adrian, not Jack.

Quote:

So, for the last two thousand years, Jews have not been using their scriptures to kill people.

I agree, I have not heard of any Jews beating people to death with books.
But the Zionist movement, amongst others, have regularly used the scriptures to "justify" all sorts of violence.

Quote:

Violence, destruction and mayhem, today, in Christianity, is considered abbhorrent and abberant behavior. It is not justified in the New Testament.

I agree, Christianity mainly uses the idea that if you turn the other cheek now, then God will come along later with the violence, destruction and mayhem. That's what the whole sermon on the mount thing is about. As you admit though, that has not stopped some Christians in the past, and it will continue to happen in the future.

Quote:

Violence and killing was considered justified in the Koran

That makes no sense at all. "was"? "in"? What the hell are you talking about?!?

ALL religious scriptures have been used by SOME people to justify violent, destructive, stupid behaviour. Even the Buddhists can't deny that charge. (Although they like to try.)

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

It's Adrian, not Jack.

Sorry about that. I was doing a little Bill Murray thing. I apologize.

Quote:
So, for the last two thousand years, Jews have not been using their scriptures to kill people.

I agree, I have not heard of any Jews beating people to death with books.
But the Zionist movement, amongst others, have regularly used the scriptures to "justify" all sorts of violence.

No they don't. Zionism is a largely secular movement. There is a teeny tiny minority of religous Zionists who try and use scripture to justify violence, but they are considered nutballs. They assassintated the Jewish Prime Minister of Israel for Criminy's sake! We are talking about a few thousand people out of perhaps 15 million Jews worldwide.
That is not a paradigm that says Judaism condones violence.

Quote:
Violence, destruction and mayhem, today, in Christianity, is considered abbhorrent and abberant behavior. It is not justified in the New Testament.

I agree, Christianity mainly uses the idea that if you turn the other cheek now, then God will come along later with the violence, destruction and mayhem. That's what the whole sermon on the mount thing is about. As you admit though, that has not stopped some Christians in the past, and it will continue to happen in the future.

Okay, the key words in your sentence above is "some" and "future." There is no recognized Christian sect today that uses scripture to promote death and mayhem. None. Nada. It doesn't exist.

Quote:
Violence and killing was considered justified in the Koran

That makes no sense at all. "was"? "in"? What the hell are you talking about?!?

The Koran was written some 1,000 years ago. At the time it was written, it had a great deal to say about how to kill and conquer your enemies.
This Koranic statements regarding death and destruction have been extended, modified, commented upon, and used in today's Islamic Law.
They are quoted extensively today, now, in the year 2004, with the appropriate religious authority's extensive commentary on exactly how to carry out this violent or destructive behavior, in mosques and by other leaders all over the world.

Every single day there are many Muslim religious authorities that use the Koran to explain why Muslims should kill the "infidels" where ever they find them.
This is preached in mosques; written in newspapers; broadcast on television; broadcast on the radio; and published on the internet - every single day! Now. Today. 2004. All over the world!

This is not true of either Judaism or Christianity. Or even Buddhism or Hinduism, for that matter.

ALL religious scriptures have been used by SOME people to justify violent, destructive, stupid behaviour. Even the Buddhists can't deny that charge. (Although they like to try.)

You are completely correct.
However, today, in 2004, it is a widespread, highly publicized, phenomenon in Islam.
It is not a widespread or widely adhered to phenomenon in Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Moishe.

Quote:
You seem to think that "Eric Rudolph" is a person of particular importance in proving something violent about Christianity.
He is not.
You seem to think that Islam does not condone violence.
It does.
It would be relatively simple to cite proofs or refutations to either of the above points.
Why don't you?

First off, if I was you I wouldn't go calling either of your assertions points.

Eric Rudolph, amongst others, certainly is important in demonstrating that there are violent elements within the christian community. Not so much because HE exists, but because of the support he got from christians.
Can you show the passage where Christ condones murder? Where in Jesus' teachings can a Christian find support for murder? If Rudolph recieved support from people calling themselves Christians they did not do so with any scriptural approval from the one they say they worship: Christ. They are in direct opposition to his teachings.As for the second assertion, all I can offer is a counter assertion.

Islam does not condone violence any more than the christianity or judaism.
Yes, it does, actually. Instead of relying on the knee-jerk, PC response--why not get out a Koran, or read some Hadiths. Mohammad has written plenty of reasons and circumstances for his followers to murder. Christ did not. I am unknowledgable about Judaism, though others can ably speak to it, I'm sure.

The lack of a call to violence by the focal figure in one religion, and the presence of calls to- and the practice of - violence by the central figure in another religion demonstrates which religion condones violence, and which one does not..

I will say if Christ hadn't come along, the Bible would be subject to criticisms similar to those I make against the Koran.

0 Replies

First of all, my thanks to Adrian for pointing out the significance of citing Eric Rudolph. I happened to have mentioned him both because of his perversion of belief to justify murderous fanaticism, and the support he recieved. Neither Rudolph nor those who supported him represent the mainstream of the religions which they profess, and neither do the murderous muslim fanatics whose existence has spawned this thread.

Sofia writes: "I will say if Christ hadn't come along, the Bible would be subject to criticisms similar to those I make against the Koran."

I will point out again, although i am certain that it will not sink in with you, that what "Christ" is alleged to have said amounted to nothing in the formulation of dogma by the Protestant sects. George Fox in England in the 17th century was the first notable religious man to stress the alleged teachings of "Jesus." His Society of Friends attempted to reconcile the old testament with the new, and in the end, foundered on several distinctions between the two texts--in particular, the issue of slavery. It was not until the appearance of John Wesley that the notion of christianity having reference to the alleged teachings "Jesus" as distinct from, and where contradictory, superior to the old testament began to be widespread. The phenonemnon remained a minority belief until the rise of the evangelicals in England in the early to mid-19th century. For all of your attempts to simplistically equate christianity to a statement that what "Christ" taught is the basis of the religion, you are wrong. Such a position ignores that at the least thirteen, and very likely more, "gospels" existed at the time of the Nicean Council. Such a position ignores that first the Catholic church, and then the Protestant sects, moved away from the ideologically inconvenient texts of the NT to the more plastic and amenable texts of the OT. And finally, it is a red herring, because whether one naively attempts to compare "Christ" to Mohammed, or the OT to the Quran and the Haddith, such a position is predicated upon an assumption that murderous fanatics are motivated by a strict scriptural interpretation, as opposed to the reality which history demonstrates, whether in matters religious or matters political--the fanatic make use of texts as excuses, and can dispense with such justification if challenged, because they are motivated by the own pathologies, and their self-righteousness.

Eric Rudolph is exemplary of this, as is the christian lunatic fringe which sheltered him.

0 Replies

Religion is the human response to fear of the unknown, and as such is always within reach of the worst vestiges of self preservational techniques including physical violence, and the use of psychological programming including hatred of the 'other', to enhance the 'unity' of the 'tribe'.

No such group is immune.

0 Replies

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know