a place in the Koran that is specifically anti-murder?

Here is an example of peaceful and humanistic essence of Islam:


Palestinian crowd waves interior body parts of butchered human victim.[/color]

The site the picture was taken from is neither Jewish, nor Israeli, it belongs to secular Iranian opposition. Many liberals here express dissatisfaction with policies of Christian fundamentalists, while trying to find positive sides in Islam.Would they like to move from the "Christian fundamentalist" (due to religious faith of the President) United States to any of the Muslim countries?

Stessid, I hate the Christian fundamenalists of my childhood.
I find some positive sides in Islam.
I have enjoyed living with many Muslims in African Muslim countries.
I haven't personally known any whom I would call Muslim fundamenalists, which has no doubt given me a certain amount of bias.

Monger,

Steissd is easily one of the more prejudiced people you'll encounter. Discussing Islam with him is like discussing the black race with David Duke.

Just a heads up, it's not worth dealing with unless you are the type to enjoy banging your head against a wall.

I have to agree with steissd.

I'd rather deal with christian fundamentalists than muslim ones.

I have to agree with Craven

I find it quite difficult to tell the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim ones. They both want to dominate the world and the both are quite willing to take human life -- including the lives of innocents.

The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that the Christian fundamentalists have bigger bombs.

For the record there are plenty of reasonable people of both faiths.

Mamahani and ebrown_p,

I made no disticntion about Christian vs. Muslim fundamentalists here. I simply noted that Steissd is one of the most prejudiced people I know (when it comes to Arabs and Muslims) and gave Monger a heads up about this because it can be like banging your head against a wall.

Truth and Mantras
There is a very convenient way to argue: to label the opponent as a "prejudiced" person, thus disavowing in advance anything he is able to say, any possible reason, proof, link. If there is some mantra, for example "Islam is a humanistic religion", and there are facts that do not comply with the mantra, the facts are being disregarded as garbage.
The site I have used as a source, was founded by the people that were brought up as Muslims. They are Iranians that know much more about regime of rabid mullahs than anyone else here on the A2K. This regime made them to leave their homes and to go to exile just for sake of physical survival. But the facts they present do not comply with mantra about "poor oppressed Palestinians" (they are really oppressed, but first and foremost by their ruthless and corrupt leaders) and "vicious expansionist Sharon", therefore they are disregarded.
Mamahani, political Islam is not the first evil thing that is being supported, sometimes indirectly, under cover of another mantra about "natinal liberation" and "anticolonialism" by the left-wing intellectuals of the West. Before the WWII they adored Stalin. Brilliant fine intellectuals (I can recall now only Andre Gide and Lion Feuchtwanger, but there were much more) visited Moscow in late '30s (the peak of purges took place right then) and published enthusiastic articles about freedom of the Soviet people. Concurrently, the bloodthirsty dictator executed hundreds of thousand rank-and-file citizens of his own country (majority being absolutely loyal, the monster's purpose was to intimidate all the 200 million of his subjects), and sending millions more to slow and agonizing death in the labor camps in the Soviet Far North tundras. I am not exaggerating. Russian historians assess number of people executed by Stalin in '30s-'50s being about 10 million, and 25 million more died of hunger and hard labor in the camps. The numbers comparable with human losses of the whole world in the WWII.
Russian emigres in Europe made an attempt to tell the truth about the Soviet regime, but the liberals'-driven media labeled them as "biased reactionaries", and made their opinion being disregarded.
Hatred to conservative establishment of their own countries deprived part of left intellectuals of common sense: they are ready to support the most horrendous and cannibalistic regimes and movements, if the latter are hostile to the political and moral stances of their conservative opponents.

In any case, Craven's advice would have been much better served up via PM, IMO. No need to insult someone like that publicly, for no purpose.

Th difference is really insufficient. The Christian fundamentalists may be a big annoyance with their endless sermons. The Islamic are not so verbose: they just lynch the infidel.

Thank you, Snood.

A very good portrait of the difference between muslim an christians fundamentalists steissd. :wink:

I think it is important to note that in numbers, muslims fundamentalists outnumber the christian ones. And is growing as well. Can you say that about christian fundamentalists?

Mamahani, I dunno if there are more of one stripe than of the other, nor have I found conclusive hard evidence as to which weed grows the faster ... not to say you're not correct, but just that I haven't found evidence confirming either supposition. There are claims and statistics on both sides. I will concede the fundamentalists of the Islamic Persuasion do seem to be getting substantially more media attention than do fundamentalists of any other category. Regarless of faith or ideology, however, one of the greatest challenges posed to Civilization at present is Radical Militant Fundamentalism, IMHO. By its nature, Fundamentalism is a rejection of reason, appealing to emotion, not intellect. Emotion is a powerful thing; it makes it easy for Westerners to demonize Islamics, and vice-versa. What is needed is dialog and understanding; what is happening is diatribe and confrontation ... on both sides. If change and resolution are to come, it will be generations before they arrive. The grandchildren of today's children may begin to enjoy the fruits of the labors on which we embark today, provided we have the will and resolution to educate our own children in the ways of cooperation and coexistence, and develop in them a sense of the necessity for such change. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there isn't much effort being put into that particular teaching paradigm anywhere in the Islamic World.

Oh, and welcome to A2K ... nice to see you here.

It was not an insult and I stand by it. Steissd is indeed, one of the most prejudiced people in regard to Arab and Muslim people I have known.

Snood, pull the beam out of your eye. If you are disinclined to PM your criticism then don't ask others to.

Re: Truth and Mantras


Steissd,

You call an entire continent (Europe) prejudiced and routinely charge advance in anything they say, any possible reason they have and seek blanket discredit to their media sources.

I do not think you are trying to insult the continent of Europe so much as make a statement about teh circumstances and your opinion of the motivating factors behind the opinions they hold.

I do not seek to discredit any possible insight or reason you hold. In matters of teh Mideast you are well informed. I do think you maintain a prejudice against Arabs and Muslims. It's understandable given the circumstances but do you not think your repeated and generalized equation of Muslims to terrorists in blanket terms such as "I'm not Muslim, after all I'm not a terrorist" and your wish to die instead of living with Arabs and such opinions to indicate a bias? Even a prejudged opinion of them expressed in a generalized manner?

Well, it is all pretty much, it seems to me, a matter of history and opportunity when it comers to fundamentalism - whether it be religious, political or whatever.

Let people once come to believe they hold universal, absolute truth, and remove restraints of one sort or another, and we have strife - let one group then have power, and we have oppression, killing, exclusion and so on and so forth. Sometimes it is quite enough just to have power and some means of isolating or identifying an "outgroup".

Of course, it also helps if we have historical grievances and suchlike.

It may be instructive, in this matter, to consider a few random examples. How long and how bloodily Christians attempted to destroy, or forcibly convert, each other over a great deal of their 2000 year history. Fundamentalist - or simply "crusading" christianity has been restrained by secular governments of late, and a damn fine thing too.

Imperialism, in the name, not infrequently, of christianity has a great record of wiping out other, "heathen", peoples over the last 500 years.

Judaism had a fair old go at the same, from time to time - especially if the heathens had a country the Children of Israel fancied.

Political fundamentalism? Hmm - how about fascism - how many million? 20 million Soviet citizens, alone.

Of course, at the same time, Marxist fundamentalism was having a fine old go at the same pool of citizenry. As it did in China.

Ireland?

Really, I could go on and on.

Islamic fundamentalism - attaching itself to and thriving because of that familiar fertile ground of historical and political grievance, is currently a fundamentalism that is quite militant. So far, its terrors rather pale in comparison to a number that I have named, no? Of course, the brand of terror and fundamentalism most affecting oneself at the time is the one that rather particularly concentrates the mind and emotions - however, to pick out Islamic fundamentalism for especial and seemingly exclusive condemnation, would seem to fly in the face of history and available evidence about the capacity for ill of the human race in general - given opportunity and motive - or pseudo-motive.

I think doing so may reasonably be argued to deserve the name of bigotry and prejudice - however understandable it may be given individual circumstances.

Oh, what Timber said, too!

I got a useful link, thanks to Anastasia:

Is Islam a violent religion?
http://www.faithandvalues.com/channels/islam_violent.asp

Need you say more to prove what?

Just a hint for those who wanna try out step 1 in the link above (its kind of a quiz for the general public - once you pick y'r choice you get to more info on page two) - these texts:



are from the Bible, not the Qu'ran.

So what did Mamahani and I just prove, respectively? That both religions, like most religions probably, have pretty hefty threats in their holy books when it comes to "infidels"? Yet the same books also contain enough passages that intend to restrain violence and cruelty.

So yes, Mamahani, we do need to say a lot about the topic than all that.

God forbid I should even for a second be thought a fundamentalist about anything, but as I think about those words doesn't it mean that you are more or less lukewarm about what you believe? If you believe in your heart about any God, don't you owe him or her a absolute commitment? That doesn't mean take out of the sacred texts the most violent passages, so I am not advocating violence on religious grounds but still.........Are all the religious now to assume, in the 21st century, a common attitude of brotherly peace and toleration? I am in favor of that and that is probably because I am not inclined to overindulge in literal scripture. Is this ultimately a result of global cultural maturity? I hope so but isn't it odd that this is more a consequence of a secular post-enlightenment than as a consequence of strictly religious teaching?

Re: a place in the Koran that is specifically anti-murder?


Yes " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50

please visit these links to learn about islam it's fun
http://fruitofislam.com
http://prophetofdoom.net