Burning the Quran

[freepalestine]

Burning the Quran

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Tue, 2012-02-28 20:58- Angry Corner
This story is revealing. Some US soldiers decided to throw copies of the Quran over a pile of garbage and set them on fire. I know that the accounts of this incident are not consistent. We were told that Qurans were “mistakenly” tossed in a garbage dump and set on fire. The mechanics of the error have yet to be revealed to us. Some accounts claim – in justification of the act – that Qurans were being used to smuggle letters to prisoners. Would it have been difficult to search Qurans for secret messages?

Worse, the US military quickly announced that all US soldiers in the field would undergo special training in handling Qurans. Special training? One requires special training to figure out that holy books should not be tossed into a garbage dump before setting fire to them? One should require special training to figure that Muslims – like other religious groups – don’t like their holy books to be desecrated particularly by soldiers who are occupying their lands, and who have an accumulated reputation for insensitivity to Islam and Muslims? One should require special training to know that provocative acts are provocative?

But this incident, as it has been called, is indicative of the mentality of the occupiers of Afghanistan. The US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 and yet it has not occurred to those in charge that sensitivity is particularly required from the occupiers, although sensitivity – no matter how acute – can’t win over support from the natives for occupation? But it is amazing that after all those years the arrogant political leadership and the Middle East experts in the US government would not figure out the place of the Quran for Muslims.

If they read the old Orientalist books on Islam they would have figured it out. Philip Hitti used to describe in detail the place of the Quran among Muslims. He would say that Muslims would put the Quran on top of other books in a book case, or that Muslims consider the Quran to contain the word of god, literally. In Saudi Arabia, newspapers call on readers to carefully handle and discard the newspaper because chances are it carries Quranic text.

Insensitivity is not accidental to colonial powers which invade and occupy Muslims and Arab lands under different pretexts. Their occupation enterprise would not be undertaken if they didn’t operate based on the assumption that Muslims are inferior and religion is illegitimate. Christians of Europe took it upon themselves to determine which religions are legitimate and which are not (of course, only their religion is, and the rest are bogus).

The issue will not lead to any so-called soul-searching on the part of the occupiers. They will arrogantly blame the Afghans for being ingrates.

On the other side, fanatical groups in Afghanistan (like the Taliban and others) will exploit the issue and will whip up sentiments against “the West.” For them, desecration of holy books are fare worse than the desecration of lives and homes over the last decade or so.

It is utterly disingenuous for Americans to feign ignorance on the matter of discarding Qurans (it is possible that they were burnt by individuals who wanted to insult Muslims and Islams). After all, the American flag is semi-worshipped in the land and there are special rules and regulations for the proper way to discard of a flag. Most Americans even support a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from desecration.

The belief that the same people who have such reverence for the flag would not imagine that Muslims could be offended if their holy books were tossed over a garbage dump and then set ablaze is not credible. Muslims also have special methods for discarding Qurans. There were cases where ink was removed from Qurans before discarding them, although burial has been the common method of carrying out this task. But Newt Gingrich spoke on the matter: he called on Muslims to apologize.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/burning-quran

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, we and must understand the psychology and philosophy of life and behaving of average american joes and janes within the USA. And the philosophy and the american way of life. And if you think about it, most americans have been trained that they are specials, and they are "better than other children" since childhood. And there is lots of that kind ultra-narcissism-fascism parenting from parents.

Lots of competitive sports motivate that hatred between americans. You living in the USA is not a piece of cake, it is not a walk in the park. No wonder Whitney Houston got depressed and suicidal.

Where I live in Tennessee, most people do not talk to each other, this is a country of losers and most of them do not even have health coverage, they are conformist assholes who conform to a life of 3 cheap meals a day, lots of work, work, domestic chores, paying bills, paying taxes and then dying without having contributted nothing to this shithole hypocritical society of the wonderlful American Dream.

This is a country of suicidal people, and what psychologists call "Smiling Depressives" because most americans have a tactic of smiling in public with their shinny happy people smile. But in reality they feel like a piece of shit inside of them, because most are taxed to death, billed to death, most american familes are debt-slaves of Mortgage companies. And they know that their lives are a hell. And they will never get out of their shitty dark hole which is their life. Because most americans are forced by the american capitalist system to live a life of only working without any entertainment, without vacation trips, without any pleasures, without any parties, without any hobbies. (Only a few in America like Jennifer Lopez, Tom Cruise and Brad Pit live a great life).

And that extremely painful life of most americans, is what turns the 70% of US citizens into angry suicidal negative assholes. but instead of looking toward socialism or even toward Ron Paul as an escape-solution of their dark lives. They instead keep voting for the same evil assholes, for the same corporate warmongers and Wall Street Corporate puppets that are responsable for the low living standards, shitty, painful and depressing life of most american people.

Americans have 2 options in order to be born again from their dark lives of pain and misery into happy outgoing individuals with white teeths because of full medical coverage, of great health, of university degrees, of 100% socialist free health care for the 300 million americans. Of less crimes in the cities, of cheaper food, cheaper life and of less stress: And that solution is socialism.

Only socialism can help us all get out of this painful life we have in America. Thanks

Sorry but I was just writting here about the real motives of why US soldiers are so full of anger and dark emotions. And i think that' the cause is their being born in such a painful country like USA is. And their only solution for all that anger is socialism in The White House. Thanks


.



Burning the Quran

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Tue, 2012-02-28 20:58- Angry Corner
This story is revealing. Some US soldiers decided to throw copies of the Quran over a pile of garbage and set them on fire. I know that the accounts of this incident are not consistent. We were told that Qurans were “mistakenly” tossed in a garbage dump and set on fire. The mechanics of the error have yet to be revealed to us. Some accounts claim – in justification of the act – that Qurans were being used to smuggle letters to prisoners. Would it have been difficult to search Qurans for secret messages?

Worse, the US military quickly announced that all US soldiers in the field would undergo special training in handling Qurans. Special training? One requires special training to figure out that holy books should not be tossed into a garbage dump before setting fire to them? One should require special training to figure that Muslims – like other religious groups – don’t like their holy books to be desecrated particularly by soldiers who are occupying their lands, and who have an accumulated reputation for insensitivity to Islam and Muslims? One should require special training to know that provocative acts are provocative?

But this incident, as it has been called, is indicative of the mentality of the occupiers of Afghanistan. The US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 and yet it has not occurred to those in charge that sensitivity is particularly required from the occupiers, although sensitivity – no matter how acute – can’t win over support from the natives for occupation? But it is amazing that after all those years the arrogant political leadership and the Middle East experts in the US government would not figure out the place of the Quran for Muslims.

If they read the old Orientalist books on Islam they would have figured it out. Philip Hitti used to describe in detail the place of the Quran among Muslims. He would say that Muslims would put the Quran on top of other books in a book case, or that Muslims consider the Quran to contain the word of god, literally. In Saudi Arabia, newspapers call on readers to carefully handle and discard the newspaper because chances are it carries Quranic text.

Insensitivity is not accidental to colonial powers which invade and occupy Muslims and Arab lands under different pretexts. Their occupation enterprise would not be undertaken if they didn’t operate based on the assumption that Muslims are inferior and religion is illegitimate. Christians of Europe took it upon themselves to determine which religions are legitimate and which are not (of course, only their religion is, and the rest are bogus).

The issue will not lead to any so-called soul-searching on the part of the occupiers. They will arrogantly blame the Afghans for being ingrates.

On the other side, fanatical groups in Afghanistan (like the Taliban and others) will exploit the issue and will whip up sentiments against “the West.” For them, desecration of holy books are fare worse than the desecration of lives and homes over the last decade or so.

It is utterly disingenuous for Americans to feign ignorance on the matter of discarding Qurans (it is possible that they were burnt by individuals who wanted to insult Muslims and Islams). After all, the American flag is semi-worshipped in the land and there are special rules and regulations for the proper way to discard of a flag. Most Americans even support a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from desecration.

The belief that the same people who have such reverence for the flag would not imagine that Muslims could be offended if their holy books were tossed over a garbage dump and then set ablaze is not credible. Muslims also have special methods for discarding Qurans. There were cases where ink was removed from Qurans before discarding them, although burial has been the common method of carrying out this task. But Newt Gingrich spoke on the matter: he called on Muslims to apologize.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/burning-quran

[The Young Pioneer]

TrotskistMarx, please be careful when talking about suicide. If you're going to make such sweeping statements about victims of suicide, you really need to back yourself up with sources. I'm not American patriot, either, but I KNOW 70% of US citizens aren't suicidal. And having lived many years of my life in the States, I'd say not 70% are assholes, either. Americans are people. There are assholes and arrogants and conformists among them, as anywhere. I really disagree with this prejudice you're spewing.

I agree that there are plenty of problems within the United States, but in my experience, the general population are hard working citizens who try to make a good life for themselves and those around them, rather than being narcissistic fascists. Be anti-America by all means. But don't keep spouting hateful rhetoric concerning its workers.

[arilando]

Muslim and arab lands? I did't know that land belonged to a specific ethnic or religious group. Land belongs to all of humanity.

[RGacky3]

Lots of competitive sports motivate that hatred between americans. You living in the USA is not a piece of cake, it is not a walk in the park. No wonder Whitney Houston got depressed and suicidal.


You ever been anywhere outside the US??? PEOPLE are like that


Where I live in Tennessee, most people do not talk to each other, this is a country of losers and most of them do not even have health coverage, they are conformist assholes who conform to a life of 3 cheap meals a day, lots of work, work, domestic chores, paying bills, paying taxes and then dying without having contributted nothing to this shithole hypocritical society of the wonderlful American Dream.


You know what, maybe YOUR the asshole that does'nt manage to muster up any empathy at all.

Maybe you need to do some soul searching, and figure out why you lack all empathy.


This is a country of suicidal people, and what psychologists call "Smiling Depressives" because most americans have a tactic of smiling in public with their shinny happy people smile. But in reality they feel like a piece of shit inside of them, because most are taxed to death, billed to death, most american familes are debt-slaves of Mortgage companies.

People are sad all over the place.


And that extremely painful life of most americans, is what turns the 70% of US citizens into angry suicidal negative assholes. but instead of looking toward socialism or even toward Ron Paul as an escape-solution of their dark lives. They instead keep voting for the same evil assholes, for the same corporate warmongers and Wall Street Corporate puppets that are responsable for the low living standards, shitty, painful and depressing life of most american people.


Most Americans don't vote.

Reading your post your the one that seams negative.

You know what, maybe go outside and talk to people.

About the Koran burning.

Its a dick thing to do.

[Rafiq]

"Muslim lands" don't exist.

[The Young Pioneer]

Muslim and arab lands? I did't know that land belonged to a specific ethnic or religious group. Land belongs to all of humanity.

Humanity belongs to the land, comrade.

[GoddessCleoLover]

As an American I would say that we ought to end the military occupation as soon as feasible. Secondly, to say that 70% of Americans or Tennesseans are assholes is a defeatist position IMO in addition to being inaccurate As a lifelong resident of a large Eastern city with family roots in Illinois, I don't feel entirely comfortable in Dixieland, but if we want to be serious about social change in this country we cannot afford to disparage the broad masses that way. I can well imagine that in certain parts of Tennessee that 705 of the people are petit-bourgeois, but we have develop methods of appealing to white-collar and salaried employees as a matter of political necessity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol yeah this is all truly because of RELIGIOUS FANATICISM and not because of 11 years of a bullshit, brutal occupation with copious civilian casualties

not because the US is super cool with looking the other way when its warlord allies utilize slave labor

nope only muslims being irrational

[GoddessCleoLover]

Seriously, IMO this is much more about the occupation than anything else. WE Americans long ago wore out any welcome we had there and until we live we can expect similar incidents and the deaths of more Americans and Afghanis to no good purpose.

[Crux]

Where was Jacob Isom when we needed him?
4HX5-ulcdXc

[blake 3:17]

Blow back.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

TrotskistMarx, please be careful when talking about suicide. If you're going to make such sweeping statements about victims of suicide, you really need to back yourself up with sources. I'm not American patriot, either, but I KNOW 70% of US citizens aren't suicidal. And having lived many years of my life in the States, I'd say not 70% are assholes, either. Americans are people. There are assholes and arrogants and conformists among them, as anywhere. I really disagree with this prejudice you're spewing.

I agree that there are plenty of problems within the United States, but in my experience, the general population are hard working citizens who try to make a good life for themselves and those around them, rather than being narcissistic fascists. Be anti-America by all means. But don't keep spouting hateful rhetoric concerning its workers.


I am patriotic of my land, and I am bound by love to my fellow citizens, but I resent our political and economic system. My "patriotism" is what connects me to the proletariat of my land, and distances me from our government and capitalist system. For us revoltuionaries, patriotism is not loving our countries by what they are defined as by our capitalist governments, but loving the land we walk upon everyday and the people we have to coexist with. In fact, we love our nations so much, that we are willing to risk our lives helping them liberate themselves from the chains of capitalism. That is the most intense love and the most pure patriotism. So, when you criticize the United States, you are not being anti-American, you are being anti-United States. Being against the government and system is different from being against the people and the land.

Greetings from the United States. Just a little side-tracking. I just had to respond to such an important issue as is "anti-Americanism." Continue with talking about Koran burnings.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Where was Jacob Isom when we needed him?
4HX5-ulcdXc

That looks like my Social Studies teacher.

[bugsbunny]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.

When the Buddha statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban, people in Buddhist countries did not riot and damage mosques. When the Da Vinci code was shown, there were no attacks on cinemans and other violence by Catholics.

I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.

[pluckedflowers]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.

When the Buddha statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban, people in Buddhist countries did not riot and damage mosques. When the Da Vinci code was shown, there were no attacks on cinemans and other violence by Catholics.

I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.

I like how you just ignore everything people have pointed out here re: the fact that the country is under fucking occupation. Good to know you don't let reality get in the way of your ideology.

[RGacky3]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.

When the Buddha statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban, people in Buddhist countries did not riot and damage mosques. When the Da Vinci code was shown, there were no attacks on cinemans and other violence by Catholics.

I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.

About the Budda Statues, do you know how much history was destroyed in europe and latin American by "christians?"

As far as violence, I live in Scandanavia, and we've had terrorism here, by a christian, in the US the most radical and violent people are the so christian fundementalists.

Muslims have been messed with by the west for a hundred years, yeah, its not supprise some of them get annoyed.

Christendom has a history of violence that puts islam to shame.

(I'm a Christian btw, but the type that actually follows the teachings of Christ.)

[pluckedflowers]

Christendom has a history of violence that puts islam to shame.


Humanity has a history of violence, full stop. I don't think there is any point in trying to debate which religion is more culpable in this regard. It just distracts from the material conditions that give rise to violence.

[Obs]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.

When the Buddha statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban, people in Buddhist countries did not riot and damage mosques. When the Da Vinci code was shown, there were no attacks on cinemans and other violence by Catholics.

I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.
Ban this racist cockend, and how am I the first one to say that?

[Rooster]

I am patriotic of my land, and I am bound by love to my fellow citizens, but I resent our political and economic system. My "patriotism" is what connects me to the proletariat of my land, and distances me from our government and capitalist system. For us revoltuionaries, patriotism is not loving our countries by what they are defined as by our capitalist governments, but loving the land we walk upon everyday and the people we have to coexist with. In fact, we love our nations so much, that we are willing to risk our lives helping them liberate themselves from the chains of capitalism. That is the most intense love and the most pure patriotism. So, when you criticize the United States, you are not being anti-American, you are being anti-United States. Being against the government and system is different from being against the people and the land.

I'm sorry, but... what? I was sure that we were supposed to transcend petty things like nation and support the working class, not to be derailed and support the nation. Shit, this whole thing is confused. First you say you are patriotic of your land then you say patriotism is not about loving your country, then you say that you are patriotic about your nation.... Then, you say that we love (who's we?) our nations so much that we have to liberate them from capitalism.... but doesn't capitalism support nation states? What kind of social patriotism is this?

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Burn the holy books, don't burn the holy books. I couldn't care less. It only hurts the US government and people who care about that sort of thing, two groups that are counter revolutionary. If the US is just trying to stir up hatred to justify its occupation, there are a billion other, less transparent, ways to do it.

[bugsbunny]

I like how you just ignore everything people have pointed out here re: the fact that the country is under fucking occupation. Good to know you don't let reality get in the way of your ideology.

The country is not under occupation. That's a leftist fantasy. Afghanistan has an elected government which allows the US troops to remain there for fear of the Taliban, a bunch of fanatical Muslims.

[bugsbunny]

Ban this racist cockend, and how am I the first one to say that?

It just goes to show that you cannot debate me. What did I say that is incorrect?

Did Buddhists riot when the Bamiyan statues were deliberately destroyed (unlike the Koran)? No

Did Catholics riot and issue a fatwa against Dan Brown when the Da Vinci code was shown? No.

So where was I factually wrong?

And why am I a racist? Muslim is not a race. There are white, brown, black and Asian Muslims.

[Per Levy]

The country is not under occupation. That's a leftist fantasy. Afghanistan has an elected government which allows the US troops to remain there for fear of the Taliban, a bunch of fanatical Muslims.

afghanistan was attacked, conquered and then a puppet regime was installed(that rigged the elections btw).

i find it funny how naive and idialistic you are, do you really belive that the occupation troops stay there because of evil terroroists? and not because of the interests of the states that have them stationed there?


I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.

way to go, lump together more then a billion human beings and say that they prone to violence because of what they believe.

[Franz Fanonipants]

About the Budda Statues, do you know how much history was destroyed in europe and latin American by "christians?"

jesus christ shut up

[Franz Fanonipants]

Burn the holy books, don't burn the holy books. I couldn't care less. It only hurts the US government and people who care about that sort of thing, two groups that are counter revolutionary. If the US is just trying to stir up hatred to justify its occupation, there are a billion other, less transparent, ways to do it.

you too

[bugsbunny]

afghanistan was attacked, conquered and then a puppet regime was installed(that rigged the elections btw).

i find it funny how naive and idialistic you are, do you really belive that the occupation troops stay there because of evil terroroists? and not because of the interests of the states that have them stationed there?



way to go, lump together more then a billion human beings and say that they prone to violence because of what they believe.

The elections were not rigged. Both are correct. the Allied troops are there because of Muslim fanatics. The west do not want a comeback of the Taliban fearing they might allow Afghanistan to be again used as a base for another 911. So they are acting for their own interests too.

But they have permission of the elected government of Hamid Karzai.

Not all Muslilms are violent. In fact only a minority are. But they have a higher propensity to violence than other religious groups at this moment in time. They are in conflict with Jews in Palestine, Orthodox Russians in Chechenya, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand and Chinese in Xinjiang, China. It seems they can't get along with a lot of people.

The non-violence of Buddhists and Catholics when Bamiyan statue was destroyed and the screening of Da Vinci code can be compared to violent Muslim reaction when a Koran was accidently burned and when Danish artists drew a cartoon about Mohammed. Similar situations different results. So who are more violent at this point in time?

[Franz Fanonipants]

i wish there were thirty more bamiyan buddhas to blow up.

[Crux]

The non-violence of Buddhists and Catholics when Bamiyan statue was destroyed and the screening of Da Vinci code can be compared to violent Muslim reaction when a Koran was accidently burned and when Danish artists drew a cartoon about Mohammed. Similar situations different results. So who are more violent at this point in time?
A "cartoon"? So by the same standard you would be suprised if this made jewish people upset:
http://mt-vid.buscafs.com/uploads/videos/thumbs/thumb_29792.jpg

What it's just a cartoon!
As for "non-violent" buddhist, yeah that's simply not true, ever heard of say Sri Lanka? The biggest backers of the fascist far right and the genocide against Tamils are...buddhist monks. Yeah. You are living in a illusion, bud. But keep those eyes tight shut if it makes you feel better.
As for the conflicts you listed, those are also examples of, yes you guessed it, Hindu and Jewish fundamentalism. Only your islamophobia and imperialist mindset prevents you from seeing this.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

you too? I can think of about twelve different ways to read that

oh, wait, he was telling me to shut up. That's constructive.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@Bugsbunny: haha... dude, even the mainstream media outlets refer to Afghanistan as 'being under occupation.'

[Rafiq]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.

When the Buddha statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban, people in Buddhist countries did not riot and damage mosques. When the Da Vinci code was shown, there were no attacks on cinemans and other violence by Catholics.

I think it goes to show that Islam makes Muslims prone to violence.

Yeah, because, people in Afghanistan and "Muslim lands" get the same education and opportunities to earn a living as those of us in the Western world. It's all a matter of freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee will and the Muzlaaims don't know how to use it!

Give me a break. How do you take yourself seriously?

[Rafiq]

It just goes to show that you cannot debate me. What did I say that is incorrect?

Did Buddhists riot when the Bamiyan statues were deliberately destroyed (unlike the Koran)? No

Buddhist monks are elitist scum who are educated, anyway, dip shit.


Did Catholics riot and issue a fatwa against Dan Brown when the Da Vinci code was shown? No.


The Western world is secular and we are taught that way. We don't have foreign invaders fucking up every attempt at social progress (Which they did to the Middle Eastern secular left) on us, so religious fundamentalism isn't really a problem, you dumb fucking bourgeois rationalist idiot.


So where was I factually wrong?


The fact that you believe all people of all religions act the same everywhere and that they are not products of material conditions and the mode of production, but what "religion they follow" (Even though, quite evidently, Islam is radically different in Turkey than it is in Yemen, but no, continue putting them all in the same basket and judging them that way).


And why am I a racist? Muslim is not a race. There are white, brown, black and Asian Muslims.


You're a racist because you talk of how "civilized" everyone else is. Islam is a big crock of shit, but the hell if I'll stand for some dumb shit like you puting into some kind of universalized evil that, wherever adapted, no matter where, Muslims are "prone to violence". I live in a shit hole called Dearborn, Michigan. Can you point out where religious violence takes place here? It's a pretty poor place with a majority Muslim population. Where is the violence you speak of? Hell, I don't even find any protests against Quoran burning. You're pathetic.

I deem Islam as inherently an instrument of the ruling classes, like all other religions. But to say "Muslims are prone to violence" is the most absurd thing I've heard in regards to the topic here yet.

[Per Levy]

The elections were not rigged.

oh is that so, i mean that was a big thing when it happend, did you miss it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Afghan_Presidential_election#Election_fraud


The New York Times wrote, "fraud was so pervasive that nearly a quarter of all votes were thrown out." According to an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6881718.ece) by The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times), "some 1.26 million recorded votes were excluded from an election that cost the international community more than $300 million." (Another estimate placed the cost at $500 million.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Afghan_Presidential_election#Flawed_election


Additionally, 7 million fewer Afghans were even allowed to vote than in the last election. Thousands of complaints were filed, and there was blatant evidence of corruption.


when Danish artists drew a cartoon about Mohammed.yeah about that, do you know how many people actually were protesting? between 100.000 and 200.000 people, that is not even 0,2% of all muslims in the world and you lump them all together as one violent blob.

[bugsbunny]

A "cartoon"? So by the same standard you would be suprised if this made jewish people upset:
http://mt-vid.buscafs.com/uploads/videos/thumbs/thumb_29792.jpg

What it's just a cartoon!
As for "non-violent" buddhist, yeah that's simply not true, ever heard of say Sri Lanka? The biggest backers of the fascist far right and the genocide against Tamils are...buddhist monks. Yeah. You are living in a illusion, bud. But keep those eyes tight shut if it makes you feel better.
As for the conflicts you listed, those are also examples of, yes you guessed it, Hindu and Jewish fundamentalism. Only your islamophobia and imperialist mindset prevents you from seeing this.

The cartoon may make Jewish people upset but did they start killing any gentile they could find in revenge. That's what some Muslims did when the Danish cartoons came out. Its one thing to attack the one who is responsible for the cartoon but its quite another to attack someone for simply being member of a group who had nothing to do with it. This just goes to show that some Muslims were simply brought up to hate infidels, especially Jews.

As for the Sinhalese killing the Tamils. It was just coincidental that the Sinhalese were Buddhists. They did not kill out of their religious beliefs. The war is about nationality where the Tamils want to break off a piece of Sri Lanka and call have their own state. When the South wanted to break away, there was a terrible Civil War in the US too.

There is nothing in Buddhist scriptures promising virgins in heaven for matyrs of holy wars as in Islam. therefore its more peaceful. this can be shown that no Muslim was killed anywhere around the world when teh Bamiyan Buddha was destroyed.

The war in Palestine was due to Muslim fanaticism, not Jewish.

[bugsbunny]

oh is that so, i mean that was a big thing when it happend, did you miss it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Afghan_Presidential_election#Election_fraud



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Afghan_Presidential_election#Flawed_election



yeah about that, do you know how many people actually were protesting? between 100.000 and 200.000 people, that is not even 0,2% of all muslims in the world and you lump them all together as one violent blob.

I was not aware of the election fraud. Thanks for telling me.

0.2%? Let's assume your figure is correct even though there is no supporting link. There were not even 0.2% of the Buddhist world protesting the Bamiyan statue destruction. Nobody was killed. But people were killed when the Danish cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)came out.

Excerpt from link:



This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#cite_note-web.archive.org-0) including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Danish_embassy_bombing_in_Islamabad) and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration) the Danish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Denmark), Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Netherlands), Norwegian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Norway), French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_France) and German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Germany) flags in Gaza City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_City).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#cite_note-2) Various groups, primarily in the Western world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world), responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Denmark) Anders Fogh Rasmussen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen) described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_crisis) since World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#cite_note-3)


How many people were killed when the Bamiyan Buddha was destroyed or when the Da Vinci Code came out?

How may embassies were bombed or set fire to or European buildings stormed and crowds of Buddhists and Catholics fired into?

[#FF0000]

The elections were not rigged. Both are correct. the Allied troops are there because of Muslim fanatics. The west do not want a comeback of the Taliban fearing they might allow Afghanistan to be again used as a base for another 911. So they are acting for their own interests too.

Except the case for invading Afghanistan in the first place was shaky as all hell. "Al Qaeda" never had huge presence there -- they were friendly with the Taliban, sure, but as far as I know it was pretty well known that OBL wasn't even even Afghanistan anyway -- he was in Pakistan the entire time.


But they have permission of the elected government of Hamid Karzai.

The relationship is pretty close to that of the shop owner who pays the mob for insurance. Karzai has been very critical of the US occupation for awhile now and it got to the point where one US ambassador straight up told him "hey, we're the reason you're here in the first place, and we can take you out of here too".


Not all Muslilms are violent. In fact only a minority are. But they have a higher propensity to violence than other religious groups at this moment in time. They are in conflict with Jews in Palestine, Orthodox Russians in Chechenya, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand and Chinese in Xinjiang, China. It seems they can't get along with a lot of people.

The non-violence of Buddhists and Catholics when Bamiyan statue was destroyed and the screening of Da Vinci code can be compared to violent Muslim reaction when a Koran was accidently burned and when Danish artists drew a cartoon about Mohammed. Similar situations different results. So who are more violent at this point in time?

welp, i can't really speak to the conflicts in the far east and Chehnya, but i'm noticing what seems like a big ol' gap in your reasoning and thinking here.

you kind of completely ignore the fact that 'radical islam' is only a thing because of western (mostly US and British) intervention in the middle east in the first place. Basically wherever folks in the Middle East decided "oh neat lets set up a secular center-left parliamentary system", the British, Americans, and the Saudis all decided to not let that happen in order to protect their interests in whatever region. The Taliban, Regan's 'freedom fighters', are a product of this. And, shit, we ain't stopping in the 21st century either! Remember those Libyan rebels we funded? You better believe a good chunk of them were those scary radical muslims everyone's so afraid of.

Of course they weren't helping out 'radical islamic' groups out of preference -- we installed our share of secular strongmen as well, such as the Shah in Iran, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It doesn't matter what our strongmen and dictators believe really -- as long as they play ball.

[RGacky3]

jesus christ shut up

Am I wrong?

[Crux]

The cartoon may make Jewish people upset but did they start killing any gentile they could find in revenge. That's what some Muslims did when the Danish cartoons came out. Its one thing to attack the one who is responsible for the cartoon but its quite another to attack someone for simply being member of a group who had nothing to do with it. This just goes to show that some Muslims were simply brought up to hate infidels, especially Jews.
This all of course being assertions without any proof. Besides you're not getting it at all, calling it a "cartoon" is simply not the correct description.


As for the Sinhalese killing the Tamils. It was just coincidental that the Sinhalese were Buddhists. They did not kill out of their religious beliefs. The war is about nationality where the Tamils want to break off a piece of Sri Lanka and call have their own state. When the South wanted to break away, there was a terrible Civil War in the US too. Conditioned by the social conditions and othe factors perhaps? Keep thinking you're almost, but not quite, there.


There is nothing in Buddhist scriptures promising virgins in heaven for matyrs of holy wars as in Islam. therefore its more peaceful. this can be shown that no Muslim was killed anywhere around the world when teh Bamiyan Buddha was destroyed.
And there you lost it again.


The war in Palestine was due to Muslim fanaticism, not Jewish.
:laugh: No. Funny fact, Hamas was originally funded by Mossad to destablize the PLO.

[hatzel]

The cartoon may make Jewish people upset but did they start killing any gentile they could find in revenge.

Ah...you know I would answer this question, but as you've already proven yourself to be one of those racist-ass 'these people are savages destroy them!'-types, I don't feel like giving you ammunition to tar yet another community. Though yes there were assassinations left, right and centre and multiple attempts to poison literally tens of thousands of people. A lot of Jewish folk heroes got made that way, actually...

So remind me again why you only care when Muslims do stuff and when anybody else does it you're all 'nah that never happened' or 'they didn't do that because they were Buddhists but because they were attacked.' Can't we get just a little bit of consistency here? It would make those bullshit justifications for your outrage a tad more believable...

[arilando]

Burning the Quran

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Tue, 2012-02-28 20:58- Angry Corner
This story is revealing. Some US soldiers decided to throw copies of the Quran over a pile of garbage and set them on fire. I know that the accounts of this incident are not consistent. We were told that Qurans were “mistakenly” tossed in a garbage dump and set on fire. The mechanics of the error have yet to be revealed to us. Some accounts claim – in justification of the act – that Qurans were being used to smuggle letters to prisoners. Would it have been difficult to search Qurans for secret messages?

Worse, the US military quickly announced that all US soldiers in the field would undergo special training in handling Qurans. Special training? One requires special training to figure out that holy books should not be tossed into a garbage dump before setting fire to them? One should require special training to figure that Muslims – like other religious groups – don’t like their holy books to be desecrated particularly by soldiers who are occupying their lands
Did't know muslims gad "lands" which belong to them.

[arilando]

Humanity belongs to the land, comrade.
lolwut? The land belongs to humanity.

[arilando]

Ban this racist cockend, and how am I the first one to say that?
Maybe because he is't racist? Religion has nothing to do with race.

[arilando]

jesus christ shut up
WTF is wrong with you?

[arilando]

i wish there were thirty more bamiyan buddhas to blow up.
Why the fuck?

[arilando]

Buddhist monks are elitist scum who are educated, anyway, dip shit.



The Western world is secular and we are taught that way. We don't have foreign invaders fucking up every attempt at social progress (Which they did to the Middle Eastern secular left) on us, so religious fundamentalism isn't really a problem, you dumb fucking bourgeois rationalist idiot.
Is't leftism rationalist?

[Rafiq]

Is't leftism rationalist?

Not inherently. Marxism certainly isn't.

Keep in mind rationalism is not the same as being rational. Just like "Free Markets" are literal slavery.

[bugsbunny]

you kind of completely ignore the fact that 'radical islam' is only a thing because of western (mostly US and British) intervention in the middle east in the first place.

'Radical Islam' has always been around since the 7th century. Radical Islam is not something new and caused by US and British intervention.

Its not because of US support of Israel either as what the Left says. The US was bedeviled by Radical Islam right at its brith long before there was an Israel.

In the late 18th century, US ships were attacked along the North African coasts. America's Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson went to London to speak with the ambassador of Tripoli whose ships were attacking peaceful US merchant ships.

When asked, the Ambassador Abdul Rahman told Adams and Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War):



It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.


As you can see, this war-like strain of Islam was very similar to the religious ideology of the jihadists today. Infidels are to be subjugated or conquered or enslaved.

During this period of history, Radical Islam was in fact the mainstream Islam. It was supported by the Caliph in Istanbul as a useful way to rouse the faithful to become cannon fodder for his wars. After most of the Muslim world was colonized by western powers, it faded away with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia which was never colonized.

But now it is being revived by Saudi Arabia and Iran. Islam, to be fair is not monolithic. In places like India and South East Asia and parts of sub-sahara Africa Islam syncretized with other faiths and traditionally were more peaceful. But petro money from the Saudis are changing that.

[#FF0000]

'Radical Islam' has always been around since the 7th century. Radical Islam is not something new and caused by US and British intervention.

No kidding, but it was never a serious political force until the 20th century when the US and the UK started giving these groups support, either directly or through Saudi Arabia.


Its not because of US support of Israel either as what the Left says. The US was bedeviled by Radical Islam right at its brith long before there was an Israel. No, I don't think the Barbary Pirates count as "radical islam", dogg. I also want to point out that middle eastern leaders (in particular, the Sultan of Morocco) were the first to recognize the independence of the United States.

Further, your statement is absolutely absurd because radical islam is a term used to describe 20th century islamist movements, from about the 1920's onward. And even then, these groups didn't even start to really pick up speed until the 1950's, when the US and UK were going all-out on dismantling centrist democratic societies in the first place.



When asked, the Ambassador Abdul Rahman told Adams and Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War):



As you can see, this war-like strain of Islam was very similar to the religious ideology of the jihadists today. Infidels are to be subjugated or conquered or enslaved. Oh boy, a person in government using religion to excuse their bullshit. What a concept.

But you are, miraculously, almost right about something here -- there was a particularly fundamentalist, war-like, intolerant strain of Islam that came about in the 18th century -- Wahhabism.


During this period of history, Radical Islam was in fact the mainstream Islam.Where you run off the tracks again, though, is that you call this thing "mainstream", which is patently false. Wahhabi islam didn't even gain traction until about the 1950's. It was taken about as seriously then as folks like Pat Robertson are today, and that's being generous.


After most of the Muslim world was colonized by western powers, it faded away with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia which was never colonized.Er, no it never faded away because it didn't exist in any meaningful sense. 'Radical islam' was a non-issue even after the decolonization until, as I've said a million times now, the US and the UK decided to play ball with any group who wanted power and would play ball for us.

[#FF0000]

Maybe because he is't racist? Religion has nothing to do with race.

Don't be obtuse, please. Anti-muslim in today's world is basically anti-brown and you have to be living on mars to not see that. And even if we do play this dumb semantic game I don't see the point in going B-B-B-B-BUT IT ISN'T RACISM CAUSE ITS NOT A RACE when the outcome is literally exactly the same -- the othering of a group of people based on some dumb bullshit.


Is't leftism rationalist?

Marxism is a materialist philosophy/ideology/thing

[~Spectre]

I think this shows how fanatical some Muslims are. The US army burns all sort of stuff that is no longer needed including Bibles and Christians do not get angry.


Your fellow conservatives want to make flag burning a felony. That's probably worse.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Am I wrong?

ethnocentric AND wrong

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why the fuck?

signs of ancient empire being destroyed doesn't make me really too weepy.

esp. when as far as i understand it the bamiyan buddhas were destroyed to critique (albeit by the taliban who i'm not a fan of) unesco pouring 100s of thousands of dollars into preservation of the buddhas and the un doing p. much nothing about a persistant famine in the area. not that the un should either, but the destruction of the buddhas was not just "islamofascism" gone crazy.

[gorillafuck]

During this period of history, Radical Islam was in fact the mainstream Islam. It was supported by the Caliph in Istanbul as a useful way to rouse the faithful to become cannon fodder for his wars. After most of the Muslim world was colonized by western powers, it faded away with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia which was never colonized.you're attributing the fading away of radical Islam to colonization? how about modernization?

if colonization gets rid of radical Islam, then tell me this: why does Hamas still exist in that colonized area of the world?

[bugsbunny]

you're attributing the fading away of radical Islam to colonization? how about modernization?

if colonization gets rid of radical Islam, then tell me this: why does Hamas still exist in that colonized area of the world?

After the British and French went home, western influence faded. Look at Pakistan for example. Jinna (their independence leader and first President) was a drinker - forbidden in Islam. He was a secular Muslim. As time went on, their traditional ways came back as the old generation, brought up under colonial influence, faded away. At the time of independence, Pakistan was pretty much secular. Today, Pakistan is quite Islamic.

Look at Malaysia. Abdul Rahman, the first PM allowed a casino to be built in Genting highlands. He received his university education in England. Today, Malaysia has become more Islamic.

Saudi Arabia has petro dollars which it is using to spread its religious ideas all over the muslim world. its brand of Islam is the most classical.

[gorillafuck]

After the British and French went home, western influence faded.and the Palestinian resistance was secular up until the 1980's.

[Le Rouge]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/15638695.jpg

[MarxSchmarx]

After the British and French went home, western influence faded. Look at Pakistan for example. Jinna (their independence leader and first President) was a drinker - forbidden in Islam. He was a secular Muslim. As time went on, their traditional ways came back as the old generation, brought up under colonial influence, faded away. At the time of independence, Pakistan was pretty much secular. Today, Pakistan is quite Islamic.

Look at Malaysia. Abdul Rahman, the first PM allowed a casino to be built in Genting highlands. He received his university education in England. Today, Malaysia has become more Islamic.

Saudi Arabia has petro dollars which it is using to spread its religious ideas all over the muslim world. its brand of Islam is the most classical.

You have to be mindful of technological developments, tho. A given person in Pakistan, say, is more likely to have seen "Desperate Housewives" at an internet cafe than they were to read Life magazine 70 years ago.

I think these kinds of mass homogonizations have the effect of countering radicalizing provincialism. Moreover, western culture exported in this way provides compelling propaganda to counter the radical narrative that the route to prosperity is through modernization and capitalism. Where western influence is more prevelant, especially the technologically developed urban areas of Islamic south east asia, west africa, Turkey, etc... the Islamic radicalism has very limited appeal.

[bugsbunny]

No kidding, but it was never a serious political force until the 20th century when the US and the UK started giving these groups support, either directly or through Saudi Arabia.

Yes they were. The quote I gave of Abdul Rahman justifying war against the infidels is exactly how radical or classical Islamists think. This is what radical Islamists want today. The US did make use of them to undermine the imperialist ambitions of the USSR in Afghanistan.

What we now called radical Islam is actually a polite and politically correct way of describing what classical Islam had always been. The first radical Islamist was Prophet Mohammed himself who called for the subjugation of infidels. According to Muslim scriptures (see Sahih Bukhari) he sent an ultimatum to Roman emperor Heraclius demanding his surrender to Islam. War followed when he refused.

Classical Islam divides the world into two - Darul Islam and Darul Harb. In Classical Islam (nowadays politely called radical Islam), Darul Harb is the abode of War where Muslims have a right to wage war with.

Nowadays, only a minority of Muslims subscribe to this view. We call them radical Muslims. Here is an interesting article explaining darul Harb and darul Islam from a moderate Muslim:

Is the West darul Harb for Muslims? (http://tribune.com.pk/story/144205/is-the-west-darul-harb-for-muslims/)

Excerpt:


There is a perception amongst some Muslims that the countries other than the ones (http://tribune.com.pk/story/144201/veiled-agendas/) with Muslim majority populations, especially those whose rulers are non-Muslims, are Darul Harb — countries at war with Muslims — and Muslims should therefore consider themselves in a state of belligerence with them.
The idea has come from the understanding of Fiqh (the formal legal understanding expressed by the earlier jurists) which basis its opinion on the perception that Islamic faith has come to dominate the entire globe. That understanding is based on a peculiar interpretation of a few Qur’anic verses and the attitude of the first-generation Muslims who went ahead to present the message of Islam by asking the rulers of non-Muslim populations to accept Islam, forfeit their right to rule in favour of the conquering army, or face them in the battlefield. #FF000 wrote:


No, I don't think the Barbary Pirates count as "radical islam", dogg. I also want to point out that middle eastern leaders (in particular, the Sultan of Morocco) were the first to recognize the independence of the United States.Yes they were. The pirates acted with the protection of the rulers of the Barbary states. That's why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with the Tripoli ambassador, Abdul Rahman.

The ambassador justifed the attacks based on classical Muslim law that members of darul Harb may be attacked, robbed and enslaved.


#FF000 wrote:


Further, your statement is absolutely absurd because radical islam is a term used to describe 20th century islamist movements, from about the 1920's onward. And even then, these groups didn't even start to really pick up speed until the 1950's, when the US and UK were going all-out on dismantling centrist democratic societies in the first place.The Ottoman caliphate based their wars on Islamic division on the world into darul Harb (House of war) and darul Islam (House of peace). You have to give up this Leftist hang-up that all non-westerners are incapable of having their own ideas. They are, to you incapable of acting on their own beliefs but merely pushed around by the west. Don't forget for centuries Muslim imperialists were trying to conquer Europe.

[bugsbunny]

Here is more info on darul Harb (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb) by Wikislam.


According to Professor Gamal M. Badr, Adjunct Professor of Islamic law at New York University, in his article titled "A Survey of Islamic International Law", during the Islamic age of expansion jurists elaborated the theory that the rest of the world outside the domain of Islam was collectively dar al-harb, and the normal relationship between it and the Muslim state was considered to be war. Any truces could not exceed a duration of ten years (a precedent set during Muhammad's lifetime).[3] (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb#cite_note-Religion_and_International_Law-2)
During the age of expansion, the rationale for waging war against non-Muslims centered around the legal thought that it was justified by the mere fact of their disbelief.[4] (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb#cite_note-Religion_and_International_Law2-3) After over a century of expansion, Muslim leaders came to the realization that carrying Islam to the four corners of the world was unattainable.[ (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb#cite_note-Religion_and_International_Law-2)Firstly, the age of expansion was during the 7th and 8th century when Islamic armies conquered most of the Roman/Byzantine empire, Persia, Spain and parts of Indian subcontinent.

So this concept of war against infidels who do not follow Islam has been around since its earliest days. This therefore is the classical form of Islam because its been around since its start. The idea that it is the Muslim duty and right to wage war against infidels was expressed by Abdul Rahman to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. This was long before there was an Israel. So its not US support of Israel that motivates them. Its the classical form of Islam that some Muslims still believe in.

This fact is admitted by a moderate Muslim in my previous post. We politely call them 'radical Muslims'. To call this form of Islam 'classical Islam' would be politically incorrect since its an admission that the original Islam was a religion of war not peace. That's the truth of course.

[bugsbunny]

Here is an interesting quote (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb) from Wikislam:


The Reliance of the Traveller recognizes the dar al-harb as "enemy lands" and provides Muslims with instructions and rules regarding such territory. For example, it explains that based on the Prophet's words: "There is no usury (riba) between the Muslim and the hostile non-Muslim in enemy lands (dar al-harb)," it is permissible (according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad) for Muslims to take interest from non-Muslims in enemy lands, so long as it is not done through deception, because their property is lawful to Muslims in their own lands.[16] (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb#cite_note-15) According to this manual of fiqh (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Fiqh), Muslim authorities whose land borders enemy territory (dar al-harb) are obligated to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients.[17] (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb#cite_note-16)
"The Reliance of the Traveller" is a compilation of Islamic law written in about the 13th century. I have a copy and I suggest you get one to understand the real Islam better. Somewhere in front, you will find endorsements by the leading clerics and Institutions of the Muslim World including the famous and highly respected Al Azhar University.

[bugsbunny]

and the Palestinian resistance was secular up until the 1980's.

Exactly my point. The further away from the colonial era, the more relgious and traditional they became.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's not true. Hezbollah is much more secular today than it was in the 1980's, for example.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes they were. The pirates acted with the protection of the rulers of the Barbary states. That's why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with the Tripoli ambassador, Abdul Rahman.

State-sanctioned pirates like Francis Drake and Robert Edwards operated under the protection of the rulers of Christian states. Rulers have often used ideology and/or religion as an excuse to raid and plunder, I'm not sure how this is a particular hallmark of Islam.


The ambassador justifed the attacks based on classical Muslim law that members of darul Harb may be attacked, robbed and enslaved.

Gee, someone justifying their actions in religious language. I bet according to you the guerrilla war in Spain against Napoleon was just the work of Catholic fanaticism, right.

[#FF0000]

real Islam

lol so are muslims who just want to live their life and do their religious thing and who abhor violence (like the ones in America who are more likely to identify as pacifists than christians) just ignorant of their own religion or lying, do you think?


Exactly my point. The further away from the colonial era, the more relgious and traditional they became.

Huh. It must be easy to hold onto your line of thinking when you're totally ignorant of what actually happened in that span of time.

For example, did you know that Israel actively aided Hamas to hurt the secular PLO?

[l'Enfermé]

Palestinian resistence was secular until Israeli agents began to create Islamist resistence groups(i.e like Hamas). Pakistan was Islamized under Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq(not from below, but from above, it was Islamized by ul-Haq's state machinery), one of US's favorite dictators(US gave him billions), who crushed the secular left(Also Islamized Afghanistan which was probably more secular than Kansas, again with US aid). The pattern we see, in the Islamisation of Muslim societies, it shows us that void left by the demise of the left is filled with Islamic fundamentalists.

Anyways, Islam, unlike Judasim and Christianity, was born in the form of an expansionist religion. Did not Muhammad spread it by the sword, killing and selling into slavery those who refused to acccept his creation? I'm not fond of leftists who act like Islamic apologists, while condemning Christianity. This is not a consistent approach.

[#FF0000]

Anyways, Islam, unlike Judasim and Christianity, was born in the form of an expansionist religion.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe unlike Judaism, but Christianity is most certainly an 'expansionist' religion.


Did not Muhammad spread it by the sword, killing and selling into slavery those who refused to acccept his creation?

Like any other religion -- sometimes yes and sometimes no. There were plenty of places where Muslims conquered where non-believers lived a-okay. I'd rather be a Jew in Spain under the Muslims than a Jew anywhere in Christendom at that time.


I'm not fond of leftists who act like Islamic apologists, while condemning Christianity. This is not a consistent approach.

I don't think anyone is saying Islam isn't just another dumb religion, though. I also don't think it's being an apologist say "muslims don't want to literally murder every non-believer".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gee, someone justifying their actions in religious language. I bet according to you the guerrilla war in Spain against Napoleon was just the work of Catholic fanaticism, right.


The sack of Cordova showed the people of Saragossa and other cities what a French attack involved: the city was looted, men were massacred, and women were molested; by ransacking the cathedral and gang-raping nuns, the French made the Church their enemy, and it responded in its traditional way. Miracles proclaimed the defeat of the invaders. Priests exhorted the people to take up arms and fight the "Godless French". Foreshadowing the role of mullahs and imams in the modern Islamic resistance movement, priests proclaimed, "Heaven will be attained by killing the French heretical dogs," and promised that "any soldier wounded fighting the French was ensured 100 years relief from purgatory [and that] anyone killed would be reborn three days later in paradise."

From "Violent Politics" by William Polk.

Funny how people react when they view you as having pissed all over their religion and/or national culture. ;)

[l'Enfermé]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe unlike Judaism, but Christianity is most certainly an 'expansionist' religion.



Like any other religion -- sometimes yes and sometimes no. There were plenty of places where Muslims conquered where non-believers lived a-okay. I'd rather be a Jew in Spain under the Muslims than a Jew anywhere in Christendom at that time.



I don't think anyone is saying Islam isn't just another dumb religion, though. I also don't think it's being an apologist say "muslims don't want to literally murder every non-believer".
Christianity was born as a Jewish sect that isolated itself from society, even refusing military service. It certainly wasn't expansionist until it was adopted by the Romans Emperors, starting with Constantine(Great guy, he instituted laws that punished adultery for women under 25 with death, if the parents of the adulterers decided to rectify the situation and marry their children were robbed of their belongings and banished, slaves and domestics that knew of the adultery and didn't report it were tortured and executed by pouring lead down their throats, and this guy is a saint in the Orthodox Church...)when it turned from the religion of the oppressed and the poor into the religion of the oppressors and conquerors.

My point: Jesus was the "turn the other cheek" guy, Mohammad was a warlord.

And before anyone accuses me of being bias or discrimination againsts Muslims, take note that I am a Muslim myself(being born to a Muslim father automatically makes you Muslim according to Islamic tradition), as were all my grandparents and also their grandparents.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Christianity was born as a Jewish sect that isolated itself from society, even refusing military service. It certainly wasn't expansionist until it was adopted by the Romans Emperors, starting with Constantine(Great guy, he instituted laws that punished adultery for women under 25 with death, if the parents of the adulterers decided to rectify the situation and marry their children were robbed of their belongings and banished, slaves and domestics that knew of the adultery and didn't report it were tortured and executed by pouring lead down their throats, and this guy is a saint in the Orthodox Church...)when it turned from the religion of the oppressed and the poor into the religion of the oppressors and conquerors.

My point: Jesus was the "turn the other cheek" guy, Mohammad was a warlord.

And before anyone accuses me of being bias or discrimination againsts Muslims, take note that I am a Muslim myself(being born to a Muslim father automatically makes you Muslim according to Islamic tradition), as were all my grandparents and also their grandparents.

It doesn't matter. It wasn't Muslim missionaries who set out to utterly destroy the native cultures of the Americas - so much has been lost thanks to those "Warriors for Christ". The character of Jesus does not obviate the historical record of Christendom.

[#FF0000]

Christianity was born as a Jewish sect that isolated itself from society, even refusing military service. It certainly wasn't expansionist until it was adopted by the Romans Emperors, starting with Constantine

It was evangelical, at the very least, before that though.


My point: Jesus was the "turn the other cheek" guy, Mohammad was a warlord.
Yeah, and what does it say about how much that matters when Christians today are more likely to believe that God created the world 2000 years ago and that violence (specifically war) is justifiable, whereas muslims are more likely to accept evolution and identify not only as anti-war but as pacifists?

What I'm saying is that the whole distinction between religions that are 'of the sword' and those that are not is absurd because every religion can be 'of the sword'.

I also want to point out that it is 2012 and by now it should be plainly obvious to anyone who is honest with themselves that heresy isn't a thing anymore and it doesn't matter what religious scripture or church doctrine says -- people will just as often mold religion to fit their life as they will mold their life in accordance to their religion. I don't care what the bible or the koran says about jesus coming to us as a sword or what to do with non-believers because the christians and muslims i hang out with give about as much of a fuck as I do about what other people believe.

[gorillafuck]

Exactly my point. The further away from the colonial era, the more relgious and traditional they became.you think it has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas proved to be more aggressive against colonizers than their secular counterparts, which caused the population to turn to them?

[bugsbunny]

you think it has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas proved to be more aggressive against colonizers than their secular counterparts, which caused the population to turn to them?

A number of reasons. That could be one. It could also be due to rising religiosity in the region as a result of Saudi reason. Also the PLO people were more corrupt.

[bugsbunny]

lol so are muslims who just want to live their life and do their religious thing and who abhor violence (like the ones in America who are more likely to identify as pacifists than christians) just ignorant of their own religion or lying, do you think?

Well as I said earlier some Muslims are secular. They are not interested in holy war. They just want to get on with their lives. Some are cafetaria Muslims who pick and choose which parts of the sharia they want. Some want all of sharia but will not act violently. Some will fight to establish sharia around the world. Here is one who is like that - Ayatollah Khomeini (http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/islam.html):



"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. "


Who do you think he was referring to as "witless"? :lol:

[bugsbunny]

State-sanctioned pirates like Francis Drake and Robert Edwards operated under the protection of the rulers of Christian states. Rulers have often used ideology and/or religion as an excuse to raid and plunder, I'm not sure how this is a particular hallmark of Islam.



Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.

[hatzel]

rising religiosity in the region as a result of Saudi reason

Two quick questions:

1. What exactly is 'Saudi reason'?
2. Have you even been reading this thread? (Hint: go back and check the context of every single occurrence of the word 'Saudi' and maybe start paying attention to what people are saying to you...)

[Veovis]

Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/El_Greco_016.jpg/737px-El_Greco_016.jpg

[RGacky3]

Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.

You are so full of shit, you can come up with any arbitrary judging line where christianity comes out on top, but theres also many the other way around.

I can talk about all sorts of stuff that come from christians and the old testiment and so on.

Its obvious your not objective, or even trying to be, your just on Team-Jesus, Team-USA, Team-Capitalism and team-conservative.

If something does'nt agree with you, you just pick something else, you just use a different line, and its totally arbitrary.

[Thirsty Crow]

jesus christ shut up
Just to note, this wonderful piece of criticism refers to Gacky saying that Christians have historically also perpetrated destructive acts towards other cultures.

And obviously, it's too much too handle for a Catholic. When someone notes that not only members of another religion have acted in this way (which is a legitimate argument in that the opposing side argues for the inherent quality of Islam which leads to violence), bringing up historical examples, then just try to shut him up. Not a word on the ideological role of religion and its historical manifestations.

[l'Enfermé]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2376533]It doesn't matter. It wasn't Muslim missionaries who set out to utterly destroy the native cultures of the Americas - so much has been lost thanks to those "Warriors for Christ". The character of Jesus does not obviate the historical record of Christendom.[/QUOTE
I am an atheist and I was born in a Muslim family, don't take me to be some kind of Christian apologist, I have nothing to do with it.

All I'm saying is, the Church's hold on society has been dissolving for centuries and is all but gone now, their capacity to do evil anymore evil is but small, while the strength of Islam is still very powerful and Islam commits infinitely more evil(I still remember finding the head of our neighbor's grown daughter in a dumpster outside our apartment bloc, she was killed by her brother because he heard rumors that she committed adultery, he found this behavior Un-Islamic,)today, so logically we should be opposed to it even more than we oppose other cults, instead of doing what so many leftists do; being apologists for Islam because Islam is the majority religion in some countries that are opposed by Western imperialists(while ignoring the Imperialist behaviour of these states, which is another issue, a rather annoying one. Neo-colonialism and Imperialism is fine as long as the western capitalist states don't like you)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Just to note, this wonderful piece of criticism refers to Gacky saying that Christians have historically also perpetrated destructive acts towards other cultures.

And obviously, it's too much too handle for a Catholic. When someone notes that not only members of another religion have acted in this way (which is a legitimate argument in that the opposing side argues for the inherent quality of Islam which leads to violence), bringing up historical examples, then just try to shut him up. Not a word on the ideological role of religion and its historical manifestations.

because its simplistic trash

[Althusser]

Ban this racist cockend, and how am I the first one to say that?

Islam is not a race. Also, Being that your display picture is of Marx one would think you understand that religion is a man made idea. He related it to the "way out" of the increasingly shit quality of living following the Industrial Revolution.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

- Karl Marx

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions."

- Karl Marx

It's a condition, as Marx put it, to need fantasies in your life. As a communist, atheism is part of the final outcome. It's only logical. The violence from these people over the Koran burnings were purely religiously motivated. The anger from these people to rise up shouldn't have anything to do with their fundamentalism. If you are mad because he was being unfair to muslims while not condemning the other two abrahamic religions than I agree, but If you are defending Islam and calling for someone with a different view to be banned, then I do not agree.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Islam is not a race. Also, Being that your display picture is of Marx one would think you understand that religion is a man made idea. He related it to the "way out" of the increasingly shit quality of living following the Industrial Revolution.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

- Karl Marx

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions."

- Karl Marx

It's a condition, as Marx put it, to need fantasies in your life. As a communist, atheism is part of the final outcome. It's only logical. The violence from these people over the Koran burnings were purely religiously motivated. The anger from these people to rise up shouldn't have anything to do with their fundamentalism. If you are mad because he was being unfair to muslims while not condemning the other two abrahamic religions than I agree, but If you are defending Islam and calling for someone with a different view to be banned, then I do not agree.

hey fuckwhistle do you live in the same united states that i do?

[~Spectre]

My point: Jesus was the "turn the other cheek" guy, Mohammad was a warlord.


Jesus:


But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

http://bible.cc/luke/19-27.htm

[~Spectre]

Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.

Jesus:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

http://bible.cc/luke/19-27.htm

[bugsbunny]

Bugs, the wascally rabbit wrote:


Originally Posted by bugsbunny http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2376571#post2376571)
Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.


Then Spectre replied:



"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."


Jesus:


http://bible.cc/luke/19-27.htm

Nice


Nice try Spectre. But you need to brush up on your scriptures - both Christian and Islamic. Luke 19:27 was in the context of a parable Jesus told of a King who gave talents to his three servants.

The King was not Jesus but a fictitious character in the parable.

Now let me give you something from Islamic Scriptures about Prophet Mohammed. Its from Sahih Bukhari, the second most important book in Islam.

Sahih Bukhari 34: 432 (http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=34&translator=1&start=0&number=432#432)



Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.


What happened was this. Mohammed led his men on a jihad and captured some girls. Female captives were to be used as sex slaves for Mohammed and his men and later to be sold for cash.

His men were worried that making them pregnant would lower their prices in the slave market which they feared would make Mohammed unhappy. That's because Mohammed's share was 20% of whatever booty they captured. So they asked him about whether he wanted them to do coitus interruptus.

But Mohammed, being a generous man, wanted his men to enjoy themselves. So he told them there was no need because if it is Allah's will that they get pregnant they will get pregnant no matter what they did.

During his career, Mohammed and his men robbed, killed and raped. He led his men on a jihad to spread the faith that he was a Prophet of Allah and hence all should obey him. Jesus did not do that. Neither did Buddha. The sharia (ie Islamic Law) was based on the words and deeds of Mohammed.

I think reforming Islam is going to be difficult. Reform means having to repudiate some of the things Mohammed did. That would bring down the whole religion.

Look I know where you are coming from. Leftists have a script or narrative they must follow which is usually untrue. That's why Leftists end up banging their heads against the hard wall of facts. In this case, the leftist narrative calls for everything the west, especially America has done to be bad. You want a revolution. You need to convince yourself that your society is evil and must be destroyed before your Socialist Utopia can come. So every bad thing that happened must be America's fault. America got attacked on 911. Its America's fault. It's because they support Israel. The Third World people are the victims. That's all they can be. They have no will of their own, no ideas of their own. They are simply props pushed around by America, Britain and its allies.

But that is simply wrong. They have their own ideas that come fromt their own culture and religion. Their faith since the earliest days had them believing that they were entitled to subjugate and conquer the infidels so that the true faith can dominate the world. Many of them still think like that. That's why you got 911. Its not because of what America has done. Its not because America supports Israel. They attacked American ships in the late 18th century based on this jihad ideology cum religious beliefs long before there was an Israel.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Its a hallmark because its Founder, Prophet Mohammed did the same. Jesus did not raid or plunder.

What Jesus did or didn't do is irrelevant, because the fact is that many of his followers killed and tortured many people, using him and the ideology spawned in association with him as a justification. Why did that happen? Because it provided a convenient cover for people to rise to positions of power and influence? Seems plausible to me. But the same couldn't apply to the history of the Muslim world, oh no. They're just barbaric sand people.

Islam is a reactionary ideology, and it can be criticized on it's own merits. But I think it's important that it's criticized from within the traditionally Muslim culture, otherwise it comes across as bigotry. Most people here who criticize Christianity do so from cultures that have traditionally been Christian (as most members here are from the USA or Europe).

[~Spectre]

Nice try Spectre. But you need to brush up on your scriptures -

Jesus:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34&version=NIV

[RGacky3]

Jesus:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...34&version=NIV (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34&version=NIV)

That verse has to be taken in context and intepreted IN the whole context.

[l'Enfermé]

I didn't realize that Jesus wrote the Bible. I was under the impression it was written and re-written many times, up to centuries after his death.

Anyways, a quote from a work of Engel's(On the History of Early Christianity (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)):


The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.


2 paragraphs later:


The parallel between the two historic phenomena forces itself upon our attention as early as the Middle Ages in the first risings of the oppressed peasants and particularly of the town plebeians. These risings, like all mass movements of the Middle Ages, were bound to wear the mask of religion and appeared as the restoration of early Christianity from spreading degeneration. [Note by Engels: A peculiar antithesis to this was the religious risings in the Mohammedan world, particularly in Africa. Islam is a religion adapted to Orientals, especially Arabs, i.e., on one hand to townsmen engaged in trade and industry, on the other to nomadic Bedouins. Therein lies, however, the embryo of a periodically recurring collision. The townspeople grow rich, luxurious and lax in the observation of the "law." The Bedouins, poor and hence of strict morals, contemplate with envy and covetousness these riches and pleasures. Then they unite under a prophet, a Mahdi, to chastise the apostates and restore the observation of the ritual and the true faith and to appropriate in recompense the treasures of the renegades. In a hundred years they are naturally in the same position as the renegades were: a new purge of the faith is required, a new Mahdi arises and the game starts again from the beginning. That is what happened from the conquest campaigns of the African Almoravids and Almohads in Spain to the last Mahdi of Khartoum who so successfully thwarted the English. It happened in the same way or similarly with the risings in Persia and other Mohammedan countries. All these movements are clothed in religion but they have their source in economic causes; and yet, even when they are victorious, they allow the old economic conditions to persist untouched. So the old situation remains unchanged and the collision recurs periodically. In the popular risings of the Christian West, on the contrary, the religious disguise is only a flag and a mask for attacks on an economic order which is becoming antiquated. This is finally overthrown, a new one arises and the world progresses.]

The last part, especially:

All these movements are clothed in religion but they have their source in economic causes; and yet, even when they are victorious, they allow the old economic conditions to persist untouched. So the old situation remains unchanged and the collision recurs periodically. In the popular risings of the Christian West, on the contrary, the religious disguise is only a flag and a mask for attacks on an economic order which is becoming antiquated. This is finally overthrown, a new one arises and the world progresses
I think it's a good argument for the progressive character of Christianity, even after it's complete degeneration by Constantine and the Romans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That verse has to be taken in context and intepreted IN the whole context.

I don't think you quite realise that for a not insignifcant amount of Christians, "taking things in context" or anything approaching "proper" analysis of the Bible like what historians or Biblical scholars do would be at the very least an implicit akcnowledgement that the Bible is a mundane human document, rather than something written or inspired by the Lord of Creation Himself.

Why should we be bothered with that shit when most Christians can't be arsed themselves to look up the context of whatever it is they're quoting to support their case? Or haven't you noticed that they do that as well?

[RGacky3]

I guess I have, but I consider myself a christian, and as such make sure I understand the gospels and so on in context and with proper analysis.

If your not gonna do that I don't see what the point is, but I can't speak for anyone else.

People like Pat Robertson I don't think are even sincere, he's juts pattently a lier and purposefully takes things out of context and stright up lies.

But WE should be bothered with it, because hopefully WE are smarter than people that are not.

The same goes for libertarians, just because THEY don't understand economics does'nt mean we should'nt.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I guess I have, but I consider myself a christian, and as such make sure I understand the gospels and so on in context and with proper analysis.

If your not gonna do that I don't see what the point is, but I can't speak for anyone else.

If the Bible can be subject to analysis just like any other historical human document, then that kind of undercuts any case for it being the Word of God, no?


People like Pat Robertson I don't think are even sincere, he's juts pattently a lier and purposefully takes things out of context and stright up lies.

Red herring. Pat Robertson is far from the only Christian who does that sort of thing.


But WE should be bothered with it, because hopefully WE are smarter than people that are not.

The same goes for libertarians, just because THEY don't understand economics does'nt mean we should'nt.

As I pointed out, acknowledging the ultimately human origins of the Bible is beyond the pale for most Christians. Surely you must realise along with them that "proper" study of the Bible is incompatible with being a sincerely believing Christian. The historicity of Jesus is disputed for one, and even if he did exist as a historical person, his words were written and re-written for him decades (and more) after his supposed death.

The Bible was written by humans, for humans. That fact alone is counter to the central tenets of theistic Christianity.

[RGacky3]

If the Bible can be subject to analysis just like any other historical human document, then that kind of undercuts any case for it being the Word of God, no?


No .... I don't see any reason to think it undercuts any case for that.


Red herring. Pat Robertson is far from the only Christian who does that sort of thing.


Ok, well include those christians in the same boat.


As I pointed out, acknowledging the ultimately human origins of the Bible is beyond the pale for most Christians. Surely you must realise along with them that "proper" study of the Bible is incompatible with being a sincerely believing Christian. The historicity of Jesus is disputed for one, and even if he did exist as a historical person, his words were written and re-written for him decades (and more) after his supposed death.

The Bible was written by humans, for humans. That fact alone is counter to the central tenets of theistic Christianity.

I don't see why that would be the case, you can believe in divine inspiration and still get that everything needs to be taken in historical context.

The historicity of jesus is hardly disputed in meanstream historical scolarship, neither is his death, as for his words, there are different opinions about how much of them are genuine and how much are not.

[hatzel]

Anyways, a quote from a work of Engel's(On the History of Early Christianity (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)):

[...]

I think it's a good argument for the progressive character of Christianity, even after it's complete degeneration by Constantine and the Romans.

So what you're telling me is that some 19th century white dude writes a load of orientalist drivel and suddenly we have a reliable understanding of the differences between Christianity, Islam and their respective societies? A break: give it me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No .... I don't see any reason to think it undercuts any case for that.

So, as a professed Christian, you don't see the contradiction in treating the Bible in exactly the same way as the holy books of other religions in which you do not believe?


Ok, well include those christians in the same boat.

They're all insincere? I would have thought it the height of arrogance to question the sincerity of thousands if not millions of peoples' religious beliefs. I certainly get pissed off when Christians accuse me of being an atheist not because I have insufficient evidence for any deity, but as an excuse to live a life of guilt-free hedonism (like I need an excuse!).


I don't see why that would be the case, you can believe in divine inspiration and still get that everything needs to be taken in historical context.

How can something be "divinely inspired" when objectively examined it looks exactly like the words of a human, writing for human purposes?


The historicity of jesus is hardly disputed in meanstream historical scolarship, neither is his death, as for his words, there are different opinions about how much of them are genuine and how much are not.

So when reading the Bible, how do you tell which words Jesus spoke and which were made up for him?

[RGacky3]

So, as a professed Christian, you don't see the contradiction in treating the Bible in exactly the same way as the holy books of other religions in which you do not believe?


When dealing with figuring out the context and the historical background of it No I don't see the contradiction.

When dealing with theological implications then yeah.


I would have thought it the height of arrogance to question the sincerity of thousands if not millions of peoples' religious beliefs.

Thats why I only mentioned Pat Robertson, because its obvious that he is'nt sincere, I guarantee you God did'nt tell him that Obama was bad and who the next president was.


How can something be "divinely inspired" when objectively examined it looks exactly like the words of a human, writing for human purposes?


Because they were written by humans for human purposes, however a christian would believe that ultimately the messages are from a divine inspiration.


So when reading the Bible, how do you tell which words Jesus spoke and which were made up for him?

Ask a historian or a biblical scholar.

[bugsbunny]

What Jesus did or didn't do is irrelevant, because the fact is that many of his followers killed and tortured many people, using him and the ideology spawned in association with him as a justification. Why did that happen? Because it provided a convenient cover for people to rise to positions of power and influence? Seems plausible to me. But the same couldn't apply to the history of the Muslim world, oh no. They're just barbaric sand people.

Islam is a reactionary ideology, and it can be criticized on it's own merits. But I think it's important that it's criticized from within the traditionally Muslim culture, otherwise it comes across as bigotry. Most people here who criticize Christianity do so from cultures that have traditionally been Christian (as most members here are from the USA or Europe).

What Jesus did or did no do is relevent because it is from his example that those who misuse the faith for their political gain can be measured against and ultimately rejected. The Founder of any faith is very important because he sets an example and role model for his followers.

Unfortunately, Mohammed was a terrorist. So his example can be used to justify terrorism. For example, he ordered his critics killed. So Bouyeri felt justified to murder Vincent Van Gogh and Ayatollah Khomeini felt justified to issue a death sentance against Salman Rushdie.

[RGacky3]

Shall we say the same for Jews? Mass murder of children and women and so on?

[RGacky3]

If you want to talk about terrorism, we can compare terrorism from so called christians and muslims ANYday, starting with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Rafiq]

After the British and French went home, western influence faded. Look at Pakistan for example. Jinna (their independence leader and first President) was a drinker - forbidden in Islam. He was a secular Muslim. As time went on, their traditional ways came back as the old generation, brought up under colonial influence, faded away. At the time of independence, Pakistan was pretty much secular. Today, Pakistan is quite Islamic.

Look at Malaysia. Abdul Rahman, the first PM allowed a casino to be built in Genting highlands. He received his university education in England. Today, Malaysia has become more Islamic.

Saudi Arabia has petro dollars which it is using to spread its religious ideas all over the muslim world. its brand of Islam is the most classical.

Oh you fucking idiot, now you're starting to piss me off.

Every fucking real, Anti imperialist strong movement in the middle east was fucking completely westernized and secular
.

And your talking to the wrong person on this issue, pal, I actually know this shit for a fact based on experience.

Do you want to know why secularism was destroyed in the middle east? Your fucking British, American and French Imperialist fucks. They started heavily funding Saudi Arabia (An already puppet of Colonisalism from day one), favored Iranian Islamists over Communists, funded Islamists groups from Hamas to the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. etc.

So it's the fucking opposite, Islamism, Anti-Secularism, oppression of Women and children, and minorities, only came into existence after the Imperialists started coming back into the picture.

All the Islamist groups from the Lebanese Civil war were dogs of Imperialism. It was only a few Shia islamists who weren't, completely (though, they were shady). This was common fucking sense. Hamas was a dog of Israeli imperialism in the 1980's, and the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.

All the Islamist states before the 80's were all puppets of American and British Imperialism, while most of the secular, non Islamist states were clients of Soviet Imperialism.

You're talking out of your ass and it's not even funny.

"As soon as the Colonialists left, Western influences faded". HAH! Have you ever fucking talked to someone from the Middle east in the 60's-70's? Even today, have you ever been to a middle eastern country? Western Influences faded when Western Imperialists came back. An odd Paradox, no?

[Rafiq]

Here is more info on darul Harb (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dar_al-Harb) by Wikislam.

Firstly, the age of expansion was during the 7th and 8th century when Islamic armies conquered most of the Roman/Byzantine empire, Persia, Spain and parts of Indian subcontinent.

So this concept of war against infidels who do not follow Islam has been around since its earliest days. This therefore is the classical form of Islam because its been around since its start. The idea that it is the Muslim duty and right to wage war against infidels was expressed by Abdul Rahman to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. This was long before there was an Israel. So its not US support of Israel that motivates them. Its the classical form of Islam that some Muslims still believe in.

This fact is admitted by a moderate Muslim in my previous post. We politely call them 'radical Muslims'. To call this form of Islam 'classical Islam' would be politically incorrect since its an admission that the original Islam was a religion of war not peace. That's the truth of course.

There were no serious, popular Islamist groups during the cold war (up until the 80's). Why weren't they calling to "kill the infidels"? Oh no please, pull up some bearded bastard who was irrelevant to represent the entire Arab community. Your Idealism is sickening.

[Baseball]

Every fucking real, Anti imperialist strong movement in the middle east was fucking completely westernized and secular
.

I think that tends to confirm what Bugs said.



Do you want to know why secularism was destroyed in the middle east? Your fucking British, American and French Imperialist fucks. They started heavily funding Saudi Arabia (An already puppet of Colonisalism from day one), favored Iranian Islamists over Communists, funded Islamists groups from Hamas to the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. etc.

ect ect ect. Secularism failed because the governments did not deliver the goods it promised.
And why was that? Because the Arab states modeled themselves after the USSR- there was a reason why the founders of the Ba'ath Socialist Party called themselves thus.
The Islamists claim they will deliver the goods.


So it's the fucking opposite, Islamism, Anti-Secularism, oppression of Women and children, and minorities, only came into existence after the Imperialists started coming back into the picture.

The Islamic Republic of Iran kicked things off in 1979. They sought, and continue to do so, to drive the West OUT of the region.

[hatzel]

The Islamic Republic of Iran kicked things off in 1979. They sought, and continue to do so, to drive the West OUT of the region.

Ah...would that not suggest that that imperialists kind of had to be in the region at that point? In order to be driven out? So how does this contradict was Rafiq said: that increased Islamism is a result of western imperialism?

[Baseball]

Ah...would that not suggest that that imperialists kind of had to be in the region at that point? In order to be driven out? So how does this contradict was Rafiq said: that increased Islamism is a result of western imperialism?

The argument of the apparently banned Bugs was that as western influenced waned, Islamism arose.
I don't particularly buy that, as I said.

But I think rafiq's claim, as I understand it, is that islamism arose because West tried to drive back in, after having been driven out by the previous secular folks. But I don't think that fits the facts: The USA did not try to drive back into Iran in the 70s- it was already there.

I think the theory also tends to infantilise the Islamists- it makes as if they are simply reacting to the big bad "imperialists" (whoever they are and whatever that is) as opposed to having their own views and opinions about how life and society should be- and then identifying who stands in their way.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have looked into both sides of the issue and I have to say I'm torn. Yes, according to Islam the proper way to dispose of old copies of the Qur'an is to burn them. However, there has been cases where Qur'ans have been burned to convey a message of hate, similar to how the Nazis burned copies of the Torah. In those such situations book-burning is wrong.

In this recent incident though from my understanding people were sending secret messages in the books so the US military responded. I'd say this could have been a matter of safety, but who knows? I don't even know the exact nature of the messages sent in the books. Still, next time a imam/priest/whatever should be consulted if any holy books are to be disposed of.

[~Spectre]

That verse has to be taken in context and intepreted IN the whole context.

All religion is bullshit, but you Christians have no room to call others violent.


Philip Jenkins studied violence in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and found that the Bible is ‘far more violent.’

http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/jenkins-bible-far-more-violent-than.html


"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.


Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

You lose.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

[RGacky3]

All religion is bullshit, but you Christians have no room to call others violent.


I'm not the one doing it numbnuts, read my posts.

[Rafiq]

I think that tends to confirm what Bugs said.

Bugs tried to say as Colonialism faded, so did western influence (Meaning, social progression, culture, etc.). This is far from the case.



ect ect ect. Secularism failed because the governments did not deliver the goods it promised.

Secularism never failed. Roughly all of the same secular governments are still secular today, so, this is an invalid argument.

The movements, on the other hand, were secular. The Ideological hegemony, was secular. The culture, was secular. Religious fundamentalism was irrelevant.



And why was that? Because the Arab states modeled themselves after the USSR- there was a reason why the founders of the Ba'ath Socialist Party called themselves thus.

Lebanon was always secular, and it had nothing to do with the USSR. As for the Ba'ath states, such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Northern Yemen, economically, they didn't resemble the USSR in anyway. If you were to receive any sort of support in the Middle East during the time, you had to call your movement Socialist, which is why the first Islamists called themselves "Islamic Socialists".

Perhaps, Southern Yemen pleads guilty to your claim, maybe.

though you misinterperate me. I am not talking about the various bourgeois states in place in the middle east. I am talking about the several movements and armed political groups in the Middle East. The "terrorists" all used to be secular socialists.

For the most part, economically, those secular countries were in better shape before. It was Imperialism that is to blame for the rise of Islamism, leading to several of these states to adopt Neo Liberalism (After the collapse of the USSR, they had to recognize the U.S. and NATO were in control of the world's economy, and if they didn't adhere to their demands, such as opening up their markets, etc., They'd be fucked). And that is largely where the growth stopped.


The Islamists claim they will deliver the goods.


The Islamists, though powerful, never became popular until the collaspe of the Soviet Union. You see, several Western Powers funded these unpopular Islamist groups during the cold war, and, when the Soviet Union collapsed, they became something beyond themselves originally (Hamas, for example, experienced a mutiny), making them the only force strong enough to fight Western Imperialism, which was still very much active in the region. This is when they got popular, when education was destroyed for the masses, they were easily manipulated by these educated Islamist petty bourgeois leaders.


The Islamic Republic of Iran kicked things off in 1979. They sought, and continue to do so, to drive the West OUT of the region.


No. The Islamist fire existed before the Iranian revolution. The "revolution" was just an expression of this already existing reactionary events. Besides, most Islamists absolutely despised Iran's new status quo, as mostly they were Shia Muslims. They could not have kicked things off, but they definitively gave us a picture of the situation and influenced them.

[freepalestine]

Lebanon was always secular, and it had nothing to do with the USSR. As for the Ba'ath states, such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Northern Yemen, economically, they didn't resemble the USSR in anyway. If you were to receive any sort of support in the Middle East during the time, you had to call your movement Socialist, which is why the first Islamists called themselves "Islamic Socialists".
only syria and iraq were ba'athist.,although they were all arab nationalist(,nasserites etc-except nyemen)
and no where have i heard the term 'islamic socialists' only in association of pmoi/mek iran


For the most part, economically, those secular countries were in better shape before. It was Imperialism that is to blame for the rise of Islamism, leading to several of these states to adopt Neo Liberalism (After the collapse of the USSR, they had to recognize the U.S. and NATO were in control of the world's economy, and if they didn't adhere to their demands, such as opening up their markets, etc., They'd be fucked). And that is largely where the growth stopped.
The Islamists, though powerful, never became popular until the collaspe of the Soviet Union. You see, several Western Powers funded these unpopular Islamist groups during the cold war, and, when the Soviet Union collapsed, they became something beyond themselves originally (Hamas, for example, experienced a mutiny), making them the only force strong enough to fight Western Imperialism, which was still very much active in the region. This is when they got popular, when education was destroyed for the masses, they were easily manipulated by these educated Islamist petty bourgeois leaders.

i think the power financially ,ideologically of KSA(gcc) shouldn't be overlooked either


Besides, most Islamists absolutely despised Iran's new status quo, as mostly they were Shia Muslims. They could not have kicked things off, but they definitively gave us a picture of the situation and influenced them.
hezbollah,UIA elements and iran altho' shia are political islamists

[Rafiq]

Of course, but those Islamists were a fraction of Islamism on the rise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When dealing with figuring out the context and the historical background of it No I don't see the contradiction.

When dealing with theological implications then yeah.

Doesn't one flow from the other? If some or all of the words of Jesus have been fabricated, surely that has theological implications?


Thats why I only mentioned Pat Robertson, because its obvious that he is'nt sincere, I guarantee you God did'nt tell him that Obama was bad and who the next president was.

My point was that it's pretty fucking clear that Pat Robertson is far from the only one who expresses such sentiments. I consider it highly disingenuous of you, bordering on the dishonest in fact, that you snipped out the parts of my quote addressing that - they're all insincere? etc.


Because they were written by humans for human purposes, however a christian would believe that ultimately the messages are from a divine inspiration.

Based on what? Muslims, Hindus and Zoroastrians can make exactly the same kind of claim. Considering the huge variety of human superstition, they can't possibly be all true.


Ask a historian or a biblical scholar.

Millions of Christians clearly don't do that when it comes to the words of Jesus.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

what do you all think of the claim many bourgeois historians (well, all academic historians I can find) make that sharia law played a large role in the middle east's economic and political decline at the end of feudalism?

Here are some excerpts from a paper I was forced to write on the topic. I was writing for the teacher, so I don't necessarily agree with all of it. Also I was very drunk at the time, so there's lots of passive voice and contradictions and such. Still got a good grade on it. The sources didn't copy paste in so let me know if you're interested.



Early Medieval Islamic society enjoyed much more extensive trade than Europe, due in part to its location between the Eastern and Western societies. Access to the Arabian Sea as well as the Mediterranean provided Muslim traders with an opportunity to develop more extensive trade routes. A fundamentally bourgeois class of merchants emerged from this milieu called the Kārimīs. They gained substantial political power and wealth without owning land, and exchanged capital and goods extensively in funduqs and markets1. However, it is unlikely the Kārimīs could have developed revolutionary potential due to the role of shari’a, discussed below, which discouraged philosophical progress. In contrast, European merchants operated on a very small scale2. This changed with the deforestation of Europe, the cessation of Scandinavian and Magyar invasions, and the depletion of Chinese trading goods due to Mongol invasions34. Western Europeans soon attained dominance in the sphere of trading.

Aspects of Christianity and Islam may have influenced the capacity of each culture to develop beyond feudalism. In the Muslim world, shari’a attempted to provide a universal set of laws, rendering new legislation largely unnecessary. Muslims perceived justice and truth as things that could only be found in religion5. This attitude was demonstrated by Usāma Ibn-Munqidh, who explained nearly all events religiously, scarcely wrote a paragraph that didn’t mention Allah, and obeyed a caliph he thought was evil and weak even when it endangered himself and others, as a literal reading of the Koran seems to advocate6.

In contrast, Christians had always considered the secular state and the church to be distinct from one another. Christian justice and morality was partially based on ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and laws. Empirical ways of learning about the world were somewhat acceptable; there was plenty not discussed in the Bible that still needed to be discovered. Juries were considered legitimate in Christian society. Along with the influence of dialectical Greek philosophers, this legitimated argument as a productive means to ascertaining truths7.
Muslims lived in religious communities, ummas, which provided a complete, inflexible, way of life. The Christian analog, the community surrounding a church, was primarily focused on salvation and spirituality. The ummas were expected to spread their religion and defend its superiority8. This, along with the favorable economic conditions previously discussed, explains their rapid expansion in the centuries following Muhammad’s death. Once Islamic economic hegemony was broken, the Christian merchants were armed with the wealth and philosophical opportunities to become a revolutionary bourgeois class. The flexibility of Christian law allowed them to use their power to slowly improve their conditions long before the French Revolution.
...
In Iberia, Mulims and Christians lived together fairly peacefully, though often insulated from each other, for long periods of time9. Saracens crossed the Pyrenees to raid France and made frequent raids by sea on the coasts of France and Italy, sometimes making it surprisingly far north before leaving10. Conquered Christian communities adapted by learning Arabic and even adopting certain Islamic theological practices11, again demonstrating the flexibility of the Christian mindset.
...
In conclusion, the rise of Islamic society was precipitated by religious unity, chance economic prosperity, and the imperative to spread Islam. The decline and stagnation, which continues today in the Saudia Arabian kingdom and elsewhere, was due to the inflexibility of the predominating weltanschauung in Muslim countries.
I found the topic somewhat interesting. I suppose in theory all religions don't have to be created equally bad (on the historical level only - I by no means want to argue that individual spirituality is an inherently bad thing).

[pluckedflowers]

what do you all think of the claim many bourgeois historians (well, all academic historians I can find) make that sharia law played a large role in the middle east's economic and political decline at the end of feudalism?

Here are some excerpts from a paper I was forced to write on the topic. I was writing for the teacher, so I don't necessarily agree with all of it. Also I was very drunk at the time, so there's lots of passive voice and contradictions and such. Still got a good grade on it. The sources didn't copy paste in so let me know if you're interested.

I found the topic somewhat interesting. I suppose in theory all religions don't have to be created equally bad (on the historical level only).

This has certainly been a popular theme in earlier historiography on the subject (and there are a few scholars still cashing in on it today), but it's both anti-materialist and, more importantly, at odds with the facts. If you look at the actual history of, say, the Ottoman Empire, ideological restrictions on usury were being circumvented as early as the 16th century (with the institution of cash vakifs, which were essentially credit funds). Later, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the state developed a system of tax farming that couldn't have existed without credit networks that included both Muslims and non-Muslims. And in the late 19th century the state had begun taking on international debt and creating agricultural credit cooperatives.

If you're interested in looking into these issues more deeply, you can check out the Social and Economic History of the Ottoman Empire edited by Inalcik and Quataert. Of course, Muslim societies weren't restricted to the Middle East, but that's what I'm more familiar with.

[RGacky3]

Doesn't one flow from the other? If some or all of the words of Jesus have been fabricated, surely that has theological implications?


There are different scholars that accept diffferent amounts of the red letter scriptures (Jesus' words), but we were talking about historical context here.


My point was that it's pretty fucking clear that Pat Robertson is far from the only one who expresses such sentiments. I consider it highly disingenuous of you, bordering on the dishonest in fact, that you snipped out the parts of my quote addressing that - they're all insincere? etc.


Well what I am saying is Pat Robertson, and people that are like him are obviously insincere.


Based on what? Muslims, Hindus and Zoroastrians can make exactly the same kind of claim. Considering the huge variety of human superstition, they can't possibly be all true.


Based on many different things that I'm not going to get into here, I'm not here to preach.