Narodnik based split off from the FEMEN thread

[Narodnik]

FEMEN's actions were directed against Islamism, not Islam.
That's a problem right there. Mohammed is no Jesus. There are no communist, anarchists, pacifists, humanist, or social justice movements inspired by Mohammed, and that's for a reason.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

[Devrim]

That's a problem right there. Mohammed is no Jesus. There are no communist, anarchists, pacifists, humanist, or social justice movements inspired by Mohammed, and that's for a reason.

Just as with Christianity, Islam produced radical offshoots that we could charecterise as 'communistic' in the same way as groups inspired by Christianity such as the English 'Diggers' could be. Of course even today mainstream Shia Islam puts a huge emphasis on the idea of 'social justice'. I think the deficiency here is more connected to your own ignorance than to a lack of these sort of ideals or groups springing from Islam.

Devrim

[Narodnik]

Well that's an outright lie right there because all these things do in fact exist.Sure. If someone would to make an anarcho-pacifist movement inspired by Hitler, would that be a proof that Hitler was not such a bad guy but only 'misinterpreted' or would that be a proof of that someone being an idiot? I'd say the latter.

It's pretty same with Mohammed, his words and action simply cannot inspire noble action- read the link I provided.


I think the deficiency here is more connected to your own ignorance
Exactly what I was thinking about you. Only my opinion is backed with a bunch of quotes from the Quran and the Hadith.

[Crux]

Sure. If someone would to make an anarcho-pacifist movement inspired by Hitler, would that be a proof that Hitler was not such a bad guy but only 'misinterpreted' or would that be a proof of that someone being an idiot? I'd say the latter.

It's pretty same with Mohammed, his words and action simply cannot inspire noble action- read the link I provided.


Exactly what I was thinking about you. Only my opinion is backed with a bunch of quotes from the Quran and the Hadith.
I did. Green ink loony racist nonsense. Are you sure you're on the right page? If this represents your views I suspect you'd feel more at home with the likes of Pamela Geller or the EDL.

[Narodnik]

Green ink loony racist nonsense.Quoting the Quran and the Hadith is loony racist nonsense? Wow. Everyone who is against nazism and would ban Nazi literature, and is not against Islam and would not ban Quran and Hadith collections is a hypocrite. It is not the "islamists" that "twist Islam", it is Islam itself that calls for violence against non-muslims and for establishing totalitarian laws, and that's how Mohammad lived, and what he preached.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

Directing people to read what the Quran says and what Mohammed did doesn't make me an "islamophob", but you calling me so does make you an ingoramus.

[#FF0000]

words

The thing is that religion is p. much a mirror and people will twist things however they want one way or another, regardless of what the texts say. I mean we can go ahead and look at the Quran and say "OH IT'S SO VIOLENT MUSLIMS MUST BE VIOLENT" but uh then you look at what actual muslims say about violence (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/).

I'm honestly really puzzled when I hear people try to tell me that one religion is inherently more or less violent/patriarchal/whatever than any other religion as if people don't cherrypick already and mold their religious ideas to fit their worldview as much as they mold their worldview to fit their religious ideas.

EDIT: I also like when people say things don't exist (e.g. muslim pacifists) because it doesn't make sense according to what they think they know about a culture or religion gubgubgubg

[Narodnik]

The thing is that religion is p. much a mirror and people will twist things however they want one way or another, regardless of what the texts say.Why aren't there Jain suicide bombers and Lamaist holy-war lunatics? Because when one is Jain "extremist" he wears a cloth over his mouth so as not to inhale small flies and thus kill them, and brooms in front of him so as not to accidentaly step on small insects and hurt them.

Of course you can be a formal Muslim and not be violent, but likewise you can be a formal Nazi and not be violent, but the fact remains that the core and defining writtings of the ideas those people formally belong to do call for violence and totalitarianism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So does every religion that has formed in the same period of social development as Islam, meaning most of them. And quite a few religions that postdate Islam, but seek to emulate some previous religion and its mores.

[hatzel]

@Narodnik

If you want to continue with this little line of argument then fine, I can't exactly stop you (but I can remind you that you're painfully off-topic, so maybe you should start a thread in religion or something if you feel so strongly about it, and let people here talk about the topic at hand), but in the interests of your own credibility I would very much recommend you find a website to link to that doesn't try to sell 'Atlas Shrugged' on its home page for some reason lol

[Narodnik]

but in the interests of your own credibility I would very much recommend you find a website to link to that doesn't try to sell 'Atlas Shrugged' on its home page for some reason
Which is totally irrelevant to what the Quran and the Hadith say. Also, I don't think I'm off-topic, the topic wasn't steered away, what I've been saying is central to the topic, because the question of whether "islamism" is the same as Islam is at the core of this topic.

[#FF0000]

Why aren't there Jain suicide bombers and Lamaist holy-war lunatics? Because when one is Jain "extremist" he wears a cloth over his mouth so as not to inhale small flies and thus kill them, and brooms in front of him so as not to accidentaly step on small insects and hurt them.

Virtually every religion does have holy-war lunatics, though, even if there aren't uh, any Jainist suicide bombers, so I'm not sure what your point is here.


Of course you can be a formal Muslim and not be violent, but likewise you can be a formal Nazi and not be violent, but the fact remains that the core and defining writtings of the ideas those people formally belong to do call for violence and totalitarianism.

Except that these people honestly don't believe that their religion calls for violence. Which means one of two things. 1) You know better than them or 2) they're lying as part of some sinister plot. Both of these are extremely unlikely (seeing as Islam has a pretty massive history of scholarship and revision), but even if the first is true, what would that matter when so many believe that violence and totalitarianism are abhorrent and conduct themselves accordingly?

An aside here: I think it's pretty funny that the only people that take the Quran and associated texts at face value with no interest in context or whatever are islamophobes and fundamentalists.

[Luís Henrique]

Why aren't there Jain suicide bombers and Lamaist holy-war lunatics?

Probably because the conditions in which most Jains and Lamaists live aren't conducive to violent actions. If they were, either those religions would have to adapt, and become more violent, or they would be superceeded by other, more violence-friendly, religions.

Think of how much brutal violence has been imposed into others in the name of a prophet who explicitly told us to do unto our neighbours as we would them doing unto us.

Religions are what they historically develop into being, not what they were designed to be by some holy text - even when the holy text explicitly says that the latter way is how it should be.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

An aside here: I think it's pretty funny that the only people that take the Quran and associated texts at face value with no interest in context or whatever are islamophobes and fundamentalists.

Ah... unity of opposites [/Hegelian orgasm]:laugh:

Luís Henrique

[teflon_john]

That's a problem right there. Mohammed is no Jesus. There are no communist, anarchists, pacifists, humanist, or social justice movements inspired by Mohammed, and that's for a reason.

hey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shi%27ism_vs._Black_Shi%27ism

http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/ashariati/works/red_black_shiism.php

[Crux]

Quoting the Quran and the Hadith is loony racist nonsense? Wow. Everyone who is against nazism and would ban Nazi literature, and is not against Islam and would not ban Quran and Hadith collections is a hypocrite. It is not the "islamists" that "twist Islam", it is Islam itself that calls for violence against non-muslims and for establishing totalitarian laws, and that's how Mohammad lived, and what he preached.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

Directing people to read what the Quran says and what Mohammed did doesn't make me an "islamophob", but you calling me so does make you an ingoramus.
Ah sorry, it's spelled islamophobe, and that page you are linking is shit, indeed racist shit. Do you want me break down why and how for you? And no, I am not impressed with the misinformation and reading of scripture of your racist web page. One could easily make a similar page on jews and the Torah to make a similar ill-informed racist point. But bashing on muslims is what's en vogue now, I suppose.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ah sorry, it's spelled islamophobe, and that page you are linking is shit, indeed racist shit. Do you want me break down why and how for you? And no, I am not impressed with the misinformation and reading of scripture of your racist web page. One could easily make a similar page on jews and the Torah to make a similar ill-informed racist point. But bashing on muslims is what's en vogue now, I suppose.

That would make quoting the Thora anti-semitic, quoting the Quran Islamophobic, and the French Constitution Francophobe.

[Luís Henrique]

Ah sorry, it's spelled islamophobe, and that page you are linking is shit, indeed racist shit. Do you want me break down why and how for you? And no, I am not impressed with the misinformation and reading of scripture of your racist web page. One could easily make a similar page on jews and the Torah to make a similar ill-informed racist point. But bashing on muslims is what's en vogue now, I suppose.

Well, unless the page actually misquotes the Quran, bringing up what the page's political orientation is seems somewhat misplaced. It would be more productive to show that the quotation is dishonestly selective, or simply pointing out that no amount of quoting from a holy text can substitute for an actual analysis of how a religion operates in the real world (after all, there is only one Quran, but there are dozens of different Muslim separate denominations).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

That would make quoting the Thora anti-semitic, quoting the Quran Islamophobic, and the French Constitution Francophobe.

... and, last but not least, quoting Das Kapital anti-communist...

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

That would make quoting the Thora anti-semitic, quoting the Quran Islamophobic, and the French Constitution Francophobe.
No, unless you are selectively quoting to make a completely ahistorical attack on a religious minority, as that page is doing, this in the context of imperialist war against muslim countries abroad and racist and anti-immigrant attacks on muslims at home. I think you are missing my point. The Torah is full of things that would undoubtedly upset the sensibilities of the ever so "enlightened" bigots that run that webpage. But no, aside from the essentially fundamentalist reading that they make, this isn't really about some old religious tome. It is primarily about the political context, secondarily about the ludicrous idea that religious believers follow scripture word for word.

[Luís Henrique]

No, unless you are selectively quoting to make a completely ahistorical attack on a religious minority, as that page is doing, this in the context of imperialist war against muslim countries abroad and racist and anti-immigrant attacks on muslims at home. I think you are missing my point. The Torah is full of things that would undoubtedly upset the sensibilities of the ever so "enlightened" bigots that run that webpage. But no, aside from the essentially fundamentalist reading that they make, this isn't really about some old religious tome. It is primarily about the political context, secondarily about the ludicrous idea that religious believers follow scripture word for word.

You are right, of course.

It would be better though if you made such points without sounding as if you were trying to scare the other poster into submission...

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

You are right, of course.

It would be better though if you made such points without sounding as if you were trying to scare the other poster into submission...

Luís Henrique
What can I say? People linking racist websites, especially on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left, in the sub-forum about discrimination, really grinds my gears.

[Luís Henrique]

What can I say? People linking racist websites, especially on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left, in the sub-forum about discrimination, really grinds my gears.

Racists will quote things in their websites, sometimes from non-racist sources. Sometimes it is the easiest page to access, or the one that comes on top of google.

Would it be better if such quotes were lifted from Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' blogs?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Racists will quote things in their websites, sometimes from non-racist sources. Sometimes it is the easiest page to access, or the one that comes on top of google.

Would it be better if such quotes were lifted from Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' blogs?

Luís Henrique
Why? It's just a more "intellectualized" version of the same trash. Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus)

[melvin]

What can I say? People linking racist websites, especially on a forum supposedly for the revolutionary left, in the sub-forum about discrimination, really grinds my gears.Getting blatantly angry is pretty much how to get someone to shut you out as far as realizing whats wrong with what they're saying. I have learned this the hard way (I still do it sometimes though).

two cents worth.

[Luís Henrique]

Why? It's just a more "intellectualized" version of the same trash. Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus)

Well, I dislike those guys very much (and am apalled by the fact that some leftists seem to hold them into some respect due to them being "atheists"). But are they the same thing as the EDL or the Front Nationale?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Well, I dislike those guys very much (and am apalled by the fact that some leftists seem to hold them into some respect due to them being "atheists"). But are they the same thing as the EDL or the Front Nationale?

Luís Henrique
Plenty of informative quotes from Harris in that piece, here's one:
"The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."
A rose by any other name...etc. Harris might not want a fascist outcome for europe, but, as he acknowledges his reasoning differs very little.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, unless you are selectively quoting to make a completely ahistorical attack on a religious minority, as that page is doing, this in the context of imperialist war against muslim countries abroad and racist and anti-immigrant attacks on muslims at home. I think you are missing my point. The Torah is full of things that would undoubtedly upset the sensibilities of the ever so "enlightened" bigots that run that webpage. But no, aside from the essentially fundamentalist reading that they make, this isn't really about some old religious tome. It is primarily about the political context, secondarily about the ludicrous idea that religious believers follow scripture word for word.

Oh selectively quoting, I suppose upholding rape warrants context that would make it better. If I were to quote the Old Testament in which it says 'rebellious' kids who contradict their parents should be stoned to death, and say "this is the morality of Christianity/Judaism" no one, or very few, would think it's "anti-semitic" or "anti-Christian," let alone that it's "racist", but somehow pointing out how Muhammed condoned rape and pedophilia is "Islamophobic" and "racist." People have been banned for less than this under guise of "rape apologism."


French members of FEMEN, living in a country where it is illegal for Muslim women to wear a hijab outside their homes,

In no country in the world, except North Korea, is it illegal to wear a hijab.


campaign for Islamist countries to not be allowed in the Olympics.

I don't see why that's a problem, I disagree, but it's not insane.


But are fine with all other sorts of oppressive countries being allowed into the Olympics.

They are a feminist group opposed to patriarchy, not a human rights group. Islamist countries are legally-speaking the most female unfriendly countries in the world, so it makes sense they call for them to be banned from the Olympics. I don't agree with it, but it's not that ludicrous.


Their disregard for Muslim women and willingness to promote a cultural of Islamophobia that torments Muslim women is horrible. FEMEN is a racist organization.

You keep telling it is "racist" but have nothing so far to back it up with. Islam, mind you, is not race.

French activists last week staged a protest on Tower Bridge, calling for countries that uphold Sharia law to be banned from the Olympics.

Most of us, on reading the above, would assume the protest was staged by the repellent racists of the Front Nationale, or groups even further to the right. However, in a shocking insight into how far subtle anti-Islamic rhetoric has penetrated the left in France, it was feminist group FEMEN rolling out the banner.

So opposing sharia law is now far-right anti-Islamic! If opposing sharia law is anti-Islamic I am anti-Islamic, and see nothing wrong with this at all.

http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/78-womens-liberation/15951-femen-protest-sharia-law-tower-bridge[/QUOTE]

EDIT:

What for the context of 80% of Pakistani wives being beaten? Surely, we should coward from criticising this as it is "Pakistaniphobic" as they are subject to imperialist drones?

[Luís Henrique]

Plenty of informal quotes from Harris in that piece, here's one:
"The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."
A rose by any other name...etc. Harris might not want a fascist outcome for europe, but, as he acknowledges his reasoning differs very little.

Yet, the very good article you have just quoted to substantiate your claim that Harris/Dawkins are just a more intellectualised version "of the same trash" (the same trash meaning the website Narodnik took his quotes of the Quran from) states:


But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.

and


That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.

And also, in another key:


Of course one can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That's self-evident, and nobody is contesting it.

(So, what would, in your opinion, be a non-racist and non-bigoted criticism of Islam?)

And, on a further different subject,


I'm responsible for what I say, not for every sentence in every article to which I link on Twitter. The space constraints of Twitter have made this precept a basic convention of the medium: tweeting a link to a column or article or re-tweeting it does not mean you endorse all of it (or even any of it).

Perhaps you should abide for that rule concerning what websites people quote from. It is one thing to quote from a racist website where they expound their own racist ideology; it is a different one to pick a quote by a third party (as the Quran undeniably is) from such a site to make a point.

Especially when you are an admin, and doubly especially when you are a new admin. You have now the power to ban people from these boards; use your brains when exerting such powers. Please don't make me quote Shakespeare on the subject of people who have recently acquired power.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Oh selectively quoting, I suppose upholding rape warrants context that would make it better. If I were to quote the Old Testament in which it says 'rebellious' kids who contradict their parents should be stoned to death, and say "this is the morality of Christianity/Judaism" no one, or very few, would think it's "anti-semitic" or "anti-Christian," let alone that it's "racist", but somehow pointing out how Muhammed condoned rape and pedophilia is "Islamophobic" and "racist." People have been banned for less than this under guise of "rape apologism.
Well, if you made the charge that it shows what savages those jews are as this clearly is proof of a massive infanticide by all the followers of the Torah, yeah it actually kind of would be anti-Semitic. And, of course, wrong.

I suppose we should then congratulate the progressive heroes of the Oklahoma and Kansas GOP for attempting to ban Sharia from their respective states. :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, if you made the charge that it shows what savages those jews are as this clearly is proof of a massive infanticide by all the followers of the Torah, yeah it actually kind of would be anti-Semitic. And, of course, wrong.

Except I specifically and explicitly differentiate between those believing in Islam, the religion, i.e. muslims, and those advocating the implementation of sharia law in culture, politics, and economics, the political ideology, i.e. Islamism. Thus not "all the followers" as you say.


I suppose we should then congratulate the progressive heroes of the Oklahoma and Kansas GOP for attempting to ban Sharia from their respective states. :rolleyes:

Any legal system that does not ban Sharia necessarily allows it. So you advocate sharia law, apparently. So you advocate sharia law being allowed and you think that context warrants condoning rape, my my, can I put you up for a vote on whether we should ban you for sexism?

EDIT:

I may have mixed up against whom you were saying what so your charge was against another person claiming "all" muslims advocate such and such.

[#FF0000]

So opposing sharia law is now far-right anti-Islamic! If opposing sharia law is anti-Islamic I am anti-Islamic, and see nothing wrong with this at all.

Opposing Sharia Law in a place where Sharia Law has literally no chance of ever affecting you is certainly suspect, yep.


What for the context of 80% of Pakistani wives being beaten? Surely, we should coward from criticising this as it is "Pakistaniphobic" as they are subject to imperialist drones?Nah saying this makes Pakistanis barbaric and that it's the tendency towards wife beating is inherent in Pakistanis because of what the lawbooks say would certainly make you "pakistaniphobic".

Tim you aren't this stupid. Come on now.

[Tim Cornelis]

Opposing Sharia Law in a place where Sharia Law has literally no chance of ever affecting you is certainly suspect, yep.

No, that would make it ineffective.


Nah saying this makes Pakistanis barbaric and that it's the tendency towards wife beating is inherent in Pakistanis because of what the lawbooks say would certainly make you "pakistaniphobic".

Who says that though? I've seen no one claim muslims are all barbaric in this thread.

[#FF0000]

No, that would make it ineffective.

That would be fearmongering around minority groups that already face a good deal of harassment over their religion (or what others think their religion is).

Of course, there's nothing wrong with working on a campaign in solidarity for a group in a country that deals with archaic fundamentalist religious dogma in their lawbooks and culture, but I don't often see the folks making a big stink about Sharia saying very much about groups like RAWA.


Who says that though? I've seen no one claim muslims are all barbaric in this thread.

Nah, just that Islam is inherently violent and this and that because of some lines in the Quran and Hadith.

[Luís Henrique]

Opposing Sharia Law in a place where Sharia Law has literally no chance of ever affecting you is certainly suspect, yep.

We are internationalists, aren't we?

Suppose the Communist Party of Islamistan asks our help to fight against Sharia Law there. Do we help, or do we decline, because it would be "Islamophobic"?

Suppose the Islamistani Communist Party, which takes a different line, asks for our help enacting Sharia Law there. Do we support it, because it would be anti-imperialist?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Except I specifically and explicitly differentiate between those believing in Islam, the religion, i.e. muslims, and those advocating the implementation of sharia law in culture, politics, and economics, the political ideology, i.e. Islamism. Thus not "all the followers" as you say.
Yet you defend that "thereligionofpeace" racist website.


Any legal system that does not ban Sharia necessarily allows it. So you advocate sharia law, apparently. So you advocate sharia law being allowed and you think that context warrants condoning rape, my my, can I put you up for a vote on whether we should ban you for sexism?
My, my you are awfully interested in making rape apology and sexism analogies. Most curious. And no, I don't advocate sharia law, but I suppose the Kansas GOP really are progressive heroes then? Context, man, do you get it? Besides sharia law, like religion and indeed law in general, is a matter of interpretation not a catch all term for "all the bad stuff" or whatever. I oppose Sharia all the same, but it is this kind of lazy reasoning that gets you into bed with those "religionofpeace" idiots. And yes, I do oppose discriminatory attacks on muslims, again islamophobia is a major tool both of imperialism but also for right-wing populism against immigrants.

[#FF0000]

We are internationalists, aren't we?

Suppose the Communist Party of Islamistan asks our help to fight against Sharia Law there. Do we help, or do we decline, because it would be "Islamophobic"?

Suppose the Islamistani Communist Party, which takes a different line, asks for our help enacting Sharia Law there. Do we support it, because it would be anti-imperialist?

Luís Henrique

I addressed this:


That would be fearmongering around minority groups that already face a good deal of harassment over their religion (or what others think their religion is).

Of course, there's nothing wrong with working on a campaign in solidarity for a group in a country that deals with archaic fundamentalist religious dogma in their lawbooks and culture, but I don't often see the folks making a big stink about Sharia saying very much about groups like RAWA.

[Luís Henrique]

Nah, just that Islam is inherently violent and this and that because of some lines in the Quran and Hadith.

Who says that in this thread, besides Narodnik and, of course, Femen?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yet you defend that "thereligionofpeace" racist website.

Tim does that? Where?


I oppose Sharia all the same, but it is this kind of lazy reasoning that gets you into bed with those "religionofpeace" idiots.Who is in bed with "religionofpeace"?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Who says that in this thread, besides Narodnik and, of course, Femen?

Narodnik, and then people (TimCornelius) started crying because people said he was pushing a crude, islamophobic angle.

[Luís Henrique]

I addressed this:

Yup, I see. However,


That would be fearmongering around minority groups that already face a good deal of harassment over their religion (or what others think their religion is).

I wish reactionaries in Kentucky were as stupid as to raise the issue of banning the influence of the Quran on legislation. That would be a perfect pretext for raising the issue of banning any religious text's influence on legislation.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Tim does that? Where?

Who is in bed with "religionofpeace"?

Luís Henrique
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2602671&postcount=46

As well as being the only user, along with restricted anti-immigrants crazy dodger, to thank Narodnik's post.

Narodnik most obviously.

[Luís Henrique]

Narodnik, and then people (TimCornelius) started crying because people said he was pushing a crude, islamophobic angle.

I don't think so. I myself have countered, and hopefully, debunked, each and all of Narodnik's posts and points. What I object is Crux's heavy handed approach, particularly his guilt by association tactics, that implies that if someone quotes from a website, it automatically means that they "are in bed" with the people in such website (plus his extreme rudeness, which doesn't bode well with his recent nomination as an admin).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2602671&postcount=46

As well as being the only user, along with restricted anti-immigrants crazy dodger, to thank Narodnik's post.

Narodnik most obviously.

Don't be ridiculous. Tim is not "defending" religionofpeace; he is merely objecting to the notion that if someone quotes from them (moreover if it isn't even their words, but merely a quote of a third party) it means that one concurs with the site itself.

Good grief.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Don't be ridiculous. Tim is not "defending" religionofpeace; he is merely objecting to the notion that if someone quotes from them (moreover if it isn't even their words, but merely a quote of a third party) it means that one concurs with the site itself.

Good grief.

Uhhhhhhh is it really a jump to say that Narodnik probably agrees with what the site has to say, here? I mean, come on. This is just obtuse.

[Crux]

Don't be ridiculous. Tim is not "defending" religionofpeace; he is merely objecting to the notion that if someone quotes from them (moreover if it isn't even their words, but merely a quote of a third party) it means that one concurs with the site itself.

Good grief.

Luís Henrique
Narodnik has quite explicitly defended the page Tim Cornelis thanked the post with multiple links to the site, has not with so much as a word indicated that he would have any problem with the website and then waded in to defend the page for "quoting the Quran". I suppose it is possible Tim Cornelis has not read the page at all

[Luís Henrique]

Uhhhhhhh is it really a jump to say that Narodnik probably agrees with what the site has to say, here? I mean, come on. This is just obtuse.

It would be worth questioning him, instead of assuming it, hm?

There are a lot of revlefters who idolise Dawkins (and probably a smaller number that like Harris, too). Are we going to call them racists (which poses a direct threat of restriction or ban) because they quote from Harris or Dawkins sites, too?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

It would be worth questioning him, instead of assuming it, hm?

There are a lot of revlefters who idolise Dawkins (and probably a smaller number that like Harris, too). Are we going to call them racists (which poses a direct threat of restriction or ban) because they quote from Harris or Dawkins sites, too?

No one called him islamophobic based on his source alone -- it was primarily based on the nuance-and-critical-thought-free angle he took on Islam. When asked to back his dumbness up, he referred repeatedly to an overtly islamophobic source. I don't really see the controversy here?

[Narodnik]

Why is Islam violent? Because Mohammed was violent and Quran and Hadith call for violence. Islam is not a race, it's an idea, white muslim commit terrorism, too. Mohamed Ata and all other 9/11 bombers were middle-class and educated in the west. Tibetan Buddhists are oppressed by China much more then muslims are by USA and Israel, yet there are no Lamaist suicide bombers and holy war lunatics, why is that? It's not about education, it's not about economy, it's not about provocation, it's because Islam is inherently violent, and every Muslim that is not a muslim just by name, but takes Mohammad and Islam seriously is very likely to be violent, not because he will "twist the message of Islam" but because the Quran and the Hadith call for totalitarianism and violence.

It is precisely why any muslim that takes Islam seriously will advocate laws for woman cowering themselves almost completely, Mohammed proscibed that, and thus that's a part of Islam.

Sam Harris on Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw

[Luís Henrique]

Why is Islam violent? Because Mohammed was violent and Quran and Hadith call for violence. Islam is not a race, it's an idea, white muslim commit terrorism, too. Mohamed Ata and all other 9/11 bombers were middle-class and educated in the west. Tibetan Buddhists are oppressed by China much more then muslims are by USA and Israel, yet there are no Lamaist suicide bombers and holy war lunatics, why is that? Because Islam is inherently violent, and every Muslim that is not a muslim just by name, but take Mohammad and Islam seriously is very likely to be violent, not because he will "twist the message of Islam" but because the Quran and the Hadith call for totalitarianism and violence.

Likewise, any muslim that takes Islam seriously will advocate laws for woman cowering themselves almost completely, because that's an integral part of Islam.

Sam Harris on Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw

And Sam Harris is again very wrong.

Islam is violent - or rather has a quite visible and militant violent minority - because the lands where most Muslims live have been mistreated with extreme violence by the "Western" powers who pretend to be astonished by the violence of political Islam - and because among such violent mistreatment, the "Western" powers made a point of suppressing every non-religious current in the Muslim world - liberals, nationalists, Marxists, anarchists, whatever - that might have posed even the slightest threat to "Western" economic and politic dominance of the region. And, in doing that, systematically empowered and rewarded clerical reactionarism. Coming, finally, to the point that the only possible way to express broad political opposition to "Western" domination is through political Islam. Then Islam - which intellectuals of the oh-so-enlightned "West" used to deride as a religion of blind fatalism and submission, perfect to enslave people and keep them submissive and even satisfied in subjugation - became violent. And then political imbeciles like Harris and Dawkins come to sully evolutionary theory with repulsive support for "Western" jihad against the logical conclusion of their clumsy colonialist practices.

Frankly.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Mohamed Ata and all other 9/11 bombers were middle-class and educated in the west. Tibetan Buddhists are oppressed by China much more then muslims are by USA and Israel, yet there are no Lamaist suicide bombers and holy war lunatics, why is that? It's not about education, it's not about economy, it's not about provocation, it's because Islam is inherently violent,

You do know of course that the modern suicide bomber does not originate in the Middle East at all, but with the Tamil Tigers. The overwhelming majority of Tamils happen to be Hindus, yet still they launched hundreds of suicide bombings.

Are Hindus inherently violent too in your opinion?

Devrim

[Crux]

Why is Islam violent? Because Mohammed was violent and Quran and Hadith call for violence. Islam is not a race, it's an idea, white muslim commit terrorism, too. Mohamed Ata and all other 9/11 bombers were middle-class and educated in the west. Tibetan Buddhists are oppressed by China much more then muslims are by USA and Israel, yet there are no Lamaist suicide bombers and holy war lunatics, why is that? It's not about education, it's not about economy, it's not about provocation, it's because Islam is inherently violent, and every Muslim that is not a muslim just by name, but takes Mohammad and Islam seriously is very likely to be violent, not because he will "twist the message of Islam" but because the Quran and the Hadith call for totalitarianism and violence.

It is precisely why any muslim that takes Islam seriously will advocate laws for woman cowering themselves almost completely, Mohammed proscibed that, and thus that's a part of Islam.

Sam Harris on Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw
Harris is not concerned with actual history but only with defending U.S foreign policy and his super-idealist understanding of what religion is, which is incidentally much of the same thing.
There is violence in the Quran? My god, someone better call the police. Sorry, that is not how religion works. Your little circle reasoning is interesting though, any muslim who does not conform that your view of what a muslim is is not a muslim. And thus all muslims are what you say they are even if they are not. Brilliant.
Please explain to me then how the riots in Xinjang differed from those in Tibet.

[Narodnik]

Islam is violent - or rather has a quite visible and militant violent minority - because the lands where most Muslims live have been mistreated with extreme violence by the "WesternTibetans have been mistreated with extreme violence by China, and where are the Lamaist suicide bombers, where is the Lamaist "extremist minority" calling for murder of Chinese civilians? Lamaist extremist burn themselves out of protest, they don't go commiting terrorism, why? Because they identify with Buddha, and not Mohammad.


Are Hindus inherently violent too in your opinion?Actually, Tamil Tigers were officially atheist, and their ideology is basically fascism, something of a national-bolshevism, being a mix of ethnic nationalism and stalinism. And yes, fascism is inherently violent.


There violence in the Quran? My god, someone better call the police. Sorry, that is not how religion works.
Oh yeah? Where are calls for violence in the Tipitaka? Where are the calls for violence in the Jain Agamas? Yet the Quran and the Hadith are filled with them.

[Rafiq]

yes, Islam as a religion was built upon violence. Islam ephasizes oneness, because this was a spontanious expression of class interest in Arabia: as bandits and theives attacked caravans, and as families and tribes were constantly at war, Islam would unite them and bring stability to the trade routes. islamic conquest, as a matter of fact, was done to secure new means of trade. compared to christianity, islam is only more progressive in regards to the family: the family structure in islam is largely insignificant, the muslim god is not an embodiment of the human father, i.e. not a fatherly figure but an unknowable embodiment of human consciousness from which there exists a void between it and its 'believer'. Islam exists in correlation with different changes in the mode of production. in the early 1900s, the stereotype for muslims were zombie like people always accepting fate, not necessarily a violent people. today fundemantalist islam of course is not a "wrong interpretation of islam" but a very correct one. the point though, is, why in the late 20th century, what mechanisms enabled "real islam" of the 8th century to have political and ideological significance? they will talk of the 'islamic golden age'. there was none. it would be like calling todayca 'christian golden age'.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Tibetans have been mistreated with extreme violence by China, and where are the Lamaist suicide bombers, where is the Lamaist "extremist minority" calling for murder of Chinese civilians? Lamaist extremist burn themselves out of protest, they don't go commiting terrorism, why? Because they identify with Buddha, and not Mohammad.

Actually, Tamil Tigers were officially atheist, and their ideology is basically fascism, something of a national-bolshevism, being a mix of ethnic nationalism and stalinism. And yes, fascism is inherently violent.


Oh yeah? Where are calls for violence in the Tipitaka? Where are the calls for violence in the Jain Agamas? Yet the Quran and the Hadith are filled with them.

sorry, but the reason there are no calls for violence in agmas is because, like almost all eastern spirituality, peace amounts to knowing your place in the natural order, it is almost like a very repressive, passive violence.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Crux]

Tibetans have been mistreated with extreme violence by China, and where are the Lamaist suicide bombers, where is the Lamaist "extremist minority" calling for murder of Chinese civilians? Lamaist extremist burn themselves out of protest, they don't go commiting terrorism, why? Because they identify with Buddha, and not Mohammad.

Actually, Tamil Tigers were officially atheist, and their ideology is basically fascism, something of a national-bolshevism, being a mix of ethnic nationalism and stalinism. And yes, fascism is inherently violent.


Oh yeah? Where are calls for violence in the Tipitaka? Where are the calls for violence in the Jain Agamas? Yet the Quran and the Hadith are filled with them.
I thought you were an atheist, but now that I know you are not, I think I understand you better. But I'm not in the mood for picking apart Hindu texts and I do not need to in order to make my point: Interpretation of religious scripts is entirely dependent on material conditions. As a marxist (and an atheist) I do not see religion as having any magical or spiritual core magically spilling forth from this or that religious text, controlling the religious subjects like puppets on a string.

I am reminded of this little article (http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/ch3.htm) by James Connolly.

BUT SOCIALISM IS AGAINST RELIGION. I CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST AND BE A CHRISTIAN. O, quit your fooling! That talk is all right for those who know nothing of the relations between capital and labor, or are innocent of any knowledge of the processes of modern industry, or imagine that men, in their daily struggles for bread or fortunes, are governed by the Sermon on the Mount.

Exchange the Sermon on the Mount with the Hadiths if you will, the point remains the same.

[Narodnik]

Interpretation of religious scripts is entirely dependent on material conditions.So, if a muslim is a middle-class educated white male, being determined by those material conditions- he cannot become a terrorist?


I do not see religion as having any magical or spiritual core magically spilling forth from this or that religious text, controlling the religious subjects like puppets on a string.Ideas are motives for people's actions. Fascist are inspired by fascist texts, not by material conditions, otherwise all in the same material conditions would become fascists, which is not the case, some become fascists, and some e.g. libertarian socialists.

There obviously is some magical core spilling forth evidenced by the fact that when devout Muslim, whose religious texts advocate violence, protest they do so by violence, and that on the other hand when devout Lamaists, whose religious texts advocate non-violence, protest they do so by self-immolation.


Exchange the Sermon on the Mount with the Hadiths if you will, the point remains the same.If you think that Sermon on the Mount and the Hadith are the same, of the same value, or have the same point, then you either can not read, or you're being a malevolent troll, because no one sane can fail at seeing the difference between calls for violence and calls for non-violence.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why is Islam violent? Because Mohammed was violent and Quran and Hadith call for violence. Islam is not a race, it's an idea, white muslim commit terrorism, too. Mohamed Ata and all other 9/11 bombers were middle-class and educated in the west. Tibetan Buddhists are oppressed by China much more then muslims are by USA and Israel, yet there are no Lamaist suicide bombers and holy war lunatics, why is that? It's not about education, it's not about economy, it's not about provocation, it's because Islam is inherently violent, and every Muslim that is not a muslim just by name, but takes Mohammad and Islam seriously is very likely to be violent, not because he will "twist the message of Islam" but because the Quran and the Hadith call for totalitarianism and violence.

It is precisely why any muslim that takes Islam seriously will advocate laws for woman cowering themselves almost completely, Mohammed proscibed that, and thus that's a part of Islam.

Sam Harris on Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not:


Jainism's popularity as a religion collapsed precisely because it was unable to justify a society or lifestyle that was coherent with the violence of feudal India. Now it has some 5 million followers out of a country with over 1 billion people.

Buddhism on the other hand has often had violent fanatics. If you don't believe that, read up on the recent violence against Muslims in Burma and Sri Lanka. In Burma, it has spiraled out of control, with an unknown number of Muslims having lost their property or their lives. This is not because Buddhism is inherently violent as a faith but because the material conditions of these societies such as a sharp increase in political freedom for the majority alongside poverty and fears of losing "national identity".

Muhammad was violent because he was a political leader in a violent Arabian peninsula. His community faced persecution by the Pagan Arabs. He was no martyr and was willing to fight back. That the Quran includes all sorts of 6th century Arabian values that seem reactionary by today's standards isn't really a very good basis for some kind of moralistic critique of the person of Mohammad because he was a man of his times. The Biblical prophets were all no better or worse, because they also lived in a similarly violent society.


sorry, but the reason there are no calls for violence in agmas is because, like almost all eastern spirituality, peace amounts to knowing your place in the natural order, it is almost like a very repressive, passive violence.
2

That's a tad orientalist and reductionist don't you think? Aside from the fact that you are lumping together Chinese, Indian and Persian religion and saying that they are all the same on this issue, there have been violent, messianic religious orders in Asia, such as the Yellow Turbans in China and various Buddhist movements in east Asia. Many Hindu texts do stress people's place in nature politically, but endorse violence in many contexts, while a few even dispute a person's caste status (caste status obviously being a person's "place"). Sikhism in particular is opposed to upholding people's "caste status" while it is also a religion willing to endorse violence in certain contexts.

Jain pacifism is based largely on a metaphysical psychology of karma, and not one's "natural place in the world". One can only escape the world by engaging in nonviolence.

[Narodnik]

Buddhism on the other hand has often had violent fanatics.
Sure. But if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sure. But if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.

Again, Muhammad advocated violence because he lived in a violent society where not doing so would have gotten him and his followers killed (he also advocated peace and forgiveness in other contexts). The Buddha lived in ancient India where he was able to preach in peace.

To equate the role that Buddha plays with that which Muhammad plays in the religion is a sign that one is either "ignorant on the subject" or is "being dishonest". For one thing, Muhammad is a prophet while the Buddha is a wise man. The sermons of Buddha are not literal truths revealed by God but are practices on a path to divinity, allowing for all sorts of alternative interpretations of the faith to emerge.

Anyhow, the Islamic endorsement of war is contextually contingent. You're not supposed to go on wars of aggression, says Muhammad, nor are you supposed to kill civilians, so as far as Muslims break those rules when committing violence they are no different than Buddhists breaking the Buddha's insistence on nonviolence by monks.

[#FF0000]

Tibetans have been mistreated with extreme violence by China, and where are the Lamaist suicide bombers, where is the Lamaist "extremist minority" calling for murder of Chinese civilians? Lamaist extremist burn themselves out of protest, they don't go commiting terrorism, why? Because they identify with Buddha, and not Mohammad.

Uh, there's actually quite a history of violent upheaval and rebellion in Tibet since the 50's. Never heard of Chushi Gangdruk? And hey, since someone mentioned the Tamil Tigers, that reminds me of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka (the majority of whom subscribe to one of, if not the, oldest branch of Buddhism there is -- Theravada Buddhism) who've endorsed and/or initiated violence against ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. I'm also reminded of groups like Aum Shinrikyo, who had a syncretic ideology that borrowed from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity -- and yet somehow were inspired to dump nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system.


Actually, Tamil Tigers were officially atheist

"Officially atheist" doesn't mean anything. The group was secular, and its leadership mostly atheist, but they certainly had Hindu members, such as their founder


and their ideology is basically fascism, something of a national-bolshevism, being a mix of ethnic nationalism and stalinism. And yes, fascism is inherently violent.

I wonder what you make of the Sinhalah nationalist movements and party, then!


Oh yeah? Where are calls for violence in the Tipitaka? Where are the calls for violence in the Jain Agamas? Yet the Quran and the Hadith are filled with them.

This would make those (astronomically small) religions rather unique, wouldn't it?


So, if a muslim is a middle-class educated white male, being determined by those material conditions- he cannot become a terrorist?

I'd say he's less likely by a huge margin.


Ideas are motives for people's actions. Fascist are inspired by fascist texts, not by material conditions, otherwise all in the same material conditions would become fascists, which is not the case, some become fascists, and some e.g. libertarian socialists.


But actual material conditions and on-the-ground experience play a pretty huge role in what ideas stick and how they're interpreted. It's not, nor has anyone ever suggested, that it's a 100% thing, where people who live in certain condition will always start thinking a certain way. But it's not a coincidence that people turn to radical and reactionary ideologies in recessions.

But meanwhile, not every muslim who reads the Quran and associated texts becomes a fundamentalist or a terrorist. In fact, Muslims are more pacifistic (in the United States, anyway) than Christians even. You say: "Fascist are inspired by fascist texts, not by material conditions, otherwise all in the same material conditions would become fascists" ignoring that 1) religious texts are certainly not the same as political essays and manifestos, and 2) you're arguing the exact inverse of what (you incorrectly think) the folks going on about material conditions are arguing.


There obviously is some magical core spilling forth evidenced by the fact that when devout Muslim, whose religious texts advocate violence, protest they do so by violence

Damn son it's like you didn't look at a TV or newspaper since like December 2010.

[#FF0000]

Sure. But if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.

Actually you're being dishonest here, shifting the goalposts like that. Terrorism and violence is absolutely not inherent nor unique to Islam. A casual glance at, for instance, southeast asia and India in particular (an actual glance and not a new-agey white person kind of glance) would clue someone in to a whole lotta violence on the part of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims.

[Rafiq]

narodnik has a bourgeois-rationalist conception of material conditions, by which for him they literally amount to standard or living or income. i piss on your usage of words like 'middle class'. no wonder he's an idealist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Luís Henrique]

Tibetans have been mistreated with extreme violence by China, and where are the Lamaist suicide bombers, where is the Lamaist "extremist minority" calling for murder of Chinese civilians? Lamaist extremist burn themselves out of protest, they don't go commiting terrorism, why? Because they identify with Buddha, and not Mohammad.

Japanese kamikaze pilots "identified with Buddha" not "with Mohammad".

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Again, Muhammad advocated violence because he lived in a violent society where not doing so would have gotten him and his followers killed (he also advocated peace and forgiveness in other contexts). Mohammad was the one creating violence, he was the one who raided the caravans, he was the one who waged offensinve wars and conquered, as evidenced by Al-Sira and the Hadith. Devout Muslims are proud of that, and that's why they are violent, like the one they are said in the Quran "to be the best example" for them.


The Buddha lived in ancient India where he was able to preach in peace.Buddha was born in a warrior family, and there certainly were wars and conficts and social unrest during the life of Buddha, there is much references to those in the Tipitaka.


I'd say he's less likely by a huge margin.And maybe his reduced chance of being a terrorist is due do his material conditions reducing the chance of him taking Islam seriously?


You're not supposed to go on wars of aggression, says Muhammad,Where? Muhammad led offensive wars, and advocated them, and Quran calls for offensive war until there is only Islam left.


But meanwhile, not every muslim who reads the Quran and associated texts becomes a fundamentalist or a terrorist.Sure, I can read the Mein Kampf, and it's not going to make me violent (towards Nazis maybe). Right-wingers too can read the Mein Kampf and agree with some things in it, and it's not going to make them violent. But as soon as they starting taking that book seriously, that is- as soon as they seriously decide to follow that book, that will necessarily make them violent, being that that book advocates violence. It is exactly the same with Muslims and the Quran.


Terrorism and violence is absolutely not inherent nor unique to Islam.
Firstly, I didn't say that it is unique to Islam, and as to being inherent, terrorism and violence are inherent in Quran and the Hadith, which consistute Islamic Scripture.


Japanese kamikaze pilots "identified with Buddha" not "with Mohammad".
I repeat- if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.

[#FF0000]

I repeat- if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.

hey hey don't scratch the floor while you're shifting those goalposts dude

[Narodnik]

I'm not shifting anything, I'm saying all along that Muhammad was violent and advocated violence, and that those actions and words of his are recorded in the scripture of Islam.

[Crux]

So, if a muslim is a middle-class educated white male, being determined by those material conditions- he cannot become a terrorist?

Ideas are motives for people's actions. Fascist are inspired by fascist texts, not by material conditions, otherwise all in the same material conditions would become fascists, which is not the case, some become fascists, and some e.g. libertarian socialists.

There obviously is some magical core spilling forth evidenced by the fact that when devout Muslim, whose religious texts advocate violence, protest they do so by violence, and that on the other hand when devout Lamaists, whose religious texts advocate non-violence, protest they do so by self-immolation.

If you think that Sermon on the Mount and the Hadith are the same, of the same value, or have the same point, then you either can not read, or you're being a malevolent troll, because no one sane can fail at seeing the difference between calls for violence and calls for non-violence.
What do you mean by middle class? And what on earth compelled you to believe that is even remotely close to what I was saying?

Ah. Nope, that is not how or why fascism came to be at all. It seems I need to explain what "material conditions" mean. When I say material conditions I am not merely talking about individuals, but of the larger situation and social forces involved.

And the strongest proponents of hard-core sinhala chauvinism against the tamils are buddhist monks. So? The point of the quote and the article that seems to have eluded you is that the religious texts is not what determines how people act. How is it that you cannot see this, especially now that we are apparently discussing the non-violence of the sermon on the mount.

[#FF0000]

I'm not shifting anything, I'm saying all along that Muhammad was violent and advocated violence, and that those actions and words of his are recorded in the scripture of Islam.

And that Islam and muslims are "inherently violent" because of it, which is bogus.

[Crixus]

And Sam Harris is again very wrong.

Islam is violent - or rather has a quite visible and militant violent minority - because the lands where most Muslims live have been mistreated with extreme violence by the "Western" powers who pretend to be astonished by the violence of political Islam - and because among such violent mistreatment, the "Western" powers made a point of suppressing every non-religious current in the Muslim world - liberals, nationalists, Marxists, anarchists, whatever - that might have posed even the slightest threat to "Western" economic and politic dominance of the region. And, in doing that, systematically empowered and rewarded clerical reactionarism. Coming, finally, to the point that the only possible way to express broad political opposition to "Western" domination is through political Islam. Then Islam - which intellectuals of the oh-so-enlightned "West" used to deride as a religion of blind fatalism and submission, perfect to enslave people and keep them submissive and even satisfied in subjugation - became violent. And then political imbeciles like Harris and Dawkins come to sully evolutionary theory with repulsive support for "Western" jihad against the logical conclusion of their clumsy colonialist practices.

Frankly.

Luís Henrique

I tend to think Christians would be doing much of the same today if the west didn't experience the enlightenment (they still do but overall to lesser extremes). Historically, look at the west when the church ruled. Burning women alive for being "witches" (in most cases witch was a euphemism for uppity woman). Christians have declared 'holy war' on entire peoples, on each other (30 years war)...on anyone different in the slightest. One reason Marx praised the enlightenment as progressive but going hand in hand with bourgeois oppression. Liberating but oppressive at the same time. Some might argue this process is now taking place in the broader Middle East. A process which took place much earlier in the west. The question is, would the westernization of Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc be a good thing? How can this process take place without implementing a sort of bourgeois democracy which would attempt to drive a wedge between the church and state? A process which would also bring with it westernized market relations, as in, coke, pepsi, McDonald's, Kmart and Starbucks on every corner. The way I see it there's a sort of economic and culture war taking place. Sure the Middle East is capitalist but not the sort of capitalist region which allows for mass consumer products to be sold on a daily basis. I think this is partly why the US has a presence in the region right now. To expand on profits and to push cultural change. In the past the US funded the most right wing fundamentalist forces to fight communism but I think the goals have shifted. I may be wrong.

[Narodnik]

When I say material conditions I am not merely talking about individuals, but of the larger situation and social forces involved.
Which them determine individual behaviour?


And the strongest proponents of hard-core sinhala chauvinism against the tamils are buddhist monks.
First time I hear about buddhist monks being "hard-core chauvinist", and I don't believe that true, but even if it is the case that such a thing exists doesn't invalidate my point. (Even so, I'd like a like confirming it, cause I really don't know about such a thing)


The point of the quote and the article that seems to have eluded you is that the religious texts is not what determines how people act.
But it determines how religious people (called 'radicals' or 'extremists') act.


How is it that you cannot see this, especially now that we are apparently discussing the non-violence of the sermon on the mount.
I don't know how is it that you cannot see that when people do take the sermon on the mount seriously, it's called Tolstoyanism, or Peace churches.


And that Islam and muslims are "inherently violent" because of it, which is bogus.
I said that the Quran and the Hadith call to totalitarianism and violence, and that those devoted to those books are naturally going to be totalitarian and violent.

The point when I joined the discussion was when there was an attempt to separate Islam from "islamism". The point is that when someone is a 'moderate muslim' and has a view that woman should not be forced to observe sharia laws of hijab, he holds that view in spite of being a muslim, being that Islam does proscribes it.

[#FF0000]

I said that the Quran and the Hadith call to totalitarianism and violence, and that those devoted to those books are naturally going to be totalitarian and violent.

Except that's demonstrably false.


The point when I joined the discussion was when there was an attempt to separate Islam from "islamism".

They certainly aren't one and the same, especially considering "Islamism" as we know it is barely a century old.


The point is that when someone is a 'moderate muslim' and has a view that woman should not be forced to observe sharia laws of hijab, he holds that view in spite of being a muslim, being that Islam does proscribes it.

No, the point is that people interpret religious texts however they want, and this is particularly true of Islam in particular, which has a rich history of scholarship i.e. people coming up with new and exciting interpretations and reasons why this or that doesn't apply anymore or in this or that situation, or whatever. Every religion does this, but Islam in particular has been real particular about it.

So, the way you're putting it, most muslims are either 1) lying when they say they don't want to hurt anyone and secretly want to establish the global caliphate or 2) don't know their own religion as well as you know it.

[Narodnik]

Except that's demonstrably false.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm


They certainly aren't one and the same, especially considering "Islamism" as we know it is barely a century old.
Exactly the opposite. It is the 'islamists' that hold true to Islam, while 'moderates' are either uninterested or ashamed of the totalitarian and violent imperatives of Islam, and don't practice them.


So, the way you're putting it, most muslims are either 1) lying when they say they don't want to hurt anyone and secretly want to establish the global caliphate or 2) don't know their own religion as well as you know it.
Pretty much.

[brigadista]

islam islike any other religion - diverse

dont really get all the paranoia on here

[#FF0000]

words

I was talking about the whole "devotees being naturally prone to violence" thing, actually (which like I said, is demonstrably false, and provided evidence towards that end earlier in the thread)


Exactly the opposite. It is the 'islamists' that hold true to Islam, while 'moderates' are either uninterested or ashamed of the totalitarian and violent imperatives of Islam, and don't practice them.I think it's really cool that you think there were no true muslims until the 18th century when the Wahhabi movement became a thing



Pretty much.Which is it, do you think? Should I be scared of all my muslim neighbors?

h8 to derail this thread more. maybe there should be a split

[Narodnik]

I think it's really cool that you think there were no true muslims until the 18th century when the Wahhabi movement became a thing
So then we could say that Muhammed and the Sahaba were "islamists" and "twisted the message of Islam", being that the words and actions of Muhammed and the Sahaba were even more violent and totalitarian them those of "Wahhabis".


Which is it, do you think? Should I be scared of all my muslim neighbors?
If they take the Quran seriously, yes. I have friends that have arabic names from when they were named at the mosque as children, and they were circumcised, and some would call them "muslims", some of them even call themselves that, but they manifestly don't take the Quran and the Hadith seriously, one of the facts revealing that is them being friends with me, a non-muslim, and Allah, trough Muhammed, forbids muslims to have non-muslim friends.

[Narodnik]

I repeat: The point when I joined the discussion was when there was an attempt to separate Islam from "islamism". The point is that when someone is a 'moderate muslim' and has a view that woman should not be forced to observe sharia laws of hijab, he holds that view in spite of being a muslim, being that Islam does proscribes it.

[Paul Pott]

Yeah, and my point is fuck you.

[Comrade Nasser]

So then we could say that Muhammed and the Sahaba were "islamists" and "twisted the message of Islam", being that the words and actions of Muhammed and the Sahaba were even more violent and totalitarian them those of "Wahhabis".


If they take the Quran seriously, yes. I have friends that have arabic names from when they were named at the mosque as children, and they were circumcised, and some would call them "muslims", some of them even call themselves that, but they manifestly don't take the Quran and the Hadith seriously, one of the facts revealing that is them being friends with me, a non-muslim, and Allah, trough Muhammed, forbids muslims to have non-muslim friends.

Dude. You're really taking this shit too far. Lay the fuck off it, yeah? Seriously I feel like you're just using this thread to bash Muslims and Islam in general, who are NOT the problem. We aren't scumfront, I really don't feel like we need to bash a whole religion for the actions of a few Idiot Islamists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Perhaps we should just realize that Muhammad was a man of his times and like Muhammad, the people *reading* Muhammad are people of their times as well. Or is that to complicated and nuanced for some people?

[Crux]

Which them determine individual behaviour?
Yes, but fascism is not "individual behaviour" as you alleged. Try to keep up.


First time I hear about buddhist monks being "hard-core chauvinist", and I don't believe that true, but even if it is the case that such a thing exists doesn't invalidate my point. (Even so, I'd like a like confirming it, cause I really don't know about such a thing)
Yes, as someone who uses "thereligionofpeace" as a source material there is no doubt many things you have never heard of. Why would you need a source confirming something that is undisputed fact? Oh well, here is an article (http://www.tamilsolidarity.org/?p=2949) about the most recent development, with a new far right nationalist force led by buddhist monks being strengthened. Of course they are going after muslims, so perhaps that's not an argument that will persuade you.



But it determines how religious people (called 'radicals' or 'extremists') act.
Actually it doesn't do that either.


I don't know how is it that you cannot see that when people do take the sermon on the mount seriously, it's called Tolstoyanism, or Peace churches.
Yes because Christianity is obviously inherently pacifist. :rolleyes:

I recommend anyone reading to take a good long look at the website narodnik is linking. It's late so I don't have the time to pick it apart myself, but even a casual glance shows it for the bigoted far-right trash that it is.

[Comrade Nasser]

Yes, but fascism is not "individual behaviour" as you alleged. Try to keep up.


Yes, as someone who uses "thereligionofpeace" as a source material there is no doubt many things you have never heard of. Why would you need a source confirming something that is undisputed fact? Oh well, here is an article (http://www.tamilsolidarity.org/?p=2949) about the most recent development, with a new far right nationalist force led by buddhist monks being strengthened. Of course they are going after muslims, so perhaps that's not an argument that will persuade you.



Actually it doesn't do that either.


Yes because Christianity is obviously inherently pacifist. :rolleyes:

I recommend anyone reading to take a good long look at the website narodnik is linking. It's late so I don't have the time to pick it apart myself, but even a casual glance shows it for the bigoted far-right trash that it is.

It's funny because I've seen that website being linked on Storm front on numerous occasions

[Narodnik]

Dude. You're really taking this shit too far. Lay the fuck off it, yeah? Seriously I feel like you're just using this thread to bash Muslims and Islam in general, who are NOT the problem.

No. Fuck all of you populist mainstream tools and you're negative reps you've been giving me with your ingorant comments. And you are ignorant. Muhammed ordered all woman to be covered, and that's a part of Islam, so is totalitarianism and violence, because Muhammed lived like that and ordered his followers to live like thath.

Does someone here want's to claim that there are no calls for violence in the Quran and the Hadith, that there are no calls for hate towards non-muslims, and calls for totalitarianism? Please do, and then explain were do TONS of Quran ayat and sahih aHadith come from that DO call for totalitarianism, violence and hate.

Calling a site providing quotes "racist", "right-wing" etc is not argument, it a stupid ass failing to adress the question, it's totally irrelevant. Even if Hitler was providing the quotes from the Quran and the Hadith, it's irrelevant, to say that it is constitutes ignoratio elenchi and ad hominem fallacies, mistakes in thinking, because the correctes of what is being said is not dependant of who says it. What is being said is that the Quran and the Hadith contain calls for hate, violence and totalitarianism (women covering included), and those are facts.

Let's go violence:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."


Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."


Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna and religion should be only for Allah"

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"

Quran (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

And there's a dozen more of ayat like this in the Quran and dozens and dozen ahadith that likewise are plain and simple calls to violence.

Do all people who call themselves Muslim accept this and live like that? Obviously not? Does that mean that there things are not in Quran, and therefore inherent in Islam- obviously not- as seen by the quotes.

Take for example the punishment for theft that Muhammad applied and proscribed his followers to apply:

The Quran clearle say (5:38) As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Sahih ahadith clearly mention Muhammed practicing it and ordering it:

(Bukhari 8, 81, 792) Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet cut off the hand of a lady, and that lady used to come to me, and I used to convey her message to the Prophet and she repented, and her repentance was sincere.

(Muslim 17, 4175) 'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) cut off the hand of a thief for a quarter of a dinar rid upwards.

(Muslim 17, 4185) Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Let there be the curse of Allah upon the thief who steals an egg and his hand is cut off, and steals a rope and his hand is cut off.

Do all the people who call themselves Muslims advocate or support cutting hands of thiefs? Obviously not. Does that mean that such a thing is not in the Quran and the Hadith and thus inherent in Islam- obviously not, as seen from the quotes.

Muslims who are 'moderates' and are violent and totalitarian, and, the topic here- accept the freedom of women not to dress according to sharia, do so IN SPITE OF being muslim, just like when they accept humane punishment for theft, they do so IN SPITE OF being muslim.

[Narodnik]

It is not islamism that promotes subjugation of women, it is Islam itself.

[Devrim]

What is your problem? Nobody is saying that the Koran is a good life guide. It is a deeply reactionary book, just in fact, like the Bible, which gives its endorsement to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and rape to name but a few.

Why the obsession with Islam?

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

So then we could say that Muhammed and the Sahaba were "islamists" and "twisted the message of Islam",

There isn't something as the "untwisted" words of Muhammad (or Joseph Smith, Paul of Tarsus, or Martin Luther, fwiw). Religious texts, for their very nature, must be able to bear the most disparate interpretations, and to be used in support of mutually exclusive political interpretations. Ie, they need to be utterly "twistable" - and the proof of the pudding is in their endless twisting and retwisting by the faithful.

Else, how would a text written within a feudal, or slave-based, society be held as sacred by people in a capitalist society?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nasser]

It is not islamism that promotes subjugation of women, it is Islam itself.

I never actually promoted Islam and I never gave you a negative rep. I'm sorry if my attack came off as a personal one but when you link that goddamn site which is 1-sided and frequented by neo-Nazis and right-wingers I'm going to point that out. I have NO love for Islam or the Quran I just see no reason why you're attacking the whole religion, quite the opposite actually, until 2 years ago I probably would have attacked the subject the same way you did.

[Narodnik]

Why the obsession with Islam?

Devrim
There is no obsession, I have similar stances of opposition to Judaism, Christianity, I was here responding to the ingorant stance how it's "islamism" that's the problem, and not Islam. If I would to come to a topic concerning Christian or Judaistic or Hindu or whatever reactionary religious ideas, I would have wrote (and will write) about that, being that I am familiar with almost all religions, being a theologian by education.

That said, I will mention- even thought there is a bunch of bad stuff about religion (basically amost all of it), Islam is by far the worst of it. It's like e.g. neocons and fascists, they are both agressive capitalists and imperialists, but still, there is an objective difference that does have big influence on people's lives, it is objectively better to live under neocons that it is to live under the fascists, even though both options are shitty. Likewise Islam and Judaism are not the same, Talmud being much more civilized then the Sunnah. In the political-religious analogies, peace churches and buddhism could be compared to social-democracy, even though it's not what's right, it's miles from fascism, likewise are peace churches and buddhism from islam.

The mainstream culture has been infected by intellectual dishonesty of the 'religious moderates' and it now it's not "polically correct" to tell these facts, and that is a problem, especially when such anti-truth stances are accepted among leftist, as they obviously are, with people here giving me negative reps and calling me an "islamophobe" for stating the facts, as I quotes in the message #81 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2603442&postcount=81) of this topic.

[Crux]

Oh you're "theoligian"? How quaint. So I take it you don't want me to explain why your favorite website is racist piece of trash because, apparently, that's not something you care about as long as it conforms to your own prejudices?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not

Actually, in Burma Muslims are not granted citizenship or the protection of the law. Generally they take low paying jobs or under the counter work due to their legal status. This is largely because buddists in Burma represent a privileged strata of Burmese society and have a vested interest in repressing them. Many ethnic groups that are apart of the christian and Islamic minorities are waging a guerrilla war for Independence, to which the Burmese state has responded to by sponsoring Buddhist death squads. Most recently, in 2012 there was a massive anti-Islam riot in Burma that killed hundreds of Muslims

[Crux]

Actually, in Burma Muslims are not granted citizenship or the protection of the law. Generally they take low paying jobs or under the counter work due to their legal status. This is largely because buddists in Burma represent a privileged strata of Burmese society and have a vested interest in repressing them. Many ethnic groups that are apart of the christian and Islamic minorities are waging a guerrilla war for Independence, to which the Burmese state has responded to by sponsoring Buddhist death squads. Most recently, in 2012 there was a massive anti-Islam riot in Burma that killed hundreds of Muslims
Well, Narodnik has never heard of that. Strangely it's not something neither Sam Harris or "thereligionofpeacer.org" will talk that much about.

[Comrade Nasser]

Well, Narodnik has never heard of that. Strangely it's not something neither Sam Harris or "thereligionofpeacer.org" will talk that much about.

"thereligionofpeace.org" just look at the name. The founders were obviously trying to get under peoples skin by mocking the moniker that many Muslims say that Islam is (Islam is NOT inherently violent). Sadly when you're used to getting spoonfed from certain sources, it becomes hard to believe anything else. I can attest to that.

[Comrade Nasser]

Haha it's funny how you call us "populist mainstream tools" when the same Islamophobia that you and you're cohorts exhibit IS MAINSTREAM! ISLAMOPHOBIA IS MAINSTREAM!

[Narodnik]

Oh you're "theoligian"?
No. I'm a theologion, as in I have a PhD in theology.


So I take it you don't want me to explain why your favorite website is racist piece of trash
Just as soon as you explain why is that relevant to any conversation that isn't about that site or racism or doesn't link to racist content of that site (which there is none) none which is done in this particular discussion, and second- why is that relevant to the correctness of the facts I've been stating.

[Crux]

No. I'm a theologion, as in I have a PhD in theology.


Just as soon as you explain why is that relevant to any conversation that isn't about that site or racism or doesn't link to racist content of that site (which there is none) none which is done in this particular discussion, and second- why is that relevant to the correctness of the facts I've been stating.
Yet you know so little about religion? Impressive, professor.

There is no racist content on that site? haha. Right right.

So, don't be fooled by those Muslims using new words they have recently discovered like 'bigotry' and 'hate speech'. These mean nothing in the Islamic world, where the supremacy of Islam and institutionalized discrimination against non-believers are taken for granted.


[...]


The language of civil rights and tolerance is merely an ironic tool of convenience for prominent Muslim organizations in the West to advance their cause of Islamic supremacy.

[...]

Muslims often complain of the "misconceptions" about their religion in the West, yet very few seem to know all that much about the true history of Islam and its founder, Muhammad. As a result, the biggest misconceptions about Islam are often those originating from (and sincerely believed by) Muslims themselves.

[...]

As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.
[...]

“Other religions kill, too.”

[T]hey don’t.
The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

[...]

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. [together with a long apologism for the crusades as a whole]

[...]


As a Muslim, you know that life is full of tough choices. Do you behead or not behead? Have adult relations with your buddy's 9-year-old child...? Take a female sex slave... ?


The page, like yourself, also reveals a fundamentally wrong and deliberately dishonest understanding of what religion is over all. Your supposed Philosophy Doctor's hat isn't an argument in itself if you thought so.

[Narodnik]

Yet you know so little about religion?
Are you talking about yourself? Islam is not a race, it is a religion, an ideology, and yet you're throwing "racist" label around like an idiot because I am saying that Islam is inherently violent and totalitarian, showing an appalling ingorance of what Islam is.


The page, like yourself, also reveals a fundamentally wrong and deliberately dishonest understanding of what religion is over all.
It is you who are stubborn in your ignorance to the point of insanity, and with a mass of proof you fail that accept that Islam is objectively not inherently violent and totalitarian but objectively A LOT MORE violent and totalitarian then other religions.

As for the suppossed racism of the site, read:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/FAQ.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Statement-on-Muslims.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Racism-TROP.htm

If you are even interested in reading, which is not likely, being that you obviously haven't read the quotes for the scripture of Islam that I enumerated and pointed to that demonstrate Islam's inherent violence and totalitarianism.

[hatzel]

No. I'm a theologion, as in I have a PhD in theology.

...aaaaand there's your problem right there. Go pick up PhD in religious studies or anthropology, maybe, because theology - and second-rate theology at that, the study of abstract ideas wholly disconnected from reality - is of no use here. Pull your nose away from the cold words scrawled on dusty manuscripts (or right-wing websites) and take a look out the window, look at the actually-existing traditions through the ages and how they have interacted with and developed in reaction to ever-changing material conditions, you know, like a Marxist might. If we are to believe that you have this PhD, it seems that's exactly what's holding you back here, and might explain why you favour (obviously selective) textual literalism over any semblance of social analysis, that is to say, an idealist rather than a materialist approach...
(Ps. I'm not sure I believe you anyway teehee)

[Narodnik]

the study of abstract ideas wholly disconnected from reality - is of no use here.
Which just means you have no idea why people join Al Qaeda. It's not economic conditions, it's not as a response to foreign attack. White rich males join Al Qaeda, and joining Al Qaeda is not the only response to foreing attack, one could also join a socialist guerilla. People go mujahidun because people are motivated by ideas, it is Islam that motivates the mujahidun, not economy of attack.

And it is because of idiots (which obviously exist here too) who call telling the truth about the Quran and Muhammed "islamophobia" that Quran and the Hadith, which are very, very dangerous books, Mein Kampf dangerous, are regarded in the mainstream as something that is in fact good, but only "twisted" by extremists. That's exactly like saying that Mein Kampf is an acceptable book, it's only the "extremists" that "twist" it's meaning.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually, in Burma Muslims are not granted citizenship or the protection of the law. Generally they take low paying jobs or under the counter work due to their legal status. This is largely because buddists in Burma represent a privileged strata of Burmese society and have a vested interest in repressing them. Many ethnic groups that are apart of the christian and Islamic minorities are waging a guerrilla war for Independence, to which the Burmese state has responded to by sponsoring Buddhist death squads. Most recently, in 2012 there was a massive anti-Islam riot in Burma that killed hundreds of Muslims

Vice did an article about that recently. The "Buddhist Neo-Nazis of Myanmar", or something like that. When Buddhism gets infused with a strong dose of nationalism it can get ugly...the same thing happened in Sri Lanka and probably some other places. Islam, on the other hand, seems to lose a lot of it's theocratic intensity when it gets mixed with nationalism.

Overall, though, I don't think that there's much Buddhist religious violence in today's world besides a couple limited examples.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, this thread is disappointing....I thought it was a thread about the Narodniks. :(

[Captain Ahab]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/
A good article covering many of the lies and bullshit spun by that website Narodnik keeps linking to. I'd advise Narodnik to stop using the website which would obviously claim to not be racist just like many Nazis would claim to be not racist.

[Narodnik]

That "good article" adresses a part of that site that is irrelevant to what I've been saying. I have linked to part of that site that quote the Quran and the Sunnah, and those quotes are verifiable of muslim websites.

[Narodnik]

Also, this thread is disappointing....I thought it was a thread about the Narodniks. :(
Yeah, is there a topic on this site about the Narodniki? The Esers?

[Captain Ahab]

That "good article" adresses a part of that site that is irrelevant to what I've been saying. I have linked to part of that site that quote the Quran and the Sunnah, and those quotes are verifiable of muslim websites.

Then stop linking to it and diversify your sources. There's plenty of anti-Islam sites around such as WikiIslam that distort fact less than TROP. Two, why don't you rail against Judaism considering the violence in the Old Testament?

[Crux]

Are you talking about yourself? Islam is not a race, it is a religion, an ideology, and yet you're throwing "racist" label around like an idiot because I am saying that Islam is inherently violent and totalitarian, showing an appalling ingorance of what Islam is.


It is you who are stubborn in your ignorance to the point of insanity, and with a mass of proof you fail that accept that Islam is objectively not inherently violent and totalitarian but objectively A LOT MORE violent and totalitarian then other religions.

As for the suppossed racism of the site, read:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/FAQ.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Statement-on-Muslims.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Racism-TROP.htm

If you are even interested in reading, which is not likely, being that you obviously haven't read the quotes for the scripture of Islam that I enumerated and pointed to that demonstrate Islam's inherent violence and totalitarianism.
That may be true, but I am very much of the opinion that islamophobia is drenched in racial sentiments re: arabs. In any case your idea about "inherent" violence in Islam (coupled with your complete ignorance about buddhist violence) shows that you do not really understand religion.

Well, unlike you I am not religious. Your comparisons are, at best, of secondary interest. I don't ascribe to the idea that religion is inherently violent, even if I did the idea that some superficial scriptural analysis would be a sufficient explanation is of course nonsensical.

It's hilarious that the first thing TROP does, when trying to claim to be "non-racist", is launch in a defence of Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Another website you frequent, perhaps?
And they also seemed shocked that their sage advice was not embraced with open arms. Is this dishonesty or delusion? Or both?

And yes, TROP does not really understand how racism works either. What a surprise. Next I suppose you'll try to tell me that anti-catholic prejudices in the 1800's U.S had nothing to do with racism against the Irish?


Islam must be understood on the basis of what it is, as presented objectively in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad).Again with the super-idealist understanding of religion. No, you see interpretation of religion (and the material context which compels it) is everything, fundamentalists (or their mirror-images in the creator of that webpage) may claim what they want, that does not change that material reality is quite a bit more complex than this or that extract of text.

[Narodnik]

Then stop linking to it and diversify your sources. There's plenty of anti-Islam sites around such as WikiIslam.
They have convinient lists of quotes with links to muslim site to verify the quote.


Two, why don't you rail against Judaism considering the violence in the Old Testament?One- because the original topic was about Islam, two- because Islam is by far the most violent and totalitarian of religions. Also, the violence in the Old Testament is much more a trait of Calvinism then Judaism, being that Talmudic Judaism is pretty civilized.


That may be true, but I am very much of the opinion that islamophobia is drenched in racial sentiments re: arabs.
Maybe it is. But it sure as hell can't have anything to do with me, half of my nation is formally Muslim, and we're all European (Bosnia).


In any case your idea about "inherent" violence in Islam (coupled with your complete ignorance about buddhist violence) shows that you do not really understand religion.As I already said- if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.


I don't ascribe to the idea that religion is inherently violent even if I did the idea that some superficial scriptural analysis would be a sufficient explanation is of course nonsensical.Being that Islam is not defined by the Quran and the Sunnah, but personal opinions of people calling themselves muslims or Crux. [/sarcasm]


No, you see interpretation of religion is everything, fundamentalists (or their mirror-images in teh creator of that webpage) may claim what they want, that does not change that material reality is quite a bit more complex than this or that extract of text.The fundamentalists do not interpret. They are the one who accept the material reality of their scripture in it's entierty.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I wonder if Nardonik has ever asked a Muslim about Islam? And Muslims of different sects, too? Or does he just go to anti-Islam websites?

Of course the Qur'an talks about violence. Muhammad was chased out of Mecca by armed mobs of Meccans and had to defeat that city by warfare to survive. It was not a nice time to live in the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad also wanted to change Arabian society, and you don't do that without breaking a few eggs. He had some "old fashioned" beliefs and moral assumptions which we would question today but he was certainly no worse than other political leaders of his time. This idea that Muhammad was some singularly brutal and savage Arabian conqueror is an old piece of orientalist trash that has been floating around Europe for a few centuries ... there's really no factual accuracy in it (except by whitewashing the great, noble Christian kings of Europe who persecuted religious minorities with severity).

As for veiling, that's not seen by all Muslims as something Muhammad required but something he recommended. The notion that he required it is a topic of great controversy. I don't think it even matters. If a Muslim wears a veil and another doesn't, they are both fine, and some man who tells them that they must do what they are doing is out of line. Women do all sorts of things which seem steeped in patriarchy, yet as soon as its something weird, oriental and foreign like face veils suddenly everyone freaks the fuck out. Some women say they are only appreciated as bodies when dressed the way western women dress.

[Captain Ahab]

One- because the original topic was about Islam, two- because Islam is by far the most violent and totalitarian of religions. Also, the violence in the Old Testament is much more a trait of Calvinism then Judaism, being that Talmudic Judaism is pretty civilized.

What a bizarre claim to make. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Trait of Calvinism?
Islam is not unique at all and you shouldn't obsess over it.

[Crux]

Maybe it is. But it sure as hell can't have anything to do with me, half of my nation is formally Muslim, and we're all European (Bosnia).
Actually it has quite a bit to do with you. Or do you think TROP or JihadWatch exist in some kind vacuum shut off from the rest of the world?


As I already said- if you can't appreciate the difference between the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Buddhist to Buddha, who was non-violent and advocated non-violence; and the relation of a violent person who calls himself a Muslim to Mohammad, who was violent himself and advocated violence, you're either ignorant on the subject or are being dishonest.Ah, but I am not making that argument that religious believers are somehow being controlled by some cosmic puppetry. You are.


Being that Islam is not defined by the Quran and the Sunnah, but personal opinions of people calling themselves muslims or Crux. [/sarcasmNope, it's not about personal opinion either.


The fundamentalists do not interpret. They are the one who accept the material reality of their scripture in it's entierty.Thanks for making my point for me, "comrade" fundamentalist. Which fundamentalists are you talking about though? Even they are quite diverse and certainly contradict each other.


I wonder if Nardonik has ever asked a Muslim about Islam? And Muslims of different sects, too? Or does he just go to anti-Islam websites?
Ah, he has "muslim friends" don't you know? but they are not real muslims because any muslim that is not like the TROP website describes is not really a muslim. A lovely piece of circular reasoning.

[Narodnik]

I wonder if Nardonik has ever asked a Muslim about Islam? And Muslims of different sects, too?
Sure, I know a bunch of formal muslims, and I've talked to all sorts of both only formal and very religious muslims, of the latter I've had talks with Hanafis, Salafis and Twelver Shias. And?


Muhammad was chased out of Mecca by armed mobs of Meccans and had to defeat that city by warfare to survive.
Do your research. Start with the first dozen links here and verify it by reading the sources on muslim sites.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm


This idea that Muhammad was some singularly brutal and savage Arabian conqueror is an old piece of orientalist trash that has been floating around Europe for a few centuries ... there's really no factual accuracy in it
You obviously have no idea what is the scripture of Islam- Quran and Ahadith say about Muhammad's words and actions.


As for veiling, that's not seen by all Muslims as something Muhammad required but something he recommended.
I don't deny that. Muslims can have all kinds of personal opinions on what Muhammad said, but when one looks at the Quran and the Sunnah, it is clear what Islam teaches Muhammad said.



Trait of Calvinism?
Yes, being that only Calvinism advocates applying OT civil laws. Virtually every other Christian denomination- Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptism, etc, etc, since their inception and in their founding documents formally reject applying OT civil laws. And Talmudic Judaism has so much sub-laws for the OT civil laws that it basically makes the uncivilized ones inapplicable.

[Narodnik]

Ah, but I am not making that argument that religious believers are somehow being controlled by some cosmic puppetry. You are.
I'm saying that when someone says "I am a muslim and I kill non-muslims because Islam tells me so", that might be a lie or not, but it is not at all a far fetched statement, on the contrary- because Islam does tell muslims to kill non-muslims; but when someone says "I am a Jain and I kill non-jains because Jainism tells me so", that not only is most definetly a lie, but being that Jainism can by no strech of immagination be said to advocate killing of the non-jains, that person is either doing some psychopatic sarcasm or is bat shit insane, neither of which can never be saind about a muslim killing non-muslims, because Islam DOES advocate killing of non-muslims.


Ah, he has "muslim friends" don't you know? but they are not real muslims because any muslim that is not like the TROP website describes is not really a muslim. A lovely piece of circular reasoning.
If basing my view of what Islam is on what the Quran and the Sunna say is "circular reasoning", then yes, I'm using 'circural reasoning'.

[Rafiq]

narodnik is attacking a straw man. no sane minded person can deny the koran is a stupid and inconsistant book, i.e. it has no real modern context in itself, and, as devrim put it, is deeply reactionary. the question is whether the rise of islamic fundementalism is a result of "pure thought", (is a result of Islam itself, an idea-framework) or very real systemic conditions and changes in social relations. He claims the former. yet he is incapable of explaining how islamic fundementalism is such a relatively new phenomena (well, islamists have always existed, but they have only become popular recently), or how the very secular west, whose population is relatively mostly christian, is the way it is even though the bible is just as reactionary and violent. he will claim that this is due to "pure thought", i.e. secularism came about because people became 'smarter' over time or some guy had an idea which proved to be viable. how absurd.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

I'm saying that when someone says "I am a muslim and I kill non-muslims because Islam tells me so", that might be a lie or not, but it is not at all a far fetched statement, on the contrary- because Islam does tell muslims to kill non-muslims; but when someone says "I am a Jain and I kill non-jains because Jainism tells me so", that not only is most definetly a lie, but being that Jainism can by no strech of immagination be said to advocate killing of the non-jains, that person is either doing some psychopatic sarcasm or is bat shit insane, neither of which can never be saind about a muslim killing non-muslims, because Islam DOES advocate killing of non-muslims.


If basing my view of what Islam is on what the Quran and the Sunna say is "circular reasoning", then yes, I'm using 'circural reasoning'.

again, this is a false question, residing within the realm of false dichtomony. why recently has there been so much political power manifested in islam is the real question, i.e. the question is not whether muslims who take the koran actually literally without your typical knit pick washed over bullshit are violent. the question is: what social, or even superstructural (ideological) mechanisms allowed for it to have a modern context?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Comrade Nasser]

We must also keep in mind that the Quran was written a very long time ago, and that Muhammad lived a very long time ago. Any Muslim who takes anything said in the Quran to kill "non-believers" and to not tolerate "non-Muslims" as the law to be up held in modern times is fucking stupid. Muhammad needed to say and write these things to rally his men to divide, conquer, and unite disorganized Arab and Berber tribes under the banner of Islam. The whole "kill or convert" thing was to keep these disorganized Arab tribes in their place and having other religions would cause sectarian violence and perhaps even uprising against the new Islamic Government. Taking what is written in the Quran literally (especially pertaining to the supposed advocations of violence) in the 21st century is probably one of the stupidest and most reactionary things anyone could ever do.

[Zostrianos]

In my researches I came across a theory that intolerant monotheism started out, in Judaism, as a form of henotheism, and later became fully solidified due to nationalistic aspirations. Until the Babylonian exile around 500-600 BC, several deities were worshipped in Israel (as Judaism developed out of Canaanite Polytheism), until eventually the Yahwist faction prevailed and imposed YHWH as the sole deity, the national God of Israel. YHWH was originally a tribal storm God worshipped by Midianite tribes who eventually settled in Israel. YHWH was then conflated with El ("God", the supreme God of the local Canaanites). In Islam it was very similar, where Allah was worshipped as the supreme God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Pre-Islamic_Arabia) but alongside dozens of others, and eventually Muhammad decided that he was the only God. While the Quran says he received a message from an angel, I've read before that he may have been influenced by Judaism early on, which prompted him to adopt a rigid monotheism.

[dodger]

restricted anti-immigrants crazy dodge

The 2005 London Bombings were not foretold in the koran. Carried out by Britons with the aim of killing workers. At my workplace. I know these people like the back of my hand. This one in particular:


Germaine Lindsay: 19-year-old Jamaican-born Lindsay detonated his device on a train travelling between King's Cross-St. Pancras and Russell Square, at 8:50 a.m. He lived in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, with his pregnant wife and young son. His blast killed 27 people, including Lindsay himself.

His wife, teen convert to Islam, remarried and is now in Kenya/Somalia hunted down. Up to her old tricks.

The pair must have been extraordinarily dim. Duped. Don't know why they latched on to me. Anyhow a list of the people murdered by this young British couple.Russell Square:
James Adams (32)
Samantha Badham (35)[7]
Phillip Beer (22)
Anna Brandt (41)
Ciaran Cassidy (22)
Elizabeth Daplyn (26)
Arthur Frederick (60)
Emily Jenkins (24)
Adrian Johnson (37)
Helen Jones (28)
Karolina Gluck (29)
Gamze Gunoral (24)
Lee Harris (30)[7]
Ojara Ikeagwu (56)
Susan Levy (53)
Shelley Mather (25)
Michael Matsushita (37)
James Mayes (28)
Behnaz Mozakka (47)
Mihaela Otto (46)
Atique Sharifi (24)
Ihab Slimane (24)
Christian Small (28)
Monika Suchocka (23)
Mala Trivedi (51)
Rachell Chung For Yuen (27)

Bronze age quotes, out of their own mouths, Muslim Patrol or dirty deeds. All compound to make us Islamophobic. As to Germaine and his young wife I await enlightenment why they attacked, maimed, murdered caused mayhem. They certainly ensured religion generally be despised by a significant number of people in Britain. We must also, thanks to them, live under more repressive laws. A carpet fitter? Clear to me who the victims are in all this.

[Narodnik]

the question is: what social, or even superstructural (ideological) mechanisms allowed for it to have a modern context?
There are no social mechanisms "allowing" it, it's been happening since the time of Muhammed.


you keep saying "Quran and the Hadith"..(??)which one.?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2603442&postcount=82

[Devrim]

There is no obsession, I have similar stances of opposition to Judaism, Christianity, I was here responding to the ingorant stance how it's "islamism" that's the problem, and not Islam. If I would to come to a topic concerning Christian or Judaistic or Hindu or whatever reactionary religious ideas, I would have wrote (and will write) about that, being that I am familiar with almost all religions, being a theologian by education.

This is the sort of thing that people always say; "Of course it is nothing specific about Muslims, it is about this issue, which is just (conveniently) about Muslims", and then the slurs and abuse start.

Let's take the example, which you yourself brought up of the age of Mohammed's wife. It is amazing how often this fact is repeated across the media nowadays, so let us turn to a few facts that aren't. Richard II of England got married to a six year old child, Isabella of Valois. Here is a nice, happy picture of their wedding:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Isabela_richard2.jpg/220px-Isabela_richard2.jpg

It is not often, however, that we hear this King of England referred to as Richard 'the Paedophile'. Nor do we hear English people damned with some sort of guilt by association. Of course, this is a long long time ago, not as long ago as Mohammed, but that is sort of besides the point. In the past monarchs and other rulers made political marriages to children. It happened.

Let's look at something much more modern then. In 1880 (i.e. within the lifetime of the oldest relatives I can remember), the age of consent in the US state of Delaware was 7 years old. Yet how often do we hear America called the 'United States of Paedophilia'? Perhaps this is because the majority of US states, of course, didn't go along with this, and had a much higher age of consent of 10 years old. Yet the fact that Mohammed did something that would have been considered acceptable in America less than 150 years ago seems to generate mass internet hysteria.

But of course, it is nothing to do with Muslims, is it?

Devrim

[Narodnik]

Nor do we hear English people damned with some sort of guilt by association.
Guild by association? Are you saying that there exist deeply devout followers of Richard II? Please do point us to their organisations and their terrorist acts they commited while quoting factual orders of Richard II where he says to his followers to hate and kill those who are not his followers.

[Devrim]

Guild by association? Are you saying that there exist deeply devout followers of Richard II? Please do point us to their organisations and their terrorist acts they commited while quoting factual orders of Richard II where he says to his followers to hate and kill those who are not his followers.

If one were making glib reply's that completely miss the point of somebody's post as you seem to be doing, it would be possible to point out that there is in fact a large international organisation, every member of which swears obedience to a descendent of Richard II, and has committed terrorist atrocities throughout the world. It is called Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

It wouldn't be the point though.

Devrim

[Narodnik]

If one were making glib reply's that completely miss the point of somebody's post
Exactly what you're doing. And when I draw it for you, you still don't get it. Where are the followers of Richard II who think him to be the best example of living? Them being non-existant, the today's consequences of his paedophilia are also non-existant. But you don't understand that, and seem to think that stating something irrelevant to the discussion of Islam "proves" someone criticising Islam an "islamophobe", or what not. It doesn't.

[Luís Henrique]

Also, this thread is disappointing....I thought it was a thread about the Narodniks. :(

They don't make them any more, sorry.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are no social mechanisms "allowing" it, it's been happening since the time of Muhammed.
What's the "it"? Killing non-Muslims? Well that's just not true historically. George Bush used "crusade" language to justify the war in Iraq from time to time - is the Iraq war the result of the same things that caused the crusades? Is it Bush's professed Christianity that caused the war, or was it actually material considerations, the needs of US empire to position itself as an interventionsit project to maintain the US as the main superpower, etc.

Religion has been used historically as a rallying point for various reasons, but its not the scripture or belief that creates this, the religion is mearly the justification and organizing basis for the most part. In the US, christian texts were used by slaves and abolitionists to condemn slavery or prophesize a divine end to slavery and at the same time it was used by the Southern rulers to justify slavery.

[Luís Henrique]

That may be true, but I am very much of the opinion that islamophobia is drenched in racial sentiments re: arabs.

That seems obvious, and it certainly is what most Islamophobes do: to disguise racist feelings against certain people (Arabs, and generally speaking Mediterranic Whites (Portuguese, Spaniards, Southern Italians, Greeks, Iranians, or people who look like them), but also Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Latin Americans, etc, etc, etc, etc.) as religious disagreement. But there certainly are people who do the opposite: they start from religious-ideological considerations, and construe a discourse that is very useful for the generic Islamophobe, without understanding what they are doing. I am pretty sure that Harris & Dawkins, if for no other reason because of their training in biology, know perfectly well that an Arab or a person who looks like an Arab is not "inferior" or more prone to violence than a Northern European, or a Subsaharian African. What they ignore is the way their supposed "anti-religious" discourse is twisted into mere racism, even when this is done by themselves (as in Harris infamous support for profiling).

But since "races" are racial constructs, what is going here must have other causes. Even outright racists don't "hate" a given "race"; they misconstruct other grievances as "racial" issues. And so, whether Islamophobia is drenched in racism or not, both Islamophobia and racism respond to something more basic: xenophobia, simply, or quite probably to a phenomenon of "othering" or a projection of repressed and unacceptable deep, subconscious feelings into other people. In the case of Harris & Dawkins, quite certainly a projection of their own violent, obscurantist, and fanatical inner tendencies into Muslims and religious people in general.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

What's the "it"? Killing non-Muslims? Well that's just not true historically.
That's just not true? Islam has since it's inception waged war against the kufar, my ancestors lives 400+ years under the Muslims who justified their conquest with Muhammad's order about spreading Islam by the sword, and what I've been saying is that those order are in fact in the Quran and the Sunnah, and you can check that by reading them.

[hatzel]

That's just not true? Islam has since it's inception waged war against the kufar, my ancestors lives 400+ years under the Muslims who justified their conquest with Muhammad's order about spreading Islam by the sword, and what I've been saying is that those order are in fact in the Quran and the Sunnah, and you can check that by reading them.

Can you please stop coming up with really shit claims to expertise with no demonstrative expertise to back it up? 'Well my ancestors lived under the Muslims so I know all about the truth of Islam,' what's that little story supposed to prove? That even though the actual words you're saying are utter bullshit, we're supposed to accept them without question because you're the self-declared expert? We can all come up with anecdotes of our own, you know...for example, my ancestors lived with the Muslims for 1000 years (longer than 400 years, which by your own stupid logic probably makes me more of an expert than you :cool:), and they all tell stories of rainbows and flowers and glorious sunshine and loveliness and yaaaaayyy!!!~~~^^

...problem is that means absolutely nothing to anything, does it? Doesn't prove a thing, except that these people thought life with the Muslims was all rainbows and flowers and glorious sunshine and loveliness and yaaaaayyy!!!~~~^^, of course, but that's just individual testimony, we need something a little more substantial if anybody else is going to take us seriously. Somebody saying Muslims were nice to them doesn't prove Islam is nice any more than somebody saying Muslims were mean to them proves Islam is mean, all it proves is that different people have different experiences, no?

[Narodnik]

'Well my ancestors lived under the Muslims so I know all about the truth of Islam,' what's that little story supposed to prove?Nothing, being that I didn't say that. What's twisting my words supposed to prove?


we're supposed to accept them without question because you're the self-declared expert?You're supposed to accept the facts because they are true. When muslims kill non-muslims with justification that Muhammad ordered them, it is a fact that Muhammad ordered them that. There's no point in denying the truth that he did.


Somebody saying Muslims were nice to them doesn't prove Islam is nice any more than somebody saying Muslims were mean to them proves Islam is meanQuran and Sunnah calling to hate, violence and totalitarianism proves that Islam is not nice, but in fact mean.

[Devrim]

'Well my ancestors lived under the Muslims so I know all about the truth of Islam,' what's that little story supposed to prove?

I don't know, but it has the air of blood and soil nationalism.

Devrim

[Narodnik]

Much less then your reactions to telling the truth about Islam have the air of pro-Al Qaeda islamofascism around them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's just not true?Well first, the references to war in the Quran are often defensive or about war in the historical context of a great deal of sectarian war and religious strife. Islam's original historical appeal was in unifiying people in a warring and violent society and so the texts reflect this with a lot of discussion of the "rules of war" and also in unifiying a divided society. Second there is now and definately historically been a huge diversity in the way people relate to religions - even the same religion geographically or temporally - and this is true of Islam. More specifically, the rise of Islam actually brought relative religious tolarence. Part of the reason Jews were demonized and targeted in the Spanish inquisition was to destroy the the jewish community which had thrived under Islam/Barbar rule. It was known as a "golden age" for Jews in midevil europe. Under "Islamic rule" treatment ranged from oppression (to a lesser degree than under Catholic Spanish or generally under Christian rule elsewhere in Europe) to autonomy to local rule by Jews.


Islam has since it's inception waged war against the kufar, my ancestors lives 400+ years under the Muslims who justified their conquest with Muhammad's order about spreading Islam by the sword, and what I've been saying is that those order are in fact in the Quran and the Sunnah, and you can check that by reading them.And the bible says not to masterbate but most Christians do. Words in a book by themselves do not make actual religious practice let alone wider history. How people interpret these words is determined much more by the social context and other things going on in society.

[Rurkel]

Christians didn't shy from spreading Christianity by the sword. True, sometimes Christians did avoid a mass conversion of conquered subjects (the Crusader states, for instance didn't see any mass conversion of Muslims programs on part of their leadership), but so did Muslims, they also often displayed a pragmatic degree of relative tolerance.

In general, there's legitimate critique of current Islamic tendencies, but when someone starts the whole unhistorical, uninformed "Koran tells Muslims to kill the infidels!!!" song, he's "hostilely naive" at best, or uses his anti-Islam rants to cover for his own racism at worst.

[Narodnik]

Well first, the references to war in the Quran are often defensive or about war in the historical contextThose are politically correct myths. Mohammad's first action as a commander was raiding caravans, and then his first battle (of Badr) was against the forces defending the caravans.

Quran clearly says that fitna (breaking sharia is fitna, being non-muslim that doesn't pay jizya is fitna) is worse then slaugher and that muslim should fight the kufar (non-muslims) until there is no fitna, but only the religion of Allah (Islam) remains. (2:193)

Every extant Tafsir interprets this verse as saying that fitna is a bigger sin then killing and that it is a commadment for muslims to fight non-muslims until we're all either converted or subjugated in a sharia society.

Sahih Bukhari 1,8,378 is also clear:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."
Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."


More specifically, the rise of Islam actually brought relative religious tolarence.When knowing facts about Islam, one knows that religious tolerance can only increace IN SPITE OF Islam, not because of it.


Words in a book by themselves do not make actual religious practice let alone wider history.Words in the books define religions. And if we don't say that some words are idiotic and bad, but accept books with such content as good and something that should not be criticised, and it is "*-phobic" and "racist" to say that books are bad, then those books spread, and the more they spread accepted as scripture, the more likely it is that people who consider them scripture are going to take them seriously and apply what it says in them.


How people interpret these words is determined much more by the social context and other things going on in society.There is not many ways to interpret "go and kill people of different religions". If you start taking that writing seriously, and become convinced that god is ordering you do it, you're gonna do it, no matter if you were rich or poor, working class or capitalist, educated or barely literate, white or black, living in a peaceful or a war-ridden society, and Al Qaeda does have members from all these groups of human society.

[Rurkel]

Words in the books define religions.
It's only a minor part of what defines a religion. External conditions and considerations have an amazing ability to hamper any holy words. So yeah, Islamic holy texts display a somewhat higher degree of nastiness and dogmatism then the Christian ones, score one for Team Christianity. Only the game had already seen so many goals and scores, that this one goal is only a minor matter.

[Narodnik]

It's only a minor part of what defines a religion.It can be a minor part of what defines the views of belivers, but is what (in it's entierty) defines religion. It is Islam that is bad, it is wrong to say "Islam is not bad, it's just some muslims are bad because of poverty/ class/ war" because Islam IS bad.

[Rurkel]

"Religion" includes practice as well as theory, and numerous interpretations and modifications invented by various theologians.

[Luís Henrique]

It can be a minor part of what defines the views of belivers, but is what (in it's entierty) defines religion. It is Islam that is bad, it is wrong to say "Islam is not bad, it's just some muslims are bad because of poverty/ class/ war" because Islam IS bad.

All religions are "bad"; Islam's holy texts are worse than the new Testament, not as bad as the old one. Islam's practices have varied historically; its recent violent and nasty developments aren't due to the texts, but to the historical experiences Muslims in general have been subjected in the recent times. True, the nature of their sacred texts make it easier to derive violent consequences from them, but such consequences would be derived from practically any text, never mind how badly it would be necessary to twist it.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

but to the historical experiences Muslims in general have been subjected in the recent times.I think that assumption is wrong. What arguments do you have for it?


but such consequences would be derived from practically any textI disagree. Devout Lamaist live in at least as bad conditions as do devout muslim who are in poverty and war-ridden societies, yet when being subjected to such bad experiences (maybe worse then muslims) they self-immolate, they don't do suicide bombings, the difference existing due to the different natures (non-violent vs violent) religious texts they are devoted to.

[hatzel]

I think the real question we have to ask ourselves is how exactly the Christians in Aleppo or the Jews on Djerba managed to live there prior to the emergence of Islam, before living under Muslim rule for almost the entire history of Islam, and yet still somehow be alive. Isn't ~1,350 years enough time to get the job done? European Christianity managed to stamp out pre-Christian paganism in all but the most isolated areas in considerably less time, so we know it's possible if you put your mind to it, and yet in the very heartlands of the Islamic world - Baghdad, Istanbul, Cairo, Damascus - non-Muslims lived openly in considerable numbers, without their neighbours killing them on sight throughout the ages. It's almost as if Muslims have never been Islamic at all! :confused:

[Narodnik]

before living under Muslim rule for almost the entire history of Islam, and yet still somehow be alive.Sharia doesn't mandate converting or killing non-muslim, if you're a christian, jew or a monotheist, you can also live under the muslims unharmed if you pay jizya and don't break sharia in public (that includes not saying anything negative about Islam, Muhammad, or preaching any other theological opinon except Islamic).


European Christianity managed to stamp out pre-Christian paganism in all but the most isolated areas in considerably less time, so we know it's possible if you put your mind to it, and yet in the very heartlands of the Islamic world - Baghdad, Istanbul, Cairo, Damascus - non-Muslims lived openly in considerable numbersPagans lived in muslims land openly in considerable nubmers?

[Dave B]

Actually I have just started reading the Quran I am about half way through it, it is a bit interesting.

I am just breezing through it rather than poring over it and I don’t think the book version I have got is exactly a modern English translation.

It doesn’t appear to have a problem with Christianity citing Jesus as a creditable prophet of Allah or god or whatever. Even to the extent of agreeing that he performed miracles etc and condemning those who claimed he was a magician as unbelievers etc.

[The early critics of Christianity eg competing Judaism claimed that JC was magician rather than denying he existed or performed miracles etc.

The 2nd century Roman/ ‘pagan’ critic Celsum didn’t deny either that JC existed or for that matter the basic story as in Origens ‘Contra Celsum’ ;dated at about 220 AD.]

The Quran is interesting as it also mentions JC turning a bit of clay into a real live bird or something, when a ‘teenager’ which is a story that appears in one of the ‘gnostic’ Gospels, thrown out later by the Christians, and dated by canonical Christians as a 5th century fabrication, or before I suppose.

The objection of the Quran to Christianity appears to be, from a theological perspective, the idea of the holy trinity and splitting up of God, and Jesus being God or the son of God etc etc.

I suppose that transformed later into another hostility over Christian rejection of Mohamed as a false prophet and Islam’s idea of the Quran being the last update and version etc.

So far there are lots of repeated rehashed tracts and stories etc from the old testament eg Noah, Lot, Moses, Abraham etc etc.

Mohamed also seems adopt the Calvinistic perspective of ‘grace’ and correct belief or ‘faith' whereby his believers are ‘choosen’ by God; as opposed to the ‘Catholic’ idea of salvation by deed.

The Quran, which seems to accept slavery and the ‘providence’ of material wealth, appears to be less egalitarian and communistic than the gospel stuff with its inherent criticism of power and wealth and emphasis on gods sympathy with the oppressed and poor etc.

If you read it properly.

The distortion of that idea to accommodate the economic 'Christian' elite post third century is another debate.

Mohamed was ‘supposed’ or accused of having been inspired by a Christian slave; which is conceivable I suppose.

Most of it so far just seems to be a constant reiteration of the idea of one god rather than multiple ones and thus opposing the worshipping of idols, or perhaps the elevation of ordinary bods to divine status.

Like perhaps the Catholics did later with Saints and the ‘virgin Mary’, it mentions Mary being the mother of JC often though.

As I understand it that is one cause of the split between the Shia and the Sunni.

I think the Shia are more into saints and shrines than the Sunnis; it looks a bit like the Catholic-Puritan schism to me.

All the Muslims here in England that I have spoken don’t appear to be interested in the difference and seem to know less about it than I do.

There appears to be a suggestion in the early Quran that it is OK to have sex with your female slaves.

That is how I read it anyway, and it appears that way to others as well, although there is controversy.

I checked it out after I read it as I could hardly believe I was reading it correctly.

There is something to be said for reading this kind of material with an unprejudiced open mind before consulting others.

I am and infidel novice at the moment.

All the Muslims I have known have been nice people, I work with and live next door to some.

The men seem hen pecked to me rather than ruling the roost.

[Dave B]

we had this kind of thing



Sahih Bukhari 1,8,378 is also clear:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."
Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."This kind of stuff comes from 'Hadith' which is a kind of post Quran commentary and judgements eg the kind of crap that Saint Paul came out with.

I think.

.

[Le Socialiste]

Much less then your reactions to telling the truth about Islam have the air of pro-Al Qaeda islamofascism around them.

'Islamofascism', huh? Never seen that used before. :rolleyes:

You can't be serious with this. Just stop. You're only displaying your own ignorance here. Theologian (which is how you actually spell it) my ass...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Guild by association? Are you saying that there exist deeply devout followers of Richard II? Please do point us to their organisations and their terrorist acts they commited while quoting factual orders of Richard II where he says to his followers to hate and kill those who are not his followers.

The Ulster Defense Force was a protestant loyalist group active during the troubles that was sponsored by elements of the British government. Unlike Irish paramilitary forces such as the IRA or the INLA, whose goals were Independence and civil rights for the Irish minority, the UDF and other loyalist militia's stated goals were to maintain the British crown and protestant hegemony. In 1994 a document was leaked that various British sponsored loyalist militias had the intentions to carry out an ethnic cleansing of Northern Ireland's catholic population "for god and queen". The UDF and other loyalist paramilitary forces did not lay down their arms until 2007.

According to Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland

Of those killed by British security forces:

187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:

1080 (~52%) were members of the British security forces
728 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
56 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
10 (~0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

868 (~85.4%) were civilians
93 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1.3%) were members of the British security forces

[hatzel]

Sharia doesn't mandate converting or killing non-muslim, if you're a christian, jew or a monotheist, you can also live under the muslims unharmed if you pay jizya and don't break sharia in public (that includes not saying anything negative about Islam, Muhammad, or preaching any other theological opinon except Islamic).

Oh, look who's just changed their story. I'll remind you of the quote you took offence with:


What's the "it"? Killing non-Muslims? Well that's just not true historically.You took issue with that claim, and implied that killing non-Muslims was a sunnaic obligation. In fact, the various links that you posted first up make similar claims, for example (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm)


Quran (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

[...]

There are dozens of others scattered throughout that advocate violence in open-ended fashion. There are hundreds more that speak of hatred and hell toward Christians, Jews, and other non-believers.The wording would certainly suggest that Muslims are obligated to cut off the hands and fingers of Christians and Jews (as they are included in the category 'non-believers'), not to mention any other act of violence, and by linking to this site and vehemently endorsing it, it appeared that you agreed. You no longer appear to believe that, though, which is why you're talking about something else entirely. You've dropped the idea that relentless violence against all "those of the unbelievers who are near to you" is mandated by the Qu'ran, and instead shifted to a position where it is limited to particular populations in specific political relationships to the Islamic state, with outright violence being largely reserved for politically hostile individuals/communities.

Interestingly enough, though, you're actually inadvertently arguing against yourself - I mentioned the Jewish community of Djerba, which was famously attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_synagogue_bombing) some years ago. Your initial argument seemed to be that such militant attacks result from Islam itself, are mandated by the Qu'ran and its inherent violence towards non-Muslims, Jews included, with those who speak against such attacks being at best deluded, at worst heretics. Now, however, you're actually arguing against the legitimacy of such an attack, taking shari'a as your point of reference! Whilst one could perhaps argue that as the jizya is not currently extant in Tunisia (though obviously Jews pay various other taxes under different names) and the country isn't governed by shari'a, attacks on the Jewish community may be legitimate, I don't exactly think that any respectable authority could claim that non-Muslim communities are at fault for not paying a tax which the government does not even ask of them at present, particularly when these communities are not rebelling against the local Muslim authorities. Anybody who takes such a position would quite obviously be working backwards, taking the attack as legitimate and only thereafter trying to find justification in scripture. (This isn't to say that working backwards is illegitimate, however, nor is it particularly uncommon)


Pagans lived in muslims land openly in considerable nubmers?Well yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_empire), actually, though I admit it's somewhat debatable whether Hinduism (or any other Indian religion) should be considered 'paganism,' that being a rather vague term. For the sake of argument, though, I think it's fair to say that there were a great many people living in the Mughal Empire who could perhaps be called pagans, and it could equally be argued that Hinduism is inconsistent with Islamic allowances for non-Muslims. Interestingly enough, though, various Islamic authorities had no problem concluding that Hinduism was in fact permitted to non-Muslims and could be treated as such. But for some reason I suspect you'll dismiss the rulings of generations of Islamic scholars, and claim that you know better for some reason, even though you clearly have no time whatsoever for Islamic jurisprudence and the various schools thereof that have developed through the centuries, thinking instead that you can steam in blind making fatawa as and when you please, even when you flagrantly contradict the rulings of a great many eminent Islamic scholars. I still cannot understand how on Earth you think you have the authority to do anything like this, particularly when you're not even a Muslim yourself...

[Comrade Nasser]

'Islamofascism', huh? Never seen that used before. :rolleyes:

You can't be serious with this. Just stop. You're only displaying your own ignorance here. Theologian (which is how you actually spell it) my ass...

Actually I heard Ann Coulter write that about how the band 1 Direction (which has one half white/ half pakistani muslim boy in it) is "ISLAMOFASCIST TOWELHEAD PROPAGANDA PROMOTING AMERICAN CHILDREN TO BE FRIENDLY WITH MUSLIMS AND PROMOTE RACE-MIXING!"

Nardonik, this is a leftist forum not a David Duke forum :laugh:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nardonik, this is a leftist forum not a David Duke forum :laugh:

Hey hey there, let's not be rude. This is all very good stuff here, no need to be condescending.


Our aim in exposing errors and criticizing shortcomings, like that of a doctor curing a sickness, is solely to save the patient and not to doctor him to death. A person with appendicitis is saved when the surgeon removes his appendix. So long as a person who has made mistakes does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment or persist in his mistakes until he is beyond cure, so long as he honestly and sincerely wishes to be cured and to mend his ways, we should welcome him and cure his sickness so that he can become a good comrade. We can never succeed if we just let ourselves go and lash out at him. In treating an ideological or a political malady, one must never be rough and rash but must adopt the approach of "curing the sickness to save the patient", which is the only correct and effective method.

~Mao Zedong

[Zostrianos]

Pagans lived in muslims land openly in considerable nubmers?

From "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries", 29:

Harran still had many more non-Christians than Christians at this time, and in 639 when the Arabs threatened and a deputation had to be sent to deal with their commander, it was all pagan. In due course the city was chosen as an Umayyad caliph's capital (ca. 745). It was an important junction for caravan routes to Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Syria. The residents were still permitted "to carry on with their rites quite openly, venturing even to the point of decorating the sacrificial ox with precious hangings, with flowers, hanging bells from his horns, and parading him about all the public squares," before he was sacrificed — this in an account of a continuing practice in the second decade of the ninth century. Not long afterwards for a second time the pagans negotiated with an Arab commander (a. 830), on this occasion facing the loss of their freedom of religion; yet once more they were successful"

There was one brutal persecution in Harran during this period, but it was launched by the Christian Byzantine emperor Mauricius (582-602) who wanted to convert the city to Christianity, and so he sent the local bishop and a military garrison to take care of the job: "some of them he managed to convert to Christianity, while many who resisted he carved up, suspending their limbs in the main street of the town" (ibid, pg. 28).

Even in Mughal India, the persecution of Islamic rulers toward Hindus was still less vicious than that of western Catholic colonizers, especially the Portuguese in Goa who imposed a brutal Catholic theocracy in the region and did their utmost to terrorize the locals out of their traditions, customs, even their language.
Also, compare the rule of the Moors in southern Europe (who allowed Jews and Christians freedom of worship), to that of the Church who was usually determined to convert or kill non-Christians.

[bcbm]

I disagree. Devout Lamaist live in at least as bad conditions as do devout muslim who are in poverty and war-ridden societies, yet when being subjected to such bad experiences (maybe worse then muslims) they self-immolate, they don't do suicide bombings, the difference existing due to the different natures (non-violent vs violent) religious texts they are devoted to.

the first suicide bombers were secular, and there have been scores since that were as well.

and the adoption of suicide bombing as a tactic has very little to do with what religious text you follow and very much to do with the nature of the struggle you are fighting.

[Comrade Nasser]

Hey hey there, let's not be rude. This is all very good stuff here, no need to be condescending.

Well YABM everything he said has pretty much warranted everything we've thrown at him. Even if it was "condescending" lolooll

[Narodnik]

Islam has a much better record of tolerance than organized Christianity
Muslims maybe. Islam, no.


'Islamofascism', huh? Never seen that used before. :rolleyes:

You can't be serious with this. Just stop. You're only displaying your own ignorance here.
I was being sarcastic, because an idiot insinuated that I'm a blood and soil nationalist because I'm saying Islam is bad.


Oh, look who's just changed their story.
Do not lie.


I'll remind you of the quote you took offence with:I'll reming you of what I said:

Every extant Tafsir interprets this verse as saying that fitna is a bigger sin then killing and that it is a commadment for muslims to fight non-muslims until we're all either converted or subjugated in a sharia society.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2604031&postcount=131

.

Concerning the pagan thing, there's no discussion there, all the pagans that populated the lands that are today populated by the muslims are non-existant.


even though you clearly have no time whatsoever for Islamic jurisprudence and the various schools thereof that have developed through the centuries, thinking instead that you can steam in blind making fatawa as and when you please, even when you flagrantly contradict the rulings of a great many eminent Islamic scholars.Rulings of islamic scholars do not constitute Islam. The Quran and the Hadith constitute Islam.


particularly when you're not even a Muslim yourself...As I said, I have talked many times with Hanafis, Salafis, and Twelver Shias in my country. I was considering converting, read a lot of Islamic theology books for about a year and for a brief time (few months) I was an informal Salafi, accepting Islam, starting to pray, but I stopped before formally converting, and left all that. But even if I was a muslim, that would be irrelevant because no one's personal opinion constutes Islam. And if were a muslim, I wouldn't be at all writting on this forum, I'd probably be in Syria fighting with the Al-Nusra.

[hatzel]

No no you misunderstand, it does matter that you're not a Muslim. Not because only Muslims can claim to know about Islam, but because you have repeatedly claimed to be a latter day ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. You've stated outright over and over again that historical schools of fiqh are illegitimate (and now you even seemed to have denied their existence!), that centuries of Muslims have abandoned proper Islam by not taking the positions you demand they should (ooh that sounds a little like Qutb), but then turn round to attack the very Islam that you favour, as well as criticising actually-existing Muslims for not adhering to that form of Islam! Do you not understand why there might be a problem here? If you hadn't said that countless Islamic scholars and many millions of Muslims through the centuries were just plain wrong, it wouldn't matter that you're not a Muslim, but you did so it does. The idea of somebody who not only doesn't adhere to Islam, but who vocally opposes it, thinking that they have the authority to declare what is straight and what is crooked, and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate expressions of Islam (with the supposedly 'legitimate' forms just so happening to coincide exactly with the most easily criticised forms) is as laughable as it is offensive.

In a similar vein, if some non-Jew came to me with half a verse of Torah, claiming to rule on halacha, I'd at least listen up, because a Jew certainly has no inherent advantage when it comes to understanding scripture. But if I point out that the halacha according to the Rambam, Bet Yosef, haham Ovadia etc. differs from their understanding, and they just say 'meh, that guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow, facts are facts and he's wrong, no question' I'd probably give them a quick slap for thinking they can run with these giants of Torah, when they are not themselves well-versed in Jewish jurisprudence. But if they then tried to discredit Torah or the Jewish community based on their own halachot, claiming to know Judaism better than Jewish scholars themselves, then maybe there's an even bigger problem...

[Luís Henrique]

for a brief time (few months) I was an informal Salafi,

So maybe here is the problem; you have abandoned Islam, but not yet the Salafi view of what is to be a proper Muslim.


if were a muslim, I wouldn't be at all writting on this forum, I'd probably be in Syria fighting with the Al-Nusra.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of Bosnian Muslims, who are in Bosnia minding their own private lives. So why would your very minoritary view be the correct one, to the exclusion of the majority?

It is like people who claim that a Catholic must not use contraceptives, so anyone who uses them is not a Catholic. If such were true, the immense majority of self-confessing Catholics, even of those who financially contribute to the wealth of Peter's See, would not be actually Catholic...

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

You've stated outright over and over again that historical schools of fiqh are illegitimateYes, because Islam is not defined by historical developments by muslims, but by it's founder.


as well as criticising actually-existing Muslims for not adhering to that form of Islam!I'm not criticing that, it's great they're not adhering to Islam. I'm criticizing the view that Islam is not bad, which people hold because they don't know what Islam is, and that ingorance is also something that I criticize.


thinking that they have the authority to declare what is straight and what is crookedWhat you don't understand is that there is no personal authority not on my part, and not on part of any muslim scholar, the authority is only in the arguments, and my arguments are sound, being that it is Muhammed defined Islam very clearly.


But if I point out that the halacha according to the Rambam, Bet Yosef, haham Ovadia etc. differs from their understanding, and they just say 'meh, that guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow, facts are facts and he's wrongSure, because that conforms to defintion of theological correctness of talmudic Judaism which is based of the principle of yeridat ha-dorot, where it is deemed that it is always the consensus of the successed generation that is correct, going back to tannaim, who wrote down what was, according to their beliefs which continue in talmudic Judaism- the oral Torah given to Moses. Islam is monolithical in a much simpler way- in the Quran and the Hadith it itself is defined as what is written in the Quran and the Hadith, and that's it. It even explicitly prohibits adding anything (look up bid'ah) concerning religion to Islamic teaching or practice, being that the Quran, Muhammed and his sharia are "perfect".


So maybe here is the problem; you have abandoned Islam, but not yet the Salafi view of what is to be a proper Muslim.Because they are correct.


Unlike the overwhelming majority of Bosnian Muslims, who are in Bosnia minding their own private lives.Because they are not concerned with correctness and consistency.


So why would your very minoritary view be the correct one, to the exclusion of the majority?Why would it not? Correctness is not determined by number of people accepting it, that's a mistake in reasoning called argumentum ad populum.


It is like people who claim that a Catholic must not use contraceptives, so anyone who uses them is not a Catholic.He can be a formal Catholic, but not a completely consistent Catholic.


If such were true, the immense majority of self-confessing Catholics, even of those who financially contribute to the wealth of Peter's See, would not be actually Catholic...So? Appeal to majority is a fallacy.

[Luís Henrique]

So? Appeal to majority is a fallacy.

Appeal to majority is a fallacy, but what I have wrote is not an appeal to majority.

No person, not even the pope, or the most fanatic Salafist ever, can actually be consistent if the standards are texts that were written several centuries ago, in completely different societies. Especially when such texts are internally contradictory, which, evidently, they are.

But let's see your allegation that


[A catholic who uses contraceptives] can be a formal Catholic, but not a completely consistent Catholic.

However, there is nothing that I know in the Catholics' holy writings that say that they should not take contraceptives (which the writers of the holy texts never heard about). It is a dictate by the Catholic hierarchy, and it could be revoked at any moment, should the opinion of high-ranking Catholic clerics change on the subject. So why would the "correct" Muslim faith be determined by the Quran and/or the Hadith, but the "correct" Catholic faith be determined by decrees by the pope, instead of by the Holy Bible?

And, if Francis I has a change of hearth, and decrees that Catholics are from now on allowed to use contraceptives, does that mean that people who were Catholic as of yesterday will no longer be proper Catholics tomorrow, and vice-versa?

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

However, there is nothing that I know in the Catholics' holy writings that say that they should not take contraceptivesAugustine "For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny."

Aquinas "The sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. Tthis same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the "vice against nature", which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is "simple fornication," which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman."


So why would the "correct" Muslim faith be determined by the Quran and/or the HadithCorrect. Not "correct". Because the Quran and the Hadith define it so.


but the "correct" Catholic faith be determined by decrees by the popeIt's not, Popes can be heretics, and they're called anti-popes. Catholicism defines itself as the faith promulgated by the Extraordinary Infalliable Magistrerium (Ecumenical Council dogmas or the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra [which was used only two times in history]) and Ordinary Infalliable Magistrerium ("consensus patrum" [which includes the Scripture]). The third- Ordinary Magistrerium (teaching of a pople, bishop or priest) is only authorative if not in contradiction with the first two.

[Luís Henrique]

Augustine

Aquinas

Unhappily, neither Augustine nor Aquinas are holy text for Catholics. They are hold as wise men, of course, but merely falible men in the end.


It's not, Popes can be heretics, and they're called anti-popes.

Nope, you are mistaken. The anti-popes were schismatics, not heretics.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Yes, because Islam is not defined by historical developments by muslims, but by it's founder.
And herein lies the key to your deep-seated confusions, professor. You may believe in this cosmic puppetshow nonsense, but your belief is quite inconsequential to material reality.


And if were a muslim, I wouldn't be at all writting on this forum, I'd probably be in Syria fighting with the Al-Nusra.
Undoubtedly so, since your reasoning is that of a religious fundamentalist. It does, again, beg the question why Jabbhat Al-Nusra would hold the key to the one true islam, but I guess you just pick and choose don't you, professor?

[Narodnik]

I said what is counted as authorative in Catholicism. And knowing how Catholicism defines itself, and knowing the content of teachings that are found within those boundaries, it is impossible to think that Catholicism and approval of contraception are anything by contradictory.

Also, if you didn't know, Aquinas is honored in Catholicism as the foremost Doctor of the Church, and the Ecumenical council of Trent extraordinarily honored him by putting his Summa on the altair together with the Bible and Code of canon law (and the above Aquinas' quote is from the Summa).

[Narodnik]

And herein lies the key to your deep-seated confusions, professor. You may believe in this cosmic puppetshow nonsense, but your belief is quite inconsequential to material reality.
Your ignorance of what Islam is only is matched only by your inability to understand the difference between an idea (Islam) and the personal opinions about that idea held by those who say they follow it (muslims).


Undoubtedly so, since your reasoning is that of a religious fundamentalist.
Yes, evidence-oriented. When you ask a religious moderate why he accepts the religion he accepts, it is very unlikely that you would get a coherent response, but when you ask a fundamentalist (the one who is interested in the fundaments of his religion) you will instantly be bombarded by arguments. Maybe not sound or even valid ones, but arguments, statements that try to prove and give evidence. Wereas the is obvious lacking in any semblance of rational thought in the mentioned religious moderates, or the likes of you- even though I have in with an abundance of references proved that I am right in regards of what Islam is, you still stubbornly refuse to listen to reason and continue with your ignorant, yet pompously cynical comments. If you really have no arguments to offer against what I have said that Islam is, and that Islam is bad, but want to continue with your unconstructive attepts to derail this topic or provoke me or whatever it is you're doing, I will be putting you on the ignore list, so you could continue with your displays of your ignorance unhindered. If you do have any arguments that Islam is not what I say it is, please do not hide them any further.

[Crux]

Your ignorance of what Islam is only is matched only by your inability to understand the difference between an idea (Islam) and the personal opinions about that idea held by those who say they follow it (muslims).
And once again, you are the one talking about personal opinions. I am not.
Indeed if you were arguing that history can be understood merely through personal opinions that is as wrong as your present claim to be the one true interpreter of Islam. And I'm not even defending islam, it is just that your fundamental understanding of how history and society works is completely off.



Yes, evidence-oriented. When you ask a religious moderate why he accepts the religion he accepts, it is very unlikely that you would get a coherent response, but when you ask a fundamentalist (the one who is interested in the fundaments of his religion) you will instantly be bombarded by arguments. Maybe not sound or even valid ones, but arguments, statements that try to prove and give evidence. Wereas the is obvious lacking in any semblance of rational thought in the mentioned religious moderates, or the likes of you- even though I have in with an abundance of references proved that I am right in regards of what Islam is, you still stubbornly refuse to listen to reason and continue with your ignorant, yet pompously cynical comments. If you really have no arguments to offer against what I have said that Islam is, and that Islam is bad, but want to continue with your unconstructive attepts to derail this topic or provoke me or whatever it is you're doing, I will be putting you on the ignore list, so you could continue with your displays of your ignorance unhindered. If you do have any arguments that Islam is not what I say it is, please do not hide them any further.
Ah yes, you are now applying Sam Harris in all his ignorant glory.
I think Hatzels argued very well against you, but you keep playing hide and seek with arguments and reason it seems.
Islam is not what you say it is. Indeed for all your claims to Islam being some separate magical entity existing independent of physical reality you still curiously come down with the decision that Jabbhat Al-Nusra fits your definition of muslims. Now why is that? Are they perhaps in direct contact with Muhammad himself? Now you seem to imply that fundamentalists in general are more correct, this in itself reveals a massive hole in your reasoning. Or do you presume to say that all fundamentalists hold an identical doctrine to Jabbhat Al-Nusra, professor?

[Narodnik]

as your present claim to be the one true interpreter of Islam.
Do not lie. I interpret nothing, it's just that I know how Islam defines itself, and you don't.


Islam is not what you say it is.
Yes, it is.


Indeed for all your claims to Islam being some separate magical entity existing independent of physical reality
If you consider the Quran and the Hadith magical entities existing independent of physical reality, then yes.

[#FF0000]

Do not lie. I interpret nothing, it's just that I know how Islam defines itself, and you don't.

I think it's funny you're talking about "how islam defines itself" while ignoring the thousands of years of scholarship and interpretation around the thing.

But nah you're right "Islam" is an eternal unchanging idea like one of Plato's forms or something.

[Luís Henrique]

I said what is counted as authorative in Catholicism. And knowing how Catholicism defines itself, and knowing the content of teachings that are found within those boundaries, it is impossible to think that Catholicism and approval of contraception are anything by contradictory.

Also, if you didn't know, Aquinas is honored in Catholicism as the foremost Doctor of the Church, and the Ecumenical council of Trent extraordinarily honored him by putting his Summa on the altair together with the Bible and Code of canon law (and the above Aquinas' quote is from the Summa).

It is still a human work, and, as such, fallible.

Sure, the consensus of the Catholic "doctors" is hold as authoritative interpretation of scripture (not as authoritative on non-scriptural matters). And as of now, such consensus is that contraception is scriptural matter, as per the tale of Onan, and, as such, forbidden. But such consensus is, obviously, changeable; if enough Catholic theologians start explaining that Onan's tale should be interpreted in a different way, then the consensus changes.

Evidently the Catholic Church has a better developed algorithm for changing its theological standings than Salafist Muslims, but even those cannot claim a proper direct connection to Muhammad, being on the contrary a movement beginning in the 19th century, so their supposed monopoly of a faith that is much older than them must be taken with considerable amounts of salt by everybody, Muslim or not...

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Do not lie. I interpret nothing, it's just that I know how Islam defines itself, and you don't.


Yes, it is.


If you consider the Quran and the Hadith magical entities existing independent of physical reality, then yes.
I notice you are unable to answer my question, professor. But your meaningless "oh the stupidity, troll" negrep was much appreciated. I reproduce it here for the edification and the amusement of others reading this thread.

No that would be you, as you have said so multiple times. Or do you already forget what you have said, professor? So how does your reading of the Hadith and the Quran inform you that Jabhat Al-Nusra is the only real muslim group? Or perhaps you have changed your mind?

[Narodnik]

I think it's funny you're talking about "how islam defines itself" while ignoring the thousands of years of scholarship and interpretation around the thing.
What's funny is you not differentiating between Islam, which is a religion founded by Muhammad, with it's Scripture of Quran and the Hadith, and muslims, who have troughout history have different personal opinions about what Islam is. Islam is defined by the Quran and the Hadith, not by personal opinions of anyone.


It is still a human work, and, as such, fallible.
And a personal opinion of a person calling himself a Catholic is infalliable? You seem to have ignored my explanation, so I will repeat it:

Catholicism defines itself as the faith promulgated by the Extraordinary Infalliable Magisterium (Ecumenical Council decrees or the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra [which was used only two times in history]) and Ordinary Infalliable Magisterium ("consensus patrum" [which includes the Scripture]). The third- Ordinary Magisterium (teaching of a pople, bishop or priest) is not considered infalliable and is only authorative if not in contradiction with the first two.


Sure, the consensus of the Catholic "doctors" is hold as authoritative interpretation of scripture (not as authoritative on non-scriptural matters). And as of now, such consensus is that contraception is scriptural matter, as per the tale of Onan, and, as such, forbidden. But such consensus is, obviously, changeable; if enough Catholic theologians start explaining that Onan's tale should be interpreted in a different way, then the consensus changes.
You don't seem to even know who are the Doctors of the Church, or Church Fathers. I have refered to them above in the "consesus patrum", (assuming in vain you are familiar with the term), and hinted that the apostles are considered such Fathers, that's why said that "scripture is included" in the consensus patrum. Church Father are sprecific Saints that are considered by Cathocilism to be inspired by Holy Ghost, just like the OT Prophets, and just like the Apostoles were, as said by John of Damascus (considered a Holy Father and a Doctor of the Church) "what has been revealed by the Holy Ghost trough Prophets and Apostles, has been interpreted by Him trough Holy Fathers", and a great many other Holy Fathers have promulgated such a notion, thus making that belief itself a part of the Sacred Tradition, also called consensus patrum, also called Ordinary Infalliable Magisterium.

Doctors of the Church are in Catholicism a small group of Holy Fathers, who left theological writings and were declared by an Ecumenical council or a papal decteral as authorative Doctors, that is- teachers- of the true faith. Such are Augustine, Jerome, Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostome, Hilary, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and about a dozen more saints. Their writings are basically what mostly defines Catholicism, the most authorative being, as I mentioned, Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas, which was by the Ecumenical Council of Trent given equal standing with the Bible and the Code of canon law.


Evidently the Catholic Church has a better developed
Evidently you have no idea what Catholicism actually is.


Salafist Muslims, but even those cannot claim a proper direct connection to Muhammad, being on the contrary a movement beginning in the 19th century
Firstly, there is no need for a "direct contact" with Muhammed, there is no "apostolic succession" in Islam, what is relevant is the total and consistent upholding of the Quran and the Hadith. Secondly, you are misinformed about history also, being that salafists have existed from the time of Muhammad do this day. Today's salafists have three main scholars whose works they use- Ibn Hanbal (9th century), and Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim (14th century), being that they were most prolific and most successfull muslim scholars that didn't write anything of thier own about religion, but were only systematizers and propagators of Muhammads teaching as contained in the Quran and the Hadith.


So how does your reading of the Hadith and the Quran inform you that Jabhat Al-Nusra is the only real muslim group?
They are the only ones in the conflict who want to establish the sharia, as was commanded by Muhammad in the Quran and the Hadith.


I notice you are unable to answer my question, professor.
I notice that you are unable to answer my request to provide ANY argument that Islam is not what I say it is, troll.

[Crux]

They are the only ones in the conflict who want to establish the sharia, as was commanded by Muhammad in the Quran and the Hadith.


I notice that you are unable to answer my request to provide ANY argument that Islam is not what I say it is, troll.
Ah I see you do no understand my question, professor. Why, out of all the various islamist groups are Jabhat Al Nusra the one that gets your ever-so-educated stamp of approval?

Well, if islam would be what you say it is then there are no muslim groups anywhere because after all Muhammed is long dead. But that isn't really what you are saying is it?

[Narodnik]

Well, if islam would be what you say it is then there are no muslim groups anywhere
Seems that not only you're a troll who hasn't posted a single argument for your view that Islam is not what I say it is, but you also have no idea what I'm saying, so, not only you're obviously incapable to speak rationally (with any arguments), you obviously can't even think as a mentally developed individual, being that such an idiotic conclusion can in no possible way follow from what I say Islam is.

[Luís Henrique]

And a personal opinion of a person calling himself a Catholic is infalliable?

No, it is not, nor do I think I have argued otherwise.


You seem to have ignored my explanation, so I will repeat it:

Catholicism defines itself as the faith promulgated by the Extraordinary Infalliable Magisterium (Ecumenical Council decrees or the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra [which was used only two times in history]) and Ordinary Infalliable Magisterium ("consensus patrum" [which includes the Scripture]). The third- Ordinary Magisterium (teaching of a pople, bishop or priest) is not considered infalliable and is only authorative if not in contradiction with the first two.

Mkay. The consensus patrum definitely does not include Scripture, nor it does the same level of authority as Scripture. Is is also changeable - it is a consensus, after all.


You don't seem to even know who are the Doctors of the Church, or Church Fathers. I have refered to them above in the "consesus patrum", (assuming in vain you are familiar with the term), and hinted that the apostles are considered such Fathers, that's why said that "scripture is included" in the consensus patrum.

Well, you are clearly mistaken. The apostles are not Doctors of the Catholic Church (maybe so of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, I don't know), and Scripture is definitely not included in the works of Doctors.


Doctors of the Church are in Catholicism a small group of Holy Fathers, who left theological writings and were declared by an Ecumenical council or a papal decteral as authorative Doctors, that is- teachers- of the true faith. Such are Augustine, Jerome, Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostome, Hilary, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and about a dozen more saints. Their writings are basically what mostly defines Catholicism, the most authorative being, as I mentioned, Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas, which was by the Ecumenical Council of Trent given equal standing with the Bible and the Code of canon law.

Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, etc. - not Luke, Matthew, John or Mark, or Paul or Peter, much less anyone related to the Old Testament.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

The consensus patrum definitely does not include Scripture, nor it does the same level of authority as Scripture.I have explained who are the Fathers that are refered to in the "consensus patrum". Saints regarded by the Church to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, like the Prophets and Apostles.


Is is also changeable - it is a consensus, after all.I don't see how can it be, being that all Fathers are long deceased. Even if the entire Chuch hierarchy declares something to be Catholicism, if it contradicts the teachings of the mentioned, it doesn't "change the consensus" it's deemed heresy, just like any of the miriad of heresies troughout history of Christianity, a few of which have been held by a majority of the church hierarchy, land councils from times like those are considered "robber councils", latrociniums, and not authorative, because they contradicted the unchangeble "consensus patrum", which, according to Catholicism, reflects the true teaching of Jesus Christ.


. The apostles are not Doctors of the Catholic ChurchNeither did I said they are. They are regarded as inspired writers, that is- Holy Fathers. Doctors of the Church are a small group of Holy Fathers, who were theologians and are declared to be the most authorative ones.


.

[Crux]

Seems that not only you're a troll who hasn't posted a single argument for your view that Islam is not what I say it is, but you also have no idea what I'm saying, so, not only you're obviously incapable to speak rationally (with any arguments), you obviously can't even think as a mentally developed individual, being that such an idiotic conclusion can in no possible way follow from what I say Islam is.
I have. But you seem content to keep playing hide and seek.
But please, do tell me why Jabhat Al-Nusra (as opposed to, say, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood) fits your ultra-idealist understanding of what muslim is. You seem to not want to answer that question. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because you're just making stuff up as you go along? No I don't mean to imply you haven't read verses from the Hadith and Quran, what I am saying though is that your entire argument is completely ad hoc. Are you sure you're not, in fact, a religious fundamentalist?

[Narodnik]

your ultra-idealist understanding of what muslim is
It's like your brain is turned off. I talk about Islam is.


You seem to not want to answer that question..
As soon as give ANY argumentation that Islam is not what I say it is I might give a benefit of a doubt to the unlikely possibility that you're not an idiotic troll, and then will answer the serious questions you might have.

[Luís Henrique]

I have explained who are the Fathers that are refered to in the "consensus patrum". Saints regarded by the Church to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, like the Prophets and Apostles.

And you have explained it wrong. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm), the Catholic Doctors do not include Apostles nor Prophets.


I don't see how can it be, being that all Fathers are long deceased.Hildegard of Bingen may be long deceased, but she has been a Doctor only since Benedict XVI's pontificate. Who knows what other people will be considered doctors in the future, and what their opinions on contraception will be?

To quote again the Catholic Encyclopedia,


To these great names others have subsequently been added. The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm), and proclamation by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)). Benedict XIV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02432a.htm) explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) or by a general council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm). But though general councils (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) have acclaimed the writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in extending to the universal church the use of the Office (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11219a.htm) and Mass (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm) of a saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), after a careful examination, if necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), of the saint's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm) writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm).

(Underlines are by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, bolds are mine.)

So, as you can see, the declaration that a person is a Doctor of the Church is not an ex-cathedra decision, which means it is not infallible. Which means that at any point in the future, the decision to consider, say, Thérèse of Lisieux (who by the way is only dead since 1897, so not that long ago) a Doctor of the Church may very well be considered to be a mistake by John Paul II, and revoked. True, it is not very probable, and it has yet not happened, but it is by no means impossible.

And as you also see, the correct Catholic doctrine is not only that the Doctors themselves are by no means infallible, but even that it is certain that there are errors within their writings.


Even if the entire Chuch hierarchy declares something to be Catholicism, if it contradicts the teachings of the mentioned, it doesn't "change the consensus"And you are again wrong, because the status of the Doctors of the Church as such relies exclusively within eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (and who else decides upon eminens doctrina and insignis vitae sanctitas, if not the Church hierarchy?)


it's deemed heresyBut deemed by whom? There are only two possible subjects for that verb here, and they are, 1. the Church hierarchy itself, which in your hypothesis is the one making the supposed heretic declaration; and 2. the mass of faithful Catholics round the world. Evidently, if the Church hierarchy's decision is deemed to be unacceptably heretic by the faithful, a huge crisis will ensue, and one possible result is that the "heretic" hierarchy will be brought down and replaced by a more traditionalist one. But in the case of contraception, this isn't likely; if the Catholic hierarchy decides that contraception is acceptable, it doesn't look like the faithful will rebel against that.


just like any of the miriad of heresies troughout history of Christianity, a few of which have been held by a majority of the church hierarchy, land councils from times like those are considered "robber councils", latrociniums, and not authorative, because they contradicted the unchangeble "consensus patrum", which, according to Catholicism, reflects the true teaching of Jesus Christ.Because they have been deemed to contradict the (actually changeable, though evidently not lightly so) consensus patrum and/or (normally unchangeable, but always reinterpretable) Scripture (these being two very different, mutually exclusive things) by the living Church on the ground - laymen, clerics, hierarchy, from rank and file priests up to the pope. The writings in themselves cannot do anything, unless they are (mis)read, (mis)understood, (mis)interpreted and (mis)used by actual people. That's the purpose of the Catholic hierarchy - to regulate and contain the reading, understanding, interpreting, and use of writings.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

And you have explained it wrong. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm), the Catholic Doctors do not include Apostles nor Prophets.
Neighter I said it does. I said that Apostles are inspired people, that is- Holy Fathers, and Doctors are a small group of Fathers.


Hildegard of Bingen may be long deceased, but she has been a Doctor only since Benedict XVI's pontificate. Who knows what other people will be considered doctors in the future, and what their opinions on contraception will be?It is irrelevant. Their opinions would non-catholic. Even if ther church hierarchy makes something it's official teaching, if it contradicts the teachings of the Church Father troughout the centuries- it's a non-catholic teaching.


But deemed by whom? There are only two possible subjects for that verb here, and they are, 1. the Church hierarchy itself, which in your hypothesis is the one making the supposed heretic declaration; and 2. the mass of faithful Catholics round the world. Deemed objectively. Catholicism is a set of teachings defined by those established them, not by those who say that accept them. Catholicism is not defined by people living now, whether they are the "faithful catholics" or the priests, bishops and the pope. Their opinions are only authorative if they agree with the previously established faith. The Extraordinary infalliable magisterium of the church is the ecumenical councils, and if an new council, ecumenical in scale, makes decrees that contradict the previous ecumenical councils in the matters of faith and morality, according to Catholicism that council is deemed a "robber council", and it's participants heretics, and this goes back to the first ecumenical council, that had to non-contradict the apostolic Jerusalem council, from which the church accepts canons, and the faith contained in the consensus patrum of that time, meaning teachins of the apostles and the their pupils- in the writings of Hermas, Barnabas, Papius, Clements of Rome and Alexandria, Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus.


Because they have been deemed to contradict the (actually changeable, though evidently not lightly so)If it were changeble, then there would be no robber councils, every council that is conducted by the church hierarchy would be considered authorative, which is not the case, being that there have been robber council, where church hierarchy have declared teaching considered heretical by a minority, e.g. even though at the council of Cyprus in 634 pope Honorius and the patriarch of Constatinopole Sergius promulgated decrees of faith that were accepted by the great majority of the Church hierarchy (rejected only by the Jerusalim patriarchate representative- Maximus the Confessor), those decrees were non-catholic, because they were in contradiction with the writing of the Holy Fathers, and were declared as such in the 6th ecumenical council 50 years later.


consensus patrum and/or Scripture (these being two very different, mutually exclusive things) Scripture is a part of consensus patrum. Consensus patrum, also called "Sacred Tradition" existed before the Scripture, being that apostles first spread Christianity by word, and it is centainly older then the official proclamation of the Scripture, being that, as I said, there has been consensus patrum before that.

.

[Crux]

It's like your brain is turned off. I talk about Islam is.


As soon as give ANY argumentation that Islam is not what I say it is I might give a benefit of a doubt to the unlikely possibility that you're not an idiotic troll, and then will answer the serious questions you might have.
Simple, you seem to think islam exists separate from historical, even physical, context and that the only "true" muslims are those that follow the Quran word for word, as you interpret it and that group is Jabhat Al-Nusra. This is the mark of a religious fundamentalist. Now, you've said you have an interest in eastern religions, so out of curiosity which one is it you are a servant to, professor?

And you still refuse to answer why Jabhat Al Nusra are muslims when, presumable, you must believe that the other islamist groups are not. Or how do you account for the differences between them?

[Narodnik]

those that follow the Quran word for wordQuran and the Hadith define Islam as what is in the Quran and the Hadith, and explicitly prohibit adding anything new to matters of religion. Muslims that accept this definition of Islam, as established by it's founder, are true muslims. If a muslim doesn't not accept how Muhammed defined Islam, but accepts some other definition of it, he cannot be a true muslim, being that he doesn't know what Islam is.


And you still refuse to answerYou still refuse to offer ANY argument for disagreeing with me as to what is Islam, but continue with idiotic spamming and trolling.

[Luís Henrique]

If it were changeble, then there would be no robber councils, every council that is conducted by the church hierarchy would be considered authorative, which is not the case, being that there have been robber council, where church hierarchy have declared teaching considered heretical by a minority, e.g. even though at the council of Cyprus in 634 pope Honorius and the patriarch of Constatinopole Sergius promulgated decrees of faith that were accepted by the great majority of the Church hierarchy (rejected only by the Jerusalim patriarchate representative- Maximus the Confessor), those decrees were non-catholic, because they were in contradiction with the writing of the Holy Fathers, and were declared as such in the 6th ecumenical council 50 years later.

Because, of course, the 6th ecumenical council rejected the council of Cyprus of 634 as contradictory to the tradition. Otherwise, it would have passed into tradition itself, and its teachings would be deemed an integral part of the Catholic faith.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Otherwise, it would have passed into tradition itself, and its teachings would be deemed an integral part of the Catholic faith.
No it wouldn't. The church continuing from that council would be, according to catholicism- heretical, like e.g. churches that still exist and accept the robber council of Ephesus in 449, which was in fact ecumenical in scale, but promulgated decrees in contradiction with the previously established faith.

[Luís Henrique]

No it wouldn't. The church continuing from that council would be, according to catholicism- heretical, like e.g. churches that still exist and accept the robber council of Ephesus in 449, which was in fact ecumenical in scale, but promulgated decrees in contradiction with the previously established faith.

Ah, but in this case the existing Catholic Church is heretic in itself.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Ah, but in this case the existing Catholic Church is heretic in itself.
That's a pretty vague statement, what heresy are you referring to?

[Luís Henrique]

That's a pretty vague statement, what heresy are you referring to?

Look at the beggining of the Gospel of Mark. It says that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus of Nazareth at the occasion of his baptism - when Jesus was already an adult - and that God explicitly said he was adopting Jesus as his son in that occasion.

Now look at the beggining of John's Gospel, that very clearly states that the Son was with the Father since the inception of times. How are these mutually exclusive views reconciled (or any of them with Luke's or Matthew's view that the Son was created at Jesus conception)?

So one of these views must be heretic, isn't it? How are all of them considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church?

Luís Henrique

[Rurkel]

So one of these views must be heretic, isn't it? How are all of them considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church is not "adoptionist", so if we had a conservative Catholic here, he would condescendingly, but patiently explain to us that Mark doesn't actually say what it says. After all, the magisterium never claimed the right to overrule scripture, did it?

[Luís Henrique]

The Catholic Church is not "adoptionist", so if we had a conservative Catholic here, he would condescendingly, but patiently explain to us that Mark doesn't actually say what it says. After all, the magisterium never claimed the right to overrule scripture, did it?

Indeed.

But whatever Catholics claim or fail to claim, Mark is obviously an adoptionist. To contort him into a non-adoptionist needs a very especial, and purposeful, kind of "interpretation" of the Scripture. Such "interpretation" cannot be found in Scripture itself - so it must rely elsewhere. Mainly, of course, in Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory I. But as the writings of these people have not the same standing as Scripture, and are not deemed unfallible... it means that the Catholic Church reserves itself the privilege of reinterpreting Scripture as it sees fit.

Obviously, it is a very traditionalist structure, so it is not like it is going to change its mind often, quickly, or lightly. But it now deems its priests must be celibate, a thing it had not done in the past. So, to quote an old enemy of l'Infâme, yes, eppur si muove.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Look at the beggining of the Gospel of Mark. It says that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus of Nazareth at the occasion of his baptism - when Jesus was already an adult - and that God explicitly said he was adopting Jesus as his son in that occasion.
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,
13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

There is no adoptionism here, let alone an explicit one. If I say to my son in public "You are my son, and I love you, and I am pleased with you", are people around me going to assume that I was by that statent "explicitly adopting him on that occasion"? No one in their right mind would.


After all, the magisterium never claimed the right to overrule scripture, did it?
Maristerium decided to make the scripture and decided what works it would contain. In Catholicism, as I said, Scripture, Code of canon law and Summa Theologiae are given prominent position out of the Sacred Tradiction as being most representative of it, the Sacred Tradition being identified as the true teaching of Jesus and his apostles.

[Crux]

Interestingly relevant:

Slavoj Zizek Vs Cornel West

41l0DqCZEvI
So far I'm only through Zizek's part but he does make the case I am trying to make here about how fundamentally wrong professor Narodnik is about religion.

[Luís Henrique]

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

That's curious, because my own very Catholic Bible (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=C2CEniFQHZAC&pg=PA1235&lpg=PA1235&dq=aprouve-me+escolher-te&source=bl&ots=mFP5BI6BwQ&sig=oXHClnhVrqA03Gsu784liyqWB9A&hl=pt&sa=X&ei=T2lpUZDtHs_k4AOLoYDwBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aprouve-me%20escolher-te&f=false) tells it differently:


Ora, naqueles dias, Jesus veio de Nazaré na Galiléia e fez batizar-se por João no Jordão. No momento em que ele subia da água, viu os céus rasgarem-se e o Espírito como uma pomba descer sobre si. E dos céus veio uma voz: "Tu és o meu filho amado, aprouve-me escolher-te".

Which translates as


Now, at that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and had John baptise him in the Jordan. When Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the sky being torn open and the Spirit, as a dove, descending on him. And a voice came from sky: “You are my beloved son, I took pleasure in choosing you.”Which is an evidently adoptionist text. While I have no clues about the original from which that was translated, I don't know why the Catholic Church would rewrite Mark to spice it with an adoptionist flavour that was not originally there.


Maristerium decided to make the scripture and decided what works it would contain. In Catholicism, as I said, Scripture, Code of canon law and Summa Theologiae are given prominent position out of the Sacred Tradiction as being most representative of it, the Sacred Tradition being identified as the true teaching of Jesus and his apostles.Aquinas is still not infallible, nor is canonic law.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

While I have no clues about the original from which that was translated,
Get a clue:
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=2

http://biblos.com/mark/1-11.htm

There is no mention of any choosing.


Aquinas is still not infallible, nor is canonic law.
Which is besides the point that the three books that Catholicism proclaims as most authorative on the question of what Catholicism is are the Scripture, Code of canon law and Summa Theologiae.

[Luís Henrique]

Get a clue:
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=2

http://biblos.com/mark/1-11.htm

There is no mention of any choosing.

In the Latin text, certainly not - but the Latin text is already a translation.

In the Greek texts, it seems to me there is not, but I don't read Greek, so I could be mistaken.

However, I still can't have a clue... about the origin of the Portuguese translation I quoted. Which is formally recommended by the Brazilian Episcopal Conference. I suppose they haven't invented it from scrap, and so that either relies in a different Greek manuscript. Or that the Greek originals you quoted are ambiguous.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Or you're just wrong. Why is that so hard to admit?

[Kirillov]

Why do you get to decide who is and who isn't a "real" muslim?

This gets even more absurd considering there was no islamic enlightenment, because they didn't need one, not because Allah disliked it. For centuries drinking was very much tolerated (the word "alcohol" is actually from Arab), same-sex romantic relationships even more so: Arab literature is filled with love poems from men to men, there isn't even a single recorded case, to my knowledge, of someone being convicted for engaging in consensual sex with another man (even though the Quran is prohibiting liwat/anal-sex regardless) up until 19th century colonialism.

What westerners call Islamic virtue-terror today, they essentially called "civilized" back then. With Muslim intellectuals being the first to adapt to western "critique" by raging against Arab savagery and immorality. There's quite a corpus of scholarly literature covering that topic. Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs was praised by the scholarly press while at the same time being quite accessible even for laymans, to name just one example.

Furthermore literalism is essentially a modern phenomenon. This is very much true of Christianity but it's especially true of Islam. Muslim fundamentalists being literalist is literally a contradiction in terms. Literalist currents commonly referred to as fundamentalist in western media are not even remotely related to Islamic fundamentalist currents throughout history. Those neo-fundamentalist currents in fact developed exactly because they were disconnected from Islamic historical and cultural markers, and they developed only recently.(But even neo-fundamentalist currents such as the Salafi Movement rely on some body of Tafsir.) Olivier Roy, who wrote a standard text book on political Islam, published a book (Holy Ignorance) on "uprooted" Religions in general as well, which is quite informative.

So you can't just read some Quran-translation and reach any meaningful conclusion on that ground. There is a large corpus of exegese literature you'd have to study to get some informative insights about one Islamic school of thought. And even then there would be humongous blind-spots because you do not speak Arab and you've got no clue about Islamic culture in a more than just supericial way. Moreover the attempt to discuss raw religious texts on the internet is beyond insane. However the attempt to discuss this on the internet citing completely unreliable sources is just ridiculous. Is this some kind of practical joke? Why would you keep hyperlinking to political pundits and obscure websites where there's not even an author mentioned? Are you aware of a system called peer-review?

[Luís Henrique]

Or you're just wrong. Why is that so hard to admit?

Are you telling me that the Portuguese translation is wrong?

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Are you telling me that the Portuguese translation is wrong?
Obviously it is. Here's twenty translations:

http://bible.cc/mark/1-11.htm

not one matching that Portuguese one.

[Luís Henrique]

Obviously it is. Here's twenty translations:

http://bible.cc/mark/1-11.htm

not one matching that Portuguese one.

So the Catholic Church is even more heretical than I supposed, because its hierarchy openly supports and recommends this translation!

Luís Henrique

[Zostrianos]

Regardless of what God's voice said during the baptism, the very baptism itself is problematic, even embarrassing for the church since it pretty much proves that Jesus was inferior to John the Baptist. If he really was the son of God, without sin, why would he need to be baptized? There is a passage in Matthew which states that John thought himself unworthy of baptizing Jesus, but many scholars see this as a later Christian interpolation to make the event fit into their view of Jesus. It's this way and others that the gospel writers turned Jesus from a Jewish apocalyptic preacher into the Son of God.
Now that I think of it, the whole part about God's voice and the dove itself could have been a latter addition to try and harmonize the story with the rest, making it the moment where God officially revealed that Jesus was his son.

The Church itself is heretical if it claims to follow the teachings of Jesus, as its opulence and numberless crimes are at odds with most of what Jesus taught. Also interesting is that the biblical inconsistencies and contradictions, which were discussed at councils, were usually resolved by vote, where if a majority held on to one view, that view would be considered infallible canon from then on. And those councils often resulted in violence:

"Our sources for the two and a quarter centuries following Nicaea allow a very rough count of the victims of credal differences: not less than twenty five thousand deaths. A great many, but still only a small minority, were clergy; the rest, participants in crowds...All those who died met their end irregularly as targets of fury, not of legal action. Of bishops who died for their faith while in the custody of the secular powers, the examples can be counted on the fingers of one hand." (R. Macmullen, "Voting about God in early church councils", p 56)

[Narodnik]

the very baptism itself is problematic, even embarrassing for the church since it pretty much proves that Jesus was inferior to John the Baptist. The words of the John the baptist which are, according to the Gospels, a part of baptism say otherwise.


There is a passage in Matthew which states that John thought himself unworthy of baptizing Jesus, but many scholars see this as a later Christian interpolationChristianity isn't defined by opinions of modern scholars.


Now that I think of it, the whole part about God's voice and the dove itself could have been a latter additionNor by yours.


Also interesting is that the biblical inconsistencies and contradictions, which were discussed at councils, were usually resolved by vote, where if a majority held on to one view, that view would be considered infallible canon from then on.Which I proved wrong by pointing to the fact of there existing robber councils, where the majority would promulgate a teaching contradictory with the previously established faith, and that council is not considered authorative, even though majority supported it, and even though it can have milions of followers existing to this day.

[Luís Henrique]

Christianity isn't defined by opinions of modern scholars.

We aren't discussing "Christianity", we are discussing Catholicism.

It is evident that there are fundamentalist branches of Christianity, who adhere to sola Scriptura, but Catholicism is not one of them. On the contrary, it is basically anti-fundamentalist; instead it is traditionalist and interpretationist, and it explicitly rejects sola Scriptura.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

We aren't discussing "Christianity", we are discussing Catholicism.
And Catholicism is defined by opinions of moder scholars?


and it explicitly rejects sola Scriptura.
Catholicism cannot be Sola Scriptura, because Catholicism formed the Scripture.

[Luís Henrique]

And Catholicism is defined by opinions of moder scholars?

Of course not. It is defined by its tradition, which usually only gives weight to "modern scholars" long after they have ceased to be "modern". But such tradition is changeable anyway.


Catholicism cannot be Sola Scriptura, because Catholicism formed the Scripture.

And in what sence did it form the Scripture? All the canonic texts where written far before there was a "Catholicism". Mark wasn't a Catholic, John was not a Catholic, Paul was not a Catholic - and Jeremiah or the authors of Kings or Genesis weren't even Christians.

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

But such tradition is changeable anyway.
I have shown this not to be true.


And in what sence did it form the Scripture?
Formed the canon of the Scripture. It could have encpassed more books, or less, but the church desided to form it the way that it did.


Mark wasn't a Catholic, John was not a Catholic, Paul was not a Catholic - and Jeremiah or the authors of Kings or Genesis weren't even Christians.
Mark, John, Paul etc didn't form the canon of the Scripture, the latter church did, on the authority of one of the most respected holy fathers- Athanasius the great.

[Zostrianos]

The words of the John the baptist which are, according to the Gospels, a part of baptism say otherwise.

And like I said those words are probably later additions.


Christianity isn't defined by opinions of modern scholars. Nor by yours.

Modern scholars have greater authority than all church fathers and exegetes put together, because they can analyze the dogma objectively and critically, and come to a determination as to what was historical fact in the bible and what was pious fraud. They now determined that a portion of canonical Pauline letters in the New Testament were forged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#Disputed_epistl es
Catholic\Orthodox forgery usually serves an apologetic or polemical purpose, where a particular faction wanted to push and defend a certain view or doctrine (or conversely, to discredit a particular doctrine) and they made it authoritative by passing it as the teachings of Paul even when it wasn't.




Which I proved wrong by pointing to the fact of there existing robber councils, where the majority would promulgate a teaching contradictory with the previously established faith, and that council is not considered authorative, even though majority supported it, and even though it can have milions of followers existing to this day.

Those are the exception, not the rule. The standard guidelines in most councils dictated that a majority vote would have final authority.

[Narodnik]

And like I said those words are probably later additions.
Just your opinion. Which is irrelevant to any branch of Christianity, unless you found your own.


Modern scholars have greater authority than all church fathers and exegetes put together
Christianity is not about objectivity, it's about faith, and modern scholars have absolutely no authority in any branch of Christianity.


The standard guidelines in most councils dictated that a majority vote would have final authority.
No. The councils "guidelines" were the writing of Church Father before a specific council, and that's it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why do you get to decide who is and who isn't a "real" muslim?

In Islam the questioning of any mortal about the religious status of being a Muslim of another mortal is considered Shirk. Shirk is the act of putting anything before Allah or taking the place of Allah (ie. worshipping a tree as representing Allah....or taking on the role of Allah yourself'. In the Quran it clearly states that only Allah can judge the true intention and faith of any person and only he is allowed to make this judgement...anybody who casts doubt on the faith of another is committing Shirk. Which is a huge sin.



This gets even more absurd considering there was no islamic enlightenment, because they didn't need one, not because Allah disliked it. For centuries drinking was very much tolerated (the word "alcohol" is actually from Arab), same-sex romantic relationships even more so: Arab literature is filled with love poems from men to men, there isn't even a single recorded case, to my knowledge, of someone being convicted for engaging in consensual sex with another man (even though the Quran is prohibiting liwat/anal-sex regardless) up until 19th century colonialism.

Islam was considered to be way more women friendly than Christianity and Judaism. For the first time in history a monotheistic religion gave women rights to ownership, protection and a lot of other things European and Jewish women did not have. The first thing during the colonial period was that Western countries abolished these rights for women.

That said...Islam itself remained relatively stationary where western culture "developed" and changed and is now to be considered more inclusive of women rights than Islam...(which doesn't mean much...because it is still patriarchy).

It would be an interesting debate...wether or not colonialism actually negatively impacted enlightenment within Islam. I think it did.

But in another thread Narodnik claimed that Islam is centrally led. And it isn't. Islam lacks the structure of Christianity and Judaism. Which is why there is no international debate within Islam about positions of faith...but rather every region has its own interpretation.



What westerners call Islamic virtue-terror today, they essentially called "civilized" back then. With Muslim intellectuals being the first to adapt to western "critique" by raging against Arab savagery and immorality. There's quite a corpus of scholarly literature covering that topic. Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs was praised by the scholarly press while at the same time being quite accessible even for laymans, to name just one example.

Furthermore literalism is essentially a modern phenomenon. This is very much true of Christianity but it's especially true of Islam. Muslim fundamentalists being literalist is literally a contradiction in terms. Literalist currents commonly referred to as fundamentalist in western media are not even remotely related to Islamic fundamentalist currents throughout history. Those neo-fundamentalist currents in fact developed exactly because they were disconnected from Islamic historical and cultural markers, and they developed only recently.(But even neo-fundamentalist currents such as the Salafi Movement rely on some body of Tafsir.) Olivier Roy, who wrote a standard text book on political Islam, published a book (Holy Ignorance) on "uprooted" Religions in general as well, which is quite informative.

So you can't just read some Quran-translation and reach any meaningful conclusion on that ground. There is a large corpus of exegese literature you'd have to study to get some informative insights about one Islamic school of thought. And even then there would be humongous blind-spots because you do not speak Arab and you've got no clue about Islamic culture in a more than just supericial way. Moreover the attempt to discuss raw religious texts on the internet is beyond insane. However the attempt to discuss this on the internet citing completely unreliable sources is just ridiculous. Is this some kind of practical joke? Why would you keep hyperlinking to political pundits and obscure websites where there's not even an author mentioned? Are you aware of a system called peer-review?


This...so much this!