ATTN: Muslim apologists

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just something for any muslims and their apologists to remember:

GENERAL INTOLERANCE:

Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90

Jews are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96

Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99

Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 3:151

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

Those who disbelieve will be forced to drink boiling water, and will face a painful doom. 6:70 (Delightful!)

Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah. 8:59-60

Exhort the believers to fight. They will win easily, because disbelievers are without intelligence. 8:65 ( :lol: )

A prophet may not take captives until he has made a slaughter in the land. 8:67

Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory. 9:12-14

SEXISM

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15

Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34

Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98 ( :rolleyes: )

Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31

Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15

HOMOPHOBIA:

27:54 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly ? But he "saved those who believed."
27:55 Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.

29:28 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. Male homosexual activities are condemned as unnatural.
29:29 For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!

[bezdomni]

Islamic apologism is weak.

However, anti-muslim feelings are usually championed by christians and racists...err...the "master race". It is crucial to be able to differentiate islam and being arab. Something which the christians, conservatives and racists seem entirely incapable of.

Revolutionaries shouldn't defend islam, but we should defend the arab people against American imperialism.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

wow, if all this is true from the Quran (which im not 100% sure) it is the most disgusting religious book ever.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 20 2006, 08:57 PM
wow, if all this is true from the Quran (which im not 100% sure) it is the most disgusting religious book ever.
Why? The christian bible is just as bad. At least in islam you have options when it comes to killing non believers, maybe a quick shot to the head. In christianity a non believer has to be stoned to death :( Ouch!

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Jews are the greediest of all humankind

racial comments


Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

and such hateful sentences i really doubt are depicted so vividly in the Bible my friend.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 21 2006, 12:57 AM
wow, if all this is true from the Quran (which im not 100% sure) it is the most disgusting religious book ever.

The Bible probably has the "edge" over the Qu'ran in terms of nastiness. Which is not surprising when we consider most (if not all?) of the Bible was written before the Qu'ran in a more barbarous era.

Don't take my word for it though, read the documents yourself....

The Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) and the Qu'ran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm).

Have fun! :lol:

[Oh-Dae-Su]

armchair thanks for the link, i didnt really look much into it, but i found something that made me laugh like hell:


God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men

hahahaha, i thought god was the all mercyfull? lmao, so he made all women our "biatches" :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 21 2006, 01:08 AM
and such hateful sentences i really doubt are depicted so vividly in the Bible my friend.

Try these sections....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

That's some nasty stuff!

[Propagandabuster]

Show me one instance in the Christian Bible where Jesus engages in violence or advocates violence.

Muhammad was proudly a violent warrior.

That is bunk that the Christian bible even compares to Islam in violence, and even if it did, no Christians or Jews still stone anyone anywhere on earth - the Muslims were still stoning, hanging, beheading and doing public amputations on people in Afghanistan 5 years ago. They are beheading live human beings in Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. as we speak because the Quran tells them to.

To even compare the two is a joke. Islam is at war with everyone right now, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, & Jews. They've been trying to take over the world ever since the inception of Islam, where they are still stuck, in the 7th century.

There shouldn't even be a debate as to which is and always has been the most violent religion on earth - ISLAM.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised.

WTF!! :lol: hahahahaha, what is this? the bible ? or some dirty joke website? hahaha, dude i highly doubt all these things, this is a skeptiks website, i don't trust the internet very much specially when it's a one sided source, although it does give you where the passages are from, but i dont have a damn bible, couldn't really care less. But what i find interesting is , that all that bullshit which is quoted from the bible, how come there hasn't been world wide major criticism of it? i mean because that quote right there ^^^^ even a radical christian believe could find it not just halarious but retarded and disturbing.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by nate+Mar 20 2006, 07:59 PM--> (nate @ Mar 20 2006, 07:59 PM)
Oh-Dae-[email protected] 20 2006, 08:57 PM
wow, if all this is true from the Quran (which im not 100% sure) it is the most disgusting religious book ever.
Why? The christian bible is just as bad. At least in islam you have options when it comes to killing non believers, maybe a quick shot to the head. In christianity a non believer has to be stoned to death :( Ouch! [/b]
How about their both bad? Religion is mind control, it's slavery! What has religion contributed to mankind? Nothing but misery.


Show me one instance in the Christian Bible where Jesus engages in violence or advocates violence.
How about the story where he whipped all those people in the temple for selling things inside the temple. The only time he acted violently in the Bible.


There shouldn't even be a debate as to which is and always has been the most violent religion on earth - ISLAM.
Right. So the Crusades, Witch Hunts, Christian anti-gay anti-aboriton terrorists, support for Pinochet, and Protestant vs. Catholic violence, has all to do with Islam.

[Propagandabuster]

So the Crusades, Witch Hunts, Christian anti-gay anti-aboriton terrorists, support for Pinochet, and Protestant vs. Catholic violence, has all to do with Islam.


Knock, Knock...

The Christian crusades were the response to the MUSLIM assault on Christians.

How many witches were actually killed? About the same amount of women killed each day in Muslim countries right now.

Muslims still behead gays.

Anti-abortion bombings are a decimal point compared to how many people have been killed by Muslim suicide bombers. And name one mainstream Christian organization or leader that supports abortion bombers. Most Muslim Imams endorse suicide bombings and the entire culture worships those who kill innocents for Allah.

If you are not aware, 3/4 of the Muslim world supports bin Laden right now and the Protestants and Catholics have had a truce for quite awhile.

You need to learn Islamic history. It's a history of bloodthirsty conquest, throat-cutting and mayhem from minute one.

[Intifada]

I am not a Muslim, but I decided to check some of the quotes NoXion provided.


Jews are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96


I get, But never shall they wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent on before them; and Allah knows the wrongdoers well.


Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178

I get something way more long-winded.

It is not as simple as the excerpt you quote.


Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)


I don't know where you get that one from.

I checked Chapter 3, verse 151 and around that, but could not find such an excerpt.

Anyway, the Qur'an is full of such stuff.

It would be best to read the book itself, and then realise that religion pretty much sucks.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Propagandabuster+--> (Propagandabuster)Show me one instance in the Christian Bible where Jesus engages in violence or advocates violence.[/b]

I personally don't know of such an occasion, but fictional characters tend to have "Saintly" lives -- for instance, does the Bible mention which hand "Jesus" wiped his arse with? :lol:

What "Jesus" did do, is issue a series of moral commandments which were in fact the views of "Saint Paul". Indeed, Saul of Tarsus ("Saint Paul") most likely never wanted to talk about an historical figure when he started constructing the Christian paradigm, instead he just wished to create a "Godly figure" who set the moral standards on which a paradigm could be built.

Therefore, the Bible is in effect an "Instruction Manual" -- it tells you what is "wrong" and what is "right" and in some cases, it tells you what to do.

So whilst "Jesus" may or may not have committed "dastardly acts", he did outline what was required of his followers -- and they showed just how brutal that was towards the end of the Holy Roman Empire.


Originally posted by Propagandabuster+--> (Propagandabuster)Muhammad was proudly a violent warrior.[/b]

Well there is a great deal of myth surrounding the character Muhammad -- never rely on an accurate historical account from a believer! :lol:

However, as far as I know, Muhammad gave less "instructions" and by comparison, these "instructions" were less brutal than the ones found in the Bible.

Which, as I said, is not surprising given that the Qu'ran was written at a more advanced time.


Originally posted by Propagandabuster
There shouldn't even be a debate as to which is and always has been the most violent religion on earth - ISLAM.

You're probably right that right now, Islam lends its name to more violent actions than other Religions, but over the course of history, Christianity "wins" hands down.

The Catholic-Protestant Wars alone, probably account for more deaths than the whole "death count" of Islam.


Originally posted by Oh-Dae-Su
....i don't trust the internet very much specially when it's a one sided source, although it does give you where the passages are from, but i dont have a damn bible, couldn't really care less.

I have on occasion cross referenced passages from Skeptics Anointed and the King James Bible, and everything I've checked so far has been accurate.


Originally posted by Propagandabuster
The Christian crusades were the response to the MUSLIM assault on Christians.

Actually, they were an attempt to take back the "Holy Land" in Jerusalem.

Indeed, given that the Western Crusaders were significantly behind their Eastern counterparts, one can only imagine just how many centuries human progress was stunted, by the retaking of Spain and the removal of what was at that time, progressive Muslim influence in Europe.

Additionally, the "Christian successes" laid the foundations for modern anti-Semitism. It was during this period when, if I'm not mistaken, we saw the first real bout of anti-Judaism in Europe.

This laid the foundations for the subsequent anti-Judaism laws, which in time then evolved into its modern incarnation, racial anti-Judaism -- anti-Semitism -- and the Third Reich.

Additionally, the Crusades really fucked up Islamic Theology, making it one hell of a mess. From historical events during the Crusades, we got the anti-Crusade jihad and so on which today gives cosmic justification for all kinds of shit.


Originally posted by Propagandabuster
....compared to how many people have been killed by Muslim suicide bombers.

I suspect you have a moral opposition to suicide bombing as a method, rather than just a moral opposition to the killing of civilians per se.

In this case, I'm sure if you supplied the suicide bombers with sophisticated weapons, fighter planes and so on, that they'd do their killing a way that you find far more acceptable -- namely the way the American Military does its killing.

Additionally, its worth pointing out that there have been a few atheist suicide bombers, and in time, I'm sure we'll see a few Christian ones too. Cause, as a method, it is rather good if you lack the funds to "do high-tech killing".


[email protected]
You need to learn Islamic history. It's a history of bloodthirsty conquest, throat-cutting and mayhem from minute one.

That is the history of all Empires -- including the present American Empire.

Do you honestly think the victim cares whether they are killed in the name of Islam or in the name of America? ....it's all a bunch of superstitious garbage which gives cosmic justification to the subjugation of the populaces of foreign countries in the interests of the Worlds dominant powers.

Indeed, whether the justification for a War is Religion, Patriotism or good fashion sense, the ultimate goal -- acquiring the spoils of war -- remains the same.


Intifada
....but I decided to check some of the quotes NoXion provided.

I think NoXion has gone on Skeptics Anointed and just posted the translation of the verse, instead of the verse itself -- i.e. the verse says: all be it upon the heathen that he will face an almighty wrath from the sword of the almighty Bigturd and he shall layeth in his own blood until the Bigturd decides to sent him into the eternal abyss. And the translation simply states: Bigturd will kill you for not believing and then send you to Hell.

If you get what I mean.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Intifada, im glad you were able to do some research, because as i mentioned above i dont trust a one sided obviously skeptic and bias website, i was a little chocked by some of the quotes, and it only made me think? what the heck! how come this has not gotten world wide criticism, since the Quran is a widely read book?as well as the Bible. Yet again, that is the problem with these "holy" religious books, that eveyone has a different interpretation, and they take an excerpt and abriviate it how they interpret it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 22 2006, 12:16 AM
Intifada, im glad you were able to do some research, because as i mentioned above i dont trust a one sided obviously skeptic and bias website, i was a little chocked by some of the quotes, and it only made me think? what the heck! how come this has not gotten world wide criticism, since the Quran is a widely read book?as well as the Bible. Yet again, that is the problem with these "holy" religious books, that eveyone has a different interpretation, and they take an excerpt and abriviate it how they interpret it.
And that is precisely the problem. Flowery language written by primitive peoples is no good to anyone.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah, that's whats so dengerous about this. The Sharia law is interpreted by any cleric in whatever way he desires, its crazy. Lets say im a cleric, and i interpret an excerpt as one of those of the websites, like the one that says kill all "non-believers", and i say this is the Sharia law and its the worf of god and its the way it should be if not 15 virgins will not be waiting for you in heaven ;) :lol: you know how many followers i get, it's not just people that are radical by nature, but since they are deeply religious, they will believe anything one of these wacko's tells them.

[Comrada J]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 21 2006, 12:12 PM
armchair thanks for the link, i didnt really look much into it, but i found something that made me laugh like hell:


God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men

hahahaha, i thought god was the all mercyfull? lmao, so he made all women our "biatches" :lol:
This isn't really in the bible is it? :blink:

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:19 AM
I am not a Muslim, but I decided to check some of the quotes NoXion provided.


Jews are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96


I get, But never shall they wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent on before them; and Allah knows the wrongdoers well.


Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178

I get something way more long-winded.

It is not as simple as the excerpt you quote.


Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)


I don't know where you get that one from.

I checked Chapter 3, verse 151 and around that, but could not find such an excerpt.

Anyway, the Qur'an is full of such stuff.

It would be best to read the book itself, and then realise that religion pretty much sucks.
Yeah same here, I have a Qur'an and I couldn't find any of those passages. Some weren't even related at all.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 21 2006, 01:08 AM

Jews are the greediest of all humankind

racial comments


Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

and such hateful sentences i really doubt are depicted so vividly in the Bible my friend.
Err, no racial comments in the Bible? Didn't God order his chosen people to commit genocide for him against the Amalekites just because their ancestors got in the way of the Jews' ancestors a couple hundred years before? And didn't they kill everybody who happened to have been born into the tribe of Amalek?

1 Samuel 15:1-8


15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
15:4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
15:6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
By the way, the whole notion of a "chosen people" is pretty racist if you ask me.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Komrad J+Mar 22 2006, 04:34 AM--> (Komrad J @ Mar 22 2006, 04:34 AM)
Oh-Dae-[email protected] 21 2006, 12:12 PM
armchair thanks for the link, i didnt really look much into it, but i found something that made me laugh like hell:


God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men

hahahaha, i thought god was the all mercyfull? lmao, so he made all women our "biatches" :lol:
This isn't really in the bible is it? :blink: [/b]
Sure is.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 21 2006, 09:48 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 21 2006, 09:48 PM)

Originally posted by Propagandabuster+--> (Propagandabuster)The Christian crusades were the response to the MUSLIM assault on Christians.[/b]

Actually, they were an attempt to take back the "Holy Land" in Jerusalem.

Indeed, given that the Western Crusaders were significantly behind their Eastern counterparts, one can only imagine just how many centuries human progress was stunted, by the retaking of Spain and the removal of what was at that time, progressive Muslim influence in Europe.

Additionally, the "Christian successes" laid the foundations for modern anti-Semitism. It was during this period when, if I'm not mistaken, we saw the first real bout of anti-Judaism in Europe.

This laid the foundations for the subsequent anti-Judaism laws, which in time then evolved into its modern incarnation, racial anti-Judaism -- anti-Semitism -- and the Third Reich.

Additionally, the Crusades really fucked up Islamic Theology, making it one hell of a mess. From historical events during the Crusades, we got the anti-Crusade jihad and so on which today gives cosmic justification for all kinds of shit.


[email protected]
....compared to how many people have been killed by Muslim suicide bombers.

I suspect you have a moral opposition to suicide bombing as a method, rather than just a moral opposition to the killing of civilians per se.

In this case, I'm sure if you supplied the suicide bombers with sophisticated weapons, fighter planes and so on, that they'd do their killing a way that you find far more acceptable -- namely the way the American Military does its killing.

Additionally, its worth pointing out that there have been a few atheist suicide bombers, and in time, I'm sure we'll see a few Christian ones too. Cause, as a method, it is rather good if you lack the funds to "do high-tech killing".


Propagandabuster
You need to learn Islamic history. It's a history of bloodthirsty conquest, throat-cutting and mayhem from minute one.

That is the history of all Empires -- including the present American Empire.

[/b]


You're probably right that right now, Islam lends its name to more violent actions than other Religions, but over the course of history, Christianity "wins" hands down.

Really? I find this to be an odd conclusion; I would imagine that atheism, if you can call it a religion wins that rather gory prize, considering the conflicts and genocides of the 20th century started by atheist dictators.

However, if we are to ignore that dubious (dubious because of athiesms status in comparison to religion) exception, you are quite correct, but undoubtedly for the wrong reason. If Christianity, as a religion, is to be blamed for any deaths then the Taiping rebellion easily sways it towards the most gory of religion. But I very seriously doubt you were referring to that; few people realise that the Taiping rebellion killed 30 million people and was started by an insane Christian who thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus. But I don't blame you for that, we in the west rarely hear about that war, your conclusion was quite logical, just omitting Christianities most bloodthirsty event. Though in fairness I am not sure how much of the blame can be attributed to Imperial China, but some certainly falls upon the Christian rebels.



Actually, they were an attempt to take back the "Holy Land" in Jerusalem.

The Crusades which find their origins from the preaching of pope Urban II at Clermont were a response to the invasion of Seljuq Turks into Asia Minor, which at this point was occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian. You can find five different accounts of the Council of Clermont, from different people on the medieval sourcebook website. The factor of taking back Jerusalem is in fact only a part of the motivation for the crusades; a part which is very much tied in with the aggressive, imperialistic if you will, nature of Islam in this period.


Indeed, given that the Western Crusaders were significantly behind their Eastern counterparts, one can only imagine just how many centuries human progress was stunted, by the retaking of Spain and the removal of what was at that time, progressive Muslim influence in Europe.

Progressive? In what respect, from a modern leftist perspective? Take a look at the Pact of Umar and compare it to the Siete Partidas, the Muslims were as bad if not worse than the Christians from that perspective (religious and social freedoms/limitations for non-believers). Or perhaps you mean technologically? That all depends on which forms of technology you are talking about; militarily I would say that the Christians win that hands down. Culturally; again, that depends on which elements you are referring to. Medieval Christian literature was most worthy and has survived to this day in popular culture. The code of chivalry was developed and fine tuned over centuries and laid down a whole basis for life, behavior and belief, just as advanced as it Islamic counter part.

I would say that on the whole, from a negative aspect they were both as bad as each other, especially from the view of the lower orders of society.




Additionally, the "Christian successes" laid the foundations for modern anti-Semitism.

Christians were successful in only one major Crusade, the first and that was in 1095-99. The pact of Umar probably originated in 637 and refers to all non-Muslims. I suggest you read just how Muslims treated infidels (including Jews) during this period, before jumping to rather premature conclusions. Indeed, in a 1772 work describing how Muslims should treat Jews and Christians within their territories, which is highly anti-Semitic btw, the pact of Umar is still referred to which just goes to show what a nasty little work it was (at least from modern perspective, from the medieval perspective it is quite typical).

I also suggest you read the Christian Siete Partidas, which has many similar aspects to the Pact of Umar, but is on the whole less harsh, in my opinion. It does in fact treat Jews relatively leniently, compared to the pact, allowing certain religious freedoms, but is still horrifically anti-Semitic.

This, as far as I am concerned is just further evidence that all cultures were equally bad and reflected the age they lived in.


It was during this period when, if I'm not mistaken, we saw the first real bout of anti-Judaism in Europe.

Well, that is an interesting question, it depends on what you consider to be a ‘real’ bout of anti-Judaism and where you consider the boundaries of Europe; anti-Semitism in Western Europe dates back to before the middle ages, with accounts of anti-Semitic legislation and action as early as the fourth century. There are also early accounts of anti-Semitism in the Byzantine Empire.



This laid the foundations for the subsequent anti-Judaism laws, which in time then evolved into its modern incarnation, racial anti-Judaism -- anti-Semitism -- and the Third Reich.

You are a making one hell of a stretch here. One, as already noted anti-Semitism pre-dates the period we are discussing and two, the anti-Semitism bears little resemblance to the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich.



Additionally, the Crusades really fucked up Islamic Theology, making it one hell of a mess.

In what way? Understanding the theology? The Muslims were, again, just as bad. Though I must admit that the Crusaders literature on Islam is more amusing, with the term pagan appearing regularly and the assumption that Islam is a polytheistic religion. They also refer on occasion to Allah by the names of ‘classical’ gods (Roman, Greek, etc), because they had little or no idea about the religion they were discussing. For some comedy gold, I suggest that you read Petrus Alfonsi (1062-1110), who wrote what he, wrongly, considered a refutation of Islam from a Christian perspective.

An interesting look at Kitab al-Jihad by Al-Sulami, that is quite an interesting look at an early twelfth century view on Jihad.



That is the history of all Empires -- including the present American Empire.

I can agree with you on that 100%, where I disagree with you is in the medieval context. You seam to be under the impression that one side was worse that the other, I disagree. They were all equally horrible, backwards in many respects and intolerant.

I think you should check out this site, it has lots of contemporary sources, which I think you would enjoy reading if you have an interest in the subject.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

As much as i agree that islam isnt great, like all religion.

Saying stuff like this will just make you sound like a member of the BNP.

I fucking hate them, and dont want to sound like them, but if you do then go ahead. :(

You have to remember, these people believe what they believe because they have been indoctrinated into it, or they are fucking scared of death or whatever.

Citing stupid quotes from a stupid book, then telling them this will just further polarise them from us. They are members of the working class too, and they have been brainwashed, lets not cause them anymore greif.

Anyone who calls me a muslim apologist can, but i think its better to look at their position in society from a class perspective, not a religious one.

[LSD]

Anyone who calls me a muslim apologist can, but i think its better to look at their position in society from a class perspective, not a religious one.

One must consider class position of course, but that cannot be all that one considers.

That is, one cannot disregard reactionary beliefs merely because the holder happens to be proletarian.

Sexism and homophobia are both intractably anti-revolutionary ideas and both are inherent parts of Islam. Workers who truly believe in "Islamic" values are not capable of participating in the formulation of a post-revolutionary society.

Their social liberation can only emerge from their ideological liberation. Until they are freed from the shackles of Islam, they will remain slaves to its barbaric precepts.

That does not mean that we should attack Islam exclusively, but rather as a part of a universal attack on all forms of superstition.

The "BNP" and such organizations claim that Islam is worse than Christanity, that Muslims are "less civalized" than Christianity and western religions, and that immigrants are "ethincally" inferior. None of that has any resemblence to revolutionary leftist positions.

Rather we must recognize that it is reaction that is the enemy, and not any "religious" or "ethnic" group. Muslims as people are no "worse" than Christians, and they are all potential allies in the fight for liberation.

Islam, however, is an intractable enemy and we cannot be ashmed to admit it. The oppression that is routinely carried out in the middle east in the name of "Islam" is unspeakably horrific.

All oppression is wrong, even when "God" ordanes it.

[Eleutherios]

We shouldn't pull our punches on religious issues just because most people are religious. The teachings of the Qur'an are simply incompatible with socialist ideals, plain and simple. If we want to promote our ideals, it is necessary to show how competing ideologies are flawed.

Most working class people are capitalists also, and I'm sure many of them are alienated and frightened by revolutionary communism, but that doesn't stop us from arguing for a proletarian revolution, does it? Most people also place a lot of faith in bourgeois democracy, and are deeply offended by anyone who questions it. But that doesn't stop us from arguing for the revolutionary overthrow of the government, does it? How is Islam any different? Islam is as incompatible with the principles of communism as capitalism and bourgeois democracy are.


You have to remember, these people believe what they believe because they have been indoctrinated into it, or they are fucking scared of death or whatever.
How is this any different from capitalism? People buy into capitalism because they have been indoctrinated into it, or because they are scared of revolution. Granted, people aren't quite so fanatic about it, but it's still about as easy to convince capitalists to change their minds as it is to get Muslims to change their minds.

If nobody does anything about it, parents are going to continue to teach their children that ancient books of bigotry and warfare are the literal word of God, whose absolute morality applies to all humans whether believers or not. Children will continue growing up with the idea that they have to bow down to the dictates of an invisible totalitarian dictator of the universe.

Who is going to break the cycle of indoctrination? The fact is, it will have to be broken if we want to achieve a free society. We can't fret about who we're going to polarize against us, because quite frankly pretty much everybody is already polarized against us. We have to tell people the truth, and if the truth is something they don't want to hear, too bad for them.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Enigma+--> (Enigma)I would imagine that atheism, if you can call it a religion wins that rather gory prize, considering the conflicts and genocides of the 20th century started by atheist dictators.[/b]

Care to list these "atheist dictators"?

The "biggies" I know of to which I think you are referring: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and....???

Other than Pol, I'm not aware of there being a policy of mass murder under either Stalin or Mao. Indeed, most of the "death counts" attributed to these people were because of famine -- which is neither a "conflict" or a "genocide". Indeed, at the very worst, it's "mismanagement", i.e. negligence.

Additionally, if, as I suspect you are, you are using all kinds of different causes of death under the terms "conflicts and genocides", how much can I add to Religions "death count" with regards AIDS and the Vatican's policy of trying to stop people using condoms?

And by the way, atheism is not a Religion nor is it a paradigm as such. Therefore, you'd have great trouble making atheism responsible for any deaths as it is not "a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practises that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline" other than the rejection of higher beings.

Which, as far as science can tell, is not an "assumption, concept, value and [or] practice", it is a fact.


Originally posted by Enigma+--> (Enigma)But I very seriously doubt you were referring to that....[/b]

No I wasn't referring to that. I was thinking of the Catholic-Protestant Wars in particular, when I made that comment. I've never seen a figure for how many people died as a result of those Wars, but I suspect it is massive.


Originally posted by Enigma
The Crusades which find their origins from the preaching of pope Urban II at Clermont were a response to the invasion of Seljuq Turks into Asia Minor, which at this point was occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian.

My mistake. :(


Originally posted by Enigma
....a part which is very much tied in with the aggressive, imperialistic if you will, nature of Islam in this period.

So an Islamic Empire invading a place in Asia makes a European imperial adventure less imperialistic???

I don't doubt that all of these Empires were imperialistic, it's just, as far as I know, Europe initiated the Crusades into "Muslim land" and whether there was "sound" reasoning or not behind this, the European countries involved get the blame as far as I'm concerned.


Originally posted by Enigma
Progressive? In what respect, from a modern leftist perspective?

Not from a "modern leftist perspective", rather from a perspective of that particular time.

I would say, though I suspect you'd disagree, that from both a technological and cultural perspective (the first obviously creating the second) that the Muslim World was more advanced and that more of an "Islamic influence" in Europe, would have been fundamentally progressive.


Originally posted by Enigma
....and two, the anti-Semitism bears little resemblance to the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich.

I agree that it was different and therefore, in my last post, you'll see that I referred to the earlier anti-Jew policies anti-Judaism where as I called the later ones anti-Semitic.

As far as I know (and this relates to the earlier points) it was during the era of the Crusades that the first large scale anti-Judaism legislation appeared -- i.e. as far as I know, the anti-Judaism legislation before the Crusades was pretty isolated and not widespread.

During the Crusades however, this legislation persecuting Jews came into force in most, if not all, major European countries.

I would therefore argue that this legislation and its subsequent results, laid the material base as it were, for the creation of purely racial anti-Semitism. Indeed Martin Luther's anti-Judaism, was over time, turned into a primitive form of modern anti-Semitism.

Perhaps you'd consider it a stretch, but in my opinion, the anti-Judaism laws created the material interest for the later anti-Semitic laws. Similar in a way to how the anti-black laws evolved over different epochs to secure the material interest that was gained through the oppression of black people.


Originally posted by Enigma
In what way? Understanding the theology?

I don't know very much about Islamic Theology, but I did go into some of the problems with regards historical events and the way a jihad is thought of here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292035376 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46336&view=findpost&p=1292035376)

In addition, and I don't quite remember the ins and outs of this, but during the Crusades two types of jihad were deemed appropriate -- the defencive one and the offensive one.

Since then, the controversy of how to define these two types (particularly the aggressive jihad) has plagued Islamic theology. Similar to how the anti-Soviet jihad has caused many problems on a Theological level.


[email protected]
They were all equally horrible, backwards in many respects and intolerant.

By todays standards, possibly. However from the point of view of that particular epoch, I'd personally give Islam "the edge".

Not a big "edge", but an "edge" all the same. <_<


Enigma
I think you should check out this site, it has lots of contemporary sources, which I think you would enjoy reading if you have an interest in the subject.

Not meaning to be picky, but what site? :huh:

[Kaze]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Mar 22 2006, 08:21 AM--> (sennomulo @ Mar 22 2006, 08:21 AM)
Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 21 2006, 01:08 AM

Jews are the greediest of all humankind

racial comments


Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

and such hateful sentences i really doubt are depicted so vividly in the Bible my friend.
Err, no racial comments in the Bible? Didn&#39;t God order his chosen people to commit genocide for him against the Amalekites just because their ancestors got in the way of the Jews&#39; ancestors a couple hundred years before? And didn&#39;t they kill everybody who happened to have been born into the tribe of Amalek?

1 Samuel 15:1-8


15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
15:4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
15:6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
By the way, the whole notion of a "chosen people" is pretty racist if you ask me. [/b]
"chosen people" smacks of "master race" IMHO

<_<

[Goatse]

I would imagine that atheism, if you can call it a religion wins that rather gory prize, considering the conflicts and genocides of the 20th century started by atheist dictators.

However... were these "slaughters" in the name of atheism?

If just count atheist acts as those done by atheists... then Christianity is therefore responsible for every war the US has ever waged.