The truth about Islam

[Spartacus2002]

If you read the Koran it incites the readers to kill jews christians and anyone who disagrees with their doctrine, islam is not a religion that has been hijacked by couple crazys, osama bin ladin is following the koran to the t. it also condemns peace loving muslims in the koran and says their worst then the infidels, it also discourages people thinking for themselves. its a load of crap!

[Just Joe]

being reading too much New York Times, mate?

[Xvall]

Spartacus; All religions are like that? Want to see a great quote pointing out the tolerance of the bible?

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that 1prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Deuteronomy Chapter 13

[Just Joe]

the tolerance of Communsim:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.UKRAIN.FAM.BODIES.JPG

[Palmares]

Quote: from Spartacus2002 on 10:40 am on Feb. 28, 2003
If you read the Koran it incites the readers to kill jews christians and anyone who disagrees with their doctrine, islam is not a religion that has been hijacked by couple crazys, osama bin ladin is following the koran to the t. it also condemns peace loving muslims in the koran and says their worst then the infidels, it also discourages people thinking for themselves. its a load of crap!


Can you read Arabic? Intrepretation is the most imporatant thing, but i am not saying I entirely know the correct one.

However, i believe what is meant in the Q'uran by what you said is, rather that Muslims can convert others to their faith by force. But WTF is the hating peaceful Musilms about? Anyway, it is foolish to be a fundametalist to any ideology, it is blind faith. What you think is shaped by what you do and know.

BTW, I'm atheist.


(Edited by Cthenthar at 11:59 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Xvall]

Joe. What are you anyways? Capitalist or what? Just curious.

[Just Joe]

Republican Socialist.

Communism as it stands today is Fascism. Communism doesn't mean what Marx layed out in 1848, it means Marxism-Leninism which means Stalinism leads to what you see in that picture.

anyone calling themselves a Communist is an enemy of liberty, equality and the working class.

[Guest1]

hahaha, uncle joe made a funny joke! uncle joe is a funny man.

don't give me the bullshit of trying to define communism as one strictly set out plan. each communist has his own view of how it should work out, in my case being democracy across the board.

[canikickit]

If you read the Koran it incites the readers to kill jews christians and anyone who disagrees with their doctrine, islam is not a religion that has been hijacked by couple crazys, osama bin ladin is following the koran to the t.

If you read the bible you fall asleep. If you have taken drugs to keep yourself awake you will learn that some guy lived to be well over a hundred and that a virgin had a child and saw an angel flying around the place.

You're right, it's a load of crap, it's boring, outdated, irrelavant bullshit. Don't waste your time reading it.

[Pete]

Quote: from Just Joe on 9:10 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
Republican Socialist.

Communism as it stands today is Fascism. Communism doesn't mean what Marx layed out in 1848, it means Marxism-Leninism which means Stalinism leads to what you see in that picture.

anyone calling themselves a Communist is an enemy of liberty, equality and the working class.


Facism is organizing society like a corporation. Mussloni. Stalin was not fascist, nor was any other communist of any shade.

Republic Communism eh? Explain. Seems like National Socialism in the new century.

Those of us who call our selves Communists usually ahere from Marx, or from a mass of different sources, like my self. You may find your self horribly mistaken and will want to take back your comments after you read some threads in other part of hte board.

[Palmares]

Quote: from canikickit on 12:27 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

If you read the Koran it incites the readers to kill jews christians and anyone who disagrees with their doctrine, islam is not a religion that has been hijacked by couple crazys, osama bin ladin is following the koran to the t.

If you read the bible you fall asleep. If you have taken drugs to keep yourself awake you will learn that some guy lived to be well over a hundred and that a virgin had a child and saw an angel flying around the place.

You're right, it's a load of crap, it's boring, outdated, irrelavant bullshit. Don't waste your time reading it.


If you want to find the mistakes in religion I think it is good to read their 'holy books'. However I do agree they are EXTREMELY boring.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Che y Marijuana on 2:18 am on Feb. 28, 2003
hahaha, uncle joe made a funny joke! uncle joe is a funny man.

don't give me the bullshit of trying to define communism as one strictly set out plan. each communist has his own view of how it should work out, in my case being democracy across the board.


Communism used to mean something else. like Social Democracy used to mean something else. times change though. Communism now means Marxism-Leninism and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. you can't be democratic and agree with democratic centralism so Communism today is basically Stalinism.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:41 am on Feb. 28, 2003

Quote: from Just Joe on 9:10 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
Republican Socialist.

Communism as it stands today is Fascism. Communism doesn't mean what Marx layed out in 1848, it means Marxism-Leninism which means Stalinism leads to what you see in that picture.

anyone calling themselves a Communist is an enemy of liberty, equality and the working class.


Facism is organizing society like a corporation. Mussloni. Stalin was not fascist, nor was any other communist of any shade.

what was the Soviet Union organised into, Pete? the command economy made the USSR one giant corperation. it speculated on foreign markets, invested capital, hired and fired workers and looked at its profits at the end of each year with the most money going to the bureacrats on the board, or Politburo.


Republic Communism eh? Explain. Seems like National Socialism in the new century.

Republican Socialism means i'm an Irish Republican who is Socialist. as opposed to an Irish Socialist who may agree with a union with Britain or a Republican who may be a Capitalist.


Those of us who call our selves Communists usually ahere from Marx, or from a mass of different sources, like my self. You may find your self horribly mistaken and will want to take back your comments after you read some threads in other part of hte board.


no i won't. i don't care if you hate Stalin or claim to like democracy. what you want always leads to tryanny. Lenin wanted democracy but his government lead to oppression.

[suffianr]

I was raised within a close Muslim community in London, where I was given the opportunity, amongst other things, to learn Arabic and study the Qur'an. I went to a poor Muslim school in Brondesbury Park, Islamia, founded by Cat Stevens.

I am now a socialist.

Contradictory? Well, that's my fucking problem, not yours or anyone else on this site.

However, as I recall during my brief exposure to Qur'anic theory and philosophy, I had never, ever come across anything remotely close to what Spartacus2002 quoted, neither in the Qur'an nor any Islamic philosophical literature.

Now, maybe I'm defending Islam out of pure sentimentality, maybe I still have an inkling for religion. That's my fucking problem.

But please, don't hurl accusations if you are not competent enough to support them with direct quotes!

Where, which paragrpahs, which specific sentences, during which revelation? Where did you read all this?

Did you see it on the Net, or did you actually pick up the Qur'an and find this out yourself?

Inciting hatred against Jews? Are you referring to Bani Qaynuqa', al-Nadir and the Qurayzah? Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf?

Read about the treaties and agreements the Muslims had with the Jews. Read about who broke which treaty first. You haven't actually read anything, have you now?

So, show us. Don't speak ill out of spite, prove your accusations. Oherwise, your post is just another meaningless and prejudiced post, nothing more, nothing less.

[Umoja]

I have four different translations of the Qu'ran so please give me the Sura, and I will look it up. The thing with religion, is to take it with a grain of salt. Look for the things that would work well when applied to your life and apply them. Most of the stuff in most religions is fluff around a core message.

[Xvall]

Republican Socialist

What the hell is a Republican Socialist?

Communism as it stands today is Fascism.

Are you on drugs. Even capitalists don't think communism is fascism. Communism opposes fascism. Ask any person on this site who supports communism.

Communism doesn't mean what Marx layed out in 1848, it means Marxism-Leninism which means Stalinism leads to what you see in that picture.

Marxist-Leninism is a ideology based on communism; it is not the other way around. How does Marxist-Leninism mean Stalin? Marxist-Leninism is an ideology; Stalin is a person. Get it through your thick skull.

anyone calling themselves a Communist is an enemy of liberty, equality and the working class.

Lol. That statement has no merit; it is simply your asinine speculation. How am I an opponent of the working class? If we opposed the working class, we would let it be know. If we oppose the working class why do we seem to consist of nothing but working class individuals.

i don't care if you hate Stalin or claim to like democracy. what you want always leads to tryanny.

That is the dumbest comment I have seen today. Good job, you ruined my fucking day. Not only are your arguments lacking proof and evidence, it's merely your simple minded opinion. Are you psychic? How do you know that our beliefs will lead to 'tyranny'? Who are you to decide what is democratic and what is 'tyrannical'?

Lenin wanted democracy but his government lead to oppression

And the Czar was such a nice man, wasn't he? Would you like to talk about real massacres? Bloody Sunday, prehaps? Atrocities commited by the Czarists.

Communism now means Marxism-Leninism and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist.

Marxist-Leninism is a form of communism, not the other way around, for the last damn time. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. Yes. That makes Marxist-Leninism bad? That's horrible logic. Stalin was Russian. Does this mean all Russians are bad? Hitler was a Christian. Maybe I should go around calling the Christians a bunch of fascists and nazis? How about that, Joe?

you can't be democratic and agree with democratic centralism so Communism today is basically Stalinism.

Communism today is not Stalinism. Communism is an ideology, from which a variety of diffirent forms of communistic and socialistic beliefs emerged. What did you just say? Democratic Centralism is a form of Democracy. I don't nececarilly agree with this; and it doesn't mean that Democratic Centralism is nececarilly true democracy; but it is a form of democracy nonetheless.

Your posts have not been thought-provoking. Please take the time to write something decent.

[Moskitto]

I agree with just joe except in he way he implies all communists are the same, but i agree with him that marxist-leninism is dictatorial in nature, i've come to that conclusion by reading the gradually increasing number of dictatorial posts from "marxist-leninists", but i still wouldn't say that all communists are that way.

[Just Joe]

yeah i know not all Communists are dictatoral. i just posted that picture and gave that responce because i was pissed that Drake Dracoli tried to equate religion with intolerece when his ideology has a history of it also. i know there are a lot of Communists who oppose what the Soviet Union was and i agree with a lot of there views.

DD, Republican Socialism is wanting a 32 county, Irish Socialist Republic.

[Dhul Fiqar]

LOL, I love it when people who've never picked up a Quran in their lives start telling me what's in it.

2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way."

It is not said anywhere that you should kill unbelievers, but it is true that Jews and Christians are singled out. They, however, are singled out as "people of the book" and basically said to be the next best thing to a muslim. There is also a controversial line in one of the Surahs I've read that is about how jews and christians have a place in Jannah (heaven) alongwith Muslims.

Now, if you want to you can explain to me some other books I have on my bedside table and you've never read, I'm all ears. Make sure you don't use any quotes or mention any verifiable sources, because that would really break your form. I mean, people might actually start to take you seriously ;)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I just remembered that there is a relatively obscure Hadith (you know what they are, right, Spartacus?) about this issue, which is basically one sentance: "Anyone who changes his religion deserves death" but this is a spurious and unverified statement imho. Even if you take the Hadith at face value, it doesn't apply to anyone except Muslims who resind their faith, like Salman Rushdie.

The Qur?an has referred to the issue of apostasy many times without mentioning anything about punishment (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A?l Imra?n 3: 90, Al-Nisa? 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106).

[Dhul Fiqar]

Al-Taubah 9: 29 also covers some of the issues involved, it basically says that People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) may have special priviledges that are not afforded to other non-believers. That is to say, they are permitted to practice their faiths and live within the Ummah as long as they pay their taxes.

--- G.

[RedPirate]

So, Communism and Islam... Nah...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Someone mentioned that the translation was key.....they are correct.

Those of us who can read and understand Arabic know what the Qu'ran teaches. You read all translations and they are inaccurate. Trying to accuratly translate Arabic to English is nothing short of a mission.

Spartacus, what you claim the Qu'ran says is completely and utterly false.

Yes, the Qu'ran says that non-believers are wrong. But something that it says every time it mentions the wrong dongs of non-believers is that God will bring judgement upon them. This means GOD....not us mortal Muslims. You may still think this is evil, but this is the root of all religion. Even then, the Qu'ran says that non-believers can still be forgiven by Allah for things they have done worthy of good judgement.

One other thing you must know is that whenever the Qu'ran mentions "the Jews" it is in the context of the story. For example, in the story of the spider, "the Jews" are mentioned as they are chasing the Prophet into a cave. Condemning "the Jews" in this story is condemning the group of Jews who were actually chasing the Prophet, not every single living Jew. Yes, we all know that the two stories of the religions are contrasting and this brings rivalry. The books do not preach rivalry.

Every kind of people that are condemned in the Qu'ran will be judged by God and God only. Not by mortals. They will come to their judgement day when ALLAH will judge them. Untill then, no Muslim is to kill or inflict any pain on ANYBODY unless in true defence of Islam. And acting in self-defence is intelligence, not violence before you say that. That's not an Islamic principle, but a logical principle.

You cannot read lies and bullshit published in newspapers and on the internet about the faith of millions of people and then go trashing it. Millions of devout Muslims will tell you exactly what I have told you. A handful of extremists, taking the words of the Qu'ran out of context and inflicting evil on the world will not tell you that.

Get your facts right before you talk about things, otherwise it couldland you in serious trouble my friend.



And into the other argument going on here.....JustJoe, you are completely right. I am 100% in support of what you said about today's so-called communism.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from suffianr on 12:35 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
I was raised within a close Muslim community in London, where I was given the opportunity, amongst other things, to learn Arabic and study the Qur'an. I went to a poor Muslim school in Brondesbury Park, Islamia, founded by Cat Stevens.

I am now a socialist.

Contradictory? Well, that's my fucking problem, not yours or anyone else on this site.

However, as I recall during my brief exposure to Qur'anic theory and philosophy, I had never, ever come across anything remotely close to what Spartacus2002 quoted, neither in the Qur'an nor any Islamic philosophical literature.

Now, maybe I'm defending Islam out of pure sentimentality, maybe I still have an inkling for religion. That's my fucking problem.

But please, don't hurl accusations if you are not competent enough to support them with direct quotes!

Where, which paragrpahs, which specific sentences, during which revelation? Where did you read all this?

Did you see it on the Net, or did you actually pick up the Qur'an and find this out yourself?

Inciting hatred against Jews? Are you referring to Bani Qaynuqa', al-Nadir and the Qurayzah? Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf?

Read about the treaties and agreements the Muslims had with the Jews. Read about who broke which treaty first. You haven't actually read anything, have you now?

So, show us. Don't speak ill out of spite, prove your accusations. Oherwise, your post is just another meaningless and prejudiced post, nothing more, nothing less.



I only just read this post, I missed it on my first look through the topic.....


THIS HAS FUCKING TOLD YOU!

Do NOT post your accusations against millions and millions of peaceful loving people. And suffianr asked for your sources....your "direct quotes". Well apologies are due to suffianr because you're not going to get them. You and I both know that my friend.


I dont think we will be hearing any more of Spartacus' completely ludicrous and false information. Nor should we.

As-Salaam Alaikum....

[honest intellectual]

Spartacus, it is ridiculous to seize upon something in the koran and say "this is what Islam really is". 'Islam' is really a blanket term and there are a trillion ways of interpreting the Koran.
You would hardly read the Bible and say that all Christian secretly sacrifice two doves and two pigeons every week to their God, would you?

[Pete]

I strongly disagree with anyone who says that all communists today believe in dictatorships. That is like saying that every fish that finds it self on a mud bank dies. A few fish can last out of water for an extended period of time. All you who believe that foolish statement ("anyone calling themselves a Communist is an enemy of liberty, equality and the working class." ) SHOULD WAKE THE FUCK UP AND READ OUR FUCKING POSTS!


EDIT: Hehe. That was a little out of character. Let me rephrase it (so you can all see my dumbass mistake I am leaving it up ;) ) "Read my posts and tell me that I am a dictator loving enemy of the working class that I consider my self a member of!

(Edited by CrazyPete at 8:07 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

[Xvall]

i just posted that picture and gave that responce because i was pissed that Drake Dracoli tried to equate religion with intolerece when his ideology has a history of it also.

I did not try to equate religion to intolerance. Someone brought up the belief that Islam was an intolerant religion; I merely provided evidence that Islam was no more intolerant than Christianity or Catholicism. Would you not agree? Saying that Islam is an intolerant religion is quite a biased thing, in my opinion. My ideology may have a history of tolerance. Indeed; there have been many communists who have had intolerance towards things. Things like Capitalism. I am not very tolerant of capitalism. I will not deny this. However, capitalism is a concept, not a group of people. Religions are, however, populations of other human beings. In no way do I share any type of intolerance towards any religion. Don't get anything the wrong way. Like I said; I simply provided those quote to combat someone's intolerance towards Islam. You are against intolerance towards religion, no?

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:13 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Someone mentioned that the translation was key.....they are correct.

Those of us who can read and understand Arabic know what the Qu'ran teaches. You read all translations and they are inaccurate. Trying to accuratly translate Arabic to English is nothing short of a mission.

I said interpretation was paramount. If you do not speak Arabic, how is one is understand it as it truly is. It would be like reading the Bible in Mandarin/Cantonese.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well I'll be damned, an Arabic speaking Welshman :biggrin:

Waleikum salaam Socialism Muerto!

Cthenthar: you've raised an interesting point, but I'd go even further and asy that the Bible is much easier to translate than the Quran. The Quran is basically a huge poem, the way it sounds in Arabic is beyond anything else that has been written in the language. Such a complicated work of prose cannot be translated 100%.

When it comes to stories and history put forth in a fairly random way, such as in the Bible, it becomes much easier to relate the meaning without having to worry so much about the sound or flow of the thing. Thus I think the Bible is Mandarin is a lot easier to infer 'correct' meanings from than is the Quran in any other language than the original.

It is no coincidence that Muslims all over the world learn Arabic for the sole purpose of being able to understand and recite the Quran, there is little point in learning Hebrew or Latin for a Christian.

--- G.

[suffianr]

As-Salaam Alaikum....

Wa'aleikum Salaam. Looks like me and Dhul aren't the only ones here. :)

Well, Sparty old boy, time's a wastin'. Where are those quotes? :confused:

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'm sure he's reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Defaming Islam" ;)

--- G.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

No.I don't think he is even reading that much!

[Umoja]

Oh crap, I better jump in and use my Arabic skillz!

Wa-:alaikum as-salam, rajoul!

[Pete]

he must be reading propaganda from the US government. Repeat after me: "All arabs and communists are evil....All arabs and communists are evil....All arabes and communists are evil..." and so on.

[Spartacus2002]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 4:34 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Al-Taubah 9: 29 also covers some of the issues involved, it basically says that People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) may have special priviledges that are not afforded to other non-believers. That is to say, they are permitted to practice their faiths and live within the Ummah as long as they pay their taxes.

--- G.


ya i read about this if you dont pay the "i love mohammed" tax then you get killed. all this well the bible says blah blah blah, that was under the old covenant, look in the new testament theirs no violence towards other people, in fact in the book of Acts theirs also socialism but thats something else, the point is the violence in the bible was under a different time frame , when God required blood sacrifices, the koran has no context, unless you put up to mohammeds life then its even worse, islam has only grown under violence. screw political correctness its wrong

[Spartacus2002]

i am not anti-arab, i am anti-islamic doctrine, its repressive, i dont think anyone should live under that, as i dont think anyone should live under fake christianity, before mohammed the arab people were freedom loving prosperous people they should return to that not americanization or crap like that, if you think living under the Koran is so great move to Iran they do thier.

[Krobanikov]

Islam is a bloody religion that calls for the death of all infidels(Christians and Jews included)and is demeaning of women.Islam teaches that faithful Muslims who die for Allah shall be ushered into a paradise wherein rivers flow with wine and heavenly harlots shall lavish every pleasure on the faithful.Do understand that I wish not to defame Islam moreso than all other religions for they all are based on the fear and greed of their patrons.

[suffianr]

Well, there you go. No quotes after all. Absolutely nothing but more tripe, more conjecture, more speculation.

You have proven nothing, Spartacus2002, other than that your own ignorance and vindictiveness.


before mohammed the arab people were freedom loving prosperous people

Before Muhammad, the Arabs were pagans and idol-worshippers. The Quraysh, Muhammad's own tribe, sustained themselves primarily on an import/export economy that ran trade caravans to Syria, and the annual welfare of pilgrims at the Ka'abah, in Makkah (73km east of Jeddah).

They were held in high esteem by other tribes as they were entrusted to the care of the Ka'abah.

The Quraysh existed in a period defined as the Jahiliyah (The Ignorance), read more about it here:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/S..._tsn/ch1s4.html (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch1s4.html)

and mind you, it's historical analysis, not religious preaching. :)

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Spartacus2002 on 11:49 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
all this well the bible says blah blah blah, that was under the old covenant, look in the new testament theirs no violence towards other peopleThat's exactly my point. See what you're doing here; you're taking selective pieces of scriptures and proclaiming them to be the 'true' meaning of the religion

[Umoja]

Mohammad did nothing but raise the posistion of women. Before him, bedouins would bury their girls alive, if they were first born, for fear of the troubles it would give them when they got married.

Also, Christians and Jews were given far better treatment then the previously mentioned religions ever gave Islam. Although they were viewed as "second class" they were still free to practice their own religion, and not forced to convert.

[Umoja]

Just found this infact-

Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or Christians or Sabaeans, whosoever believe in God and the last day and act aright, they have their reward at their Lord's hand, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 - The Heifer)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Krobanikov on 12:04 am on Mar. 4, 2003
Islam is a bloody religion that calls for the death of all infidels(Christians and Jews included)and is demeaning of women.Islam teaches that faithful Muslims who die for Allah shall be ushered into a paradise wherein rivers flow with wine and heavenly harlots shall lavish every pleasure on the faithful.Do understand that I wish not to defame Islam moreso than all other religions for they all are based on the fear and greed of their patrons.


I cannot manage to stay as calm as the other two...

How dare you spread this fabricated nonsense! How can you say Islam is demeaning of women. Have you not seen Islamic women? They are the most respectable women in the world. In a Muslims house, an arab's house, the woman is the Queen. The man, he works for the woman, he does everything for the woman and for his children. He will prtect his wife and children with his own life. The Muslim woman does not flaunt herself and does not allow herself to be corrupted like most other women in the world are. One thing you do not know, women choose to wear Burqa's in arabic countries. They feel honoured to have their own identity, they feel honoured that when somebody looks at them, they know they are a Muslim.

Ilsma does not call for the death Christians and Jews. Islam simply teaches that every man and every woman reaches their judgement day. God will judge them and no mortal Muslim should kill or judge any of them. You are so ignorant. You know absolutly nothing and your comments here reflect that. What you say is utter bullshit.

And who the fuck said "Go to Iran" or something like that. That is RACISM. Pure RACISM. Think about what you say you ignorant narrow minded idiot.

You lot are not worth arguing with, but you insult millions upon millions of peace loving, moral and amazingly respectable people. How can you possibly justify doing that. You cannot. You know absoultly nothing of what you debate about. Nothing at all. If Allah is the one God and Islam is the truth, your judgement day will come with God and you will face the burning fires suggested in the Holy Qu'ran, the Bible, the Torah and every other hell imaginable. And so you deserve to by judging and condemning those who you know nothing of and condemning their beliefs of which, again, you know nothing of.

As-Salaam Alaikum....Allah go with you....

[Dhul Fiqar]

I think the ignorance displayed here has been incredible, which part of "provide us with references" did you not understand? Anyone can say: "I think Islam is more evil than Christianity" but without even a shred of proof it's just the oppinion of a man who apparently has no knowledge of either religion!

I think my comrades/brothers have answered quite well, particularly by quoting the Quran, so there is little to add other than my utter dismay at some of the views expressed so far.
Oh, and regarding the New Testament, you apparently haven't read that EITHER! There is plenty of nastyness there, look at this:

"The real Jesus approved of His Father's command that children who curse their parents be put to death (Matthew 15:3-4). In fact, Jesus chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill children who defied their parents' wishes (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus told us we are to live our lives in utter fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us but also to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5).

Jesus told His disciples to bring before Him any man who didn't believe in Him and to violently slaughter that man while Jesus watched (Luke 19:27). Jesus killed one man by having his body eaten by a swarm of worms because the man failed to give Jesus His due (Acts 12:23). Jesus struck a Jew blind for thwarting His teachings (Acts 13:8-11). Jesus struck a man dead for failing to listen well (Luke 1:20). Jesus took the lives of a couple by scaring them to death for not forking over all of the money they made on a real estate transaction (Acts 5:1-10). Jesus had such a hot temper, not only was he wont to flip over merchants' tables (Matthew 21:12), He even killed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though figs weren't in season (Mark 11:12-14)."

--- G.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 4:34 am on Mar. 4, 2003
I think the ignorance displayed here has been incredible, which part of "provide us with references" did you not understand? Anyone can say: "I think Islam is more evil than Christianity" but without even a shred of proof it's just the oppinion of a man who apparently has no knowledge of either religion!

I think my comrades/brothers have answered quite well, particularly by quoting the Quran, so there is little to add other than my utter dismay at some of the views expressed so far.
Oh, and regarding the New Testament, you apparently haven't read that EITHER! There is plenty of nastyness there, look at this:

"The real Jesus approved of His Father's command that children who curse their parents be put to death (Matthew 15:3-4). In fact, Jesus chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill children who defied their parents' wishes (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus told us we are to live our lives in utter fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us but also to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5).

Jesus told His disciples to bring before Him any man who didn't believe in Him and to violently slaughter that man while Jesus watched (Luke 19:27). Jesus killed one man by having his body eaten by a swarm of worms because the man failed to give Jesus His due (Acts 12:23). Jesus struck a Jew blind for thwarting His teachings (Acts 13:8-11). Jesus struck a man dead for failing to listen well (Luke 1:20). Jesus took the lives of a couple by scaring them to death for not forking over all of the money they made on a real estate transaction (Acts 5:1-10). Jesus had such a hot temper, not only was he wont to flip over merchants' tables (Matthew 21:12), He even killed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though figs weren't in season (Mark 11:12-14)."

--- G.


I know what you mean, but be careful with the use of the word "nastyness". We don't want to sink to that ignorant fool's level. But I know what you meant.

And before we are comrades, we are brothers. So scrap the comrades part.

We need not argue with this idiot any more. But I'd love for him to post another reply. Just to see what he says. And I apologise for my temper! But nothing winds me up more than people saying the things he said. That and people discrediting Jews. Those two things disgust me. It's not good debating tactics, but I don't care!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well said, brother :)

--- G.

[Umoja]

SoM, your my new favorite person on the forums, just because of that.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I am honoured!

[Krobanikov]

It is said that whenever one has nothing good to say to say nothing at all and by this perhaps I shouldve remained silent on the subject of Islam and religion in general but seeing this is an open forum to members and were I to post a reply I will not censor my thoughts in order to gain acceptance from others but will speak the truth as I perceive it to be.
I make no apologies for those things I have written or should write as a member of this community but will recommend that those members wishing to espouse theology and fundamental religion should be aware that all people do not view the world through the same pair of shades.
In time religion shall go the way of the dinosaur for it serves as nothing more than a reminder of our primitive past and the human fascination with folklore and fairy-tales.In a schoolyard there are children who cling to an overactive imagination with expectations that Santa will not forget how good theyve been and will most likely bring everything on their list while the more clever child has refused to be duped by such rediculous things.
It is hard to consider that a sensible person would go chasing after these desert prophets but if this be the case then scurry off to Mecca and encircle the Ka aba stone and try not to gaze at the sun to long or else you may have visions yourself,as for myself,I think it best to leave the subject of religion to those so inclined.

[RedComrade]

Amen (haha what an ironic choice of words) Krobanikov! I see nothing ignorant in speaking the truth about a backward tradition built on irrational acceptance of santa like concepts that at the same time endorse rape, slavery, sexism, war and every other crime in the book not to mention a justice system that rewards one based on the religion they subscribe to not there actions. Solidarity comrade!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from RedComrade on 11:59 am on Mar. 5, 2003
I see nothing ignorant in speaking the truth about a backward tradition

What Spartacus was doing was fabricating unsubstantiated lies about a culture that is alien to him. Islam does not "endorse rape, slavery, sexism and war."

--- G.

[Spartacus2002]

if islam does not indorse violence and rape, how come mohammed killed hundreds if not thousands of people and kept large harems of captured women answer that! its the truth read mohammeds bio. how do you justify his mass murdering thousands of people?

(Edited by Spartacus2002 at 6:44 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[Spartacus2002]

i want to make it clear also, i dont hate muslims, i dont hate anyone. i just dont agree with their doctrine.

[Spartacus2002]

How dare you spread this fabricated nonsense! How can you say Islam is demeaning of women. Have you not seen Islamic women? They are the most respectable women in the world. In a Muslims house, an arab's house, the woman is the Queen. The man, he works for the woman, he does everything for the woman and for his children. He will prtect his wife and children with his own life. The Muslim woman does not flaunt herself and does not allow herself to be corrupted like most other women in the world are. One thing you do not know, women choose to wear Burqa's in arabic countries. They feel honoured to have their own identity, they feel honoured that when somebody looks at them, they know they are a Muslim.

Quoted from some guy

is he for real?

how bout those palestinian women that get chucked down wells for honor killings? i'd admit they do respect them, but dont give them equal rights, i am sure that alot of slave owners respected their slaves...

[Umoja]

Mohammad may have been responsible for the death of many, but he offered them a chance to convert to Islam. At the time Bedouins, in their uncountable wars, would just kill prisoners. They wouldn't even give them a choice, Mohammad did nothing but improve the living standard in Arabia, culturally, by using a religious medium.

[Moskitto]

even though in afghanistan they were forced to and that's what womens organizations were protesting about.

[Palmares]

Does anyone realise that 'Sharia Law' in both Iran and Nigeria are misinterpretations of the Q'uran?

There some place in Indonesia though that is trying to reverse this bad image.

By the way, I am an atheist. Religion is not good nor bad, but I am not an adherent to any.

(Edited by Cthenthar at 8:39 am on Mar. 6, 2003)

[Xvall]

I believe there is a huge misunderstanding here. Let me start with replying to a few statements that Spratacus has put fourth.

if islam does not indorse violence and rape, how come mohammed killed hundreds if not thousands of people and kept large harems of captured women answer that! its the truth read mohammeds bio. how do you justify his mass murdering thousands of people?

You seem to have taken things the wrong way. Islam does not endorse violence, rape, or anything. Islam is a religion. As I have showed you, the Bible is just as horribly violent; I doubt that you are going to start a 'Christianity is Violent!' thread, however. Religions are not capable of killing people; religions are used as a medium for justifying certain acts people commit, usually ones that help them achieve wealth or power. According the the Bible; God is the greatest mass murdurer in the universe. After all, all of our modern mass murdurers would have been created by this god, would they have not? In the Bible god rains fire from the skies on the egyptians, floods the entire planet with water for over a month, kills innocent first born babies. This is just as violent as Islam. Violence can be related to nearly any religious or political ideology, this does not however mean that the people who follow this ideology nececarilly have the same beliefs.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 10:51 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[Palmares]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 8:50 am on Mar. 6, 2003
I believe there is a huge misunderstanding here. Let me start with replying to a few statements that Spratacus has put fourth.

if islam does not indorse violence and rape, how come mohammed killed hundreds if not thousands of people and kept large harems of captured women answer that! its the truth read mohammeds bio. how do you justify his mass murdering thousands of people?

You seem to have taken things the wrong way. Islam does not endorse violence, rape, or anything. Islam is a religion. As I have showed you, the Bible is just as horribly violent; I doubt that you are going to start a 'Christianity is Violent!' thread, however. Religions are not capable of killing people; religions are used as a medium for justifying certain acts people commit, usually ones that help them achieve wealth or power. According the the Bible; God is the greatest mass murdurer in the universe. After all, all of our modern mass murdurers would have been created by this god, would they have not? In the Bible god rains fire from the skies on the egyptians, floods the entire planet with water for over a month, kills innocent first born babies. This is just as violent as Islam. Violence can be related to nearly any religious or political ideology, this does not however mean that the people who follow this ideology nececarilly have the same beliefs.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 10:51 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)


Well said comrade. Islam itself was 'created' in a very violent environment anyway.

Understanding is paramount.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

This debate has turned from a debate on Islam and religion into a debate on morality, tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

And what this debate has ultimately proved is that some of you are mindless idiots who have none of the above mentioned attributes. (That's morality, tolerance and acceptance of diversity for those of you who do not understand my dialect)

I am not a Muslim. I belong to no religion. I can speak Arabic, I have Arabic origins. Maybe I can therefore be seen as being a symptathiser to Muslims. But I respect every person who follows a faith with their life. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews.....

Any person who devotes their life to their faith is due infinite respect. I think it is fair to say that I'm not an all out Muslim sympathiser therefore. Surely if I was I would hate the children of Israel...according to some of you anyway. I've had the pleasure of reading the majority of 3 of the Holy books (The Holy Qu'ran, The Torah and The Bible). I've tried reading a translation of the Bhagwandgita but I don't want to realy on a translation of Sanskrit.

I;m not claiming to be all moral and all tolerant. But some fo your posts here have been nothing short of ignorant and disrespectful. You try to cover it up by saying it's an opinion and everyone can have opinions, but you start this thread to completely slaughter an opinion held by others. An opinion which is not just a small issue to those who have it, but their life. Their beliefs and their faith. I couldn't believe the lack of respect and consideration shown in the reply posted by someone saying that Muslims "scurry to Mecca" to circle the Kab'baa. The very fact that you do not find this act of complete humility carried out by Muslims of all classes and colours admriable displays your complete intolerance to those of other cultures.

The agenda here isn't Islam anymore. But morality.

As-Salaam Alaikum

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:20 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
This debate has turned from a debate on Islam and religion into a debate on morality, tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

And what this debate has ultimately proved is that some of you are mindless idiots who have none of the above mentioned attributes. (That's morality, tolerance and acceptance of diversity for those of you who do not understand my dialect)

I am not a Muslim. I belong to no religion. I can speak Arabic, I have Arabic origins. Maybe I can therefore be seen as being a symptathiser to Muslims. But I respect every person who follows a faith with their life. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews.....

Any person who devotes their life to their faith is due infinite respect. I think it is fair to say that I'm not an all out Muslim sympathiser therefore. Surely if I was I would hate the children of Israel...according to some of you anyway. I've had the pleasure of reading the majority of 3 of the Holy books (The Holy Qu'ran, The Torah and The Bible). I've tried reading a translation of the Bhagwandgita but I don't want to realy on a translation of Sanskrit.

I;m not claiming to be all moral and all tolerant. But some fo your posts here have been nothing short of ignorant and disrespectful. You try to cover it up by saying it's an opinion and everyone can have opinions, but you start this thread to completely slaughter an opinion held by others. An opinion which is not just a small issue to those who have it, but their life. Their beliefs and their faith. I couldn't believe the lack of respect and consideration shown in the reply posted by someone saying that Muslims "scurry to Mecca" to circle the Kab'baa. The very fact that you do not find this act of complete humility carried out by Muslims of all classes and colours admriable displays your complete intolerance to those of other cultures.

The agenda here isn't Islam anymore. But morality.

As-Salaam Alaikum

Most of that I agree with, accept the bit about faith. Not questioning something is foolish, it is blind faith.

If one is to be faithful, it should be moderated with some sort of questioning of what they already believe to be truth.

A lie, is not a lie until the truth is questioned.

[antieverything]

"The real Jesus approved of His Father's command that children who curse their parents be put to death (Matthew 15:3-4). In fact, Jesus chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill children who defied their parents' wishes (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus told us we are to live our lives in utter fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us but also to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5).

Jesus told His disciples to bring before Him any man who didn't believe in Him and to violently slaughter that man while Jesus watched (Luke 19:27). Jesus killed one man by having his body eaten by a swarm of worms because the man failed to give Jesus His due (Acts 12:23). Jesus struck a Jew blind for thwarting His teachings (Acts 13:8-11). Jesus struck a man dead for failing to listen well (Luke 1:20). Jesus took the lives of a couple by scaring them to death for not forking over all of the money they made on a real estate transaction (Acts 5:1-10). Jesus had such a hot temper, not only was he wont to flip over merchants' tables (Matthew 21:12), He even killed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though figs weren't in season (Mark 11:12-14)." I don't know if you meant this seriously but it's all bullshit man!

[hr]
Luke 19 is Jesus preaching a parable...he isn't saying that, he's saying that the character in the story is saying that.

Saul was struck blind temporarely supposedly by the spirit of the resurrected Jesus for actively murdering Christians. Jesus never killed a man as you said, the scripture you quoted was talking about a man being struck DUMB by the spirit of God...as in he isn't able to talk for a while, not killed by Jesus!

In the book of Acts, Jesus isn't even alive! Those things were supposedly done either by the spirit of god acting alone or through an apostle...about the example of the people withholding money being killed by the Apostles it is interesting to note that their sin was withholding money from the COMMUNE as in they were not being good COMMUNISTS and were betraying the principles of COMMUNISM.

That stuff about Jesus saying that we should kill smart-ass kids is a misinterpretation...first, he's mocking the religious leaders because of their strictness on some laws but laxness on others. He is saying that you can either be merciful to everyone or show no mercy to anyone...anything else makes you a hypocrite. Also, he was saying this because the religious leaders were saying that it was ok to not support your parents in their old age if you instead gave the money to the church. Obviously Jesus wasn't saying that they should be killed but that the church shouldn't twist the law for its own financial gain...Jesus had previously given an entire speech talking about abandoning Old Testament Law (Moses said...But I say!) for a policy of compassion.
[hr]
Again, I'm pretty sure that you were spoofing the ridiculous claims about Islam but someone may have taken these seriously so I thought that I should step in to set the record straight.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yeah, sorry, I should have made it clear what I was doing. The fact is you can take things out of context out of any religious doctrine and make it sound like a religion of murder and hatred.

Those were all liberal interepretations of events taken out of context, much like the anti-Islam campaign in this thread so far. I didn't write it but I came across it on the net and decided to use it.

In any case, I don't know what biography you've been reading Spartacus. Try the one by Karen Armstrong, she is a white, Western (I think American) and feministically inclined historian. Every argument is substatiated by FACT, much unlike the crap you insist on posting even AFTER WE TOLD YOU TO USE REFERENCES!

Pick up a book, mate, get to know the facts instead of quoting your bigoted grandfather or whatever you're doing to come up with this bullshit.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 11:59 am on Mar. 6, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I'm curious...no, I'm dumbfounded as to the purpose(s) of a thread like this.

The consensus appears to be that all three of the monotheistic religions are just big bundles of love and mutual tolerance...and the fact that the most committed followers of these faiths cheerfully slaughter one another is of no consequence. It's all, I guess, "the work of the devil".

It's not the words in any particular "holy book" that is the problem...it is the very mind-set of the faithful that is the problem.

Once you accept, without evidence, the existence of supernatural entities, the desire of these entities to be "worshipped" in a certain particular way, and the power of these entities to inflict torture on those who refuse their commands in this world and the "next"...what possible difference can lip-service to tolerance make?

In "Saudi" Arabia, a woman can't drive a car and a non-Muslim cannot even enter the city of Mecca!

In Israel, it is almost impossible for a non-Jew to become a citizen.

In Germany, France, Austria...non-Christians are permitted to live...but their lives are at risk from those who think they are unworthy of "European" (Christian) civilization.

Tolerance? Do you believers dare mention the word tolerance?

When communism triumphs, you believers will complain bitterly of communist "intolerance"...among other things, we won't permit you to kill each other any more.

What an outrage!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:57 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

I've been looking around but I can't for the life of me fathom what believers you are addressing your words to redstar2000, since I haven't seen any in this thread so far.......

In fact I don't think that anyone said religion = tolerance, nor that it was all about love and friendship between different peoples. The point I was trying to make is that you should not generalize about a group of people and demonize their religion and way of life, and especially not if you have no idea about what makes those people tick.

Furthermore, I think if you look at any religion from the outside with little or no unbiased information it will look like they are a bunch of evil monsters who believe in superstitious and evil books written thousands of years ago.

Your post, redstar, makes the point that "it's not the words in any particular 'holy book' that is the problem.. it is the very mindset of the faithful that is the problem".

However, Spartacus started this thread by SPECIFICALLY attacking the Quran, and blaming Muhammad (saws) for what he saw as the evils of the Islamic world today.

We all know religion is rife with hypocracy, most of tha faithful don't live their lives like they claim to believe a life should be lived. Does that mean the effort is wrong? I think a good book is not necessarily tarnished by a bunch of idiots using it for their own purposes.

After all, Das Kapital still has relevance for me, despite Stalin and North Korea and etc. etc. etc.
--- G.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 7:58 am on Mar. 6, 2003
I've been looking around but I can't for the life of me fathom what believers you are addressing your words to redstar2000, since I haven't seen any in this thread so far.......

In fact I don't think that anyone said religion = tolerance, nor that it was all about love and friendship between different peoples. The point I was trying to make is that you should not generalize about a group of people and demonize their religion and way of life, and especially not if you have no idea about what makes those people tick.

Furthermore, I think if you look at any religion from the outside with little or no unbiased information it will look like they are a bunch of evil monsters who believe in superstitious and evil books written thousands of years ago.

Your post, redstar, makes the point that "it's not the words in any particular 'holy book' that is the problem.. it is the very mindset of the faithful that is the problem".

However, Spartacus started this thread by SPECIFICALLY attacking the Quran, and blaming Muhammad (saws) for what he saw as the evils of the Islamic world today.

We all know religion is rife with hypocracy, most of tha faithful don't live their lives like they claim to believe a life should be lived. Does that mean the effort is wrong? I think a good book is not necessarily tarnished by a bunch of idiots using it for their own purposes.

After all, Das Kapital still has relevance for me, despite Stalin and North Korea and etc. etc. etc.
--- G.

That's what I was trying to say. This post was about Islam....it's now about acceptance of religion.

Ive had it with all this talk of beliving in whatever book.

Everyone should respect the religons of this world. These ancient faiths united the world and brougbht about moral civilization. The demise in religion in this increasingly secular society has us now questioning whether we are civilized at all. We are not. That is the answer. So uncivilized that many people cannot even accept religion any more. They cannot respect those who dedicate their life to their faith.

I talk here on behalf of the children of Israel, the descendants of Jesus, Abraham, Moses and the like. I talk on behalf of those who make that journey to Makkah. Those who do not stray from their faith whatever class or colour they may be. I speak on behalf of the followers of Krishna and, with him, the most ancient faith. On behalf of the Sikh warriors and the conquerors of Nirvana.

Every faith should be respected. Whether you believe in any religion or not. It is the one thing left in the world which beholds escapism. Let us cherish it and let it live.

But for now, I will continue in the following of my own holy book...."The Story of My Experiments With Truth" - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

[redstar2000]

"Everyone should respect the religions of this world. These ancient faiths united the world and brought about moral civilization."

And, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I am the rightful King of Roumania! :cheesy:

The truth "about Islam" is the same as the truth "about Judaism" which is the same as the truth "about Christianity". Preach love and tolerance while you are weak; convert or kill the unbeliever when you are strong.

That is the unquestionable "track record" of all three monotheistic religions...though the Hindus are catching up rapidly.

And this is not to mention that, if no heathens are readily available, it's always "Godly" to kill other members of your own faith for insufficient godliness or errors of doctrine.

"Demonize religion"? What "demon" could possibly match what human believers have done?

"Unify the world?" In an ocean of innocent blood!

"Civilization?" The deeds of the religious would shame a barbarian!

"Every faith should be respected." Yes, you should never approach one unless you are heavily armed!

Islam? Try this one...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2821139.stm

After reading this, you can shove Islam up your ass...along with Christianity and Judaism and all the rest!

Oh, is that "bigoted"? Did I "offend"?

Give me your "Tough Shit" Card and I'll punch it for you.

:cool:

PS: or maybe a picture would help those of you infatuated with the words of the "Prophet". See RedFW's post and note the woman in Bangladesh who went "unveiled in public".

http:///www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=167&start=140

If this link doesn't work, go to History->"Christianity's forgotten rule"->page 15, RedFW post of March 5th.


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:20 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

"The words of the prophet"? I am for one not a big believer in the validity of most Hadiths, and even if they are true quotes I fail to see how a simple merchant like Muhammed can dictate the Islamic faith.

I doubt most people ven truly understand the difference between what can be read in the Quran and what has been interpreted by unscrupulous scholars through obscure Hadiths

--- G.

[redstar2000]

And here's another one on the glories of Islam; the fate of gay Palestinians...

http:news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2826963.stm

Religious fundamentalism has a bunch of different-colored flags to fly...but the ugly reality is the same everywhere.

:cool:

[Guest1]

If that's the way you wanna play, let's address another religion. I'm no longer a muslim, but I am a communist. Should I be blamed for the actions of others proclaiming themselves communists? Should Marx be blamed for the atrocities of Stalin and Kim? Should I be told that being a marxist necessarily implies following the manifesto to the letter? including dictatorship of the proletariate?

Nothing seperates communism from religion, it is a way of living your life, up to your own interpretation. Just as you can't be told what you believe, don't tell others what they believe. It's not that it's insensitive, it's that it's complete and utter bullshit. Each person has their beliefs, and should be judged only on whether or not THEY try to force it on others through violence, not whether or not the ruling classes have used a religion to justify war.

[redstar2000]

Che y Marijuana, it doesn't much matter whether you want to be "judged" responsible for the acts of anyone who has called themselves a communist in the past...you will be!

Likewise, your differences with other communists, regardless of what they might be, will not mean much of anything to non-communists and will be ignored by anti-communists.

See what I'm saying: you sign up? you buy the package!

That doesn't mean that you personally cannot attempt to change the contents of the package. Communism today is not what it was 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago. People have learned...if at a painfully slow rate.

But when I hear people say that "Stalin wasn't a real communist" or "Trotsky wasn't a real communist", etc., I get a little irritated. In their time, they were the best that communism had to offer.

However you personally interpret and apply the ideas of Marx and Engels, you will be judged by other communists. There's no escaping that.

What separates communism from religion is that communism appeals to material reality for its validation. If the interpretation of Marx and Engels by Stalin or Trotsky is inaccurate in the light of historical experience, then it must be rejected.

This will not stop our enemies from trying as best they can to drape those corpses around our necks...but, as time passes, their slanders will count for less and less, unless we are so stupid as to repeat the errors of Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky.

The whole point about religious fundamentalism of any variety is precisely that they must repeat their stupidities and crimes over and over again...divine revelation is not impaired by material failure. They don't give up. And they dream of exactly the kind of situation that exists today in Iran or "Saudi" Arabia...where "God's representatives" are both respected and feared.

If you think today's Christian fundamentalists would not burn someone for witchcraft if they thought they could get away with it...you are unbelievably naive.

Jewish fundamentalists in Israel would simply love to bring back stoning as the penalty for adultry (women only, of course).

The recent behavior of Islamic fundamentalists is a matter of reports in the daily news...as is the behavior of Hindu fundamentalists.

Religious "liberals" try to distinguish themselves from fundamentalists; they claim to be modern and civilized and incapable of barbaric behavior.

I think they are either lying to themselves...or just lying. Why? Because the heart of religion is anti-rational. When you're talking about enforcing the "Will of God", there simply aren't any rational limits. It's ok to do anything.

They have! And, given the chance, they will!

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You talk about "Jewish fundamentalists, "Islamic fundamentalists, "Hindu fundamentalists"...

You do not talk about Jews, Muslims and Hindus.

[Guest1]

One of the most peaceful people I know is extremely religious. I disagree with alot of his opinions, but his practices are commendable. He tells me he thinks god exists, or people shouldn't smoke weed, or homosexuality is wrong, but he says in the same sentence, that's what I believe and that's all. He forces nothing on anyone. I've been absolutely stoned off my ass around him, he doesn't care. We have a friend who's lesbian, he doesn't care. He keeps his beliefs between himself and his god. That's the way it should be.

You say people WILL judge us based on the actions of others. This does not excuse you. The actions of the ignorant masses do not give you the right to make generalizations as well. You cannot claim to be an intelligent person, and then try to excuse holes in your argument by appealing to the ignorance of the masses.

[redstar2000]

Che y Marijuana, what exactly are you talking about?

The "generalizations" I make are based on history, current events, and a philosophical understanding of what theology is...are you saying that because you know one "peaceful" (for the moment) believer, that my generalizations are "technically wrong" and therefore wrong in substance?

Like someone who says that they know a cop who is "a really nice guy"...therefore, a Marxist analysis of the social role of the police "must be wrong".

Really?

:cool:

[deadpool 52]

The truth about Islam is what it says spefically in the Qur'an: If you kill someone, you are going to Hell.

[antieverything]

Um...actually the Koran specifically permits killing in self-defense and in defense of religion.

Redstar...you can ***** all you want but I'm still going to Chiapas this summer with the Christian Peacemaker Teams...they are organizing Human Shields to go to Iraq as we speak...Just get over it: religion runs the entire gamut from liberal-protestantism, Christo-communism, and liberation theology to authoritarian fundamentalism...Just like Communism.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Redstar:

This may be a new record. Not only is it the most annoyingly flagrant overuse of BOLD function in the history of this site, it contains so many contradictions I don't know where to begin.

You are well informed, but you are using your knowledge to confirm what you already believe to be true, not drawing conclusions from what you know.
I fail to see any distinction made between the crimes committed by communists and those committed by "the faithful". You hold that we should all accept responsibility for Stalin, and yet you use the crimes of individual clerics and extremist movements to justify your attack on religion in general!

Your sole answer to this is that what seperates "us" from "them" is that "they don't give up, we learn from our mistakes". I think you need to go back to the library and study the history of religion, in most cases has come a very far way indeed and changed according to the times and obvious mistakes made.

Communism is much younger, and has only adapted theoretically, nothing new has been introduced to the practice of socialism that makes me think the next "Socialist utopia" won't turn into a remake of the Soviet Union. But then, we are so paralized that it's unlikely such a society will ever exist. We may have some good new books about how great it would be if everyone could just agree and make the world better, but nothing has changed in reality except our defeat to capitalism has become more obvious by the day.

One final point. There is a fundamental difference between communism and religion in that communism is basically just a economic plan with a social conscience. Religion offers ANSWERS to questions we all ask ourselves. It's all well and good to sit around and criticise laughable old stories about how Adam and Eve were created, but deep inside you KNOW that you have a deep need to know how it actually all began. That is what religion is, an attempt to explain the unexplainable mysteries of life, it's purpose and origin. Communism is just a way to share money, eliminating religion in favour of communism is like throwing away your bicycle because you got a new TV.

They speak to different needs, and that is that.

--- G.

[redstar2000]

Antieverything, have a nice trip. :cheesy:

When (if) you get back, I'll be waiting to hear of your adventures. But I won't "get over it"...if by "it" you refer to my analysis of religion.

Sorry, Dhul Fiqar, that you are annoyed by my choice of type-faces. But, since we each get to choose our own, it is my choice to use bold whenever I think it's justified. So I will.

"You are well informed, but you are using your knowledge to confirm what you already believe to be true, not drawing conclusions from what you know."

DF, I don't even understand what that sentence means. Yes, the knowledge I have gathered confirms conclusions that I reached long ago...if it did not confirm those conclusions, then I would no longer have them. On what basis can anyone conclude anything that is not based on gathered knowledge? Oh, I forgot, there's always "divine revelation". :cheesy:

Could one make a distinction between the crimes committed by communists and the crimes committed by the faithful? Yes, actually I think it could be done.

The communist crimes, admittedly awful, were committed in the quasi-rational pursuit of an "earthly" goal...the achievement of communism. It would never have occurred to Stalin, for example, to simply exterminate everyone who wasn't a committed communist. Even the wretched Pol Pot and his Khymer Rouge did not attempt to murder every Buddhist in Cambodia.

Even in those instances where the numbers are not comparable, the crimes of the faithful are of a different order of magnitude altogether. Here we are talking of torture and murder for "spiritual" gain...reason is unnecessary and, in fact, unwanted.

Thus it is that we communists have learned that Stalin was wrong and Pol Pot was mad.

Where is the equivalent in religious circles? Do the Lutherans repudiate the words of Martin Luther when he called for the mass murder of rebellious peasants and the vigorous persecution of the Jews?

Has the Pope "revoked" sainthood for the murderous priests of the inquisition?

Do Jewish fundamentalists now repudiate the crimes of the ancient Hebrews against the Philistines? That's where our word "Palestine" comes from, by the way...in Arabic, I think, it's something like "Filisteen". After 3,000 years, the people that live there must still be conquered and expelled...or killed.

And even the most rabid anti-stalinist (Robert Conquest?) has never accused Stalin of ordering acid thrown in a woman's face for going unveiled in public. In fact, women could drive cars in the USSR! How about that!

I think I'm as well informed in the history of religion as you are, DF, but your knowledge of contemporary religious practice appears deficient to me.

Who are the people demanding to control female sexuality and fertility? Who are the people who want Darwin out of the schools and the ten commandments in? Who are the people that proclaim AIDS to be "divine judgment" of sexual and chemical sin? Who are the people who say God has chosen America to rule the world? Who are the people that invented the concept of "Holy War"? And this shit is going on right now.

Yes, DF, religion does change...under secular compulsion. When the English laws against witchcraft were repealed (1821, I think), the Church of England was furious in its opposition.

You would say that wouldn't happen now; the C of E has gotten used to the idea that burning women for witchcraft has gone out of fashion...at least for the time being. But the history of religion clearly shows that all it takes is one charismatic "prophet" to bring about a revival of "that old-time religion"...in which burning a "witch" is as unremarkable as stoning an adulterer.

DF, you reveal, perhaps unintentionally, your real reason for your defense of religion. You think the capitalists have won. You think that we communists are just a bunch of dreamers...and since you're in the dream racket yourself, you find it unacceptable and intolerable that a communist should dare to criticize your fantasies.

"...deep inside you KNOW that you have a deep need to know how it actually all began."

Indeed? Have you considered a career as a telephone psychic? It would be a shame to waste such a great talent on a hopeless sinner like me...there are so many who want to believe. And they'll pay you!

"That is what religion is, an attempt to explain the unexplainable mysteries of life, its purposes and origin."

To attempt to explain the "unexplainable" sounds like an exercise in utter futility to me. But what religion really is is just a pack of lies. What is so hard to understand about that?

Perhaps you think that people "need" to believe in lies. But we communists have already stolen your thunder on that one. Believers may have said it first...but we mean it!

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free!

:cool:

[Moskitto]

Where is the equivalent in religious circles? Do the Lutherans repudiate the words of Martin Luther when he called for the mass murder of rebellious peasants and the vigorous persecution of the Jews?

Yes religious people have reformed and accept that certain saints were wrong, for example many of my christian friends agree that St.Paul was wrong about so many things. The arch bishop of Canterbury has called for more liberalisation within the church. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua had a huge catholic following. Of course it doesn't help that Atheists deny their legitimacy as believers or even existance.

[Invader Zim]

All religious texts are shit, they all lie, they all contradict, they are full of hypocracy, and they all drive people to commit acts of great harm against others. Religion is shit.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:35 pm on Mar. 8, 2003


"You are well informed, but you are using your knowledge to confirm what you already believe to be true, not drawing conclusions from what you know."

DF, I don't even understand what that sentence means.



Sums you up in a nutshell.

Again, all you seem to talk about are Jewish, Islamic, Hindu and Christian fundamentalists......Not Jews, Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Face it, religion is the most powerful institution in the world and nothing can change that. Not even your type of people spreading thei hammers and sickels all over the place.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from AK47 on 7:22 pm on Mar. 8, 2003
All religious texts are shit, they all lie, they all contradict, they are full of hypocracy, and they all drive people to commit acts of great harm against others. Religion is shit.


Says he who follows the politik of Stalin, Mao, Kim and Che.

[Moskitto]

Atheists are some of the most closed minded people i have met, this is what people have said to me for using the Armenian Predestination arguement.

"You are too stupid for my searing intelligence"

"Religion is a big lie, Grow Up"

"GOD DOESN'T EXIST, GET IT THROUGH YOUR ARMOUR PLATED CRANIUM"

"If you believe in God I'm not going to bother argueing with you"

Ok, Atheists are meant to be the "Tolerant" Ones, right?

[redstar2000]

"Religion is the most powerful institution in the world and nothing can change that."

Actually, capitalism has changed that quite a bit...though I'm sure they've come to regret it by now, and are doing their best to repair what they once despised.

But, socialsmo o muerto, I already know your pro-capitalist views and your position in defense of religion comes as no surprise.

Enjoy your moment of triumph...it won't last.

Moskitto, if "St. Paul" was wrong about so many things, how come he's still a "saint"?

And if a "saint" can be wrong, what meaning does Christianity really have? Here's a guy who claimed to have a direct vision of "Jesus" himself...and he fucked up?

What the Archbishop of Canterbury means by "more liberalization within the church" I have no idea. Is he going to issue a public statement flatly condemning U.S. imperialism in Iraq? Is he going to excommunicate Tony Blair? or any British soldier who takes part in the war?

Perhaps he plans to reveal a new divine message to the effect that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the "Will of the Lord"?? :cheesy:

The Sandinistas are indeed a tragic case; I don't deny that they sincerely meant well...but I think the combination of U.S. Government terrorism and their own naivte was fatal. They should have known that a "free election" to the bourgeoisie is one that can be bought.

Now, of course, they're just another bunch of corrupt bastards...with a power-sharing agreement with the old Somoza gangsters that insures that no real opposition will ever be on the ballot in Nicaragua.

But note that all their subservience to "the Lord" did not save their reforms. Evidently, "God" doesn't really give a shit about poor people in Nicaragua...or any place else.

:cool:

PS: AK47 is not a communist and cannot be held responsible even indirectly for Stalin, Mao, etc.

Moskitto, I can't help what other atheists might have called you--though I can certainly sympathize with their frustrations. But if this thread runs 100 pages, I will meet any "argument" you raise.



(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:53 pm on Mar. 8, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 7:27 pm on Mar. 8, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 7:22 pm on Mar. 8, 2003
All religious texts are shit, they all lie, they all contradict, they are full of hypocracy, and they all drive people to commit acts of great harm against others. Religion is shit.


Says he who follows the politik of Stalin, Mao, Kim and Che.


I follow non of the mentioned above actually.

[Moskitto]

Is he going to issue a public statement flatly condemning U.S. imperialism in Iraq?

He has, he issued a joint statement with the Cardinal of Westminister condemning military action in Iraq.

They should have known that a "free election" to the bourgeoisie is one that can be bought.

in an interesting and totally unrelated side note, many observers commented that the 1984 elections (which the Sandinistas won) were much freer than the 1990 elections which they didn't, mainly because the US said the war would still go on if the Sandinistas won.

Moskitto, I can't help what other atheists might have called you

i wasn't blaming you, just showing an example of how people are intolerant, not just religions.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 7:38 pm on Mar. 8, 2003
Atheists are some of the most closed minded people i have met, this is what people have said to me for using the Armenian Predestination arguement.

"You are too stupid for my searing intelligence"

"Religion is a big lie, Grow Up"

"GOD DOESN'T EXIST, GET IT THROUGH YOUR ARMOUR PLATED CRANIUM"

"If you believe in God I'm not going to bother argueing with you"

Ok, Atheists are meant to be the "Tolerant" Ones, right?


You missed out the best one from canikickit, on your forum

"your religious and you expeact to be taken seriously"

(if it was not you canikickit i apologise profusily. But do you remember that anyway.)

[Moskitto]

I'm fairly sure that was Mazdak actually.

[IPkurd]

religins r all stupied, u should just belive in ur self because beliveing in a "god" will just constraint u and u wont live up 2 ur full potentional

[Moskitto]

on the contrary, the worlds best triple jumper (Jonathon Edwards) is still triple jumping when he's 37 because he believes that's what god wants him to do.

[redstar2000]

"on the contrary, the world's best triple jumper (Jonathan Edwards) is still triple jumping when he's 37 because he believes that's what god wants him to do."

I've always noticed a remarkable mental agility on the part of believers, but I had no idea it extended into the physical world. :cheesy:

It seems to me that "closed-mindedness" is another one of those fuzzy, flabby terms that is so difficult to assign a meaning to with any precision.

A doctor would flatly refuse to waste any time arguing with someone who believed in the "demon-possession theory" of disease. Is she "closed-minded"?

An astronomer does not waste time arguing with astrologers. A chemist does not waste time arguing with alchemists (if any were still to be found). A rare few biologists have gone to the trouble of arguing with "creation scientists"...in court. They perceive "creation science" as a direct attack on science in general and on their field in particular...and they are quite right about that.

Thus it is that the vast majority of atheists--including most communists--are unwilling to "waste time" arguing with believers. All of the arguments in support of religion have been discredited over the last two centuries...there's nothing of substance left to argue "about".

This may be true as far as it goes, but I think it is clearly a short-sighted view. Many atheists (non-communist or even anti-communist for the most part) think of themselves as an "intellectual elite" and are dismissive or contemptuous of the "opinions of the herd".

Like Greek philosophers, they think that religion is acceptable and even desirable for the "stupid masses" while they enjoy the light of reason.

We communists have a different view; we do not consider the masses to be inherently stupid and incapable of reason. But for reason to prevail, it must enter the battle.

Communists who sit back and say "we don't care if people are religious as long as they support communism in this world" are being arrogant and stupid. They are like a powerful sports team that thinks they've already won the contest just by showing up for the game.

If, as I have maintained in other posts, religion is fundamentally reactionary, then it needs to be fought in the same way we would fight any other powerful reactionary ideology. We do not let racism, patriotism, sexism, homophobia, etc. pass by without the sharpest criticism; why should we let religious superstitions off the hook?

Are we afraid of ideological struggle, where it counts?

Sad to say, some are. But I'm not.

:cool:







(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:06 am on Mar. 9, 2003)

[Umoja]

It's obvious that some random dudes or God put the holy books on earth just for us all to argue, and hopefully to make us all find knowledge for ourselves. Sadly it never worked out like that.

[Dhul Fiqar]

If this kind of shit is what "socialists" should feel about the world, (i.e. anything bad done to achieve a goal I agree with is OK, but anything bad done to achieve a goal I don't understand is EVIL), then I don't want to be associated with the movement any more.

Fuck communism ;)

--- G.

[synthesis]

EVERY movement/ideology has that aspect to it Dhul, although I know you were kidding.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Very true. I was just upset to be confronted by blind hypocracy among my own kind, but I guess no group is perfect :(

--- G.

[Moskitto]

I've always noticed a remarkable mental agility on the part of believers, but I had no idea it extended into the physical world.

it's physchological, he does it because that's what he believes is his purpose in life. So he might as well go and do it as damn well as he can. Many athletes do, and not just believing ones.

Science/Religion are not opposite poles, world renowned physics professor Russell Stannard is a reader at a church less than a mile away from where I live, he does not have a creationist view of the world, instead he has a very logical view of the world and finds truth in the bible where they're is truth, and trys to understand what the non-truth is there for.

[redstar2000]

Moskitto, the fact that there are scientists who are also believers really doesn't prove much of anything...except perhaps that people can all too easily entertain contradictory ideas.

Do his religious beliefs influence his scientific work? I don't know, of course, but if they do, other scientists will be all over his ass.

It reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. Two scientists are standing in front of a blackboard.

On the blackboard are three steps:

1. Complicated mathematical equation
2. "A Miracle Happens"
3. Resulting complicated mathematical equation

One scientist says to the other: "I think you need to be a little more explicit in step 2." :cheesy:

The last time I saw a poll on the subject, 75% of scientists said they were atheists...but I frankly thought it would be even more.

But it must be admitted that scientists are as human as the rest of us...vulnerable to social pressures, cultural conditioning, etc. Perhaps scientists who are religious are careful to stay away from fields that might generate data that would directly challenge their faith.

Does your guy believe that "Jesus rose from the dead"? Then it's fortunate that he didn't study medicine...or demographics.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

he does not follow the bible literally, one of his books was criticised (I hope by a christian fundamentalist) for not taking Jesus's miracles as the truth.

I'm not sure what his views are concerning the ressurection, but i would assume as he is a christian, he would believe that god himself would have the power to ressurect Jesus, or that he was ressurected in spirit ie. like Che. On a side note, I have seen books by other scientists explaining medically how this could be done (secretions of certain frogs and toads have feigned death effects) but these don't explain that the bible says Jesus was actually dead (blood does not separate into water and plasma if your alive.)

His religion does influence his work slightly, but only in what he does. For example, he writes books on physics for children because it says in the bible it is easier to teach children than adults (which he has also noticed from his own life.)

He also tolerates non-believes, on a radio interview he jested about a conversation with a fellow scientist (atheist) he had where he had said "my son is an atheist, where have I gone wrong?" his friend promptly said "My son is a born again christian, where have I gone wrong?"

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Why is it that the believers in this forum can appreciate the beliefs of non-believers but non-believers cannot appreciate the beliefs of believers.

Other than blind ignorance, is there any reason for that?

[deadpool 52]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:59 pm on Mar. 9, 2003

Science/Religion are not opposite poles. . .

Another modern clichéd thought among modern atheists - that science is some entirely opposing entity from religion.

If this thread had people who actually knew anything about Islam, then they would have told you that science was studied as a way to find out God's intentions for things.

[Moskitto]

I consider Science to be the study of how things happen and religion to be the study of why things happen.

[Umoja]

To prove or disprove something in science you need to base your experiments on something you already believe to be true or untrue. So, religion flavoring your science is only giving you something to try to prove or disprove. I really fail to see the problem as long as something drives you forward.

[redstar2000]

"Science was studied as a way to find out God's intentions for things."

It sets a powerful challenge to science to figure out "why" God intended that women who go unveiled in public should have acid thrown in their face by the pious.

For a muslim to reproach an atheist for "blind ignorance" does take some, er, nerve.

Moskitto, your believing scientist writes books on physics for children. That's kind of scary. Does he discuss the aerodynamics of angelic flight? Or what would happen to a planet suddenly stopped from rotating?

The "beliefs" of atheists are, for the most part, ordinary common sense. The "beliefs" of believers are...well, unbelievable. Granted that some of the more esoteric regions of modern physics are counter-intuitive, still they can, with serious study, be understood.

But how is one supposed to understand "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or the criticism of acid?

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:02 am on Mar. 10, 2003


For a muslim to reproach an atheist for "blind ignorance" does take some, er, nerve.



I am not a Muslim. I don't believe in any religion.

[Moskitto]

Moskitto, your believing scientist writes books on physics for children. That's kind of scary. Does he discuss the aerodynamics of angelic flight? Or what would happen to a planet suddenly stopped from rotating?

actually, he writes books about relativity, and probably what would happen if planets stopped spinning, he could write books about the aerodynamics of angels flying, but, other people have done that before.

The "beliefs" of atheists are, for the most part, ordinary common sense. The "beliefs" of believers are...well, unbelievable. Granted that some of the more esoteric regions of modern physics are counter-intuitive, still they can, with serious study, be understood.

actually, science is theories backed up with data, it has been proved by some scientists that light can bend round corners (if you manipulate it.) Science hasn't explained why we are here, religion has.

[redstar2000]

"science hasn't explained why we are here"...

maybe because that's not a real question...even though it "sounds" like one.

Religion hasn't "explained" "why" we are here either; they've just made up a bunch of lies and are, whenever they believe they can get away with it, willing to kill anyone who won't go along with the con.

Why are they worthy of "respect"?

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:11 am on Mar. 11, 2003
"science hasn't explained why we are here"...

maybe because that's not a real question...even though it "sounds" like one.

Religion hasn't "explained" "why" we are here either; they've just made up a bunch of lies and are, whenever they believe they can get away with it, willing to kill anyone who won't go along with the con.

Why are they worthy of "respect"?

:cool:

Religion has given suggestions of why we are here. Few people have ventured there. And who is going to prove the theories of God's being Creator's wrong? Don't tell me....Darwin? Maybe his theory is correct and I know I believe it...but he could only go so far back.

You explain how we began...Can you? No.

Religion attempts to answer questions we all want to know. Questions that science cannot prove as yet. Which is why the supernatural is believed in by billions of people. And their justification to believe in the supernatural means that their beliefs must be respected.

"maybe because that's not a real question...even though it "sounds" like one."

What? Does that mean anything? That is possibly the stupidest sentance Ive heard by anyone who posesses basic lieracy.

[redstar2000]

In the field of linguistics, Socialsmo, it is possible to distinguish between "real" questions and "questions" which conform to the rules of grammar, but are, in fact, nonsense.

"Why is the sky so humble?"

"Why is the Earth crouching?"

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"*

The problem often comes by attributing qualities to an entity that don't, in fact, exist. The sky does not possess the quality of humility; the earth, being spheroid, cannot "crouch"; there's no such thing as an angel.

The "question" "why are we here?" falls, in my view, into that area of things that look "like" questions but are, in fact, just meaningless noises.

As for the rest of what you had to say, permit me to translate: "If billions of people believe lies are true, then you have to respect that."

Yeah...when "Hell" freezes over.

:cool:

*The answer is one, according to respected "experts" in angelology during the Middle Ages. :cheesy:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:53 pm on Mar. 11, 2003


As for the rest of what you had to say, permit me to translate: "If billions of people believe lies are true, then you have to respect that."

Yeah...when "Hell" freezes over.




How can you say that? Anyone with a half analytical and unbiased mind would not say that. You CANNOT say that. It is wrong. There is no analytical approach to what you have said. It is just wrong. Prove it is "lies". Once you prove it is lies then I will agree with you. The fact is that you cannot prove it to be false. You cannot prove it to be lies. So you therefore can never be right in saying that.

Your ignorance is disgusting. I cann accept people disagreeing with religion. Not believeing in religion. I don't believe in any religion. But to completely rubbish all religious theories is nothing but sheer stupidity and ignorance.

Prove the religious theories to be false, and I will stand corrected. But you cannot. And it is more than likely that nobody ever will. Why? Well, maybe they are true.

[Moskitto]

Religion hasn't "explained" "why" we are here either; they've just made up a bunch of lies

Religion is a theory about why the universe was created (because god wanted it), most philosophers and theologians agree with this viewpoint. Since you have not put forward a better idea about where it came from, they would most likely ignore your viewpoints.

and are, whenever they believe they can get away with it, willing to kill anyone who won't go along with the con.

geee, way to generalise, obviously taoists who follow a religion which hasn't killed anyone are all murderers because christians 500 years ago were. You have some really prejudiced logic.

lets think about it this way, If you want to talk about tolerance, how many of your friends are religious? Since you consider them all to be capable of murder for their beliefs i'd be willing to guess none, How many of my friends are atheists? All of them bar 1. You see unlike you, I do not consider those who disagree with my religious views to be potential murderers, I look beyond that, I look at the people themselves, not their atheistness, and the atheistness of Pol Pot, I look at what they themselves actually do.

you see, hard as it may sound, most everyday religious people are beyond religious hatred, they do not hate those who disgree with them, they understand the daubts to atheists, even sympathise with them, the pope has been in a mosque, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal of Westminister united to oppose the war, Theologians are adjusting their views on everything from homosexuality to creation to take into account modern science and understanding, and they still feel confident with their beliefs in God. Most understand that religion is not about bible thumping.

Have I seen similar from atheists? No, i've seen you deride liberal religious believers as "frauds" or sell outs, you criticise the "salad bar approach to religion" then complain about the bible being contradictory, so making us all hipocrits? what are you trying to do? make the thing you hate so you can hate it even more? I've seen humanists be liberal and just refuse to be concerned about the supernatural, i've seen agnostics acknowledge the truth, that really no one knows. Then I see bloody "militant athiests." What if I were to randomly become a "militant christian" I'm suddenly evil and oppressive against all other religions, but militant atheism, that's just cool, such a free idea.

[Moskitto]

It sets a powerful challenge to science to figure out "why" God intended that women who go unveiled in public should have acid thrown in their face by the pious.

yeah, that's in a book written by people.

Damn, like most atheists, your taking religious works more seriously than fundamentalists.

[Palmares]

Where the hell has this subject gone?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It went into the narrow-minded, ignorant brains of the atheists, got chewed up in their "I wanna be really leftist and radical" minds and came out as you see it now.

[Moskitto]

i daubt anyone will see my post anymore, and i liked writing it.

[Old Friend]

Where is it Moskitto?

[Palmares]

I think the subject should be renamed 'Interpretation of Islam'.

[Moskitto]

bottom of last page.

I basically said that he's accusing religious people of being intolerant when he himself is intolerant, and pointing out that most of my friends are atheists (the opposite) whereas most of his friends are atheists (the same.)

of course, I would love to stay up all night discussing ideas with you, but really, i need to sleep, so goodnight people.

(Edited by Moskitto at 11:31 pm on Mar. 11, 2003)

[Palmares]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:29 am on Mar. 12, 2003
bottom of last page.

I basically said that he's accusing religious people of being intolerant when he himself is intolerant, and pointing out that most of my friends are atheists (the opposite) whereas most of his friends are atheists (the same.)

of course, I would love to stay up all night discussing ideas with you, but really, i need to sleep, so goodnight people.

(Edited by Moskitto at 11:31 pm on Mar. 11, 2003)


Good night comrade!

[redstar2000]

"Religion is a theory about why the universe was created (because god wanted it), most philosophers and theologians agree with this viewpoint."

Historically, most "philosophers and theologians" defended slavery. So I am neither impressed with their approval of anything nor would I be upset if they disagreed with me about anything.

What you're doing here, Moskitto, is called "arguing from authority"...if the famous "authorities" say it's so, therefore it must be so. Horseshit!

And don't you even think of replying that I do the same with Marx...not after I spent 12 pages in a thread repudiating "Marxist dialectics" as Hegelian metaphysical bullshit.

"...obviously taoists who follow a religion that hasn't killed anyone..."

Wrong again, Moskitto! The Taoists were the emperors' favorites between 700CE and 900CE (or thereabouts) and spent most of their time persecuting and killing Buddhists. As the late Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."

"...most everyday religious people are beyond religious hatred..."

Yes, that's true, in the western countries. Is it because the clergy and the theologians have "reformed"? Or is it because what they'd like to do is, at present, a serious violation of criminal law?

If you look at the Islamic countries, you get a much clearer picture of what religion does when it has the power to act without restraint. It is at this precise point that the hypocrisy of Christian and Jewish denunciations of "Islamic barbarism" emerges...the Muslims actually get to do what the Christian and Jewish fundamentalists would like to do if they could.

How do I know this? Because, historically, Christians and Jews did act just as barbaric as the Muslims...when they had the power to get away with it.

But they wouldn't act like that now, you say. It kind of reminds me of people with kids who have a pit bull for a pet..."why he's just as sweet as he can be with the children..." until he decides to eat one.

The fundamentalist agenda in the United States is very clear and open: 1. Abolition of legal abortion; 2. Compulsory prayer in public schools; 3. Censorship of all references to modern biology and cosmology and geology--"creation science" to be the only science; 4. Censorship of all erotically explicit materials; 5. Abolition of all forms of birth control; 6. Criminalization of homosexuality; 7. A constitutional amendment that explicitly declares the United States to be "a Christian nation"; and so on, and so on, and so on...until, one day, they burn a witch on the Capitol Mall. And they're winning.

Something to really look forward to, eh, Moskitto. :o

Yes, I think "liberal Christians" are hypocrits...they pretend an attitude of tolerance and modernity and a willingness to come to terms with science. That's because they see religion as losing the battle and are trying to salvage whatever they can. But suppose they are wrong and the fundamentalists are right? Suppose a new dark age is actually achievable? After all, in the midst of modern developed capitalism, the Nazis certainly created a credible replica of the dark ages (and capitalism flourished throughout the Reich).

I think every one of these "liberal Christians" will scurry back to fundamentalism at the drop of a crucifix...like rats returning to a re-floated vessel.

Am I "narrow-minded" or "intolerant"? You bet your "Bible" I am! 6,000 years of bloody irrational tyranny is enough!

Socialsmo keeps saying that "I CANNOT SAY THAT" in the face of evidence that I have said it and will continue to say it. But evidence means nothing to him; he'd prefer to rant at my " disgusting ignorance" and "sheer stupidity".

There are times when it is appropriate to take pride in the qualities of one's enemies.

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:01 pm on Mar. 11, 2003)

[Umoja]

Your expecting religious people to be the pillars of society then? Ofcourse they'd defend slavery, is was the common institution at the time. Jefferson wasn't overly religious and he owned slaves. Your expecting people in the past, by virtue of following religion to have the most supreme values above all other humans. We are talking about organizations that have generally been more monolithic and powerful then most states. I could almost guarentee a state would do the same thing if it had comparable powers.

So, I'm confused on how, religion is bad, because it followed the trends of the time.

[Moskitto]

Am I "narrow-minded" or "intolerant"? You bet your "Bible" I am!

Congratulations!!!! you've given me a reason to disregard everything you say from now on and persuade everyone else to do the same.

The fundamentalist agenda

Yeah, the fundamentalist agenda, that was my point.

Something to really look forward to, eh, Moskitto.

yeah, i'm really looking forward to that since I DON'T pray in school, I've made numerous posts saying I study biology, I've made numerous posts advocating condom use and wrote an essay Defending contraceptive pill and morning after pill use, I've had my head smashed into a door frame for Defending Gay Rights, but obviously i'm a fundamentalist.

You generalising people is becoming more and more stupid every day.

[Alpha66]

I'd like to say that Redstar2000 has got it straight, while a communist fuckwit he understands religion far greater than anyone else here.

Religion is all evil, people who go to churches and mosques and other holy places should be shot, the only good religious person is a dead religious person, Moskitto, I seriously daubt the existance of a religious person who is also a professor, the average IQ of a religious person is 15 points lower than that of a non-religious person, so get that straight.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Moskitto...you're only just beginning to disregard his opinions?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Alpha66 on 5:12 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
I'd like to say that Redstar2000 has got it straight, while a communist fuckwit he understands religion far greater than anyone else here.

Religion is all evil, people who go to churches and mosques and other holy places should be shot, the only good religious person is a dead religious person, Moskitto, I seriously daubt the existance of a religious person who is also a professor, the average IQ of a religious person is 15 points lower than that of a non-religious person, so get that straight.


That is the most intolerant, ignorant, narrow-mindedand rude thing anyone has said on this post.

I would say I think youu should be shot, but a bullet is too good for you. Each individual part of your body deserves to burn one by one. You are one of few who deserve to suffer for sheer immorality.

[Moskitto]

In heinsiet, being as he thinks global warming is a good thing and that smoking is healthy, I daubt he lacks much understanding of the basic concepts of the way things work, so, i don't see why it's worth talking to him, he is quite possibly the most arrogant person on the internet.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Alpha66 on 5:12 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
I'd like to say that Redstar2000 has got it straight, while a communist fuckwit he understands religion far greater than anyone else here.

Religion is all evil, people who go to churches and mosques and other holy places should be shot, the only good religious person is a dead religious person, Moskitto, I seriously daubt the existance of a religious person who is also a professor, the average IQ of a religious person is 15 points lower than that of a non-religious person, so get that straight.


MODS please!!!!

Remove this filth

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Alpha66 on 5:12 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
I'd like to say that Redstar2000 has got it straight, while a communist fuckwit he understands religion far greater than anyone else here.

Religion is all evil, people who go to churches and mosques and other holy places should be shot, the only good religious person is a dead religious person, Moskitto, I seriously daubt the existance of a religious person who is also a professor, the average IQ of a religious person is 15 points lower than that of a non-religious person, so get that straight.


MODS please!!!!

Remove this filth

[deadpool 52]

Once again we can see how the atheist community is over-generalizing all those who follow religion.

Toasim is a religion. Please.

Islam's concern is for the general welfare of humanity.

[Alpha66]

yes AK47, delete it if you want, doesn't change the fact that it's true that religious people should be shot.

[Alpha66]

yes AK47, delete it if you want, doesn't change the fact that it's true that religious people should be shot.

[Umoja]

Religion proves that large organizations can be easily corrupted, which makes me worried about one world government as a viable idea. Religions have always been bigger then states, and have always lost power due to human control, weakness or corruption.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, since Socialsmo o Muerte and Moskitto are rolling around on the floor in a fit of hysteria, I'll try and answer your questions.

The religious do constantly portray themselves as the "conscience" of society, the upholders of "right" against "wrong", etc.

Yet both historically and at the present moment, they are everywhere to be found on the side of...tyrants. The Pope says the forthcoming war is a bad thing...what do you think the Catholic chaplains are telling American and British troops at this very moment?

When the war starts, what sermons will be heard and what will they say? Here's one you won't hear:

Almighty God, we pray that the mindless killers of the Iraqi People will suffer your Holy Wrath; rain down your Holy Fire on the Americans and the British and the Turks and the Australians and let them scream in agony in this life and hereafter; above all, let those who mobilized these killers and those who blessed them in Thy Holy Name be confounded and destroyed as the Satanic Agents they are...this we ask of you, oh Lord, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen.

In other words, Umoja, they never live up to their own advertising. When they have power, they act like tyrants; when they don't have as much power as they'd like, they suck up to tyrants in the hopes that some of that arbitrary power will "rub off" on them.

Of course, the same things could sometimes be said of communists...except we don't proclaim divine sanction for our fuckups. No communist could "excuse" an alliance with tyranny or acts of tyranny with a bunch of yap about "divine will". In such an event, other communists would "roast" the bastard and rightly so.

The real secret of "God's Will" is very simple if somewhat less than moral: always make sure your church is on the winning side. Even if you make a mistake, you can always switch...no one expects principled behavior from the clergy.

On a side issue, Umoja, you raised the question of evaluating historical figures: should we evaluate them by contemporary standards or by the standards of their time? I think the answer is both. Comparing them to other figures of their times gives us an idea of what it was possible for people to do back then; but the most "objective" standard we have is the most recent one...and we would be remiss not to use it.

An interesting example is that of John Brown. By the standards of today he was a religious fundamentalist...and I would argue that it was his fundamentalism that doomed his rebellion against slavery. By the religious standards of his own time, he was a GIANT...who showed that "being white" didn't have to mean "being racist"...no matter what the "Bible" said.

Just to show I haven't forgotten the title of this thread, take a look at

http://www.geocities.com/icgcikg/communism...sm/c11_iraq.htm (http://www.geocities.com/icgcikg/communism/c11_iraq.htm)

and note particularly the comments on the counter-revolutionary role of the Islamists in the class struggle in Iraq.

The appropriately self-named "Alpha66" (Cuban "worm" group based in Miami) wishes to "shoot all believers". With an attitude like that, he'd make a terrific "prophet". But before I am tarred with that particular brush, allow me to say that I am not in favor of shooting believers.

I am in favor of the complete removal of religion from public life; what people do behind closed doors, quietly, is of no interest to me.

deadpool 52, if "Islam's concern is for the general welfare of humanity", please explain how throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women contributes to "the general welfare".

"[Redstar2000] is quite possibly the most arrogant person on the internet."--Moskitto

Praise from Caesar is praise indeed! :cheesy:

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:13 pm on Mar. 12, 2003


deadpool 52, if "Islam's concern is for the general welfare of humanity", please explain how throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women contributes to "the general welfare".


You really do love that one example don't you.

[Palmares]

Just wondering, but what religious texts have people read to justify their opinions?

I have read the bible, the Qur'an, and the Tao Te Ching.

BTW, I'm atheist.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

My argument exactly! I read the Qu'ran (the original arabic text...no inaccurate translations) as well as the Bible, the Torah and bits of the Bhagwandgita. But the atheists who have read none of them rant and rave like they know it all

[Moskitto]

You really do love that one example don't you.


I think he's probably confusing arabic culture where that type of thing is the general norm whether their muslims or non-muslims, and Islam which arabic culture has added so much fundamentalist dogma to, such as no alcohol.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:36 am on Mar. 13, 2003
My argument exactly! I read the Qu'ran (the original arabic text...no inaccurate translations) as well as the Bible, the Torah and bits of the Bhagwandgita. But the atheists who have read none of them rant and rave like they know it all


I've read a bit of the Torah, but unfortunately I do not know Arabic.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Reading the Holy Qu'ran is Arabic is one of life's great pleasures.

It is the longest, most beautiful poem in the world. Whether it is fact or not, I do not care. It is (only one word for it) beautiful.

[Moskitto]

I found a copy of the Qu'ran on our bookshelf (English), I think I might read it sometime, but unfortunately, I can't read Arabic, although it is something that vaguely interests me.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:52 am on Mar. 13, 2003
Reading the Holy Qu'ran is Arabic is one of life's great pleasures.

It is the longest, most beautiful poem in the world. Whether it is fact or not, I do not care. It is (only one word for it) beautiful.


Is Arabic hard???

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I'm led to believe that learning it as an English speaker is "impossible".

It is very complex. Very very complex. Not for me bcause I have know it all my life. But i can see the enormous difference to English. Of course, it is done though. Just takes patience. I'm guessing it would be lots and lots of patience though. But, along with Sanskrit, you'd be learning the most beautiful language ever spoken amongst men.

[Palmares]

Which kind of Arabic do you know? The upper-class type/lower-class type? Or the ancient type? Or Modern type?

I apologise, I know not the difference.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

To be honest, the only difference exists between the ancient and so-called modern types, and that is miniscule. They say there is a class difference, but it is all in the way it is spoken. Just like English. The working class have different speech than those in aristocracy. You see?

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:20 am on Mar. 13, 2003
To be honest, the only difference exists between the ancient and so-called modern types, and that is miniscule. They say there is a class difference, but it is all in the way it is spoken. Just like English. The working class have different speech than those in aristocracy. You see?



Thank you. I just have heard all this crap about how modern Arabic speaking wouldn't be able to understnd Muhammed.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

He just spoke in great eloquence.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:28 am on Mar. 13, 2003
He just spoke in great eloquence.

I do not doubt it.

[Umoja]

La Atakalam :arabi (or is it :arabiiyah) bi-Tallaq.

I've read the Bible (not all of it), Some Surahs of the Qu'ran, a little Buddhist writtings, and numerous Baha'i writtings, my quote is from one, but since they have so many books in Baha'i I've only skimmed most.

[redstar2000]

"you really do love that one example, don't you."

Well, Socialsmo, it's the "poetry" of it all, the "beautiful language" of splashing acid, the sizzling noise of dissolving flesh, and the scream of the "shameless slut" who dares to go unveiled in public.

Surely a soul as "poetic" as yours can appreciate such a morally-uplifting spectacle, can it not?

Tell me, does she scream in "upper-class" Arabic or "lower-class" Arabic? What do you think? :o

Cthenthar, I have read a fair number of the volumes of the "Anchor Bible"...probably the most accessible scholarly translation. Mostly, however, I draw my knowledge from the modern tradition of Biblical scholarship. For sheer enjoyment, I recommend the two-volume edition of Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

I believe very little has yet been written in terms of scholarly investigations into the Koran...though the author(s) clearly borrowed heavily from Jewish and Christian traditions...as well as Arabian polytheistic traditions. The reason the Koran is "poetic" is known, of course; poetry, mainly war poetry, was the only literary form known to the Arabs at that point in time...much like the Greeks in the age that produced Homer.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:28 am on Mar. 13, 2003
"you really do love that one example, don't you."

Well, Socialsmo, it's the "poetry" of it all, the "beautiful language" of splashing acid, the sizzling noise of dissolving flesh, and the scream of the "shameless slut" who dares to go unveiled in public.

Surely a soul as "poetic" as yours can appreciate such a morally-uplifting spectacle, can it not?

Tell me, does she scream in "upper-class" Arabic or "lower-class" Arabic? What do you think? :o



Each time you use that example of Bangladesh you sound even more stupid. You have one example of an incident which was brought about due to REGIONAL culture and REGIONAL law...not ISLAMIC culture or ISLAMIC law. Your use of that example is so pathetic and pointless as I can safely say that nobody is insupportof that kind of punishment. And the Muslims on this forum won't be in support of it because it is not in their teachings.

I encourage you not to use that example again, because it really isn't helping your cause.

Oh andto answer your question, in the region of Bangladesh where that tookplace, Arabic is not spoken. So she wouldn't have screamed in either of your suggestions.

[peaccenicked]

I am no expert on Islam, the little I do know is from Sufi literature, I found much of it Hegelian in its idealistic content. I use the term idealistic in its philosophical sense. There is much beauty in the parables, poetry, and allegories of sufism.
Like all religion Islam contains much wisdom, like all religion it contains brain clogging dogma. I am quite eclectic over spiritual matters. I take the best and leave the rest.
I believe fundamentally that religion is the opium of the people. Someday I hope religion will be the stuff of museums, full of beautiful things, things worth preserving, but because of its dangers, kept in the museum as a contradictory force in human history.
Something both to learn and 'unlearn' from.

[Umoja]

Oh, and SoM, and anyone curious about being an English speaker and learning Arabic. I'm teaching myself literary Arabic (I can hardly speak it), and it's not overly difficult. Besides the fact that there isn't a word for "to be" in the present-tense, it's not overly complicated. The vocabulary (jamal means camel but jamaal means loveliness), and actual writting system are the real barriers.

[deadpool 52]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:56 am on Mar. 12, 2003

"...obviously taoists who follow a religion that hasn't killed anyone..."

Wrong again, Moskitto! The Taoists were the emperors' favorites between 700CE and 900CE (or thereabouts) and spent most of their time persecuting and killing Buddhists.


Now you are talking about the Neo-Confucianists, who also persecuted the Taoists.

Whatever type of dogma the people believe in, there will always be the misuse of it; whether people say "divine influence" or "Trotsky treachery" is irrelevant.

[Moskitto]

deadpool's actually right because that's what my friend who does chinese history told me, but i didn't bother answering because he's not going to respond with anything except "neo-puritan."

[redstar2000]

Gay men imprisoned in Eqypt for violating "morality laws".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2852927.stm

:cool:

[Moskitto]

3 years is nothing, while gay people shouldn't be locked up, other countries are much worse.

Carribean British dependancies were only allowed to regain British citizenship for their inhabitants if they withdrew their laws regarding homosexuality, homosexuality was an capital crime until then like it was previously in Britain.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:30 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
Gay men imprisoned in Eqypt for violating "morality laws".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2852927.stm

:cool:


It wasnt untill recently that gays were legal in Britain and most western countries. That means absolutly nothing.

There's no point. You're not going to find anythign other than your Bangladesh example. And that wasn't even valid because it isn't the Islamic culture, but the regional culture which allows that.

[redstar2000]

"3 years is nothing..."

I suppose it is, Moskitto, as long as it's not you. Persecution of others in the name of "morality" is ok as long as they don't come for you, right? :o

Now, Socialsmo, you say, correctly, that homosexuality only recently became legal in western countries (actually, in parts of the United States it is still illegal).

Why hasn't it always been legal in Islamic countries? To hear you guys tell it, Islam is always concerned for humanity. How is it humane to put people in prison for their sexuality?

You are in deep shit, Socialsmo. As long as there is daily news from Islamic countries, I am going to pound you with one example after another of the fact that Islam is equally as fucked up as any other religion.

That's a promise!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:44 pm on Mar. 15, 2003)

[Umoja]

RS, I think SoM was arguing the original fact that Islam isn't inferior to any other religion. I don't think he's arguign that it's the religion of the only Truth, and all that other stuff. Allah-Akbar, yada, yada.

[redstar2000]

Islamic Law imprisons women in Afghanistan...still.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/weekinre...WALD.html?8hpib (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/weekinreview/16WALD.html?8hpib)

:cool:

[Umoja]

What the Hell is your smiley face always smoking? It better be a Black and Mild, or I'll sneak you.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I seem to remember, redstar, in a previous thread when I put a point across you dismissed it sarcastically as being from the New York Times. Suggesting, rightly, that the New York Times is full of propaganda. Unfrotunately, I do not read the New York Times, so my point wasn't taken from it.

And here you are in this thread putting your narrow-minded points across against religion and Islam. And, being the quality analyser that you are, you provide us with a source to back up your arguments.

But wait...let's check the provenance of your source....It's...yes...the New York Times. Oh the irony.

I'm not going to bother checking that article, and my reasons are threefold;

1) You know, just as well as we all do, that Afghanistan is a fucked up place. With or without the Taliban that region is riddled with extremism and fanaticism. The New York Times claims it will be Islamic law but....

2)...regional law. The same point I stressed to you with your previous baby, the Bangladesh incident.

3) I take much more pleasure out of proving your stupidity and how much of a hypocrit you are. It satisfies me way more than proving your ignorant opinions on Islam and all the other faiths wrong.

And umoja was right. I am not defending only Islam. Neither do I claim that Islam is the Truth and perfect. I am just sayingyou should be more tolerant and less ignorant.

[redstar2000]

Socialsmo, I don't care if you refuse to even look at the evidence.

In the time of Galileo, pious Catholics refused to even look through his telescope, lest their faith be tested.

Others will look, and read, and understand what pious frauds you all are...and how atrociously you behave when you get the chance.

I've learned, by the way, that the Quran is on the internet in English. I'm thinking about a new thread..."Redstar Reads the Quran"...and has a great time demolishing the nonsense therein.

I've already learned, for example, that wives in "Paradise" do not urinate, defecate, or menstruate. The law of conservation of matter and energy must operate in a very different way "up there".

:cool:

PS: I don't recall, Socialsmo, the thread to which you refer regarding the reliability of the New York Times. The bourgeois media, in general, are not very reliable with regard to matters that directly conflict with capitalist class interests. However, I don't think Islam or any religion actually does that...and therefore, unless the account is simply wildly implausible, the bourgeois media reports religious matters with a "friendly" bias. It's true enough that the bias is undoubtedly "friendlier" towards Judeo-Christian traditions than towards Islam...but, on the whole, I think they'd rather make religion look "good" than "bad". The evidence for this is when they do report something negative about any religion, they try to make it sound like these bad deeds were the work of a minority and don't really represent the beliefs of the majority of a given religion. But I know better than that even if you don't.

[Umoja]

I'd advise you read at least two English translations of the Qu'ran if your gonna report to us your views of it. I can get you another online copy if you need it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Have you not been hearing what people have said?

You cannot read the Qu'ran and get it's true essence if it is in English. Translations are inaccurate. It is nigh on impossible to translate the whole Book into english from arabic.

Read it though. And no doubt you will pick out things like how Allah will bring all non-believers to their judgement days etc. In English, that sounds bad. But the way it is written in Arabic, you know that it means you do not judge anyone on earth, for God will one day do that when the time comes.

No doubt you will read it though. And decode evil throughout. See if the believers really care what ignorant idiots like you think.

[deadpool 52]

Seems like you do, Socialsmo.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I'm not a "believer" as such.

I just hate intolerance and people not accepting other cultures.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I want to learn Arabic almost solely to be able to understand the Quran in it's original form. So I would want to learn classical Arabic, which is not spoken much today.

In it's original language, it is arguably the most amazing book ever written, many non-muslim scholars of mid-eastern writing consider it the finest work ever put to paper, more like poetry than a narrative.

This in contrast to the bible which was thrown together from several different sources and contained spelling and grammatical errors for centuries.

--- G.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It is poetry. You can see that even in English. It is the world's longest, greatest most beautiful poem ever.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Indeed :)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Just remembered this thread.


Seems as though those intolerant fucks....cough couredstargh cough cough.....have given up then Dhul!

[Pete]

The first post on this thread is laughable. Does the Koran not say something like "Do not strike out against those who do not strike against you" or something to that affect in the Second umm chapter?

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'm not sure how productive it would be to re-cover all the territory this old and very large thread covered...

The original post was offensive and ridiculous, I disagreed with a great deal of what redstar2000 had to say (unusually, I might add, as we have relatively similar views on many things). I for one will still sleep soundly with the Quran on my night table, and I'm sure the anti-Islamists and others here will continue to feel the same way about religion in general and Islam in particular.

Live and let live, I get a lot of fulfillment from the Quran, if other's don't that's not really a problem for me :)

--- G.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Indeed.

And, just to clarify, CrazyPete, the Qu'ran does teach that. It does teach only to act in self-defence. As we know, the language used int he Holy Qu'ran is sometimes so eleoquent that it takes time to understand properly. So I will leave you with a few words from a Muslim orator who made things sound simpler for the Average Joe like you and I; Hajj Malik Al-Shabazz(Malcolm X),

" It teaches you to respect everybody, and treat everybody right. But it also teaches you if someone steps on your toe, chop off their foot. And I carry my religious axe with me all the time."

"There is nothing in our book, the Qur'an, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone lays a hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

And I, for one, can say I definately subscribe to that.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 9:59 pm on June 1, 2003)


(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 10:13 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 7:51 pm on June 1, 2003


I for one will still sleep soundly with the Quran on my night table, and I'm sure the anti-Islamists and others here will continue to feel the same way about religion in general and Islam in particular.

Live and let live, I get a lot of fulfillment from the Quran, if other's don't that's not really a problem for me :)

--- G.


Good for you Dhul, I hope that you get a lot of benefit out of the Quran. If people dont like you being religious then you have the knowladge that they like all of us athiests will burn in hell. :)

PS Purly out of interest what are your opinions on Jahad?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The true meaning of Jihad?

Or the fabricated media form of it that you all believe?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 10:32 pm on June 1, 2003
The true meaning of Jihad?

Or the fabricated media form of it that you all believe?


Either, both, I am attempting to learn.

I was actually after an opinion, however I am deaply intriged by "the true meaning of Jihad". I wish to learn more.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Real Jihad....

Do you believe in defending yourself when attacked? That is all Jihad is. When you or your faith (Islam) are attacked, you are permitted by Allah to strike back. Not neccessarily in a violent way.

My opinion on it? It's just basic intelligence. Self-defence.

The media version of it? Well, the media version is that whenever a Muslim is guilty of some form of destruction, this is Jihad in practice. So that is false.

[Pete]

Here is that passage I was talking about.

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. 2:190

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

That is Jihad in 2 lines.

[redstar2000]

Back from the dead, eh? :biggrin:

Ok, let's start with this little gem...

You cannot read the Qu'ran and get it's true essence if it is in English. Translations are inaccurate. It is nigh on impossible to translate the whole Book into english from arabic.

That's an unusually convenient excuse, it is not? If someone quotes from an English "translation" and it makes Islam "look bad", you can always fall back on the "bad translation" excuse, secure in the nearly certain knowledge that few westerners are fluent in Arabic and can return your challenge with dividends.

No doubt "perfect translations" are inherently impossible...there are nuances and cultural assumptions built into every language that are extremely difficult to convey in another language.

But a clear and specific statement in one language can normally be at least approximated in any language, provided only that there are equivalent words in the respective languages' vocabularies.

If the Koran asserts that unbelievers will burn in "Hell", there is no way that the "original Arabic" suggested merely a somewhat reduced status in "Paradise".
"Mistranslations" of that magnitude are impossible in the modern world of scholarship.

In its original language, it is arguably the most amazing book ever written, many non-muslim scholars of mid-eastern writing consider it the finest work ever put to paper, more like poetry than a narrative.

This in contrast to the bible which was thrown together from several different sources and contained spelling and grammatical errors for centuries.

Not being a trained scholar, I am, of course, at a severe disadvantage in discussing such an assertion.

But consider Sura 4: Women. Verses 4:1 to 4:44 do indeed discuss, in general at least, Islamic views of women. The sura then breaks off into a polemic against the Jews and goes on to ramble about all over the place before finally returning to the subject of women again (128-131) and then takes off once more for the remainder of the book.

If we were discussing a book in the "old" or "new" "testament", this would be interpreted as being written by not less than two different people (or one person at different times, if the style matches) and "copied & pasted" together at some later time.

If the Koran appears to "hang together" better than the Torah or the New Testament, perhaps this is due to the fact that the Koran was assembled over a much shorter period of time. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts also "hang together" very well, because they were all written and assembled probably within the same century...and I suggest the same might well be the case with the Koran.

To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the muslim world of the German "higher criticism" of the Bible. Until modern scholarship is brought to bear on the matter, this is the best a mere amateur can do.

Now here is one to ponder...

[4:32] You shall not covet the qualities bestowed upon each other by GOD; the men enjoy certain qualities, and the women enjoy certain qualities.

What do you suppose that might mean? :biggrin:

:cool:

[Umoja]

I've always thought Jihad meant "Struggle". Like if you were pushing a boulder up a hill, that'd be a Jihad.