# Interesting piece about long history of Islam-related terror violence



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2015)

After reading quite a few apologists who are talking about what caused the shootings in France, as well as all kinds of other killings, I thought the following was interesting, in that it gathers all kinds of similar incidents with the same motivations.

The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders - The New Yorker



> They are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It&#8217;s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention.


It's pretty brutal to see all those murders motivated by Islam gathered in one place, isn't it? 

On 21 February 1989, Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens, writer/singer of the song "Peace Train") told students at Kingston University about his conversion to Islam, and said this about Salman Rushdie:



> He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear &#8211; if someone defames the prophet, then he must die.


Yusuf Islam didn't go the apologetics route. He knew what his text said, just as the religious terror killers in France did. 

Before anyone makes the mistake, religion is not race. I'm not talking about race, but instead about one faith which has been behind religious terrorism for a long time. 

If you want to argue that Cat Stevens was wrong about what his book states... be sure that the book doesn't actually support his statement. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

Oh no! I found fault with a tradition (sharia) which some Muslim communities have adopted! I've committed blasphemy by pointing out how many Islamic acts of violent terrorism have been committed, supported by Islam! Apparently, I'm Charlie too.

Have you done anything which religious extremists would consider worthy of the death penalty? 

(Remember, if you support same sex marriage, Mormon Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game, is all for taking up arms against you. There's all kinds of violent religious extremists out there!)


----------



## vilk (Jan 9, 2015)

I, too, think it's obvious that Islam is a religion more inclined toward violence. And a lot of people's counterpoint to this is that there is violence in Christianity as well (no doubt, there is). But the whole deal with Christianity is that Jesus came along and everything he said overrides any of those old laws--makes sense, he is God after all (in that religion). And Jesus never told anyone to hurt anyone. People freaked that chill ass dudeman would even throw a table. He was also down with treating women kindly--even whores. I don't believe Jesus ever existed, but I like him as a character. Jesus talked a lot about how being right with our fellow man is equal to being right with God. Jesus' famous miracles are feeding people and curing diseases. And coming back to life after a brutal death on our behalf.


But Mohammed is all about maintaining rules with violent force, subjugating women, and doing any and everything to bring oneself closer to God, regardless of how it affects fellow men. Mohammed is only a role model because he is decidedly "God's prophet". Mohammed's famous miracles are splitting the moon, moving a mountain, and jumping into heaven. 

----


People also try to say that religions are all equal in availing themselves to violence. That people are violent, and they use the religion, rather than being inspired to violence by the religion. While certainly that's true to some extent, I don't think I can buy into it completely.. When I was in university/living in Japan I had the opportunity to study a lot of Asian varieties of Buddhism. Yes, there is a small number of historical accounts of Buddhism being twisted to wage wars or discriminate (usually nobles against commons), but like it's not even remotely comparable numbers-wise to the amount of violence and discrimination in the name of Western religions. There was even a stretch of Japanese history where people weren't to dig the ground with shovels for fear of accidentally killing insects.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

I don't know a single Muslim who would want a blasphemer against Muhammad to be killed, and I know a lot of Muslims. How many do you know, and how do they feel about this topic?

How many Jews do you know who support stoning/burning/strangulation of apostates and blasphemers?

How many Christians do you know who support the kind of killing that occurred during the Spanish inquisition?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

And to answer your question, extremist fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and Jews would all be likely to slaughter me given the chance.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 9, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I don't know a single Muslim who would want a blasphemer against Muhammad to be killed, and I know a lot of Muslims. How many do you know, and how do they feel about this topic?
> 
> And to answer your question, extremist fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and Jews would all be likely to slaughter me given the chance



Ok so what are you trying to say exactly? Because the way I'm reading it is "I know a lot of Muslims and none have tried to kill me...and if my friends were fundamentalist of any kind they'd definitely kill me."

I men regardless of how many "peaceful" Muslims you know it doesn't negate the fact that there are Muslims who would kill a blasphemer against Muhammad? 
And I put peaceful in quotations because how many Muslims do you know that are against homosexuality? Or woman's rights? Or any other thing on the long list of what Islam/theism is against.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 9, 2015)

I Couldn't agree more with you guys...(explorer,vilk)



Explorer said:


> Have you done anything which religious extremists would consider worthy of the death penalty?




Regarding this point I was wondering if you guys have talked to anyone yet trying to state that since these shooters in France shot that cop (whose name was Ahmed I believe) that it couldn't of had any "real" religious motivation because they assume Ahmed is a Muslim. 

I thought this was ridiculous and wanted to strangle the guy who said it to me because they way I see it couldn't they of justified his death by thinking since he's a cop protecting infidels and apostates he deserves to die? 

The other thing that bothered me is how I've (so far) found no information stating that Ahmed actually is a Muslim? So I just kind of feel like I hear a lot of atheist coming out against Islam (the religion, not people) and we get labeled racist when we never insinuate we dislike the people or even think all Muslims are brown/dark skinned people? But when some extremist shoot a guy named Ahmed OF COURSE he's Muslim?! His name is Ahmed, so this can't be religiously motivated because why would a Muslim kill a Muslim in the name of Allah? (As if that's not racist to claim Ahmed without knowing all the information first, what if Ahmed was an atheist? Or an converted Christian? Now is it religiously motivated?)

Of course if he's Muslim or not is pointless as they could of found many justifications for killing him regardless of his or their creed.


Also first I wanna say I don't believe Muslims should apologize or feel they are responsible for these types of attacks the same I don't feel directly responsible for American wars I don't agree with, I mean I think apologizing is the completely wrong reaction and obviously not needed since they're not the ones attacking people...but the difference is when I disagree with something here I try to change it using what ever means are available and it seems like the moderate Muslim community's reaction to the problem of fundamental terrorism is "we dont have to say sorry for this because we had nothing to do with it, these people aren't real Muslims, you've all got the book twisted, this isn't religiously motivated"

No Muslims that I've either talked to personally or online have mentioned any ideas on how to change this region of the world or what to do about fundamentalism in their religion...

I'd be happier if they're reaction was to actually have a plan on how to change things in these countries like the education systems to start with to maybe quell this extremism, their justice systems and I'll be honest I don't know everything about the middle eastern governments but it seems like whenever the people do have a chance to start a new system or maybe even a true secular system they just make the same mistakes and setup (at best) a pseudo democracy/theocracy.

I think what I want Moderate Muslims to understand more than anything is...

Do you want to stop being compared to insane fanatics and being profiled constantly because you share a religion? then stop apologizing for it, stop calling Islam criticizers racist, who don't dislike you but simply disagree with your theology and start using your vast numbers (what is it like 3 Billion Muslims in the world, right?) to make the entire Middle East moderate through education, equality and secular laws...because idk if you've noticed but most moderate Muslims live in places where those things are normal to have.

It makes me sad when I'm called a racist for simply disliking the ideas in the Koran because I love many parts of the middle east including it's scientific history which is really what I'd like to see it go back too and I'd challenge any moderate to say they wouldn't rather see the Middle East be a more scientifically literate region where everybody goes to school and gets to eat, people actually make discoveries there and win Nobel prizes....if that's racist then sign me up as grand wizard or dragon...or whatever those kkk idiots call themselves?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

The Shit Wolf said:


> Ok so what are you trying to say exactly? Because the way I'm reading it is "I know a lot of Muslims and none have tried to kill me...and if my friends were fundamentalist of any kind they'd definitely kill me."
> 
> I men regardless of how many "peaceful" Muslims you know it doesn't negate the fact that there are Muslims who would kill a blasphemer against Muhammad?
> And I put peaceful in quotations because how many Muslims do you know that are against homosexuality? Or woman's rights? Or any other thing on the long list of what Islam/theism is against.



It's really simple... I don't know what's confusing you.

I'm not saying I assume that nobody wants to kill me because nobody has killed me yet. Way to complicate things!

Here we go:

I KNOW that not a single one of the Muslim people I personally know believes in capital punishment for apostasy, blasphemy, or since you added it to the discussion, homosexuality. Not only have they not killed me, they've never killed anybody, and have never called for anybody to be killed. I don't have to assume... it's just kind of a default in normal society.

Do you personally know many Muslims, and if so, do any of them believe in capital punishment for the offenses I mentioned? 

I'm not saying that they're not out there. But bringing the parallels to Christianity and Judaism should put it into context. All of the Abrahamic religions have some scriptures/teachings that advocate barbaric killing for relatively minor offenses that don't hurt anybody, but go against the teachings of the religion, but in modern time most adherents of these religions don't believe in such punishments.

The kind of people who do still have such kind of beliefs tend to be poor, ignorant backwoods type of people. I don't know any Muslims like that because I don't know those types of people. Just like I don't know any extremist pro-lifers or any ultra orthodox Jews who beat women for wearing short skirts.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2015)

I think it's an interesting idea, that if you don't know a killer and that killer's sympathizers first hand, you can't claim to have knowledge of that killer and the sympathizers. 

i don't remember anyone coming up with that spirited defense during the recent "Charles Manson engaged!" topics, nor the topics about Orson Scott Card talking about taking up arms if same sex marriage was legalized, or about the Ugandan "Kill the Gays!" law which US Christian evangelicals helped craft and steer. 

I do know people who have killed others. 

One of the earliest people I know who committed premeditated murder got 6 months. That's it. His sister had suspicions that her new boyfriend had messed with her young child. My friend had told the new boyfriend that if he tried anything like that again, my friend would kill him. Boyfriend did, so my friend did the crime and turned himself in. The jury refused imposing a long sentence, and my friend was treated like a king in prison by the other prisoners for getting rid of a child molester.

However, I don't hang out with people who threaten to kill others, or who condone it, based on religious faith. 

That said... *I'm going to take such killers and sympathizers at their word. *

*If someone says they're down with murder, and offers a religious reason, I'm going to believe them.*



Overtone said:


> How many Christians do you know who support the kind of killing that occurred during the Spanish inquisition?



Well, I already started topics about Lively (one of the fathers of 'Kill the Gays!" law in Uganda) supporting that kind of killing, as demonstrated by his putting that kind of killing into law.

You have all the American Christians who justified killings of abortion doctors.

There's Orson Scott Card, who felt (based on his religion) that those who helped pass laws allowing same sex marriage should be the objects of armed violence.

Sarah Palin has told enthusiastic crowds of her supporters that waterboarding of suspected Muslim terrorists is okay, and that she calls it "baptism," a Christian religious sacrament.

You've obviously missed them, but I've started topics on each and every one of those subjects. 

*My suspicion is that you asked if we were aware of that Christian bloodthirst in order to state that if Christians wouldn't be capable of bloodthirst, then Muslims wouldn't be either. 

If that's the case... failage.*



Overtone said:


> I don't know a single Muslim who would want a blasphemer against Muhammad to be killed, and I know a lot of Muslims. How many do you know, and how do they feel about this topic?



*Are you we should ignore all those Muslims who have publicly declared that they want blasphemers against the "sacred cows" of Islam killed? If so, is it because that's the only way to make your argument work?

Because that's the only way to eliminate the huge and public pile of evidence against your argument. *

The huge paragraph I quoted in my first post had all kinds of Islam-justified blasphemy killings, in addition to other killings justified by Islam. The fatwa against Rushdie and his translators came from Islamic scholars who probably know Islam better than the average person. Why should we ignore them?

And if the former Cat Stevens can't argue against death against blasphemers, and has said so publicly, why should we assume that you're right in labeling him a liar?

You're arguing against a mountain of publicly available evidence. I don't think you have the counterevidence to show how it all should be discarded. I don't even think there is a counter to the Pew poll about this stuff. 

If only there was evidence rather than just emotion (It can't be true!) on the denial side. 

Unfortunately, there is too much on the other side, including the intentional stance on the part of the main holy book, to argue against. 

*Just in pointing out these flaws, I've blasphemed against Islam. I'm eligible to be put to death by the rules of Islam. You can say that people should abandon that medieval aspect of the actual religion, but you can't argue that the religion doesn't call for my death, just as it called for the death of Rushdie and Charlie.*


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

Let's put it this way... how many Orson Scott Card's do you know in real life?

If your point is that all 3 religions have some barbaric passages/beliefs, and that there are certain followers of those religions who STILL in this day and age believe in those things, then we are in agreement and I don't even see what we're arguing about. If your point is that Islam is by definition violent, then my rebuttal is that just like most Christians selectively filter out antiquated/violent ideas from the Bible, most Muslims do not believe in the kind of violence that the extremists do. I think that it's not appropriate to focus only on a religion and to ignore what the situation of its believers is. The situation of Christian believers in Uganda is SNAFU. The situation of Muslim believers in Yemen is SNAFU. There are more violent and less violent periods of history. There are times of conflict and times of no conflict. Then there's the state of education, social norms, etc. etc. etc.. It all comes together. So I'm against statements that ignore context.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

I'm out of this one. It's a waste of time talking to some of you guys and I'll be adjusting to that accordingly.


----------



## The Q (Jan 9, 2015)

I had quite an argument the other day in regards to religion and Islam per se and I had a hard time convincing two different groups of people that:
1) I dislike all religions the same, yet,
2) Some religions are inherently more violent than others or in other words, not all religions exhibit the same traits.

What's funny is that the first group was an atheist one that wanted to hate all religions equally, dismissing my arguments with idiotic comparisons like with the Inquisition, which, while valid on a historical context, it bears no merit mentioning it today when comparing the current state of religions.

The second group was your typical apologist group that tried to play the game a bit more smartly, who, while not directly attempting to dismiss affiliations of the murderers with Islam, they tried to "investigate" who profits from such an action. As if that would made the whole rhetoric of the past null and void.

Considering what you posted, I will need to add the following: I will never judge a person based on his religion and I will prefer to disassociate one's actions from it when judging said actions, but at the same time, the whole rhetoric of Islam (as it currently stands) is one of the worst in existence and one would be a fool to not take the religious associations of an individual under examination into account.

We have theocracies in the world which are pretty much terror states if you are a woman, we have open declarations against apostasies the likes of Pat Condell usually bring up (and I hate the guy, he's UKIP) and finally we have people that grew up as muslims and don't want to have anything to do with extremism. They are few however and they shouldn't apologise - they won't change the facts and nobody should defend *ideas *because of the *actions* of people, fringe or not.

My problem is the difficulty of expressing equally my disgust for religion and para-religious ideologies that cater to weak minded people and at the same time expressing the differences between them, without dealing with people that want to confuse the two.


*PS.* As Explorer said, this is not about race. You can be a caucasian idiot with the same efficiency as you can be a black, middle-eastern, asian or whatever idiot.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

Overtone said:


> And to answer your question, extremist fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and Jews would all be likely to slaughter me given the chance.



Don't lump them together. If you rate them on propensity for violence.

Islam > Judiasm > Christianity


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Have you done anything which religious extremists would consider worthy of the death penalty?



Christians believe that it is not for them to judge other men, that is for God to do. So your statement doesn't make sense for Christianity.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

The Q said:


> My problem is the difficulty of expressing equally my disgust for religion and para-religious ideologies that cater to weak minded people and at the same time expressing the differences between them, without dealing with people that want to confuse the two.



I minored in Philosophy and one of the most eye opening classes I took was Philosophy of Religion. It helped me reconcile the apparent inconsistency between logic and faith which I struggled with as a young man. Back then everything was about logic and order, and I had a limited repertoire for comprehension, much like I see in Atheists.

One of the important concepts was to separate spiritual beliefs from religious elements. Communion, baptism, going to church are religious elements which are quite different from the belief in God. Its possible to believe in (or connect with) God or heaven without necessarily believing in "religion". These spiritual elements are common to all religions and represent something deeper than religion which is mostly "process".

People who reject God usually do so because they associate religion with the negative *religious* aspects of a religion. They probably believe that Christians have a simplistic/literal view of God, that he wears a toga, has a white beard, that he has a "naughty and nice" list deciding who gets into Heaven, etc. It may seem as farcical as Halloween to them. Or they may see the wars caused by religion and discount it all as some kind of cult or mental disease.

Some very influential scientists believe in God so I assure you, it is not a matter of failed intelligence or emotional weakness, or being brainwashed as a child, it is that some people have connected with Spiritual "truths" that are common in every religion.

Having disgust for religion is like hating someone that has Perfect Pitch when you do not. People who have religious faith are operating with a sense that Atheists do not posess.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Jan 9, 2015)

This entire thread is overflowing with sophistry and _ad hom_ "proof."


----------



## ROAR (Jan 9, 2015)

"The Quran and the hadith do not speak about any worldy punishment for blasphemy."

I googled Islam and blasphemy and found this out.
Islam is chill as ...., don't be silly.


----------



## The Q (Jan 9, 2015)

> One of the important concepts was to separate spiritual beliefs from religious elements. Communion, baptism, going to church are religious elements which are quite different from the belief in God. Its possible to believe in (or connect with) God or heaven without necessarily believing in "religion". These spiritual elements are common to all religions and represent something deeper than religion which is mostly "process"


I need to ask here what the point of communion, baptism and church going is if there is no god to attach it to, especially since in most religions god is the supposed source that ethics emanate from - this being the common argument of theists, usually christians, that "without gawd you cannot be an ethical person".

So far, the only source for deeper feelings that LEAD TO (and not the other way around) the belief in the supernatural and allows for spiritualism to exist, is our imperfect nature. We need a parental figure to watch upon us, we need someone to give meaning to our life, we just need and so we invent. Outgrowing our parents merely forces us to seek a bigger daddy, especially one that cannot be disputed as our regular parents were when we grew up.

While I'd agree that such a need for a daddy in the sky is natural, again, thanks to our imperfect nature, I cannot accept that this validates any spiritualist ideas in the slightest. The existence of the need does not lead logically and provably to the existence of truth - and keep in mind that we still haven't touched religion yet. 



> People who reject God usually do so because they associate religion with the negative *religious* aspects of a religion. They probably believe that Christians have a simplistic/literal view of God, that he wears a toga, has a white beard, that he has a "naughty and nice" list deciding who gets into Heaven, etc. It may seem as farcical as Halloween to them. Or they may see the wars caused by religion and discount it all as some kind of cult or mental disease.


No, I actually reject the concept god on multiple levels, the most important of which is the fact that we cannot even define the concept properly (epistemological atheism) yet we are ready to assign attributes to said concept (again, long before we put religion into it).
Just because we have the need for a parental figure in our existence, this need in no way acts as a proof towards the existence of such a figure. And as I'd have it, long before we can prove such a statement (that the need for god acts as a proof for his existence or even that god exists as a standalone entity) we'd need to go one more step back and define that. And yet we're content with doing nothing, yet commit to theorising upon unprovable concepts, thus creating the monstrosities called "religions".



> Some very influential scientists believe in God so I assure you, it is not a matter of failed intelligence or emotional weakness, or being brainwashed as a child, it is that some people have connected with Spiritual "truths" that are common in every religion.


Being an influential scientist that believes in god again does not prove anything in and of itself (recource to authority), though statistically, the more your education and/or intelligence increases, the less probable it is to be affiliated with religious/spiritual beliefs. At this point I need to add a special mention against pseudoscience "superstars" such as Deepak Chopra (and many others like him), who try to marry "science!" with spiritualism and fail miserably (google Quantum Mysticism), proving their lack of knowledge on what they're talking about with every book or lecture they produce.



> Having disgust for religion is like hating someone that has Perfect Pitch when you do not. People who have religious faith are operating with a sense that Atheists do not posess.


No, having disgust for religion is disapproving the prevalence for memes that call for suppressing one's critical thought and the damage it does, providing easy answers with no real merit.
I honestly don't understand however what "operating with a sense Atheists don't posess" means. If you are implying that "religious people have spiritualism and spiritualism works so they see more of the world (or something) compared to atheists" that would be an unproven statement that has no merit, unless again, you can prove that spiritualism has any valid connection with the supernatural (which we'd also need to define and prove and so on) - being a human need doesn't imply anything beyond that. If you mean something else, please clarify.


PS. If something is unfalsifiable, it's worse than wrong. If an idea cannot be disproven, it has no scientific merit and contains no information, thus it offers nothing on any discussion. If that's not done, then anyone can claim anything and anything should be equally considered and ultimately accepted, since we don't have a way of dismissing it.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

The Q said:


> No, having disgust for religion is disapproving the prevalence for memes that call for suppressing one's critical thought and the damage it does, providing easy answers with no real merit.



Its not a matter of suppressing critical thought. Its a matter of being able to incorporate other types of thinking. Like the difference between IQ and emotional intelligence. 

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, you perhaps will cite the negatives of religion, the wars, the intolerance. But don't forget that religion (religious morality?) has been a necessary component of every great society. You can harp on the negatives but must not overlook all the positives it has brought. Christianity is responsible for the success of western society from the fall of the Roman empire. Whether you believe in God personally, this cannot be disputed.

Its interesting to me that non Christians raised in Christian society generally have Christian morality even if they renounce God. Think about that.


----------



## The Q (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Its not a matter of suppressing critical thought. Its a matter of being able to incorporate other types of thinking. Like the difference between IQ and emotional intelligence.


You chose to reply to a very specific part of my arguments - should I assume that you agree on the rest about religion and spiritualism?

Regardless, I don't get the comparison between IQ & EQ versus spiritualism and... rationalism? That's an analogy that doesn't make much sense for two reasons:
1) The whole concept of IQ & EQ is flawed and refuted continuously by most researchers (mostly because it's an attempt to create a single-dimensional metrix on a multidimensional set of characteristics,
2) Even if we were to take the IQ & EQ concepts and ignore their flaws,* one would have to prove that spiritualism can be a parallel to rationalism and that it carries the same value*. I think my arguments on my previous message about the *absurdity of such a clai*m can stand as my response to this as well.




GoldDragon said:


> From a purely pragmatic standpoint, you perhaps will cite the negatives of religion, the wars, the intolerance. But don't forget that religion (religious morality?) has been a necessary component of every great society. You can harp on the negatives but must not overlook all the positives it has brought. Christianity is responsible for the success of western society from the fall of the Roman empire. Whether you believe in God personally, this cannot be disputed.


You mention the negatives and then you try to counter these with the positive aspects of it. The interesting part is that you cite specific negatives traits, examples of which are easy to find, yet your stance on its positive traits is far more abstract and I'd ask you to mention what those positive traits are and what references of these there are.
In other words, you claim that christianity is responsible for the success of western society and I'm here to ask *how exactly*? What* specific positive examples of religion* would you mention as the the ones that make christianity not simply an accomplish, but the responsible factor for the success of the western world? *This is far from undisputable*, seeing as how you have provided no arguments as to why that is.
On a slightly off-topic note, have a look at this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeBPKyNar5Q
I don't know if it's valid or not, but it's a short presentation of the concept that black people made the US tolerable exactly because they weren't christians when they were brought as slaves to the new lands as a direct contrast to the immense puritanism that was prevalent, again, thanks to christianity.​


GoldDragon said:


> Its interesting to me that non Christians raised in Christian society generally have Christian morality even if they renounce God. Think about that.


I live in a stupid christian country and so I'm asking: how is my morality christian? Not wanting to kill people, steal from them, discriminate, staying silent on injustice and civil rights suppression and so on are far from christian-exclusive traits and this can be seen on most atheists regardless of them being arabs, asians, europeans or americans.
The internet has certainly helped to that extent since it allows for discource from all over the world, but these are traits that are exhibited by any rational person.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Its interesting to me that *non Christians* raised in Christian society *generally have Christian morality even if they renounce God*. Think about that.



*Actually, I believe there is less crime in European countries which are heavily atheist compared to the United States. 

That doesn't speak well of societies with a majority Christian component.
*
----

*I'm also not sure what behaviors you claim come exclusively from Christianity. Which are they?* 

There are plenty of ideas (be nice to the people you know, don't steal) which are common to Abrahamaic and non-Abrahamaic societies. There are others (don't rape) which are not Biblical. Yup, the Bible has plenty of stories of successful and Godly rape. 

Rhetorical point failure in the face of actual facts.

----

BTW, I don't think you've addressed all the violence which was part of my initial post, the killings which the rules of Islam are down with. I'd be interested in your response to those, if you have something to say about them other than just flailing and trying to avoid them.

Time to bring it home!



Explorer said:


> On 21 February 1989, Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens, writer/singer of the song "Peace Train") told students at Kingston University about his conversion to Islam, and said this about Salman Rushdie:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 10, 2015)

The Q said:


> You chose to reply to a very specific part of my arguments - should I assume that you agree on the rest about religion and spiritualism?



You sound like a young man trying to prove his intelligence. Honestly, I just don't have the time. Have at it.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You sound like a young man trying to prove his intelligence.



I agree, although not directed at the Q.

However, I disagree about not being willing to engage. I hope you'll provide those examples of "Christian morality" which don't arise in human groups which are not majority Christian. 

Bonus points for explaining why Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Japan (no Christian basis for being nice there!) have lower crime rates without Christian majorities/moralities than countries which do have Christian majorities. 

I do hope you'll decide to continue the discussion, because you might come up with a point or (better yet) facts which will make me reconsider my views, and you might run across a point or facts which will challenge yours.


----------



## asher (Jan 10, 2015)

Explorer said:


> you might run across a point or facts which will challenge yours.



Hard evidence has been tried in other threads. It doesn't work. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 10, 2015)

You know what I'm super sick of seeing? People countering the observation of a quality in something by pointing out that that quality also exists in other things, perhaps even to a higher degree. So fvcking what? That has _zero_ effect on whether or not the quality exists in the first thing.

Some examples:

"Bill is fat!" "So? Tom is even fatter!"

Bill's still fat.

"This band sucks!" "Well that band's worse!" 

The first band still sucks.

"This company uses shady practices, so I avoid it." "There are way worse things in the world to concern yourself over than that!"

Fvcking _so?

_"Islam has a history of violence!" "Well so does Christianity!"

Yeah, and? What does that change? 

What is it exactly that drives people to do that? I'm 100% certain I'm guilty of it myself, but it's just really starting to bug me. It's like it's impossible to criticize anything without someone coming along and implying that because the thing you're criticizing also exists elsewhere, you can't criticize it anymore.

Let's stop changing the subject to how violent Islam is _compared to other religions_ and just talk about how violent Islam is (or isn't, whatever your stance is).


----------



## The Q (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You sound like a young man trying to prove his intelligence. Honestly, I just don't have the time. Have at it.



How is my age relevant (I'm 33 by the way) and how do my arguments and challenges to your arguments signify someone who "tries to prove his intelligence"? Even if I were to fit your description (I am not, but that's beside the point) why dismiss the discussion usng this kind of dishonest approach?

I have nothing personal against you or anyone else. A debate might get heated but in this case we barely started.

To get back to Explorer's initial point, I stated my despisement for all religions based on their emptiness, pointing out that people will easily succumb to them. Islam is a particular offender with followers that have a tendency to enforce their beliefs upon others (try being a woman in Saudi Arabia for example) and are very intolerant, falling back to immaterial nonsense to justify their beliefs and actions, when stoning a woman for example. Here's a short but unfunny joke: Sharia "Law".

Compare the mentality of the generations before and after the Islamic Revolution in Iran and do tell me that religion has no effect on human actions. I'm aware of the many distinctions of Islam (Shiites, Suni & Wahabists etc) but at their core their beliefs share lots of traits that, while they may not turn everyone into a suicide bomber, they do affect their way of thinking.

Oh, also this (with a side note that the situation between Palestine and Israel is a difficult one while acknowledging that the israeli government acted like dicks on the recent Jordan draft resolution proposal for Palestine with the support of US and others):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFVop_Njn3A


A culture that gives guns to children can go .... itself (same goes for some parts in the US as well but that's incidental).


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 10, 2015)

This is a no-win argument. In fact, people must learn to live in peace (I know, captain obvious) or everything else is just bullshit.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You know what I'm super sick of seeing? People countering the observation of a quality in something by pointing out that that quality also exists in other things, perhaps even to a higher degree.
> 
> ...What is it exactly that drives people to do that? I'm 100% certain



Funny. I'm designing a self-study course for a friend, who asked me how I detect BS in person. Those deflecting statements are a core part of deceptive behaviors which, when occurring in a cluster, can indicate intentional deception.

There are lots of books on detecting deception, but if you're interested in just one, I highly recommend "Spy the Lie" by Susan Carnicero, Philip Houston, Don Tennant, and Michael Floyd. 

And then, to work on your stuff, I highly recommend reading the blog on the QVerity site. The book's authors all work for QVerity, and the blog has their analysis on various public interviews and such where people are being deceptive. You can watch the interviews, see what you perceive as deceptive behavior, and then compare notes with the analysis on the blog. It's actually pretty fun to do in a group and to compare notes, and I've done it as a drinking game a few times. "Oh sh1t, that was a whopper! Chug! Chug!" *laugh*


----------



## asher (Jan 10, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Some examples:
> 
> "Bill is fat!" "So? Tom is even fatter!"
> 
> Bill's still fat.



It's because a whole lot of people have been phrasing it not as "Bill is fat" but either "Bill is the only fat person" or "Bill is way fatter than everyone else."

Not everyone, but enough.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 10, 2015)

The only legitimate deflection I can back right now is the 'Not all Muslims' (or those who share similar physical characteristics with the majority of Muslims) because we've already witnessed at least two individuals in the other thread try and make the leap that all Muslims, and those who look the part, are accountable one way or another for the actions of a few. This only leads down a bad road where people start taking sides. That path only leads to violence and chaos. 

That being said, once violence has begun it becomes much harder to stop. If peace isn't achieved at the beginning of a conflict it may take years to end it, if ever. This is mostly because the only short term solution to violence is usually something equally violent and then it just turns into an overdrawn pissing contest essentially. When you 'know your enemy' and that enemy doesn't look like yourself it is very easy for people to just start making broad generalizations about 'them'. Usually these generalizations are inaccurate for the majority of people we bump into day in and day out. If I followed the mentality that some people had I'd have to assume that the majority of people I go to college with are potential suicide bombers which is obviously (at least to me) absurd.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 10, 2015)

asher said:


> It's because a whole lot of people have been phrasing it not as "Bill is fat" but either "Bill is the only fat person" or "Bill is way fatter than everyone else."
> 
> Not everyone, but enough.



And people are using that to steer the discussion away from Bill being fat. Even if it's proven that Bill is neither the only fat person nor fatter than everyone else, _Bill is still fat_. That's not how the conversations come off, though. They come off as a bunch of Bill apologists who use other people's skewed perceptions of Bill to gloss over the fact that Bill has a problem, whether or not everyone's portrayal of him is fully accurate.


TL;DR: Goddammit, Bill, lose some fvcking weight.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 11, 2015)

I got this rep/feedback.



Someone said:


> "WAH! No one will take the existence of my god on blind faith!" - you (explain what you mean by god and heaven, explain how you rationally explain his existence, THEN I'll believe...till then quit crying



No where in the thread was I trying to prove the existence of God or convince anyone else of his/its existence. I don't care if anyone believes in God, but its clear that Christianity is responsible for the sucess of western society since the fall of the roman empire, the church serving an important role in education and morality. Even non-christians living in the West have benefitted from this. 

I picked the right time to bow out of the discussion.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 11, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Having disgust for religion is like hating someone that has Perfect Pitch when you do not. People who have religious faith are operating with a sense that Atheists do not posess.



Hi! As stated in another thread, former far right Catholic here! You're wrong! The "sense" or awareness that most theists attribute to "feeling God's presence" or some such is you attributing changes in your mood and perception.

A more accurate analogy would be that atheists are exasperated at trying to teach the theist to read when the theist does nothing but remark at the beauty of the lines and curves of the letters but refuses to try and learn the nature of them.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 11, 2015)

Shimme said:


> Hi! As stated in another thread, former far right Catholic here! You're wrong! The "sense" or awareness that most theists attribute to "feeling God's presence" or some such is you attributing changes in your mood and perception.



You can speak for yourself, but certainly not for me.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 11, 2015)

*Then don't speak for me*. Don't insinuate that there's something broken or wrong with people because they don't believe.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 11, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Its interesting to me that non Christians raised in Christian society generally have Christian morality even if they renounce God. Think about that.





Explorer said:


> I hope you'll provide those examples of "Christian morality" which don't arise in human groups which are not majority Christian.
> 
> *Bonus points for explaining why Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Japan (no Christian basis for being nice there!) have lower crime rates without Christian majorities/moralities than countries which do have Christian majorities.*





GoldDragon said:


> ...its clear that Christianity is responsible for the sucess of western society since the fall of the roman empire, the church serving an important role in education and morality. Even non-christians living in the West have benefitted from this.



I think that since the fall of the Roman Empire, we've had severe and brutal repression of other religions, repression of science (from the Copernican revolution through to modern evangelical denial of sciences which are in conflict with their simplistic "God did it, and that settles it!" views), witch hunts, and so on. 

And as a counter-example to your "non-Christians living in the west" thing, I'll point out all the Christianity-morality-motivated hate directed at fags and others, and even oozing out in disgusting legislation meant to enshrine that "Christian Morality" hate in secular law. 

With that said, I'm still waiting on your explanation of why the non-Christian societies manage to do better without that Christian morality than those countries which have such Christian morality in the majority.


----------



## The Q (Jan 11, 2015)

Have a look at the video I posted earlier regarding an opinion that not only Christians didn't make America what it is, but how the black slaves contrasted the puritan mentality and allowed for the US to be what it is today, exactly because they were non-Christian.

That's no gospel, but I sill want to hear a rebuttal on it, or at least an explanation about:
1) How spiritual people see "more",
2) How Christianity formed the contemporary civilisation.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 11, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> No where in the thread was I trying to prove the existence of God or convince anyone else of his/its existence. I don't care if anyone believes in God, but its clear that Christianity is responsible for the sucess of western society since the fall of the roman empire, the church serving an important role in education and morality. Even non-christians living in the West have benefitted from this.



Yeah, I guess you didn't try to prove god instead you just asserted his existence as if it's common sense that he exist and we all know exactly what god you're speaking about?



GoldDragon said:


> I minored in Philosophy and one of the most eye opening classes I took was Philosophy of Religion. It helped me reconcile the apparent inconsistency between logic and faith which I struggled with as a young man. Back then everything was about logic and order, and I had a limited repertoire for comprehension, much like I see in Atheists.



Did you take any science classes alongside philosophy? But please enlighten us about how you reconciled the inconsistencies between logic and faith since as an atheist I have a limited repertoire for comprehension.




GoldDragon said:


> One of the important concepts was to separate spiritual beliefs from religious elements. Communion, baptism, going to church are religious elements which are quite different from the belief in God. Its possible to believe in (or connect with) God or heaven without necessarily believing in "religion". These spiritual elements are common to all religions and represent something deeper than religion which is mostly "process".



Why is it even necessary/important to separate spiritual beliefs from religious beliefs? What does that do other than give you a convenient excuse to not be attached to theistic atrocities?

And also those "spiritual beliefs" are not common to all religions, not all religions have a heaven and others have many or no gods at all.



GoldDragon said:


> People who reject God usually do so because they associate religion with the negative *religious* aspects of a religion. They probably believe that Christians have a simplistic/literal view of God, that he wears a toga, has a white beard, that he has a "naughty and nice" list deciding who gets into Heaven, etc. It may seem as farcical as Halloween to them. Or they may see the wars caused by religion and discount it all as some kind of cult or mental disease.



You see what you've done here right? You've used a simplified view of atheist to complain about atheist having a simplified view of theist...brilliant. very few atheist disbelieve god claims *simply* because of the negative aspects to the "religious" side of it... The "spiritual" side (as you would put it) has an abundance of paradoxes and problems that lead many to disbelief... Including me.



GoldDragon said:


> Some very influential scientists believe in God so I assure you, it is not a matter of failed intelligence or emotional weakness, or being brainwashed as a child, it is that some people have connected with Spiritual "truths" that are common in every religion.



I dont care what scientist BELIEVE, none of them...their beliefs and hypothesis may be interesting but it doesn't prove anything in the ways of science or spirituality so I don't know why theist always bring this up like we should all go 

"wow a dozen or so scientist believe in god, well I guess religious beliefs aren't as irrational as we thought because scientist by nature are incapable of being intelligent and irrational at the same time"

It just shows that some intelligent people are fully capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs and knowledge...there are scientist that believe aliens are abducting people but that doesn't make that belief any more rational or substantial and nothing you've said shows that their beliefs are not a result of indoctrination from family.



GoldDragon said:


> People who have religious faith are operating with a sense that Atheists do not posess.



You know a large majority of atheist are people who were once theist? Are you saying that even when they had "religious faith" they weren't "operating with a sense that Atheists do not possess"?

But really you kinda did talk a lot about what isn't god and spirituality but said nothing about what you think god is? How am I supposed to connect with god and heaven when I'm not even sure what you really mean? With out "religious" context how do I know anything about this? 

Tell me what you think this god is, what can it do, what has it done, how have you justified the belief that these things are true so I can comprehend what these truths are that currently seem more like unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 11, 2015)

The Shit Wolf said:


> You know a large majority of atheist are people who were once theist? Are you saying that even when they had "religious faith" they weren't "operating with a sense that Atheists do not possess"?
> 
> But really you kinda did talk a lot about what isn't god and spirituality but said nothing about what you think god is? How am I supposed to connect with god and heaven when I'm not even sure what you really mean? With out "religious" context how do I know anything about this?
> 
> Tell me what you think this god is, what can it do, what has it done, how have you justified the belief that these things are true so I can comprehend what these truths are that currently seem more like unsubstantiated claims.



I know my folks contribute the feeling of relief exclusively to their faith. They don't recognize that 'giving something to god' is the same as just letting it go, both in feeling and the end result. They attribute their emotions to a 'spiritual' feeling. If that's the only way someone can let things go more power to them I guess, BUT then they try to claim what GoldDragon did and I can't help but chuckle on the inside. I guess I'm 'missing out'. 

What I find exceeding frustrating about the majority of people I know who are both intelligent and teeter the edge on spirituality is that you can have a rational discussion with them even about religion and they'll usually be agreeing with you all along the way (genuinely, not just to appease), yet next week it's as if the conversation never even happened. It's master level compartmentalization.  When you put walls up around certain topics it seems you can believe two opposing things to be true simultaneously (like finding a holy text flawed and then still following it/quoting it as truth).


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 12, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I don't care if anyone believes in God, but its clear that Christianity is responsible for the sucess of western society since the fall of the roman empire, the church serving an important role in education and morality. Even non-christians living in the West have benefitted from this.



While the church's heavy influence over education and morality throughout the centuries is easy to see, it's not all good news. If we lay responsibility for the 'successes of Western society' at the feet of Christianity, we also have to choose a place to lay responsibility for the failures, and Christians have a bit of a tendency to write those off as failures of the socities of the time.

For example, I recently had a conversation with my mother, where she claimed that it wasn't possible to teach morality effectively without Christianity. I asked her how she felt about the fact that both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery (to the extent that the only protection offered to slaves is that while they can be beaten, they can't be beaten to death), and she decided that she'd rather leave the room than respond or even think about it. I'm certainly not claiming that slavery was exclusive to religious groups - every ancient western culture had slaves - but it's a bit of a conundrum to say that "Make no graven images" and "Keep the sabbath day holy" are important enough moral issues to occupy two places in the Ten Commandments, while "You can't own another human being" not only fails to make the list, it fails to make the book. This is just one example of why it is now claimed that morality stems from societies and cultures, and their religions just reflect the standards they have already set. Honestly, the 'moral foundations of religion' argument has been sufficiently toppled by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins (very short video - 2:33), and Christopher Hitchens (also short), let alone several members of this site in past threads on similar topics.

So, what of education? This is tougher because our conception of education as it stands today is only about 150-200 years old. In the past, groups educated their own, and offered little help to others, largely to maintain the integrity / influence / dominance of their group in the grander scheme of things. Even outside of basic classism, the religion/education interaction was never straighforward. William Blake was as devout a Christian as one could find, but was highly critical of the church, and in particular their treatment of children. He created and independently published his _Songs of Innocence_ and _Songs of Experience_ books as a means of helping to educate children, partially to oppose the church's method of education, which really just involved teaching them enough to make them members of the congregation and offering little support beyond that. This train of thought is evident today in religious movements that want creationism in science textbooks and abstinence-only sex education. So, while plenty of Christian figures and even plenty of churches have played a large positive role in education throughout history, plenty have played a large negative role as well. Realistically, free public education for all citizens is an extremely modern concept developed at the beginning of arguably the most secular phase of the last few dozen centuries. Claiming that Christianity has a large stake in the success of education in Western society ignores the ancient Greek foundations that still exist in education today, the vast contributions of non-Western cultures (Hindu-Arabic numerals instead of Roman, for example), and the basic logical fact that being a person of faith and contributing to education does not necessarily mean that person's religion contributed to education. 

A final note:



GoldDragon said:


> Even non-christians living in the West have benefitted from this.



Social advances come from many and varied sources. That Christianity has been the dominant religion in the West for roughly 1600 years does not mean that most social advances throughout those years should be credited to Christianity, for the same reason that Dawkins' success in the field of evolutionary biology can not be credited to Atheism: the first may lead to the second but the second does not necessarily lead to the first. 

Non-christian cultures are just as invested in education and morality as Christian cultures, and to claim that Christianity should be credited with any society's successes in these fields without providing evidence or admitting to the failures is either ignorance, wilful ignorance, or poor reasoning.


----------



## vilk (Jan 12, 2015)

Perennial morality exists among humans regardless of religion or time in history. They usually cover the same areas as well--murder, theft, etc. 

To suggest that without Christianity that the western world wouldn't have any sense of morals is ludicrous. If anything, without Christianity mucking up our perennial morality we'd probably have all been better off (though I realize that statement is totally unquantifiable).


----------



## ElRay (Jan 12, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I don't know a single Muslim who would want a blasphemer against Muhammad to be killed ...



And likewise, there's tons of christians that ignore the parts of their chosen version of the bible from the 200+ versions out there. At lease Islam has only one "official" mythological tome and only three major sects.

So, explain to me, how you can be a good mythology follower, if you're allowed to pick and choose what parts to follow, and what parts to ignore? Also, how can you use any mythological tome as justification for anything, if you're allowed to pick and choose?

Basically, if you pick & choose, you're: 1) A hypocrite because you don't follow your mythology as written, and/or 2) You're a coward because your don't work to change what's broken/wrong in you're mythology.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 12, 2015)

Good questions. That's one reason why I'm not religious as opposed to "kinda religious". 

But I think you get it. My main point ITT is not to question what is or isn't in Islamic teaching (which is worth questioning, btw) but to question how the determination is being made as to what Muslims actually follow/believe from the teachings. Is Cat Stevens the authority on that? 

How about this, from the OP:



> Quote:
> They are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It&#8217;s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention.



It's unclear to me... is the suggestion that the specific ideology mentioned in this quote is a critical part of Islam, and that all adherents of Islam ascribe to this ideology? On what basis would such an assertion be made? Is that assertion at all informed by face to face interaction with an actual Muslim? My guess would be no, since when I asked the OP if they've ever interacted with a Muslim (twice now) they have remained silent. 

In conclusion, what is the assertion made in the OP backed up by?


----------



## ElRay (Jan 12, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> While the church's heavy influence over education and morality throughout the centuries is easy to see, it's not all good news. If we lay responsibility for the 'successes of Western society' at the feet of Christianity, we also have to choose a place to lay responsibility for the failures, and Christians have a bit of a tendency to write those off as failures of the socities of the time. ...



It's obvious to a theist:
My mythology is good
Therefore everything good comes from my mythology
Everything bad is due to a lack of my mythology
Q.E.D. my mythology is good


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 12, 2015)

More negative rep


Someone said:


> Western Society has survived DESPITE the nonsense of christianity, not because of it. Typical arrogantly ignorant theist.



When someone feels the need to leave anonymous negative reps over a difference of opinion, you know you are dealing with an unstable/hostile individual.

Check out this video from the history channel. Worth watching. Puts role of Chritianity in formation of society into perspective.

The Dark Ages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2i3rg5Vc-8


----------



## ElRay (Jan 12, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Let's put it this way... how many Orson Scott Card's do you know in real life?



Scarily, too many -- Pretty unnerving when you see both "Religious Liberty" and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." bumper stickers on the same car.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 12, 2015)

Overtone said:


> It's unclear to me... is the suggestion that the specific ideology mentioned in this quote is a critical part of Islam, and that all adherents of Islam ascribe to this ideology? On what basis would such an assertion be made? Is that assertion at all informed by face to face interaction with an actual Muslim? My guess would be no, since when I asked the OP if they've ever interacted with a Muslim (twice now) they have remained silent.
> 
> In conclusion, what is the assertion made in the OP backed up by?



I'm sorry I missed your question. That quote in the OP is from the article to which I linked, so I can't specifically answer whether that assertion was made after face to face interaction with those who kill based on the Koran. 

However, to answer your question about my specific interaction with my Muslim friends (which do exist), no, they in particular do not feel that this part of Islam is a positive thing. 

That's different from them stating that it doesn't exist in the Koran, of course. They can't, in the same way one can't claim that the Bible isn't good with slavery, or doesn't instruct one to stone homosexuals and adulterers.

As to whether I've had face to face interaction with the particular individuals who have come out publicly with the idea that one should kill blashphemers or for another Koran-endorsed justification, no I haven't, but I've also pointed out that I've broken those rules of blasphemy, so I'd be a target if they decided to come out. I *have* had at least 10 friends and neighbors killed in a single attack by al Qaeda (a group which is known to be an Islamist terrorist group), and that neighborhood was a quiet one in the DC/VA/MD area. 

I think your deeper question is, do those Islamist killers and terrorists, as well as Muslim scholars and authorities who rule on and issue such fatwas as those against Rushdie and his translators, view those parts of the Koran and Islam as an important part of their practice of Islam? The evidence says yes, and it is that evidence which is cited in that article I linked to in the OP. 

Why? Do you doubt that they are motivated by what they state is their motivation? 

*Short version: I do know Muslims who reject the parts of Islam embraced and held to be important parts of the faith by killers and terrorists. I have no reason to doubt their stated motivations even if I don't know them, any more than I have reason to doubt the stated motivations of the Manson Family without directly knowing Charles Manson. *

----

GoldDragon, I'm still hopeful you'll attempt an answer to the question of why so many non-Christian societies (Japan in particular) manage to be less violent than majority Christian societies.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 12, 2015)

Thanks for finally being clear on that. All I wanted was to illustrate that a lot of the time followers of a religion don't follow everything in it, especially not the things that don't sync up with modern convention or social conditions. 

The other point I hinted at, was that the kind of ideological killers mentioned in the article often have the most bloodthirst towards other Muslims who they personally view as traitors. They certainly make up the greatest number of victims. If these killers are so willing to murder other Muslims, isn't it reasonable to question whether or not their interpretation of the religion is really representative of said religion?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 12, 2015)

Also relevant:
http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298



> If we turn to Islamic law, there does not exist a single legal decree, or fatwa, in the historical corpus that explicitly and decisively prohibits figural imagery, including images of the Prophet. While more recent online fatwas can surely be found, the decree that comes closest to articulating this type of ban was published online in 2001 by the Taliban, as they set out to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan.



I don't think we'd be as stupid as you suggest to challenge the notion that this attitude towards "blasphemers" is that inherent to the religion or true to its source.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 13, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Also relevant:
> http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298
> 
> 
> ...



The Quran doesn't forbid depictions of Muhammad, no, but there are Hadith that forbid not just the depictions of Muhammad or Allah, but of _all animated things_, human or animal. The article you linked dances around that at the beginning, but there are definitely Hadith that are far less ambiguous about it than the article seems to be implying.

Hadith like...

"Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan:
While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."
&#8212;Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari

_
"_Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle returned from a journey when I had placed a curtain of mine having pictures over (the door of) a chamber of mine. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he tore it and said, "The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creations." So we turned it (i.e., the curtain) into one or two cushions."
&#8212;Muhammad al-Bukhari, _Sahih al-Bukhari

(another version of that same one) :

_"A'isha reported: 

Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) visited me. and I had a shelf with a thin cloth curtain hangin. over it and on which there were portraits. No sooner did he see it than he tore it and the colour of his face underwent a change and he said: A'isha, the most grievous torment from the Hand of Allah on the Day of Resurrection would be for those who imitate (Allah) in the act of His creation. A'isha said: We tore it into pieces and made a cushion or two cushions out of that."
&#8212;Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, _Sahih Muslim_

Of course, it's worth mentioning that not all Muslims place the same amount of importance on the Hadith, and not all sects of Islam follow the same Hadith to begin with. The ones above, for example, are all from the Sunni tradition.
It's also stretching it quite a bit to go from those passages to "Murder anyone who draws Muhammad, but just as haters gonna hate, radical extremists gonna be extremely radical.


----------



## The Q (Jan 13, 2015)

Let's remind us of a bit from history. 

The Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Overtone (Jan 13, 2015)

^because that was so long ago. 

GMT good post. I think those hadith are ridiculous and I've always felt pretty sorry for people who would think they should live like that. Especially the ones who consider music to be forbidden! But unfortunately there's a lot more issues like that. For example the idea of women covering up the way they do is largely up to that kind of interpretation... it's not really there in the Quran, and people definitely made it up into what it is today because of their own interests (wanting to rule over women, seeing how certain Orthodox Christian villages have women dressed all in black, etc.). Polygamy was initially sanctioned as a way to deal with widows and their children, but became more of a chauvinist power play again.

What's worth stressing is that the issues around killing (honor killing, jihad, killing of blasphemers, etc.) also have their fair share of people who go for it and people who don't go for it. I wish there was none of that to begin with in the hadith and whatnot, but it's really important to be aware of just how subject to interpretation a lot of things that get fixated on by certain authors and commentators can be.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 14, 2015)

So I've been thinking about GoldDragon's overreaching (wrong) assertion that it is Christian morality which makes the US better for its law-abiding ways than Japan and other non-Christian nations. I don't think he/she is going to post a defense of that assertion at this point. 

However, I've been thinking about a theme which has been raised more than once, often to point out that Islam isn't the only religion which wants people killed in order to defend such an idea in Islam.

Given everyone's agreement that the Abrahamaic religions have a bloodthirsty deity at their core, I've been thinking about why so many Christians, Jews and Muslims don't kill based on their religion's teachings.

And I've come to the conclusion that *those non-killing believers choose to toss out the actual morality of those religions, and to substitute their own moral beliefs instead. *

In other words, it's not those religion's teachings which lead to examples of decency among their followers, but rejection on the part of their followers of the violent parts of those religions. *Peace and love are not the doing of those religions, but instead the specific rejection of those violent, murderous aspects of those faiths by the non-murderous believers. *

That, of course, completely undermines GoldDragon's argument further, but it leads to a bigger question: 

*If it's only by rejecting those parts of what (in all three cases) is a Divine Document, is there anything worth promoting in those books, for a better society, which actually needs those specific books to be the means of transmission? *

Given that those atheistic countries I cited earlier are actually doing better at treating their citizens well, and have less lawbreaking than the US, it seems that a "morality" which isn't based on religious faith is actually more successful in promoting the values which the faithful claim should be promoted. 

----

I suspect one cannot make the opposite argument, that embracing all of a religion (including the killing/stoning/cutting off of body parts) leads to a loving society. 

Anyone else have any thoughts about this?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 14, 2015)

I can't believe I've never looked at it like that before. It seems so obvious.


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 14, 2015)

The Q said:


> Let's remind us of a bit from history.
> 
> The Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



He was on bill maher recently. I don't watch his cheesy "me me, look at me" show so I didn't see it.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

I think as it pertIns to Islam the OP assumptions need to be revisited. 



> Still, this religious nationalism is guided by religious law &#8212; Shariah &#8212; that includes clauses about punishing blasphemy as a deadly sin. It is thus of vital importance that Muslim scholars courageously, even audaciously, address this issue today. They can begin by acknowledging that, while Shariah is rooted in the divine, the overwhelming majority of its injunctions are man-made, partly reflecting the values and needs of the seventh to 12th centuries &#8212; when no part of the world was liberal, and other religions, such as Christianity, also considered blasphemy a capital crime.
> 
> The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy &#8212; or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

Tl;dr - Quran has no mention of killing blasphemers or apostates. Those things were brought about later. That leads me to two conclusions 
- Cat Stevens really was wrong (or paraphrased out of context)
- Muslims who reject violence against blasphemerrs are NOT going against their faith, nor are they selectively following their religion. 

You're free to argue that this author is misinformed, but if you do it would be prudent to provide actual quotes from the Quran itself.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Here's an example of someone who took the "Islam promotes violence against non-believers" claim at face value. 

Former Texas A&M student barred Hindu family from 'Muslim-free' gun range in Arkansas - Houston Chronicle



> "Not all muslims (sic) are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim (sic). Since you can't determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a 'religion' that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with," Morgan wrote.




Are you in good company?


----------



## Quitty (Jan 15, 2015)

^This is incorrect.
The Quran states that non-believers should be brought to kneel and made to pay tribute under threat of death. I don't remember the quote word by word, but i can look it up if you'd like.

A big part of the christian, jewish and islamic 'holy-literature' is common and all religions have a nasty, violent streak - either explicit or implied.
I don't think ditching those means you exchange the religion's moral code for your own - different times do call for a different interpretation of dogmatic texts. 
2,000 years ago, killing all non-believers would have been considered patriotic. Most of them couldn't be reached if they weren't within the confines of your village, and this kept the villages homogenic and efficient.
Hell, this was still kinda true 200 years ago.

Bottom line is, religions demand that you aren't critical of them. They won't work otherwise. 
Islam isn't any more violent. It is, however, more devout and far less tolerant of 'half-assed' belief.
Devoutness to something that demands not to be judged?
Yep. Great idea.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Yeah, please look it up and post it here. Make sure it's from the Quran. If possible it would be good to know whether or not the context is having to do with all non-believers, or specifically having to do with conflicts with groups of non-believers who have previously attacked Muslims or tried to forcefully stop them from practicing Islam. I've never seen a passage that promoted unprovoked violence... only ones saying it's ok to fight back.


----------



## Quitty (Jan 15, 2015)

Al-Tawba, 28 (translated word by word, so it's not really grammatically sound):







> Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.



Actually, the entirety of Al-Tawba is a gem.
I won't post the actual text because it's very long, but this is from verse 29 and onwards:


> And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner! Would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse. He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. O ye who believe! Lo! many of the rabbis and the monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom.




It's not all long, though. Sometimes it's clean and to-the-point;
Al-Tawba, 122:






> O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty



It's not all Al-Tawba, either;
Al-Maeda, 50:






> O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.




Now let's have a debate about the role of Islam, as a religion, in the aforementioned violence.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Good post.

Before we have that debate, we should make sure everything is in context. There are rather divisive opinions within Islam on that Sura. 

First of all, there is the concept of abrogation/naskh, which deals with when certain verses contradict other verses. That verse contradicts many other parts of the Quran, and its basically up to the interpretation to decide what supersedes what. This has been ongoing for centuries, and for most of those centuries there was tolerance to those differences of interpretation, but sadly nowadays there are quite a few who have chosen intolerance instead. They're enemies of other Muslims just as much as they are of non-believers, or if you go by the body count, their biggest issue is with other Muslims. 

So what is the other interpretation/context, and what are the contradictions? The Quran also states this:









Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. 
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
(Sura 22, 39-40)

This gets across the idea that the pretext for fighting in war is being attacked and wronged, and persecuted for being Muslim. In fact, it also mentions fighting those who attack churches and synagogues, since they are also houses of God. So there are two schools... one says that the verse you posted is what applies to non-believers, and that overrides this need for a pretext. The other school basically says that the verse you posted is to be understood in the context of the verse I posted (and other similar verses). The context being that because war is being discussed, its implicit that the other party in the verse you posted are attackers as alluded to in the verses about war.

It should be clear now that this issue is a little more complicated, and it's not simply a matter of picking and choosing what they agree with from the Quran and disregarding the rest... it actually comes down to how you interpret it as a whole. You can show all of those verses to a Muslim and depending on their interpretation and education, they can take it as a justification for Islamic terrorism, or they can explain to you why they know that those verses were meant in a different context, and how they pertain to a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who think that taking as many wives as they want to is permitted and encouraged, and other whole swathes of the Muslim world who only practice monogamy because they view that part of the tradition as belonging to a bygone era and no longer applicable. Perhaps more importantly, there are some abrogation issues with the verse about not befriending other Abrahamic faiths... for example there is a verse that says it's ok to marry a Jew or Christian since they are "people of the book."


----------



## Explorer (Jan 15, 2015)

In other words:

Let's substitute our personal morality for what Allah revealed to Muhammad, because we don't like what Allah literally revealed.

Do I have that right? 

Because if so, it's not that the holy book doesn't actually say something, it's that people are rejecting that particular holy revelation. 

That's fine for folks to reject violence, even when their god wants it.

It's quite another to claim that their god never made it part of holy writ.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Those are not my words, and they are not what I'm saying _at all._ How do you always manage to get things so backwards?

I am trying to explain to you that the things Allah revealed to Muhammad, taken by themselves, literally, and without context sometimes contradict one another. The ability to be interpreted in different ways has been inherent in the Quran since it was first compiled. It's not a case of people rejecting anything... it comes down to different people arriving at different conclusions, because they attempt reconcile those contradictions in different ways. 

In some cases these differences in interpretation are what lead to the differences in the practices and traditions of the different sects. They also explain to a certain extent how it is that in different parts of the world Muslims practice very differently than in other parts of the world, whether it relates to treatment of women, marriage customs, Shariah law, etc. etc.. It's not that one group is "wrong" in their interpretation and another has it "right". Of course the sects are fighting each other because they DO think the other side has it wrong, but that's just like, their opinion, man. By failing to see the diversity in how Muslims observe their religion and interpret the Quran, and by speaking in absolutes about "correct" interpretations rather than understanding that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in interpretation, you are grouping yourself with the fundamentalists.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Because if so, it's not that the holy book doesn't actually say something, it's that people are rejecting that particular holy revelation.




No... it's that the Quran says TWO things, and unless context is taken into consideration, those two things contradict one another. The first is saying "Only fight those making war against you." The second thing is mostly discussing whether or not it's ok to fight "people of the book", and saying that it is. The Jihadis are actually the ones who are rejecting a revelation. They are completely ignoring that the Quran has already stated elsewhere that fighting wars is only justified when being attacked, since they are claiming it's always justified. A more rational interpretation is that the second part is there to clear up that if "People of the Book" are attacking you, it is OK to fight back. Something else that backs up this interpretation is that the same sura says that if Muslims are at war with other people of the book, and that the other people have made a peace offer but the Muslims are not sure if that peace offering is trustworthy, that the Muslims should take their word for it and have faith in God that the others are truly being peaceful. How can you make peace with someone if your book is telling you to war with them? Why would that book suggest a peaceful resolution?

You had mentioned slavery in one thread and how it's not a sin in Islam, but at the same time, Islam says that God rewards those who free their slaves. There are a LOT of these contradictions, and you really need to study the book to understand it. Spend some time looking up "abrogation" and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 15, 2015)

*So... Allah or Muhammed made a mistake, and put a contradiction into that holy book?

And therefore, whichever did so, Allah wasn't capable of keeping the book free from error?*

Apologetics eventually comes down to explaining why an mistake isn't *really* a mistake. It's one of those things which makes sense only if you have any investment in the faith for which the errors are being explained away. 

For those interested in such an idea, whether a faith can withstand reasonable questions, I highly recommend The Outsider Test for Faith by John Loftus. 

It's a great book for examining whether a faith has the one and only "unique truth."

*Given that Islam does make the bold claim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet, it doesn't speak very well or supportively of the alleged one and only god that he can't even get his book right. *


----------



## Overtone (Jan 15, 2015)

Well... all anyone can objectively say is that the contradictions are there. There is a whole spectrum of ways to try and deal with those contradictions. It's easy to use things like that as a basis to dismiss the religion, especially if you're not invested in it. But it can be more interesting when a person who is trying to keep "rooting for the home team" (ie following the faith they were raised with) and at the same time take studious route to understanding these types of issues. There are centuries of scholarly types who spent their time trying to see the bigger picture and how everything connects, and share their interpretation of how they think it makes sense when you put it together. I personally find that pretty interesting, and I believe that the most inquisitive people would try to really study things and try to find those answers. For some of the Muslims who can be described as sufi the quest for answers and knowledge actually led to them integrating their vast knowledge of Greek philosophy with the process of learning and study of the Quran. Sadly, that "need for interpretation" has also lead to a lot of bad things during history as well, especially considering that the people with the real power were much stupider and more selfish. 

So that spectrum kind of spans from lazy or dismissive skepticism, to curious skepticism, to someone who believes but can entertain objective analysis, to someone who can only live with hardline statements. A lot of the authority figures and the fanatics are definitely on that end of the spectrum, especially lately. But that's what I want to explain.... that fundamentalists are by nature the group that doesn't want to ever discuss things objectively because it is "blasphemy" or forbidden somehow, but they are the end of the spectrum. Their stance doesn't make the people on the moderate end of the spectrum "wrong"... it's just different. 

Lebanon is a good place to bring up. On the one hand, the kind of stubbornness and intolerance we've discussed was a big contributor to the civil war, whether it was conflict between faiths or between sects. On the other hand, there are many Muslims, Christians, and Druze within Lebanon who themselves would die to protect the right of each person to follow the faith of their choosing without being subjected to hostility by others for their choice (or lack thereof).

And speaking of "Boko Haram", that means "foreign (or Western) teaching is sin". Their founder rejected the idea of the earth being round. That kind of thinking definitely represents the way way way far end of the spectrum... just being insane and saying you won't even talk about it!

Also wanna say its hilarious that earlier I was browsing and I got a banner ad for older Chinese women, but now this thread has a banner ad for "International Muslim Matrimonials."


----------



## Quitty (Jan 16, 2015)

I think this is a little besides the point.

All religions have varying depths of devoutness, as you said, as well as different interpretations of scripture. Even the non-monotheistic ones do.
Granted, this does not make them wrong.

It does, however, beg the question of why we don't get nearly as many actively hostile jewish or christian fanatics - surely we can agree they exist?
Mormons don't kidnap civilians. Orthodox jews (we call them penguins, out here) don't explode in densely populated areas.

Somehow, islamic nations also consistently stay in the dark ages, where it's alright to dehumanize women or kill anyone who shares your religion but has differing views on how it should be executed - 
catholics have been known to kill many protestants over the years, but even the catholic church has since realized mass murder isn't welcome in the 21st century.
Or the 20th, or the 18th.

If you want to claim no base and essential difference between islam and other religions, you've got a lot of explaining to do


----------



## Overtone (Jan 16, 2015)

Less than a hundred years you had (Jewish) Irgun bombing public places. It's all about historical context. The context for a lot of the Middle East right now is brutal dictatorships that last decades, lots of political fighting, lots of poverty, confrontational conflicts with the west, extremists managing to take control (Taliban) and brainwash people and a host of other things going on that foster extremism and militancy. Just like the inquisition happened at a time that for Europe was more brutal and war riddled, when monarchy was the norm, and the church was making its own power play. Their world has changed for the better since then and as such, things have calmed down.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 17, 2015)

Overtone said:


> And speaking of "Boko Haram", that means "foreign (or Western) teaching is sin". Their founder rejected the idea of the earth being round. That kind of thinking definitely represents the way way way far end of the spectrum... just being insane and saying you won't even talk about it!



I've found it terrifying for years, all those religious extremists who go that route. Whether it's Orson Scott Card with a call to arms against any tyranny which would legalize same sex marriage, all the US religious fundamentalists who are against scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and evolution, the US evangelicals who helped Uganda craft and pass "kill the gays" laws, the Islamic crazies who want to kill blasphemers and women who are rape victims, the orthodox Jews who refuse to sit next to women on planes because women are unclean, and so on. 

Again, if you have to replace the more hateful, dangerous and violent parts of a divine document with your own morality in order to make that religion palatable, you don't need that hateful religion in the first place.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 19, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I've found it terrifying for years, all those religious extremists who go that route. Whether it's Orson Scott Card with a call to arms against any tyranny which would legalize same sex marriage, all the US religious fundamentalists who are against scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and evolution, the US evangelicals who helped Uganda craft and pass "kill the gays" laws, the Islamic crazies who want to kill blasphemers and women who are rape victims, the orthodox Jews who refuse to sit next to women on planes because women are unclean, and so on.
> 
> Again, if you have to replace the more hateful, dangerous and violent parts of a divine document with your own morality in order to make that religion palatable, you don't need that hateful religion in the first place.



Agreed. But in this particular case, I'm arguing that a person _doesn't_ have to insert _their own _morality. Sorry for paraphrasing and simplifying, but basically what I'm saying is that the Quran seems to be saying "If you're being persecuted, don't turn the other cheek - kick their ass" and it's the extremists who are saying "Hey, look... it says here 'Kick their ass!'" and totally ignoring the rest of it. And in turn, the people who want to criticize Islam are doing the same exact thing. If we are going to discuss what's in the Quran, we should be willing to discuss it in the context of the whole book. Otherwise to me it comes across as an outsider deciding that of all the people in the world who have studied the Quran, the ones who have truly and correctly understood it are the extremists.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 19, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Otherwise to me it comes across as an outsider deciding that of all the people in the world who have studied the Quran, the ones who have truly and correctly understood it are the extremists.



I was gonna stay out of this but some of the things you've said have...irked me I guess would be the polite term...

But haven't you guys all established and agreed (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Quran contains inconsistencies and contradictions? 

How does one study a book of contradictions and subjective interpretations with the intent of truly and correctly understanding it? I just don't understand how that's feasible?

I mean, I've argued with Christians who have essential wrote verbatim what you've stated substituting the Quran for the bible, claiming that people who have studied more extensively then me are the ones who truly and correctly understand it and are also the ones who use ridiculous logic to state that biblical slavery isn't the same as European/American slavery millennia later.

Can we all agree that if there was a different book that was supposedly divinely inspired and given to some ancient man with little to no education that was then required to be recited and memorized for years before it was written down, most likely by different sources before being compiled and standardized, that what we would EXPECT is a book full of contradictions, inconsistencies and ancient customs that require reworking of the interpretation for any of them to work in a modern society?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 19, 2015)

We can agree on all of that. I just think it's a little off topic. The question we are debating is not whether or not Islam makes sense. Nor is it whether or not it makes sense to follow the Quran. You've given very good reasons as to why it doesn't... but that's not really the topic. 

The thread opens by saying that when it really comes down to this, the Quran does say to kill blasphemers, and that anyone who says otherwise is an apologist and that the Quran doesn't back them up. I didn't really want to argue what the Quran says or doesn't say because it gets to be repetitive (and has been so far), but I later found an NYT piece where the author felt very comfortable writing this:



> the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy &#8212; or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu.



He also wrote this:



> Still, this religious nationalism is guided by religious law &#8212; Shariah &#8212; that includes clauses about punishing blasphemy as a deadly sin. It is thus of vital importance that Muslim scholars courageously, even audaciously, address this issue today. They can begin by acknowledging that, while Shariah is rooted in the divine, the overwhelming majority of its injunctions are man-made, partly reflecting the values and needs of the seventh to 12th centuries &#8212; when no part of the world was liberal, and other religions, such as Christianity, also considered blasphemy a capital crime.



This is someone the NYT was willing to hire as one of their Opinion section writers. They also felt confident in publishing his piece. Link is higher up on this page. 

So the argument went to two places.

1. Does _the Quran_ say anything about killing blasphemers?
2. Are the Muslims who don't believe in killing blasphemers wrong? Are they selectively following/rejecting following the teachings based on their own personal morality?

So far, on 1, Quitty has posted some stuff that actually relates to "people of the book" or those who "were given the scripture", ie. Christians and Jews. I've been trying to explain that context is very important to those sections and we can keep debating that. We should still try to see whether or not the Quran talks specifically about "blasphemers."

On 2, I think the author of the NYT piece said it best. This "kill blasphemers" thing is a part of Shariah law, which is accepted as "man-made" even by those who believe the Quran was divinely authored. A Muslim doesn't have to follow or believe in Shariah law in order to be a "true Muslim." The definition of someone who is "fully" Muslim is that they follow the five pillars (prayer, charity, fasting, haj, and shahadah - declaring that there is no God but God and Muhumad is his messenger). And as for documents, Quran trumps all. I think this thread has some ridiculous and out of touch stuff in it because the general assertion people seem to be making is that all Muslims follow Shariah, and the ones who don't, aren't real Muslims.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 19, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Thanks for finally being clear on that. All I wanted was to illustrate that a lot of the time followers of a religion don't follow everything in it, especially not the things that don't sync up with modern convention or social conditions.





Overtone said:


> Well... all anyone can objectively say is that the contradictions are there.



And, from what Quitty posted and which Overtone noted was a good post, the calls to kill others are also there. I can quote those extensively if anyone wants to say that didn't happen, but since it's easily verified, why disagree with Quitty and Overtone having talked about this?



Overtone said:


> Agreed. * But in this particular case, I'm arguing that a person doesn't have to insert their own morality.*



*The very act if rejecting the divinely sanctioned call for blood is such a substitution of one's own morality for the divine morality.*

Otherwise,* in this particular case about this religion*, you'd be able to paint all Muslims as being identical to the Charlie Hebdo killers, or to those who behead in the name of the group calling themselves IS, or to al Qaeda. 

Choosing to not engage in that divine bloodthirst, and to deny that you *must* condone it, is a substitution of one's own "morality" values for those of any document driving and condoning it. 

*It's a binary choice: This religion is absolutely correct in calling for killing blasphemers, or this religion is incorrect in calling for killing blasphemers. 

If you don't condone the killings listed three lines back, you've rejected that religion's "divine" views on such killings, because your own "morality" and decency overrode that of the religion's.

Is that so unpalatable an idea? Why must one be able to reject that bloodthirst but *not* have that bloodthirst reflect upon the espoused bloodthirsty religious document's morality?*

I think I know why, and it's brilliantly spelled out here:



Overtone said:


> Well... all anyone can objectively say is that the contradictions are there. There is a whole spectrum of ways to try and deal with those contradictions. It's easy to use things like that as a *basis to dismiss the religion*, especially if you're not invested in it. But it can be more interesting when a person who is* trying to keep "rooting for the home team" (ie following the faith they were raised with)* and at the same time take studious route to understanding these types of issues.



This lays out why someone engages in huge apologetics, why someone would want to show that Grandpa Moe wasn't a rapist and a killer. Grandpa Moe is family, and so we find excuses to show why he's really not so bad. 

----

I once dated a woman who had a family with issues rising to Jerry Springer levels. There was all kinds of chaos, including two great-uncles (dead by the time we were dating) who had sexually abused all of the older generation. That led to several members of that next generation doing chaotic things like sleeping with friends of their own offspring. Drug and alcohol abuse was endemic as well in all the generations. 

Through several family get-togethers at holidays, I would hear all kinds of reasons why the rapists weren't really so bad, even though I could see how the chaos kept oozing out. 

And then there were those who were really healthy, who didn't have chaos in their lives, and those were the ones who would argue against the goodness of those two uncles. They had escaped the mindset which kept chaos flourishing for the rest of the family. 

I can understand that some members of the family still loved the abusive rapists, and they admitted that if those people were strangers they wouldn't be defending them, but since they were family they couldn't help how they felt. 

That doesn't make those departed great-uncles good people, but it's understandable to defend someone/something in which one has an emotional investment. 

(Eventually that relationship ended, after she got angry about one of those questionnaires like 'Are you an alcoholic?" She had demonstrated some behaviors around her 3-year-old, and then presented me with this questionnaire to show she didn't have a problem with alcohol. I asked her the same questionnaire but substituted marijuana for alcohol, and she got angry because I was "attacking her." The attack consisted of the fact that all her answers to the questionnaire supported that she had the marijuana equivalent to being an alcoholic Since she introduced the questionnaire, apparently the attack was in making the logical leap in making the questions about pot. I still worry about the kid, but there's nothing I can do about that....)


----------



## Overtone (Jan 19, 2015)

Here is something from Wikipedia about heresy in Christianity. 



> Last execution of a heretic[edit]
> The last case of an execution by the Catholic Church was that of the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll, accused of deism by the waning Spanish Inquisition and hanged to death 26 July 1826 in Valencia after a two-year trial.[14] Eight years later in 1834, Spain, the last remaining government to still be providing the Catholic Church with the right to pronounce and effect capital punishment, formally withdrew that right from the Church. The era of such absolute Church authority had lasted some 1,449 years, from 385 AD through to 1834 of the 19th century. The number of people executed as heretics as sentenced by various church authorities is not known; however it most certainly numbers into the several thousands. Coincidentally, the first heretic executed had been a Spaniard, Priscillian; the most notorious organization known for the persecution of heretics had been based in Spain, the Spanish Inquisition, and the last heretic executed had been a Spaniard, Cayetano Ripoll. Thus, the era of the execution of heretics by the Catholic Church (or by any other major Christian denomination) had finally come to an end.



Talk about a "long history", right? For centuries, "The Church" did believe it had that power. Now it doesn't (Uganda aside). The Bible has been the same... but its interpretation, and the people interpreting it have changed.

Edit: Another really important thing changed actually... that the gov'ts worldwide no longer gave so much power to the church. The problem in Islam is twofold... there are still places where the fundamentalists ARE the government, and there are places where the fundamentalists have no official authority, but do what they want to just the same.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 19, 2015)

So you won't reply to my PM, but you'll quote it ITT. Cool. 

I'm very much arguing that the Quran has no "divine bloodthirst." You say you can post the parts from the Quran that say to kill blasphemers. Post them here. It'll be a lot quicker of a way to continue the discussion.


----------



## asher (Jan 19, 2015)

Explorer, if the internal writings inside the Qur'an are contradictory about the required provocation to kill, why are you saying one trumps the other and then applies to everyone?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 19, 2015)

Overtone, I don't normally look at my PMs, so if that was directed at me, I can state that I didn't read any, let alone have a response to them.

Asher, I'm saying that the followers are the ones who are motivated to find arguments about why their deity's ideas are crazy and contradictory.

I also am saying that there is disagreement about what parts of the nutty deity's should be followed, so it's clearly not objective. 

Lastly, if there are easily two ways to argue about something which comes from a deity, then there is a motivation to "keep rooting for the home team" as Overtone put it and to explain away the unpleasant parts and to retain the pleasant ones.

If you have to engage in huge apologetics in order to justify your particular interpretation, your interpretation is not objective. In this case, you can't say that it's objectively clear that Boko Haram, or al Qaeda, or the group which calls itself IS, are incorrect in their denominational reading of their faith's religious texts. If it was clear and objective, there'd only be one flavor of Islam (and of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and so on). 

It's people who use their own "moral" compass which leads to the different interpretations,and you can't claim to objectively point out the one true faith without someone else claiming the same objectivity in pointing out that it's *not* the one true faith. 

Hmm. That wasn't as clear as possible. 

*If you have two contradictory moralities from the same divine being, as the combination is what was divine revelation, you should follow both. To decide to follow one and not the other, that one is correct and one is not, is making a decision based on one's own morality. *


----------



## Overtone (Jan 19, 2015)

My bad... I thought that quote was something I had written in the PM. I put some time into it and tried to be sincere and more candid, so you might appreciate it. 

In response to your post, I think that actually puts us much closer to resolution. Where I'm coming from is that I think the Taleban, Boko Haram, ISIS, etc. are all CRAZY and that "broken" doesn't even begin to describe their moral compass. And the question is "are they wrong?" In this case can we acknowledge that while they aren't "100% wrong", they are also by no means "100% right?" I'm more inclined to believe that they're just assholes than I am that they are the ones who "get it." But I definitely agree that a religious book that can be interpreted by assholes as justification for killing is a baaad idea. But as we've discussed at length, most of the One God books have that potential. I think I get it though... hell... I don't even trust recipes, so I'm not going to trust any ambiguous book to tell me what to do. I just didn't think that was too on topic.


----------



## asher (Jan 19, 2015)

Explorer, you're saying that someone must support the Hebdo killings for blasphemy while simultaneously not supporting the Hebdo killings because they didn't attack you first.

This is obviously absurd. While it supports your general stance on religions, it makes your more specific argument impossible.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 19, 2015)

Asher, I think that's his point? it's absurd and people from neither side are "true Muslims" as being a true Muslim would require you hold both positions which as you said is absurd. 

I could be wrong though I'm sure explorer will clarify if I am.

And sorry for this long reply, I didn't realize how much I had to say till I was done...



Overtone said:


> So the argument went to two places.
> 
> 1. Does _the Quran_ say anything about killing blasphemers?
> 2. Are the Muslims who don't believe in killing blasphemers wrong? Are they selectively following/rejecting following the teachings based on their own personal morality?
> ...



Honestly, I think it's inconsequential whether or not the Quran says anything about blasphemers because even if it doesn't it has obvious glaring problems with it regarding morality and equality that even moderates gloss over (Like all theistic faiths). I think it's dangerous that people take these stories as facts and as we've seen with Christians even if we were able to secularize the Middle East and terrorism became a rare occasion you'd still have less-radical fundamentalist trying to persecute homosexuals, woman, other races, creeds ect. It's obnoxious, by the time we get Christians to stop acting prejudice in America we'll have the same social problems in the Middle East that we've had with Christians for decades....and again everyone will scream "racist" for criticizing Islam like how Christians scream idiotic shit like "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!" Now.

And about the five pillars of Islam...I get how that's what makes a true Muslim but I don't get how any part of following those could possibly make anyone a good person? It has one good part of it Zakat: giving 2.5% of ones savings to the poor and needy and even this really does nothing to help? It's a social bandaid. And not to mention that if following those pillars is what makes a "true Muslim" who's to say terrorist don't follow the five pillars? There's no part of the Five pillars that speak against violence of any sort, correct?

Why is there nothing about educating yourself or how others should be treated? The other four pillars are equivalent to the first four commandments, useless. 

Also I understand what sharia law is and that's why I haven't mentioned it and you will never see me mention it.

But let's just look at the story of Mecca, if you take the story at face value (from the Muslim perspective) it makes Muslims out to be the victim even though it ends with them conquering and destroying all traces of pagan idols, but I question the authenticity of that story.

When I read it it sounds like the people of Mecca were complete idiots, it's stated that Muhammad advocated for monotheism against the Meccan polytheism in which he did this for 13 years (some sources say) while supposedly enduring persecution, entrails dumped on him, choking, assassination attempts ect. But somehow over a 13 year span no one was able to kill him? (I don't believe that, regardless of his family's status in the local ruling tribe) then Muhammad left for medina (the pagans probably thought he was gone for good) but violence between Muslims and meccans continued...why? 

Why would the pagans continue to engage them in conflict if the Muslims left? It seems more likely the Muslims were the aggressors as THEY were the ones who wanted to make Mecca a monotheistic Muslim society. Then even after a bunch of battles between the meccans and Muslims, Muhammad and his followers wanted to enter Mecca for pilgrimage, (as if they're all cool and shit? Ego much?) but were blocked by the meccans which resulted in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in which the meccans (most likely out of fear, since they had their asses kicked already) promised to cease fighting Muslims and promised that Muslims would be allowed into the city to perform the pilgrimage the following year...It was meant to be a truce for 10 years. But barely two years later, the meccans violated the truce by slaughtering a group of Muslims and their allies. Why the hell did they do that? They supposedly knew the Muslims numbers had grown? How do we know this group of Muslims was not in fault or violation of said treaty? (We have differing claims stating Muslims were raiding caravans so this is clear bias, we just assume since they were Muslims of course they did nothing towards the disgusting pagans)

After that Muhammad and his now 10,000 strong army marched into Mecca. But instead of fighting, the Meccans surrendered to Muhammad, who declared peace and amnesty for its inhabitants (how just of him not to slaughter his home town people for not falling on their knees infront of him.) The pagan imagery was then destroyed by Muhammad's followers and the location Islamized and rededicated to the worship of the monotheistic God. So instead of being killed people were forced to worship Allah...with no threat of violence? How was that accomplished?

So are we to believe there were ZERO pagans who maybe didn't want their shit destroyed? Zero who fought back and were either reprimanded or killed?

It just makes me think about what would of been written in history had the nazis won ww2? How would they of structured the story of what happened to the Jews? I'm sure there would of been parallels with this story...as in "it was all the Jews fault, they stole from and belittled the German people and we were just in defending ourselves"

I guess my point is the book is full of stories like this with questionable ethics and the people who try to truly understand this book correctly seem to just take these stories at face value, ignoring the questionable ethics or stories and then think it was completely justified that the Muslims went in and destroyed all the pagans idols and took over and then they genuinely believe they did this without harming anyone? Or they just completely ignore that part of the story. It's delusional, scary thinking...not in a "all Muslims are terrorist, KILL THEM!" Way but scary like the Christians who use apologetics to ignore slavery...people who can play mental gymnastics like that are unpredictable and people center their lives around this book that requires so much gymnastics it should be called the Olympics.

Another point, I would also argue secular morality is much better then religious as secular has a viable mechanism for settling disputes through discussion, debate and evidence.

While religion it would appear has no mechanism for settling disputes as it's mainly about conquest, conflict, coercion and conversion 

And the sad thing is what we see is that generally human beings are decent and many times share the same ideas about morals UNTIL they get influenced by some absurd religious claim and after that (unless this was instilled since birth) they have these religious ideas that are either divisive, hateful or counter-productive.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

It all depends on perspective. There are some areas where Islam is actually one of the stronger religions. Like you said "what about morality in general?", well it was one of the first religions to really say a woman had any rights if her husband left her. And the pillars depend on perspective too. Fasting during ramadan is something intended to get people to sympathize with those who don't have food to eat every day. Part of that is to fast but go about your daily life and not pity yourself or make a big deal out of it. Doing that a month out of the year is more than most people do to consciously focus on empathy for the poor. But most people miss the point because it's expected of them, and they start to take it for granted. There's people who sleep all day so they dont' really have to deal with it, and lots of people stop going to work. To those people, there is no point, other than that they think they're "supposed to" and therefore they do. Prayer is kind of like meditation. It also enforces good hygiene. The prohibition on alcohol and other intoxicants could be seen as some by a way to stop people from having a good time, but it can also be seen as a way to prevent the damage that alcoholism does to families. For a really chill, good hearted person, I could see them being drawn to the religion because it's basically telling them to stop putting their ego first, and live a balanced life so you can better the world around you. I know a few Muslims who are like that. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but they're of Southeast Asian origin. Most of the Arab Muslims I have known are either not religious, or are the type who strictly follow it without really liking it or getting why. The fact that there's good hearted people out there drawn to the religion for good reasons doesn't make it ok that there's also violent assholes who actively exploit it to go on rampages that gain them territory and power, but it's important not to be ignorant of their existence.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> It all depends on perspective. There are some areas where Islam is actually one of the stronger religions. Like you said "what about morality in general?", well it was one of the first religions to really say a woman had any rights if her husband left her.



I'd agree with that in the same as I'd agree that the Russians put the first artificial Earth satellite into orbit. As in wonderful, for that time but what did they do afterwards? They fell behind.



Overtone said:


> And the pillars depend on perspective too. Fasting during ramadan is something intended to get people to sympathize with those who don't have food to eat every day. Part of that is to fast but go about your daily life and not pity yourself or make a big deal out of it. Doing that a month out of the year is more than most people do to consciously focus on empathy for the poor. But most people miss the point because it's expected of them, and they start to take it for granted. There's people who sleep all day so they dont' really have to deal with it, and lots of people stop going to work. To those people, there is no point, other than that they think they're "supposed to" and therefore they do.



Again, not to be a dick but it's a social bandaid and it's not required you have a faith to accomplish any of those things? secular atheist groups do all that (minus fasting) and more in the forms of blood drives, food drives ect and we do it year round...I understand people in the Middle East may not be able to accomplish that due to not having money or food to spare but I just feel like centuries of fasting and prayer are definitely not helping and like you said many don't take it seriously.



Overtone said:


> Prayer is kind of like meditation. It also enforces good hygiene. The prohibition on alcohol and other intoxicants could be seen as some by a way to stop people from having a good time, but it can also be seen as a way to prevent the damage that alcoholism does to families.



I get this meditation has been shown to have positive effects on people...I just feel there are many alternatives to prayer that people have never even been exposed to, I'm pretty sure I've even seen studies saying playing a musical instrument can have the same effects as meditation (don't hold me to that claim tho?) my point being there are means to achieve the same effect without debasing yourself and submitting to a being you have no evidence is there?

And the alcoholism thing I fully understand also...for ancient people. Not that long ago we had doctors telling us it was okay to smoke cigarettes so making extreme consequences for drinking alcohol in ancient times makes sense but in modern times I think it's important we let people make their own choices, let people understand the consequences clearly and help people who clearly didn't understand the consequences of their actions even though they were warned.



Overtone said:


> For a really chill, good hearted person, I could see them being drawn to the religion because it's basically telling them to stop putting their ego first, and live a balanced life so you can better the world around you. I know a few Muslims who are like that. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but they're of Southeast Asian origin. Most of the Arab Muslims I have known are either not religious, or are the type who strictly follow it without really liking it or getting why.



Well yeah, I guess maybe if they didn't read the whole book but I've found many moderates of all religions barely know what's in their holy book, they know the social rules, what their families have expected, woo and such but not much of the literature.

I've found many of the ex-Muslim atheist friends I have are pretty critical of the religion and dislike that many associate it with race as many of them get called terrorist or terrible names and I almost (almost, not fully) feel worse for them then the average moderate as they no longer even follow the religion.



Overtone said:


> The fact that there's good hearted people out there drawn to the religion for good reasons doesn't make it ok that there's also violent assholes who actively exploit it to go on rampages that gain them territory and power, but it's important not to be ignorant of their existence.



Agreed, but I'd say the amount of people born into the religion in Muslim controlled countries who are never expossed to any other ideology dwarfs the amount of people who convert or are drawn to the religion...and those people born into it and bound to it by national laws or family pressure should have the freedom to know there are other ideologies out their that they may like better?

Can you really declare to be anything (Muslim, atheist ect.) when other options were never presented to you?


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 20, 2015)

I dunno, I think that the most important thing in a SEA of details and debate is that they only person that is capable of change is YOU (whoever you are)

I think other than the severely mentally ill, people know the difference between right and wrong. The excessive details don't do much for me. I think that it's important that we continue doing the right things...that's all you can do (shrug)


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2015)

Asher, as Overtone notes, all the crazy Muslim groups (defined as such because they kill so many, presumably) are not 100% wrong, and not 100% right. That seems to imply that the peaceable Muslim groups also are not 100% right, and not 100% wrong.

Those groups are made up of individuals who each decide which side of the "contradictions" (as Overtone called them) is the correct side, based on their internal moral compass. They decide what part strikes them as correct.

But it's *all* correct, and all comes from that same insane, inconsistent deity. 

I'm okay with someone saying that they would rather choose the side of the contradictions which they prefer, and then attribute that choice to their own internal morality.

I disagree that they are following the actual morality ordained by the insane deity, because that morality says to do both. 

I also disagree that you can wish the side you don't agree with out of existence, just because you don't agree. 

I do completely understand not wanting to just leave one's religion. Religions are distinct from faith, even though religions often rely on faithful people. Religions can be part of someone's social and family life, and even if someone loses their faith, they can continue to take part in that religious life... even though it might seem hollow to them if they are doing it for the religious purposes. 

Anyway, I do agree that a deity which calls for two contradictory courses of action is insane, and that any person who claims that one doesn't substitute one's own moral judgments for the insane contradictory ones of such a crazed deity is just plain wrong, as it is impossible to engage in both sides of that contradiction.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Shit Wolf - all more great reasons to live a secular life. As you said, there are alternatives that are simpler and more straightforward. The thing you talked about with prayer, meditation, music, etc. is a good example. As you said, times have changed and there are other sources for this information nowadays. But back when Islam was founded, most of the world wasn't very aware of what behaviors are positive and what behaviors can be negative.


explorer - you are definitely jumping ahead a little bit. First of all, I haven't yet seen a verse posted that talks about blasphemers for us to discuss. Secondly, I've said that there are contradictory statements, but context and other passages that can and should be used to and reconcile them. "Then God is insane" seems like kind of a difficult point to argue. But what is/isn't in the Quran is something we can really analyze.

I can kind of fast forward the next few steps.

Sword Verse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> "But when the forbidden months are past,
> then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,
> and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);
> but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them:
> for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."


9:5

And about its interpretation, emphasis added:



> The verse of the sword, according to mainstream Islamic theologians, abrogated as many as 124 verses of the Qur'an.[1][4]
> 
> Indian politician Arun Shourie, has criticized this verse (including many others) from the Qur'an in his book titled Indian Controversies, Essays in Religion and Politics.[5] Shourie says *the sunnah and the hadith are equally evocative in their support of the notion of Jihad*, which he deems to be the leitmotiv of the Quran.
> 
> ...



Please don't ignore that because it's at the heart of what I'm saying. I've shown you the verse that people use to say Islam justifies killing pagans (I don't believe there is one about "blasphemers" but if you know of it, post it) and I've shown you explanations from respected scholars that state that the verse had a particular context of there already being war against pagan groups who have broached peace agreements. That's a very specific circumstance. If you check out their books you'll see the detailed explanation of where in the Quran the context is provided. You can find the same online and I'm happy to link to it.

And I will acknowledge this (which is very sad)


> However, in many Islamic countries the Ahmadis have been defined as heretics and non-Muslim and subjected to persecution and often systematic oppression



But that doesn't mean that the Ahmadis are wrong or that the people persecuting them have a valid reason for doing so. 

It's a really really complex situation.... there's definitely evil out there. I feel it's better to consider how human nature, social structure, and other things that seem to be endemic in one place or another are contributing to this violence then it is to focus only on religion, as if the religion itself must be so tainted that there's no other way things could have gone so wrong. Look at the Lebanese civil war... everybody got their hands dirty in that one. And try to explain the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias using verses from the Quran. You simply can't...


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I'm very much arguing that the Quran has no "divine bloodthirst." You say you can post the parts from the Quran that say to kill blasphemers. Post them here. It'll be a lot quicker of a way to continue the discussion.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Hi.

I usually would be championing for muslims to be able to practice their religion all they want, which I feel is important.

However, in a religious debate such as this, I feel that the discussion could benefit from some clarity&#8230;

I've seen this method used before (quote the scripture, then add tons of annotations to make it clearer).

The problem is that half of all communication is what the listener does.

So, here's the text in my copy of the Quran (no annotations):


9:5 "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them on their way. Indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful."

4:89 "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of God . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

47:4 "So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either favor afterwards or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. That is the command. And if God had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them, but to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of God - never will He waste their deeds."

8:12 "When your Lord inspired to the angels, 'I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike upon their necks and strike from them every fingertip.'"

9:123 "O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that God is with the righteous."

2:91 "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

22:19 "These are two adversaries who have disputed over their Lord. But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water."



&#8230;There are more, but this might be a good opening to the discussion.

The Quran says to kill, clearly. This is not fatwa, but the most revered document in Islam, the Holy Quran.

You can annotate the scripture, mention that the Bible does the same thing, or whatever, but the scriptures are what they are and say what they say. They say to kill. Nothing personal against Islam, jsut stating the fact that the Quran says to kill, which it does. I'm not going to let you make bones about it without repeating myself.

Is Islam a peaceful religion? It can be, yes, but sometimes it is not.
Does the Quran say to kill those who disbelieve? Yes. Equivocate as you like, but the scripture speaks for itself.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

What is your response to the quotes a few posts above from Patricia Crone and Muhammad Asaf?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Also note that not a single line of that is about blasphemers of the prophet. Cat Steven said "the Quran makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet then he must die." Can anyone show me where the Quran says that about someone who defames the prophet? Otherwise it seems like maybe he's actually not a credible authority on the Quran (shocker).


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

There's no doubt that scripture is often twisted out of form by those with particular interests in mind.
The same kinds of text 'abuse' exist in almost every religion - 
the question still stands; why does the empirical, bottom line behavior of Islamic fanatics different than all others?

You tend to phrase your posts as if it's a competition and i'm on some particular side.
I'm not, i'm just against extremism in general.
There have been known to be violent Jewish and Christian fanatics over the years, there's no denying that - but why is the number of Islamic maniacs so exponentially greater than any other religion's?

You'd think it was a media-spin, but even watching Al-Gazeera, you'd get the feeling that Islam is a terrible thing.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

Because most of the other religions worked that shit out already by virtue of being several thousand years older?


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> What is your response to the quotes a few posts above from Patricia Crone and Muhammad Asaf?



My response should not surprise you: "read the scripture."

I can see what it says. I see what the other verses say. 

Does book 9 of the Quran mention treaties with disbelievers, yes. Does it say to only kill disbelievers who break the treaties? No, it does not. Verse 5 is saying that if there is a treaty, to wait until the treaty has ended, then kill the disbelievers.

4:8 says to expel the disbelievers, and if they don't leave right away, kill them.

47:4 says to hold people hostage and kill them if they disbelieve.

Several other passages say to fight or kill or behead disbelievers. I don't understand how these passages can be argued. They just say what they say. Period. If you quote scholars who say "Well, it looks like it says that, but really, what the Quran means is to be peaceful," all I say is "read the passage."


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Islam's contribution to the world right now is terribleness... that's for sure. But it's worth having the debate about whether that's because Islam itself is terrible, or because there are some terrible people within it, who are running amok. I want to be sure we're not being shortsighted and only seeing the religious side of the violence and not understanding the other angles, which I think go a long way to explaining the cycle of violence. Reform of Islam is needed and will have a great impact, but there are other levers to pull too. The US has a lot of intel about the flow of funds that finance terrorism... if they and the rest of the world act on it more, that is likely to have a very great impact on the situation as well.

It's not really a competition, just as an Arab American it makes me a little nervous to see ideas being perpetuated that Muslims are violent or that their religion is inherently violent. I don't know when I'll wake up and see that something happened and all of a sudden I have to look over my shoulder because I'm Arab. It also seems kind of disrespectful to me... I've watched the videos and heard the stories about the killing in Iraq and Syria and they cause me great suffering, so it feels like kind of an indignity to come onto the forum and see this thread... I'm an apologist? I've probably lost more sleep and shed more tears over this violence than most here have, but I'm the apologist. The truth is I'm just someone who can see all the facets of the sociopathy that has been happening, and what I'm saying is that if you really want to address the violence in Islam you need to be very familiar with a wide range of topics or you're likely to miss the point entirely and perhaps spread misinformation if your sources tend to be poor.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> My response should not surprise you: "read the scripture."
> 
> I can see what it says. I see what the other verses say.
> 
> ...



Reading one verse like a time runs the risk of containing the "what" and "how", but not the "who". 



> restricts the permission to fight and kill as being given regarding *specific tribes already at war with the Muslims *who had breached their peace agreements and have attacked them first



What is meant by "disbelievers" is those specific tribes, not any and all disbelievers throughout the rest of time.


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> ...what I'm saying is that if you really want to address the violence in Islam you need to be very familiar with a wide range of topics or you're likely to miss the point entirely and perhaps spread misinformation if your sources tend to be poor.


But they're not, are they?

Would this be easier if it wasn't personal?
Let's talk about jewish illegal settlers, then, or mormonic christians who oppose LGBTs.

The solution is not for some western country to dig into their wallets. The solution is not to be understanding and mindful of their gentle and precious opinions.
The solution is to kick them out. To close their churches. To arrest them when they are violent, whether verbally or physically.
The solution is to stop them, in the most archetypal comic-book-villain sense - to wipe their opinions off of the face of the earth.
Not the jewish or christian beliefs, not even the zionist or mormonic particularities within, but all those maniacs who believe - as opposed to 'think' - that their beliefs surpass human rights.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 20, 2015)

Given the fact that religion is just a bunch of made up nonsense I think it is quite safe to say that all religions are run by people, some of whom are terrible. It's not that relevant when:


All holy texts are written by men (whether you believe in a deity or not).
These texts/people came into existence such a long time ago that proving them right or wrong, beyond the obvious things, is difficult.
Most of these religions existed in a time period far different than ours where written history is much less prevalent AND those histories were also written by men (and usually the winning team leading to obvious bias).
Most of these texts weren't written down immediately after 'receiving' the information making them prone to loads of error.
Translating one language to another is very difficult given that phrases and words don't always make sense/exist in other languages.
There's a lot of historical context in most of the holy texts making them hard to comprehend in today's time.
And last, but not least none of these should actually matter if God were real because almost every religion deems their God to be infallible. The above is a lot of error for an infallible God.

Religion was created to control people. What better way to keep poor people happy than to convince them that being poor is 'morally right'. The only religion today successfully doing what the rest of them used to do quite well from what I can tell is Islam. They're able to achieve the same results too because a lot of the fresh converts into the extremist branches of the faith are typically poor and less educated.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

Quitty said:


> But they're not, are they?
> 
> Would this be easier if it wasn't personal?
> Let's talk about jewish illegal settlers, then, or mormonic christians who oppose LGBTs.
> ...


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Reading one verse like a time runs the risk of containing the "what" and "how", but not the "who".
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by "disbelievers" is those specific tribes, not any and all disbelievers throughout the rest of time.



That's not how I read it. I have the Holy Quran in front of me, so it's not like I only see this one verse.

Did you see the other verses I posted, as well?



Overtone said:


> Islam's contribution to the world right now is terribleness... that's for sure. But it's worth having the debate about whether that's because Islam itself is terrible, or because there are some terrible people within it, who are running amok.
> 
> It's not really a competition, just as an Arab American it makes me a little nervous to see ideas being perpetuated that Muslims are violent or that their religion is inherently violent. I don't know when I'll wake up and see that something happened and all of a sudden I have to look over my shoulder because I'm Arab. .



Islam itself is what people make it. I know that religious folks do not see the world this way very often, but it is a fact that any given religion is what its followers are. That said, I do not think Islam is a violent religion, as I do not think most muslims are violent. The Quran is violent. Some muslims are violent. The Bible is violent and some christians are violent, and so it goes. I would argue that Islam is not violent IN SPITE of the Quran.

As an Arab American, you, I assume, are ultra-cognizant of all of this stuff. When I lived in Detroit in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, anyone with bronze skin was at equal risk of being pulled out of their vehicle and beaten, whether they were Chaldean, Coptic, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim. Many Chaldeans and Coptics left the middle east to get away from the same kind of violent extremist muslims who planned 9/11.

It's all very horrible.

Anyway, it just strikes a nerve with me when people say that the Quran is some ultra-peaceful document. Obviously, some followers of Islam do not even think so. I don't think so, and furthermore, I fail to understand how anyone who actually read the thing thinks so.

Christian extremism is based on what the Bible says. Islamic extremism is based on what the Quran says. Maybe both interpret things differently than the mainstream interpretation, but in either case, the words are there as is, and to me, they seem to be quite clear.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Quitty said:


> But they're not, are they?
> 
> Would this be easier if it wasn't personal?
> Let's talk about jewish illegal settlers, then, or mormonic christians who oppose LGBTs.
> ...



Wha? I sure hope I read this wrong.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't think so.


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

I'm not sure you did.

No one has a right to impose his beliefs on anyone, ever.
The right way, in my opinion, to treat those who do is to prevent them from doing it, even at the cost of limiting their freedom. If they wanted to avoid that, they could stop at anytime.

I see no reason to 'respect' a set of beliefs that doesn't respect others -
and again, this isn't about islam, or any other religion. This is about imposing your beliefs on others.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Given the fact that religion is just a bunch of made up nonsense I think it is quite safe to say that all religions are run by people, some of whom are terrible. It's not that relevant when:
> 
> 
> All holy texts are written by men (whether you believe in a deity or not)
> ...





The only thing I'd like to add is that translating the documents before anyone really cares is sketchy, at best, but once the religion is mainstream, there are tons of talented people willing to translate the documents very well.

Maybe the way to solve this is to create a religion that is just fun. No violence, no self-sacrifice, just a mutual respect and have fun outside of preserving each other's rights and obeying local laws and regulations. It's a sad state of affairs in the world knowing that such a religion would never catch on in today's day and age, due to lack of excitement from all of the blood and gore - people'd probably be more gung-ho to become branch davidians 2.0.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

trans: "I'm going to impose my beliefs on people who impose their beliefs.

This isn't a "I don't to tolerate intolerance!" situation. You're physically controlling people. Arresting them. For their beliefs. Because you don't like them.

You of all people should know what's wrong with this line of thinking, ffs.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> The only thing I'd like to add is that translating the documents before anyone really cares is sketchy, at best, but once the religion is mainstream, there are tons of talented people willing to translate the documents very well.
> 
> Maybe the way to solve this is to create a religion that is just fun. No violence, no self-sacrifice, just a mutual respect and have fun outside of preserving each other's rights and obeying local laws and regulations. It's a sad state of affairs in the world knowing that such a religion would never catch on in today's day and age, due to lack of excitement from all of the blood and gore - people'd probably be more gung-ho to become branch davidians 2.0.



It's called (Zen) Buddhism.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Quitty said:


> I'm not sure you did.
> 
> No one has a right to impose his beliefs on anyone, ever.
> The right way, in my opinion, to treat those who do is to prevent them from doing it, even at the cost of limiting their freedom. If they wanted to avoid that, they could stop at anytime.
> ...



So, in order to make sure no one imposes his beliefs upon another, we should impose our beliefs on the ones we suspect might impose their beliefs on others ?!


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

asher said:


> It's called (Zen) Buddhism.



I was half thinking that when I was typing it.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> So, in order to make sure no one imposes his beliefs upon another, we should impose our beliefs on the ones we suspect might impose their beliefs on others ?!



I'm getting a hankering to post a Norman Finkelstein clip here. I don't think it will be taken very well.



bostjan said:


> I was half thinking that when I was typing it.



It's true


----------



## flint757 (Jan 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> The only thing I'd like to add is that translating the documents before anyone really cares is sketchy, at best, but once the religion is mainstream, there are tons of talented people willing to translate the documents very well.
> 
> Maybe the way to solve this is to create a religion that is just fun. No violence, no self-sacrifice, just a mutual respect and have fun outside of preserving each other's rights and obeying local laws and regulations. It's a sad state of affairs in the world knowing that such a religion would never catch on in today's day and age, due to lack of excitement from all of the blood and gore - people'd probably be more gung-ho to become branch davidians 2.0.



I know a lot of people who I doubt deep down believe 100% in their respective Gods, but follow the faith and go to church because they love being a part of something. They like the community aspect of it. Admittedly it's something that I do miss, but I just can't see past the nonsense to actually bother. I'd be down for a 'religion' that was really just about brotherhood and big block parties.


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

So you are getting me wrong.

You don't arrest people for thinking that black people are the spawn of the devil. We all know these people exist, but so long as they keep their traps shut, they're alright by the law. I tend to agree - you can be an a*hole so long as you understand you should keep that violence to yourself. It is nobody else's problem as long as it's in your head.

Once you go on public television, however, and proclaim that blacks should die, you'll be arrested for encouraging violence. 
That same principal isn't applied to religious extremists because it is not practical to jail that many violent people at once. I believe it should be applied regardless.

When what you need to do to avoid having your rights limited is to stop thinking what you're thinking, that's a problem.
When you just have to keep your violence to yourself to keep out of jail, i think it should be expected that you do.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

@bostjan Fair enough. The common theme is that religion shouldn't be taken so literally or so seriously. God gave commands to Noah to build an ark, but that doesn't mean everybody go out and build an ark. Yet people today make the same kind of mistake when they take the commands God gave Muhammad in relation to the war he was fighting as though it's something they should be following today.

I did see those other verses. My understanding is that it's a pretty similar situation to the Sword Verse, where it was meant in a very specific context that doesn't appear at the start of the verse. And that this applies to many other things in the Quran. And I still don't see anything about "blasphemers against the prophet." 


@Quitty I don't really agree with that way of dealing with anybody.

Even the author of the New Yorker article in the OP wrote this:



> Others want to lay the blame entirely on the theological content of Islam, as if other religions are more inherently peaceful&#8212;a notion belied by history as well as scripture.



Is the "ideology" he talks about just Islam? My experience tells me that the ideology is more closely rooted in "You don't dare talk shit about me, or I will fk you up." Ghaddafi, Assad, Saddam and Mubarak... none are/were especially religious, and they ruled some of the more secular countries (compared to say, Saudi Arabia), but they were some of the most intolerant and brutal people when it came to "shit talkers." They ruled over their people for decades that way. A well known fact is that some of the most powerful extremists were first imprisoned by those regimes as political prisoners, which is probably one of the places where they adopted this ideology. It's also the kind of thing that keeps getting the more progressive politicians in Lebanon assassinated. That ideology runs through politics and religion both.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Comic relief post
Egyptian protesters aim laser pointers at army helicopters - Imgur
(safe for work)


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

Quitty said:


> So you are getting me wrong.
> 
> You don't arrest people for thinking that black people are the spawn of the devil. We all know these people exist, but so long as they keep their traps shut, they're alright by the law. I tend to agree - you can be an a*hole so long as you understand you should keep that violence to yourself. It is nobody else's problem as long as it's in your head.
> 
> ...



You're going on the internet and proclaiming that (a significant percentage of, to all, I'm not sure) Muslims should be bodily incarcerated. You know there will be resistance and people will die should this attempt to pass. So you're calling for dead Muslims.

Do you see the problem here?


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> ...
> Is the "ideology" he talks about just Islam? My experience tells me that the ideology is more closely rooted in "You don't dare talk shit about me, or I will fk you up." Ghaddafi, Assad, Saddam and Mubarak... none are/were especially religious, and they ruled some of the more secular countries (compared to say, Saudi Arabia), but they were some of the most intolerant and brutal people when it came to "shit talkers." They ruled over their people for decades that way. A well known fact is that some of the most powerful extremists were first imprisoned by those regimes as political prisoners, which is probably one of the places where they adopted this ideology. It's also the kind of thing that keeps getting the more progressive politicians in Lebanon assassinated. That ideology runs through politics and religion both.


I'm not talking about religion, i'm talking about the right to other people's lives. That it coincides with religion is a different matter.
You do make a valid point about breeding violence, though.

I get into this debate with my spouse whenever an election's coming - 
i no longer mind if my government wants to go all left-wing, give up all land and dissolve the country, nor do i care if they want to go the other way, declare war on the world and carpet-bomb our 'enemies'.
I just think that this indecisiveness is killing us. 

Ignoring the problem is just as bad as overreacting, IMO. I've no real quarrel with any religion as such, but something has to be done so that becoming extreme doesn't register as beneficial.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

Just for clarification, the part of my post you quoted wasn't directed at you specifically, it was to everybody in general. Sorry, that wasn't very clear, I should have formatted better.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Ghaddafi, Assad, *Saddam* and Mubarak... none are/were especially religious, and they ruled some of the more secular countries (compared to say, Saudi Arabia), but they were some of the most intolerant and brutal people when it came to "shit talkers." They ruled over their people for decades that way. A well known fact is that some of the most powerful extremists were first imprisoned by those regimes as political prisoners, which is probably one of the places where they adopted this ideology. It's also the kind of thing that keeps getting the more progressive politicians in Lebanon assassinated. That ideology runs through politics and religion both.



Saddam Hussein? He was placed into power by George HW Bush, before he was VP. The reason behind it was to choose a secularist who would piss off the very religious Iranians, with whom we were nearly at was at the time.

Dictators come in all shapes and sizes and creeds. The thing is that there aren't thousands of extremists out there trying to kill me right now in the name of dictatorship. Religious folks pretty much come in all different levels of attitude, but there are tons of religious extremists out there who would like nothing more than to kill me, kill you, even kill themselves in the name of their religion.

The Saudis might not have a maniacal high-profile dictator, but they did export some of their extremists to fly planes into the WTC on 9/11. Iraq contributed zero terrorists to that plot.

Please do not take this to mean that I think ALL people from Saudi Arabia are terrorists/extremists, or even anything close to a large proportion. It's just that there is a small proportion who are, and that proportion is larger than, say, Iraq.


----------



## Quitty (Jan 20, 2015)

asher said:


> You're going on the internet and proclaiming that (a significant percentage of, to all, I'm not sure) Muslims should be bodily incarcerated. You know there will be resistance and people will die should this attempt to pass. So you're calling for dead Muslims.
> 
> Do you see the problem here?


Not muslims, extremist muslims. As overtone has stated, vigorously, it's not even a subtle distinction.
Ditto for extremist-anything, it's obviously no longer just islam we're talking about.

Arresting and killing people isn't the problem, just needlessly arresting and killing. When someone threatens another, do you just ignore it because you'd want them to keep their freedom? Or would you rather protect those who have not been violent?
Aren't police officers there to keep the peace by being (responsibly) violent?

The thing is, i don't think the fact that there are a lot of extremists should dictate our response to extremism, nor do i think their reluctance to stop being violent should encourage the rest of the world to leave them be.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Saddam Hussein? He was placed into power by George HW Bush, before he was VP. The reason behind it was to choose a secularist who would piss off the very religious Iranians, with whom we were nearly at was at the time.



That's why I mentioned him... he was a secular leader, but the way he acted towards dissenters was pretty similar to the kind of mentality the extremists have towards people who don't agree with their "brand of Islam." 



> Dictators come in all shapes and sizes and creeds. The thing is that there aren't thousands of extremists out there trying to kill me right now in the name of dictatorship. Religious folks pretty much come in all different levels of attitude, but there are tons of religious extremists out there who would like nothing more than to kill me, kill you, even kill themselves in the name of their religion.



That's just you. If you were a young man in Egypt or Syria during the uprising you might very well have been killed by "extremists acting in the name of a dictator." Especially in Syria. Again one of my points... Assad's armies have acted as execution squads and have wiped out entire villages with the same kind of blind zeal ISIS fighters had while doing the same thing. 


> The Saudis might not have a maniacal high-profile dictator, but they did export some of their extremists to fly planes into the WTC on 9/11. Iraq contributed zero terrorists to that plot.
> 
> Please do not take this to mean that I think ALL people from Saudi Arabia are terrorists/extremists, or even anything close to a large proportion. It's just that there is a small proportion who are, and that proportion is larger than, say, Iraq.



Is that proportion larger than it is in Iraq? We're seeing a lot more violence in Iraq... OTOH it's hard to say where those people are from since a lot of people have traveled to fight.


----------



## asher (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Is that proportion larger than it is in Iraq? We're seeing a lot more violence in Iraq... OTOH it's hard to say where those people are from since a lot of people have traveled to fight.



I'm pretty sure it's because we went in and completely wrecked Iraq's shit and they've had a barely functioning government coalition _at best_. Now it's pretty much turned into a power vacuum.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I'm very much arguing that the Quran has no "divine bloodthirst." You say you can post the parts from the Quran that say to kill blasphemers. Post them here. It'll be a lot quicker of a way to continue the discussion.



At this point, Overtone, since there have been many parts posted from that very book about killing blasphemers and unbelievers, I'm assuming that you've conceded the point.

Thanks to Bostjan for posting those relevant passages.

That won't necessarily stop apologetics about how that bloodlust is being misinterpreted as a literal divine revelation, but at least it ends any attempt to insist that the passages don't exist. 

My point about people substituting their own morality for divine bloodlust is only strengthened by apologetics about why we should interpret things differently than how the deities who feed on blood stated them. 

Let the morality substitution continue!


----------



## Overtone (Jan 21, 2015)

Lmao. Blood deity...let the morality substitution continue. You're actuallu a pretty funny dude!

Sorry, I wish I could leave it at that, but if you check post 109 you'll see that I still dispute that any of those passages quoted are about "blasphemers against the prophet". They do mention "unbelievers". And yet the Quran does not say that it is blasphemy to be an unbeliever. As such, there still hasn't been a verse posted about _blasphemers._ My point in this is that not only was Cat Stevens quote erroneous, but that the Charlie Hebdo attackers and Theo Van Gogh killers were wrong in thinking that this is how you protect the reputation of the prophet. that is not what the book teaches.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 21, 2015)

Yes, but what you're saying requires jumping through hoops and making educated guesses. If someone less educated just read it and took it at face value they'd come out with a far more violent answer...

If you have to guess at what it is saying to understand it then can it really be a book worth using for ones morality anyhow?


----------



## Overtone (Jan 21, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Yes, but what you're saying requires jumping through hoops and making educated guesses. If someone less educated just read it and took it at face value they'd come out with a far more violent answer...
> 
> If you have to guess at what it is saying to understand it then can it really be a book worth using for ones morality anyhow?



No, it probably can't. Not to the layperson, and not in practical life, except maybe with a good teacher. And even then... Just why? 

But the question isn't its worth as much as its content, which is why it's good that we're actually discussing that content finally.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 21, 2015)

Overtone said:


> No, it probably can't. Not to the layperson, and not in practical life, except maybe with a good teacher. And even then... Just why?
> 
> But the question isn't its worth as much as its content, which is why it's good that we're actually discussing that content finally.



I'm following you, but to what end? What's to be gained either way? If the real message is buried in interpretation and the written message is written ambiguously in such a way that it can easily be interpreted to encourage violence what point are we attempting to reach exactly? 

If the text is ambiguous and can be interpreted easily to encourage violence and at the same time be interpreted as, not a call for no violence, but simply as not directing others to commit violence then can we really argue that at its core it is a religion of peace. I'm not saying it is inherently violent, but you can't say it is at its core peaceful while saying the text can be interpreted correctly to both mean something non-violent and violent at the same time pending on the person reading it. Realistically if it is completely up to interpretation then either side or someone else entirely could be correct. We have no real way of knowing if we are just making estimations.

It's weird how these infallible beings can't communicate more clearly to their prophets so as to avoid all of the confusion. You'd think they'd want their followers to do what they wanted, not just make a best guess leading to many potentially making the wrong call.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 21, 2015)

As I said earlier, I think the Qurans verses that include God's revelations to Muhamad about wartime should be seen as only that. But that ties into part of the ideology behind the extremists jihad. They seem to be equating themselves to Muhammad and his forces, as though they are fighting a war on behalf of Muslims against oppressing forces. It's batshit crazy! i think what is most important to understand about it is that... It's not what the Quran says to do in certain war, it's the fact that these people actually believe they are fighting that kind of war. That's one reason why the it's so hard to fight the war on terror... If you are too heavy handed the collateral damage can radicalize the community because they start to see what they believe as evidence that they really are under attack.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 21, 2015)

I don't see any of it ending well no matter what anyone does. If we do nothing they raise the stakes or start attacking their own people. If we go in full force we risk convincing peaceful people that the terrorist groups were right about the west. Truth is no matter what anyone does terrorist organizations will just spin it so that it either seems justified in the right peoples eyes or use it as a tool to convert more people. I'm sure they impose child soldier tactics as well, "pick up a gun or die now without honor" kind of thing. Take all of that and put it in a place where religion is very important to people and where loads of people are both poor and uneducated you get a cluster.... situation. I don't see a way to end this any more than I see a way to end all the rebellions happening in various parts of Africa.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 21, 2015)

flint757 said:


> *Yes, but what you're saying requires jumping through hoops and making educated guesses. If someone less educated just read it and took it at face value they'd come out with a far more violent answer...
> 
> If you have to guess at what it is saying to understand it then can it really be a book worth using for ones morality anyhow?*



Yup!



Overtone said:


> No, it probably can't. *Not to the layperson, and not in practical life, except maybe with a good teacher.* And even then... Just why?



You mean, a teacher who will teach the interpretation which matches your own morality. As far as I can tell, there are plenty of Muslim institutions which have produced plenty of Muslim scholars who go with the bloodthirsty interpretation.

Fun fact: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad in Adhamiya, 

He probably had multiple good teachers, since those teachers also had to possess degrees in Islamic Studies to be able to teach graduate level courses in Islamic Studies.

I believe that his educated views and interpretations of Islam are reflected by the actions of that group he is in command of, which calls itself Islamic State. 

If I'm not mistaken, that means someone with a PhD in Islamic Studies disagrees with the substitution of your morality for that of Allah through his Prophet Muhammad. 



Overtone said:


> As I said earlier, I think the Qurans verses (should be interpreted in this way).
> 
> (I think their interpretation is) batshit crazy!
> 
> i think (I should give more interpretation).



I know that was pretty harsh, but those facts regarding al-Baghdadi just demonstrate again that you can't argue against al-Baghdadi's highly educated interpretation of Islam objectively. You have to use your own subjective judgment about where you think he's going wrong. "I think" means it's subjective.

In light of his doctorate, and the fact that he had good teachers, I think that you're just struggling to not admit that you are trying to state that Allah's morality is more in line with what you personally feel is acceptable.

And I do understand. 

You had previously posted about why someone would make attempts to whitewash views if one were defending one's faith or family. I agreed that it's understandable, even posting a story of people defending family.

But that doesn't mean the family member whose actions are being whitewashed aren't actually crazy or violent or harmful to others. 

And I'm glad that there are those who help bloodthirsty faiths evolve and reject the claimed "deity's" actual values. 

What I don't understand is why you keep saying that the deity pushing the faithful to kill isn't actually there. You're jumping through a lot of hoops to deny that push's existence, while simultaneously saying that the push is there but you just have to interpret it differently than what Allah actually said through Muhammad. 
*
Ironically enough, that might fit some Islamic definitions of blasphemy. Your denying that Islam calls for action invokes the conditions for such a call to go out. *

Again, I'm not saying that other religions don't have that same bloodlust. I think all such faiths, based on deities who want others killed, require the same substitution of their believers morality to temper their deities' violence in order to work in non-barbaric society.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 21, 2015)

Douchebaghdadi used his teaching to figure out how to manipulate people, twist daggers, and make himself powerful. The fact that he has teaching doesn't make him right, or truthful... you can't look at someone like him and seriously believe he's going to be objective and honest.

As I said before, if you look at the whole Quran, the verses quoted so far are either in relation to an ongoing war with certain pagan tribes, or laying ground rules for hypothetical warfare with other "people of the book." It's not a "morality substitution" to acknowledge the proper context. To understand it that way does not reject any part of the Quran.... it accepts the whole of it.

It's no Muslim's Quranic duty to kill any pagan/blasphemer/Christian/Jew except the ones physically attacking Muslims. Baghdadi and his ilk are relying on that latter part, claiming that Muslims ARE under attack, and they're just fighting back. If there's something to be faulted in the Quran, perhaps it's that it didn't go far enough in defining what it means to truly be "under attack", since perhaps if it discussed that in more depth it wouldn't be as easy for the extremists to be claiming they are fighting a war of "self defense".

If every part of a holy book is meant to stand on its own then I guess some of us have an ark to build, midwives to screw, and a lot of other shit to start catching up on....


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 21, 2015)

i'm not going to dive too deep into this, but want to point out that the difference between Christianity and Islam is the existence of state inside or outside of religion. during the renaissance scientific awareness (which islam had a huge hand in too), christianity split from its state, and all (or most) christian countries saw that there are two entities of power and should be seen as different, not one. 

with that said, the islamic religion has religion in state. not that they look at their politicians as religious figure heads, but the politicians do according to religion (or so they think) and religious figure heads do according to religion/law.

the bitter treatment of women, sure, it exists in many islamic ruled countries, but it isn't the religion that dictates them to treat women horribly. it happens in afghanistan, sure. its an afghani problem. it happens in pakistan, sure. its a pakistani problem. it doesn't happen in turkey. though an islamic country, they see a split from state/religion as does indonesia and several other countries that are muslim too, predominately. it isn't religion that that makes people do stupid shit, but their lack of understanding what the religion they are trying to follow is trying to teach them. 

muhammed was not about violence and beating women or killing anyone that wasn't muslim, nor fight with swords rather than diplomacy and words. if you actually read a lot of his stuff and read behind the translation, you'll understand an islam that 1.6 billion people follow is vastly different than the few thousand minority in 'islam' that the Al-Qaeda or the isis or other people claiming to be muslim follow. likewise, the KKK were supposedly following christianity. though a very small minority of a massive majority, they (al qaeda, isis, kkk, david koresh etc) are huge ass holes that cause a lot of damage to society and humanity. 

for a muslim to not follow jesus's teaching of 'turn the other cheek' and non violence is sinful. likewise, for a muslim to not follow muhammad teachings, which were actually very similar, is also the same. muhammad's teaching on war is to have war as a last resort, and only to defend yourself, NOT to annihilate/desecrate your opponents; but try to avoid violence at all cost. muslims are supposed to believe in jesus, and abraham, and muhamad and all other religious figure heads presented in the bible and thorah. those who dont are not 'muslim's.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 21, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Douchebaghdadi used his teaching to figure out how to manipulate people, twist daggers, and make himself powerful. The fact that he has teaching doesn't make him right, or truthful... you can't look at someone like him and seriously believe he's going to be objective and honest.
> 
> As I said before, if you look at the whole Quran, the verses quoted so far are either in relation to an ongoing war with certain pagan tribes, or laying ground rules for hypothetical warfare with other "people of the book." It's not a "morality substitution" to acknowledge the proper context. To understand it that way does not reject any part of the Quran.... it accepts the whole of it.
> 
> ...



To be fair I feel the same about Christianity that I do about Islam, Judaism and most variations of the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 21, 2015)

Overtone, I'm not sure if you avoiding my point, or just not understanding it.

I'm not denying that El Douchbag-i isn't a manipulative scumbag.

And at this point neither you nor I are denying that there's that thing about killing unbelievers in that particular religious text. (For some reason, it seemed like at least one of us wanted proof that those passages existed, so I'm glad that's settled.)

My point is that you and El Douchebag-i are applying your own interpretations to that book, with only your internal subjectivities deciding which is your preferred reading. 

You prefer not killing those you don't see as Muslim, even me (in spite of my not seeing the book in the same way). 

El Douchebag prefers to kill off those who are against Islam, by which he means Islam as supported by using his subjective morality. He can even kill others who claim to be Muslim but who are lying, as shown by the degenerate verions of Islam they practice. 

*What objective measure can you bring to bear to show that al Badhdadi is wrong in his interpretation? 

As soon as you talk about which scholars promote which "interpretation" or meaning they want to present to something ambiguous, you can't lay claim to objectivity. *

As soon as you say or imply "I think" in showing how al Baghdadi is wrong, that's just a judgment, and not objective. 

I'm not sure why my observation, that all believers actually use their own morality while attributing that morality to a religious text which promotes a different morality, is so controversial. You fighting it makes sense in light of your previous post about defending a religion because one was raised in that faith, but that has nothing to do with whether one is just looking for ways to make things work in spite of a family member being not a nice person.


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 21, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Maybe the way to solve this is to create a religion that is just fun. No violence, no self-sacrifice, just a mutual respect and have fun outside of preserving each other's rights and obeying local laws and regulations. It's a sad state of affairs in the world knowing that such a religion would never catch on in today's day and age, due to lack of excitement from all of the blood and gore - people'd probably be more gung-ho to become branch davidians 2.0.



Eris would like to have a word with you about Discordianism, but she's too lazy to log in to the forum for recruitment purposes. 

To learn more about the seriously serious and in-no-way-made-up religion that is Discordianism, please start here. To become a seriously serious member of this faith, simply follow these five rules:



> KNOW YE THIS O MAN OF FAITH!​ I - There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your Goddess. There is no Erisian Movement but The Erisian Movement and it is The Erisian Movement. And every Golden Apple Corps is the beloved home of a Golden Worm.
> II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document Numbering System.
> III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
> IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
> V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.


But don't actually follow them, as you'd be breaking Rule 5.


Finally, if you are interested in becoming a Pope**, simply print off this card, or this entire sheet of cards, choose some suitably Pope-y headgear, and start telling people you're a motherfucking Pope**. 


Discordians are a peaceful, peaceable, loving, hilarious, and partying people that don't recommend killing or hurting anybody. Having said that, fuck the Pastafarians; we were a fake religion first (second, if you're not a Scientologist; 4087th if you're an atheist).

*PLEASE IGNORE THE ABOVE DIVERSION, AND RESUME THE ACTUAL TOPIC*

If I'm interpreting the conversation being largely conducted by Explorer and Overtone correctly, it seems to boil down to two positions:

1) The Quran can be used to justify atrocities, and many terrible people are doing exactly that.
2) The Quran can not be used to justify atrocities, but many terrible people are doing it anyway.

May I posit that both positions are essentially correct?

Neither position makes any truth-claims about the Quran, though it has been implied. If this were a conversation about whether or not the Quran was true, it would look radically different. Both positions agree that the worst acts being carried out in the name of the Islamic faith are committed by awful people that either hold or seek power. For the moment, we'll just ignore the fact that the worst acts being carried out in the name of secular nations tend to kill or imprison thousands of innocent civilians in the name of (potentially) protecting thousands of innocent civilians. And although it's not written into the positions above, the conversation has led to an agreement that there are enough contradictions in the Quran that almost any position can be justified. So, it seems we are agreeing to agree, but disagreeing anyway because it's the internet and that's just what we do around here. So, where do we differ?



Overtone said:


> as an Arab American it makes me a little nervous to see ideas being perpetuated that Muslims are violent or that their religion is inherently violent. I don't know when I'll wake up and see that something happened and all of a sudden I have to look over my shoulder because I'm Arab. It also seems kind of disrespectful to me... I've watched the videos and heard the stories about the killing in Iraq and Syria and they cause me great suffering, so it feels like kind of an indignity to come onto the forum and see this thread... I'm an apologist? I've probably lost more sleep and shed more tears over this violence than most here have, but I'm the apologist. The truth is I'm just someone who can see all the facets of the sociopathy that has been happening, and what I'm saying is that if you really want to address the violence in Islam you need to be very familiar with a wide range of topics or you're likely to miss the point entirely and perhaps spread misinformation if your sources tend to be poor.



Ouch.

It's really easy to make and defend an objective argument (as I often try to) when you don't have to deal with or even witness the social effect that these events have on people even in secular countries.

Late last year I randomly met a guy named Mohammad in Melbourne, who was telling me how he has been approached with hostility by strangers, forced into conversations where he is told to defend Islam, his sister has been spat on in public by somebody she didn't know, and he's an atheist. Not that he can admit that to many people close to him, because he doesn't want to hurt the feelings of family members that feel their faith is the only part of their culture they could bring with them to a new country, and want him to be a part of that culture. All I could do was sit at the pub, bug-eyed, while one of the more awesome people I've ever met told me how every 'side' of the debate seems to be out to get him. That was before the 'terrorist attack' in Sydney (the more I look at it, the more that guy looks like a run-of-the-mill fruitloop), and therefore long before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, so I don't imagine things have become any easier for the guy that insisted on being called Moe.

So, I guess I'm saying that both positions are essentially correct because they're sufficiently distant from one another, and are viewing the same problem through sufficiently different social and political lenses, that it's difficult to dismiss either as being 'wrong'. As long as we are in agreement that a very select group of powerful shitheads are at the centre of the worst atrocities, we can sort out the semantic differences of the positions after we've found a means of ending the violence, if such a feat is even attainable.

My suggestion for a means to attaining peace? Thanks for asking. Convert everybody to Discordianism through liberal and strategic use of glitter-bombing.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2015)

BTW, at this point I'm again going to point out that there are plenty of faiths which require their followers to pick and choose according to those followers' own subjective moral compass. 

I have no reason to doubt Overtone being nervous about certain parts of the American population at large, especially those who are extremist. There is definitely violence and murder motivated by the Christian faith even within the borders of the US. I think that 2009, only five years ago, was the last killing of a doctor who provided abortions. The killer went after him in the doctor's church, where the doctor was serving as an usher. Clearly that Christian didn't feel that the doctor was a true Christian, and also felt the Christian faith allowed him to justifiably kill someone. 

The last two Christianity-motivated bombings of clinics were in 2012. 

And we certainly can't forget, in the wake of the current story regarding a prominent Republican's friendly relationship with a racist, leading to said Republican addressing such a group, that the Ku Klux Klan stands for American values and Christian morality. 

I'm grateful that enough Americans have decided that they don't support the morality of Biblical slavery, nor do most agree with religiously motivated anti-miscegenation laws... although quite a few still agree with defining same sex marriage as a subhuman thing, using their reading of Christianity to justify their views. 

Scary religious people are scary, no matter what faith they are. 

With all that said... I wanted to find stories about people using even religions which don't call for violence as a justification for violence, so I did a search for violent crime committed by a member of the Baha'i community. The only things I found were about effectively legal murders of Baha'i in Iran, and the stories make it seem that the murders are motivated by Islam. 

It's interesting that the Baha'i do feel that all the world's religions' leaders have been Baha'i prophets, but it's even more interesting that the divine consciousness of Baha'i is acknowledged as beng capable of changing the rules based on what is correct for the curent cultural norms. I think that's the first time I've run across a faith which is willing to embrace a change in the core beliefs motivated by the situation.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm pretty sleepy but it looks like I have some interesting posts to catch up on.

Until then I thought I'd share part of a Wikipedia article.



> Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.[1][2] The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.[3] The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, including death.[3][4] Various fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman.[3] The punishment can be fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.[5][6]
> 
> Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatw&#257;.[7][8]



Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original post in the thread has to do with the Charlie Hebdo killers and the "crime" of blasphemy. The post asserts that the Quran states that this is a capital crime. So far, that part of the post hasn't received any support as it relates to blasphemy, but I've found several sources stating that the Quran calls for no such punishment. Why can't we acknowledge that the killers acted based on fatwa or their own belief, and that there is no command in the Quran that they were following. Or you know, post that command.


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 22, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm grateful that enough Americans have decided that they don't support the morality of Biblical slavery, nor do most agree with religiously motivated anti-miscegenation laws... although quite a few still agree with defining same sex marriage as a subhuman thing, using their reading of Christianity to justify their views.
> 
> Scary religious people are scary, no matter what faith they are.



True enough. Even Buddhism - a faith that is viewed by the majority of the public as being predominantly about non-violence - has its shitheads that, for example, incite violence against Muslims, in this case in Burma, where a totally swell dude that calls himself "the Burmese Bin Laden" is exploiting the fear and anger of the Buddhist majority to convince them to attack mosques and homes. We've spent a lot of time on these forums stacking the claims of religions against the actions of their members and finding them coming up short of their own lofty ideals almost every time. At this stage, it's just about the least surprising thing in the world.

What we haven't spent much time doing is checking out how the almost inevitable groundswell against minority religions in any particular country might effect people that are only connected to those religions by family or culture. Massive social shifts (anti-slavery, pro-same-sex marriage, etc) tend to take decades, which means that even though 9/11 and the wars that followed it have prompted many people of varying relgions to ask enough questions of their faiths / belief systems for us to see a very real shift away from organised religion (if not spirituality in general), we're not going to see the knock-on effect of this shift until the 'new atheists' start to have families of their own. Just as it happens within mainstream moderate faiths, people that are aligned with minority faiths tend to wait until they are completely independent of their families (through migration, death, or good old domestic disagreements) until they step away from the organisations that perpetuate those belief systems. 

In other words, people need time. We have to be patient with one another. I'm just as enthusiastic to see the end of all religions as the next dude, but beating people over the head with the "you're wrong!" stick tends to scare them away from a path that might see them flourish and do a lot of good. 

I'm sure if somebody spent the time to go back through my old posts they could find evidence that I'm a giant hypocrite in taking the above stance. Hell, even in this thread I'm the dickhead that tries to give a lecture about irreligious education and morality (post #39 - I love shooting myself in the foot!). Having said that, I think there's a huge difference between picking apart the claims of people who are part of a religious majority in their home nation that suggest that their belief system is responsible for all of the good within that society, and telling people that are already feeling somewhat isolated that they should dissociate themselves from a community that accepts them because distantly related members of that community are murderers. We basically had this conversation at the beginning of this thread about 'American police'; when a criticism is made of a country (or religion) that really only applies to a small section of that country (or religion), the people that cop the criticism despite their disconnection from the acts tend to get a bit pissed off.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Why can't we acknowledge that the killers acted based on fatwa or their own belief, and that there is no command in the Quran that they were following. Or you know, post that command.



I don't want to go wrong here, so I just want some clarification before I quote earlier discussion.

*Are we back to the discussion point about whether blasphemers are made to submit (kneel) under threat of death?*

At this point, a reasonable person would assume that previous quotes from a certain holy book were accepted as existing. 

In various other topics of this kind, with others discussing their particular books, there comes a point where believers concede a point about the existence of some idea in their book because the book is quoted. Then, a little later, the believers again argue that the passages previously quoted and shown to exist have again disappeared since just a little previously in the discussion.

At that point I normally make a comment about cognitive dissonance and put the person on my ignore list, because you can't use logic against religious crazy. 

I'm trying to figure out if something similar is going on here.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 22, 2015)

Are you purposefully ignoring the distinction between "blasphemer against the prophet" and "unbelievers"? So far the only quotes posted have been about the latter or about Christians/Jews. If you're saying it's there, why haven't we seen it? If you haven't seen it, why are you sure it's there? If others who have read the book have said it's NOT there, why do you insist that it is? If you want to suggest that all unbelievers are blasphemers against the prophet, I'd like to see you back that up with the Quran specifically.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 22, 2015)

Isn't the act of not believing in most faiths considered a form of blasphemy? I have no idea if Islam has these rules, but it is also considered blasphemy in most religions to worship other Gods or faiths. If Islam has similar rules then it'd be safe to say that it is heavily implied. I'm fairly ignorant to the religion though so I don't actually know what the rules or guidelines actually are.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 22, 2015)

How it feels to watch Explorer talk about Islam...



my reaction


----------



## Overtone (Feb 22, 2015)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-islam-says-isis/


----------

