Saudi Rape Victim Sentenced to 90 Lashes

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

So the problem with Islam is simply a small issue with some radical fundamentalists? Things like this in Arabia and most other arab nations seem rather state sanctioned.

All I can say is that I understand the economics and the politics behind our(the US's) special relationship with these "people", but morally it is an abberation.

I just hope that when we ween ourselves off of oil, we leave our muslim "allies" to the hell they have created for themselves, and our children don't judge us too harshly. :no:

[Devastatin Dave]

Its no surprise really. For so many professed historians on this website its amazing how so few know so little about the beginnings of this belief system. I guess Muhammad had some devine power because he even has many secularists defending his creation. I bet this thread gets locked in a bout 4 posts since Islam is not allowed to be scrutinised anywhere these days. :juggle2:

[Csargo]

Sickening really.

[Papewaio]

It is sickening what people do in the name of faith.

So PJ and DD, based on this child brides in Utah are they the responsibility of all Christians and Jesus?

[Devastatin Dave]

It is sickening what people do in the name of faith.

So PJ and DD, based on this child brides in Utah are they the responsibility of all Christians and Jesus?
Neither, Mormans. :laugh4: Joseph Smith created the Church of Jesus Christ (about the only part of Jesus in the "faith" is in the name) of Latter Day Saints in the mid 1800's from gold tablets he found but mysteriously dissapeared when questioned about their authentisity. Google Joseph Smith and do some research before you lump his "beliefs" into Bible believing Christianity. Mormanisn is about as Christian as Budism. But we're not talking about that cult, we're currently discussing the one that happens to be involved in a lot of nasty little incursions all over the face of the globe. :beam:
But the underage marraiges probably would not have been a problem for the Prophet either since he had "marital relations" with a 9 year old (he did wait a couple of years, he married her when she was 6. He must have been busy "converting" Medina at the time).

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK an Islamic council has come up with guidelines on how schools can fit in with their religion. Of course it is up to the schools and the majority in the country to accede to their needs, and of course no alteration is required of Islam.

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst examples of Islam. The sooner they run out of oil and influence the better.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

They should follow the proper punishments as set down in the bible , lashes for rape victims is just too lenient .
Sharia law is lightweight , they should get more biblical .

[doc_bean]

Don't confuse an excuse with an actual reason.

[Pannonian]

In the UK an Islamic council has come up with guidelines on how schools can fit in with their religion. Of course it is up to the schools and the majority in the country to accede to their needs, and of course no alteration is required of Islam.

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst examples of Islam. The sooner they run out of oil and influence the better.

We invaded the wrong country. If we were ever to invade a country because of the oppressiveness of its brand of Islam, it should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran and Iraq are waaay down the list.

[Fisherking]

SAUDI KIDNAP, RAPE VICTIM FACES LASHING FOR 'CRIME' OF BEING ALONE WITH MAN NOT RELATED TO HER

YES IT IS NUTS! ITS THEIR LAWS…SO WHAT DO YOU WANT, A HUMAN RIGHTS OUTCRY?

THERE SHOULD BE…BUT I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH. :shame:

[HoreTore]

Well, I don't think it's because of their religion... Why? Because we did the same thing here in europe a couple of centuries ago... You can still see the remains of that when there are discussions on rape - there are still a few who deep down blame rape on "those dirty whores".

Saudi Arabia is just a couple of centuries behind, they never experienced the rise of liberalism we had here in the west.

BTW, about Muhammad... One of our kings(Norway) married a 10 year old and got her pregnant at that age too... This was around year 1100. It's simply the way society was back then, believe it or not....When you'll probably die at the age of 30, you're not going to wait till you're 25 to get married, are you?

[Banquo's Ghost]

YES IT IS NUTS! ITS THEIR LAWS…SO WHAT DO YOU WANT, A HUMAN RIGHTS OUTCRY?

THERE SHOULD BE…BUT I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH. :shame:

I can assure you that human rights organsations are very active in this area. I have posted some appeals in this very forum.

Experience tells us that too much publicity at the early stages often ensures the mullahs get defensive and demand the worst punishments as an example they cannot be swayed by "western" ideals. It is usually only when all avenues have been exhausted that Amnesty, for example, starts trying heavy publicity.

In contrast, with western democratic governments which abuse human rights, it is often more effective to get the publicity machine in high gear right away, as they are less likely to be stubborn if they can characterise the situation as a mistake.

That's why you tend to hear more of a song and dance against western abuses. But don't for a moment think we allow this kind of thing to go unchallenged.

[Fragony]

They should follow the proper punishments as set down in the bible , lashes for rape victims is just too lenient .
Sharia law is lightweight , they should get more biblical .

Such devotion defending your favorite religion, but what exactly does the bible say about rape victims and what should be done to them, nothing.

[InsaneApache]

A thought provoking article from a women who lived the life of a Moslem wife.


When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,” my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives —

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1480090.ece

Not altogether OT but a valuable insight into cultural and religious differences.

[English assassin]

Saudi Arabia is a backward oppressive misogynist regime peddling extremist brand of Islam?

In other news, bear found defecating in woods, Pope in "I'm catholic" shock.

But yeah, if it gives PJ a thrill, the SA regime truly sucks. For the sake of spoiling the hang of DD's trousers*, wahhabist Islam also sucks.

* but we are still just good friends

[Ser Clegane]

but what exactly does the bible say about rape victims and what should be done to them, nothing.
Does the Quran specify how to treat rape victims? I have some doubts that it says that rape victims should get the whip - but please feel free to provide some Quran-quotes to convince me otherwise.

The question is, is this abuse based on religion or is based on an extremely patriachic society that we also see ion other regions with other religions (e.g., rural areas in India)? (to be clear - barbaric acts like these should not be tolerated, no matter what the roots are, but I believe that it might be a good idea to at least try to understand what the roots are).

[InsaneApache]

What's the penalty for 'sucking' in Saudi? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Does the Quran specify how to treat rape victims? I have some doubts that it says that rape victims should get the whip - but please feel free to provide some Quran-quotes to convince me otherwise.


Beats me to be honest, I never said there was. Apparently the bible does, waiting for Tribes.

[Spetulhu]

Such devotion defending your favorite religion, but what exactly does the bible say about rape victims and what should be done to them, nothing.

No, it does tell us. A woman who gets raped in the city is to be put to death since it's obvious she didn't scream for help. She didn't protect her father's (or husband's) property. If the crime happens in the countryside the woman isn't punished, there might not have been anyone to hear her cries for help. The rapist gets the death penalty in any case.

Study holy books. It's good for you to see how absurd they can be. :book:

[Fragony]

No, it does tell us. A woman who gets raped in the city is to be put to death since it's obvious she didn't scream for help. She didn't protect her father's (or husband's) property. If the crime happens in the countryside the woman isn't punished, there might not have been anyone to hear her cries for help. The rapist gets the death penalty in any case.

Study holy books. It's good for you to see how absurd they can be. :book:

lol that's pretty damn evil :laugh4: That's a new one for me, that in the new testament or the old?

[Andres]

For so many professed historians on this website its amazing how so few know so little about the beginnings of this belief system.

Don't blame the belief system, blame those who commit these kind of cruel acts in the name of it.

[naut]

Does the Quran specify how to treat rape victims? I have some doubts that it says that rape victims should get the whip - but please feel free to provide some Quran-quotes to convince me otherwise.
Been a while since I read it, but I don't think there is a specific passage IIRC.

EDIT: These are the only passages I can identify with mentions of rape.


And the commanders from among the people of Pharaoh said: "Will you let Moses and his people corrupt the land, and abandon you and your gods?" He said: "We will kill their children and rape their women; we will be supreme over them."

And We have saved you from the people of Pharaoh, they were afflicting you with the worst punishment; they used to kill your children and rape your women; and in that was a great trial from your Lord.

And Moses said to his people: "Remember God's blessings upon you that He saved you from the people of Pharaoh. They used to inflict the worst punishment upon you, and they used to murder your children, and rape your women. And in that was a great trial from your Lord."

Then, when the truth came to them from Us, they said: "Kill the children of those who believed with him, and rape their women." But the scheming of the rejecters is always in error.
None really call for the punishment of rape victims. :juggle2:

[English assassin]

What's the penalty for 'sucking' in Saudi? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Ah, there was an article in the Guardian on islamic sex counselling a while back. Struggling to keep this within org rules, oral love is apparently acceptably Islamic, but religious opinion was divided on err, at what point Allah required the act should end.

I am NOT making this up.

[InsaneApache]

Ah, there was an article in the Guardian on islamic sex counselling a while back. Struggling to keep this within org rules, oral love is apparently acceptably Islamic, but religious opinion was divided on err, at what point Allah required the act should end.

I am NOT making this up.

Self evident surely? :laugh4:

[caravel]

We invaded the wrong country. If we were ever to invade a country because of the oppressiveness of its brand of Islam, it should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran and Iraq are waaay down the list.
The difference here is between regimes that are co-operating, and those that are not co-operating. The Saudis co-operate - Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran do not.

[Fragony]

Self evident surely? :laugh4:

uh-huh

http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/wd-head-stick.jpg.w560h784.jpg

sorry had to

[Husar]

lol that's pretty damn evil :laugh4: That's a new one for me, that in the new testament or the old?
Just guess, it can't be that hard.
Besides, I wouldn't say it's outright absurd, since in a city there are many people who could hear her scream and help(yes, I know there are also shock moments etc, but we have a new testament now, don't we?). The new testament version would be that God sees her heart(and whether she wants it or not) and will then judge her after her death. If only there was a new Sharia law about love and peace...

Well, makes you wonder whether people there even know what "love" is, I mean, do these men really "love" their women? I thought love was some kind of fundamental human feeling but some people on earth seem not to know what that is or at least do not base their marriages on it and prefer to base them on lust.:no:

[English assassin]

Well, makes you wonder whether people there even know what "love" is, I mean, do these men really "love" their women? I thought love was some kind of fundamental human feeling but some people on earth seem not to know what that is or at least do not base their marriages on it and prefer to base them on lust.:no:

Err, the idea of marrying for love is quite a new one, and a fairly minority view?

Yer peasant and yer lord might have married to get a good worker, or to cement an alliance, but love didn't come into it.

[Adrian II]

Such devotion defending your favorite religion, but what exactly does the bible say about rape victims and what should be done to them, nothing.Off the mark as usual, my friend. The woman was sentenced not because she was raped, but because she was in a car with a man who was not her husband or direct kin. Some of the rapists were given sentences of 10 months to five years in prison. All this is not based directly on the Quran or the Hadith, which require, among other things, that rapists be stoned.

You may be surprised to hear there is something like the Hadith which is considered a source of law beside the Quran. It means 'tradition'.

There is a Hadith that speaks of rape at the time of the Prophet. Again, you may be surprised. The stance taken by Muhammed, a.k.a. the 'caravan robber' to quote that other profund Islam expert, Dev Dave, is not as primitive as one might think.


From a Hadith narrated by Sunan Abu Dawud who lived two hundred years after the Prophet and compiled 41 ahadith books :

'One day (at the time of the Prophet) a woman left her house to go and pray at the Mosque. On her way she was met by a man who forced her to have sexual intercourse. The woman screamed while the man raped her. After he raped her the man ran away. A group of men (who accompanied the Prophet on his flight form Mecca to Medina) passed by the girl and she said to them (pointing in the direction of the man running) “that man just raped me”. They then ran after him and caught him and when face to face with the woman she said “yes that was the person”. They went to the Prophet and the man said “Yes Prophet it was me who did this”. The Prophet said to the girl “go now, God has already pardoned you”. The Prophet then said to the man (while appreciating his confession) “stone him”. He then said “Actually, he has already learnt his lesson and if someone learns their lesson all the people of Median will understand”.'

[Fragony]

Of the mark, I didn't even shoot. Anyway, truly fascinating. What does the hadith say about multiple personality disorders?

[Adrian II]

Of the mark, I didn't even shoot. Anyway, truly fascinating. What does the hadith say about multiple personality disorders?I fear you will find few soothing words in it. :book: :no:

[Fragony]

I fear you will find few soothing words in it. :book: :no:

How odd, you seem to be soothed by them all the time, funny how it works.

[Adrian II]

How odd, you seem to be soothed by them all the time, funny how it works.No way.

I try to demonstrate that Saudi law practice diverges from what you might call the original message of Muhammed to his contemporaries*. We should bear this in mind, just as we should when we discuss the Bible or any other 'holy book', and not copy the mistakes of the litteralist believers of any creed.

*That is, if there has ever been a historical Muhammed. The earliest sources we have date from one hundred years after his supposed lifetime, and some Islam experts think he is a construct or an invention of the ninth century expansionist Arab elite.

[ShadeHonestus]

Odd that once again the Bible is brought up in a topic about Islamic extremism and traditional law.

Sure the Bible may say that treatment is in order for a rape victim, but I beg of you to produce a case where that treatment was seen through. Oh, and provide the date.

I can find some early historic reference to the utter brutality of secular people, does that make modern day secularist the devil incarnate and on equal footing with Islamic traditional law?

[Fragony]

No don't do that AdrianII, an obvious zing should be countered with wit not reason. Do what you do best make me say omgwtflol

[Adrian II]

No don't do that AdrianII, an obvious zing should be countered with wit not reason. Do what you do best make me say omgwtflolI'd love to. But not everyone would catch on, you know. ~D

Remember way back when I posted a hell of a funny cartoon from The Guardian about the Danish cartoon row, and some members thought it was fascist propaganda... :dizzy2:

[InsaneApache]

Crikey the Gruniad and fascist propaganda in the same sentence. :laugh4:

[Fragony]

I'd love to. But not everyone would catch on, you know. ~D

Oh the burden of brilliance. Since you are in doublebarraledwordshotgunmode, would love to have your opinion on this article if you have the time.

http://www.humanistischverbond.nl/opinie/constandselezing2006.html

Kinda related in an unrelated way of which I am not sure how it relates to relativity, relevant nonetheless.

[Slyspy]

We invaded the wrong country. If we were ever to invade a country because of the oppressiveness of its brand of Islam, it should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran and Iraq are waaay down the list.

Never a truer word spoken.

[KukriKhan]

doublebarraledwordshotgunmode

Holy smokes! If that ain't a blatant attempt at german-izing english, I don't know what is. :)

Let's keep the sniping down to the occasional side-shot, shall we boys?

And EA: Just so you know that someone noticed: brilliant tap-dancing! You should have your own TV show.

So: anyone want to discuss punishing rape victims in other cultures? Asian? African? Pacific Island? Or are we gonna buy the "Islam alone makes 'em do it" line?

[ShadeHonestus]

So: anyone want to discuss punishing rape victims in other cultures? Asian? African? Pacific Island? Or are we gonna buy the "Islam alone makes 'em do it" line?

Now we're talking... Best question I've seen raised yet. Lets get some more "modern" day perspective.

[Adrian II]

Let's keep the sniping down to the occasional side-shot, shall we boys?That's what I mean. Fragony was making me a compliment and others take it for an insult. We should have a rule that says no two Dutchmen should ever participate in the same thread because their debating style is... idiosyncratic.

@Fragony. I don't think non-Dutchmen will appreciate my views on a Dutch article which they can not read. Jansen-the-Islam-expert is one of my contemporary heroes. Jansen-the-current-affairs-commentator is a riot, nothing more. He is a nice man if you meet him in private. We are trying to get his two-volume biography of Muhammed translated into English. I believe it is far better than anything available on the Anglo-Saxon market nowadays.

[Kralizec]

No way.

I try to demonstrate that Saudi law practice diverges from what you might call the original message of Muhammed to his contemporaries*. We should bear this in mind, just as we should when we discuss the Bible or any other 'holy book', and not copy the mistakes of the litteralist believers of any creed.

*That is, if there has ever been a historical Muhammed. The earliest sources we have date from one hundred years after his supposed lifetime, and some Islam experts think he is a construct or an invention of the ninth century expansionist Arab elite.

And the letters to Emperor Heraclius, then?

[Adrian II]

And the letters to Emperor Heraclius, then?There was supposed to have been just one letter to Heraclius, as part of a series which M. wrote to various rulers of the day. This is all according to Ibn Ishaq who wrote some 200 years after the 'fact'. There is no scholarly evidence for the existence of such letters. The supposed 'reaction' of Heraclius to the letter he received, as described by Ishaq, was clearly propaganda for the faith, not historiography. Which makes it likely that the whole episode is apocryphal.

@Kukrikhan. Let's not try and spread the guilt to make it look as if Islam plays no part in the oppression of women. The situation of women in islamic countries is the worst of all because abuses are entrenched in law and the law, in turn, is entrenched in religion. This means there is no possible appeal, no possible redress against these abuses.

Here is what Human Rights Watch has to say about it:


The human rights of women throughout the Middle East and North Africa are systematically denied by each of the countries in the region, despite the diversity of their political systems. Many governments routinely suppress civil society by restricting freedom of the press, expression, and assembly. These restrictions adversely affect both men and women; however, women are subject to a host of additional gender-specific human rights violations. For example, family, penal, and citizenship laws throughout the region relegate women to a subordinate status compared to their male counterparts. This legal discrimination undermines women's full personhood and equal participation in society and puts women at an increased risk for violence.

Family matters in countries as diverse as Iran, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are governed by religion-based personal status codes. Many of these laws treat women essentially as legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members. They deny women equal rights with men with respect to marriage, divorce, child custody; and inheritance. Family decision making is thought to be the exclusive domain of men, who enjoy by default the legal status of "head of household." These notions are supported by family courts in the region that often reinforce the primacy of male decision-making power. These courts have rarely appointed women as judges, further denying women authority in family matters.Also, notice the difference in the following description by HRW of abuse of women worldwide:
Combatants and their sympathizers in conflicts, such as those in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, have raped women as a weapon of war with near complete impunity. Men in Pakistan, South Africa, Peru, Russia, and Uzbekistan beat women in the home at astounding rates, while these governments alternatively refuse to intervene to protect women and punish their batterers or do so haphazardly and in ways that make women feel culpable for the violence. As a direct result of inequalities found in their countries of origin, women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution, with insufficient government attention to protect their rights and punish the traffickers. In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women's ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed by private employers who use women's reproductive status to exclude them from work and by discriminatory employment laws or discriminatory enforcement of the law. In the U.S., students discriminate against and attack girls in school who are lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered, or do not conform to male standards of female behavior. Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life.In non-islamic countries the abuse takes place in contravention to the law. Only in islamic countries does the law enshrine full female inequality.

P.S. I bet Fragony is going omgwtflol now... ~;) So is Tribesman because Israel suddenly appears in the quote. I think readers can figure out that mix-up for themselves..

[AggonyDuck]

Anyone actually bother to read the article?


The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom, according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper.

She met the man at a shopping mall and, after driving off together, the blackmailer's car was stopped by two other cars bearing men wielding knives and meat cleavers.


Well personally I can understand that sentence. I think it is pretty obvious that she was having a relationship with that man, which isn't really acceptable in Saudi-Arabia. She wasn't sentenced to 90 lashes due to her being raped, but because she propably had something going on with the blackmailer. I think it sometimes is useful to view things from other cultural perspectives before condemning such sentences.

[Vuk]

No, it does tell us. A woman who gets raped in the city is to be put to death since it's obvious she didn't scream for help. She didn't protect her father's (or husband's) property. If the crime happens in the countryside the woman isn't punished, there might not have been anyone to hear her cries for help. The rapist gets the death penalty in any case.

Study holy books. It's good for you to see how absurd they can be. :book:

That is a complete lie. It says that if a woman gets "raped" in a city and DOESN'T cry out, she is put to death. What it is saying, is if she falsely accuses a guy of rape. In the field it is different, since there is no way of proving it, the guy will get put to death. The reason they put women who falsely accused guys of rape to death is because (unless the woman chose to force the guy to marry her and never leave her or be unfaithfull to her) the rapist would be put to death, so by falsely accusing someone of rape, you are in fact trying to murder them. It makes complete sense.
Why do people lie about the Bible, try to villianifiy it in every way possible, while at the same time making excuses for inhumane, evil, and absurd practices in other religions such as Islam? (no, I am not picking on Islam here. Every culture has evil and cruel practices that people often justify with religion, and Islam is no exception. Islam is the subject of this thread however, and people ARE making excuses).
Just wondering about that.
Hope I ruffled some feathers with that one. I'm sick of the PCBS and unfair treatment of religions and members that goes on on this board.

(waits for the "Man" twins to leave the closet and think up a reply) :D

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well personally I can understand that sentence. I think it is pretty obvious that she was having a relationship with that man, which isn't really acceptable in Saudi-Arabia. She wasn't sentenced to 90 lashes due to her being raped, but because she propably had something going on with the blackmailer. I think it sometimes is useful to view things from other cultural perspectives before condemning such sentences.

:shocked2:

One supposes that even in Finland "probably" based on the hearsay of a convicted blackmailer/rapist is hardly considered proof of guilt. Especially when the sentence is utterly barbaric.

:no:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hope I ruffled some feathers with that one. I'm sick of the PCBS and unfair treatment of religions and members that goes on on this board.

(waits for the "Man" twins to leave the closet and think up a reply) :D

If had any idea what you meant by the last sentence, my feathers might well be out of place. :pirate2:

As it is, I'm wondering what you have against polychlorinated biphenyls?

:wink: Just my way of reminding you that you can defend your views without resorting to angry attacks. :rulez:

[InsaneApache]

As it is, I'm wondering what you have against polychlorinated biphenyls?

:verycool: :applause: ~D

[AggonyDuck]

:shocked2:

One supposes that even in Finland "probably" based on the hearsay of a convicted blackmailer/rapist is hardly considered proof of guilt. Especially when the sentence is utterly barbaric.

:no:

Then why did she meet up with the man and agree to go in to a car with him?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well personally I can understand that sentence. I think it is pretty obvious that she was having a relationship with that man, which isn't really acceptable in Saudi-Arabia. She wasn't sentenced to 90 lashes due to her being raped, but because she propably had something going on with the blackmailer. I think it sometimes is useful to view things from other cultural perspectives before condemning such sentences.Assuming there was a relationship:
- is ninety lashes an acceptable sentence for an affair to you?
- is it alright that only women should receive the lash then?
- wouldn't you agree that if she didn't give in to the blackmail, she'd get the lash, and if she did, she'd get the lash too?
- Isn't all this a bit of a bummer if you're a Saudi woman?

[Goofball]

That is a complete lie. It says that if a woman gets "raped" in a city and DOESN'T cry out, she is put to death. What it is saying, is if she falsely accuses a guy of rape. In the field it is different, since there is no way of proving it, the guy will get put to death. The reason they put women who falsely accused guys of rape to death is because (unless the woman chose to force the guy to marry her and never leave her or be unfaithfull to her) the rapist would be put to death, so by falsely accusing someone of rape, you are in fact trying to murder them. It makes complete sense.
Why do people lie about the Bible, try to villianifiy it in every way possible, while at the same time making excuses for inhumane, evil, and absurd practices in other religions such as Islam? (no, I am not picking on Islam here. Every culture has evil and cruel practices that people often justify with religion, and Islam is no exception. Islam is the subject of this thread however, and people ARE making excuses).
Just wondering about that.
Hope I ruffled some feathers with that one. I'm sick of the PCBS and unfair treatment of religions and members that goes on on this board.

(waits for the "Man" twins to leave the closet and think up a reply) :D

The part I bolded is about the wisest, most well-considered comment I have ever seen you make on these boards.

Damn shame about all the noise you put before and after it...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Then why did she meet up with the man and agree to go in to a car with him?

Erm...because she was blackmailed? :book2:


The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom, according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper.

Even if it had been of her own will, does getting into a car with a man give him the right to rape her?

[BDC]

Isn't all this a bit of a bummer if you're a Saudi woman?

Lot's of things suck if you are a Saudi woman.

[Vuk]

The part I bolded is about the wisest, most well-considered comment I have ever seen you make on these boards.

Damn shame about all the noise you put before and after it...

While I know several nice muslim people and believe that are many out there, it is true that the culture, greatly compounded by the religion, breeds violence and inhumanity more than other cultures and religions. Before you all jump to the defencive/offencive, let me explain why I said that.

First, the culture they live in has not changed for thousands of years, and they are taught to avenge insults and injuries from thousands of years ago. Not saying that there is anything wrong with muslims, but the culture in the ME, sadly, is very primitive and barbarian. Second, their religion greatly influences their culture and is to blame for a lot of it's shortcomings and faults. And of course, because of their religion, they bring their culture with them.
Let me clarify:
While I disagree with islam, I do not think that it is an inherently or fundamently bad religion, but that it is easily used by individuals to corrupt and control masses.
Any muslims (and catholics) may find this next part offencive, so don't look unless you are willing to risk it.
The islamic religion (much as Catholicism was) was invented as a control mechanism! It was invented by Muhamed, who changed it a hundred and one times, borrowing from and perverting existing religions, to gain followers for his conquests. I do not in any possible way want to try to suggest that muslims are evil or corrupt, but simply dupped by a hugely successful control mechanism that even drives a lot of muslims to give up their lives for a cause they believe in, when it doesn't even exist!! By its very origin, islam has the makings of a potentially violent and inhumane religion. (in fact, a good majority of the passages in the koran (no, I refuse to spell it a different way) deal with (sanctioned and ordered) war, killing, torture, and mutilation) Not to say that all or most of the muslim population is inhumane, but that the religion not only has the potential to, but HAS been used very effectively to corrupt people and convert large amounts of individuals into inhumane murders. Sorry if the truth has a sting to it, I warned you not to look if you didn't want to be offended. I guess truth is one of those things, like when you put Hydrogen Peroxide on a wound; it stings.

The religion of islam (not islamic people) promotes a culture of warfare and violence. Also, it promotes gender inequality and, what to the western world would be considered sexual depravity.
I'll put that in spoils to if you wish, but I do not believe that it warrants it. Please correct me if I am wrong.:bow:

Christianity has been perverted many times and used as a tool for evil. It can be done with any religion, belief, or opinion. Islam is just a lot easier to do it with (as history shows).

Hope I don't step on anyone's toes with this post, but it is the truth (and the opinion parts are my true opinion) and I did my best to make it unoffencive. If you would like me to change it in a way that would make it more pallettable, please ask.

Vuk

[Tribesman]

Such devotion defending your favorite religion, but what exactly does the bible say about rape victims and what should be done to them, nothing.

ye of little faith Frag , you should know by now that I don't screw up on scripture .


Hope I ruffled some feathers with that one. I'm sick of the PCBS and unfair treatment of religions and members that goes on on this board.

Hey Vuk I treat all religeons fairly and with respect , what I do not like and treat in the manner I think it deserves is the fundamentalism and literalism that some peoples of all denominations claim as truth , and when they post lies and claim it is the "truth" I really go to town on them .
And hey , that is a fact not a FACT :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

The islamic religion (much as Catholicism was) was invented

Heh, what does that say about you silly protestants ? Dissidents to an invented religion :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is sickening what people do in the name of faith.

So PJ and DD, based on this child brides in Utah are they the responsibility of all Christians and Jesus?

Oh, the ones not supported by the state and federal governments, the ones hunted down by the FBI, the ones condemned by the rest of America? Seems a rather different situation, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

To the OP: What a screwed up system of punishment.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Heh, what does that say about you silly protestants ? Dissidents to an invented religion
There are many branches , just because someone isn't a Catholic Christian it doesn't mean they are a Protestant Christian , though with his fondness of the ancient laws (kill the rape victim one being an example) it does narrow the field a little .

[doc_bean]

There are many branches , just because someone isn't a Catholic Christian it doesn't mean they are a Protestant Christian , though with his fondness of the ancient laws (kill the rape victim one being an example) it does narrow the field a little .

hey, you're all heretics to me :knight:

yeah don't take this seriously

[Louis VI the Fat]

While I know several nice muslim people and believe that are many out there, it is true that the culture, greatly compounded by the religion, breeds violence and inhumanity more than other cultures and religions. Before you all jump to the defencive/offencive, let me explain why I said that.

First, the culture they live in has not changed for thousands of years, and they are taught to avenge insults and injuries from thousands of years ago. Not saying that there is anything wrong with muslims, but the culture in the ME, sadly, is very primitive and barbarian. Second, their religion greatly influences their culture and is to blame for a lot of it's shortcomings and faults. And of course, because of their religion, they bring their culture with them.
Let me clarify:
While I disagree with islam, I do not think that it is an inherently or fundamently bad religion, but that it is easily used by individuals to corrupt and control masses.
Any muslims (and catholics) may find this next part offencive, so don't look unless you are willing to risk it.
The islamic religion (much as Catholicism was) was invented as a control mechanism! It was invented by a degenerate old pervert named Muhamed, who changed it a hundred and one times, borrowing from and perverting existing religions, to gain followers for his conquests. I do not in any possible way want to try to suggest that muslims are evil or corrupt, but simply dupped by a hugely successful control mechanism that even drives a lot of muslims to give up their lives for a cause they believe in, when it doesn't even exist!! By its very origin, islam has the makings of a potentially violent and inhumane religion. (in fact, a good majority of the passages in the koran (no, I refuse to spell it a different way) deal with (sanctioned and ordered) war, killing, torture, and mutilation) Not to say that all or most of the muslim population is inhumane, but that the religion not only has the potential to, but HAS been used very effectively to corrupt people and convert large amounts of individuals into inhumane murders. Sorry if the truth has a sting to it, I warned you not to look if you didn't want to be offended. I guess truth is one of those things, like when you put Hydrogen Peroxide on a wound; it stings.

The religion of islam (not islamic people) promotes a culture of warfare and violence. Also, it promotes gender inequality and, what to the western world would be considered sexual depravity.
I'll put that in spoils to if you wish, but I do not believe that it warrants it. Please correct me if I am wrong.:bow:

Christianity has been perverted many times and used as a tool for evil. It can be done with any religion, belief, or opinion. Islam is just a lot easier to do it with (as history shows).

Hope I don't step on anyone's toes with this post, but it is the truth (and the opinion parts are my true opinion) and I did my best to make it unoffencive. If you would like me to change it in a way that would make it more pallettable, please ask.

VukActually, I can not simply dismiss some of the conclusions of this post. I am a lazy fart, I should really give you all the if's and but's this post deserves, but I can't bring myself nowadays to write posts that take me half an hour to write. ~:mecry:
And yes, it is offensive to Islam, but sticking to what I wrote in another thread: opinions happen to clash. This is your opinion of Islam, others hold similar opinions about Christianity. Can you see what I mean about accepting that one man's opinion can be another one's insult?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hope I don't step on anyone's toes with this post, but it is the truth (and the opinion parts are my true opinion) and I did my best to make it unoffencive. If you would like me to change it in a way that would make it more pallettable, please ask.


Despite some concern, I will let it stand with only a small edit, but I suggest that you stand ready to field some fairly robust rebuttals of your opinions.

I will not hesitate to lock this thread and hand out warnings if any posts overdo the religion bashing.

[Blodrast]

I will not hesitate to lock this thread and hand out warnings if any posts overdo the religion bashing.

Heh. In an attempt to lighten up the mood a little bit, and maybe release a little of the tension in this thread, I'll say this: BG's phrase brought a chuckle to my lips, and for some reason immediately reminded me of this:

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk? "

A chuckle in a friendly, not derogatory, way BG.~:grouphug:

[PanzerJaeger]

They should follow the proper punishments as set down in the bible , lashes for rape victims is just too lenient .
Sharia law is lightweight , they should get more biblical .


Well done tribes. Your derailment has been fairly effective, despite there having been no mention of Christianity in the article or my original post.


Im also enjoying the little side argument about how she deserves what she got because she was blackmailed into getting in a car with a man. Obviously blackmail infers a relationship.

And of course, a relationship between two unmarried people deserves 90 lashes... a la The Passion of the Christ. WTF? :no:



This isnt terrorism, its state sanctioned barbarism. This is Islam. :shame:

[Tribesman]

Well done tribes. Your derailment has been fairly effective, despite there having been no mention of Christianity in the article or my original post.
Ah well that was in response to Daves rants about two religeons in one post:laugh4:

Interestingly he rejects one of those as a Christian faith , yet some in that faith would say that dave isn't a proper Christian because of the early split with Judaism , rejection of some of Gods laws and the incorrect translations and editing of the bible he uses , in exactly the same way that other Christian denominations would contend the truth of different flavours of Christianity .
Funny old game isn't it , I wonder if Pindar or one of the other Mormons will pop in to make comments about daves views of their "Non Christian cult" .

Though to be honest Dave does need a little work on the phrases he uses to make it more entertaining , perhaps next time in stead of describing something as********(insert religeon of your choice) is about as Christian as Budism. he could try*********is about as Christian as Matsyas tail fin or Varahas 2nd left thumb .
Either that or try using the word Buddhism instead since the word he used is more suggestive of a fondness for that brand of weak pale beer they make over there

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, I'm all on edge with all the Baptist suicide bombers and Catholic's using beheadings and all those Methodists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. :laugh4:
Of course all of them are chanting, "Praise Jesus" while in the act. If people are too blind to see this or even read what Muhammad said and preached then I guess the only time they'll see the light is just before the light shuts off while a blade is sawing off their spinal cord.

[Tribesman]

Ah I see the problem there Dave , you worry needlessly and get yourself all agitated .
Sit back , relax , take a deep breath , then tuck into some fried chicken and malt liquor while watching Oprah and waiting for your welfare check.:whip:
Oh sorry wrong rant , this one was about Islam wasn't it:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[AggonyDuck]

Even if it had been of her own will, does getting into a car with a man give him the right to rape her?

I've never argued that they had the right to rape her, what I am saying is that she broke the local law by getting in that car with him. Hence why I can understand the sentence.

As to why she got in that car, who knows, but I just find it strange that a total stranger can blackmail a woman by threatening to tell her family that they are having a relationship outside wedlock. Either there was some truth in those claims or she felt she would be unable to defend herself, because she obviously felt threatened by him.



Assuming there was a relationship:
- is ninety lashes an acceptable sentence for an affair to you?
- is it alright that only women should receive the lash then?
- wouldn't you agree that if she didn't give in to the blackmail, she'd get the lash, and if she did, she'd get the lash too?
- Isn't all this a bit of a bummer if you're a Saudi woman?

-In Saudi-Arabia, yes. The sentence is maybe a bit over the top, but Sharia law tries to use severe penalties to ensure that such things do not happen.
-I read that both got punished.
-Yes, she has already commited her "crime". Although that raises the question; what on earth was the blackmailer trying to accomplish, because he would had been punished similarly if it had went public.
-Yes, it is.

[Spetulhu]

That is a complete lie.

edit: it's from Deuteronomy.

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

[Ser Clegane]

@Spetulhu
Perhaps I am missing some context here - but are you sure that the first case is about rape and not about adultery? (not that I would support the death sentence for adultery - but death for adultery seems quite normal for that time and is certainly different from being punished for being raped).
Note that the second case makes a point of "the man forcing her" while the first case does not mention force at all

[Adrian II]

Well, I'm all on edge with all the Baptist suicide bombers and Catholic's using beheadings and all those Methodists hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. :laugh4: Of course all of them are chanting, "Praise Jesus" while in the act.As a matter of fact they are.

I suggest you read up on the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) in India: they indulge in mass kidnappings, extortions, murders, rapes, bombings and forced conversions in the name of your Lord Jesus Christ.

Or on the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, perpetrators of horrendous abuse in the name of same.

Or on the role of the Catholic clergy in the Rwanda massacre of 1994.

On or the trio of Fabianus Tibo, Dominggus da Silva and Marianus Riwu from Sulawesi (Indonesia) who wee found guilty in 2001 of leading a Christian militia that launched attacks on Muslims, including a gun and machete assault that killed 70 people who had taken refuge in an Islamic school.

Get real, Dave. No religion is immune to such idiocy.

[Vuk]

Heh, what does that say about you silly protestants ? Dissidents to an invented religion :laugh4:

The Catholic church took the already existing religion of Christianity and mixed it with pagan beliefs in order to make it more pallettable to the pagan peoples. That is what I was refering to. That, and the indulgences and all the other things they added. There is something (in Mathew I believe, though I could be wrong) in the Bible that goes something like, "And in the latter days, the people will go crazy and will not allow their priests to enjoy the pleasures of good foods and marraige" (that probably just slaughtered it, :P)
The Catholic church was a control mechanism to bring both the pagans and Christian (both of which existed before the Catholic Church) under one banner under the control of the church.


edit: it's from Deuteronomy.

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Thank you for providing me with the proof.



"22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

In other words if they sleep with each others, not he rapes her. If he was raping her, she would cry.
"22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
"
In other words if she says he rapes her. He WILL die. She on the other hand:
"22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her"
In other words, he raped her.

If two people cheat, they both die. If a man is accused of rape and there is no one to prove that he didn't, he dies. I won't be near a Bible for quite some time, but there is a passage elsewhere that provides for when it is proven that a man rapes a woman. These laws are for when a man is falsely accused, and when there are no witnesses. (note: the man dies both times)
In an ordinary case, where it is proven, the man is to be put to death, UNLESS the woman wants to force him to marry her, provide for her, and NEVER leave her. Quite a bit different from HER getting 90 lashes!

(See the CAPS Tribesy? :beam: :laugh4: )

[Reenk Roink]

Adrian II, I notice you seem to take a very odd skeptical position on the actual existence of religious figures (Jesus as well).

Now the case with Muhammad is even more clear cut than Jesus. The earliest non-Muslim reference to him is a Greek text from Byzantine Syria within 2 years of his death.

[Vuk]

As a matter of fact they are.

I suggest you read up on the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) in India: they indulge in mass kidnappings, extortions, murders, rapes, bombings and forced conversions in the name of your Lord Jesus Christ.

Or on the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, perpetrators of horrendous abuse in the name of same.

Or on the role of the Catholic clergy in the Rwanda massacre of 1994.

On or the trio of Fabianus Tibo, Dominggus da Silva and Marianus Riwu from Sulawesi (Indonesia) who wee found guilty in 2001 of leading a Christian militia that launched attacks on Muslims, including a gun and machete assault that killed 70 people who had taken refuge in an Islamic school.

Get real, Dave. No religion is immune to such idiocy.


True, all religions can be hijacked (used that word intentionally :D) and used as excuses for evil (as can philosophies, parties, morals, codes, etc.), but some are a LOT (:laugh4: ) more susceptible to it than others.

[HoreTore]

This whole thread is just another reason why all religion should be exterminated completely...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

The way that I read it, it's saying that if she got raped in the city, she obviously didn't cry out, since if she had, someone would have come and helped her-it being the city, with lots of people around-and she would thus not have been raped. Therefore, the very fact she got raped in the city is, in and of itself, enough reason to put her to death.

[Tribesman]

Vuk your understanding of scripture is amazingly lacking . Perhaps the 5 year break you have taken from the book where the fault lies.
Here look , its easy .
If a man find a lady in the city then one law applies , BUT if he finds her in the country then another law applies .
And to add further if the lady he finds is a virgin yet not betrothed then he can just pay the father of the lady some cash for what he takes .


I won't be near a Bible for quite some time,
And you call yourself a Christian :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you want to get rid of that statue of Shiva and get down to your local tabernacle and pray ...... errrrr....thats Alabama 3 verse 2 isn't it:2thumbsup:

[Spetulhu]

@Spetulhu
Perhaps I am missing some context here - but are you sure that the first case is about rape and not about adultery?

You're probably right, sort of. Note the part about the woman being killed because no one heard her cry for help in the city. It's assumed she was willing so she gets stoned no matter what she says.

[ajaxfetish]

The religion of islam (not islamic people) promotes a culture of warfare and violence. Also, it promotes gender inequality and, what to the western world would be considered sexual depravity.

Christianity has been perverted many times and used as a tool for evil. It can be done with any religion, belief, or opinion.
I'd personally change that first bit to 'An interpretation of the religion of Islam (and one that is unfortunately widespread and attention-grabbing) promotes . . .

Otherwise I'd definitely agree with that statement.


Papewaio
So PJ and DD, based on this child brides in Utah are they the responsibility of all Christians and Jesus?

Crazed Rabbit
Oh, the ones not supported by the state and federal governments, the ones hunted down by the FBI, the ones condemned by the rest of America? Seems a rather different situation, doesn't it?
And condemned by all those evil cultist Mormons too, incidentally . . .


Funny old game isn't it , I wonder if Pindar or one of the other Mormons will pop in to make comments about daves views of their "Non Christian cult" .

Since it was only one post by one member, and had been overlooked by everyone else (and since I'm used to hearing that kind of thing anyway), I was just going to leave it alone. Any specific questions or glaring misconceptions that stand in the way of a discussion I'm happy to field.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

I think the assumption here is that the only way that a man could lie with her is if she didn't cry out. Because if she cried out in the city someone would hear and intervene.

So either it is a very big assumption or neighborhood watch was a lot more effective back then.

=][=

Politics, culture, religion, moral codes, philosophies are all used to control society. I don't think there is one out there that hasn't been twisted around and used for something that is abhorrent.

Saudi Arabia runs under a very militant version of Islam (Wahhabism). Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia are having a fight over this sect of Islam. The West is just a proxy and a place for a battle. Afghanistan is like Vietnam, not because of a potential quagmire but because the West is fighting a proxy civil war on behalf of one arm of Wahhabism against another arm. Vietnam was a proxy war for the cold war, Afghanistan is a proxy war for Wahhabism. Over 80% of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, they are essentially an ultra-orthodox version of Wahhabism.

A similar scenario are the Ultra-Orthodox settlers in the occupied terroritories who have altercations with the Israeli government.

Or Waco Texas...

There are a lot of wacked out ultra-orthodox movements out there quite happy to fight with their own governments, and a few of them have no issues about involving outsiders.

[KukriKhan]

Since it was only one post by one member, and had been overlooked by everyone else (and since I'm used to hearing that kind of thing anyway), I was just going to leave it alone. Any specific questions or glaring misconceptions that stand in the way of a discussion I'm happy to field.

You have staff's appreciation and admiration for that. :bow:

[AntiochusIII]

This whole thread is just another reason why all religion should be exterminated completely...Don't you dare insult ma religion!

https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9914/xenusk2.jpg

[Tribesman]

Any specific questions or glaring misconceptions that stand in the way of a discussion I'm happy to field.

Well there is one question , I have asked Pindar ......but no response , I suppose it is a rather long answer that would be required , but I am curious as to exactly which passages from which versions of the Bible is it that are considered bad translations or edited versions in your particular branch of Christianity ?
A handy link would be sufficient , or several (though I am currently pretty tied up in the various versions and fragments of the gnostic texts it is something on the to-do list)

[Adrian II]

Adrian II, I notice you seem to take a very odd skeptical position on the actual existence of religious figures (Jesus as well).

Now the case with Muhammad is even more clear cut than Jesus. The earliest non-Muslim reference to him is a Greek text from Byzantine Syria within 2 years of his death.When it comes to the historicity of Mohammed Wikipedia doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid. There is a rich tradition of myths, legends, mistaken attributions, fake letters and other false documents surrounding Mohammed and the early days of islam. Caution is advised, nothing is clear cut here - except in the eyes of a true believer.

I refer you to a recent work of twelve European and Arab scholars, Die dunklen Anfänge (2005) by K.-H. Ohlig and G. Puin. I suppose it has been amply reviewed in Anglo-Saxon media, or it should have.

These people, centred in Saarbrücken, are the cutting edge of early Islamic studies at the moment. These linguists, archaeologists, numismatologists and other experts have unearthed and studied a unique series of early texts and developed various hypotheses about the early period, including one that says the early caliphs most probably understood themselves as Christians. Linguistically speaking, as you are no doubt aware, Mohammed means 'the praised' or 'the exalted' and can refer to any leader or source of guidance, either wordly or spiritual.

[Soulforged]

- is ninety lashes an acceptable sentence for an affair to you?

No, there should be no sentence at all, it should be no crime, sadly it's.

But if it were a rape I think that I'll exchange the lashing for the time in jail always. Of course I've never been lashed 90 times, but how about you Louis?~;)

EDIT: On the "What culture is more violent?" debate, I think that the answer is not that simple. Many variables are at play: the location, the history, the religion, the culture, the laws, and even the weather. I've always noticed how the anglosaxons are the most templated of all while the latin americans are more prone to extremist behavior. I think that Montesquieu wrote something about that sometime ago, of course his social theory about people based on geography and his thesis about the perfect State was not taken seriously, but for what I can recolect from my experience with other people anglosaxons tend to be really more laborious and templated (and to drink a lot too), while latin americans are particulary extroverted in general, easier to engage in a friendship but just as easily to lose that friendship.

In any case, that's what I think that any debate concerning clasified and quantified violence will be shortsighted. The study on this could be pretty massive and I haven't seen one done yet wich focus on this subject.

[Reenk Roink]

When it comes to the historicity of Mohammed Wikipedia doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid. There is a rich tradition of myths, legends, mistaken attributions, fake letters and other false documents surrounding Mohammed and the early days of islam. Caution is advised, nothing is clear cut here - except in the eyes of a true believer.

I refer you to a recent work of twelve European and Arab scholars, Die dunklen Anfänge (2005) by K.-H. Ohlig and G. Puin. I suppose it has been amply reviewed in Anglo-Saxon media, or it should have.

These people, centred in Saarbrücken, are the cutting edge of early Islamic studies at the moment. These linguists, archaeologists, numismatologists and other experts have unearthed and studied a unique series of early texts and developed various hypotheses about the early period, including one that says the early caliphs most probably understood themselves as Christians. Linguistically speaking, as you are no doubt aware, Mohammed means 'the praised' or 'the exalted' and can refer to any leader or source of guidance, either wordly or spiritual.

Walter Kaegi is not Wikipedia (might sound alike a bit), but you are free to jump to conclusions as usual of course. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the reference though, I'll look at it. Currently studying early Christianity and the Roman Empire, but Islam isn't too far ahead. I'll see what JSTOR has on it and proceed from there. :wink:

[Adrian II]

Walter Kaegi is not Wikipedia (might sound alike a bit), but you are free to jump to conclusions as usual of course. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the reference though, I'll look at it. Currently studying early Christianity and the Roman Empire, but Islam isn't too far ahead. I'll see what JSTOR has on it and proceed from there. :wink:You are welcome. Or else, the books of American historian John Wansbrough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough) should be available where you are.

Here is a review (http://www.livius.org/opinion/Luxenberg.htm)of another book by one of Saarbrücken researchers, Christoph Luxenberg. His name is a pseudonym. In reality he is a Lebanese researcher. He hides his true identity lest his academic work becomes known to fellow-countrymen who might cut his throat in the interest of peace, tolerance and truth.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course I've never been lashed 90 times, but how about you Louis?~;)Well I went to this hip club once and there were all these women in tight latex and I met this girl and


I think that Montesquieu wrote something about that sometime ago, of course his social theory about people based on geography and his thesis about the perfect State was not taken seriouslyNot in Latin America no... :wink3:


Why can't I write serious stuff anymore. :wall:

[rory_20_uk]

OK, Christianity is a religion that preaches love and tolerance and was twisted into a violent intolerant one.

Islam has all the parts neccecary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat. You need to do some serious interpretation to get around the issues with converting to other religions and the appalling treatment of women.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When it comes to the historicity of Mohammed Wikipedia doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid. There is a rich tradition of myths, legends, mistaken attributions, fake letters and other false documents surrounding Mohammed and the early days of islam. Caution is advised, nothing is clear cut here - except in the eyes of a true believer.

I refer you to a recent work of twelve European and Arab scholars, Die dunklen Anfänge (2005) by K.-H. Ohlig and G. Puin. I suppose it has been amply reviewed in Anglo-Saxon media, or it should have.

These people, centred in Saarbrücken, are the cutting edge of early Islamic studies at the moment. These linguists, archaeologists, numismatologists and other experts have unearthed and studied a unique series of early texts and developed various hypotheses about the early period, including one that says the early caliphs most probably understood themselves as Christians. Linguistically speaking, as you are no doubt aware, Mohammed means 'the praised' or 'the exalted' and can refer to any leader or source of guidance, either wordly or spiritual.

Now that is interesting. Islam would certainly be compatable with early Arian Christianity as a developement thereof. It's a shame Catholacism won out in a way.

[Pindar]

The islamic religion (much as Catholicism was) was invented as a control mechanism!


Hi Vuk,

I think the Catholic reference is interesting. I'm curious, is the above meant as specific to Roman Catholicism or does it include Greek Christians as well i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy? Also, when do you date the invention? I just wanted to get a feel for your position.

[Adrian II]

Now that is interesting. Islam would certainly be compatable with early Arian Christianity as a developement thereof. It's a shame Catholicism won out in a way.It is fascinating, I totally agree. Regardless of all the ideological hullabaloo pro and contra islam this is a totally absorbing subject. I can't vouch for any of it because it is far above my head. The review I referred to cautions that Luxenberg is a Christian Lebanese, but in fact he is from that rare Lebanese phenomenon, the mixed family. The marriage took place outside Lebanon, because mixed marriages are forbidden in that country (aargh, how dumb can you get?). But 'agendas' abound among Quran experts just as they do among the rest of the populace.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone has an agenda, even if it's trying to prove they don't.

What's interesting about Christianity and Islam is how close to aand yet how distant they are from each other.

[Adrian II]

Everyone has an agenda, even if it's trying to prove they don't.

What's interesting about Christianity and Islam is how close to aand yet how distant they are from each other.Some of these developments are fairly recent. They have given rise to research among Quranic experts into their own history, i.e. the history of their own profession.

Earlier western Quran experts often stressed the 'otherness' of Islam for various reasons, mainly to set the dynamic of their own (Christian) religion apart from the perceived 'eternal slumber' of Islam. Eastern clerics and apologists would stress this 'otherness' for their own reasons.

The result was that Western experts more or less uncritically accepted the views and traditions of legalistic Muslim exegesis, at the expense of more mystical sufi traditions (traditions that accommodated many Christian precepts) on the one hand, and hard historical and archaeological evidence on the other hand.

It is only now that they realise they have been occasionally deluded by their own exoticism, and that Christianity and Islam have much more in common than either side was prepared to accept. In Islamic circles this trend is (cautiously) met by intellectuals who feel that the litteralist tradition is blocking the development of the Islamic world: Nasr Abu Zayd, Ibn al-Rawandi.

Of course this is my frog's view from the bottom of the well; I am not even a half-decent Arabist.

[ShadeHonestus]

Wasn't Mohammed just some rich guy who fed a bunch of people escaping famine and created a cult to serve his own secular gains?


waits to be pelted with stones

[Ignoramus]

It is true that both Christians and Muslims have done terrible things in the past. However, there is one difference that no one has picked up on.

Christianity condemns violence in the name of religion, and instead intructs Christians to love one another.

Islam promotes violence in the name of Islam through Jihad. It tells Muslims to slay all the infidel.

They're hardly the same, are they?

[Pindar]

Everyone has an agenda, even if it's trying to prove they don't.

What's interesting about Christianity and Islam is how close to aand yet how distant they are from each other.

In addition to any rhetorical similarity/dissimilarity there is also the added element of historical circumstance. For example: imagine what may have occurred within Islam and Christianity had the East Romans had a crushing victory at Yarmuk instead of the reverse:

Islam as a distinct faith may have been dealt a crippling blow. The Koran at that time was not yet formulated and in a system where the political and religious are fused such a major defeat early on may have altered the face of the faith in any number of fundamental ways even to the point of ending the hopes of Islam maintaining a distinct religious status. Further, such a defeat would have cost Islam of the necessary lands and manpower to developed outside of Arabie as a political force. Many potential Arab allies most probably would have retained a Christian or pagan identification and loyalty to a Roman pay master. It is also doubtful any extant Caliphate could have maintained the state supported doll and spoils system to field expeditionary forces even were the numbers available. Thus, Persia may very well have never suffered the loss of Iraq and might have even been able to counter any initial set backs as well.

For Christianity, a Eastern Roman Empire that was allowed time to recover from the Persian Wars and having removed the threat of an emergent Islam, would have remained the dominant force in Christian Thought. This would have had massive impact on any Papal independence and kept Eastern Orthodox notions of Christianity as the dominant model. A Western Europe absent an strong Papacy would have been a very different religious creature.

[Reenk Roink]

You are welcome. Or else, the books of American historian John Wansbrough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough) should be available where you are.

Here is a review (http://www.livius.org/opinion/Luxenberg.htm)of another book by one of Saarbrücken researchers, Christoph Luxenberg. His name is a pseudonym. In reality he is a Lebanese researcher. He hides his true identity lest his academic work becomes known to fellow-countrymen who might cut his throat in the interest of peace, tolerance and truth.

I've heard of Wansbrough (never read anything of his though). The names you gave (Luxenberg, Wansbrough) seem to have adopted thesis's of revisionism as compared to the widely held view. It must be noted that I only have a very cursory glance of the differences of interpretations of early Islamic history, and so I don't think I should go into them.

However, I'm going to still have to stick with the consensus that Muhammad did very well exist. The source I mentioned from Kaegi's book is referenced by Patricia Crone (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp) as well (I didn't know she was even a student of Wansbrough, but it makes sense).

[Adrian II]

Wasn't Mohammed just some rich guy who fed a bunch of people escaping famine and created a cult to serve his own secular gains?No.

But Pindar's point it worth considering from a different angle. As far as we can tell Islam must have originally developed as a religous and intellectual countermovement. That is certainly how it was presented by its earliest known followers: Islam as a revolutionary movement, appealing to the individual conscience and to a new sense of community that transcended tribal differences. If we suppose for a moment that it developed out of one of more Christian sects, it certainly contained the seeds for such an outlook.

It's rigid legalism and its coincidence of 'state and church' (in western terms) were a later add-on. They were probably the result of the succesful eigth and ninth century Arab expansion, for which it served as an ideology of conquest.

Had its worldly power been thwarted early on by a resounding Byzantine victory, Islam migh well have 'reconfigured' and survived along a totally different line. In that case, Islam as a religion would have been forcibly separated from the state. And because of this separation from power (and its inevitable opposition to it) Islam might, not unlike Christianity in its early days of suppression and hungry lions, have become manifestly anti-political, individualistic, and profoundly mystical. It might have retained its original humility as well as its revolutionary and transcendent potential for much longer.

[ajaxfetish]

OK, Christianity is a religion that preaches love and tolerance and was twisted into a violent intolerant one.

Islam has all the parts neccecary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat. You need to do some serious interpretation to get around the issues with converting to other religions and the appalling treatment of women.

~:smoking:
If you include the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of Christianity, and not just the New Testament, you have all the parts necessary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat.

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

No.


:laugh4:

I had to throw that out there to see if I'd get any venomous bites. That was actually a quite typical view of more than a few people pre 9/11. I even heard it muttered when I did some auditing years ago.

[edit] Interesting note though, the professor was a former follower of Islam from Turkey. That's all I remember, didn't talk to him all that much so I don't know what sect/teachings he had formerly subscribed.

[Adrian II]

:laugh4:

I had to throw that out there to see if I'd get any venomous bites.I like that. It's the Dutch way of debating. Don't try that at home in any other country, folks, you will end up bruised.

[Papewaio]

Interesting turn of thought there AdrianII-sama and Pindar-sama. Just been rereading the Selfish Gene.

Looks like a good basis for a meme suite evolving due to environmental (geopolitical) changes. It does show that as civilisation changes tribe to state, that a state religion evolves to match the will of the state and vice a versa. If there is a change in the operation of the state the religion has to match that to survive... after all the Romans religions didn't compete to well against early Christianity and hence lost out.

[rory_20_uk]

If you include the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of Christianity, and not just the New Testament, you have all the parts necessary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat.

Ajax

Christianity split from Judaism due to their beliefs over Jesus and his preaching effectively rendering everything else redundant. All Christian branches have the New Testament, some don't even have the Old Testament.

It is love thy neighbour, not "love thy neighbour, unless he's not Christian, then kill him". Sure, people have tried to imply this. The Koran has decent passages ordering the deaths of Infidels.

~:smoking:

[ajaxfetish]

Christianity certainly has a greater focus on love and non-violence, but the God of the old testament didn't disappear entirely from Christian culture after the advent of Jesus. You can even find the occasional militaristic moment in the new testament ('I came not to bring peace, but a sword' jumps to mind). My point is that both religions have the seeds of both peace and violence. That's part of what makes them both so complicated.

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

'I came not to bring peace, but a sword' jumps to mind



I believe thats a metaphor for the revolution of faith in traditional Jewish society.

[ajaxfetish]

Metaphorical or not, it opens itself up to violent interpretation.

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

Metaphorical or not, it opens itself up to violent interpretation.


Not at all really, this particular verse is Matthew 10:34 and Matthew 10:32-37 speaks directly about the division of family in face of a revolution of faith.

(This is spoken of in many books, including Luke where he talks directly about being a force of division.)


Matthew 26:52-53 puts directly to rest the non-metaphorical sword.

[rory_20_uk]

Metaphorical or not, it opens itself up to violent interpretation.

Ajax

Yes, but not bald statement. That's the whole point.

~:smoking:

[naut]

There is a Hadith that speaks of rape at the time of the Prophet.
Ahhhhh, the Hadith :stupido2: . Right thanks, I didn't think it was in the Qur'an.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you all for transforming the heat of the early thread into the light of a fascinating discussion.

:bow:

[Fragony]

I still think he was gay

hehe

[BDC]

Wasn't [religious leader] just some rich guy who [fed/protected/owned/lead] a bunch of people [who were vulnerable in some way] and created a cult to serve his own secular gains?

I fixed it.

[ShadeHonestus]

I fixed it.


Yep, Jesus's monopoly on wicker furniture was threatened by the Romans and Jews so he urged revolution....oh wait...


[edit]I actually thought of 2 better fixes for you BDC

Wasn't [some atheist] just some rich guy who [preyed] on a bunch of people's [natural skepticism] and created a following to serve his own personal agenda?

Wasn't [religiously indifferent politician] just some rich guy who [fed/protected/owned/lead] a bunch of people [who were vulnerable in some way] and created a constituency to serve his own gain?

weeeeee, thats fun

[Tribesman]

ep, Jesus's monopoly on wicker furniture was threatened by the Romans and Jews so he urged revolution....oh wait...
Jesus was the wicker man ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Jesus was the wicker man ?


Mothman actually...thats the rumor around the water cooler.

[BDC]

Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity. That was one of the Roman emporers (basically anyway), and then the people who spread it (generally at the point of the sword).

Always look where the money is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity. That was one of the Roman emporers (basically anyway), and then the people who spread it (generally at the point of the sword).

Always look where the money is.

You are thinking of Constantine the Great, and you're wrong. He was a pagn worshipper of Sol Invictvs, among others. He did however spnser Christianity and pushed for the establishment of orthadoxy, mainly because otherwise Christianity was going to carry on causing strife.

He was (probably forcably) converted on his death bed.

[Vuk]

The way that I read it, it's saying that if she got raped in the city, she obviously didn't cry out, since if she had, someone would have come and helped her-it being the city, with lots of people around-and she would thus not have been raped. Therefore, the very fact she got raped in the city is, in and of itself, enough reason to put her to death.

Not the fact that she was raped in a city, but that she was NOT raped, BUT FALSELY accused someone of raping her/committed adultery.




Vuk your understanding of scripture is amazingly lacking . Perhaps the 5 year break you have taken from the book where the fault lies.
Here look , its easy .
If a man find a lady in the city then one law applies , BUT if he finds her in the country then another law applies .
And to add further if the lady he finds is a virgin yet not betrothed then he can just pay the father of the lady some cash for what he takes .


And you call yourself a Christian :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you want to get rid of that statue of Shiva and get down to your local tabernacle and pray ...... errrrr....thats Alabama 3 verse 2 isn't it:2thumbsup:


These are not the laws for a common rape case. They are in another verse. These are for the exceptions: a) What happens if a woman accuses someone of raping her and there are no witnesses. b) What happens if a woman accuses someone of raping her in a populated place when it is obvious that she was not raped.
The answers: a) Woman gets the benifit of the doubt and the guy dies. b) woman dies for falsely accusing and man for messing around with another guys wife/betrothed.
May that help to enlighten you. If not, get you Bible out and read it through a few times, it may make more sense then.


I'd personally change that first bit to 'An interpretation of the religion of Islam (and one that is unfortunately widespread and attention-grabbing) promotes . . .

What I am saying is that it is very easy to interpret islam in that way, as there are so many references in the koran to murder, mutilate, torture, etc. All religions can be twisted by people to justify things, but islam is VERY easy to do that to. Again, I know a lot of nice islamic people and think nothing bad of them, but the religion is very easy to pervert. That is the (all CAPITAL) TRUTH.

Otherwise I'd definitely agree with that statement.


And condemned by all those evil cultist Mormons too, incidentally . . .


Since it was only one post by one member, and had been overlooked by everyone else (and since I'm used to hearing that kind of thing anyway), I was just going to leave it alone. Any specific questions or glaring misconceptions that stand in the way of a discussion I'm happy to field.

Ajax


I think the assumption here is that the only way that a man could lie with her is if she didn't cry out. Because if she cried out in the city someone would hear and intervene.

So either it is a very big assumption or neighborhood watch was a lot more effective back then.




Look at a map of an ancient town in that area. They were ALWAYS full of people, VERY crowded, and there was not nearly as much privacy as nowadays. If you cried out, you would be heard. (remember that there were not any automobiles or machinery, so it was relatively quiet. Also, people then thought it rude to be loud as it desturbed the peace. A yell would certainly be heard.)

[Vuk]

If you include the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of Christianity, and not just the New Testament, you have all the parts necessary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat.

Ajax

The violence in the OT is a history of when God directly ordered Christians to do things (look how things turned out when they attacked unordered). God says to defend yourself and put murderes and rapists to death, but does not order you to torture horribly and slaughter all who are not Christians. That is where the koran and Bible differ.


It is true that both Christians and Muslims have done terrible things in the past. However, there is one difference that no one has picked up on.

Christianity condemns violence in the name of religion, and instead intructs Christians to love one another.

Islam promotes violence in the name of Islam through Jihad. It tells Muslims to slay all the infidel.

They're hardly the same, are they?

Exactly. People like to use the Crusades as an example of Christian violence, but it is interesting to note that not only does the Bible not say anything about Crusades, but that the Crusades were military support to Christian allies after centuries of aggresive muslim conquest. The muslims invaded Italy, Spain, France, Africa, The Balkan region, AND India. Islam is THE single most aggresive religion on the face of the earth. The Crusades were defensive military campaigns against invading turks. (They were invading Anatolia, and if they took it, they would have moved right up into Europe...AGAIN).

This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, yet everyone seems to be dying to throw as much blame as possible onto Christianity for anything they can concieve.
Lets try to stick to the topic and stop maliciously bashing Christianity shall we?

@BQ: There we go, heated discussion again. ;) Sorry, but I can't let things like that go. If I was light-heartedly calling them animal molesters, I'm sure that they would get offended. (Sorry about that too, it was the best example I could think of:embarassed: )

[Orb]

You are thinking of Constantine the Great, and you're wrong. He was a pagn worshipper of Sol Invictvs, among others. He did however spnser Christianity and pushed for the establishment of orthadoxy, mainly because otherwise Christianity was going to carry on causing strife.

He was (probably forcably) converted on his death bed.

I'm sorry, how the Hell do you convert someone forcibly on their deathbed?:dizzy2:

I thought it was fairly typical of Byzantine types to 'save up' their baptism until they were dying, so that their sins would be washed away and they wouldn't have the chance to commit more. I'm sure some others did this.:book:

[Vuk]

I'm sorry, how the Hell do you convert someone forcibly on their deathbed?:dizzy2:

I thought it was fairly typical of Byzantine types to 'save up' their baptism until they were dying, so that their sins would be washed away and they wouldn't have the chance to commit more. I'm sure some others did this.:book:


You are totally correct. This was not just a practice among the Byzantines, but among the Franks, and most of the early Christian world. Constantine was not a pagan, he was Christian but postponed getting baptised so he would not commit more sins. Sorry, if I had seen this, I would have responded myself, but there is just way to much to bother my lazy self with reading and I need to look out for posts directed at me. Do tell me if I miss anything important. ;)

[ShadeHonestus]

Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity. That was one of the Roman emporers (basically anyway), and then the people who spread it (generally at the point of the sword).

Always look where the money is.


Jesus's life and his teachings are the first principles of the revelation of faith in Jewish society. Therefore, Jesus is the founder of Christianity, whatever your inclination or lack thereof.

[drone]

The violence in the OT is a history of when God directly ordered Christians to do things (look how things turned out when they attacked unordered). God says to defend yourself and put murderes and rapists to death, but does not order you to torture horribly and slaughter all who are not Christians. That is where the koran and Bible differ.
Just to clarify, in the Old Testament, God didn't order Christians to do anything. They weren't around at the time...

[Vuk]

Just to clarify, in the Old Testament, God didn't order Christians to do anything. They weren't around at the time...

lol, the Jews.
Damn technicalities... ;)
I have a problem with that actually, lol. Since Christians didn't exist in the OT, whenever I refer to them in the OT, just realize that I mean Jews please.
Thanks for the correction,
Vuk

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry, how the Hell do you convert someone forcibly on their deathbed?:dizzy2:

I thought it was fairly typical of Byzantine types to 'save up' their baptism until they were dying, so that their sins would be washed away and they wouldn't have the chance to commit more. I'm sure some others did this.:book:

No, Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus, he did not see a vision of a Cross in the sky and irrc his soldiers did not bear the Chi Rho. He sponsered Christianity, Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus as unifying forces within the Empire. He was forcibly converted because he couldn't fight back, the same may well have been true of Franks.

It's called propaganda. In the early Church you can't be a Christian unless you are initiated through Baptism.

[Vuk]

No, Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus, he did not see a vision of a Cross in the sky and irrc his soldiers did not bear the Chi Rho. He sponsered Christianity, Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus as unifying forces within the Empire. He was forcibly converted because he couldn't fight back, the same may well have been true of Franks.

It's called propaganda. In the early Church you can't be a Christian unless you are initiated through Baptism.


Not true again. He was raised as a pagan, but converted to Christianity early in his life. Wether he truely believed or not we will never know, but I prefer to believe that he did. :D

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not true again. He was raised as a pagan, but converted to Christianity early in his life. Wether he truely believed or not we will never know, but I prefer to believe that he did. :D

Sorry, but he remained a Pagan until his dieing day. That vision he had? It was while sleeping within the precinct of the Temple of Sol Invictvs, the only evidence for his conversion is on his death bed and comes from church fathers.

He was, after all, Pontifex Maximus, head of the Roman religion.

[AntiochusIII]

Considering the Church did falsify some big documents of their own and called it "Constantine's donation," it's rather possible that they would lie about some other things too. And the only record of his belated baptism came from the very people who would benefit from him actually converting the most, so you know.

In any case, Emperor Constantine wasn't exactly a saintly man, even if he was a saint in the Eastern tradition. He was the last truly powerful Roman Emperor after all. You don't get powerful in Rome unless you're perfectly capable of shedding some real blood, be it barbarians, rebels, conspirators, random innocents, rival contenders, or your own family.

His own religious convictions are really unknown to us: the best we could do is just to debate.

In any case, where are we about the topic? Oh yes, the Al Sauds are oppressive scums.

Lets try to stick to the topic and stop maliciously bashing Christianity shall we?Oh, stop trolling, would you? This I'm offended you attack my Christianity! thing is getting really, really dry. It stifles debate and ruins far too many threads already, thank you very much.

[Adrian II]

Sorry, but he remained a Pagan until his dieing day. That vision he had? It was while sleeping within the precinct of the Temple of Sol Invictvs, the only evidence for his conversion is on his death bed and comes from church fathers.

He was, after all, Pontifex Maximus, head of the Roman religion.Nice tit for that there. As so often in historical controversies it is frustrating to think that we will never be really, really sure.

Even if we accept the baptism as historical, there is the issue of the baptizer, so to speak. We have a contemporary eastern version of Constantine's baptism, given by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Vita Constantini (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html). And we have a later (circa 400 AD) western version known as the Conversio Constantini which was included in the Actus Silvestri.

Interestingly Eusebius of C. does not mention who is supposed to have baptized the Emperor. Many later sources (Ambrose, Rufinus, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) do not mention Constantine's baptism at all. That may be an intentional omisson however, for Jerome (circa 380 AD) does mention the baptism, but claims that C. was baptized by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was an Arian! Ouch!

BTW Brother Philipvs, are you sure your notion of C. being baptized against his will doesn't stem from Brown's entertaining but rather fantastic The Da Vinci Code?

[Soulforged]

lol, the Jews.
Damn technicalities... ;)
I have a problem with that actually, lol. Since Christians didn't exist in the OT, whenever I refer to them in the OT, just realize that I mean Jews please.
Thanks for the correction,
Vuk
Sorry but I've to bite. After seeing so many bad Hollywood movies and reading so many ciclical debates I'm used to the typical logic holes there's, inconsistencies with the writer's own believes.

Like in your case Vuk, I suppose you're a christian right, then if you're a christian and you know that the dogma states that God made us all free to choose Good, how can you seriously state that God "ordered" the people from Israel to do anything. Maybe a jewish could say that with authority, but to remain consistent on a discussion you can't simply assume the position of another unrelated party as your own and be of the same idiocincracy, considering at the same time that you're religious and those are religious positions. But is not only the rethoric you use in this case, it's the reason you use it too, you use it to justify differences between faiths.

[ShadeHonestus]

Like in your case Vuk, I suppose you're a christian right, then if you're a christian and you know that the dogma states that God made us all free to choose Good, how can you seriously state that God "ordered" the people from Israel to do anything. Maybe a jewish could say that with authority, but to remain consistent on a discussion you can't simply assume the position of another unrelated party as your own and be of the same idiocincracy, considering at the same time that you're religious and those are religious positions. But is not only the rethoric you use in this case, it's the reason you use it too, you use it to justify differences between faiths.

How are free will and divine instruction mutually exclusive again?

Time and again in the OT God outlines precise instructions for Hebrew rulers. Their free will to follow or not resulted in repercussions and reward. The thread that perhaps ties the OT to the NT the most is the principle of free will coexisting with the divine.

[Ignoramus]

At last a sensible person. It's good to see you defending Christianity, Vuk.

On the Crusades, even Muslim historians and commentators of that period agreed that the Muslims live better under Christian rule than they had done previously under Islamic rule.

The Crusades were not "Western Imperialism" as modern people fake it to be. They were simply a defensive campaign to stop Islam overrunning Europe. If you have a look at when the First Crusade was preached, 1094, it was only 23 years after Eastern Christianity suffered its worst blow, the battle of Manzikert. If it hadn't been the First Crusade in particular, the Muslims could well have overrun the Byzantine Empire 350 years before the did so.

[ShadeHonestus]

Well the first crusade was the result of the Catholic church taking advantage of the call for help of the Orthodox church in Byzantium. The call for help was actually for a few hundred knights, if that, to be placed under Byzantine command to regain many of its losses at the hands of the Turks. However, the resulting 60k+ that were sent turned into something quite different and intrigue between Byzantium and the newly arrived Catholic forces began resulting in betrayal by both sides and the Crusade to the holy land by the Catholics. Interesting to note though is that Christians faired fairly well by the Turks' hand, due to their style of rule, at least in contrast to the crusaders treatment of the Muslims.

[edit] As far as imperialism is mentioned, some nobles went on the crusade to establish themselves, others went for free absolution offered by the church. Neither one of these motives fits all.

[Soulforged]

How are free will and divine instruction mutually exclusive again?
You're right they're not. Upon re-reading Vuk's posts I see that his point was not to take a cabalistic position on the subject, my point was never that they were mutually exclusive, but that Divine Intervention and Destiny were mutually exclusive with Free Will.

[HoreTore]

OK, Christianity is a religion that preaches love and tolerance and was twisted into a violent intolerant one.

Islam has all the parts neccecary to be violent and intolerant right off the bat. You need to do some serious interpretation to get around the issues with converting to other religions and the appalling treatment of women.

~:smoking:

Are you really incapable of seeing how a muslim guy may say the exact same words, only by having christianity switch places with islam?

As for me, I simply cannot see how christianity preaches love and tolerance. What I see, is that it is preaching obedience, restraint, oppression and vengeance.

Favourite bible quotes:
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.(more on this one http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol4/magi4-6.htm )

3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

I can post more if need be...

While you don't find as many references too holy war and such in the new testament, you'll find PLENTY of things promoting fascism.

[x-dANGEr]

It's funny how these news never appear on an arabian site.. Guess what?

[rory_20_uk]

Christian apostates aren't to be killed. religious war isn't a necessary thing. The most violent act in the Gospels is to kick over a table.

I'm not a Christian. I loathe all religions in almost equal measure (I think some Eastern ones are OK that focus on the individual). I'm Agnostic.

If there are New Testament quotes in the New testament that are oppressive, then they are man's failings and can be ignored. The New Testament was written by man; The Koran was written directly from God, and to even imply that there might be one error will get you killed in some countries.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

It's funny how these news never appear on an arabian site.. Guess what?
Errrrr...the Fox story is taken from a Saudi newspaper:dizzy2:

Though there is a nice one in yesterdays Arab news about the unislamic inequality meted out to women in Saudi "religeous" courts .


At last a sensible person. It's good to see you defending Christianity, Vuk.

Thats rather a nasty bit of sarcasm there Ignoramus .:laugh4:
What have you got against Christianity ?

[Reenk Roink]

Horetore, ajaxfetish, and others: Arguing with rory_20_uk with the current line of reasoning will be quite futile. Every example you throw at him will be turned to fit his thesis. :rolleyes:

To end the argument on your terms, you must play on rory_20_uk's terms. That means changing a bit of the approach, and broadening the scope.

:stupido:
To the most sublime rory_20_uk, scriptural exegesist extraordinare and objective standard of comparison between the monotheistic religions...

Let us consider these 3 religions with their respective texts (you already know them by your extensive study of the highly objective and strawmanless "Skeptics Annotated _______" series which you referenced in another thread):

1) Judaism (Torah [Old Testament])
2) Christianity (Gospel [New Testament])
3) Islam (Quran)

Now, as a scriptural expert, you would know that the only mention of killing apostates from any of these books comes from the Old Testament. Of course, there have been many clerics throughout the ages who were very important figures in each respective religion who have called for the death penalty of apostates, blasphemers, heretics etc... St. Aquinas and Averroes, two of the greatest intellectual figures whose reputations exceed their religious communities were among these, but scriptural instruction is only found in the Old Testament.

Of course, as your later point clarifies, the verses in the Old Testament concerning execution of apostates are due to man's failings, while the verses in the Quran concerning the execution of apostates (which have not been discovered yet, but your scriptural expertise may know something we remain ignorant of) are the word of God.

It seems that Horetore has already posited an objection that states a "muslim guy may say the exact same words, only by having christianity switch places with islam".

Very strong objection on the face of it, but you amazingly dismissed him with this quote: "If there are New Testament quotes in the New testament that are oppressive, then they are man's failings and can be ignored. The New Testament was written by man; The Koran was written directly from God, and to even imply that there might be one error will get you killed in some countries."

You must simply be waiting for your interlocutors to bring up the objection: "A significant group of Christians hold a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Why are you stating that the Quran was written directly from God (a position of many Muslims, true), but not doing the same for Christianity and the Bible?"

Though this objection seems extremely cogent, I am sure that you may once again, be able to offer a succinct refutation on par with your previous refutations. After all, with this kind of premise held, every verse that the Bible has that may be "objectionable" can be easily dismissed, while verses from the Quran cannot. What a brilliant way to protect your thesis! :2thumbsup: Academia has taught you well. :scholar:

Of course, since you "loathe all religions in almost equal measure" you personify objectiveness abound! :beam:

[Ignoramus]

Errrrr...the Fox story is taken from a Saudi newspaper:dizzy2:

Though there is a nice one in yesterdays Arab news about the unislamic inequality meted out to women in Saudi "religeous" courts .


Thats rather a nasty bit of sarcasm there Ignoramus .:laugh4:
What have you got against Christianity ?

Nothing. I was not being sarcastic. I meant what I said. I am glad to see a fellow Christian standing up for his faith, when most Christians will just agree to all sorts of falsities just to fit in. I am a Christian too, and I wholly support what Vuk says.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, so is the Koran not believed by all Muslims to be written as the direct word of God? I was under the mistaken apprehension that all / most believed that this was the case. If so I heartily applaud these moderates and long may they prosper.

What percentage are moderates by the way? The percentage of moderate Christians in the UK is probably close to 95+%

Some Christians are extremists! Bravo - what a well made point :dizzy2: Might there be a preponderance of these who bomb doctors who perform abortions?

So, to clarify (as apparently this is required): anyone who believes a book is infallible is a danger to themselves and others. Once a person has taken this step basic rights can be removed as long as a suitable quote can be found. Odds are that much of the deaths in the middle ages were due to this literalism. Nazism operated in a similar way.

Thankfully the West had the Enlightenment.

Yes clerics. Have their words ever been added to Judaism or Christianity; when were they last added to Islam? Can what any person said be added? If so where has this been done? Catholicism seems keen to add bits as and when a (possibly) senile old man decides. I would argue this is not a good thing.

Ah, if one's reputation exceeds faith boundaries this implies that God has ordained the pronouncements?? :inquisitive:

I would have thought that equal loathing is a place for objective reasoning to rise. Where as yourself as a Muslim can of course be relied on for your utterly unbiased critique of religion... :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[Reenk Roink]

Oh, so is the Koran not believed by all Muslims to be written as the direct word of God? I was under the mistaken apprehension that all / most believed that this was the case. If so I heartily applaud these moderates and long may they prosper.

What percentage are moderates by the way? The percentage of moderate Christians in the UK is probably close to 95+%

Some Christians are extremists! Bravo - what a well made point :dizzy2: Might there be a preponderance of these who bomb doctors who perform abortions?

So, to clarify (as apparently this is required): anyone who believes a book is infallible is a danger to themselves and others. Once a person has taken this step basic rights can be removed as long as a suitable quote can be found. Odds are that much of the deaths in the middle ages were due to this literalism. Nazism operated in a similar way.

Thankfully the West had the Enlightenment.

Yes clerics. Have their words ever been added to Judaism or Christianity; when were they last added to Islam? Can what any person said be added? If so where has this been done? Catholicism seems keen to add bits as and when a (possibly) senile old man decides. I would argue this is not a good thing.

Ah, if one's reputation exceeds faith boundaries this implies that God has ordained the pronouncements?? :inquisitive:

I would have thought that equal loathing is a place for objective reasoning to rise. Where as yourself as a Muslim can of course be relied on for your utterly unbiased critique of religion... :laugh4:

~:smoking:

Wonderful! rory_20_uk thinks me a Muslim! It was almost like the case when Red Peasant thought me a Christian because I argued that "Jesus camp" was not representative of most Christianity. Uncanny... :rolleyes: Surprisingly, I wasn't called a relativist for referencing Feyerabend. Where exactly were you on that Papewaio/Adrian II? :laugh4:

It's almost if making your opponent fit into a religious group (even if he isn't actually one of them :rolleyes:) invalidates any points they may have made.

Now, I see that the most scholarly rory (that rhymes :beam:) has dropped amateur scriptural exegeses and gone to percentages the occasional non-sequiter, bringing up completely unrelated points. where he will wander for awhile... Pretty good option, seeing how he was wrong on his exegeses.

[rory_20_uk]

OK. Are you a Muslim? Apparently my points are invalid as I loathe religion. Double standards, no?

And may I remind you that far from refuting anything you've merely critiqued the prose and the delivery.

Again I ask:

What percentage of Muslims do not believe that the Koran is the exact word of God?
What is their distribution?
Do you think extremist Christians are more likely to resort to lethal methods in relation to their religion?
When was text added to Islam?
Who can Add it?

Was that simple enough for you? I am not expecting you to know all the answers of course. Or of course you could mention that I've gone with writing in list form that time. It almost counts as an argument...

~:smoking:

[Reenk Roink]

No rory_20_uk, I am not a Muslim. A belated heads up to Red Peasant, I am not a Christian. To anyone who read my defense of Feyerabend, I am not a relativist (though Feyerabend himself was probably not one either). To anyone who read my exposition of Hume's problem of induction, I am not an empiricist (I like the rationalists better). To anyone who played Mafia with me, I am not a Barzini, a Roman Senator, a Norse God, or a Mycenaean high priest king. :rolleyes:

I've clearly shown that the Quran doesn't call for the killing of apostates. Only the Old Testament does that. Horetore and ajaxfetish basically made refutations to your other points (women oppression etc.). I see nothing I can do to further it as they demolished your contentions.

As to your questions: If you read my first post carefully, you would see me note that many Muslims do believe (I haven't done any statistical survey, but I think it's right) that the Quran is the exact word of God.

I do think extremist Christians like extremist Muslims, resort to violence. Right now, Muslim/Islamic terrorism is number one, but there are a hell of a lot terrorist groups out their of differing faiths, etc. Adrian II referenced some in this very thread, and there are other threads that were on the topic.

Your last two questions are just weird. I really have no idea what the hell you are asking. :huh: I don't know of the history of Islamic text. Better off asking Adrian II, Wigfeth Ironwall, or others about that.

Again, you general gist in this thread is that Islam has a violent canon (most certainly, but I don't think it compares to the Old Testament (which at least is important for Judaism)), and that Muslims cannot interpret it any other way (it is the "word of God" is your quite sad response).

The second point is bull----. That much is true. The poverty of the argument has been exposed.

So many Muslims do interpret it other ways. Listen to Muslim (and Christian) explanations once in a while of their own faith, instead of setting up strawmen. People who do what you do are akin to those who take the Bible and put forth the worst possible interpretation of its text, which is almost always (and not coincidently) the incorrect interpretation.

Using the principle of charity leads to many good things.

[rory_20_uk]

I have to say I've mainly heard Christian reasoning behind their faith. My favourite is when "God is Love" is used as the answer. Of course many had precious little knowledge of the very texts they choose to follow.

If to show that to describe all at strawmen, the title of the thread is a convenient example of what an entire kingdom practices Islam.

Since you state yourself your lack of knowledge of the subject I should commend that this doesn't seem to stop you.

Here's a decent treatise on Muslims and apostates here (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Hahn/Mawdudi/index.htm).
A quote: "To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution." Pleased that's nice and clear.

I get confused. In which post is which second point? Following on from that, where was the poverty of the argument exposed? I only see a poverty of clarity.

I'm not keen on any terrorists. Most have specific aims. The liberation of a homeland, the freeing of hostages, or the spread of an idea. The IRA wants the British out of Ireland. If we were to leave the long struggle would be over (in its current form). Bin Laden wants amongst other things the destruction of the West. How does one compromise with that? Even the Crusades were less overarching in their scope of extermination. Does the existence of other groups of killers somehow make things better?

People can be nice, content happy people. Others can be small minded, xenophobic bigots. The former are in no need for religion, the latter are able to use it to show that God sanctions their actions against their family and others. When it is the word of man it can be re-emphasised or even ignored (yes - that is the point with Christianity - the nasty bits can be ignored and in the vast majority of cases are these days). If they are the word of God to do so it itself a sin. Do you see the difference?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My understanding of the formation of the Koran is limited to what I know from one or two Muslim friends.

In essence the Prophet would enter a trance, commune with God and then scribes would write down God's word, it was all revealed rather out of sequence and that is why a couple of generations later, when the Caliphate had settled down they formulated the Koran as we have it today and from that time to this it (theoretically) hasn't been altered, which means that it's written in a language contempory with Old Saxon and modern interpretation, even into modern Arabic is no simple matter.

Of the Hadith I know even less, save to say it's effectively anecdotal tradition below the Koran.

Pretty much since the year dot though Muslim clerics and scholars have formulated a canon similar to the one owned by the Catholic Church. The most authoritive of these works might be compared to the Nicaean Creed, which is the foundation of mainstream Christianity.

[HoreTore]

If there are New Testament quotes in the New testament that are oppressive, then they are man's failings and can be ignored. The New Testament was written by man; The Koran was written directly from God, and to even imply that there might be one error will get you killed in some countries.

One of the key points in the bible, is that the holy ghost/spirit(can't remember what it's called in english atm) watched over those who wrote the bible, ensuring that they wrote exactly gods will. He has also watched over every single copy and translation. So, the bible may be written by men, but to a believer, it is gods word.

A key difference between the quran and the bible, however, is that the quran is only "real" in the original arabic version. Any translations are not to be considered the quran, as it has been watered down by man(which is true, translations very often changes a lot).

[Adrian II]

Let us consider these 3 religions with their respective texts (..):

1) Judaism (Torah [Old Testament])
2) Christianity (Gospel [New Testament])
3) Islam (Quran)

Now, as a scriptural expert, you would know that the only mention of killing apostates from any of these books comes from the Old Testament.I believe I already pointed out earlier in this thread that the 'texts' of Islam consist of the Quran plus the Hadith ('written traditions' on the Prophet). Together these constitute the foundation of islamic law. And there is a crapload of ahadith that state or echo the Prophets firm injunction with regard to apostates, namely 'kill them wheresoever ye shall find them'.

[Tribesman]

Nothing. I was not being sarcastic. I meant what I said. I am glad to see a fellow Christian standing up for his faith, when most Christians will just agree to all sorts of falsities just to fit in. I am a Christian too, and I wholly support what Vuk says.
Oh dear .
So you see no fault with someone standing by falsities to fit in with their views , as long as they claim they are a Christian ?

Just out of curiosity , do you also hold the view that the verses dealing with rape instead deal with bearing false witness and making malicious accusations despite the fact that those are dealt with in different verses ?

[Reenk Roink]

Scholarly rory, you sure like to prop yourself up, put the other man down, and all without making much in way of actual argument. I stated my lack of knowledge specifically concerning Islamic text history. It was indeed, better to be forthcoming about it, rather than doing what you did and talking about it and easily being refuted. Avoid strawmen rory, they seem to be your bane.

Your little comment of "entire kingdom" blah blah, just shows how easily strawmen pop up in your mind when it comes to Islam/Muslims. Saudi Arabia is known to have one of the most fundamentalistic and extreme laws on tablet, which a helluva lot of Muslims disagree with. As Tribesman pointed out, this "entire kingdom" had newspaper articles calling th lashings "unislamic". Why not point this out rory, afraid it contradicts your thesis. Keep looking to Bin Laden and related examples to push your view on Islam rory, don't be surprised when others call you out though...

You prop up your talks with Christians you know and their positive expression of their faith, and yet you look to Saudi law and Osama bin Laden for your impressions of Islam? No wonder it's so hopeless with you... That's not fair, rory. :no:

The link (amazing choice of objectivity again scholarly rory :rolleyes:) you show gives citations from Muslim clerics, and Adrian II points out the hadiths. All well and good, now where does it show up in the Quran? Again, the Old Testament has verses calling for the death of apostates, where are they in the Quran? Clerical opinions are another matter altogether rory, you need to keep that clear. Again, I pointed out St. Aquinas's view on apostates and heretics (death). It's not just Islam rory, open your blinders... :rolleyes:

I pointed out that many Muslims do hold the Quran as the word of God in my first post rory, you atcually have to make an effort to look before jumping to make false claims (first strawmen, now this :rolleyes:):


You must simply be waiting for your interlocutors to bring up the objection: "A significant group of Christians hold a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Why are you stating that the Quran was written directly from God (a position of many Muslims, true), but not doing the same for Christianity and the Bible?}

Also, what the hell is a "poverty of clarity"? Figurative language should make sense rory... :rolleyes:

Horetore pretty much killed the rest of your argument on "word of God" blah blah blah, saving me the trouble.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Vuk's point was that it is assumed she is lying because in the city if she cried out she would be heard and a pious Jew would kick in the door go Rambo on the rapist.

So in that case it's not dealing with rape, but, and it's a big one, there should also be a provision for proving the woman was able to cry out.

On the flip side if a woman falsely accuses you of rape in the country with no witnesses then you're dead, litterally.

[HoreTore]

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?

[Adrian II]

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?Eh? :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.

[Reenk Roink]

I think the relationship between Quran and Hadith is best likened to Torah and Talmud.

Britannica article:


he term Hadith derives from the Arabic root hdth, meaning “to happen,” and so, “to tell a happening,” “to report,” “to have, or give, as news,” or “to speak of.” It means tradition seen as narrative and record. From it comes sunnah (literally, a “well-trodden path,” i.e., taken as precedent and authority or directive), to which the faithful conform in submission to the sanction that Hadith possesses and that legalists, on that ground, can enjoin. Tradition in Islam is thus both content and constraint, Hadith as the biographical ground of law and sunnah as the system of obligation derived from it. In and through Hadith, Muhammad may be said to have shaped and determined from the grave the behaviour patterns of the household of Islam by the posthumous leadership his personality exercised. There were, broadly, two factors operating to this end. One was the unique status of Muhammad in the genesis of Islam; the other was the rapid geographical expansion of the new faith in the first two centuries of its history into various areas of cultural confrontation. Hadith cannot be rightly assessed unless the measure of these two elements and their interaction is properly taken.

The experience of Muslims in the conquered territories of west and middle Asia and of North Africa was related to their earlier tradition. Islamic tradition was firmly grounded in the sense of Muhammad's personal destiny as the Prophet—the instrument of the Qur'an and the apostle of God. The clue to tradition as an institution in Islam may be seen in the recital of the Shahadah or “witness” (“There is no god but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God”), with its twin items as inseparable convictions—God and the messenger. Islamic tradition follows from the primary phenomenon of the Qur'an, received personally by Muhammad and thus inextricably bound up with his person and the agency of his vocation. Acknowledgment of the Qur'an as scripture by the Islamic community was inseparable from acknowledgment of Muhammad as its appointed recipient. In that calling, he had neither fellow nor partner, for God, according to the Qur'an, spoke only to Muhammad. When Muhammad died, therefore, in AD 632, the gap thus created in the emotions and the mental universe of Muslims was shatteringly wide. It was also permanent. Death had also terminated the revelation embodied in the Qur'an. By the same stroke scriptural mediation had ended, as well as prophetic presence.

The Prophet's death was said to have coincided with the perfection of revelation. But the perfective closure of both the book and the Prophet's life, though in that sense triumphant, was also onerous, particularly in view of the new changing circumstances, both of space and time, in the geographical expansion of Islam. In all the new pressures of historical circumstance, where was direction to be sought? Where, if not from the same source as the scriptural mouthpiece, who by virtue of that consummated status had become the revelatory instrument of the divine word and could therefore be taken as an everlasting index to the divine counsel? The instinct for and the growth of tradition are thus integral elements in the very nature of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an. Ongoing history and the extending dispersion of Muslim believers provided the occasion and spur for the compilation of Hadith.

The appeal of the ordered recollection of Muhammad to the Islamic mind did not become immediately formalized and sophisticated. On the contrary, there is evidence that the full development of Hadith was slow and uneven. Time and distance had to play their role before memory became stylized and official.

[Adrian II]

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.I believe it is not that simple. The Hadith attempt to clear the ambiguity in the Quran, because it is a very ambiguous book. On this particular issue, the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates, but he does this in such a suggestive manner that it is unclear whether earthly justice should precede His punishment. Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should. We are, alas, stuck with this dominant interpretation.

[HoreTore]

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.

I was referring to people linking the hadith and quran, while seperating the new and old testament.... I think it's pretty similar, the quran trumps the hadith, the new testament trumps the old... While not the same, of course. But muslims use the hadith, and yes, christians makes extensive use of the old testament.

Saying that the old testament should be ignored, would be like saying that the hadith should be ignored...

BTW, if my language is somewhat funny, then it is because I'm norwegian, and thus think in norwegian before translating to english :P

[ShadeHonestus]

Just out of curiosity , do you also hold the view that the verses dealing with rape instead deal with bearing false witness and making malicious accusations despite the fact that those are dealt with in different verses ?


Heya Tribes, I was catching up on this thread and I read this. All I can say is.....wut?

[gunslinger]

I'm not a scholar, so please don't flame me too badly here. My personal perspective on this topic comes from having read the Old Testament straight through for the first time while being immersed in a Muslim culture. I was struck by the similarities between the two. Both the laws of the Old Testament and the Laws of Islam dictated how a society should be run. Many of the rules were no more than a health code for people without access to modern medicine and food preservation. Of course, other rules outlined a social justice system and various provisions for dealing with people who violated its tenants. Again, I've never read any Islamic texts, and my assertions about Islam are based on my observations in a predominantly Islamic country as well as numerous conversations with its citizens.

Conversely, the "laws" of Christianity apply only to personal conduct. There are a couple of passages that give instruction for resolving problems within a church, but nothing that says you should be worried about anyone else's business. According to the New Testament, Christians are supposed to tell everyone about the Gospel, and if the people don't want to hear it, a Christian should just leave and "shake that town's dust off his feet" as he leaves.

When a religion that's been around for a couple thousand years provides for civil law and its teachings are unchanging, it can't be compatible with modern, Western civilization which allows for individual liberties. The early Christians hitched their wagon to a man who they believed had the authority to throw out the book on those old laws, and predominantly Christian societies have progressed to the point where some of those laws seem barbaric, including the ones which would seem to punish a woman for being raped. Noone has come along to "throw out the book" on antiquated Islamic laws, so they are equally barbaric to Westerners.

I'm not sure how modern Jews reconcile their current beliefs and practices with the laws of the Old Testament, but it's clear that they have found some way to relax a lot of those rules.

My prediction: Unless the Muslim extremists actually manage to take over the world, Islam will be forced to modify its dogma, similar to the Jews, or it will fade from existence.

Questions: Is there a difference between Moslem and Muslim? Why have people recently started using the spelling Quran instead of Koran? It's my understanding that there isn't really any correct way of spelling Arabic words with English letters. You just do what sounds right phonetically, right?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

Again you appear to miss the part that I am all for moderate Islam. I believe that was right at the top of the article. Did this not fit with your "arguments"?

There are moderate Islamic states and I hope they spread. Morocco even has female Clerics to help fight the extremism. Tell you what: list all the states that practice extreme, oppressive regimes in the name of Islam and those that do it in the name of Christianity. That's nice and fair.

No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

I prop up Christians? :laugh4: Missed the part where I stated they bomb abortion clinics? In fact I stated that their belief isn't Christianity as they don't know what they profess to believe!! Yet you accuse me of strawmen... Oh dear oh dear.

The above goes equally for your conclusion that I'm only against Islam. The way you go on anyone would think I'm a Bible basher. (I did point out I'm not a Christian, right?) Ironic that one point you made was me assuming you're Muslim.

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

[x-dANGEr]

Errrrr...the Fox story is taken from a Saudi newspaper
With the name of.. ?

[Tribesman]

With the name of.. ?
Well thats a complicated question X-danger .
Just wait while I go through all the bother of taxing my mind wondering if you read the link in post#1....... errrr........yep maybe you didn't..... ah that was no bother at all , simple thing this thought process isn't it .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


As Tribesman pointed out, this "entire kingdom" had newspaper articles calling th lashings "unislamic".
I didn't , I said that the story and interview with the woman is from a Saudi newspaper (Saudi Gazette , available in english on a computer near you) , and another Saudi newspaper (Arab News , available in English on a computer near you) had an article on how the way women were treated in religeous courts in Saudi Arabia was unislamic .
A nice line from the second goes something like " you will find a lot of Islamic practices in the west though there isn't a lot of Moslems , in the middle East you will find a lot of Moslems but not a lot of Islam "

[x-dANGEr]

You didn't get my point..

.. Saudi Gazette.

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You didn't get my point..

.. Saudi Gazette.

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.

I'm not surprised Tribesman hasn't got your point - I don't know what it is either. With both of you being obtuse, I'm thoroughly confused. I suspect that you are calling into question the legitimacy of the Saudi Gazette as a unbiased source?

Care to explain in simple terms? :huh:

[x-dANGEr]

Kind of. It's funny when you're living in some place, and when you read the newspaper it's like you are living somewhere else! :P

[Tribesman]

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.
Ah I see

Kind of. It's funny when you're living in some place, and when you read the newspaper it's like you are living somewhere else!
Yep , so two Pakistanis wern't beheaded for smuggling cocaine , a pervert didn't get 700 lashes for buggering a little boy , migrant workers aren't getting screwed over with health care coverage , that all happened somewhere else on a UFO . Thats clearer now , thanks .
Then again X-danger I thought you were a stateless palestinian living in Jordan ?

[HoreTore]

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

Well, read the bible, and you'll see. It is stated numerous times. Ministers in Norway usually say "God states ..." or "in the word of god it is written" when they refer to the bible. And Norway isn't exactly a hotbed for extremism. It's very simple, the bible IS in fact the word of god to a christian. A lot of people think that it should be interpreted instead of read literally, and that the things described are metaphors, but it is STILL considered god's word.

[rory_20_uk]

So such things such as the letters that are clearly written by... the person who wrote the letter.

The Gospels are also written by people. Indeed not always by one person, as is clearly stated at the start of one of them.

God's word, but far from his word verbatim.

~:smoking:

[Reenk Roink]

Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

Again you appear to miss the part that I am all for moderate Islam. I believe that was right at the top of the article. Did this not fit with your "arguments"?

There are moderate Islamic states and I hope they spread. Morocco even has female Clerics to help fight the extremism. Tell you what: list all the states that practice extreme, oppressive regimes in the name of Islam and those that do it in the name of Christianity. That's nice and fair.

No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

I prop up Christians? :laugh4: Missed the part where I stated they bomb abortion clinics? In fact I stated that their belief isn't Christianity as they don't know what they profess to believe!! Yet you accuse me of strawmen... Oh dear oh dear.

The above goes equally for your conclusion that I'm only against Islam. The way you go on anyone would think I'm a Bible basher. (I did point out I'm not a Christian, right?) Ironic that one point you made was me assuming you're Muslim.

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

rory_20_uk, you're being argumentative, and yet you have no argument. (A paradox at initial glance, but it happens more often than not).

Just look at your and my arguments closely. Like the last time, I affirmed these things:
1) The Quran has violent passages in it
2) Clerics and "tradition" call for death of apostasy and other things

I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.
1) The Bible has violent passages in it
2) Clerics and tradition call for death of apostasy (as well as the Old Testament itself)

You simply have not done your reading. It really helps to read the other posters point clearly to end strawmen...

I attacked your terribly poor and inaccurate attempt at pseudo-scriptural comparison. Horetore continues to savage the only point you hold on to (you also make another strawman on him, as he quite convincingly offers proof for his claim and is not a mere statement).

As your conception of "literalist" itself is flawed, maybe you also need to get this through your head: literalism =!= divine authorship. Reflect on this for a bit, and it's implications...

A Quranic or Biblical literalist is not the same as one who believes in Quranic or Biblical inerrancy.

There are very few among both religions that fall in the former category, which is a matter of interpretation.

[rory_20_uk]

I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

Yes, the Bible is violent. You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam. You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years. Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent. I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

Mentioning that in Norway some preachers say it's the word of god is savaging?? A career in journalism calls I feel.

As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible? After all Man has freedom of action. Don't let me stop you patting your ego on the back.

Oh, I see. Putting the other man down is OK when you do it...

~:smoking:

[x-dANGEr]

Yep , so two Pakistanis wern't beheaded for smuggling cocaine , a pervert didn't get 700 lashes for buggering a little boy , migrant workers aren't getting screwed over with health care coverage , that all happened somewhere else on a UFO . Thats clearer now , thanks .
Then again X-danger I thought you were a stateless palestinian living in Jordan ?
I spent like 3 months in Saudi Arabia.. (You can check that through my IP.. sometime ago ~;) , that is, if you don't trust my word of course :P )

I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.

[Reenk Roink]

I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

Yes, the Bible is violent. You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam. You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years. Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent. I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

Mentioning that in Norway some preachers say it's the word of god is savaging?? A career in journalism calls I feel.

As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible? After all Man has freedom of action. Don't let me stop you patting your ego on the back.

Oh, I see. Putting the other man down is OK when you do it...

~:smoking:

Yes, rory_20_uk, I am terse with people who are terse. I certainly belittled your amateurish attempt at scriptural comparison and exegesis along with actually refuting it.

Of course, seeing as you probably saw your error, you failed to mention anything this post on inerrancy vs. literalism which has been the main point (that you confused quite badly).

I'm very doubtful on the claim that man has freedom of action/will rory_20_uk, your a libertarian (philosophically)?

Lastly, you prop a strawmen once again. I in fact do not think either Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc are violent. I pointed out that there were violent passages in their texts. Read carefully. I pointed out clerics and tradition because you pointed them out earlier. I reply based on your own criterion, as I said in my first post. As for current violence, I have already pointed out in one of my earlier posts, that Islamic/Muslim terrorism is number one right now, but that their are a whole host of instances of other terrorism as well (LRA, etc.).

Here are my 5 replies to you:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458217&postcount=140
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458251&postcount=143
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458271&postcount=145
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458337&postcount=151
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458918&postcount=170

They clearly show that your charges are mistaken or strawmen. Honestly, would it kill you to actually read carefully what the other person says instead of click on the reply button. Any representations of how you view my point are shown to be skewed.

Another strawman you prop is that I "defend current Islamic practice". Tell me rory, where in my 10 posts in this thread have I done that? I have posted a bit on the historical situation, and later attacked you on your poor scriptural exegesis. There is no "defense" of any of this. Please rory, you are propping up strawmen again. Why, then do you ask?

If you cannot see your misinterpretations and misreads of my points, then I don't know what to say. They are strawmen. You put words in my mouth, twist things, etc. Two examples are given above...

Please rory, come back when you answer the question about why you confused literalism and inerrancy... :rolleyes:

*smacks cigarette out of mouth*

[Reenk Roink]

rory_20_uk, to make it easier for me and you, I have compiled a brief list of your strawmen, misreads, misinterpretations in our discourse on this thread:

My First Post: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458271&postcount=145)

Relevant statements present in your reply (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458271&postcount=146):


Oh, so is the Koran not believed by all Muslims to be written as the direct word of God? I was under the mistaken apprehension that all / most believed that this was the case. If so I heartily applaud these moderates and long may they prosper.

rory_20_uk seems to be implying that I am saying that most Muslims do not believe that the Quran is the direct word of God. This is mistaken, as I made a clear reference in the above post that they did.

However, rory_20_uk is also making the mistake of confusing scriptural literalism and inerrancy. That will be pointed out in better detail later.


Ah, if one's reputation exceeds faith boundaries this implies that God has ordained the pronouncements??

rory_20_uk either deliberately or mistakenly misinterprets my referencing St. Aquinas and Averroes. I referenced them to make the point that major clerics in the past from both religions held the position that apostasy was a capital offense. rory_20_uk is going off on a different (and incorrect) tangent.


I would have thought that equal loathing is a place for objective reasoning to rise. Where as yourself as a Muslim can of course be relied on for your utterly unbiased critique of religion...

rory_20_uk incorrectly thinks I am a Muslim. As with Red Peasant earlier, who thought I was a Christian for pointing out that "Jesus camp" was not reflective of many Christians/Christianity, it remains a peculiar statement.

My Second Post: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458251&postcount=143)

Relevant statements in your reply (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458260&postcount=144):

My Third Post: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458271&postcount=145)

Relevant statements in your reply (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458303&postcount=146):


Since you state yourself your lack of knowledge of the subject I should commend that this doesn't seem to stop you.

rory_20_uk takes my statement specifically admitting ignorance of Islamic textual history and thinks it applies broadly to the entire topic. A strawman.

My Fourth Post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458337&postcount=151):

Relevant statements in your reply (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458623&postcount=161):


Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

I pointed out that rory_20_uk's comment of equating this incident as an "entire kingdom" practicing Islam was incorrect by differing arguments inside the very kingdom. rory_20_uk does not hesitate to make a strawman saying that I said it "makes it OK".


AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

What I was saying is that I affirmed that Islamic tradition and clerics had viewed apostasy as a capital punishment, as well as saying that the same was true in Christian tradition and clerics and orders in the Old Testament. rory_20_uk seems to have missed that.


No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

See above on the first newspaper comment.


I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

I most certainly am. In fact, I affirmed that in a post. Again, the same applies to Muslims as well (as appearances seem to strongly suggest). Of course, rory_20_uk was confusing literalism and inerrancy. This was later pointed out.

My Fifth Post: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458918&postcount=170)

Relevant statements in your reply (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1458940&postcount=171):


I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

I simplified my reply to show you how you were confusing literalism and inerrancy, nothing more. I would love to be shown the glaring errors. You can follow my format of pointing out your strawmen. :smiley:


You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam.

In fact, I have not. I affirmed that Islamic terrorism is number one these days, but pointed to Christian terrorism (LRA, etc).


You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years.

As the New Testament and the Quran do not have instructions of killing apostates, it makes sense to point to other areas. The tradition of the religions and clerical pronouncement make sense. You said in an earlier post that "Christian apostates aren't to be killed". I gave relevant counter examples. Some clerics of Islam (like you showed in your link) do the same.


You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years.


Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent.

This is a patently false statement. Pointing out that there are violent passages in holy books is not equating the religion with violence. Strawman.


Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent.


I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

I'm confused with this statement as well, as I have done nothing of the sort (please bring up examples to support your claim). Your interpretations are obviously twisting and stretching things. You know what we call that? Strawmen.


As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

This is a strawman of my use of strawman. :laugh4:


Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible?

:huh: Where have I ever said anything to the contrary? Where have I ever said anything at all about this completely non-sequiter and unrelated point? I was pointing out at you manifold confusion between literalism and inerrancy.

There you have it. All the examples of your strawmen with commentary. Don't wonder why I bring up the word so often. I was in long discussions about Feyerabend (who is usually "strawmaned" very much) and I brought it up only once or twice. Obviously, it is the poster I am in discourse with.

[Tribesman]

I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.
WTF ???????????
Errrrr....so you think that two Pakistanis were not beheaded for drug offences , OK you can add that to the 17 people who obviously havn't been executed already this year :dizzy2:
So , perhaps you don't understand the laws in the country you was in , the old laws that were reinforced by the 1992 laws .

And of course this crazy sensationalist tabloid is making all these stories up , just like that other crazy sensationalist tabloid The US State Department that says the Saudis executed 20 people for drug offences by beheading last year (but good news they didn't execute anyone for apostacy last year) , then again there is always that other sensationalist tabloid the Sri Lankan government who ridiculously made up a story so it could formally protest last month about its citizens being executed and publicly displayed without any consular representation .

[HoreTore]

I can't in all honesty say that I'll cry myself to sleep tonight over 20 beheadings for drug offences....

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but still...drug traffickers deserve what they get.

[Tribesman]

I can't in all honesty say that I'll cry myself to sleep tonight over 20 beheadings for drug offences....

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but still...drug traffickers deserve what they get.
Thats all well and good , IF (and that is a bloody big if )the defendants get a fair trial to which they are entitled , a defense lawyer to which they are entitled , both of which they should recieve under Saudi law but often don't .
Then there is also the use of torture to obtain confessions and use of evidence obtained by torture both of which should not happen under Saudi law but often do .
Oh and also if they are foriegners they are supposed to be entitled to consular access .
Someone can only deserve the punishment warrented by the law if their treatment to decide on the punishment is in accordance with the law .

[x-dANGEr]

Pardon, Tribesman, but you seem to have larger information about the area. I take it you lived there for your whole life? (You can't suppose you know every little detail through "media", which's usually and mostly biased. I can get you links in "arabic" that tell quite the opposite. That's my point)

[Redleg]

Actually Tribes information seems accurate considering the in country brief I recieved back in 1990-1991 while I was in Saudi Arabia for 6 months.

It also matches the information my brother told me about his briefings for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the year he spent in Kuwait from 2003-2004.

What's even better is that one can find this information on the internet fairily easily.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/17/saudia15353.htm

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8296.htm

[Tribesman]

Pardon, Tribesman, but you seem to have larger information about the area. I take it you lived there for your whole life? (You can't suppose you know every little detail through "media", which's usually and mostly biased. I can get you links in "arabic" that tell quite the opposite. That's my point):laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So sorry :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I thought your point was that..... I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.


yoohooo .... Redleg darling , that second link to a sensationalist tabloid with UFOs is just sooooooooo last year , well even further out of this seasons fashion if the cruel truth be told sweetie , one really must keep up with the latest trends from the house of Saud .
Heres last weeks latest catwalk model strutting its stuffhttp://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78862.htm

[Redleg]

:
yoohooo .... Redleg darling , that second link to a sensationalist tabloid with UFOs is just sooooooooo last year , well even further out of this seasons fashion if the cruel truth be told sweetie , one really must keep up with the latest trends from the house of Saud .
Heres last weeks latest catwalk model strutting its stuffhttp://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78862.htm


:oops:
I just posted the first one I came to without looking at the date.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Did you notice what the only change was between the two reports?
:oops::wall: :wall:

[Tribesman]

Did you notice what the only change was between the two reports?

Ummmm...King Fudd is dead :eyebrows:

[Redleg]

Ummmm...King Fudd is dead :eyebrows:

Actually I was thinking just the date. Some of the information contained in both reads exactly the same.

[Tribesman]

Actually I was thinking just the date.
Ummm yep it makes you wonder doesn't it , if these sensationalist taboids have run out of stories or if the story remains the same even though king elmer is not on the throne .
Then again since I, unlike yourself ,havn't been there then I wouldn't possibly have the faintest idea whatover and would only base my opinions on tabliod reports(with UFOs for good measure) .
But on a more serious note , :daisy: Elvis ...where is Big Bopper, surely the lift capacity on yer average UFO would have meant that a fat :daisy: like him would have definately exceeded the load restrictions even if taking into considertion that Buddy was as light as a Cricket....damn I is very very drunk .......but then again put it together and it still makes some sort of sense........:help: .................which apparently according to :daisy: would be abcess.....abyssss....absent :2thumbsup: ()got there eventually)...It just makes no sense:laugh4:

Somebody please shoot me ...you know it would be kinder

oh that is kinder as in kinder not as inthat foriegn grab your jobs and steal your women "kinder" Oh and its not those silly chocolate egg things with toys either

Woohoo the missus put some spelling mistakes right before I prssed submit

[InsaneApache]

damn I is very very drunk

Rowley! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRRuzc-rOps&mode=related&search=) Is that you? :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Rowley! Is that you?
No
I have a different chair .

[Pannonian]

Rowley! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRRuzc-rOps&mode=related&search=) Is that you? :laugh4:
Tribesman is a veritable professor in British comedy. Many of his discussions veer into History Today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA) territory.

[edyzmedieval]

Sharia is too lenient. Goodbye El Quran, hello Birah. Bible+Quran+Torah.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: You cheeky bugger Pann .
Then again I did get a ban from using a line from them very same comedy characters on this forum:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I think it was about the middle -east and it was the "thats you that is" line:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Still trying to work the "lesbians on the tube think I am Chinese" line into a topic though:2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

*tries to keep a straight face*

I suspect this thread has run its course. Thank you for the :daisy: practice. :laugh4:

:closed: