Thousands run riot over religious insults

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just to illustrate that religious excess in response to perceived insults is not the exclusive province of muslims, many of the Sikhs of Punjab are rising (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2565124.ece) to protest an impersonation of one of their gurus.

It appears that whilst images of the gurus are allowed, dressing up as one is not. It also appears that charismatic poverty-embrcaing Sikh leaders are fond of Mercedes-Benz cars too.

Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

By Jerome Taylor
Published: 21 May 2007

The Indian state of Punjab has been set alight by some of the worst rioting in a decade after a newspaper advert placed by the leader of a controversial religious sect sparked outrage in the region's Sikh community.

One person was killed and more than 50 were injured after tens of thousands of angry Sikhs, many armed with their ceremonial kirpan daggers, went on the rampage across Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana.

India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, appealed for calm and put the army on standby as the central government sent thousands of police to the region.

The rioting broke out after the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, a non-profit group that combines social work with spirituality, placed an advert in a local newspaper showing its leader, Baba Gurmeet Singh, allegedly impersonating Sikhism's 10th and last guru, an act most Sikhs would consider deeply offensive.

The advert appeared to show Gurmeet Singh administering a special nectar, known as Jaam-e-Insaan, to his followers while wearing the same long robes worn by the guru, Guru Gobind Singh - who was also known to baptise believers with nectar. Unlike Islam, where picturing the Prophet Mohamed is strictly forbidden, most Sikhs believe it is permissible to picture their gurus, and families often place a picture of the religion's founding father, Guru Nanak Dev, somewhere in their homes. But pretending to be a guru is strictly forbidden.

"Impersonating a Sikh guru always runs the risk of outraging even the most moderate of sikhs," says Jagtar Singh of the Sikh Federation's UK branch. "Even if our schoolchildren were putting on a play about the gurus, we would never get anyone to actually play the role of one.

"Most Sikh groups believe Guru Gobind Singh was the final guru. Some people have since claimed themselves to be living gurus, something which is deeply offensive to most Sikhs."

Gurmeet Singh insists he has done nothing wrong and has refused to apologise for the advert. "I wear whatever my followers give me to wear," he told the New Indian Express from his sect's headquarters in Sirsa, Haryana. "My robes can match anybody's. They don't indicate my inclination towards any particular religion. All religions are the same."

His supporters rejected accusations that he was trying to impersonate the guru. But yesterday police filed a complaint against the sect's leader for hurting religious sentiment, a charge often used in a country where religious differences regularly set off violence.

The Central Bureau of Intelligence, India's equivalent to the FBI, also says Gurmeet Singh is a prime suspect in the murder of an Indian journalist who accused the sect of brainwashing women and sexually assaulting them in 2002.

Many say the rapid response of India's government to the crisis shows their fears that the riots have transformed into a wider protest against what many Sikhs say is the way they are discriminated against by the government.

"The recent protests really have mushroomed into something much bigger," says Jagtar Singh, whose organisation campaigns for the creation of a Sikh homeland called Khalistan.

"There have already been incidents where protesters have been chanting the word 'Khalistan'. The feeling is that now is a good time to protest against the government over Sikh human rights. As long as it remains a political agitation for Sikh rights, we support that. When there is violence, we'll condemn it."

The sect leader

* Whether he's dressed in bright, flowing robes reminiscent of an ancient maharaja, or in the white cloth of a wandering aesthetic, Baba Gurmeet Singh Ram Raheem, who spends much of his time living in a cave on his ashram, has always been a controversial figure. Although his organisation says it discourages donations his favourite mode of transport is a fleet of Mercedes cars, protected by up to 25 bodyguards.

* In 2002, his sect was accused of brainwashing and sexually assaulting female followers. Gurmeet Singh, who prefers his acolytes to call him by his somewhat laborious full title Huzoor Maharaj Sant Gurmeet Ram Raheem Singh Ji, is currently being investigated by police over rape and murder allegations.

* He recently clashed with the Punjab's state government after urging followers to vote for the Congress party, which forms the opposition there. But supporters say his message that all religions are equal attracts hundreds of thousands of genuine followers from low-caste Hindu families as well as from the region's Christian and Sikh communities.

[Fragony]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists

[English assassin]

Religious intolerance? Well, well, well.

Wake me up when someone riots because Darwin's been insulted, would you?

[doc_bean]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists

The Virginia tech shooter was comparing himself to Jesus, might as wel scratch another religion from the list...

The Taoists and Zoroastrians seem to be pretty peaceful though.

[Fragony]

Hardly a riot over religious insult, just too much starcraft

[Kralizec]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists

Hindus and Sikhs aren't the same. Admittedly that's about all I know about these religions. :balloon2:

[macsen rufus]

There's a certain irony that sikhism arose as an attempt to reconcile historical religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India. That's the big problem with religions - an assumed divine sanction for any misdemeanor you want to commit.

I think the shooting of abortion clinic staff is enough to take Christians off that list, Frag :yes:

And if I hear anyone saying Stephen Hawking talks funny, my posse will be out on the streets with Molotovs :laugh4:

[English assassin]

There's a certain irony that sikhism arose as an attempt to reconcile historical religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India.

Surely you mean arose when God decided to impart his one true message to mankind...again?

Why, anyone would think that religion weas made up by people, or something.

[Sir Moody]

And if I hear anyone saying Stephen Hawking talks funny, my posse will be out on the streets with Molotovs :laugh4:

Stephen hawking talks funny - now i expect plenty of pictures and as much property damage as you can manage :devilish:

[Fragony]

I don't like him, thinks he is better then us because he has wheels.

[Spetulhu]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists

You post on the Total War forums yet don't remember the peaceful buddhist monks and samurai from Shogun:TW? :inquisitive:

[macsen rufus]

Stephen hawking talks funny - now i expect plenty of pictures and as much property damage as you can manage

With the benefit of our special Hawking drive time machines, we present .... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm) :skull:

[lars573]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists
pssst. Sikh=/=Hindu. :thumbsup:

[CrossLOPER]

ok,

Muslims
Hindu's
Christians
Budhists
Well now we know the extent of your knowledge pertaining to the major religions of the world. :thumbsup:

[Fragony]

Well now we know the extent of your knowledge pertaining to the major religions of the world. :thumbsup:

Well we have just established that religious excess in response to perceived insults is not the exclusive province of muslims, do I need more? Maybe I should buy more books on it, always handy when I just can't reach the cookies on the upper shelve.

[Gregoshi]

Let us prey... :shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think this sort of behaviour is sikhening. :no:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

think the shooting of abortion clinic staff is enough to take Christians off that list, Frag

Yeah theres thousands of these christian freaks running about killing people. People of ever religion or none have done bad things in their relgions names or their secular causes. Were talking mass actions here not those of single individuals.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think this sort of behaviour is sikhening. :no:
Good one!!!:laugh4:

[Watchman]

Were talking mass actions here not those of single individuals....how far back in time would you like to go ? :beam:

[CrossLOPER]

Well we have just established that religious excess in response to perceived insults is not the exclusive province of muslims...
Interesting, you did not realize this before?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...how far back in time would you like to go ? :beam:

How far back in time can we send him?

Maybe we should conduct a backroom poll and decide that way.....



:devilish:

[CrossLOPER]

How far back in time can we send him?

Maybe we should conduct a backroom poll and decide that way.....



:devilish:
I vote back to the first polar magnetic shift.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I vote back to the first polar magnetic shift.

This could be taken as a personal insult. But isnt this thread about today? Now where crossing off christianity because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? In reality most of the bad things identified with christians came from the take over of the religion by Rome. Until then they had no power.

[English assassin]

This could be taken as a personal insult. But isnt this thread about today? Now where crossing off christianity because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? In reality most of the bad things identified with christians came from the take over of the religion by Rome. Until then they had no power.

NO ONE is sending my mate big G anywhere back in time. OK? :beam:

On reflection, I have nothing against religion, so long as it has no political power. Render unto Caesar etc.

Unfortunately religions seem inevitably to offer career opportunities, and that's when the trouble starts.

[Tribesman]

But isnt this thread about today?
Yep and it still goes on today . Would you like some examples .....again ?

Have the LRA for starters , bringing death , mutilation and salvation in the name of the Lord:dizzy2:
Perhaps someone could make a sticky of groups that call themselves "Christian" who are not really very nice . It might save time again and again and again

[Lemur]

The Virginia tech shooter was comparing himself to Jesus, might as wel scratch another religion from the list...
Point of order: The Virginia Tech shooter was 99% likely a paranoid schizophrenic, so you'll have to scratch psychosis off the list, not Christianity.

David Koresh and Jim Jones would be better negative examples, assuming you want to go there.

[doc_bean]

Point of order: The Virginia Tech shooter was 99% likely a paranoid schizophrenic, so you'll have to scratch psychosis off the list, not Christianity.

David Koresh and Jim Jones would be better negative examples, assuming you want to go there.

Oh well, there are a lot more examples of 'Christian' terrorists and militias in today's world and in the past.


It's just one of those things I feel the media decided to quickly skip over. If he would have been a Muslim and had compared himself to Mohammed (err...er someone else important that would make the comparison a little less blasphemous) you can bet it would have been a major point in the news.

[Devastatin Dave]

If he would have been a Muslim and had compared himself to Mohammed.
Actually Muhammed (sbuh) would have probably been disappointed with the fact that Cho didn't loot first and rape the women before he killed the "infidels".

[Watchman]

Hey, the Prophet was a pragmatic businessman. Of course he knew the proper order of things is to kill the fighters first and only then proceed to the looting so you don't get rudely interrupted.

Mind you, given the fairly sophisticated Southern Arabian rules of engagement he might well have frowned on the "rape the women" bit as well. They had some curious codes of conduct in these things down there, borne of millenia of almost ritualized low-intensity squabbling.

[Don Corleone]

Oh well, there are a lot more examples of 'Christian' terrorists and militias in today's world and in the past.


It's just one of those things I feel the media decided to quickly skip over. If he would have been a Muslim and had compared himself to Mohammed (err...er someone else important that would make the comparison a little less blasphemous) you can bet it would have been a major point in the news.

I don't know. The dude who shot up a Jewish community center to avenge the killing of muslims (who I think coined the term 'sudden jihad syndrome') ended up being ruled a head-case, giving Islam a pass on that one.

But your point is valid, generally, whack-job Christians are described as Whack-Job christians, where it tends to be whack-job MUSLIMS, which doesn't seem fair.

Anyway, Lemur, your examples aren't valid either. Neither Jim Jones nor David Koresh were true Christians, as they both represented themselves as the Messiah (a big no-no to those of us that actually DO believe). Abortion clinic bombers are really more motivated by an issue (abortion, which they believe to be murder) than a religion as well. But as Trbiesman pointed out, there's all sorts of folks around who actually profess to follow what appears to be an orthodox Christian creed and do commit all sorts of nasty acts, even in the name of said faith.

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually Muhammed (sbuh) would have probably been disappointed with the fact that Cho didn't loot first and rape the women before he killed the "infidels".

:beam:

[Bijo]

I think this sort of behaviour is sikhening. :no:
Be careful: somebody might take a jab at your pun.

[AntiochusIII]

There's a certain irony that sikhism arose as an attempt to reconcile historical religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India. That's the big problem with religions - an assumed divine sanction for any misdemeanor you want to commit.To be fair, they sort of got on a bad issue, as in really bad, with the whole Oppress the Sikhs thing from, if I remember correctly, the esteemed Mughal Emperors. Quite a few of the gurus lost their lives the Jesus way, minus the Cross. A few were even de facto insurgency leaders of the Sikhs. Sikhism was and in a way still is the embodiment of Panjabi independence.

That kind of history tends to radicalize faiths.

It surely does not excuse the basic ignorance that faith and mob mentality sometimes provoke in people, though. It's really not that different from that one time when the Beatles were the most hated people evar in the US South because John Lennon thought they were more popular than Jesus when you really think about it. Religion + Crowds With Problems = Baaaaad Recipe.

[CrossLOPER]

This could be taken as a personal insult.
Perhaps in another context, hopefully not this one.

Topic:

So we're back to angry people with centuries worth of problems.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In keeping with the topic of this thread: I don't care what anybody says, we all know there's only one religion that promotes female circumcision, disrupts democratic elections, abducts and beheads its opponents, and stirs up youths to join in an uprising against their western-friendly government....

Linky. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6681795.stm) ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have the LRA for starters , bringing death , mutilation and salvation in the name of the Lord

Oh yes their world famous. How many thousands of them are there? PS who the hell are they?


But your point is valid, generally, whack-job Christians are described as Whack-Job christians, where it tends to be whack-job MUSLIMS, which doesn't seem fair.

whack-job Christians are described as Whack-Job christians, where it tends to be whack-job MUSLIMS, which doesn't seem fair.
[/QUOTE]

If their both called wack jobs whats unfair? But this is hardly a fair comparison again. You find a few nuts who happen to be christians and compare them to thousnds if not milions of Mulim nut jobs. All these groups are condemened by mainstream christians. This isnt the case in Islam.


Oh well, there are a lot more examples of 'Christian' terrorists and militias in today's world

Give me some significant ones that other Christians dont abhor.

[doc_bean]

Oh yes their world famous. How many thousands of them are there? PS who the hell are they?



For almost 18 years, the so-called ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ (LRA) has waged war on the Ugandan government and its own people, the Acholi. The robustness of the conflict indicates that the forces working against peace outstrip those working for it. Analysis of the conflict is often reduced to describing the LRA rebellion as the handiwork of a religious fanatic. However, the social disorder that the National Resistance Movement, led by current President Museveni, inherited in 1986 after the downfall of the Acholi-led Okello regime, contained the root causes for continued insurgency. These were amplified by external circumstances that created the operational leeway for rebellion, gathering force in the absence of a credible Acholi political leadership. A deliverance couched in religious discourse resolved the quandary. The emergence and transformation of the LRA can be made comprehensible only in relation, or even in opposition, to the emergence and downfall of the Holy Spirit Mobile Forces (HSMF) as a radical structure of rejection. Millenarian religious justification contextualizes violence and the use of terror as a means of immobilization and control of the population. As the character and composition of the LRA evolved to include the kidnapping of children, and as the terror escalated, the insurgency became increasingly ensnared in a web of internal contradictions. The result is that the LRA has exacerbated the process of dehumanization the HSMF first set out to counter.

Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army: the new order no one ordered
Author: Frank Van Acker
Source: African Affairs, Volume 103, Number 412, July 2004, pp. 335-357(23)
Publisher: Oxford University Press

There were up to 7000 up them at one point, more recent estimates put them at 3000-5000 (people with more knowledge on the subject may correct me).




Give me some significant ones that other Christians dont abhor.

Give me one 'muslim' terrorist group that the muslim members of the org don't abhor.

The second part of your demand is impossible to meet since terrorist groups are always fringe groups, or groups operating far away. The IRA was supported by the American Irish for decades before 9/11 happened, for instance. And in fact, there were tied to a religion too, though that is not generally considered the root of the conflict in Northern Ireland.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

For almost 18 years, the so-called ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ (LRA) has waged war on the Ugandan government and its own people, the Acholi.

And you think they represent christianity? What church do they all belong to?


Give me one 'muslim' terrorist group that the muslim members of the org don't abhor.



Those at the org? :laugh4:

Now thats not fair. How about around the world. I can find you millions of them.


The second part of your demand is impossible to meet since terrorist groups are always fringe groups, or groups operating far away.

WellI have no problem naming many Islamis such groups. In fact their barely on the fringe.


The IRA was supported by the American Irish for decades before 9/11 happened, for instance. And in fact, there were tied to a religion too, though that is not generally considered the root of the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Excatly it was christian vs christian anyway. In reality British vs Irish.

[Don Corleone]

Oh yes their world famous. How many thousands of them are there? PS who the hell are they?


whack-job Christians are described as Whack-Job christians, where it tends to be whack-job MUSLIMS, which doesn't seem fair.


If their both called wack jobs whats unfair? But this is hardly a fair comparison again. You find a few nuts who happen to be christians and compare them to thousnds if not milions of Mulim nut jobs. All these groups are condemened by mainstream christians. This isnt the case in Islam.

You apparently missed the intention of the capitals to convey stress. My point was for a given individual picked up, those of a Christian persuasion tend to be discussed in terms of their deranged state first, then mention is made of their Christian beliefs. Meanwhile, those individuals of a Muslim persuasion tend to be discussed as Muslim first, crazy second.

This is directed at individuals picked up for random acts of craziness here domestically, like the guy who shot the people at the airplane checkin counter a few years back. I wasn't trying to make a statement on populations in the world at large.

[doc_bean]

And you think they represent christianity? What church do they all belong to?



A Christian one, don't know the details, considering the amount of weird churches you USians seem to have I think it's rather unfair to say they don't represent Christianity. Neither do Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, etc.



Those at the org? :laugh4:

Now thats not fair. How about around the world. I can find you millions of them.

Well, people you know personally would do. it's always easy to claim things about people you don't.



WellI have no problem naming many Islamis such groups. In fact their barely on the fringe.

Most of them are small splinter groups, though calling themselves Al Quaida is popular these days, it's not like they're one single organization. None of them match up to the amount of casualties the LRA has caused in the name Jesus though.

EDIT: I'm not saying there aren't more Muslim terrorists these days though, but that hardly makes christians the great peaceful group.

[Tribesman]

Oh yes their world famous. How many thousands of them are there? PS who the hell are they?


do you go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance or does it just happen?
This could be taken as a personal insult.
now then is that a personal insult or just a comment on the tripe you wrote ?

[Don Corleone]

Excatly it was christian vs christian anyway. In reality British vs Irish.

Oooh, bad play, my friend. You really don't get what that conflict was all about, do you? The British would have been the first ones to get out of Northern Ireland if they didn't have the integrity to defend their citizens. I'm not going to get into a Republican/Unionist debate, but saying Irish Protestants are really British anyway (which I hope isn't what you were implying) is the equivalent of saying that everyone and anyone that sympathizes with Israel must be a Jew.

[Orb]

There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam on this. Christian texts directly condemn the LRA's actions. Islamic ones don't, to my knowledge condemn such actions.

[doc_bean]

There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam on this. Christian texts directly condemn the LRA's actions. Islamic ones don't, to my knowledge condemn such actions.

The LRA would disagree with your statement, obviously.

Some Muslims will probably disagree with the Quo'ran supporting terrorism. I don't know the book well enough to comment, and i have a feeling neither do most people on this board...

[Tribesman]

There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam on this. Christian texts directly condemn the LRA's actions. Islamic ones don't, to my knowledge condemn such actions.

I suggest you read your scripture before you make such ludicrous claims Orb:dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

I think Orb is referring to the New Testament, not the Old. Pretty damn hard to beat Deuteronomy or Leviticus in terms of sheer blood and guts. Heck, for even wearing shirts of any sort of blended fibers, we should all get stoned in the streets, forget about that one lobster at the Memorial Day picnic.... :help:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You apparently missed the intention of the capitals to convey stress. My point was for a given individual picked up, those of a Christian persuasion tend to be discussed in terms of their deranged state first, then mention is made of their Christian beliefs. Meanwhile, those individuals of a Muslim persuasion tend to be discussed as Muslim first, crazy second.

I bet in Islamic states its just the opposite LOL. Your going by our view.


do you go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance or does it just happen?
This could be taken as a personal insult.
now then is that a personal insult or just a comment on the tripe you wrote ?

If there is anyone who goes around giving veiled and not so veiled personal insults around here its you. Sometimes im amazed they still let you post here. This is just another of your insults.


Oooh, bad play, my friend. You really don't get what that conflict was all about, do you?

I certainly do.


The British would have been the first ones to get out of Northern Ireland if they didn't have the integrity to defend their citizens.

If they got out what citizens of theirs are they going to defend? I suppose you mean the Irish Protestants? Their not english citiznens anymore than any other Irishman are they? The only way religion comes in is because the english invaders were protestant. They could have been buddists it wouldnt have made a difference.


I suggest you read your scripture before you make such ludicrous claims Orb

Then I suggest you do the same and this time learn their true meaning.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain, I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'm going to start a different one. Please follow me over there.

[Tribesman]

This is just another of your insults.

Nope , it is just a comment noting that you wrote complete rubbish on the subject and the reason that you wrote such tripe is either that you lack knowledge of the subject or you don't want to know about things in case they conflict with your preconceptions .


Then I suggest you do the same and this time learn their true meaning.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh lordy :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: errr ...you have read the Bible haven't you ? or are you just going on what you want to think is written in it .


I certainly do.

Oh no , its Gawain the oirish republican again:help:

If they got out what citizens of theirs are they going to defend? I suppose you mean the Irish Protestants? Their not english citiznens anymore than any other Irishman are they?
God save us from the narrowbacks:dizzy2:

[Husar]

If they say Old Testament > New Testament, that makes them Jews, not Christians, no?
For Christians it's New Testament > Old Testament and the opinion of Jesus concerning violence should be pretty clear as long as one is not illiterate, remember, Christian is rather similar to Christ and that is because what he said should be above everything else for a Christian.

The LRA obviously does not understand that and they can call themselves whatever they want, they're not Christians. If I call myself an American from today and swear an oath on the US constitution, does that make me a US citizen?
(ok, very bad comparison, doesn't even work that way, but if there is a God, he has similar mempbership rules as the US and so in his book, the LRA would not be Christians and since he would decide in the end, etc. pp.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nope , it is just a comment noting that you wrote complete rubbish on the subject

On what subject what that be? For once in your life be specific. Exactly what rubbish?


and the reason that you wrote such tripe is either that you lack knowledge of the subject or you don't want to know about things in case they conflict with your preconceptions .

Sure I could have looked it up but I figured Id ask. Just what conflict are you speaking of anyway?


oh lordy errr ...you have read the Bible haven't you ? or are you just going on what you want to think is written in it .

New Testament. Find me where Jesus says to kill the unbeliever.


Oh no , its Gawain the oirish republican again

Im certainly no republican and Im far more of a centerist you are.

[AntiochusIII]

The LRA obviously does not understand that and they can call themselves whatever they want, they're not Christians. If I call myself an American from today and swear an oath on the US constitution, does that make me a US citizen?
(ok, very bad comparison, doesn't even work that way, but if there is a God, he has similar mempbership rules as the US and so in his book, the LRA would not be Christians and since he would decide in the end, etc. pp.)So, if John Buchanan, East Lansing, Baptist, is not responsible for the actions of the LRA, why should Ghassan Ahmed, Cairo, Sunni, be responsible for Al-Qaida?

Chaos and suffering produce madmen. Madmen propagate chaos and suffering. All in God's Holy Name. It's almost pretty if you ask me. Curious, though, that a thread about how radicalized Sikhism has become is directed towards more Islam criticism, again.

[Watchman]

Would you like me to state the obvious behind that ?

[ShadeHonestus]

yes

-edit-
Iowa is above Missouri so I'm close to the "show me" principle...

[Watchman]

Some people here seem to hold certain antipathies - dare I say prejudices ? - that have a tendency to show through in a manner some might regard as possibly biased if not one-sided when the talk turns to certain kinds of topics.

I could also give a less sanitized version, but that'd probably net me an admin warning for breach of etiquette.

[ShadeHonestus]

I could also give a less sanitized version, but that'd probably net me an admin warning for breach of etiquette.

Vegas had it at even odds which version would show up until mods tipped off the odds makers that behaviour here has been good lately. Needless to say my bet didn't pay off as high as it should have.

[Husar]

why should Ghassan Ahmed, Cairo, Sunni, be responsible for Al-Qaida?
I didn't say that he is, I just injected my totally irrelevant opinion on the matter and you may assume now that I do not think all muslims are responsible for the actions of "muslim" terrorists.:bow:

[Tribesman]

On what subject what that be? For once in your life be specific. Exactly what rubbish?


Specific eh
Christians don't do that
yes they do
only in ancient times not now
wrong again
but not on a large scale
:oops: you did it again
yeah but they aren't really Christian
they say they are:yes:
scripture doesn't support that
it does
not that Christian scripture other Christain scripture
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
quite a pile of tripe once again arising from where you have tried to state something that isn't true then tried to defend it .

BTW
Im certainly no republican and Im far more of a centerist you are.
my comment clearly went way over your head , invest in some stilts:idea2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Vyes they do

Not if their real christians.


they say they are

In name only


it does

Not the New Testament


quite a pile of tripe once again arising from where you have tried to state something that isn't true then tried to defend it .


The old Testament is Jewish scipture not Christian.


my comment clearly went way over your head , invest in some stilts

Maybe if you didnt make up words I could understand you . What the hell is oirish?

[Don Corleone]

It was a play on words. "Oyrish" being Irish, and he was implying that you were a zealous, if ignorant defender of the Irish Republic though you didn't have a handle on the issues involved.

Republican in Irish terms means that you favor the 6 counties rejoining the other 26, not that you voted for Bush.

[Watchman]

Not if their real christians.You do realize this funny question is exactly what various brands of Christians have merrily massacred each other over on several occasions over the last two millenia, right ?
:inquisitive:
And who died and made you the judge of the validity of someone's Christian faith, anyway ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Republican in Irish terms means that you favor the 6 counties rejoining the other 26, not that you voted for Bush.

Well can you blame me for not understanding him then? :laugh4: The guy is never clear.


You do realize this funny question is exactly what various brands of Christians have merrily massacred each other over on several occasions over the last two millenia, right ?

When was the last time this happened?


And who died and made you the judge of the validity of someone's Christian faith, anyway ?


My thats the easiest question Ive ever seen here. Why Jesus of course :laugh4:

Look you cant find any "violent Christian group" that isnt vigorously condemned by mainstream christians all of who will say the same thing i did and Im not even a christian. In one religion its so small a percentage of people as to be totally insignificant while in the other it seems to approach mainstream thought. The comparison is ludicrous on its face. Im sick of all this moral equivelency. People here bring up abortion shootings like there an everyday occurence or happen at least as often as Palestinian suicide attacks. Its silly.

[Watchman]

When was the last time this happened?I figure North Ireland could actually qualify.


Look you cant find any "violent Christian group" that isnt vigorously condemned by mainstream christians all of who will say the same thing i did and Im not even a christian. In one religion its so small a percentage of people as to be totally insignificant while in the other it seems to approach mainstream thought. The comparison is ludicrous on its face. Im sick of all this moral equivelency. People here bring up abortion shootings like there an everyday occurence or happen at least as often as Palestinian suicide attacks. Its silly.Right. And the "Christian" West and the Muslim world are obviously in similar situations and under similar internal tensions.
:dizzy2:
Recall that we sorta dumped religion by the wayside a while ago ? Not that there was any shortage of other battle banners to raise though - remember fascism and communism ? We fought the two most destructive wars in all human history within the last hundred years, and the rallying cries being taken from dogmas other than the old-school religions doesn't really change much - the zeal was much the same.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I figure North Ireland could actually qualify.

Yeah its just like Palestine lol. I dont think so.


Right. And the "Christian" West and the Muslim world are obviously in similar situations and under similar internal tensions.


Oh so now Christians represent the west and Muslims the rest of the world . I never learned that sorry.


Recall that we sorta dumped religion by the wayside a while ago ? Not that there was any shortage of other battle banners to raise though - remember fascism and communism ? We fought the two most destructive wars in all human history within the last hundred years, and the rallying cries being taken from dogmas other than the old-school religions doesn't really change much - the zeal was much the same.

Thanks for proving my point. Chrisitanity went through a prfound change. Were still waiting for Islam to see the light. Anyone with half a brain who can read scripture can in no way interpret the new testament as a basis to launch a war or kill people. Now with my half a brain when i read the Koran I see tons of this stuff.:smash:

[Watchman]

This just occurred to me, but how about the Jews then ? Unlike these "proper Christians" you speak of they after all stick - partially at least - to the Old Testament which as we all know is divinely ordained bloodbath galore...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This just occurred to me, but how about the Jews then ? Unlike these "proper Christians" you speak of they after all stick - partially at least - to the Old Testament which as we all know is divinely ordained bloodbath galore...


Your right the Jews have been persecuting and slaughtering the rest of humanity since they came into existence, reaching their hieght in the mid 1930s to 40s :help:

[ShadeHonestus]

Not an expert on the history of Judaism or Jewish tradition, but I seem to recall from some religion courses in college that they have seen a number of reformations.

[edit] Of course like any belief structure at times there is always a predisposition to "run home to momma" so to speak.

[Watchman]

Your right the Jews have been persecuting and slaughtering the rest of humanity since they came into existence, reaching their hieght in the mid 1930s to 40s :help:You're the one who started comparing scriptures, not me. Answer the question.

'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing. A decade or two at most. Before the Iranian Revolution the whole damn faith was regarded as a virtual nonentity in the international field - something that a lot of folks believed in, but not something of any real impact on policies or which should be taken into account in analysis.

My guess is that much like Communism once Islamism has became the vehicle of revolutionary sentiment in the "global South" (you know - Third World, Developing Countries, whatever you now want to call it), or in any case a part of it. A framework which very diverse people, groups and ideas mainly connected by a feeling of "being fed up with the way things are going" have come to adopt for articulating their messages, legitimizing their goals and actions, and formulating their more or less fantastic takes on "how things should be".

[Tribesman]

The old Testament is Jewish scipture not Christian.

Blimey Gawain its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts:dizzy2:
go down to your local church and ask them to show you a Christian bible :idea2: the old testament is the Christian version of Jewish scripture .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing.

Only if you leave out Mohammed and all the history of Islam prior to this. :furious3:


go down to your local church and ask them to show you a Christian bible the old testament is the Christian version of Jewish scripture .

I dont have to Ive read it countless times. So now the Catholic church wrote the old testament :laugh4:

And of course all christians observe Jewish law.

[Tribesman]

So now the Catholic church wrote the old testament
errrrrr .......yep as did the eastern and oriental orthadox churches , then along came Luther and protestantism and they wrote their old testament as well because they didn't like the other versions that other churches wrote .

Gawain are you out to prove something ?
like perhaps .....Blimey Gawain its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts:dizzy2:

[Watchman]

Only if you leave out Mohammed and all the history of Islam prior to this. :furious3: What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ? Dang. Shoulda told them sooner, so they'd have contented themselves keeping up the merry old tribal skirmishing tradition down in southern Arabia and left the proper warring and conquering to, lessee, diverse brands of Christians, "pagans", Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists...
:dozey:
Christ Gawain, your total (and, I suspect, willing) lack of perspective is giving me a headache. For real.


And of course all christians observe Jewish law.The Kingdom of Sweden (Protestant, as an aside) incidentally tried applying Old Testament law for a while under the somewhat excessively religious Carl XI if I remember correctly. It kinda sucked, and was abandoned after a decade or so.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

errrrrr .......yep as did the eastern and oriental orthadox churches , then along came Luther and protestantism and they wrote their old testament as well because they didn't like the other versions that other churches wrote .


Well you will have to showq me as i never read a prostestant bible. But its irrelevant as they dont follow jewish law either. There is no eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth in Christianity.

Blimey Tribesman its hard to credit it , but you actually manage to get worse in your attempts


What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ?

Like everyone else?


Christ Gawain, your total (and, I suspect, willing) lack of perspective is giving me a headache. For real.

Same to you mate . My heads killing me.

[Watchman]

Like everyone else?Yes, like everyone else. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but you do know basic world history right ?

So why should Muslims have been left out of the club ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, like everyone else. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but you do know basic world history right ?

Far more than basic. Now you tell me when Christianity went about setting up a caliphate and how many christians today want to take over the world politicaly to promote their religion? Islam has always been spread by the sword. Only the aquistion of Chrisitanity by Rome cause suchthings to be said of christianity. It was Christian clergy and rulers who abused the scriptures to fight in the name of Christ. Since Jesus never preached such trash you cant blame christianity only those who misinterpret it. On the otherside you have Mohammed himself leading the battle.

[Husar]

Hah, I've never read a catholic bible(or maybe I have and didn't know, never seen a bible pray ave maria...) and I don't think the old testament is in any way significantly different between a "catholic bible" and a "protestant bible".

And Gawain is right in saying that christianity is based on the New Testament, the old one is added to most bibles because it shows how promises made in it became true in the new testament etc, but I've also seen bibles which contain only the New Testament...shock, horror...and now I'd like you to tell me where in the New Testament Jesus encourages violence?

What the king of Sweden tried is his own problem and IMO completely irrelevant, otherwise I'm going to use your point Watchman, and claim that atheism leads to violence because of Hitler and Stalin.:dizzy2:
Atheism may not be a religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it better than any religion. ~;)

[Tribesman]

Well you will have to showq me as i never read a prostestant bible.
so your bollox about reading a bible means that it was a catholic or orthadox one which you ridiculously claim they didn't write .
Once again you make rubbish up with absolutely no basis for it .
some things never change eh


But its irrelevant as they dont follow jewish law either. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you are absolutely clueless:dizzy2:


There is no eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth in Christianity.

you really don't know your scripture do you~:doh: Christian or Jewish scripture it appears you know neither
Lex Talionis old boy .
Jesus endorses Jewish law and speaks in praise of it , Christians must go further than just an eye for an eye . 3 eyes for an eye is one example he gives in the new testament.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so your bollox about reading a bible means that it was a catholic or orthadox one which you ridiculously claim they didn't write .
Once again you make rubbish up with absolutely no basis for it .
some things never change eh


Well i could go on about how there is only one correct bible and that the protestant one is just an edditted version but I think Husar covered it all very nicely.


you are absolutely clueless

You certainly are. yes their are a few Jewish laws we follow like the 10 commanments but thats about it.


Jesus endorses Jewish law and speaks in praise of it , Christians must go further than just an eye for an eye . 3 eyes for an eye is one example he gives in the new testament.

You really are cluless.

[Tribesman]

You certainly are. yes their are a few Jewish laws we follow like the 10 commanments but thats about it.

Oh gawain you are priceless:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
errrr...isn't that only 6 commandments now or is that a matter of millenia of unresolved debate within Christianity:book:
Learn about scripture and Christainity before you try and talk about it .
You might just be able to make some sense when you write about it then .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Learn about scripture and Christainity before you try and talk about it .


Ill be only too happy to debate you on scripture anyday if you can possibly give straight answers and questions for once without your usual games and nonsense.

[Watchman]

Now you tell me when Christianity went about setting up a caliphate...It got the whole Roman Empire if you recall.

And then there's the whole thing with Crusades on top of general enterpreneuring expansionism while using Biblical references as your battle cry.

And the Spanish and Portugese in particular across the globe, particularly in South and Central America.

And, well, since Europe was still devoutly Christian in the second half of 19th century when it up and decided it wanted to take over the world...


...and how many christians today want to take over the world politicaly to promote their religion?They're thankfully a dying breed these days. I don't really see the relevance though - whatever their high-faluting rhetoric might be, the al-Qaidaists' goals are by far less ridiculously overblown in practice.


Islam has always been spread by the sword.Sure, except when people converted willingly. :dizzy2:


Only the aquistion of Chrisitanity by Rome cause suchthings to be said of christianity. It was Christian clergy and rulers who abused the scriptures to fight in the name of Christ. Since Jesus never preached such trash you cant blame christianity only those who misinterpret it.Yeah yeah, bad clergy and rulers. Very bad. Scapegoat much ?


On the otherside you have Mohammed himself leading the battle.And seems to have done a fine enough job at it. A capable man for sure. Did it ever occur to you, though, that the fact Jesus had the Damocles' Sword of the Roman Empire hanging over his head (and the Seleucids had already bloodily crushed a few major Jewish uprisings a fair while before the Romans turned up) and Mohammed conversely just had city-state level opponents to deal with might of had some influence on their career paths ?

[Watchman]

What the king of Sweden tried is his own problem and IMO completely irrelevant, otherwise I'm going to use your point Watchman, and claim that atheism leads to violence because of Hitler and Stalin.:dizzy2:
Atheism may not be a religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it better than any religion. ~;)Oh, just pointing out that the hardline approach was occasionally tried even at state level. Cromwell's Puritan reign would be a similar case. People always seemed to get fed up with it rather soon though.

Crackpot small religious communities better able to browbeat their members into submission seem to usually have been better at keeping that sort of thing going.

I don't really see what Hitler has to do with atheism though. I get the impression he was a firm enough believer, just in his own kooky mythos rather than in one of the mainstream religions.

[Tribesman]

Ill be only too happy to debate you on scripture anyday if you can possibly give straight answers and questions for once without your usual games and nonsense.
OK some simple ones for starters .
What books are in the "jewish"old testament that are not in the "catholic" old testament , which of those in the "catholic" old testament are not in the "lutherain" old testament ?
What are the major alterations in the texts that are included ?
Is the Bible Christian scripture ?
What are the two sections of the Bible ?
What is torah submissive Christianity ?
Which Christian churches fit that label ?

oh yeah....
...isn't that only 6 commandments now or is that a matter of millenia of unresolved debate within Christianity
can you work that one out?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It got the whole Roman Empire if you recall.



Your putting the horse before the cart here. Who do you think was out to conquer the world by the sword, Christianity or ROME lol.


And then there's the whole thing with Crusades on top of general enterpreneuring expansionism while using Biblical references as your battle cry

The crusades were a response to Islamic aggresion. How is it that once muslims conquer a land its theirs forever, but if you try to take it back your an aggressor?


And the Spanish and Portugese in particular across the globe, particularly in South and Central America.


Your only making my point for me. Nations did this not Christianity. They used Christianity as an excuse and a recruitment tool. It has nothing to do with Christs teachings. Compare that to the teachings of Mohammed.


Sure, except when people converted willingly

Few and far between. Like the Spanish huh? Convert or die. Such great options. Of course if your really worth keeping you can just pay extra taxes and be a second class citizen.


Yeah yeah, bad clergy and rulers. Very bad. Scapegoat much ?


Seems you just cant handle the truth.


Did it ever occur to you, though, that the fact Jesus had the Damocles' Sword of the Roman Empire hanging over his head (and the Seleucids had already bloodily crushed a few major Jewish uprisings a fair while before the Romans turned up)

:wall:

The Jews were gone from Israel before Mohmmed was even born. Jesus never wanted or asked anyone to fight in his name. He didnt even try to start a relgion. He was the ultimate pacifist. Mohmmed is just the opposite.

I dont see your point here. Jesus let himself be killed rather than fight. In fact he wouldnt even let anyone protect him.

[AntiochusIII]

Gawain: seriously, from your sentiments in this thread, it's quite clear that Don Corleone's point that there is a bias in recognition between Christians and Muslims -- WHACKJOB christians vs whackjob MUSLIMS -- is well demonstrated in your viewpoint.

Spanish missionaries in Central America/Spanish Inquisition = Spanish action.

LRA actions in Africa = LRA action.

Christian suppression of other competing religious traditions in the Late Roman Empire = Roman action.

Seljuk assault on the Byzantine Empire = Muslim action.

Al-Qaeda actions in the Middle East = Muslim action.

Caliphate's conquests in Africa and Asia = Muslim action.

:embarassed:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain: seriously, from your sentiments in this thread, it's quite clear that Don Corleone's point that there is a bias in recognition between Christians and Muslims -- WHACKJOB christians vs whackjob MUSLIMS -- is well demonstrated in your viewpoint.





My point is if you follow the teachings of Christ you cannot condone the actions of any of these so called Christians. I think Mohammed would give OBL a medal for his fine work in the name of islam. The main drive behind islamic expansion was religion .

[Watchman]

Your putting the horse before the cart here. Who do you think was out to conquer the world by the sword, Christianity or ROME lol.Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?


The crusades were a response to Islamic aggresion. How is it that once muslims conquer a land its theirs forever, but if you try to take it back your an aggressor? I was actually thinking more of the Baltic and Central European Crusades. You know, with the Teutonic Order and all that. When the native pagans eventually sent for the Pope for protection from the rapacious Crusaders.

And don't try to give me that junk about Islamic aggression. What the Byzantines asked for help against was the newly arrived (and converted) Seljuk Turks, not the original wave of Muslim conquerors who'd taken away half their empire, gone on to set up shop as far as Iberia and establish a few tenuous footholds in Italy.

None of that resulted in the Crusades. Those were a product of the internal conditions and tensions of Christian Europe, for which the quarrel between the Byzantine and the Turk quite unwittingly provided an outlet.

Notice also that the Medieval Crusades were an entirely new concept, and very different in several important facets from the reactive idea of "just war" that had developed to support missionary work during the Migrations Period. There was a fair bit of debate on the actual legitimacy of the stuff.

And conversely around the time the Christian whipped themselves up into Crusading fervor, most of the Muslim world had settled down to entirely ignoring the "bring war to the infidel" side of the jihad concept and were busy with the "inner struggle for spiritual advancement" side, or just getting rich. Recent converts like the Turks were rather less meditative, but then steppe nomads on a conquest roll were never terribly interested in peaceable pursuits anyway.

That kinda changed for some odd reason.


Your only making my point for me. Nations did this not Christianity. They used Christianity as an excuse and a recruitment tool. It has nothing to do with Christs teachings. Compare that to the teachings of Mohammed.Seems to me like you're being pretty selective here you know. Anything good with the Cross even remotely associated with it is "proper Christianity", anything bad is scapegoats hmm ?

Sorry, but I'm rather too old and sceptical to have any truck with such tendentious fairytale divisions. As far as I'm concerned Christian is Christian regardless of how many people he kills in direct violation of some fairly explicitly stated prohibitions, just as a Muslim is a Muslim regardless of how drunk he gets (and you bet that prohibition was near universally broken except by diehard fanatics and revivalists) or how much pork he eats. Or how many fellow Muslims he kills; I'm pretty sure that was a no-no too. Rinse and repeat with the appropriate changes for any other religion; in my rather agnostic take on the matter the main thing is that the person in question himself regards himself as an adherent.


Few and far between. Like the Spanish huh? Convert or die. Such great options. Of course if your really worth keeping you can just pay extra taxes and be a second class citizen. Muslims were mostly rather adverse to the whole "conversion at swordpoint" idea (as actually were many Christians too for a long time), at least as far as the "Peoples of the Book" went. Partly it was simply that the creed doesn't as such have anything against coexistence with them, and partly because the new overlords liked the extra tax income. Over time there accumulated a fair few members of these groups who wanted to convert; some rulers were keen enough on the cash that they flatly denied it, which AFAIK resulted in a few minor civil wars which generally convinced the rulers to stop being anal.

You're also forgetting that there were quite a few groups that willingly converted when they were calling the shots - the Turks and Mongols immediately spring to mind. Quite contrary to what you seem to think, Islam had its peaceful missionaries and spiritual attractions.


Seems you just cant handle the truth.No. I just hate your tendentious biases.


The Jews were gone from Israel before Mohmmed was even born.Indeed ? There seemed to be enough left for their siding with the Sassanids to change the ownership of the region for a while, and for the Byzantines to persecute them after they reconquered it. This was shortly before the Muslims Arabs came by, and an obvious contributor to them being welcomed as if not quite liberators then at least by far more tolerable overlords. Kinda many mentions of Jews in Crusade contexts too I think.


Jesus never wanted or asked anyone to fight in his name. He didnt even try to start a relgion. He was the ultimate pacifist.
---
I dont see your point here. Jesus let himself be killed rather than fight. In fact he wouldnt even let anyone protect him.With the Romans calling the shots, it was that or dying in some interesting and painful fashion anyway. I also think you've been reading too many Christian texts without donning the source-critique glasses.


Mohmmed is just the opposite.He didn't exactly want to have a war for his new faith either you know. The man was a merchant ferchrissakes, although that probably doesn't mean much given the warlike character of Southern Arabian culture at the time. But after his budding sect had a major falling out with the powers-that-be in Mecca things kind of escalated and I figure he found he was not just pretty good at this warlord thing, but also developed a liking for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?

Then how do you blame it on Christianity? :juggle2:

Theres just too much junk in here to even attempt to respond to.


No. I just hate your tendentious biases.


Same here.


He didn't exactly want to have a war for his new faith either you know

Baloney. It was his way from the start. Maybe you should study the man a little more.

[Watchman]

Theres just too much junk in here to even attempt to respond to.It all comes off quality mainstream research though.

So I win by default as you admitted your inability and/or unwillingness to debate anynore then ? :beam:


Baloney. It was his way from the start. Maybe you should study the man a little more.I'd say an university entry-level textbook on world religions and several studies on the early history of Islam and its spread suffice. I may be excused if I don't bother touching the 'wholly unbiased' stuff that echoes the candid words Medieval Christian clergy wrote of the man.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It all comes off quality mainstream research though.

So I win by default as you admitted your inability and/or unwillingness to debate anynore then ?


Its al irrelevant to the argument. Im going by what the people who these relgions had to say not the way their followers later interpreted it.


I'd say an university entry-level textbook on world religions and several studies on the early history of Islam and its spread suffice. I may be excused if I don't bother touching the 'wholly unbiased' stuff that echoes the candid words Medieval Christian clergy wrote of the man.

Well that expalins it :laugh4:

Is any of this true?


Koran 2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."


Koran 2:217
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelive in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing"


Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month
Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.
Place: Nakhla
Victims: 4 Merchants from Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged

Four UNARMED merchants were travelling to Mecca to sell their goods consisting of raisins, honey and animal skins. It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. Mohammed's gang attacked the helpless men from behind and stabbed two of them to death. They plundered all the goods as booty and Mohammed got one fifths of the share.


Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans
Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D
Place: The well of Badr
Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. There he cried and prayed with feverish anxiety. At one point he came out of the hut and threw pebbles in the enemy's direction, screaming "Let evil look on your faces!" and "By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!" The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.

Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal, one of the Meccans who had criticised him openly. When his corpse was found,they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed's feet. The "Apostle of peace" cried out in delirious joy, "Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!" The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug for the bodies of the innocents to be dumped. The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. As the bloodied mass of bodies was being thrown into the pit, a feverishly excited Mohammed shreiked, " O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!" One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Muhammad's challenge of telling better stories than him. Muhammad ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch and exult in the pleasure of beheading the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?" The "Great Prophet of the Religion of Peace" coldly spat out "Hellfire", as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.


Koran 8:65
"O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast,they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"


Koran 8:67-68
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."


Assasination of poets who criticised Mohammed's murderous ways
Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticise the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticise, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and reknowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the Prophet had commented that morning "Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!"




The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa
Date: April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa

In order to get full control of Medinah, Mohammed needed to get rid of all his opponents. The strongest of these opponents was Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, a powerful chief who was allied with the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. This tribe was also the weakest, because they were made up of craftsmen, in particular goldsmiths. By attacking them, Mohammed knew he could plunder a huge amount of wealth and weaken Ibn Ubayy. Mohammed needed an excuse to attack them so he made a girl married to one of his followers, pretend that she had been teased by the Jews. The Muslims blockaded the fort of the Banu Qaynuqa for fifteen days until the starving Jews surrendered. Immediately, the Prophet was ready to kill them all, but Ibn Ubayy seized hold of Mohammed and protested. Mohammed's face became black with rage as he shouted "Let go of me", but Ibn Ubayy was adamant and shouted back "No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my allies. 400 men without armour and 300 with, who have always supported me against enemies. And you want to slay them all in one morning! By God, If I were in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune"

At this threat, the cowardly Mohammed turned pale, as he realised that all the people of Medinah were against him. He hit Ibn Ubayy on the face and ordered that the Jews be kicked out of their own homes. All their property was seized and looted, many of the prettiest women were taken as prisoners to become sex-slaves. Mohammed kept one-fifths of the enormous booty for himself. This is the way he repayed the kindness of the Jews of Medina, who had given him shelter and a refuge, when Mohammed had run away from Mecca in fear.


(Koran 8:55-57)
"Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe."

"Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember."

What a wonderful peacful man and religion.

[Watchman]

Koran 2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not." This is a fairly profound statement, you know. I quite like it.

[AntiochusIII]

My point is if you follow the teachings of Christ you cannot condone the actions of any of these so called Christians. I think Mohammed would give OBL a medal for his fine work in the name of islam. The main drive behind islamic expansion was religion ....and you avoided all my examples completely.

Examples which I collected from former posts by members with many points which you just glossed over without any convincing arguments. Examples which I think adequately displays the double standard you are applying -- quite blatantly in fact -- in interpreting the events of history towards your viewpoint.

This is exhausting. I quit.

That and I quite suspect your slander of the religion has probably offended our few Muslim members to high heaven -- if they even bother to read them at all. And one asks why Muslims appear so touchy, or dislike the West. Funny, I remembered some extremely agitated complaints that the damn godless Leftists ran amok with insulting Christianity some time back then and action must be taken or something because some people were incredibly offended.

:no:

[Orb]

Doc Bean:
'The LRA would disagree with your statement, obviously. Some Muslims will probably disagree with the Quo'ran supporting terrorism. I don't know the book well enough to comment, and i have a feeling neither do most people on this board...'

I didn't say that it supports terrorism, but that it doesn't condemn it. You do have a valid point here.

Tribesy: 'I suggest you read your scripture before you make such ludicrous claims Orb'

Yes, clearly Matthew 6: 38-39
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also
does not condemn the LRA's actions :rolleyes:

Please find me the statement in the new testament where it tells you to take three eyes for an eye.

Tribesy: 'they say they are'
So if I said that I was a Taoist, would I be?



Watchman: 'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing. A decade or two at most. Before the Iranian Revolution the whole damn faith was regarded as a virtual nonentity in the international field - something that a lot of folks believed in, but not something of any real impact on policies or which should be taken into account in analysis.
So, how do you explain the Mahdi, the Arabic expansion into Spain and then attempted invasion of France, what was essentially a genocide of Hindus in India? Didn't the Soviets go into Afghanistan to put down Islamic fundamentalists (the irony|)
I admit that the "modern brand" is relatively new, but Islamic militancy isn't, and the faith wasn't exactly a non-entity in international politics at every point before that time.

There's also the Sunnite-Shiite conflict - not even about how to interpret the Koran, I believe, but about whether Mohammed's daughter or his nephew was his real successor.

Watchman: 'What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ? ' - Valid point, but they invaded Ethiopia and massacred the Hindus because they refused to convert. Not every "muslim "action was their fault, either, note Romanus Diogenes, who refused to make peace with Manzikert guy (whose name I have embarrassingly forgotten).

Watchman, IIRC: 'Crackpot small religious communities better able to browbeat their members into submission seem to usually have been better at keeping that sort of thing going.'
Yet these cause far less deaths in much more time?

Gawain: 'Your putting the horse before the cart here. Who do you think was out to conquer the world by the sword, Christianity or ROME'
Not, in my opinion, relevant. Rome did not, by the time that Christianity became significant in it, have its communal world domination complex. Christianity has tended to spread by conversion more than by bloodshed.

Gawain: 'The crusades were a response to Islamic aggresion. How is it that once muslims conquer a land its theirs forever, but if you try to take it back your an aggressor?'
The crusades were actually instigated (although underestimated) by the Orthodox Greek Christians of the Byzantine Empire. The Islamic rulers there should have been able to stop them, if they'd have just cooperated, which they didn't. The Shi'ite Fatimids even supported and supplied the crusaders in attacking their 'fellow' Muslims until they eventually realised that the Crusaders were actually going for Jerusalem.

Tribesy: 'Sure, except when people converted willingly. '
Those who refused to convert were subjected to heavy taxation (Which ironically proved critical to some Islamic economies, and later prevented one ruler from forcibly converting the Jews in his kingdom), could not testify against a muslim and were second class citizens (Christians and Jews were worth a third of a Muslim, Zoroastrians worth a fifteenth).

Watchman: 'Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?'
I doubt they were trying to.

Watchman: 'And conversely around the time the Christian whipped themselves up into Crusading fervor, most of the Muslim world had settled down to entirely ignoring the "bring war to the infidel" side of the jihad concept and were busy with the "inner struggle for spiritual advancement" side, or just getting rich. Recent converts like the Turks were rather less meditative, but then steppe nomads on a conquest roll were never terribly interested in peaceable pursuits anyway.'

Not true: the Fatimids unleashed a horde of Berbers upon their North African vassals for converting from Shi'ism to Sunnism just prior to the first crusade. Both of these vassals were shattered by it. The Nizaris, within Egypt, a sub-division of Shi'ites murdered the Fatimid vizier Shahanshah and the Caliph Al-Amir 20 and 30 years after the First Crusade.

Watchman: 'in my rather agnostic take on the matter the main thing is that the person in question himself regards himself as an adherent.'
So, if Seung-Hui Cho thought he was 'a good person' or 'forced to act', then he is representative of all good people?

Anyhow, let's keep this argument rational. Provide some evidence rather than just a Tribesman-Gawain flame war.

[Tribesman]

Yes, clearly Matthew 6: 38-39
very good Orb have a ballon:balloon2:
then read the whole sermon .
anyhow, dealt with that already .
you don't understand what you quoted from scripture do you .
Try Lex Talionis old boy .:yes:

Please find me the statement in the new testament where it tells you to take three eyes for an eye.

then you might be able to find the 3 for 1 passage all by yourself


Tribesy: 'they say they are'
So if I said that I was a Taoist, would I be?

Do you believe you are Taoist ? If not then it doesn't matter as those nuts actually believe they are Christian

[Redleg]

As for Lex Talionis

"The earliest written code of laws was the Code of Hammurabi, the most famous of the Old Babylonian, or Amorite, kings of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi's code of laws is almost entirely based on the principle of equal and direct retribution; it betrays the origin of law in retributive violence. Since the lex talionis is often the earliest form that law takes, from it we can conclude that the basic function of law is revenge and retribution. Unlike direct retribution, however, the law is administered by the state or by individuals that cannot be victims of revenge in return. While revenge and retribution threatens to break down society as people take reciprocal revenge one another, revenge as it is embodied in law and administered by the state prevents mutual and reciprocal revenge from tearing the fabric of society apart."

The law itself contradicts the concept of 3 eyes for 1.

An interesting essay on the subject matter of Lex Talionis and one chapter in the bible.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_53.htm

But I image that Tribesman is refering more to this type of arguement.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1066

[Tribesman]

But I image that Tribesman is refering more to this type of arguement.

Almost , more along the lines of making restitution to those you wronged of 3 times the amount .

[Redleg]

Almost , more along the lines of making restitution to those you wronged of 3 times the amount .

Restitution is not part of Lex Talionis as far as I remember it. Nor does it fall in the concept of an eye for an eye. Its more in the line because I stole 1 cow from you, I will return 3 cows to make up for the damage I have caused you.

Which would make your ealier attempt incorrect as it relates to Orb's comments. In other words I don't know of where it states in the Bible to take three cows from you because you stole one of mine.

[Tribesman]

Restitution is not part of Lex Talionis as far as I remember it. Nor does it fall in the concept of an eye for an eye.
yes it does and yes it is .
The eye is figurative not literal .


In other words I don't know of where it states in the Bible to take three cows from you because you stole one of mine.
try applying the Christian concept , it isn't that you should take three cows from me , the law is law and is just and must be obeyed:yes: , to follow the laws of moses you can take one cow.
Jesus went further , not that you should take 3 cows but that I should give 3 cows:idea2:

[Orb]

Better example:

"Tribesy: 'they say they are'
So if I said that I was a Taoist, would I be?
Do you believe you are Taoist ? If not then it doesn't matter as those nuts actually believe they are Christian"

I admit that example was weak, but then, take the following:

'So, if Seung-Hui Cho thought he was 'a good person' or 'forced to act', then he is representative of all good people, and was he forced to act?'

Thinking you are something is not the same as being it (assuming that we're all realists here). Similarly, being something does not make you representative of all of those, as some seem to suggest.

So, Tribesy, you refuse to support your own statements and arguments? If you're leaning towards some conspiracy theorist argument that Matthew 6 is telling Christians to avenge themselves, you could at least have the decency to say so, rather than posting meaningless tripe to confuse people ;).

Edit: just saw your last post, which sort of explains your statements. Will edit further soon.

'Lex Talionis old boy .
Jesus endorses Jewish law and speaks in praise of it , Christians must go further than just an eye for an eye . 3 eyes for an eye is one example he gives in the new testament.'

Um. Not Lex Talionis, and odd phrasing. It seems like you're just being argumentative here, because you can't actually defend your former argument that the bible does not condemn 'freedom fighting' and acts of vengeance.

[Tribesman]

So, Tribesy, you refuse to support your own statements and arguments? If you're leaning towards some conspiracy theorist argument that Matthew 6 is telling Christians to avenge themselves, you could at least have the decency to say so, rather than posting meaningless tripe to confuse people ;).

well errrr......ummmmm....I know that should make some sort of sense , it has words in it and everything and you went to the troeble of writing it, but it appears to make no sense at all .:shrug:

here ...
read the whole sermon .

read the whole sermon on the mount , context and content are very important , then try again

edit ..ooops

Edit: just saw your last post, which sort of explains your statements. Will edit further soon.
just saw your edit

[Watchman]

Watchman: 'Sides, the modern brand of Islamic militancy is a very recent thing. A decade or two at most. Before the Iranian Revolution the whole damn faith was regarded as a virtual nonentity in the international field - something that a lot of folks believed in, but not something of any real impact on policies or which should be taken into account in analysis.
So, how do you explain the Mahdi, the Arabic expansion into Spain and then attempted invasion of France, what was essentially a genocide of Hindus in India? Didn't the Soviets go into Afghanistan to put down Islamic fundamentalists (the irony|)Jeezus, don't mix and match contexts as you like. All the examples you listed belong to quite different times and places and contexts.

The Iberian and abortive French invasion for example were part of the initial epansion phase (albeit by that point in practice taken over by Berbers and other North Africans at that front) - standard ancient conquest stuff really.

As for the Mahdi - which one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_claiming_to_be_the_Mahdi) ? At a cursory glance most seem to have been of the "charismatic radical" sort - revolutionaries and suchlike. Similar figures have appeared within most major religions in certain types of circumstances.

With the India bit I'm guessing you're talking about the Mughals. Some of their rulers were of the violently zealous sort and did carry out ghastly massacres against "unbelievers", true enough, although most were actually fairly accommodating of convivencia. I don't really see what that has to do with the grassroots militant movement type of radicalism though.

And Afghanistan was a case of the Soviet-backed central governement in Kabul trying to bring modernity to the traditionalists of the countryside, who clearly saw rather little point in jumping the bandwagon and were no doubt also rather offended by the open atheism of the Communist cause. Also, an outlier of Wahhabism - a puritanical and militant revivalist movement originating, as we all know, in what is now Saudi Arabia in the early 1800s and once stomped flat by the annoyed Ottomans - had gotten established among the hill tribes sometime during the 1800s (don't quite recall the time) which would also have contributed. The Soviet intervention to prop up the ailing Kabul regime was ill-timed to a period of general upswing in "Islamic" consciousness and ideological articulation, spearheaded by the Iranian Revolution - an essentially revolutionary response to the ossified and popularly deeply disliked autocratic structures of much of the Muslim world and their connections to both "the West" and the Communist block, both no doubt seen by the deeply religious as enemies of "proper religion". Given the fast-paced secularization of the "West" and the aforementioned open atheism of the Soviet block (not counting here the fact that they had in practice made a crassly vulgarized form of Marxism a state cult), such assertations cannot be regarded as wholly incorrect.


I admit that the "modern brand" is relatively new, but Islamic militancy isn't, and the faith wasn't exactly a non-entity in international politics at every point before that time.We're talking post-World Wars period here. Context, context.


There's also the Sunnite-Shiite conflict - not even about how to interpret the Koran, I believe, but about whether Mohammed's daughter or his nephew was his real successor.The faith's internal issue - "true believers" vs. "heretics". Christians once had a lot of that going on too, but largely gave up after the mind-bogglingly costly and quite unprecedented Thirty Years' War - the Muslims never had an equivalent wathershed conflict.


Watchman: 'What, you mean Muslims weren't allowed to try building empires to the best of their ability like everyone else ? ' - Valid point, but they invaded Ethiopia and massacred the Hindus because they refused to convert. Not every "muslim "action was their fault, either, note Romanus Diogenes, who refused to make peace with Manzikert guy (whose name I have embarrassingly forgotten).I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. Sanguinary invasions weren't exactly unusual in history, irrespective of whatever particular divinity the warriors now happened to consign their souls to.

As for the Turks, they were as much at fault as any nomadic invader now tended to be. They'd already taken over the Muslim lands in Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau, made strong inroads into Syria and now the Seljuqs were busily gnawing at the Byzantine border provinces.
None of which had anything to do with Islam anyway, but the fact they were nomadic conquerors on a roll instead. It's not like the Mongols or Scythians needed to quote Scriptures to raid and invade people either, no ?


Watchman, IIRC: 'Crackpot small religious communities better able to browbeat their members into submission seem to usually have been better at keeping that sort of thing going.'
Yet these cause far less deaths in much more time?Only when they remain small. Anyway, that was an observation on the curious dynamics of puritanical regimes - context, context.


Watchman: 'Why try conquer the world when you already have it ?'
I doubt they were trying to.*shrug* Religion has a funny way of getting wrapped up in purely earthly ambitions. Christianity is in any case a proselytizing religion, so it could be argued that in a sense it does have an intention to "take over the world" built in by default. Whether the Word spread by missionaries or armies nonwithstanding, both having been tried often enough also fairly recently.


Not true: the Fatimids unleashed a horde of Berbers upon their North African vassals for converting from Shi'ism to Sunnism just prior to the first crusade. Both of these vassals were shattered by it. The Nizaris, within Egypt, a sub-division of Shi'ites murdered the Fatimid vizier Shahanshah and the Caliph Al-Amir 20 and 30 years after the First Crusade.Do note that I was discussing the external, "go make war on the infidel" sort of jihad. The faith's internal quarrels between sects are a different thing - although given that the heretic had always been regarded as worse than the infidel everywhere, I'd imagine there was a fair bit of "holy war" rhetoric flying around.

Still a different issue though.


Watchman: 'in my rather agnostic take on the matter the main thing is that the person in question himself regards himself as an adherent.'
So, if Seung-Hui Cho thought he was 'a good person' or 'forced to act', then he is representative of all good people?Are "good people" a recognized religion ? News to me.

I'll give you that the additional qualifier "...and is recognized as such by an arbitrary smattering of coreligionists" would probably be appropriate though.



Oh, and Gawain ? Dismissing the historical record as "too much junk to answer to" when it doesn't quite match up with your xenophobic and ethnocentric prejudices just does not cut it. It's also a rather bad form too.

I'd also like to point out that I spoke quite specifically of Mohammed before the hijra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28Islam%29) (or hegira as it's sometimes written), so your references to the power struggles after that are kind of moot. Their general tone (aside from the Koran quotes natch) also tells me quite enough of what kinds of sources you get your BS from.

Nor do I recall ever ascribing any pacifistic tendencies to the Prophet or his creed, quite the contrary actually. Read what other people post, please. :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

Rats, DP.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, and Gawain ? Dismissing the historical record as "too much junk to answer to" when it doesn't quite match

Yoou are the one dismissing the historical record . You seem to deny all the horrible things Mohammed did. I dont have time now but I will be back in a while to address this matter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yoou are the one dismissing the historical record . You seem to deny all the horrible things Mohammed did. I dont have time now but I will be back in a while to address this matter.

Gawain:

What is the source cite for those references above? The Koran passages are easy enough, I simply have to access a decent translation. From whence came the other material?

[Orb]

So, let me understand what people were arguing here:

The original intent of the article was to illustrate that religiously-fuelled violence is not the sole preserve of muslims.

Then someone had the bright idea of adding a list, which decided that Hindus and Sikhs were the same thing, and crossed both muslims and those off it.

Then people began arguing to include Christianity in that.

Then it degenerated into a futile East vs. West, Christians vs. Muslims, Tribesy vs. Gawain argument.

What are people trying to argue for and against?

I think we can all agree that violence has been perpetrated by almost all groups, religious or not, at some time in the past, and in the present, too.

What Gawain and I are arguing (although we do not agree on everything) is that Christian scripture directly forbids freedom fighting and condemns violence and that this is an important point of distinction. Tribesy seems to be making a strawman argument (that Christianity is an adherent of the Lex Talionis principle) here. Watchman is judging that an adherent of a group is determined by whether or not they think they are and have a number of likeminded 'crackpots'.

Am I correct, here?

[Tribesman]

seems like you're just being argumentative here, because you can't actually defend your former argument that the bible does not condemn 'freedom fighting' and acts of vengeance.

Don't be silly Orb:dizzy2: the bible is full of stuff supporting acts of vengence "freedom fighting " genocide and even killing innocents to pay off a gambling debt .
It is a highly contradictory much altered collection of writings by various authors of questionable provenance .
That is why there are so many different interpretations of what it actually says and why the debate about what bits mean what has been going on for thousands of years and still continue today .Selective use of scripture can justify or condemn just about anything

Do you understand yet ?
To put it quite simply
It contains passages that condemn stuff that other passages would support .
An important lesson is that when you wish to claim something is right and just , do not use scripture alone , as there is nearly always another piece of scripture that will contradict it .
Extremist nuts will use a passage and ignore other passages that don't fit their interpretation , they will also ignore common rational thought that would condemn their interpretation , but that is because they are nuts , unfortunately these nuts exist in all religeons .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You can try almost any of these though I believe its in the first. Remeember I asked if it were true, Im not claiming for sure that it is, But the evidence Ive see points that way.


No back to me ignoring the historical record.


awain: 'Your putting the horse before the cart here. Who do you think was out to conquer the world by the sword, Christianity or ROME'
Not, in my opinion, relevant. Rome did not, by the time that Christianity became significant in it, have its communal world domination complex. Christianity has tended to spread by conversion more than by bloodshed.


Thats what I said. Look who took over who? I say Rome hijacked christianity. Its never been the same since .Tell me do the things done after Rome became christian reflect the teachings more of Rome or Jesus?


Sure there have been millions of Christian whack-jobs in the past. And its the same for Muslims. But theres a fundamental difference hear to me. Im sure my muslim friends will dissagree. :laugh4:




You cannot use the words of Jesus to justify violence against anyone. That certainly cannot be said of Mohamed.

It seems I have a different definition of Christian and Muslim than most people. Your only a Christian or Muslim if you follow the philosophy of the prophet of that religion. Hell I could claim to be a liberal but what that make me one? A rose by any other name?

The litmus test for me is would the prophet approve of these actions. Lets try an example

Muslims go to a church and burn it down killing the priestbecause the law said you cannot preach christianity here .Would Mohamed approve?
Christians go to a Mosque and burn it down and kill the Iman because the law says you cannot preach Islam here. Would Christ approve?



How anyone can follow a military leader and claim that he is the founder of a relgion of peace is beyond me. Im sure most Muslims are good people and that most of them dont follow Islam in the manner of Mohamed. Thats just my opinion. I think most christans are good people as well but again most dont follow christianity in the manner of jesus.


Tell me who would you rather have for a neighbor?:laugh4:

[Meneldil]

Muslims go to a church and burn it down killing the priestbecause the law said you cannot preach christianity here .Would Mohamed approve?


He certainly would not. I wouldn't mind seeing a quote from the Quran allowing the burning of churches and the killing of priests.


002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surely, it doesn't look like Priests burning is promoted by the Quran, nor by Muhammad.

Furthermore, reading the Quran and saying "Bouh, 'dis Muhammad was bad. He said that and that" is utterly silly. This book was written centuries ago, in lands where war was quite common and where slavery was seen as normal. You can't just go and cry "OMG, this is totally contrary to Human Rights".
The Old Testament is also full of crap, and it doesn't turn every Jew into a terrorist.

Then, as many people pointed out, your obvious bias would be amusing, if it wasn't depressing. When some christians murder innocent in the name of God in Africa, they aren't true christians, but when a muslim kill someone, be it for a religious reason or not, he's a muslim nutjob (like all his muslim fellows, as you're more or less trying to explain).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He certainly would not. I wouldn't mind seeing a quote from the Quran allowing the burning of churches and the killing of priests.


Oh so all those laws against prostilising in Muslims nations are wrong. I can go there and preach christianity all I like without fear lol. He was no pacifist. Just the opposite.


Surely, it doesn't look like Priests burning is promoted by the Quran, nor by Muhammad.


Oh all that kill the infidel stuff was just talk.


Furthermore, reading the Quran and saying "Bouh, 'dis Muhammad was bad. He said that and that" is utterly silly. This book was written centuries ago, in lands where war was quite common and where slavery was seen as normal. You can't just go and cry "OMG, this is totally contrary to Human Rights".
The Old Testament is also full of crap, and it doesn't turn every Jew into a terrorist.

LookIve argued this topic with many Muslims at TWC and they dont deny Mohamed did these things. In fact they defend his actions.


Then, as many people pointed out, your obvious bias would be amusing, if it wasn't depressing. When some christians murder innocent in the name of God in Africa, they aren't true christians, but when a muslim kill someone, be it for a religious reason or not, he's a muslim nutjob (like all his muslim fellows, as you're more or less trying to explain).
Please try to pay attention to my posts. I said both are nut jobs but one is following a prophet who himself was a wacko. Also I said most Muslims were not nut jobs if your paying any attention.

[Tribesman]

Remeember I asked if it were true, Im not claiming for sure that it is, But the evidence Ive see points that way.

Ah the evidence you have seen .
Are you trying to pull a Vuk ?
any chance of answering Seamus simple question .....
What is the source cite for those references above? The Koran passages are easy enough, I simply have to access a decent translation. From whence came the other material?
so link to the site you cut and pasted to show what sort of source you call "evidence"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so link to the site you cut and pasted to show what sort of source you call "evidence

It can all be backed up by the Koran. As I said in another thread I had the same disscussion at TWC and most Muslims there not only didnt deny Mohamed did these things but they defended him for it.


any chance of answering Seamus simple question ...

What one did I miss?

[Tribesman]

It can all be backed up by the Koran. As I said in another thread I had the same disscussion at TWC and most Muslims there not only didnt deny Mohamed did these things but they defended him for it.

Provide a link to the cut and paste you posted , simple isn't it .
What are you trying to hide , would the link break forum rules or something or would it just show how credible the "evidence" you viewed actually is .
I understand why Vuk tried to claim his cut and pastes were not from a website but from a book that he borrowed from the library but didn't have anymore , it was because of the website he quoted .
Whats your excuse ?



What one did I miss?
errrrrr.....From whence came the other material? :yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

errrrrr.....From whence came the other material?

Put the damn bottle away :laugh4:

I gave him the link.


rovide a link to the cut and paste you posted , simple isn't it .

How does it feel when people do it to you.Educate yourself for once like your always telling me and other to do.

Ok let me write a little constitution backed up by this manifesto for a group I plan on starting and you people tell me what you think of it.

"Your leader has sent you from your homes to fight for the cause. Your leader wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe those who disagree with us out to the last. We shall terrorize everyone who is unlike us! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to our doctrine and our leader. Whosoever opposes our doctrine and our leader should know that we are severe in retribution. And know that one-fifth of what you acquire as booty in war is for our great leader (the rest is for you). The use of such spoils is lawful and good."

"Fight them till all opposition ends and only our doctrine rules. If you meet anyone who disagrees with us in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned. Slaughter those who disagree with us wherever you find them. Lie in wait for them. They are specimens of foolishness. Punish them so that our superior dogma and leader can put them to shame. If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom we have a treaty, retaliate by breaking it off. Those who do not think like us should know that they cannot bypass our doctrine. Surely they cannot get away. Fight them until they pay a heavy tax in submission to us; how perverse are they. Our leader and his doctrine will damn them. For anyone who offends our leader or opposes our doctrine will receive a painful punishment. We will burn them alive. So prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster, that you may strike terror in the enemies of our cause!"

"Our great leader urged all who agree with us to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination, you will vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, then you will vanquish a thousand of our enemy, for they are a people devoid of understanding. Our great leader drove your enemy back in fury. He motivated our side in battle. He made their citizens flee from their homes and he terrorized them so that you killed some and made many captive. Our great leader made you inherit their lands, homes, and wealth, and gave you a country you had not traversed before."

"Kill them, for he who kills them will get a great reward. Our great leader said, 'Our doctrine assigns for a person who participates in battles in our cause to be rewarded with booty if he survives, or he will be admitted into the Hall of Heroes if he is killed in the battle as a martyr. Had I not found it difficult for my followers to do without me I would have remained in army units fighting great battles and would have loved to have been martyred for the cause.'"

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Once more and for the last time, may we please debate without making personal observations that border on insults.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

Gentlemen,

Once more and for the last time, may we please debate without making personal observations that border on insults.

Thank you kindly.

well I do think a personal observation is in order here , just a simple statement about something that is written .


I gave him the link.

Really ?
and that would be true would it Gawain:inquisitive:
or would that be not true in the slightest even by really really a big stretch of the imagination . :shame:
Maybe a cyberdog ate the link:thumbsdown:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really ?
and that would be true would it Gawain

You have my apologies I thought i put the link in but it seems to have been lost. Heres the quote showing I intended too post it.


You can try almost any of these though I believe its in the first. Remember I asked if it were true, Im not claiming for sure that it is, But the evidence Ive see points that way.

But since Im speaking to you Ill again suggest you do what you always tell me to do now and go find out for yourself. It shouldnt be hard for one so talented as you. A reading of a few Hadiths may help.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribes:

Chill man, chill. I PM'd you in response to say Gawain hadn't sent me the link as of yet. I have not:

been waiting too long,

checked the other site he and I are on together,

been bothered by this so far.

He'll zap me a link when he gets a chance -- it isn't a crisis.

Edit: link received as I was posting. Thanks G-man! I'll look it over later tonight when I have a few moments.

[Redleg]

yes it does and yes it is .
The eye is figurative not literal .

Provide the proof my good sir; every mention of Lex Talionis speaks of the application of justice by a third party. Primarily focused on revenge and retribution. So to say it also deals with restitution goes against the basic concept as alreadly posted. And yes I know the eye for an eye is a figurative - but again I was pointing out that Lex Tailionis refers to a concept of law. To claim it means more then what was stated will require more then your say so.




try applying the Christian concept , it isn't that you should take three cows from me , the law is law and is just and must be obeyed:yes: , to follow the laws of moses you can take one cow.
Jesus went further , not that you should take 3 cows but that I should give 3 cows:idea2:

That is exactly what I stated. So it seems your stuck being arguementive. Just to show you how incorrect your comment is - here is my post once again.

Restitution is not part of Lex Talionis as far as I remember it. Nor does it fall in the concept of an eye for an eye. Its more in the line because I stole 1 cow from you, I will return 3 cows to make up for the damage I have caused you.

Which would make your ealier attempt incorrect as it relates to Orb's comments. In other words I don't know of where it states in the Bible to take three cows from you because you stole one of mine.

Being arguementive just to be arguementive is not a valid rebuttal to the point.

[Tribesman]

Provide the proof my good sir; every mention of Lex Talionis speaks of the application of justice by a third party. Primarily focused on revenge and retribution. So to say it also deals with restitution goes against the basic concept as alreadly posted.

hmmmmmm.....

Restitution is not part of Lex Talionis as far as I remember it. Nor does it fall in the concept of an eye for an eye.
When in doubt ask a......:2thumbsup: http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/torah.htm

[Moros]

There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam on this. Christian texts directly condemn the LRA's actions. Islamic ones don't, to my knowledge condemn such actions.
Well as usual you could "interpret" the Quran in many different ways. Because it's overly poëtic, there are words with more meanings,... So it's not so surprising that there are some different interpretations on some elements,...
However most interpretations of extremists and terrorists are quite idiot. The only problem is that a large part of the population in certain countries, don't hear much else than extremistic ideas, usually have bad education and almost no sense of thinking for themselves,... (I don't mean to insult muslims, it's just that certain regions in the middle east, especially the little remote villages in a lot of areas are just way behind and still live in old times.) The fact that the Quran isn't the simpelest of literature doesn't help much.

Ofcourse certain things are unexceptable. Things that date from the 6th century and aren't appliccable. I mean killing a man there wasn't even seen as a bad thing, if you fought him fair and square. Running of with his goods afterwards neither. Then having multiple women, well not sure if that's really so morally unexceptable (the man who's so stupid to marry 4 women, will only have to pay for it in the ned, yes the first fe years might be heaven. But when them babies come and when the women get higher expectations, more to complain about...) wasn't that illogic either. There just were more femalse than males. so in the end in ain't so bad for those women who else who'd have lived alone for the rest of their lives fighting for survival (except for perhaps those few rich ones.)
Yes you could say that the Quran says you can beat your woman. But it did say only with a small stick (about the size of toothbrush, it was also used as one), which you could interpret litterally. But lets be honest, we all know it means.

If we look at the bible, we can find many things that can be interpreted differently and are unexceptable these days. (I'm not only talking about what the romans did, tough ofcourse I would find crucifictions morally unexceptable.) Most if not all religions have this, because mostky they don't change that much over time, while people and civilizations do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If we look at the bible, we can find many things that can be interpreted differently and are unexceptable these days. (I'm not only talking about what the romans did, tough ofcourse I would find crucifictions morally unexceptable.) Most if not all religions have this, because mostky they don't change that much over time, while people and civilizations do.

Find me stuff like this in the new testament

Does Jesus say and do things like this?


abari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him." Bukhari:V4B54N487 "The Prophet said, 'The Hell Fire is 69 times hotter than ordinary worldly fires.' So someone said, 'Allah’s Apostle, wouldn't this ordinary fire have been sufficient to torture non-Muslims?'"


Ishaq: 676 "'You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?' Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, 'Will no one rid me of this woman?' Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, 'You have helped Allah and His Apostle.' Umayr said, 'She had five sons; should I feel guilty?' 'No,' the Prophet answered. 'Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.'"


Tabari VII:101 "They asked the Prophet for permission to kill Sallam. He granted it." Tabari VII:99 "When they got to Khaybar they went to Sallam’s house by night, having locked every door in the settlement on the inhabitants. He was in an upper chamber. His wife came out and asked who we were. We told her that we were Arabs in search of supplies. She told us that her husband was in bed. We entered and bolted his door. His wife shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he lay on his bed. When we had smitten him Abdallah bore down his sword into his belly until it went right through him. 'By the God of the Jews, he is dead!' Never have I heard sweeter words than those. We returned to Allah’s Apostle and told him that we had killed his enemy. We disputed before him as to who had killed him, each of us laying claim to the deed. Muhammad demanded to see our swords and when he looked at them he said, 'It is the sword of Abdallah that killed him; I can see traces of food on it.'"

Would you like some more?

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: Hey Gawain are you doing your cutand pastes from "prophet of doom /mohammed as a terrorist in his own words" by any chance .
Is that why you don't want to provide a link to your "evidence":laugh4: :beam: :beam: :beam:

[ShadeHonestus]

:laugh4: :laugh4: Hey Gawain are you doing your cutand pastes from "prophet of doom /mohammed as a terrorist in his own words" by any chance .
Is that why you don't want to provide a link to your "evidence":laugh4: :beam: :beam: :beam:


My question would be that if of primary source material, with translations not slanted, then why would the source matter so much? I may take a quote from Abraham Lincoln that happens to be published on some white supremacist retards web site, but does that make the quote incorrect if cited from primary source?

[ShadeHonestus]

Even in non-primary source material. If a fat man fan club end up publishing intelligent articles by its members on proper diet that proves true, why is the source important? Aren't you of the school that doesn't demote arguments made by global warming proponents and others who care little or seek to excuse their own contributions to their thesis of problems. Is this a two way street of source hypocrisy, a one way street to Tribesland or is it that material should be considered of its own validity regardless of source.

An honest question.

And sorry for the double post, I thought I hit edit when I indeed hit quote....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The only thing that can be questioned here are the translations. Find contrary ones.

[Tribesman]

My question would be that if of primary source material, with translations not slanted, then why would the source matter so much? I may take a quote from Abraham Lincoln that happens to be published on some white supremacist retards web site, but does that make the quote incorrect if cited from primary source?

The problem is translations themselves Shades , what is the official view on translated Korans ?
What is their standing within Islam ?
There is a good site for translated hadiths , it generally gives between 5-9different translations into english for each verse , all taken from the same primary source .
Which one would be right and what fun you could have by mixing and matching those that you wanted to use .
After all they would all be cited from the same source so they would all be OK right ?:inquisitive:

edit ..awwwww come on Gawain don't be shy , provide the link to your "evidence"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anyone here deny that Mohamed advocated killing people? That he attacked Caravans? Case closed. Very peaceful man he was............NOT

[ShadeHonestus]

With these particular translations or in fact the Koran in total is the audience or purpose of what is being spoke, contectual environment, as important to meaning as it is in understanding the Bible. Like so many who spew biblical phrases and say "Jesus said this" and "Jesus said that" but fail to realize his audience or that he's quoting Jewish law or things like this.

It would be fascinating for me personally to see if this likewise exist with the Koran and thereby part of the problem when tryiing to read Islam as a religion of peace.

[Redleg]

hmmmmmm.....

When in doubt ask a......:2thumbsup: http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/torah.htm

The passage speaks of the eye for an eye and antonement, and it provides for a oral tradition translation of the passage that would indicate that in the Torah the passage was one of atonement and possibily restitution. Which would go to proving one of your points.

But the passage from the torah does not prove that Lex Talionis has in its meaning the concept of restitution. So you still haven't provided proof that the base meaning of the term you decided to use has anything to restitution. Every source I find - plus that of my memory from my days in school - indicates just what I have already stated about the concept of Lex Talionis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Read into the cite used by Gawain regarding the early events of the founding of Islam and of the prophet. The site is pro-Hindu and vehemently anti-Islam. The article cited by Gawain does note some excellent sources including the commentaries of Ali as well as the biographies of Muhammad by Rodinson (French Marxist Scholar) and by Lings (heaviest use of near-contemporaneous sources). Regrettably, the piece does not note which point is drawn from what source nor the extent to which they've been edited. A quick review of these sources suggests that Lings' bio would probably be the best resource for evaluating the good/evil etc. of the prophet.

Gawain, thanks!

[Watchman]

What I don't quite get is why Gawain tries to present the Prophet as some sort of murderous lunatic (not counting his glaringly obvious bias that is). The man never did anything unusual for an ancient warlord - an occupation that rarely allows for excessive qualms. AFAIK he didn't do anything spectacularly sanguinary either (say, something comparable to Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Bulgaroktonos#Bulgarian_campaigns) or some similarly infamous warlord). Of course, being a religious preacher, he also needed to account for all that in his teachings, and in a manner that made sense to his contemporaries, especially in the cases when expediancy necessitated the breaking of the "Rules of War" generally observed in Southern Arabia at the time. Nobody takes that kind of prestige hit lightly after all.

And his constant yapping about Mohammed not being a pacifist is a strawman pure and simple, as AFAIK nobody ever claimed he was - and would be hard pressed indeed to. It should be obvious enough the man came more from the older and rather straightforward Old Testament part of the Abrahamic tradition than this newfangled Christianity thing, whose pacifistic parts (ill observed by most Christians in practice anyway) probably made little sense to most inhabitants of the poly-religion Arabia anyway.

Buddha incidentally did the whole pacifism thing earlier anyway. Didn't keep Buddhists from cheerful organised bloodletting either, naturally.

[Tribesman]

Read into the cite used by Gawain regarding the early events of the founding of Islam and of the prophet. The site is pro-Hindu and vehemently anti-Islam.
So that would be described as a really really biased hate site then would it .
Is that why Gawain was so reluctant to show where he read his "evidence" from .
BTW them extremist hindus who are vehemently anti islam , they go round killing people and burning down mosques and churches in the name of their religeon don't they . Much like those crazy Indian baptists who burn down mosques and temples to convert people to the true path


The article cited by Gawain does note some excellent sources including the commentaries of Ali as well as the biographies of Muhammad by Rodinson (French Marxist Scholar) and by Lings (heaviest use of near-contemporaneous sources). Regrettably, the piece does not note which point is drawn from what source nor the extent to which they've been edited. A quick review of these sources suggests that Lings' bio would probably be the best resource for evaluating the good/evil etc. of the prophet.

That Max Rodinson source , would that be edited very very heavily or is it more of a case of selective ommission ?
I don't suppose there would be much chance that it quoted him saying it is only through mistranslation and misinterpretation that the koran can be said to support terrorism and murder ?
That wouldn't really fit their agenda would it :no:

Gawain you surpass yourself yet again :dizzy2:
Stick to Rush and O'Reilly:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So that would be described as a really really biased hate site then would it .

No it would not. If it gives facts . Maybe they have good cause to oppose Islam. Try debating the facts instead of the source for once. Youve already been called out on this.

I ask once more do you deny that he attacked caravans and had people murdered? That he promoted war and death?


Is that why Gawain was so reluctant to show where he read his "evidence" from .

I wasnt reluctant I just decided to play your little game with you. You always tell me to find out for myslef. Besides only three quotes I gave you came from that site. Seems you have more work ahead of you.


BTW them extremist hindus who are vehemently anti islam , they go round killing people and burning down mosques and churches in the name of their religeon don't they . Much like those crazy Indian baptists who burn down mosques and temples to convert people to the true path


Yes there are. But no where near as many. There are wack jobs in every religion.

But is there a major hindu sect set on conquering the world?


Gawain you surpass yourself yet again
Stick to Rush and O'Reilly

Thanks same to you. Your insults never cease.

[Watchman]

But is there a major hindu sect set on conquering the world?Would you care to show me a major Muslim sect intent on conquering the world ? And al-Qaeda doesn't count for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

Plus Hinduism isn't a proselytizing "universal truth" religion anyway. It has always been rather introverted and focused on purely its own adherents and territory - which of course has not kept Hindus from the occasional campaign of external conquest.

Sort of makes the whole comparision moot.

[Tribesman]

No it would not.
Go on then , post a link to it .


Try debating the facts instead of the source for once.
a fact , what you mean like the quote from the expert your source of "evidence" didn't want to use ....it is only through mistranslation and misinterpretation that the koran can be said to support terrorism and murder ..... hey if he is the expert they cite as their source then that must be a fact since he wrote it , doesn't quite fit with their bias though does it .
Do they include it on their site ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Would you care to show me a major Muslim sect intent on conquering the world ? And al-Qaeda doesn't count for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I knew someone would go there. Come on comparing Hindu terrorist to Muslim ones as if their some how as dangerous? Be real.


Go on then , post a link to it .

He told you the site , Do I have to do everything for you know? :laugh4:

Not only that I gave you quotes with their sources. You claim their bad translations. Well then come up with better or contrary ones and we can continue this discussion in a reasonable manner.

[Tribesman]

Come on comparing Hindu terrorist to Muslim ones as if their some how as dangerous? Be real.


:dizzy2: first you write off Jewish terrorits , now you write off Hindu terrorists. a terrorist is a terrorist , even those Christian ones you dismiss, they are just as dangerous as each other and kill people in the name of their "faith" .


He told you the site
Nope he told me you hadn't sent him the link you said you had :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
then he wrote here that it was a hindu anti islamic site , which maybe narrows it down to one of the multitude of Bajrand Dal ones (as opposed to the Christian Identity one that someone else recently cut and pasted from but wouldn't provide a link) .


You claim their bad translations. Well then come up with better or contrary ones and we can continue this discussion in a reasonable manner.
Errrr....nope , I said there are many translations available and pointed out the official islamic status of any translation , then I quoted the expert your source apparenly uses saying that what you have claimed is a result of mistranslation or mis interpretation .
Shall I repeat Rodinson in case you couldn't read it....it is only through mistranslation and misinterpretation that the koran can be said to support terrorism and murder .. apparently he was an expert who didn't like religeons , even his own Jewish one , so he should be pretty unbiased , he wrote a lot of books on Islam so maybe he should know something about it.:yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

first you write off Jewish terrorits , now you write off Hindu terrorists. a terrorist is a terrorist , even those Christian ones you dismiss, they are just as dangerous as each other and kill people in the name of their "faith" .

They are equally dangerous in that they are deluded and kill people. However there is little comparison in scope.


Nope he told me you hadn't sent him the link you said you had

Well even if he didnt he gave you more than enuff info for a man with your intellect to go find it. How many times have you sent me looking for links to your posts?

I can find it with one google from quotes I gave here.


Errrr....nope , I said there are many translations available and pointed out the official islamic status of any translation , then I quoted the expert your source apparenly uses saying that what you have claimed is a result of mistranslation or mis interpretation .

Again find me one contrary one. And again Ive argued this with Muslims at TWC for weeks and none of them deny these things. They say Mohamed was at war what do you expect. They give excuses for it.

Again do you deny he had people killed?

[Watchman]

I knew someone would go there. Come on comparing Hindu terrorist to Muslim ones as if their some how as dangerous? Be real.Dangerous to who ? Hindu ultras are plenty dangerous enough if you have the bad fortune to be on their hit list and living down there.

But I guess it doesn't count cuz their victims are mostly rag-head nutty Muslims and not proper civilized Westerners, hmm ?

And in the case you haven't been reading the news, the Muslim ones seem to be most dangerous to other Muslims, usually those of a different confessional branch.

[Tribesman]

How many times have you sent me looking for links to your posts?

errrrr...when do cut and paste ?:inquisitive:


But I guess it doesn't count cuz their victims are mostly rag-head nutty Muslims and not proper civilized Westerners, hmm ?

Don't forget the poor missionaries and their families , death to Christians and all that jazz , cheeky missionaries trying to spread their false faith , which is kinda sad really when you think what Hindus attitude to other faiths is supposed to be

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Dangerous to who ?

The world and me in particular :laugh4:

[Watchman]

I so like it when people base their worldview on practically relevant and sensible considerations.

You do realize that drunk drivers are a greater threat to the average Westerner by several order of magnitude than Islamist militants, right ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You do realize that drunk drivers are a greater threat to the average Westerner by several order of magnitude than Islamist militants, right ?

To their lives yes. To their way of living no.


errrrr...when do cut and paste ?

You wouldnt make it that easy for me. Your far more vague.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So that would be described as a really really biased hate site then would it .

Certainly. However, bias does not automatically equate with innacuracy.


Is that why Gawain was so reluctant to show where he read his "evidence" from.

Gawain has asked site info from you in the past without receiving it. Reciprocity is a basic human interaction tool.


That Max Rodinson source , would that be edited very very heavily or is it more of a case of selective ommission ?

Impossible to say given article format. Such transgressions could have occurred or it could be a very faithful recitation of the points made by Rodinson and Lings. The sources are referenced in a blanket footnote and no specific attributions by passage are provided save for the Koranic quotations.

My suggestion was to check the base material if you had questions as to the solidity of the scholarship presented.

[Tribesman]

You wouldnt make it that easy for me. Your far more vague.
No Gawain I tend to use my own words to say what I want to say as I want to say it .

Ah so it wasn't "prophet of doom" it was "prophet of terror"
Cheers Seamus
An American based Hindu nutjob no less .
Seamus , considering that the author claims that the work is composed of bits from lots of very serious and distinguished scholars work , don't you find the writing that is on the site very .....errrr...unscholarly , amaturish and quite frankly crap ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No Gawain I tend to use my own words to say what I want to say as I want to say it .

But you get them from some where dont you. I ask you where and you tell me to go find out for myself and then give me some vague clue.


Ah so it wasn't "prophet of doom" it was "prophet of terror"

Actually there are quotes here from both and others. Now run along and do as Seamus and I suggested and check the source material. You have no excuse now.:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus , considering that the author claims that the work is composed of bits from lots of very serious and distinguished scholars work , don't you find the writing that is on the site very .....errrr...unscholarly , amaturish and quite frankly crap ?

I can't read any of the Hindu portions.

The quality of the English used isn't academic level by any means. However, I am willing to overlook that given the possibility that it is not the primary language of the site's writers.

I'm hoping to read the Lings' piece when I get a chance; reviews suggest it's good "storytelling" as well as solid history work.

[Watchman]

To their lives yes. To their way of living no.First time ever I hear of bin Laden and his ilk being great trend-setters and general influence on the "Western" way of life. :dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First time ever I hear of bin Laden and his ilk being great trend-setters and general influence on the "Western" way of life.

Its his wish. I saw someone say all he really was bothered about was Israel. Well thats not so. He wants the world and the US #1 to convert to Islam. You people think its all rhetoric just like when Hamas says it wants the destruction of Israel.

And if you dont think has had more of an influence on us and our lives since 911 you must be living on a different planet.

[Tribesman]

But you get them from some where dont you. I ask you where and you tell me to go find out for myself and then give me some vague clue.

yep , vague stuff like "look up RAF bomber command casualty rates" :2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Talk about cherry picking :wall:

[Watchman]

Its his wish. I saw someone say all he really was bothered about was Israel. Well thats not so. He wants the world and the US #1 to convert to Islam. You people think its all rhetoric just like when Hamas says it wants the destruction of Israel.Oh, he might wish indeed - Islam, like Christianity, being proselytizing religion and all that. But in practice he and his ilk could hardly care less about us infidels far away - they have stuff to take care of much closer to home. Like corrupt and dictatorial regimes, "godless Western materialism threatening proper values", corrupt and dictatorial regimes not even trying to do a thing about that, Muslim heretics (who, depends on the exact confessional affiliations in question), infidel Western political and military encroachment, that sort of thing. 11/9 was a provocation and a show of force, not an attempt to "destroy civilization as we know it" or somesuch tinhatter nonsense.

And if you dont think has had more of an influence on us and our lives since 911 you must be living on a different planet.The exact only thing he and his compatriots have managed thus far is a general hike in paranoia and security measures, and much of the former is really due to certain people here having an interest in continued fearmongering. Everything else we - or rather you Americans - did ourselves, and that frankly wasn't much either. There have been in the "West" all kinds of homegrown terrorist types and movements over the centuries you know, all of them avid adherents and proponents of some cause or other. Pretty much none ever could affect much anything fundamental, however much trouble they caused - how in the world can you seriously claim the Islamists with only a tenuous access to and understanding of our societies have a chance ? Xenophobic alarmist nonsense I say, no different from the Communist scares of the Cold War.

I'm slightly puzzled as to why you're so vastly inflating the militants' actual ability to do anything about our lives, although I can think of some ideological and rhetorical reasons.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm slightly puzzled as to why you're so vastly inflating the militants' actual ability to do anything about our lives, although I can think of some ideological and rhetorical reasons.

Could it be that I used to almost be able to see the twin towers from my house and I lost a few mates there?

Oh heres another hate site. This time its Christian though :)

It gives the same accounts. Wonder of wonders as do almost all accounts. As I said these things are taken from muslim texts. Only the intracies are argued over.
Just look at Mohameds change from Medina to Mecca.

LINK (http://www.kimo4jesus.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=printpage&artid=47)

[Watchman]

Could it be that I used to almost be able to see the twin towers from my house and I lost a few mates there?That sounds like a failure of objectivity in analysis then. While quite understandable, it hardly helps in formulating a realistic and factual picture of the matter.

Oh, and as regards those bits about Mohammed, they seemed to be historical enough as such by what I know - although the tone of the takes you quoted was so ragingly and absurdly biased it was almost funny. I'm under the impression the Muslim records of the power struggle are actually quite scrupulously honest and don't try to gloss over the fact the Prophet and his followers flatly broke the prevalent proper etiquette of warfare on several occasions, although naturally they also diligently list all the fig-leaf theological excuses and cannot exactly be claimed to have a critical tone.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That sounds like a failure of objectivity in analysis then. While quite understandable, it hardly helps in formulating a realistic and factual picture of the matter.

Yes it makes me prejuduce LOL. NY will always be a target. That is as long as anyones pissed at us.


I'm under the impression the Muslim records of the power struggle are actually quite scrupulously honest and don't try to gloss over the fact the Prophet and his followers flatly broke the prevalent proper etiquette of warfare on several occasions, although naturally they also diligently list all the fig-leaf theological excuses and cannot exactly be claimed to have a critical tone.

Thats what Ive been telling you all , all along. Muslims dont tell me Im lying when I post these thiings. Ive said they defend his actions. And thats the problem with Islam. If your prophet can do these things then of course you can. He also says kill in the name of Alah and so that gives every Muslim the right to kill anyone who doesnt agree with him religously. As history has shown this usually means other Muslims.

[Tribesman]

It gives the same accounts. Wonder of wonders as do almost all accounts. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Kimo writes Answering Islam , Khan cites answering Islam as a source on his Persian news network contributions , which are actually the same as his prophet of terror writings were he cites other sources as the base for his writings .
Wonder of wonders Gawain what you mean is almost all anti Islamic sites give the same translations of the same verses to suit their agenda .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wonder of wonders Gawain what you mean is almost all anti Islamic sites give the same translations of the same verses to suit their agenda .

The really funny thing as Watchman points out as did I that Muslim ones have the same accounts. Find me something different. Its just the comments on the passages that are different.

[Tribesman]

Hey Gawain , you wrote something thats strikes me as very odd .

Could it be that I used to almost be able to see the twin towers from my house
how would you almost be able to see the towers from that far up the island ?


Its just the comments on the passages that are different.
errr... you mean the interpretations that are attributed to the translated passages that the commenters put there to explain what they think they mean according to their bias .:yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

how would you almost be able to see the towers from that far up the island ?

Its a 15 minute drive. To me thats almost.


errr... you mean the interpretations that are attributed to the translated passages that the commenters put there to explain what they think they mean according to their bias .
Today 22:38

I mean their stated reasons for doing what he did. In many cases its the same. Are you denying again that Mohamed was a warrior and ordered people killed? Are you denying he attacked Meccan Caravans? That he slaughtered those who opposed him?

The only difference on Muslim sites is that these things are seen as glorious and proof that Mohamed was a prophet.

[Watchman]

And thats the problem with Islam. If your prophet can do these things then of course you can. He also says kill in the name of Alah and so that gives every Muslim the right to kill anyone who doesnt agree with him religously. As history has shown this usually means other Muslims.You draw some strange conclusions. Muslims have always been just as good at creative interpretation, omission and general pragmatic reading of Scriptures as anyone else. Just because the Koran tells Muslims and the Old Testament Scriptures Jews that they should smite this and that group and do any number of other unfeasible things hardly means they're actually obliged to, or tried to do so even if they technically speaking were.

Holy texts in practice say only what their readers actually want them to, and the same Scriptures can notoriously be used to justify diametrically opposed ideas and actions. If some Muslims now are digging up certain parts and using them to legitimize their terrorist activity, that is happening because they need to legitimize their terrorist activity which has entirely different roots. Much the same as how Christians have always been incredibly creative (and flatly hypocritical) at quoting the Bible to legitimize mass violence whenever necessary, wholly regardless of the whole explicit Thou shalt Not Kill thing - armies have military chaplains now don't they ?

It is the reading of the Scripture which follows the intent and necessity, not the other way around. That's people for you.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If some Muslims now are digging up certain parts and using them to legitimize their terrorist activity, that is happening because they need to legitimize their terrorist activity which has entirely different roots.

You just dont get it. Terrorist #1 Mohamed He set the standard for all who followed.

[Watchman]

:inquisitive:
Are you still hung up on that BS ? Get a grip.

You're also horribly misusing the term "terrorist". A terrorist is essentially a type of guerilla. A succesful warlord, Mohammed never had any use for such sneaky business to begin with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You're also horribly misusing the term "terrorist". A terrorist is essentially a type of guerilla. A succesful warlord, Mohammed never had any use for such sneaky business to begin with.

He terroised the Meccans. He terrorized all who opposed him. He set the standard that it was good to kill in the name of god. In reality himself.

[Watchman]

:dizzy2: You really need to do something about your absurdly loose terminology.

You also need to get a clue about a thing called "perspective". Especially when you're trying to discuss ancient warlords.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You also need to get a clue about a thing called "perspective". Especially when you're trying to discuss ancient warlords.

Bingo. We have a winner. I though he was a prophet. I thought it was a religion of peace. Now your catching on. Thats the same exact excuse the Muslims give.

[Watchman]

I don't quite see a conflict there. I also don't quite understand why you keep kicking that pacifist strawman.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can you start a religion of peace by starting a war and following a warlord?

If you need proof, just how much peace has there been there since he started Islam? How can a book with so many references to killing the unbeliever in it be a book of peace. Islam is the most intolerant religion Ive ever seen.

Dont get me wrong. many Muslims can see only the good in it and treat the rest as christians do the old testament. But IMO theres stuff in there thats dangerous. Especially if esposed as being inspired by the divine.

[Watchman]

Of the three Abrahamic book-religions Islam has easily the best track record of tolerating the two others in the instances it was the dominant one you know. I cannot but wonder at where you got your knowledge of relevant history from, and also of your definitions of "intolerance".

I also still want to know where you picked this whole "religion of peace" thing from - I know I never called it that, but I fail to see why it could not be that (especially as it has spent a fair bit of time doing so) just as there's nothing keeping the oh-so-peaceable Christianity from being the faith of warriors and conquerors (which it has spent a fair bit of time doing). Ditto for Judaism (where AFAIK there was never any conflict between "prophet" and "warlord" - one gets the impression many of the OT prophets were specifically both), Buddhism (never kept the samurai from gutting each other much)...

[Tribesman]

If you need proof, just how much peace has there been there since he started Islam?
OMG:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
if you want "proof" how much peace was there before Islam:dizzy2:

[Watchman]

...or in places where nobody ever knew what "Islam" was for that matter ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Exactly, So the prophet hasnt done so well in improving things has he? Has Islam brought peace the world never mind the region? How do Muslims treat Muslims of different sects? The worst thing you can do is hear the word and not obey right?

[Watchman]

And that makes Islam different from Christianity (or any other religion) where exactly ?

I take it you haven't yet gone and bought this "perspective" thing I keep recommending to you ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey I dont believe in christianity either. But you do see a difference between Jesus and Mohamed i hope. Even you called him a warlord :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

Jesus never had the slightest opportunity to become one anyway. Did drive the moneylenders out of the Temple with a whip IIRC though.

I don't quite see whatever point you're trying to make.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't quite see whatever point you're trying to make.
:wall:

That Jesus was a pacifist while Mohamed was a warrior. Everything he did is against western standards today. Can you say the same of Jesus? Who is a better example to follow? I look at both as philosophers not prophets. Whos philosophy is one of peace? Certainly not Mohamed. Unless you mean like Reagan "Peace through strength" :laugh4: Kill or defeat all your enemies until only Islam remains or you pay tribute.

[Watchman]

Seriously, so what ? Like I've been telling you religions are what their adherents make them to be, not what their founders said in the Year of the Stick or someone wrote in some funny book. Both have always happily been ignored with impunity in favor of expediency.

Incidentally, you seem to ignore a whole lot of the counterpoints I keep making to your various historically and factually wholly inaccurate statements. Any reason besides the obvious ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Like I've been telling you religions are what their adherents make them to be, not what their founders said in the Year of the Stick

Try telling that to Muslims LOL You must take the Koran literaly. Theres no reformed Muslim movement.

Funny it started out Mohamed didnt do all that stuff and i made it up to the same tired excuse the Muslims give. So what?

[Watchman]

Have fun trying to find ten Muslims around the world who can agree to what the "literal" reading means in practice.

Nevermind now the merry way a lot of the book has been variously ignored throughout history for convenience.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have fun trying to find ten Muslims around the world who can agree to what the "literal" reading means in practice.


Exactly so that gives then all the right to kill each other. How can following the warrior example of Mohamed be seen as peaceful?

[Watchman]

Funny it started out Mohamed didnt do all that stuff and i made it up...I don't recall claiming that. I do recall observing that the tone of the accounts you quoted was about as neutral and objective as Nazi war propaganda over the character of American society though.

[Watchman]

Exactly so that gives then all the right to kill each other. How can following the warrior example of Mohamed be seen as peaceful?Do I really need to dig up the ugly record of strife between Christians of different takes on the content of the faith before you realize this isn't exactly unusual or limited to Muslims ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I didnt specify you as the one who said it. Sorry if that confused you, I dont care if the site is biased I care if it present the facts. Checking around IMO it does. I dont see any dispute other than from Tribesman. I again invite him to show that Mohamed did not do these things.

[Watchman]

Sorry if that confused you, I dont care if the site is biased I care if it present the facts. Checking around IMO it does.Might I humbly suggest you try the unbiased sources first in the future ? Might do a world of good for developing some perspective on things.

[Watchman]

I didnt specify you as the one who said it.O RLY ? Seemed to me like you were trying to use that to evade the question I made concerning your silence over my rebuttals...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Might I humbly suggest you try the unbiased sources first in the future ? Might do a world of good for developing some perspective on things.

You wont find any . The closest you may find are from Uni courses but even all those say he started a war with the Meccans. I cant get in to read the actual text of the course only a summary. Of course Muslim sites are biased but again the Hadiths and suras tell pretty much the same exact story.

[Tribesman]

You wont find any
Errrr...why not try some books by the scholars that the writer of that garbage site claims to have read:idea2:


but again the Hadiths and suras tell pretty much the same exact story.
hmmmm....pretty much the same exact .
is that like almost could if my house wasn't where it is ?:laugh4:

pretty much not the same exact .
Oh looky .....one word different and a completely different meaning , what funny things you can do with language a single word or even a letter can completely change something .. amazing isn't it .
The scope becomes even bigger when things are translated .

A simple exercise or you Gawain , no translation needed .
How many different words can you find that could be substituted for a simple word like "killed" ?
a simple word isn't it , what different meanings could alternative words have eh ?
hey how many different meanings can the word itself have , if a soccer player killed the ball is he a ravenous murderer ? has he commited infantricide ? did he kill a king ? has he stopped a conversation ?

its pretty much exactly the same isn't it :dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How many different words can you find that could be substituted for a simple word like "killed" ?

For the last time stop playing your silly word games and come up with some translations that dispute mine. Then we can see if any of these simple words have been changed or are disputed.

A simple exercise or you Gawain

It seems your always giving me exercises but when I give one to you , you dont seem to be fit to perform it.


Errrr...why not try some books by the scholars that the writer of that garbage site claims to have read

Ive looked onlne but cant find them and Im not about to go sign up to library to go check them out. Why dont you and prove me and her wrong? You always want other to do the work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribes:

You've already questioned the authenticity/accuracy of Gawain's referenced material. There is clearly grounds for calling up such questions.

Gawain is not unreasonable in asking you to switch from interrogative (poking holes) to declarative (what you think to be a more reasonable position/translation/interpretation).

Even at that, the Koranic translations would be in question fro some, since (if I recall correctly) many devout Muslims would insist that any translation of the Koran is inappropriate and it must be read in Arabic.

[Tribesman]

Even at that, the Koranic translations would be in question fro some, since (if I recall correctly) many devout Muslims would insist that any translation of the Koran is inappropriate and it must be read in Arabic.

Yep I mentioned that a while back , several times .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Look just answer my old questions. Did Mohamed kill people and wage war . Do you think he is a model for others to follow? Thats not so hard is it? Cant you find one contrary postition. I wont question its source :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Look just answer my old questions.
which questions ? you have contradicted yourself so many times its hard to know where to start .

lets start with this tripe...
You just dont get it. Terrorist #1 Mohamed He set the standard for all who followed.
rigggghhht :dizzy2:
your source uses :daisy: like that , funny really , Khan focuses on 8 , makes a big deal of 8;12 . clearly instructions for torture and terrorism on unbelievers yeah :laugh4: instructions for cold blooded murder even:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: . you claim Mohammed set the standard , wasn't the standard for religeous slaughter and the splitting of spoils set in the OT, very specific about it isn't it , who shall be killed who shall be spared , how they shall be killed , hey is got everything , even instruction on what god lets you do to women you rape in war , well unless he told you to kill them after killing thir babies , as I don't think he allowed necrophilia and what you did to the women after that wouldn't really come into play would it?

A slight problem with Khans take , apart from the general :daisy: nature of his thought process , is that that section deals with those that have marched to war on you and abandoned their devotion to their own religeon(christian /Judaism).:2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

which questions ? you have contradicted yourself so many times its hard to know where to start .


Your not thatdense just stubborn it seems. I just asked you the same questions for at least the third time. Then you proceed to post this as an example of a question I asked?


lets start with this tripe...
Quote:
You just dont get it. Terrorist #1 Mohamed He set the standard for all who followed.


Is it any wonder its hard to debate you.

Go for the last time and find a contradictory interpretaion.

All you can do is attack the source and in reality it isnt even the source. You wont even bother to go check that.

[Kralizec]

And that makes Islam different from Christianity (or any other religion) where exactly ?

I take it you haven't yet gone and bought this "perspective" thing I keep recommending to you ?

I think Gawain is arguing that:

The New Testament (wich trumps OT) it does not contain
A) conquest or violence done by its messengers
B) directives for believers to do so - on the contrary.

It hasn't stopped christians from doing so, however. Christian rulers required creative interpretation and interpolation to justify violence, in the name of the Lord of course.
For the Qu'ran, it's the other way around. It does contain descriptions of Muhammed attacking and killing people that are pretty much defenseless, and fragments of it encourage its followers to do so. Those who see the Qu'ran as a message of peace have arrived to that conclusion by creative interpretation or outright cherry-picking. Wich arguably makes notions of "limited war" for example harder to reconcile with Islam then it does with christianity.

[Tribesman]

Go for the last time and find a contradictory interpretaion.

Hey Gawain I already have I repeated it several times , I even bolded it , it is a source your "evidence" site claims to use , it is very very implicit in what it says , and despite your nonsense about...

You wont find any . in response to watchmansMight I humbly suggest you try the unbiased sources first in the future ?
you will , what source could be more unbiased about Islam than a Jew who became an atheist and was a reknowned scholar on Islam and the east .
But of course since his views are competely contradictory to what you have written throughout this topic , you choose to pretend it hasn't been written :daisy: .

EDIT: I am getting tired of the personal attacks and the endless editing I am having to do. Stop it please. BG

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey Gawain I already have I repeated it several times , I even bolded it , it is a source your "evidence" site claims to use , it is very very implicit in what it says , and despite your nonsense about...

:wall:

Go to that source and see what it says. How simple can I make it for you?


Oh BTW as you are on about questions , can you remember very far back ? is your memory able for that ? its isn'treally that far back , you might just manage it .
you asked for some questions to be put to you
simple questions that you might be able to understand

Yes it was your usual nonsense . I tell you Im willing to debate you and you start with the hundred questions instead of taking a position on something.

Id also like to thank Kralizec. He stated my position better than I did.

[Tribesman]

Go to that source and see what it says. How simple can I make it for you?

Errr .....seen the site you used , read it , the thing is that a source the writer of that site claims is a source for the material written on the site contradicts what is written on the site , if the original source contradicts what is written by a writer on a hate site then they are not using the source they claim , which makes them a liar doesn't it .
If someone is a liar then it is wise to believe very little (if anything) of what they say . Simple isn't it.



Yes it was your usual nonsense . I tell you Im willing to debate you and you start with the hundred questions instead of taking a position on something.

You asked for simple questions about Christian scripture .
I gave you simple questions about Christian scripture .
Didn't you like the questions ?:laugh4:


Id also like to thank Kralizec. He stated my position better than I did.
Yes , but the position Krazelic states is mainly wrong , if you agree with it you are mainly wrong .
Its quite simple , its dealt with way back on page 4 in response to Orbs use of one verse from the sermon on the mount ,. funny that isn't it , how using one line from a passage can appear to give a completely different meaning than what is contained in the whole passage , it works with the Bible as well as the Koran .
BTW I wrote mainly wrong because Krazelic wrote these words
The New Testament (wich trumps OT) that part is correct , the rest isn't .

[CrossLOPER]

Oh Tribesman... Guess what? HE'S SCREWING WITH YOU!

End of thread.

[Tribesman]

Crossloper . I know , but he don't get very far since it is very easy to pick up on the faults in what he has written , and there are dozens of faults to choose from .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All I see is double speak. Your right because your intellectually superior is your usual argument. You just come right out and say it. Know one is better at twisting peoples words than you.
You have lame and vague answers to simple questions. You can never just come out and speak plain english. Come on lower your self down to where dumb old me can understand you.

[Navaros]

Wake me up when someone riots because Darwin's been insulted, would you?

Actually that happens all of the darn time, it's just not as physical of a riot as the one listed in the OP.

If anyone insults Darwin or even claims his work is invalid or should be held up to scrutiny then this inspires a religious zeal in the hearts of Darwin-promoters that is every bit as strong with the religious zeal described in the OP.

[Tribesman]

Your right because your intellectually superior is your usual argument.
Nope , my arguement is that you don't know your scriptures , have gone off on an angle that fits your preconceptions rather than reality and have used very dubious sources to try and back up your preconceptions .


Know one is better at twisting peoples words than you.

Gawain your words speak for themselves, would you like to got through the topic and see what they say ?


You have lame and vague answers to simple questions. You can never just come out and speak plain english.
thats funny .:dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nope , my arguement is that you don't know your scriptures , have gone off on an angle that fits your preconceptions rather than reality and have used very dubious sources to try and back up your preconceptions .

Says you.Ive seen nothing here to indicate you understand them other than your own twisted logic.


Gawain your words speak for themselves, would you like to got through the topic and see what they say ?

Yes lets got through them. It seems their open to interpretation. Mostly your own.


thats funny

And true which is a shame considering your on of the smartest and certainly one of the cleverest people here. You should put it to better use. Your main thrust here has been because something can be done it has been. You say these things are either taken out of context or misinterpreted and when I ask you to show me an example you use one from somewhere else. You constantly obvuscate. I used these to show that Mohamed was warrior and had people killed. I asked you if you disputed that. You still havent even answered those simple questions. Your the king of the run around.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It appears that this discussion has run its course and we are left with the cloying sentimentality of a mutual admiration thread.

No doubt we will have another opportunity to address these issues in the near future. (Be still, my beating heart).

:bow:

:closed: