Printable View
Why would you assume that I understand? The second sentence could mean any number of things, and I haven't the foggiest of where you were going, besides "Islam is bad, mmkay?" I'm guessing that "relativation" is meant to be "relativism" with a 80% confidence of being correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I thought that required knowledge rather than wild assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Wow, talk about a blast from the past. Those were the good old days in the Backroom, to be sure. Very much enjoying reading myself from 5 years ago. I had a lot more passion and a lot less cynicism, to be sure. It is a bit melancholy remembering all those who have faded away, though. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Except that terrorists don't think their targets are innocent...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I don't want to sound like a troll, but what you think about the Qu'ran is highly irrelevant, as long as people justify terrorism with it. You can claim "the Qu'ran doesn't condone the murder of innocents" (which it does) as much as you want, but then what? What happens next? Since you're neither an authority among muslim scholars nor Al-Qaeda mastermind, your opinion, while respectable, is worthless.
Now, that's slightly OT, but why do you feel the need to defend islam whenever the topic pops up? It's the only religious that is even more reactionary, conservative, violent, untolerant and totalitarian than christianism. I mean, being worse than Christianism should be an achievement in itself. Yet the same people who - rightfully - bash christians whenever possible raise shields as soon as the buzzword Islam appears...
Well it's pretty straightforward in a 'there is more to it and it is pretty hard to deny that there is a religious factor' kinda way. It was in English how did you not read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Because there is widespread anti-Islamice sentiment nowadays.
That and I won't stand aside and do nothing when people are harmed, verbally or physically.
Because Islam is being blamed by some people for the actions of a few lunatics. That, and the fact that I wager that I know more about Islam in both historical and theological contexts than most other people do on this forum.Quote:
Now, that's slightly OT, but why do you feel the need to defend islam whenever the topic pops up?
Cool, gimme that defensive war, historically speaking.
Most Muslims are normal tolerant people. Literal Islam is not a tolerant or peaceful religion. But as with Christianity, people pick and choose so it's all good.
Well, I'll give it a crack. It is fairly opaque, but I like a good challenge. I'm going to assume that 'when muslims want whatever they want' is an adjunct with an adverbial role, setting up the conditions under which the main clause verb operates. I'll assume also that 'whatever it takes' is another adjunct, expressing the limitless nature of the main clause verb. This leaves 'our government will talk' as the main clause. I'm assuming this means something along the lines of our government is willing to negotiate or adapt. The overall meaning could then be roughly paraphrased as 'whenever Muslims want something (whatever it happens to be that Muslims want), our government is willing to accommodate them, no matter what it takes to do so.' I think this meaning is in line with the usual kinds of statements Fragony makes, so I consider it a reasonably likely meaning. I think at least part of what makes the sentence difficult to comprehend is the two left adjuncts in a row before you even get to the main clause. Here's a rough attempt at a diagram.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ajax
Genius, awesome and downright hysterical. :bow:
Brevity is an artform:
'My government accomodates any Muslim demand'.
Fine.Quote:
Cool, gimme that defensive war, historically speaking.
"[...]this seems to have marked the end of the period when Muhammad's activities had b een tolerated, and his followers now found themselves under increasing pressure. This mostly took the form of ostracism, verbal attacks, commercial santcions and, in the case of lower-class Muslims of actual physical violence. Against this background a number of Muslims left Mecca to settle in Ethiopia, probably in 615, where they enjoyed the protection of the Christian ruler." - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.32
"Muhammad, with a much smaller force of 857 muhajirun, and 230 Ansar, was waiting for them [the relief force] for them by the wells at Badr" - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.35
Might this be after the period when the Muslims had begun to expand militaristically. Oh, and what happened to Ethiopia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Islam is a religion whose scriptural narrative is one of conquest, that makes it quite difficult to bit the religion into a culturally subserviant place; which is where it has been for at least 400 years.
Are you really sure this is your argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
This is an argument I'm not the least interested in; as any historical observations are cast aside by political agendas; it's a bit like the crazy Romanian nationalists who insist that they are somehow descended from the Romans.
Alright; you are all debating on a different level. We're not talking about the condoning of warfare in Islam, but terrorism; horrible as they both are, I think we should distinct the two; we could otherwise suggest that all warfare is terrorism and vice versa.
About warfare in Islam, of course there is a basis for this in the Qur'an. Terrorism is something entirely different though. As demonstrated:
A quick glance at Wikipedia also turns up this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu Bakr, the First Caliph
See, I bolded the important thingie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Afsaruddin, Asma (2007). Views of Jihad Throughout History. Religion Compass
I also advise you to read this page.
but they have roman in their anems that means something right?
:clown:
To be fair, many Christians feel exactly the same about the past 40 years in Western society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Which bit? I might agree, I might not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
speak for yourself i regret nothing, ever. except the inquisition. but almost all religions have their bad points.Quote:
To be fair, many Christians feel exactly the same about the past 40 years in Western society.
@Hax, Abu Bakr is the first of the 5 'good caliphs', the descendants of Mohammed, has nothing to do with the Qu'ran.
I Know that... but in the practice, they always think that:Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
1) The Christians are worshipping 3 gods (they got very wrong interpretation on trinity), and their bible had been modified by men, so they are no more "people of the book"... because they reject one god.
2) Jews are... *soory no offense, you could found them on their website*.... liars, pigs,, and monkeys.... and god has abandoned them, and their rejection to the prophet's teaching made them "kaffir"
Yeah, and I know about that first hand.... just ask everybody that was my friend on facebook, as my former girlfriend was muslimah (Hax and Hooahguy, both of you are still tagged on my note when we've broken up and I get down, thx for your support that time BTW... so don't confuse her with my current girl...), and we did going along well at the start, but when the fanatics start harassing us.... yeah... and everything is accumulated when a she got threatening blackmail... and her parents *sigh*, eventually told her that she must sever all ties with me, or she won't be accepted as family again..... :wall: --> from that time, you can look that my viewpoint towards them was changed....
And I also had a friend who was a former muslim, he got worse eperience with the fanatics when he was *still* a muslim... and for that very reason, now he become an atheist...
No, I don't say that muslims are bad.... there was fanatical muslims who literally translate their quran is the bad guys... and those moderate, always checked the background content and philoshopical meaning (instead of literal meaning) on the qur'an...
2) Jews are... *soory no offense, you could found them on their website*.... liars, pigs,, and monkeys.... and god has abandoned them, and their rejection to the prophet's teaching made them "kaffir"Quote:
1) The Christians are worshipping 3 gods (they got very wrong interpretation on trinity), and their bible had been modified by men, so they are no more "people of the book"... because they reject one god.
That's really funny.
1) The Iranian constitution (of all) protects Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians and maintains a free seat in Parliament reserved just for those three minorities. And Zoroastrians were not even included in the "original" Ahl ul-Kitab
2) I didn't know Islam had a website. You shouldn't pay attention to what a few nutjob Indonesians have to say, but rather analyse the position of Jews throughout Islamic history ..in which they weren't treated as eh.."liars pigs and monkeys", with a few exceptions. I can think of just one, at the moment.
Oh really?! I had no idea.Quote:
@Hax, Abu Bakr is the first of the 5 'good caliphs', the descendants of Mohammed, has nothing to do with the Qu'ran.
I think your statement is irrelevant, we were talking about Islamic views on terrorism here, not about the Qur'an.
Tou said there is no basis for all that crap in the Qu'ran, and then you use a quote from Abu Bakr who has nothing to do with the Qu'ran. That, is epic fail. I know my stuff Haxie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
just translate this (I read the Indonesian version), and you'll see what's the point of what I talk.... they even treat "Syiah/Iranians" as Kaffir because they are following "As Sunnah Wal Jamaah"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
www.arrahmah.com
EDIT: Wrong website...
You mean of your post? The second line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You mean this?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
"Islam is a religion whose scriptural narrative is one of conquest, that makes it quite difficult to bit the religion into a culturally subserviant place; which is where it has been for at least 400 years."
Then you have misunderstood my point, Islam has a scriptural narrative of conquest. The story in the Koran is of a man who becomes a King/Warlord and subjugates the surrounding peoples with a divine mandate. There is no comprable nattative in Christianity. That story is about a carpenter's son who spends three years wandering from town to town preaching to the masses, mainly the poor astracised and dispossesed.
My point was that Christianity is designed to function under political and cultural presures, it flourished as such until it was taken up by Constantine. In fact, Christianity has a historical problem with being "in power", the priests etc. never quite know how to act when people actually start listening and giving them nice curches to preach in and nice houses to live in.
Islam has the opposite problem, it is a religion that understands how to be politically dominant and has trouble being subserviant.
Perhaps this has been covered already, but since you've changed the skin of the forum, I'm finding it painful to read more than a page of posts. Sorry...
Nobody ever told me that Lower Manhatten belongs to the Saudis and the Yemenese. Guess those 19 guys knew something about land rights the rest of the world didn't.... assuming the point of the O.P. was correct in the first place.
Oh right, my bad, it was a Haliburton missile cause steel will never melt, cause Rosie O'Donnell says so, and George Bush needed a war and Mossad cleared all Jews out of Manhatten that day and Dick Cheney needed to raise Haliburton's share price...
Right, my bad. Sorry about all that.
Well, even if you have utter disdain and contempt for this entire thread of conversation, it's still nice to see you back, Don.
Wrapping up my thesis and thought I needed to reintroduce myself in appropriate form. Glad to be back, thank you sir.
The koran is a moot point. The main goal here is to weaken the west not spread Islam.
The book is the excuse not the catalyst
And Don when do you make it down the mason-dixon line again...Im still waiting on that cold one ~;)