Thousands run riot over religious insults

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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)...

Quote:

---

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:

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

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?

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 ?

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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 ?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

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:

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

The New Testament (wich trumps OT)

---

that part is correct , the rest isn't .

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

End of thread.

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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

---

thats funny .:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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: