Thousands run riot over religious insults

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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"

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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"

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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!"

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KJB

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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 ...

Quote:

---

read the whole sermon .

---

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

edit ..ooops

Quote:

---

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

---

just saw your edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orb

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 ? 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 (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:

Rats, DP.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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?

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?

Quote:

---

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .....

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

any chance of answering Seamus simple question ...

---

What one did I miss?

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

What one did I miss?

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Put the damn bottle away :laugh4:

I gave him the link.

Quote:

---

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.'"

Gentlemen,

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

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.....

Quote:

---

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