My post on the Sweden thread

[Vuk]

I recently recieved a warning from Banquo's Ghost for saying that islam taught hate and imorrality. His reason was:

An entirely offensive generalisation

I would like to know how it is that some people can express similar opinions about Christianity, yet I cannot say the truth about islam. If anyone was of the opinion that it was not the truth, I would have been more than willing to back what I said up with quotes from the koran and muhammed. As I pointed out, I was not saying that all muslims were hateful or imoral, but simply that that is what the koran literally says, and there will always be those that interpret it literally. I do not see how that makes me deserve a warning that takes away all my posting and PM rights.

[pevergreen]

It is an entirely offensive generalisation.

On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.

[Vuk]

It is an entirely offensive generalisation.

On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.

No, it is not a generalization, because I was talking about ONE thing, the koran. I was not putting all muslims under the umbrella of strict interpreters. As I said though, the koran does teach that stuff. The Crusade analogy is useless, because the Bible never instructed Christians to go on a Crusade, whereas the koran does instruct muslims to murder Christians and Jews (and as a Christian of Jewish blood, surely you can see how uncomfortable the religion makes ME feel), to subjugate women, etc.
If any thought that I was wrong, and the koran didn't say that, I would have been more than happen to quote it and explain that it does. Is the saying the truth about a religion offensive now because the religion is offensive?
Also though, people on this forum make similar ascertains about Christianity all the time, why do they not get banned as I have? It is because of one-sided, politically-correct moderating.
And just so you know, I think people are ignorant a lot of times when they say such things about Christianity (because I has actually read the Bible and know it is not true), but I do not get offended, and I do not report them. I discuss it with them. Looks like you can have discussion of islam though...unless it is about how best to praise it.

[Monk]

It is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence.

What part of this is not a generalization?

[pevergreen]

I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.

Just as Monk said, you generalised.

Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.

If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.

[Vuk]

What part of this is not a generalization?

You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.

I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.

You are wrong Pever, I never felt that way and do not now. I used to be of the opinion that all religions were the same and that they were all peaceful. What I think of islam comes from reading about muhamed, reading the koran, and studying some of the hadiths. It is a very educated opinion...probably much more so than most/all of the muslims on this board, yours, and the moderators'. The opinion I expressed was not about muslims, but about the koran and muhamed.

Just as Monk said, you generalised.

Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.

If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.

This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point.

That all aside though, I should not have to be having a religious debate with you here (as this is not the place), the Backroom (which is was banned from as the correct place). Because you do not share my religious views does not mean that you ban me, then discuss religion with me in the watchtower. If you disagreed with my views, why did you not discuss it in the Backroom (that is what it is there for). You know, in a religious debate, you are talking things that people devote their life to and feel strongly about, so in any religious debate people on both sides are going to be offended. If you get rid of 'offending' opinions, you get rid of debate. Do you think that people's anti-Christian arguments do not offend me to some degree? Of course they do, but I make the choice to either ignore them, or to debate it with them.
The difference is that it is politically correct to bash Christianity, but not to have negative opinions of islam. One of the things the Backroom is meant for is religious debate, you cannot selectively censor out people's opinions. My opinon is honest and heartfelt, and I do not think that I should not be allowed to express it on a forum devoted to religious debate. If you do not agree with it, either think less of me and move on, or debate it with me. Do not ban me because you do not agree with me.

[Kagemusha]

Vuk. Just read the forum rules and think did you broke them or not. Your opinion about whether your stance is right or wrong is irrelevant.

[Ibrahim]

You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.



This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point..

1)he did not have sex with a nine year old; records are clear on that. he did marry 'aishah when she was nine, but Arab custom demanded he not touch her till she menstruated (since menstruation defined women in the ancient Arab world). hence, he had sex with her as a teenager, so techinacally, he did not commit pedophilia (maybe by today's standards, but we only raised the minimum age in the last century, and a little earlier). besides, didn't europeans have a similar custom until the 19th century? I hear the words :"moral hypocracy" ringing in the air.

2)He ordered no assassinations: he was quite literally offered them. In ancient Arabia, it was not unusal for a person to show loyalty to his tribe/leader/king, by assassinating an enemy. you can read the story of jassas ibn murrah and his murder of kulayb wa'il in 494 AD, or the aftermath of the false haram incident from the 4th century AD. He allowed them to do what they wanted, yes, but he did not obligate them. you can read in detail about the killing of ka3b ibn Ashraf. you will see that he was offered Ashraf's head by muhammad ibn maslamah. the porphet said merely to not do anything until he (ibn maslamah) cunsulted with the tribal elder, sa3d ibn mu3ath.

3)most of his "holy wars" were defensive: Badr, Uhud, khndaq, mustalaq, and hunayn were all defensive, or partly so. you can read their respective accounts elsewhere. also, his offensive operations were often due to hearing news that an enemy tribe was ammassing forces against madinah (khaybar and ta'if), or a tribe breeched peace (makkah)*, or severly breached diplomatic rules (mu'tah and tabuk). his preferred technique of spreading Islam was by sending men out who knew the qur'an and his words, and they would slowly convert friendly tribes (see abu dhar and his convertin ghafar and aslam tribes, abu umamah and the tribe of bahilah, abu musa and the yemenis, etc). in fact, far more tribes went in peacefully than violently, but no, the west just loves to look at the ugly-part of the sick sensationalist aspect that has unfortunately pervaded recently..

so where is the "purely by sword" bulls*** you and your fellow hubul follow?

4)murdured? let me check...nope, there were executions, but no known murdurs, and none of the executions were for false reasons (sedition, treason, murder, more treason). maybe to the 21st century, some of this would be wrong, but not to that time and place. In fact, for a politician, he was surprisingly peaceful for his time and place; he did not tie men by their shoulders, mass murder 30,000 in a stadium, or round people up in a trench for being christian, and slaughter them all...the worst he did was let sa3d ibn m3ath judge that tribe after khandaq; he applied deuteronomy on them, as they were jewish, and demanded that they be tried per jewish law. so the men were killed, the rest scattered..

5)he raped? not even 100 siras show that**. I have seen no evidence (literally none) that he did that. the closest he came was when al-muqawqis sent him a woman as a present. and even then, there is clear evidence that he treated her well, favored her, and even had a son by her-he died as a child. her name is Mariyyah BTW, just so that you can look her up too. also, he explicitly said that females and children should be treated well, and not be harmed, especially in war time. you can read on the Aftermath of khndaq and khaybar.

6)mysogyny? man, go look up pre Islamic Arabia if you want mysogyny. they buried girls alive, and barred inheritance, just for starters..the very worse thing I have seen was that he expected women to dress decently (the veil is actually a abbasid thing), to obey their husbands (i.e be good wives) and they are allowed to inherit and work. oh, wait, that's actually good, isn't it? and if you quote the ar-rijalu qawwamun 3ala an-nisa'i verse, then you need to learn Arabic; while qawwam is often translated as "superior", or "above", it actually means "guardian" or "curator". another arabic word derived from qwm or qym (both mean the same), is qayyim, which is grammatically identical to the above, and is used to refer to a curator or caretaker. in other words to dumb it down, the qur'an says take care of your women, hence husbands must be good to their wives as well. Its also known that he put a strong precedent of NOT exposing girls (well, burying them), of NOT mistreating them, and of NOT degrading them. even his last speech advised men to appreciate women, and to view them well (hajjat al-wada3). you can look that up. and the beating part has some very strict rules to it, again explained in hijjat al-wada3. It is a last resort (and I mean last), and never to the point where a woman is harmed in any way. in fact, the arabic word for "hit", is also the one for "leave", "strike from", or "quit" (or even cite: darab mathalan= he cited an example), so no one is sure if the idribuhunna commandment was reffering to beating. and many sunnahs were written 2-3 centuries after his death, furthur complicating things (many hadths are spurious; problem is: which ones?)



and no, I am not citing some random apologetic (I have nothing to apologize for in that regard). I can recommend you several books, such as the "series of heroes books" (1960's), the various siras (I had one in the library of mine from the early 20th century, you can reda Tabari too), and 5 history books from grandfather's college years-all written and explained in detail, before we had to worry about the recent events (so no, not apologetic). some were in fact very cutting of the prophet.. Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, several explanitory sahihs (none of them perfect), and a good study of the political system from then to the 12th century. that is more than I can say for wherever the heck you got your "facts" from.

I suggest that to read these sources, you need to learn Arabic. I'm not going to sit here and translate every word of these sources. It would take me several liftimes.


*the makkans supported an ally of theirs to raid a tribe allied to Madinah. the attacked tribe sought help, and he responded. once he makkan learned of his reaction, they gave up..well, almost all. one of the three columns for makkah was ambushed by some makkans; 2 muslims and 15 makkans killed. 2 makkans were later executed, but the city was spared sacking.
**like saying none

PS: I know I won't convince you, but I have to post...that way others can read and learn.

[Andres]

The statement "[Islam] is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence" is a generalisation and it is offensive.

As such, the reason given for the warning is correct. As far as the warning you received goes, I don't see why it should be reversed.

As for your more general query about Org policy, if you encounter offensive posts, you can always use the "report post" function and staff will deal with them.

I can assure you that a similar post about Christianity will be treated the same way.

As you are well aware, warnings are given in private. It's not because member X did not open a thread complaining about a warning received for e.g. Catholics-bashing, that such warning did not occur.