What part of this is not a generalization?Originally Posted by Vuk
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
What part of this is not a generalization?
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
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.
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
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.
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.
Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.
Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
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.
Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
Fighting this is not worth your time, Vuk.
The very nature of the Backroom ensures that it entails the most subjective moderating on the board. The current lineup - unless it has changed significantly in the last few months - shares a very particular viewpoint on discussing Islam and its followers. This is quite obvious, as they were all Backroom posters before becoming moderators and their opinions on such matters are well known. It is not my place to suggest there are double standards or heavy hands in play, but there are unique boundaries in place when criticism of Islam emerges. These exist for a multitude of reasons including everything from the Western-centric culture shared by the majority of moderators and patrons here, which promotes self examination and criticism and discourages the same for other cultures, to the current events revolving around the Middle East since 9/11/01.
None of that is important. What you do need to know is that if you continue down this path, whether by challenging the moderators directly or by continuing to post opinions/facts you know they will not tolerate, you could face permanent expulsion from the backroom.
Sometimes you don't get to choose your battlefield. There's no point in complaining about it, even if it's uphill.
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
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.
I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.
my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).
tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!
"We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode" -alBernameg
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
I have decided to return, and add some more things, just to furthur illuminate:
1-I forgot to mention that Ka3b ibn ashraf would have eventually become a mortal threat to Madinah; he was known to have begun stockpiling arms (he was a wealthy man), and talking to the makkans to see to see that their was a coalition. assassination was a common solution. In fact, the killers used his weapons stockpiling to lure him into a fake arms deal; again, see the 4th century ka3bah incident*.
2-addition to khandaq: the jewish tribe wanted to be tried by their (jewish) laws, just to clarify the above post. I do not want to disparage any faiths while mentioning this, that way no one can hold it against me.
and if any forum rules were breached I take full responsibility.
*a tribe had attempted to sieze religious hegemony over the makkan ka3bah, by building a hurum of their own. they tried to sell the hurum to the arab tribes, but instead incurred the wrath of the head tribes of makkah (this was before quraysh). one of the dignitaries of makkah led a force that surprised and massacred the enemy tribe, although survivors managed to flee. then the dignitary killed an enemy man over the "hurum" in a special ritual, ruining it.
seeing that he was a threat, and he was indeed out to finish them off, the offending tribe was offered his head by a famous thug, and the man snuck on the dignitary and gutted him. tragically for the tribe, the dignitary somehow survived, and led another army to finish the tribe's strength off.
that's what I remember; I have not read over the account in 2 years+, and hence I forgot the names
if you can find a blue green schoolbook from Kuwait(?) over 30 years in age, you can read about it there. the suject is early arab history (before islam to c.900AD).
as for jassas ibn murrah, he offered to kill kulayb wa'il for hoarding the water in his territory (an Arab no-no), and used the camel of al-basus (an old woman) as an excuse to kill kulayb. again, I cite the same book as above. the immediate cause was of course a bloody camel
I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.
my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).
tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!
"We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
Recent posters have made what could be called "offensive generalizations" against the Catholic recently. I am not offended - on the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to debase their assumptions. The point being, whether Vuk has a correct or incorrect opinion of Islam, it is his right to make his case in the same way that individuals can make their cases against Catholicism or Christianity. In both cases, the individuals have made a case against the religion, not the followers of that religion.
Ban both or ban neither. My opinion is that the latter is the better option.
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
Thank you Evil Maniac From Mars, that was my point exactly. The Backroom mods are very hypocrytical when dealing with the subject. What Ibrahim has just presented is a counter argument (which I will be glad to answer in the Backroom). That is the reponse a discussion on religion is supposed to get, not a ban.
No offense Evil Maniac From Mars, but I have made arguments against the Catholic church as well, and not gotten in trouble for them. If I try to make them about Islam though, it results in an instant ban. I am still waiting of Tosa or BG to answer me as to why this is. I am not going to say the words "unfair censorship" until I recieve an answer.
Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.
Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
So far this is a perfectly good and reasonable discussion, albeit in Backroom style. I fail to see why we can't have it in the Backroom itself.
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
Re: My post on the Sweden thread
one you WON'T win (nor have exaclty 258* other victims..uh deabters)
anyways, I would truly love to debate on this, as I have others before me. but I have no permit to go to the backroom, nor do I intend to get one; the TWcenter was too much for me to handle (WAY too many people to prove all wrong, and way too immature). hence, I took an oath not to visit the backroom here, or the political mudpit at the TWcenter again. perhaps some other arrangement? *inserts 18th century officer smiley giving a bow*
*ok, so I keep a headcount
I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.
my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).
tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!
"We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks