What's up with Islam?

[swing]

I agree, they are morally and ethically superior....in general and in theory. Most are. However, I have found that the wealthy and those who are in power are also the biggest hippocrates around. I can't even begin to count the number of Saudis and Kuwaitis who routinely break Islamic law. In Kuwait there was a town between Ali Al Salem and Kuwait City that we were forbidden to go into because of terrorist activities. Some of my Kuwaiti military friends confided in me that there was no more threat there than anywhere else. The real reason is because that was Kuwait's version of Bahrain....in other words that's where all of the alcohol, drugs and prostitution was. And Bahrain....even though a country's government allows alcohol, drugs, hookers etc doesn't mean that it's OK by the religion, right? And yet it's all legal there. And who do you always see? Yep...rich Saudis! You get other Arabs there too but mainly the Sauds.

My point is simply that for those who claim to be so holy and religiously pure they sure do break a lot of Allah's laws.

Before you point out that we are worse I'll say it....We are worse. But I don't see as many of us (proportionate to the population) being that bad of a hippocrate. Also, many western religions (Catholocism mainly) allow you to screw up all you want as long as you ask for forgiveness and repent for your sins so in essence, you are allowed to do it!

There is a difference between a Muslim country and an Islamic country. And most Muslims would agree that a true Islamic state is non-existent. Most Muslim countries allow the selling of alcohol. In most Gulf countries the alcohol is served in hotels for the foreigners, with the exception of the city of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates) which doesn't allow it to be sold at all. Kuwait, and Bahrain (the Two Seas) are a different issue, although Bahrain isn't as bad as Kuwait. I disagree that prostitution and drugs are legal in Bahrain. It is acceptable for Westerners to openly partake in those activities, but the citizens have to be discreet about it.

When discussing wealthy Sa'udis we are talking about a small group of people who believe they are the elite of the Arabs. It's quite common for many of them to even practice homosexuality at a young age, because regulations do not apply to them. But I have met a number of wonderful wealthy Sa'udis who are the most religious people I've been around. One of my best friends Zain is an example. His father is a Vice-President for ARAMCO, and Zain is a Physics professor at the King Fahd University. I stayed with his family a few years ago, and it was one of the best experiences I ever had. But, the majority of Sa'udis are religious and pious individuals.

 

[CyniQ]

What is interesting is Bin Laden's choice of words. He doesn't say "Christians," rather he says
"Crusaders." Also he refers to the "Zionists" not the Jews. Which clearly shows that his grievance is not with any particular religious ideology, rather it is with the actions carried out by the belief. Secondly, I my statement was regarding any other religion with detailed regulations granting combatants and non-combatants rights, not mercy. Where in the Bible does it state that it is forbidden to kill women, children, or the elderly? As I stated, to the best of my knowledge this is unique to Islam. Provide your evidence if you believe otherwise.

Forgive me for my laborious research, but I believe one should speak from evidence rather than their ass. I wish more people shared this view.

There's nothing interesting about anything Bin Laden says. He is a murderer of children. He therefore cannot, IMO, be considered a reputable source for any information at all. He's obviously a lunatic.

But to address his statements.

White supremacists do not say African-American, they say "ni**er" (forgive me). Does that mean that they make some differentiation between African Americans and "ni**ers"? "Crusader", "Zionist". Demagogues frequently use such inflammatory language to stir the emotions of the people. Emotion, not truth, is after all, what their power is based on. It's typical hate-speech.

With regard to the Bibles instruction on dealing with enemies. In the old testament there were these two tablets, a guy named Moses had them, on one of the tablets it said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (loosely translated). Christians have been commanded, as I said, to "turn the other cheek", "return evil for evil to no one", "those who live by the sword will die by it", and to not keep account of the injury but forgive not seven times (as was the Jewish custom) but seventy-seven times. Killing and violence of any type is forbidden by Christ. He didn't even fight to save his own life.

 

[CyniQ]

It would be interesting to note that Algebra, Geometry, much of what we know about has come from the Muslim world. The Oxford History of Islam states, "Science was an extensive cultural undertaking that occupied the minds and energies of many of the leading intellectuals in medieval Muslim societies. Indeed, science was practiced on a scale unprecedented in earlier or contemporary human history." Research your history, and provide evidence before you make ignorant statements.

This coming from the guy that insisted that Arabs invented handwashing...

Morally and ethically superior?? To whom? Not me. My morals and ethics do not permit me to murder innocents. The Islamists are largely, in my uneducated opinion, the most despicable people on the face of the earth. You ask what other religion grants quarter to enemy combatants? I ask you, what other religion condones murder? You can't call the acts of these terrorists, combat. What other religion on the face of this earth would condone the actions of the Islamists in Darfur?

I don't generally lump people into broad labels like this. I admit that it's not fair to call all muslims evil, and in truth, I am very accepting of all peoples. But the claims you're making have no basis, and are blatantly ludicrous. Morally superior??? I'm sorry, I can't get over that. Based on what, exactly? You don't think teen pregnancy would decrease in this country if every daughter caught knocked up was murdered by her father? You are a first class MORON.

 

[swing]

This coming from the guy that insisted that Arabs invented handwashing...

Morally and ethically superior?? To whom? Not me. My morals and ethics do not permit me to murder innocents. The Islamists are largely, in my uneducated opinion, the most despicable people on the face of the earth. You ask what other religion grants quarter to enemy combatants? I ask you, what other religion condones murder? You can't call the acts of these terrorists, combat. What other religion on the face of this earth would condone the actions of the Islamists in Darfur?

I don't generally lump people into broad labels like this. I admit that it's not fair to call all muslims evil, and in truth, I am very accepting of all peoples. But the claims you're making have no basis, and are blatantly ludicrous. Morally superior??? I'm sorry, I can't get over that. Based on what, exactly? You don't think teen pregnancy would decrease in this country if every daughter caught knocked up was murdered by her father? You are a first class MORON.

I will not stoop myself to such childish acts as namecalling like some people on this board. Unlike many, I am well capable of conducting a mature, rational, and intelligent discussion. When I participated in my Public Debate courses, one of my tactics were to get my opponents emotionally stirred, so they would abandon reason. I was less successful when I came across the more intelligent of my opponents. You...way to easy!
Anyway...I never said "Arabs invented handwashing." Second, you never supported your premise concerning other religions providing rights to their enemies. Therefore, I can only surmise that you accept defeat regarding that argument. Third, I challenge you to provide one single verse from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, Hadith, or fatwa from the Ulema (Islamic scholars) condoning the killing of the innocent. There are a number of references in the Bible condoning, and even commanding the killing of innocent men, wome and children. I have noticed that you tend to make a large number of ignorant, claims but never once have you provided any legitimate source.
Yes, I do claim they are morally superior to you. Most arab men would never refer to women as you have in some of your previous posts.

 

[swing]

There's nothing interesting about anything Bin Laden says. He is a murderer of children. He therefore cannot, IMO, be considered a reputable source for any information at all. He's obviously a lunatic.

But to address his statements.

White supremacists do not say African-American, they say "ni**er" (forgive me). Does that mean that they make some differentiation between African Americans and "ni**ers"? "Crusader", "Zionist". Demagogues frequently use such inflammatory language to stir the emotions of the people. Emotion, not truth, is after all, what their power is based on. It's typical hate-speech.

With regard to the Bibles instruction on dealing with enemies. In the old testament there were these two tablets, a guy named Moses had them, on one of the tablets it said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (loosely translated). Christians have been commanded, as I said, to "turn the other cheek", "return evil for evil to no one", "those who live by the sword will die by it", and to not keep account of the injury but forgive not seven times (as was the Jewish custom) but seventy-seven times. Killing and violence of any type is forbidden by Christ. He didn't even fight to save his own life.

Only an ignorant person would dare assume what is in another person's mind. And to utilize Bin Laden's statement is perfectly adequate. In fact, when psychologists study serial killers, pedophiles, and rapists they gain their most valuable information from interviewing those who commit the crimes. It would only be fitting to explain why Bin Laden's attacks Americans by his statments and interviews. Why should I believe Bush, afterall since the invasion of Iraq almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died. I wouldn't expect you to understand the significance of Bin Laden's statement. The arabic is quite emphatic. There is a distinct difference when speaking arabic regarding description. When describing Christians (in a peaceful reference) we almost always use the term "Nasarah" or "Messihi." However, when there is conflict there are different terminologies used, "Kafir" (disbeliever), "Mujrimeen" (criminals), "Dhalimeen" (oppressors), etc. If one knows anything about the arabic language or culture, the choice of one's words means a great deal in their statement. And Bin Laden has a keen mastery of the Arabic language.

Concerning the Bible, Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
God has the people kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf.
God tells the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill their family and friends for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf. "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men."
To kill or not to kill.

32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Does Christ not say in the bible, "do not think I have come to bring peace, rather I have come to bring the sword?"

There are tons of quotes that I can use from the bible to support my premise the bible is full of support of violent actions towards combatants and non-combatants. If you need more please let me know. Unlike you, whenever I refer to someone's religious text I provide evidence.

 

[Grizzly]

Most arab men would never refer to women as you have in some of your previous posts.

They don't need to call them names. They beat them instead.

And I don't know if we're making a distinction between Arabs who live here and Arabs who live there, but most of the Arabs I know are trashy pieces of shit who claim allegiance to the TAP Boys(a street gang) and call women all sorts of names as they are slinging drugs to send the money back to their towelheaded relations on the other side of the pond so they can blow us up on this side. (No shit. True story. Ali Ali the kid I went to high school with was arrested, along with several family members, for manufacturing and distributing ecstasy in conjunction with terrorist activities.)

While we're on the subject of women, I was going to bring this up when Cyniq forgot to mention it, but no other group of nations or religion in the world has such a poor record when it comes to gender equity. Fuck the right to vote. Those bitches(like how I did that? ) don't even have the right to voice their opinions or wear what they want.

 

[swing]

While we're on the subject of women, I was going to bring this up when Cyniq forgot to mention it, but no other group of nations or religion in the world has such a poor record when it comes to gender equity. Fuck the right to vote. Those bitches(like how I did that? ) don't even have the right to voice their opinions or wear what they want.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, you've not been to the Middle East. If you go anywhere outside of the Kingdom (and by the way, there are restrictions for men concerning their dress as well) you will find that many women dress as they choose. In fact, many fathers try to convince their daughters not to wear the Islamic dress (hijab). In the MAJORITY of instances, it is a complete and total choice the woman makes. Again, men have dress codes as well.
But while we are dealing with the rights of women. The Muslim wife has rights afforded to her that are not present under Christianity. In shariah (Islamic Law) for instance,

-she has the right not to work if she chooses. Her husband cannot tell her, "we are short on money so why don't you find a part-time job," it is his responsibility to provide for the family.

-if she does CHOOSE to work, her money is her money. Meaning, her husband can make $30,000/yearly, and she makes $150,000/yearly. She has absolutely no responsibility to contribute her income to the household. And if she does contribute, it is her right to demand repayment.

-if her husband can afford it, he is to provide her with a servant.

-the husband is to consult her regarding all affairs of the house

-she does not have any responsibility to cook or clean.

I can continue, but it would pointless. My wife and I have many Muslim friends. In fact, we both recently converted after an indept study of the religion. It was only a matter of time for me, due to my field of study. And, I have spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East, and will return in December. Approximately, 90% of my friends are either Arab or Pakistani. And my wife was absolutely astonished to realize that Arab women run their homes...and I mean RUN their homes. Arab women (especially Palistinian women) are notorious for expressing their opinions to their husbands and anyone else who doesn't want to hear. Man, it is hilarious to hear people make these generalizations based upon the US media. Anyone believing Arab men dominate their women is an idiot. In fact, there is more spousal abuse in the US than in all of the ME. In Egypt, if a husband beats his wife then it is acceptable to kill him. In America, you rape a woman and the most you serve is 5 years in prison.

 

[Weatherlite]

Swing, nice rebuttal but I still have to disagree with you on a couple of points. Perhaps it's because you only spent 2 1/2 weeks in Iraq. I don't know. Maybe it was during a relatively peaceful time or in a more peaceful town. All I can relate is what I have learned from my EOD brothers who have spent time in Talil and Baghdad.

I agree that it is possible for anyone to make a mistake. However, the number of "mistakes" that the terrorists are making when it comes to planting and setting off these bombs is ridiculous. They are not mistakes. I know a lot about the firing systems they are using over there. It either goes off when you want it to or it doesn't go off at all. Period. They don't use timed devices....they don't use random delays. These things are command detonated which means that someone must "push the button" in order for it to go off. Yes, there are other ways for them to be set off but they have not been in use in Iraq.

Second topic....the attacks prior to 1990. I agree 100% as to the reasons behind the attacks. Never argued that point. I'm simply stating that we were the targets. Yes? No? In some, such as Beiruit, other countries were targeted at the same time but the fact remains that we were targets much earlier than the 1990's.

Difference between Islamic countries and Mulsim countries.....very true. I didn't mean to generalize it. I just abhor their rhetoric about how they live by Islamic law and yet still violate it.

As for the argument about being morally and ethically superior.....well, I ask you Cyniq, imagine making $30 a month for 10 hours of work a day, five days a week, in 120-140 degre heat. (BTW, those hours are the actual time spent working and does not include breaks or travel time) You are digging 3 foot wide and 4 foot deep holes into soil so hard that it takes pick axes to break into it. When you go home you live in a 15x20 room with about 25 other people (some of whom do not speak the same language as you) and you save every penny you have to send home to your family so that they may join you one day in this paradise. Have that in your mind yet? Now, would you offer some American Military member some of your precious lunch when he already has a lunch that's twice as large as yours? What about when you learn that the military member is forbidden from sharing his lunch with you punishable under the UCMJ? Would you really consdier sharing your food?

That is exactly how it happened with me in Oman. To him it was not only the right thing to do but was also an honor to do so. He wasn't trying to earn brownie points with Allah as some might do in Christianity. It was simply a part of his religion and lifestyle. (lifestyle being highly influenced by religion)

However, on the other side of the coin they do have some other qualities which make the majority look bad. I think we've already covered most of them.

As for the treatment of criminals and women....well, we mainly hear about Saudi Arabia, the Taliban regime and other extreme governments. Even in Hussein led Iraq the laws and the treatment of women wasn't as bad as you think it was. Yes, there are still some who practice clittoral circumcision of girls. There are men who practice homosexuality because of some belief (it may be true..I don't know I'm not a Muslim) that they have a choice of straight or gay at some point in their life. There are harsh punishments such as cutting off hands, stoning a woman to death because her husband cheated on her (must be her fault, right?), etc etc. Question is this...where did we hear it from? The media. Which media? The same one that we bitch about because they only tell one side of the story...the one that meets their agenda and the one that gets ratings!

Do these bad things happen? Yes. Do they happen everywhere? No. I have witness many Muslim women wearing western clothes. By choice! In fact, I have even seen Kuwaiti women wearing two piece bathing suits! Yes, they were Kuwaiti and not TCN's or westerners. It was Kuwaiti day at a resort near Camp Doha but I still got to see them.

And yes, Arab women are VERY vocal! They will let ANYONE within shouting distance know their opinion. (hell, in Afghanistan there was a little girl who approached us during an explosive operation and asked for water--I'm assuming this because she kept holding up an empty jug of water and made filling motions. We had none to give and sent her on her way. I swear I could still hear her bitching a mile away!!!) This is in the more westernized countries. In the more backward countries it is often the opposite unfortunately.

I'm not sure about all of the rights that Swing says women have. I've seen some countries in which all of that has seemed to be true (I never bothered to read their law books) and I have seen countries in which women were barely more than baby machines.

Regardless, having experienced both our society and theirs I do have to say that overall I prefer ours but they have some definite advatages and in some ways are superior to us. In many ways they are still inferior though. Nothing wrong with that. Just shows that progress is made all around....just at different rates.

 

[Grizzly]

-she has the right not to work if she chooses. Her husband cannot tell her, "we are short on money so why don't you find a part-time job," it is his responsibility to provide for the family.

-if she does CHOOSE to work, her money is her money. Meaning, her husband can make $30,000/yearly, and she makes $150,000/yearly. She has absolutely no responsibility to contribute her income to the household. And if she does contribute, it is her right to demand repayment.

-if her husband can afford it, he is to provide her with a servant.

-the husband is to consult her regarding all affairs of the house

-she does not have any responsibility to cook or clean.

Those aren't rights. Fundamentally, anyhow. In most cases, those are actually plain retardisms. The first two and the last one are just stupid. Actually, the servant one is stupid, too.

Any woman unwilling to help out in the financial running of the house is worthless. Furthermore, she sure as fuck does have a responsibility to cook and clean. While this fairy tale husband is off making billions of dollars to support her sorry ass, she absolutely has the resposibility to cook for the chillins and to clean so they don't catch any germs. That's her responsibility whether some stupid book says it isn't or not.

And people wonder why I say religion is retarded.

 

[CyniQ]

I apologize for calling you a moron. I will try to remain civil, if you try to make sense. You make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, and then accuse me of doing the same. Examples: "Muslim wife has rights afforded to her that are not present under Christianity"; "There are a number of references in the Bible condoning, and even commanding the killing of innocent men, wome and children"; "they are morally and ethically superior". There are plenty more, but since everyone else knows what I know, there's no reason for me to prove it to YOU.

Psych's may study sociopaths, but they don't quote them as gospel. You used quotes by a murderous thug, glorified gangbanger to justify doctrine.

You are going to have to provide more bible quotes. Because the ones you've listed mean absolutely nothing. In the passage from Ex that you referenced. The 3000 men were slain for apostasy. They were not "innocent". What does the Qur'an suggest happens to apostates? Does it not say that disbelief is an unforgivable sin? Before Christ, the Jews were under the Mosaic law, which was fairly strict. Christ gave Christians only 2 commandments. Neither of them have anything to do with killing anyone. The quote you cited by Christ is correct. The sword is figurative, symbolizing division, which is obvious if you read the entire passage. He says that he came to divide families. Meaning that your brother may not believe. Therefore a division has come between you. You repeatedly make your ignorance manifest.

To address yet another of your unsupported claims. I admit that I am just a man and make many mistakes. But, I am curious to know what I have said about women that you find offensive.

 

[swing]

Weatherlite, it is most refreshing to hear someone speak who actually knows about the Middle East. I cannot dispute what you say regarding the bombings, I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter...and therefore admit my ignorance regarding that issue. However, from what you have stated previously, I am compelled to accept your statements.

I have heard this excuse from arabs many times. That, it is permissible to practice homosexuality until one reaches the age of adulthood. There is absolutely no justification in Islamic Law towards this behavior. In arabic we refer to homosexuals as "Luti" (after the people of Lot). Both the Qur'an and ther Prophet Muhammad's traditions clearly forbid this practice. But, I think this is due to the social situations of the country (i.e. it is incredibly expensive to get married). Many fathers require the husband to pay enormous amounts of money and gold for the "mahr" (dowry that is paid to the bride).

I am not familiar with any circumstances where a woman was stoned because her husband committed adultery. However, I do recall during 1 visit to Singapore (which is SE Asia, not the ME) there was a beheading of a man and woman for committing adultery. This requires some elaboration. According to Islamic Law, it is EXTREMELY difficult to prove a woman has committed "zina" (adultery). This was done in order to safeguard the woman's honor by preventing people of falsely accusing a woman of performing the act. According to the Qur'an, my single testimony as a husband is insufficient for my wife to be charged with adultery. Rather, I need 4 witnesses who have actually witnessed the act of penitration occur. And the punishment for adultery is death, regardless if you are a male or female. The only country that continues to practice this huduud (punishment) is Saudi Arabia, and a couple of other countries in South East Asia. Some may ask...why kill someone for committing adultery? The concept is that every individual makes up a community. So by destroying a family, you also destroy the community. I worked for Child Support a one point in time, and witnessed the impact this caused on children and family members first hand.

 

[Weatherlite]

I'll have to do some research to find the reference to the woman being stoned to death for her husband's transgression. I do know it happened but I don't know the details or which country it was in.

 

[swing]

Griz, your attitude towards women is far worse than what I've ever known of any arab male to possess.

CyniQ, it is common knowledge that many Forensic Psychologist often enlist the assistance of Sociopaths to capture other Sociopaths. I did not use Bin Laden to justify doctrine, and I can't word it any simpler than to say only a terrorist knows why commit their actions. This is why the US is losing the war on terror, because they refuse to understand the motives.

Take al-Qaida, they are stronger and wealthier than they were prior to 9/11. In 2002 and 2003, Al-Qaida conducted fifteen suicide attacks, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. And the number rises every year, and the same goes for the recruitment.

Again, regarding the Bible: 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves.
Is it wrong to commit adultery?
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

According to the Bible, God commands the Israelites to kill innocent children. Also, Jesus said, "Do not think I have come to destroy the law, no I have come to verify it. Not one single dot, one single iota shall be changed. He who changes it, and encourages others to change it will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven. However, he who obeys it and encourages other to obey it will be considered the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus never claimed to eliminate the law, but adhered to other and made others do the same.

If you refuse to provide any evidence to support you wild assertions, then there isn't any point discussing the matter with you. I have provided data to validate nearly every single argument I made. You have yet to do any of this. It is clearly apparent that you do not posses an shred of knowledge regarding the subject matter at hand. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[CyniQ]

CyniQ, it is common knowledge that many Forensic Psychologist often enlist the assistance of Sociopaths to capture other Sociopaths. I did not use Bin Laden to justify doctrine, and I can't word it any simpler than to say only a terrorist knows why commit their actions. This is why the US is losing the war on terror, because they refuse to understand the motives.

Take al-Qaida, they are stronger and wealthier than they were prior to 9/11. In 2002 and 2003, Al-Qaida conducted fifteen suicide attacks, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. And the number rises every year, and the same goes for the recruitment.

Again, regarding the Bible: 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves.
Is it wrong to commit adultery?
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

According to the Bible, God commands the Israelites to kill innocent children. Also, Jesus said, "Do not think I have come to destroy the law, no I have come to verify it. Not one single dot, one single iota shall be changed. He who changes it, and encourages others to change it will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven. However, he who obeys it and encourages other to obey it will be considered the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus never claimed to eliminate the law, but adhered to other and made others do the same.

If you refuse to provide any evidence to support you wild assertions, then there isn't any point discussing the matter with you. I have provided data to validate nearly every single argument I made. You have yet to do any of this. It is clearly apparent that you do not posses an shred of knowledge regarding the subject matter at hand. Stop embarrassing yourself.

First bold: Just because you saw it on Silence of the Lambs doesn't mean it really happens, and certainly doesn't make it common knowledge.

Second: LOL. Further proof that the Qur'an is a blatant ripoff of the Bible! See Surah 33:50 and...
I have been referring to Christian doctrine. I do not deny that God allowed and condoned killing at certain times in the Isrealite history. The scrip in Lev. you cited is in reference to the Isrealites taking revenge on the sons of Midian.

With regard to Christ ending the Mosaic Law. It's stated pretty plainly in Romans 10:4. As I said before. In Matt 26:52 Jesus commanded his followers to lay down the sword. Luke 10:27 says to love your neighbor.

In truth, there is really no reason for Christianity to be on trial here. It's the followers of your prophet that are in the news every day, world wide, even Al Jazeera, blowing unarmed people and chopping their heads off.

Which, by the way, history has been none too kind to Muhammed himself. He is widely reported to have been a sexual pervert, theif, rapist, mass murderer, and assassin.

 

[Weatherlite]

In truth, there is really no reason for Christianity to be on trial here. It's the followers of your prophet that are in the news every day, world wide, even Al Jazeera, blowing unarmed people and chopping their heads off.

True. If CNN and Fox News were around during the crusades what would we have seen on the news then? All I'm trying to say is that all organized religions, at one point or another during their history, have a time when there are atrocities committed in their God's name. Doesn't make it right but it happened, happens and will continue to happen.

Which, by the way, history has been none too kind to Muhammed himself. He is widely reported to have been a sexual pervert, theif, rapist, mass murderer, and assassin.

Theological historians have taken a look at a lot of religions through the years. Of interesting note (for me at least) is Saint Patrick. Yes, the same saint whom many celebrate on St. Patrick's day. Popular history (that which was written by the "winners" of a war or in this case the prevailing religion) tells us that Patrick was a nobleman's son who was captured and cast into slavery by pagans. Over the years he gained freedom and went back to Ireland to help them with their evil ways. He blatantly broke pagan laws and flaunted his Christianity and eventually won over the pagan king and was allowed to preach his beliefs throughout the kingdom. There is also a claim that he converted the entirety of Ireland peacefully.

However, unless you do a lot of digging to find the truth you would never have know that this is mostly a bunch of crap. Yes, much was true (a lot of fiction is based upon fact) In fact, he was much different than we are led to believe. Scholars are still divided as to whether he was born a pagan or a Christian. Some say he was the son of a nobleman and others say his family was of the church. Regardless, new evidence is showing that he was much like any other average kid in those days. He committed numerous sins and partook in various forbidden deeds of the day (forbidden by the church) He wasn't as pure as once thought.

Once he finally began his crusade to convert the pagans he didn't exactly do it nicely either. History does not tell us of the mass slaughtering of those who would not convert does it? It happened though. Did he condone it? Some say yes, others say no. One thing is a fact though...he did nothing to stop it. Never preached against it. Also, he took many of the pagan symbology and history and perverted it to fit his needs and goals of conversion.

Pagan history? How much is written? Not much. Ever wonder why? A few texts still survive and some tell of his crusade to burn all books written by or speaking of the pagan religions of the day. Some books spoke of healing diseases that are still uncurable today. Because they went against his beliefs they were destroyed.

This is just one Christian "saint". I will grant that there are many who deserve the title of Saint but there are far more who did horrible and despicable things in the name of "God".

My point here? No one is perfect and for every reference you can find to say that Islam is bad one can find a reference saying Christianity is bad.

Take al-Qaida, they are stronger and wealthier than they were prior to 9/11. In 2002 and 2003, Al-Qaida conducted fifteen suicide attacks, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. And the number rises every year, and the same goes for the recruitment.

What really amazes me with this fact is that the majority of recruits and members are middle or upper-middle class people. They are educated and should therefore know the teachings of the Koran (Qur'an...however it's spelled) yet they still buy into the bullshit and commit atrocities.

According to the Bible, God commands the Israelites to kill innocent children

I'm not a bible thumper and the only time I have ever read a word of it was to verify a passage or to see what a particular parable was about. However, from what I understand and what I have been taught, god only told man to do such acts when the victims deserved it. In one instance it was because they were worshipping a false god. Yes, they were innocent in our minds because they never did anything worth killing them over but god said that worshipping an idol mandated their death. I can never recall ever being taught that god commanded someone's death just for the hell of it. (the only exception to this was when he ordered someone to kill his only son to prove their belief in God....or some shit like that. Before he did it god told him to stop because the fact that he was willing to do it was proof enough)

BTW, just for the record I want toi share that I was raised Catholic. I was an alter-boy for almost 10 years. I received my Confirmation at 13. At 14 I only continued to go to Church when my mother forced me. At 18 I stopped completely.

Interestingly, later that year in college I met my roommates girlfriend. The first time she saw me she was polite and cordial. About an hour later she just started staring at me. After a while I got paranoid and I asked what was up. She said she was mesmerized by my unique aura and that I was a white-witch (found out later she was a Wiccan) and that I was born into it. Never gave that much thought.

At 27 after many many many years of soul searching and research and facing facts I realized that I am a Pagan. I have a set of beliefs. These beliefs have always been present ever since I can remember. Celtic Shamanism is the only path which fits my beliefs.

I am now 32 and have been trying my best to live my life to the standards I try to uphold. I allow my kids to pursue whichever religion they choose. I provide them with any and all information possible so that they may make an informed decision. My 12 y/o is a Catholic. My 14 y/o is still searching and has shown interest in several religions, one is paganism (witchcraft to be specific) but I am worried that she's only into it because it's "cool" and fits with the Goth style her friends are into. My 8y/o son is just who he is. He doesn't give a rats ass either way. What is interesting though is how he has progressed. We don't push him one way or the other and we don't discuss things in front of him unless it's for a lesson or to answer a question. Yet he seems to naturally lean towards paganism (Shamanism specifically). His mannerisms and actions allude to this possibility. I just think that's pretty cool.

Anyway, just wanted to share that with you so that you would know I'm kindof impartial in this thread's original intent. With my experiences I can even provide some interesting insight into both side of the argument too.

 

[Weatherlite]

Ok, did some research about the stoning issue and found some interesting things!

First, I can't find the exact case I was talking about. I do remember it as being her punished for his sin because it seemed so outrageous. She was stoned to death and he was whipped.

Here's what I don't get....or rather what really confuses me. The Qur'an states that any sex outside of marriage (meaning sex while single or sex with someone other than your spouse) is considered adultery. This adultery is punishable by 80 or 100 lashes. However, some Islamic law makes a different distinction and gives lashes for sex out of wedlock and stoning for extramarital sex. Other Islamic law just uses stoning regardless.

There are exceptions though such as rape. In rape cases the woman is not at fault. Another exception is for slaves or captives. If a man chooses to have sex with a captive or slave then it is not considered adultery (even if he is married) because he OWNS the property! The slave is not committing adultery either even if she is married. BUT, she IS committing adultery if she consents to the sex. So basically, she has to be raped in order for her to NOT commit adultery. But this now becomes a catch 22 because according to the Qur'an she is not being raped because the owner is allowed to do it.

Apparently there was even a large dillema among Arabs way back in the day as to what they should do. I'm not an Islamic historian so if I get it a little wrong I apologize...but basically there was a requirement that you do not "pull out" of a woman for some reason. However, they didm't want to get their captive women pregnant because that would reduce their ransom value so they went to Muhammed and were told that they did not have to pull out and not to worry....they wouldn't get pregnant.

Back to the stoning....more proof about how the non-westernized/progressive states don't treat women as the Qur'an dictates. A woman was recently stoned to death in Afghanistan. Her husband went to Iran for 5 years. When he came back she asked for divorce/separation. Here's where it becomes a bit blurry. The story is that she was cheating on him so she was convicted and stoned to death. However, her lover only received 100 lashes from a whip. Speculation (and some stories from those who knew the husband) is that he made up the accusations in order to have her killed so that he would not have to grant her a divorce which would basically be a HUGE embarrassment to him and his family.

So, the two questions are....why did the two receive different punishments for the same crime? My opinion, because of their different sexes. Also, even if it is true that they committed adultery, where was the proof? According to the Qur'an there must be either 4 witnesses who saw the actual act, the participants must confess or the spouse must make a sworn statement 4 times that it indeed happened and then must make a fifth statement that if he is lying he welcomes the wrath of Allah. I have read far too many cases in which none of this was present and the religious council ruled based upon what they felt would be best (which was usually in favor of the husband).

What I also found interesting though (yet in all of the cases I have read has never been used) was that if the husband made the 5 statements the wife could nullify them by making a counter-statement 4 times and making the same fifth statement.

Also, if 4 witnesses are there watching this act then aren't they then guilty of some sin/crime as well? Shouldn't they be punished too?

 

[Weatherlite]

BTW, if you want I can provide references in the Qur'an for this stuff. I didn't have them handy at the time but I can find em again and post em if so desired.

 

[Grizzly]

Griz, your attitude towards women is far worse than what I've ever known of any arab male to possess.

LOL Is this your stock response? Twice in the same thread. Don't forget to tell Kayz the same thing. We don't want him to feel left out.

 

[CyniQ]

Theological historians have taken a look at a lot of religions through the years. Of interesting note (for me at least) is Saint Patrick. Yes, the same saint whom many celebrate on St. Patrick's day. Popular history (that which was written by the "winners" of a war or in this case the prevailing religion) tells us that Patrick was a nobleman's son who was captured and cast into slavery by pagans. Over the years he gained freedom and went back to Ireland to help them with their evil ways. He blatantly broke pagan laws and flaunted his Christianity and eventually won over the pagan king and was allowed to preach his beliefs throughout the kingdom. There is also a claim that he converted the entirety of Ireland peacefully.

However, unless you do a lot of digging to find the truth you would never have know that this is mostly a bunch of crap. Yes, much was true (a lot of fiction is based upon fact) In fact, he was much different than we are led to believe. Scholars are still divided as to whether he was born a pagan or a Christian. Some say he was the son of a nobleman and others say his family was of the church. Regardless, new evidence is showing that he was much like any other average kid in those days. He committed numerous sins and partook in various forbidden deeds of the day (forbidden by the church) He wasn't as pure as once thought.

Once he finally began his crusade to convert the pagans he didn't exactly do it nicely either. History does not tell us of the mass slaughtering of those who would not convert does it? It happened though. Did he condone it? Some say yes, others say no. One thing is a fact though...he did nothing to stop it. Never preached against it. Also, he took many of the pagan symbology and history and perverted it to fit his needs and goals of conversion.

Pagan history? How much is written? Not much. Ever wonder why? A few texts still survive and some tell of his crusade to burn all books written by or speaking of the pagan religions of the day. Some books spoke of healing diseases that are still uncurable today. Because they went against his beliefs they were destroyed.

This is just one Christian "saint". I will grant that there are many who deserve the title of Saint but there are far more who did horrible and despicable things in the name of "God".

My point here? No one is perfect and for every reference you can find to say that Islam is bad one can find a reference saying Christianity is bad.



What really amazes me with this fact is that the majority of recruits and members are middle or upper-middle class people. They are educated and should therefore know the teachings of the Koran (Qur'an...however it's spelled) yet they still buy into the bullshit and commit atrocities.



I'm not a bible thumper and the only time I have ever read a word of it was to verify a passage or to see what a particular parable was about. However, from what I understand and what I have been taught, god only told man to do such acts when the victims deserved it. In one instance it was because they were worshipping a false god. Yes, they were innocent in our minds because they never did anything worth killing them over but god said that worshipping an idol mandated their death. I can never recall ever being taught that god commanded someone's death just for the hell of it. (the only exception to this was when he ordered someone to kill his only son to prove their belief in God....or some shit like that. Before he did it god told him to stop because the fact that he was willing to do it was proof enough)

BTW, just for the record I want toi share that I was raised Catholic. I was an alter-boy for almost 10 years. I received my Confirmation at 13. At 14 I only continued to go to Church when my mother forced me. At 18 I stopped completely.

Interestingly, later that year in college I met my roommates girlfriend. The first time she saw me she was polite and cordial. About an hour later she just started staring at me. After a while I got paranoid and I asked what was up. She said she was mesmerized by my unique aura and that I was a white-witch (found out later she was a Wiccan) and that I was born into it. Never gave that much thought.

At 27 after many many many years of soul searching and research and facing facts I realized that I am a Pagan. I have a set of beliefs. These beliefs have always been present ever since I can remember. Celtic Shamanism is the only path which fits my beliefs.

I am now 32 and have been trying my best to live my life to the standards I try to uphold. I allow my kids to pursue whichever religion they choose. I provide them with any and all information possible so that they may make an informed decision. My 12 y/o is a Catholic. My 14 y/o is still searching and has shown interest in several religions, one is paganism (witchcraft to be specific) but I am worried that she's only into it because it's "cool" and fits with the Goth style her friends are into. My 8y/o son is just who he is. He doesn't give a rats ass either way. What is interesting though is how he has progressed. We don't push him one way or the other and we don't discuss things in front of him unless it's for a lesson or to answer a question. Yet he seems to naturally lean towards paganism (Shamanism specifically). His mannerisms and actions allude to this possibility. I just think that's pretty cool.

Anyway, just wanted to share that with you so that you would know I'm kindof impartial in this thread's original intent. With my experiences I can even provide some interesting insight into both side of the argument too.

I don't personally believe in, or pray to, "saints". At least, not in the way that most people view them. "St. Patrick" means nothing to me, I'm not Catholic. It's a small wonder to me that you were raised Catholic and became "pagan". They're is really very little difference between the two. Catholism is a mixture of Christianity and various pagan religions. Have any rites that coincide with "Christian" holidays? Winter solstice? All hallows eve? Easter?

I bet you love Metallica, don't you? Of Wolf and Man? Shapeshift LOL. You've been really cool, Weatherlite. So I don't want to insult you or piss you off... But. I can't stand modern day "Celtic" religions. "Celt" is not a race at all, rather they were a group of tribes. Notoriously violent and unruly. The only thing that held the various tribes together was a common priesthood, the Druids. The druids realized that fear of deities was the only influence they had over the population. They desparately wanted to maintain that control. They did this by outlawing the documentation of their religion. Writing down information about rites, customs, and spiritual beliefs was forbidden. Therefore, very little is known about what the Celts believed. And much of it is disputed. So, there can be NO modern day Celtic religion. Those who write current Druidic texts are commiting acts of sacrilege.

By the way, my last name is the same as a village in Britain that contains celtic ruins. Not that it means anything. But I thought I'd add that.

 

[Grizzly]

Hmmmm, that passage reminds me an awful ot of John Galt's speech in "Atlas Shrugged". You find any commonality between the mystics of mind in your religion and those found in the Druidic class? Certainly a priest, pastor, whatever you call your guy wouldn't be trying to control you through guilt or fear of an OOOG. That wouldn't ever happen.