soxxx You are right about Islam condemning non Muslims and asking them to be killed once certain conditions are met but there is not a word that says "Terror". Islam is a violent religion compared to Christianity and Judaism. It is violent against Muslims more than non Muslims in fact. But your quote is wrong. Not all English translations are fake of course. But the one you quoted is not true. If you are particularly interested, there is a Jewish guy(From Austria) who converted Islam and took the name of Muhammad Asad(Original name Leopold Weiss). His English translation is the best I have ever seen. If you are interested, I suggest you read his translation. More on him . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad
Also don't believe the folks who talk about Islam being a peaceful religion. It is not. It promotes killing in the name of Allah. If not, Al Qaede or ISIS or whatever that is, wouldn't find necessary man power to reach to the power they have. If you live by the Islamic rules, you are safe. But if not, you are dead. Say you steal, your hand is cut and you become a disabled guy. Say you cheat as a women, you are killed by being stoned. Say you kill. You are killed. Say you convert to another religion, you are killed. But it doesn't say kill all Christians or Jews. It says kill the ones who refuse the existence of God totally and giving a break to Christians and Jews because Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and Moses as a prophet and if you talk bad about them and mock them, guess what you are also entitled to death.
Do you believe the wording was the same 100 years ago? Like Christianity that has changed its book to suit the times,do you think there was that level of radicalism in Islam back then? We are in much more violent times,and the songs that make us dance have to change with the times. Like Christianity seems to now demonize gays etc,I don't believe that was part of it 100 years ago. So,with that being said,if something changes that many times from its original form,is it still genuine Islam,or Christianity?
Hi type1 Genuine Islam? I don't think so. Genuine Quran? Yes. Quran as we know now is the same Quran that was completed after Prophet Muhammed's death. The Quran from Khalipha Usman's death with his blood on it is on display in Turkey. Usman was Prophet Muhammed's son in law.
Karl Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" How high is everyone right now?
No. The Koran was written in Arabic, not English- why would the English version be authoritative? To read the actual Koran, you'd have to learn Arabic. You can't just point to one English translation and go say that this is the authoritative version.
Hi soxxx No it isn't. Prophet Muhammed(I will refer to him as PrM) has never married until he was 25. When he was 25 he married his first wife. Stayed married with her until she died for 25 years. After her first wife's death he didn't marry for another 3 years. During these 3 years many wars happened and lots of women ended up widowed as their husbands died. At that time, women with no husband had no income. So prophet asked his followers to marry these women if they could support them financially and if their existing wife approved. He also had marriage with many women as stated in Quran. All of his wifes after his first marriage was widow women except 1. Her name was Aisha. Aisha was around 18 when she first married PrM. She was the daughter of 1st Khalipha Abu Bekr a close friend of prophet. As of now Quran allows men to marry up to 4 women in similar war situations. But there are 2 conditions. 1) Existing wife has to approve. 2) Financially he should be able to support all 4 wives. PS: I am not a religios guy and really don't know much about Islam. But this is what I learned when i was in college. One of my electives was Islam History. So these info is from that course.
Obviously, humans make choices, but many of these choices are religiously motivated. People do use religion as a tool. Many folks believe that their religion is the absolute truth and all others are wrong. Many also believe that the world would be a better place if their religion took over. The problem is people who teach their religion as absolute unwavering truth to their kids. Point blank. It's not religion as a whole, moreso on human stubbornness to adapt to modern times when analyzing ancient stories of the past. The crusades was about a single peace of land deemed holy by both groups. Of course there were political implications as well, there always are, but that's seriously stretching to claim that the conflict wasn't mostly religiously inspired. The absence of religion would have indeed prevented a large portion of those conflicts, including many of the ones that still go on today. Deny it all you want. Read a logic book please. Einstein was asked if he believed in the historical Jesus. That didn't mean he accepted Jesus as his lord and savior, or that he was son of god, and did miracles. He was raised Jewish, and had believed Jesus existed. I was raised Christian, but that doesn't mean I believe it. I don't deny historical Jesus either, but I don't believe the bible. Einstein definitely did not become religious as you claimed. He was raised that way and changed his viewpoint over time. You had insinuated that science was not reliable and cited a whole bunch of things it was wrong about in the past. I demonstrated that most of them were not scientific at all. Science is about the scientific method of gathering facts. Anything prior to this method I do not consider to be science and quite frankly do not care about. Evidence and proof that goes against religion is way too broad of a topic. Do you believe Zeus is responsible for thunder storms? That a man could live in a whale's stomach for multiple days? That the earth was flooded over the entire surface? That the earth is the center of the universe. That the sun and moon battle every day and night for possession of the sky? Literally thousands of scientific discoveries have changed the way we look at the world in contrast to ancient myths and texts. Scientists know for a fact that humans got here through evolution, rather than the literal creation story of adam and eve. I didn't say religion as a whole is static, I'm referring to the scriptures. The bible and qua'ran are both static. The only thing that changes is the interpretation. Some choose to live in the past, and some understand that they are out of date stories, but do indeed apply heavily to morality. My point was that when errors are found or situations are shown to be impossible, religions do not update the texts. They are believed to be sacred word of god. When science finds errors or inconsistencies with older information, it is investigated and then updated if needed. That was my point. The role of god in science is nonexistent because god is not a scientific concept. There is no way to experiment or falsify it. So when developing hypotheses and theories, it is not factored in. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist, merely that we have not found any objective evidence as of yet. Science and religion shouldn't be at war. This is the problem with fundamentalism. They are stubborn in literal interpretations of holy texts they attack others and deny science. I wasn't trying to blame religion as a whole. That is impossible. I'm merely pointing out that it inspires lots of people to do fucked up things. Great, we are in agreement then. I believe I referred to them as true Christians, rather than the false 'religious right' evangelistic folks. If you follow the teachings of Jesus, supporting virtually any offensive war is impossible. But many folks who call themselves Christians, do. That is all.
It's like I said. It boils down to interpretation. People don't understand that that Qua'ran was written during a time of war and that Jihad is supposed to refer to an internal spiritual conflict or struggle, rather than literally killing anybody that disagrees. Anybody can look at isolated individual quotes, but it doesn't quite tell the whole story. The bible has tons of those one liners as well. Many people just don't take those violent passages literally. Moderate Muslims, much like moderate Christians do not take their holy texts literally, nor to they think non believers should be killed and that much of the text is metaphorical. They refer to the sword quite a bit, but they are actually talking about the sword of truth. Radical fundamentalists twist and manipulate these scriptures.
Theres one person in this thread that doesn't belong : Barcs. Like a child engaging in an adult debate. There's people I can listen to and disagree with their viewpoints and then there's people that don't know what the fuck they are talking about. PS. Brooklyn thank you for sharing what you have about Islam. I enjoy reading your posts.
Please explain. I have been calm, respectful and detailed in the majority of my responses. Religious people are just getting upset with my viewpoint and are getting emotional about it, and getting desperate enough to even claim the crusades were not about religion, which is a joke. I'm sorry that my viewpoint on religion bothers you, but it is legitimate and based on facts. Many have killed in the name of god over the years, and this cannot be denied. I just enjoy debating topics like this. It may not be the popular opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong. This is one topic that I am very well versed on (science & religion). If you've got a point to make or you can show me where I am wrong that would be great. I told Stokes this is a big boy conversation. If your emotions are going to do the typing for you, then there is no debate. You personally insult me, yet I am the child? LMAO. No need to be upset. Respond with facts, show me where I'm wrong. There are quite a bit of people on here that are bothered heavily by controversial opinions. Flat out denial and ad hominem is NOT a valid argument against anything I've said. Please tell me you are not an evolution denier, because that would explain a lot. I've said numerous times already that all religious folks are not bad, I'm not trying to generalize them. It's the fundamentalists that give it a bad name. But I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, lol. Fundamentalism must be something that I just made up. Nobody interprets violent texts literally, right? Religion is all great and glorious!
Edit: was wondering if some media outlet of note was going to pick up on this, but then just just noticed that Aboushi's tweet was 10 days ago.
I don't know why we need to spend time trying to mine the *true* meaning out of some ancient text when we can just take the word of those firing the rockets out of the youth center window. Hamas is pretty clear about who it is. We do this all the time, trying to explain away current day terror by labeling THEIR reading of the Koran "flawed." What does it matter? They have a reason to fire rockets and kill Jews. Are we looking to sit down with a group of thoughtful clerics and try explaining that they their reading comprehension sucks? I'd rather not burn the calories, when I can just take them at their own word. Just a few highlights from the (more recent) August 18, 1988, Hamas Covenant: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" "This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised." "Article Seven: . . . . The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)." "Article Eight: Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." "Article Eleven: The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?" "Article Thirteen: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know." "Article Fifteen: The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters..."
I can't take a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Both sides are to blame. I do however hate that if you voice any empathy towards the Palestinian people plight you're labeled as someone who hates Israel, and Jews. The media coverage of this has been so one sided. Rula Jebreal for example. If she took a pro Israel stance do you think her appearances would have been canceled? MSNBC Contributor Accuses Network Of 'Biased' Coverage Toward Israel MSNBC contributor Rula Jebreal took issue with the network's coverage of the conflict in the Middle East on Monday. Speaking on Ronan Farrow's show, she accused MSNBC of covering the Israeli perspective far more than the Palestinian side. “We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue," said Jebreal, an Italian-Palestinian journalist with dual Italian and Israeli citizenship. "Look how [much] air time Netanyahu and his folks have on air on a daily basis — Andrea Mitchell and others. I never see one Palestinian being interviewed on these same issues —" “I’m going to push back a little on that," Farrow interjected. "We’ve had Palestinian voices on our air.” “Maybe for 30 seconds, and then you have twenty-five minutes for Bibi Netanyahu, and half an hour for Naftali Bennett," Jebreal countered, referring to Israel's prime minister and minister of the economy, respectively. The violence in the Middle East has dominated the news since Israel launched a ground invasion of Gaza last week. Sunday was the deadliest day of fighting in the region this month, with at least 87 Palestinians and 13 Israeli soldiers killed that day, according to reports from the Palestine Health Ministry and Israeli military. UPDATE 8:45 p.m. -- Jebreal later claimed on Twitter that her upcoming TV appearances were canceled, speculating if there was a connection between the cancellations and her accusations.
A Palestianian-biased view of things, but worth throwing into this discussion: He sorta slams BBC in it too lol.
Didn't Palestine fire 1500 rockets at Israel? I am 100% backing Israel in this conflict, the only democratic state in the region. You want stability over there? Israel, should be protected and own their own free state. Outside of Israel, I have written off the middle east. Not a penny should be given to the other nations in the region. And I am certain they would still trade oil.
