Yaya wrote:Do I not have the same right to think that you are wrong too?
Yaya wrote:If you want to criticize my beliefs, then I should be given the same opportunity to criticize your disbeliefs.
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Im surprised Muslim clerics dont come forth and say anyone killing themselves in the name of Jihad will not be going to see Allah.
The fundamental point of militant Jihad (actual war) is precisely the fighting/dying/killing per Allah's will. Spread the faith. They most certainly will be going to see Allah, as martyrs in paradise.
Muslim clerics hardly come forth and comdemn violence/oppression against non-muslims, because Islam is a brotherhood, a sisterhood, a whole, one large Ummah, ... and 'unbelievers' are damned and hellbound. This wider islamic community sticks by one another in deference to Allah, so to speak. The 'unbelievers' outside the Ummah, however, are fair game to be accursed by the Muslim clerics and lay.
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Im pretty sure they could twist the rules to turn it against sucide bombers etc?
There are no islamic suicide
bombers. There are only islamic martyr
bombers. Same this-world effect, better next-world effect. Martyrdom in cause of Allah's lesser jihad is a most wonderful thing, and the afterlife rewards are distinctly indulgent for the martyrs.
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:It annoys me that all thats ever seen is the evil side, Al Jazzera TV spouts its hate messages, but not the good messages.
Al Jazeera TV isn't reknowned for its 'hate messages', is it? I thought it was known for its exclusive interviews with middle eastern figures, and was regarded as the 'BBC News of the middle east'.
Metal Vendetta wrote:Religion is a bloodthirsty business though.
Quoted for truth.
Metal Vendetta wrote:smite at the necks of Unbelievers? Take their families hostage? Lovely.
Certainly, if a Muslim does not make an effort to understand the context of this revelation and how it should apply, then they might use a twisted interpretation of this to justify their actions of unfounded violence on innocents.
Stop right there. There is no twisting going on here, apart from your sneaky (and totally unoriginal) attempt to paint the numerous calls to go out and kill non-Muslims in the 'holy' Quran as 'out of context' or 'only in defence'. Muhammad, bandit-raider/self-appointed prophet/powermonger/military expansionist/genocidal warmonger, mounted many offensive AND many defensive battles against neighbouring tribes/regions, with the intention of spreading his new faith Islam by force.
Yaya wrote:This particular verse (47:4) addresses the situation of the early Muslims, who were outnumbered overwhelmingly, and were the target of the Meccan pagan tribes. Numerous Muslims had already been taken captive and tortured. Many who tried to flee were killed. Essentially, this verse affirms that "when once the fight is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigor, and strike home your blows at the most vital points, both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves."(Yusuf Ali, Quranic exposition).
No. A typical deception from a believer/deluded apologist. Muhammad fought many defensive and offensive battles, and was most certainly NOT the 'benevolent, kindly, defensive' leader you and others take great care to paint him to be. The newly founded Quranic edicts he urged (and are stilled urged and relevant today in the Quran) contained many aggressive, unyielding demands of its followers to claim non-Muslim lands for Islam (forever) and to murder unbelievers who do not submit to Islam. These many vile commands, which utterly supercede any so-called 'honourable' edicts against the unbelievers, are plentiful, remain unabrogated (unlike the 'honourable' ones which are superceded by the unquestionably aggressive and expansionist ones [sidenote: note the muddled mess that are the holy texts of Islam -> they are riddled with contradictions, much like the Bible in that regard]). The Quran's position on unbelievers is most definitely NOT just directed against pagan tribes in the 7th century - it remains a central, living, and ghastly aspect of Islam to this day. It is one of the very core reasons why Islam has a well-deserved terrible reputation in the past and in the present, and unfortunately in the future too. The wicked deeds of Muhammad himself and the wicked 'holy' words he left behind are direct factors in Islam's association with violence, intolerance and expansionism.
That is true Islam, warts and all. In the Quran, in the actions of Muhammad. Unreformable. The only possible 'reformation' is a split away to something that IS NOT Islam, as Islam is immutable."Try new NICE-SLAM!:
All the nice bits of Islam ... with none of the killing, aggression, bigotry or oppression.
Only helps reduce world conflict as part of a balanced sense of humour.
Of course no committed Muslim would sign up to such a bastardised blasphemy of the real thing, so the proposition is futile.
Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:Can you prove to me God doesn't exist? I mean if my believing in God is baseless as you say, your disbelief in God is no less baseless.
The burden of proof is to provide evidence that something did happen or does exist.
Quoted for [logical] truth.
Professor Smooth wrote:Do you think that your religion can be applied to everyone? Would everyone be happier if they were Muslims?
Dar Ul-Islam (Muslim lands) would have triumphed over Dar Ul-Harb (the unbeliever lands, which Islam wages its war on to convert, subdue or kill the kaffir inhabitants), and so the Muslims' holy goal of total spreading of true faith and total elimination of the unbelieving would be complete. Marvellous!
Now That's What I Call Bullsh1t!: Volume 47
Yaya wrote:the outpouring of slanderous propoganda into believing that women are poorly treated in Islam.
You've definitely been picking up your own faith community's/leaders' propaganda in defence of its more vile teachings. Trying to turn the tables is a nice trick. A magician's misdirection.
Yaya wrote:Women are explicitly mentioned to receive the same reward as men in the Quran
Islam is a faith that sets out for men to have a distinct upper hand in this life for men, at the expense of women, proclaimed by an illiterate 7th century tribal warlord to this own (and his men's) benefit.
You're all too happy to point out the wishy-washy pie-in-the-sky equality of worth 'in the eyes of Allah' and 'in the afterlife', but downplay the tangible this-world barriers that face women under Islam in comparision with men - the general superiority of male testimony, the beating of disobedient wives, the half-inheritance of daughters in comparison with sons, the face-n-hands-only dress directives, the difficulty of divorce for women in contrast to the ease of getting one for men, the restrictions on free travel outside the home, the possibility of having to share a husband with three other women.
Metal Vendetta wrote:Whether or not the Koran is unchanged from the original text dictated by Mohammed or not, it's not a miracle.
Correct, but it's cute how religious people manage to read a miracle into things when the situation arises.
RomCatholicPunter: "Hey mister Pope - that crick in my neck I had last night is gone - and I was only coincidentally thinking of Blessed Mother Teresa a few hours earlier!"
PopeWithTheEvilDarkEyes: "It's a miracle! Welcome to Sainthood, Mother T!"
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Women are brought up to feel wrong because they can taint/corrupt or make men think wrong thoughts etc...hence wearing the smock. How male is that! - how human is that?
You've hit on something there.
Yaya wrote:I recognize that a religion should not be judged by looking at how the followers of it practice.
Taking note of Allah's direct rules is enough to see what a hideous, backward pile of crap Islam is. The bits of corn (read: be good to orphans, give to charity, etc. [nice, but common sense really]) do nothing to change that its a big festering, steaming turd (read: slay the unbelievers, oppress women, oppress gays, etc. [amongst other vile edicts]).
Of course, you're in it, you're brainwashed [not that you see it like that - you're enlightened + I'm the foolish damned], so none of that will register with you, or if some does, you'll fall in line, you'll toe your religion's line, and if required you'll spout its hate [not that you'll call it that] (RE: hellbound unbelievers, homos=booooo!, etc.) and deliver its vicious actions [not that you'll see it as that] (RE: spreading the religion by hook or by crook at the expense of Dal Ul-Harb) if the time comes and the circumstance dictates. Like a robot. A darned robot [in disguise]. In some tiny way, I admire Muhammad like I admire other aggressive despots - pulling the wool over so many people with aplomb, forcing a cult of worship around themselves. The fear and the sword. Amazing.
Yaya wrote:Also, this verse has always been translated in English versions as "beat them", which implies physical abuse of a court order nature. The Prophet (PBUH) expanded on this verse by saying not to cause physical harm or blemish to women.
It's often translated into english as 'beat' or 'hit', because it's 'beat' or 'hit' in nature. Duh. You're obviously starting from the premise that an unblemishing/'undamaging' smack is okie-dokie in that circumstance. In a secular western world [where most Transfans readers reside, I suspect], that's a perverse position to be starting from anyway. Of course you subscribe to the doctrine of an offensive tribal warmonger (nay, sorry, his god's message through him), so it makes perfect sense to you and your likeminded brothers and sisters in the faith. Goodness knows what women see in Islam, it's bad enough being a man under it without the extra baggage of crap that it puts on them.
Yaya wrote:Bacon, beer, and foreskin? Even if one drinks beer, eats pork, sleeps around, etc, if they believe the above, they are Muslim, albeit disobedient ones.
Bacon, Beer and Foreskin were a prog rock supergroup in the 70s, weren't they? But seriously, at least two of these things (pigs, and circumcision) are examples of how outdated and downright silly Islam (and other faiths that share the restrictions) is (are). There is no modern-day reason why a pig cannot be safely eaten (not to mention that bacon/ham/pork tastes great) by people. They are no more 'unclean' or unhealthy than cows or birds. Naturally each have their own susceptibilities, and if undercooked or lazily slaughtered, pose risk to humans. Pigs are no different to cows or birds in this regard. Cows are no different to pigs or birds in this regard. Birds are no different to cows or pigs in this regard. As for circumcision (male), barring a tiny minority of cases of medical necessity, there is no sensible reason to deprive a male of the benefits of protective/lubricating/sensual tissue in their nether regions, let alone inflicting totally cruel and unnecessary pain on an infant with no say in the matter. Judaism, is of course, guilty in this regard too (amongst other cultures too). As for the lame defence that "It's cleaner!" - bunkum. A healthy uncut meatwand (another 70s band, that), even crusty and manky 'under the hood', is quite resilient to infection. Men with unmutilated penises should (and by and large do) have the common sense to wash their privates often and enough to prevent any small possibility of foreskin hygiene problems. "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it", but alas religions/cultures do stick their stupid oars in needlessly and foolishly.
Metal Vendetta wrote:You're cherry-picking the good bits of a religion and conveniently ignoring any spiky edges.
That's what religious apologists do. If not keeping hush on the bad PR of the 'spiky edges', then accusing other religions of doing likewise (as if that's a defence for dubious beliefs and practices) is another useful deceptive strategy. Of course, the 'greater good' is the defence of the religion, so any such half-deceit/full-on lie is the lesser of two evils.
Finally, criticism of religion, especially large, powerful, expansionist and violent ones like Islam that may still cost you your neck in this day and age, is still a taboo in many ways, but it absolutely should not be.
Comedian David Mitchell (of 'Peep Show' fame) discusses The Heaven and Earth Show