- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I am not sure what natural selection has to do with islamic suicide bombers, apart from attempting to explain how that come to be a human behaviour, or the contents of the koran, except to the extent that it explains how tribal hierarchy and political stability might be established in a tribe of humans by the use of understated supernatural threats and promises. And possibly non-supernatural threats too.
Anyway, this answer of yours is better than previous attempts, even though once again you are just ignoring most of the very sound points I have made. Are you hoping they will go away?
I am a bit surprised you have not pointed out all the anti-terrorist muslim rhetoric on the internet. There are many publishing online their condemnation of islamofascist terrorism and they claim to represent many who are indeed protesting at violence done in the name of allah.
We are still really stuck at the impasse where there are different groups asserting what the koran says and what it does not say. As an outsider I have to say that I am not convinced by those few parts of your interpretation you have explained to me. I think a more literal interpretation could easily lead to justification of violence. I would agree that probably the majority of muslims are peaceful people (although possibly through the violence of an anti-human doctrine of giving over their lives to a god myth invented by ancient warmongering politicians) but that does not solve the problem.
The problem of who is ‘innocent’ comes up time and again. If the koran said it was wrong to kill except in a desperate situation of defending lives, then it would be easy, wouldn’t it. But the koran does NOT say that. It stops short, leaving all and sundry to decide what ‘innocent’ means. Elsewhere it describes what you may do to the enemies of god. So join the dots: the innocent are not the enemies of god. I’m sure that is not the liberal interpretation, but nevertheless how is it an invalid one? I am not nearly as familiar with the koran as with the bible. Can you quote the sura that says I am wrong?
That does not solve the problem though, does it. In fact it really demands an answer to the question about how you came by your interpretation of the posthumously edited dictations of mohammad. What do you have to help your exegesis of the koran? The life of mohammad? If you take that as your standard then a crusade of warfare in pursuit of conversions is exactly what you would do. Just ask any ancient Meccan about that!
You still have not answered the question of whether YOU actually think blowing others up, coercing them to convert or maiming them for honour in the name of allah is ETHICALLY WRONG, you have only ever said it is against koranic teaching to kill innocent people, and you have never said who constitutes the innocent. The same seems to be true more generally. Imams NEVER SAY ‘this violence is WRONG’, at best they just claim they do not think it is their way. This equivocation is also open to interpretation: are they saying that they would not have carried out the atrocity of the bombing, but they are quietly glad to see people having a go at the enemies of god, although a little too violently for their liking? That is always the impression I get listening to the ignorant and stubborn cabal of islamic apologists that appear on Al Jazeera, for example.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,08:45) I am not sure what natural selection has to do with islamic suicide bombers, apart from attempting to explain how that come to be a human behaviour, or the contents of the koran, except to the extent that it explains how tribal hierarchy and political stability might be established in a tribe of humans by the use of understated supernatural threats and promises. And possibly non-supernatural threats too. Anyway, this answer of yours is better than previous attempts, even though once again you are just ignoring most of the very sound points I have made. Are you hoping they will go away?
I am a bit surprised you have not pointed out all the anti-terrorist muslim rhetoric on the internet. There are many publishing online their condemnation of islamofascist terrorism and they claim to represent many who are indeed protesting at violence done in the name of allah.
We are still really stuck at the impasse where there are different groups asserting what the koran says and what it does not say. As an outsider I have to say that I am not convinced by those few parts of your interpretation you have explained to me. I think a more literal interpretation could easily lead to justification of violence. I would agree that probably the majority of muslims are peaceful people (although possibly through the violence of an anti-human doctrine of giving over their lives to a god myth invented by ancient warmongering politicians) but that does not solve the problem.
The problem of who is ‘innocent’ comes up time and again. If the koran said it was wrong to kill except in a desperate situation of defending lives, then it would be easy, wouldn’t it. But the koran does NOT say that. It stops short, leaving all and sundry to decide what ‘innocent’ means. Elsewhere it describes what you may do to the enemies of god. So join the dots: the innocent are not the enemies of god. I’m sure that is not the liberal interpretation, but nevertheless how is it an invalid one? I am not nearly as familiar with the koran as with the bible. Can you quote the sura that says I am wrong?
That does not solve the problem though, does it. In fact it really demands an answer to the question about how you came by your interpretation of the posthumously edited dictations of mohammad. What do you have to help your exegesis of the koran? The life of mohammad? If you take that as your standard then a crusade of warfare in pursuit of conversions is exactly what you would do. Just ask any ancient Meccan about that!
You still have not answered the question of whether YOU actually think blowing others up, coercing them to convert or maiming them for honour in the name of allah is ETHICALLY WRONG, you have only ever said it is against koranic teaching to kill innocent people, and you have never said who constitutes the innocent. The same seems to be true more generally. Imams NEVER SAY ‘this violence is WRONG’, at best they just claim they do not think it is their way. This equivocation is also open to interpretation: are they saying that they would not have carried out the atrocity of the bombing, but they are quietly glad to see people having a go at the enemies of god, although a little too violently for their liking? That is always the impression I get listening to the ignorant and stubborn cabal of islamic apologists that appear on Al Jazeera, for example.
Stuart
Stu,I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully.
I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully.
Apart from personally finding this an abomination of a definition of innocent, I note that if your religion requires you to do what mohammad did, and go forth and convert people, then those people will be thwarting the practice of your religion if they refuse to convert.
I take it that exactly that happened to mohammad: the Meccans would not give in to him so, because they were thwarting his religious observances (ie: wanting to make the place into an islamic caliphate) he felt he had to slaughter them.
The religion of peace.
Stuart
Attempt 2:
Quote I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully. Apart from personally finding this an abomination of a definition of innocent, I note that if your religion requires you to do what mohammad did, and go forth and convert people, then those people will be thwarting the practice of your religion if they refuse to convert.
I take it that exactly that happened to mohammad: the Meccans would not give in to him so, because they were thwarting his religious observances (ie: wanting to make the place into an islamic caliphate) he felt he had to slaughter them.
The religion of peace.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,13:26) I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully. Apart from personally finding this an abomination of a definition of innocent, I note that if your religion requires you to do what mohammad did, and go forth and convert people, then those people will be thwarting the practice of your religion if they refuse to convert.
I take it that exactly that happened to mohammad: the Meccans would not give in to him so, because they were thwarting his religious observances (ie: wanting to make the place into an islamic caliphate) he felt he had to slaughter them.
The religion of peace.
Stuart
Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition?You don't know your history my friend Muslims were persecuted in Mecca ,the first know event when a Muslim retaliated was In 8 BH (614 CE), the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. Sa'ad beat a polytheist and shed his blood, reportedly the first instance of bloodshed in the history of Islam.
You seem to think that self-defense is evil, yet again more hypocrisy. The Muslims were at first prevented from fighting until the abuse became overwhelming.
In the Quran the event of defense is recorded.
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #39)Quote Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition? That is not the definition you gave!
Which is it?
Gee, does islam involve changing the definitions of words every five minutes too? You are beginning to sound like an evangelical christian.
Science, innocent, muslim. They can mean whatever you want.
Stuart
Quote You seem to think that self-defense is evil, yet again more hypocrisy. What do you think I meant when I wrote this, then??:
If the koran said it was wrong to kill except in a desperate situation of defending lives, then it would be easy, wouldn’t it.
Why does the koran equivocate so much on the point of killing? Your twisting of this issue is disingenuous. It is me who is clear about when I think taking another life might be right and it is you and your religion that would appear to be wanting to reserve killing for some situations to do with religious belief. When I asked you about it earlier, you removed defense of faith from the list of things you originally had as justification for taking lives. Actually what do you believe about self-defense?
If your views are typical, then I do not think islam deserves to be trusted on this point. The koran is as ambiguous as any imam or apologist.
Stuart
Quote To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #39)…which is completely useless unless you can define the word war, and STICK TO THE DEFINITION!
Stuart
Quote the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. And what was the polytheists' motive for the attack?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:01) Quote Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition? That is not the definition you gave!
Which is it?
Gee, does islam involve changing the definitions of words every five minutes too? You are beginning to sound like an evangelical christian.
Science, innocent, muslim. They can mean whatever you want.
Stuart
Quote Stu, I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully.
Quote Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition? How are these different statements or mean different things?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:17) Quote You seem to think that self-defense is evil, yet again more hypocrisy. What do you think I meant when I wrote this, then??:
If the koran said it was wrong to kill except in a desperate situation of defending lives, then it would be easy, wouldn’t it.
Why does the koran equivocate so much on the point of killing? Your twisting of this issue is disingenuous. It is me who is clear about when I think taking another life might be right and it is you and your religion that would appear to be wanting to reserve killing for some situations to do with religious belief. When I asked you about it earlier, you removed defense of faith from the list of things you originally had as justification for taking lives. Actually what do you believe about self-defense?
If your views are typical, then I do not think islam deserves to be trusted on this point. The koran is as ambiguous as any imam or apologist.
Stuart
Defense of faith is not defense of the theology of the faith it is the defense of the faithful being persecuted for believing in that faith.Perhaps you lack a basic knowledge in self-defense
de·fense (d-fns) KEY
NOUN:
The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
A means or method of defending or protecting.
Sports The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
An argument in support or justification of something. See Synonyms at apology.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:18) Quote To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #39)…which is completely useless unless you can define the word war, and STICK TO THE DEFINITION!
Stuart
war (wôr) KEYNOUN:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:20) Quote the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. And what was the polytheists' motive for the attack?
Stuart
The text just says that they began to abuse and fight the Muslims. The Muslims were certainly not attacking their “persons”Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,18:41) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:01) Quote Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition? That is not the definition you gave!
Which is it?
Gee, does islam involve changing the definitions of words every five minutes too? You are beginning to sound like an evangelical christian.
Science, innocent, muslim. They can mean whatever you want.
Stuart
Quote Stu, I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully.
Quote Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense? How is that an abomonation fo the definition? How are these different statements or mean different things?
Well, he started sarcastically, if you take THESE WORDS:I have answered you several time innocent people are all those not physically thwarting you in practicing your religion peacefully.
And you compare them to THESE WORDS:
Doesn't innocent mean not guilty of any offense?
Then you may have noticed that the two phrases are different.
Stuart
Quote Defense of faith is not defense of the theology of the faith it is the defense of the faithful being persecuted for believing in that faith. So you are saying that if we remove the word faith altogether, then the meaning for you is identical? We are ONLY talking about defending PEOPLE, so the faith bit is completely irrelevant?
This is a major equivocation on your part. Can you be clear about it?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,18:53) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:20) Quote the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. And what was the polytheists' motive for the attack?
Stuart
The text just says that they began to abuse and fight the Muslims. The Muslims were certainly not attacking their “persons”
What was their MOTIVE? I am not condoning any violence here, but for your argument to have any validity you will have to be very clear about exactly what mohammad's friends did and didn't do in provocation.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,19:10) Quote Defense of faith is not defense of the theology of the faith it is the defense of the faithful being persecuted for believing in that faith. So you are saying that if we remove the word faith altogether, then the meaning for you is identical? We are ONLY talking about defending PEOPLE, so the faith bit is completely irrelevant?
This is a major equivocation on your part. Can you be clear about it?
Stuart
Yes if you remove the word faith and say “rights” it would mean the same.Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,18:49) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:18) Quote To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #39)…which is completely useless unless you can define the word war, and STICK TO THE DEFINITION!
Stuart
war (wôr) KEYNOUN:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
So a 'war of words' is all that is required for muslims to 'defend' themselves with armed conflict!?That is exactly what mohammad did, isn't it.
I would guess you are not in agreement with this:
In his book, “The Biography of the Apostle”, part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
“Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet”’
Is it 270 million non-believers that have been murdered by Muslim jihadists in the intervening 1400 years, because they use rejection of islam as their justification for the claim that they have been 'oppressed'? The intent of islam is to achieve an islamic republic, is it not? Those who object to this muslim takeover, themselves will have to adopt the muslim's stance of 'self defense': you have permission to defend your way of life by fighting if necessary.
So the muslim is fought against, and takes that as exactly the excuse to retaliate violently, because he is now being 'oppressed'! That would be the means by which the otherwise impossible spread of islam happened, wouldn't it. Oppress your opposition until they defend themselves, then attack.
And you called ME a hypocrite!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,19:13) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,18:53) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:20) Quote the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. And what was the polytheists' motive for the attack?
Stuart
The text just says that they began to abuse and fight the Muslims. The Muslims were certainly not attacking their “persons”
What was their MOTIVE? I am not condoning any violence here, but for your argument to have any validity you will have to be very clear about exactly what mohammad's friends did and didn't do in provocation.Stuart
Sorry, I wasn't at the event but you are justifying violenceQuote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,20:02) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,19:13) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 05 2010,18:53) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,17:20) Quote the early Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them. And what was the polytheists' motive for the attack?
Stuart
The text just says that they began to abuse and fight the Muslims. The Muslims were certainly not attacking their “persons”
What was their MOTIVE? I am not condoning any violence here, but for your argument to have any validity you will have to be very clear about exactly what mohammad's friends did and didn't do in provocation.Stuart
Sorry, I wasn't at the event but you are justifying violence
I was just trying to establish motive, actually it was YOU who was justifying the violence of self-defense!Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
