Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reza Aslan is a lunatic

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.

The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will not stand in defence of what he says. I will reply to what you say, exclusively.

At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?
Such an argument is perfectly fine. If most Muslims do not have dangerous beliefs, then it follows that Islam, as they interpret it, is peaceful, and therefore does not pose a threat to any people or society.

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.
You happen to be an uneducated teenager, who is not a Muslim, who has done zero comprehensive research on Islam, and, here you are, perfectly suited to educate everyone what Islam is. Sweet, is it not? Rather than telling you why what you said is completely stupid and idiotic in detail, I shall let you try to think things through. Try.

The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.
Ah, and what is a "literal" interpretation of the Quran? Who, according to you, Professor, has the authority to assert how we should conduct interpretation of the Quran? You, perhaps?

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.
Since some Christians treat the Bible the same way some Muslims treat the Quran, then Christianity must be put under siege as well, correct? No?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:30:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:15:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
I will not stand in defence of what he says. I will reply to what you say, exclusively.

At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?
Such an argument is perfectly fine. If most Muslims do not have dangerous beliefs, then it follows that Islam, as they interpret it, is peaceful, and therefore does not pose a threat to any people or society.


The problem is that such an interpretation is not the only one, and for people who don't already see as you do, there's little you can do to persuade them. If someone WANTS to believe that Jihad is justifiable, they can go to the Quran and justify that belief. It lends legitimacy to people's primal feelings, which are NORMALLY combatted by a good moral sense, as well as pushes people in directions which they would otherwise find morally repugnant. That's totally unacceptable.

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.
You happen to be an uneducated teenager, who is not a Muslim, who has done zero comprehensive research on Islam, and, here you are, perfectly suited to educate everyone what Islam is. Sweet, is it not? Rather than telling you why what you said is completely stupid and idiotic in detail, I shall let you try to think things through. Try.

The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.
Ah, and what is a "literal" interpretation of the Quran? Who, according to you, Professor, has the authority to assert how we should conduct interpretation of the Quran? You, perhaps?

I never said there's a "literal interpretation" of the Quran. I said that for those who take the Quran literally, some perfectly plausible interpretations condone Jihad, and there's nothing you can do to escape that. If you want someone to blame, blame the authors of the book.


Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.
Since some Christians treat the Bible the same way some Muslims treat the Quran, then Christianity must be put under siege as well, correct? No?

If the West Boro Baptist Church had 50 million members, then yes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:52:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:30:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The problem is that such an interpretation is not the only one, and for people who don't already see as you do, there's little you can do to persuade them. If someone WANTS to believe that Jihad is justifiable, they can go to the Quran and justify that belief. It lends legitimacy to people's primal feelings, which are NORMALLY combatted by a good moral sense, as well as pushes people in directions which they would otherwise find morally repugnant. That's totally unacceptable.
If they have such a powerful wish to use religion as a tool to justify their psychopathic desires, then there is always an opportunity for them to twist the words and phrases of any religious book to suit their needs. An extensive teachings on morals and ethics, be it related to war or other matters, can always be interpreted in several ways. The Quran is no exception here. However, the Quran also has very strict rules in how it is interpreted, and for that reason, most Muslims, and particularly Muslim scholars, interpret it in a similar and peaceful fashion. The terrorists are a very small exception, but nevertheless the loudest kind.

I never said there's a "literal interpretation" of the Quran. I said that for those who take the Quran literally,
Can you not see the error here?

some perfectly plausible interpretations condone Jihad, and there's nothing you can do to escape that. If you want someone to blame, blame the authors of the book.
Why, because some twisted nutcase uses a perfectly clear book to justify his psychopathic desires? If there is something wrong with the book, how come I never thought of it as violent? Or most Muslims either? How come it took us a few seconds to figure out the importance of reading verses in completion, and not as isolated instances?

If the West Boro Baptist Church had 50 million members, then yes.
Why the arbitrary number? Isn't Anders Breivik and other nutcase Christians and Christian groups who condone religious extremism enough for us to try to destroy Christianity? If they, like many others before them, interpret the Bible in an evil fashion, is it not proper to try to destroy the religion before it can turn more severe? And, do you happen not to know the influence of the Orthodox Church on Russian politics, for instance, and the fact that their religious convictions play a role in repressing homosexuals in Russia? Is that not enough for you to detest Christianity, as you do Islam? Or, is Islam just that special for you? I wonder.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...

I love Reza Aslan and just finished his great book "Zealot."

He is a fine biblical scholar. His depiction of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth and others in first-century Palestine was compelling and informative and critically acclaimed and nothing less than superb.

You will learn far, far more of the real man we have come to know as Jesus from reading "Zealot" than you will by reading that collection of mythos and allegory and fiction called the Holy Bible.

It is NOT taboo in America to reject religion. Sadly, America IS one of the most religious countries in the world, a fact that does not bode well for the future of our children's education. Good Lord (see what I did there? LOL) we live in a country where over half of the adults actually think there is a sky God up there who cares about us and keeps track of everything. LOL. Really?

I equate fundamental christian beliefs to be a mild form of psychosis.

We are making progress--less and less people are attending church, or believe in superstitious gods, or feel the need for their adult versions of their childhood invisible friends. But we have a long way to go.

How can being an atheist be taboo with the First Amdendment? Or did yo forget about that? Or do you even know what it means?

The fact that most American POTUS's are believers is nothing to brag about, believe me. I find that fact troubling. A man who thinks he is on the side of God and has his hand on the button is dangerous.

Thomas Jefferson, btw, was basically agnostic. As were other founding fathers.

Aslan is not an atheist, btw. Did you even finish his book? Or read it? He is a actually a Muslim. And a scholar. He looks at both sides of the picture and has tons of sources and footnotes for his books and research. Anyone wishing to know the real story of the early Church would do well to listen to him.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:00:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...

You sound ill-informed as well.

Like this Fox interviewer who just got jobbed by Reza!

How does somebody this stupid get a job in TV journalism?

Wow. Just wow.

https://www.youtube.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 7:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:52:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:30:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The problem is that such an interpretation is not the only one, and for people who don't already see as you do, there's little you can do to persuade them. If someone WANTS to believe that Jihad is justifiable, they can go to the Quran and justify that belief. It lends legitimacy to people's primal feelings, which are NORMALLY combatted by a good moral sense, as well as pushes people in directions which they would otherwise find morally repugnant. That's totally unacceptable.
If they have such a powerful wish to use religion as a tool to justify their psychopathic desires, then there is always an opportunity for them to twist the words and phrases of any religious book to suit their needs. An extensive teachings on morals and ethics, be it related to war or other matters, can always be interpreted in several ways. The Quran is no exception here. However, the Quran also has very strict rules in how it is interpreted, and for that reason, most Muslims, and particularly Muslim scholars, interpret it in a similar and peaceful fashion. The terrorists are a very small exception, but nevertheless the loudest kind.


Unfortunately, polls reveal that a non-insignificant number of Muslims believe that war in defense of Islam is justified (and that includes Jihad attacks).

I never said there's a "literal interpretation" of the Quran. I said that for those who take the Quran literally,
Can you not see the error here?


There is no error. By "reading the Koran literally", I mean starting with the assumption that the Koran is to be taken literally (as opposed to figuratively) and then basing one's interpretations of the text around that.

some perfectly plausible interpretations condone Jihad, and there's nothing you can do to escape that. If you want someone to blame, blame the authors of the book.
Why, because some twisted nutcase uses a perfectly clear book to justify his psychopathic desires? If there is something wrong with the book, how come I never thought of it as violent? Or most Muslims either? How come it took us a few seconds to figure out the importance of reading verses in completion, and not as isolated instances?

You probably don't take it literally/ ignore the bad parts.


If the West Boro Baptist Church had 50 million members, then yes.
Why the arbitrary number?

That was only an example, lol.

Isn't Anders Breivik and other nutcase Christians and Christian groups who condone religious extremism enough for us to try to destroy Christianity? If they, like many others before them, interpret the Bible in an evil fashion, is it not proper to try to destroy the religion before it can turn more severe? And, do you happen not to know the influence of the Orthodox Church on Russian politics, for instance, and the fact that their religious convictions play a role in repressing homosexuals in Russia? Is that not enough for you to detest Christianity, as you do Islam? Or, is Islam just that special for you? I wonder.

Russia was just as bad under Stalin as well. Russia has a Russian problem, I think.

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 7:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:06:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Unfortunately, polls reveal that a non-insignificant number of Muslims believe that war in defense of Islam is justified (and that includes Jihad attacks).
I have analysed many polls, and I find them not very concerning. The pattern that occurs is Muslim justification of war that is of a necessary nature, i.e., to defend the lives, lands, and overall security of Muslims. Do you expect people in countries where foreign bombs have shelled homes to have a perfectly pacifist opinion on how they shall deal with who they perceive as enemies? I certainly hope you do not.

There is no error. By "reading the Koran literally", I mean starting with the assumption that the Koran is to be taken literally (as opposed to figuratively) and then basing one's interpretations of the text around that.
The requirement for being a Muslim is taking the Quran literally, and, as a consequence, almost all self-justifying Muslims believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran. They may not abide by the laws, but they believe in them nonetheless. The question is therefore simple: which group of Muslims has the correct interpretation of the Quran? Without a doubt, it is the majority. The minority, who happen to be of evil spirit, are uneducated in general on Islamic matters, and have socio-psychological backgrounds that led them to interpreting the Quran as they do. They, surely, have no authority on the religion.

You probably don't take it literally/ ignore the bad parts.
That is a faulty assumption on your side, and I am assured that it is directly connected to your bias against the religion, and not because you truly made an attempt to reach a more sound conclusion. Yes, I take all parts literally, but what "literal" means is not always clear. That is why we have the concept of hermeneutics. In some cases, Islam says X will not happen until a camel goes through the eye of a needle. Is that literal?

That was only an example, lol.
I nevertheless want to know. Where do you draw a line?

Russia was just as bad under Stalin as well. Russia has a Russian problem, I think.

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.
I mentioned a very specific policy in Russia being driven by the Orthodox Church. There is no need to make anything else relevant. What is necessary for you to accept that people around the world use Christianity as a means to achieving certain violent, oppressive goals? Do you need more people like Anders Breivik? Or more supermacist organizations who so dearly abide by the teachings of the Bible?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 8:02:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:43:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:06:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Unfortunately, polls reveal that a non-insignificant number of Muslims believe that war in defense of Islam is justified (and that includes Jihad attacks).
I have analysed many polls, and I find them not very concerning. The pattern that occurs is Muslim justification of war that is of a necessary nature, i.e., to defend the lives, lands, and overall security of Muslims. Do you expect people in countries where foreign bombs have shelled homes to have a perfectly pacifist opinion on how they shall deal with who they perceive as enemies? I certainly hope you do not.


What percent of Muslims do you think would condone war in defense of Islam?

There is no error. By "reading the Koran literally", I mean starting with the assumption that the Koran is to be taken literally (as opposed to figuratively) and then basing one's interpretations of the text around that.
The requirement for being a Muslim is taking the Quran literally, and, as a consequence, almost all self-justifying Muslims believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran.

Why is that true?

They may not abide by the laws, but they believe in them nonetheless. The question is therefore simple: which group of Muslims has the correct interpretation of the Quran? Without a doubt, it is the majority. The minority, who happen to be of evil spirit, are uneducated in general on Islamic matters, and have socio-psychological backgrounds that led them to interpreting the Quran as they do. They, surely, have no authority on the religion.

Or maybe they're just more honest. Maybe they're just better Muslims.

How can you read this http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

...And still think Islam is anything but a death cult?

I mean seriously:
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.


You probably don't take it literally/ ignore the bad parts.
That is a faulty assumption on your side, and I am assured that it is directly connected to your bias against the religion, and not because you truly made an attempt to reach a more sound conclusion. Yes, I take all parts literally, but what "literal" means is not always clear. That is why we have the concept of hermeneutics. In some cases, Islam says X will not happen until a camel goes through the eye of a needle. Is that literal?


That was only an example, lol.
I nevertheless want to know. Where do you draw a line?


It's more of an intuition thing, just as it is with most political stuff.

Russia was just as bad under Stalin as well. Russia has a Russian problem, I think.

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.
I mentioned a very specific policy in Russia being driven by the Orthodox Church. There is no need to make anything else relevant. What is necessary for you to accept that people around the world use Christianity as a means to achieving certain violent, oppressive goals? Do you need more people like Anders Breivik? Or more supermacist organizations who so dearly abide by the teachings of the Bible?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 8:34:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 8:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:43:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:06:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

NOTE: This answer will insult your intelligence. But my point is that anyone who has conducted studies in South Asia/ ME will know that Statistical Studies are bunk. Polls are Y/No questions. Sort of like MCQs on sat exams where you just cover your eyes and circle a random dot.

Unfortunately, polls reveal that a non-insignificant number of Muslims believe that war in defense of Islam is justified (and that includes Jihad attacks).

Well, Dylan, the problem is that polls are polls. They are yes or no question.

If someone asks you to "Take over the World" would you answer Yes or No?

Would it make a difference if you said YES.

Polls are polls. They don't change facts. If you ask a 100 muslims if they want Islam to take over the world they would say YES; to them Islam is a benign dog, like a sloppy gloden retriever. If you ask a 100 Dylans for Islam to take over the answer would be NO a 101 times. Why? Because to you Islam is a mongrel, an nasty chiquaqa that I stepped on Yesterday outside my local deli. A blotch on the otherwise clean sidewalk.

Polls are polls. Asking a Muslim a question such as Do you Think Fighting for Islam is Good or Bad
is like asking you an American to be Patriotic.

Its like asking is the US of A a bad or good thing? Yes or No?

Answer: Nobody knows. Its a pointless question asked by some idiot who does not know how to compile data.

Asking questions based on emotions are pointless. #Fact

Polls are polls..

For example: Q: Do you Fazz a Muslim want Jihad to loot and plunder the ignorant barbarian slaves of United States of Amurica?
A: Yeah dude, sure if it doesnt hurt no..
Q: No you idiot a Yes or no?
A: Um. YES.

Which brings us to your question..

What percent of Muslims do you think would condone war in defense of Islam?

Answer: All of them.

Which brings us to my question.

What percent of Muslims do you think would condone war.

None.

#samesamebutdifferent
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:48:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
And, if you have the time, refer me to the polls you have looked at.

Edit: the line above should say "self-identifying Muslims."

Concur. Reveal the hidden numbers.

This should be fun no?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 5:59:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 8:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What percent of Muslims do you think would condone war in defense of Islam?
Probably the majority. What percent of the French condone war in defence of France? Your question is stupid.

Why is that true?
The Quran, unlike the Bible, is the verbatim Word of God, according to the book itself. Thus, rejecting any letter, word, phrase, and deeming them false, is disagreement with God, which makes you a disbeliever. Every Muslim is required to submit his will to God, and accept that what the Quran teaches is true, even if he does not abide by every law. For instance, one could fornicate, yet be a Muslim, so long as he accepts that what he does is sinful.

Due to this, your attempt to portray Muslims as people who ignore the Quranic message, rather than accept it, except for those who are extremists, is not a successful one. Most Muslims are the ones who actually interpret the Quran literally, and not the mentally impaired terrorists.

Or maybe they're just more honest. Maybe they're just better Muslims.
Because they are more vile and evil, they automatically are the better Muslims?

How can you read this http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

...And still think Islam is anything but a death cult?
For the example you gave: ""Slay them wherever you find them", has been made the title of an article on war in Islam. In this article "them" is removed from its context, where it refers back to "those who attack you" in the preceding verse. "Wherever you find them" is similarly misunderstood: the Muslims were anxious that if their enemies attacked them in Mecca (which is a sanctuary) and they retaliated, they would be breaking the law. Thus the Qur"an simply gave the Muslims permission to fight those enemies, whether outside or inside Mecca, and assured them that the persecution that had been committed by the unbelievers against them for believing in God was more sinful than the Muslims killing those who attacked them, wherever they were. Finally, it must be pointed out that the whole passage (2:190"5) comes in the context of fighting those who bar Muslims from reaching the Sacred Mosque at Mecca to perform the pilgrimage. This is clear from v.189 before and v.196 after the passage. In the same way, the verse giving the first permission to fight occurs in the Qur"an, also in the context of barring Muslims from reaching the Mosque to perform the pilgrimage (22:25"41)." [http://www.islamawareness.net...]

This, alone, suffices in my judgement of you; for, rather than examining the verses, and reading multiple sources, you instead choose to go to an atrociously biased site, and become satisfied with having completed the task of confirming your pre-established beliefs, when you could have chosen to challenge them. Well done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:14:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 5:59:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What percent of Muslims do you think would condone war in defense of Islam?
Probably the majority. What percent of the French condone war in defence of France? Your question is stupid.

Except Islam isn't a country, it's a belief system. Defending a belief system could mean anything from defending it from criticism to suppressing dissent.

...And still think Islam is anything but a death cult?
For the example you gave: ""Slay them wherever you find them", has been made the title of an article on war in Islam. In this article "them" is removed from its context, where it refers back to "those who attack you" in the preceding verse. "Wherever you find them" is similarly misunderstood: the Muslims were anxious that if their enemies attacked them in Mecca (which is a sanctuary) and they retaliated, they would be breaking the law. Thus the Qur"an simply gave the Muslims permission to fight those enemies, whether outside or inside Mecca, and assured them that the persecution that had been committed by the unbelievers against them for believing in God was more sinful than the Muslims killing those who attacked them, wherever they were. Finally, it must be pointed out that the whole passage (2:190"5) comes in the context of fighting those who bar Muslims from reaching the Sacred Mosque at Mecca to perform the pilgrimage. This is clear from v.189 before and v.196 after the passage. In the same way, the verse giving the first permission to fight occurs in the Qur"an, also in the context of barring Muslims from reaching the Mosque to perform the pilgrimage (22:25"41)." [http://www.islamawareness.net...]


So is this just false then?: The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

In any case, the idea that disbelief in the Muslim God is worse than murder is itself very dangerous, and reason enough to destroy Islam. "And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful." If someone believes that by killing infidels, they are killing people who are worse than murders, what's going to discourage them from doing it? For is Allah not forgiving and merciful to his followers?

What do you make of this:

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Or this:

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Or this:

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:25:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is the idea that the Koran is a religion of peace not made instantly implausible by the fact that it was written during a time in which everyone was practically insane and evil by today's standards? Oh, I forgot - it was divinely inspired. It's clearly the best book ever written. LOL
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...

Resa Aslan is wacky... to say the very least. Some of his views on religion are nothing less than outrageous. I have posted extensively, and acutely criticized his defense of Islam both intellectually and as it is practiced because he selectively ignores extant facts that destroy his arguments in that regard. (What those arguments specifically are, though, don't really matter for purposes of this post so I'm not going to restate them. It is enough to describe what's what.)

That said, there are also areas where he's spot on. Religion's social utility is clear, and the extent to which some (of the more obstreperous) atheists disparage it is irrational; for every one negative thing that religion has given this earth, it has given positive tenfold.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:27:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...

Resa Aslan is wacky... to say the very least. Some of his views on religion are nothing less than outrageous. I have posted extensively, and acutely criticized his defense of Islam both intellectually and as it is practiced because he selectively ignores extant facts that destroy his arguments in that regard. (What those arguments specifically are, though, don't really matter for purposes of this post so I'm not going to restate them. It is enough to describe what's what.)

That said, there are also areas where he's spot on. Religion's social utility is clear, and the extent to which some (of the more obstreperous) atheists disparage it is irrational; for every one negative thing that religion has given this earth, it has given positive tenfold.

But YYW! Reza Aslan is a SCHOLAR. Doesn't that mean we should take everything he says super seriously?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:41:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:33:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:27:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:08:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
15:43 - 16:35
https://youtu.be...

What is the great scholar's evidence that it is not taboo in American society to reject religion? That Sam Harris's book sold 500,000 copies. What in the actual fvck is this guy taking about. Not a single openly atheist politician has ever been elected to office in the United States except for Jesse Ventura (and he was only a Governor). Polls show that Americans distrust atheists MORE than rapists, and a full 43 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if they were qualified. http://www.gallup.com...

Resa Aslan is wacky... to say the very least. Some of his views on religion are nothing less than outrageous. I have posted extensively, and acutely criticized his defense of Islam both intellectually and as it is practiced because he selectively ignores extant facts that destroy his arguments in that regard. (What those arguments specifically are, though, don't really matter for purposes of this post so I'm not going to restate them. It is enough to describe what's what.)

That said, there are also areas where he's spot on. Religion's social utility is clear, and the extent to which some (of the more obstreperous) atheists disparage it is irrational; for every one negative thing that religion has given this earth, it has given positive tenfold.

But YYW! Reza Aslan is a SCHOLAR. Doesn't that mean we should take everything he says super seriously?

Resa Aslan is to scholarship what Ted Cruz is to presidential material.
Tsar of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 7:28:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:14:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Except Islam isn't a country, it's a belief system. Defending a belief system could mean anything from defending it from criticism to suppressing dissent.
I pity you; I truly do. I intuitively attribute your lack of understanding to your rather overestimated intellect (by none other than yourself), but, I also wish for there to be another cause behind. Is it a desire to be right when you are, quite clearly, not? Think for a moment about it. Back to what you asked: How many Muslims would consider justified a war in defence of Islam? According to you, there is a variety of forms of defence, and not all can be justified. I take the rational approach to the question and assume you mean defending it from an evil force, such as political suppression. To this, there is no clear-cut answer; every Muslim should consider what is best for him, and always prioritize the intellectual approach to issues. If, however, a large Muslim group are being oppressed, and have their core rights suppressed, and have no means of escaping such oppression, then they, like any other oppressed people, should have the right to free themselves from oppression. Religious freedom is a human right, and any force that attempts to destroy this right shall expect to summon equal retribution.

So is this just false then?:
Yes, it is. Is it not adorable how your source is an amateurish blog? How would you react if someone told you global warming were a false idea, and referred you to a blog written by an obviously biased amateur? Would you consider him stupid? Yes? Good for you.

If someone believes that by killing infidels, they are killing people who are worse than murders, what's going to discourage them from doing it? For is Allah not forgiving and merciful to his followers?
That is not what the Quran says - and the citation you proved is outrageously stupid. Context for beginners:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." [Quran, 2:190]

If we ignore the historical context, it is crystal clear for even the stupidest of individuals that the textual context calls for retaliation against "those who fight you." It even finishes with, "do not transgress."

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." [Quran, 2:191]

The words "expel them for wherever they have expelled you" suggest that the Muslims were robbed of their right to be where they had a right to be. The continuity is present; there is fighting and other oppression against Muslims according to the story in the text. Moreover, it states unambiguiously that the disbelievers must be killed at al-Masjid al-Haram "if they fight you."

Additionally, the word "fitnah" here does not necessarily mean disbelief. The Quran has a plethora of words which have meanings you cannot count on both your hands combined. This particular word is used in variably everywhere in the book; for instance: "And you killed someone, but We saved you from retaliation and tried you with a [severe] trial." [Quran, 20:40] Here, Fitnah means "trial." In verse 2:191, it can mean oppression/persecution or disbelief. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume it means the latter.

If fitnah is worse than killing, does that mean the disbelief of the enemy is worse than the death Muslims could bring upon them, or does it mean the disbelief the disbelievers are forcing upon Muslims is worse than the attempt of the disbelievers to kill Muslims? For further context, we move to another verse speaking of the same instance:

"They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, 'Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.' And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally." [Quran, 2:217]

The picture becomes perfectly clear once more: the attempt to force Muslims into disbelief (Fitnah) is worse than killing Muslims whilst not forcing them to revert to their [then] former religion; or, in any other situation, to make them become non-Muslims rather than merely killing them. Thus, the explanation concludes: the act of forcing disbelief upon a Muslim is, in the sight of God, a worse deed than killing Muslims. There is nothing about any of the verses which suggest that under any circumstance, a Muslim should consider personal disbelief of another person in God a worse act or state of being than the act of murdering that person on your own. Rather, it means the act of forcing a Muslim to disbelieve is worse than killing him; so, this is plain and simple.

What do you make of this:

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Or this:

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Or this:

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."
I can give you an explanation for those as I have for the verses above; or, you can, too, do yourself a favour and read on the verses, both their textual and historical context. For the most part, reading all verses in context shall suffice. As for the last verse, think for yourself and ask if there is anything wrong with it even without any background reading. Striving against someone is not the equivalent of waging war.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 5:48:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/23/2015 7:28:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:14:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." [Quran, 2:190]

If we ignore the historical context, it is crystal clear for even the stupidest of individuals that the textual context calls for retaliation against "those who fight you." It even finishes with, "do not transgress."


Considering how muddled Islamic morality is, I have no idea what "transgression" means in a Muslim context.

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." [Quran, 2:191]

The words "expel them for wherever they have expelled you" suggest that the Muslims were robbed of their right to be where they had a right to be. The continuity is present; there is fighting and other oppression against Muslims according to the story in the text. Moreover, it states unambiguiously that the disbelievers must be killed at al-Masjid al-Haram "if they fight you."

Your translation is entirely different from the one I posted. In your translation, the Koran is only calling for violence against oppressors, but in mine it is calling for Muslim conquest against the unbelievers. It specifically says to not stop fighting until worship is for Allah alone, and that only if they convert to Islam should Muslims let them be. "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Do all Muslims subscribe to your interpretation?


Additionally, the word "fitnah" here does not necessarily mean disbelief. The Quran has a plethora of words which have meanings you cannot count on both your hands combined. This particular word is used in variably everywhere in the book; for instance: "And you killed someone, but We saved you from retaliation and tried you with a [severe] trial." [Quran, 20:40] Here, Fitnah means "trial." In verse 2:191, it can mean oppression/persecution or disbelief. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume it means the latter.

I don't see how "trial" would make any sense in the context in which it was used, so why do we need to assume anything?

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

If fitnah is worse than killing, does that mean the disbelief of the enemy is worse than the death Muslims could bring upon them, or does it mean the disbelief the disbelievers are forcing upon Muslims is worse than the attempt of the disbelievers to kill Muslims? For further context, we move to another verse speaking of the same instance:

"They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, 'Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.' And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally." [Quran, 2:217]

The picture becomes perfectly clear once more: the attempt to force Muslims into disbelief (Fitnah) is worse than killing Muslims whilst not forcing them to revert to their [then] former religion; or, in any other situation, to make them become non-Muslims rather than merely killing them. Thus, the explanation concludes: the act of forcing disbelief upon a Muslim is, in the sight of God, a worse deed than killing Muslims. There is nothing about any of the verses which suggest that under any circumstance, a Muslim should consider personal disbelief of another person in God a worse act or state of being than the act of murdering that person on your own. Rather, it means the act of forcing a Muslim to disbelieve is worse than killing him; so, this is plain and simple.

Why can't both disbelief and forcing disbelief on Muslims be worse than murder according to the Koran? The verse you cite says that someone who dies a disbeliever will suffer in hell eternally. If disbelief were not a terrible moral crime, how would that punishment be fitting?

From the passages I've read, it seems that the ultimate goal for Muslims should be to spread the religion in order to please Allah, and that anything which gets in the way of that is to be combated by any means necessary.


What do you make of this:

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Or this:

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Or this:

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."
I can give you an explanation for those as I have for the verses above; or, you can, too, do yourself a favour and read on the verses, both their textual and historical context. For the most part, reading all verses in context shall suffice. As for the last verse, think for yourself and ask if there is anything wrong with it even without any background reading. Striving against someone is not the equivalent of waging war.

I'd really like explanations for these quotes first:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." [Quran, 9:29]

"Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." [Quran, 47:3-4]

"The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." [Muslim, 1:30]

"the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" [Muslim, 1:33]
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:41:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.


The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.

I don't really understand what substance such 'anti-Islam' arguments such as these have if you acknowledge that there is no substantive difference in 'evilness' between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Why not declare war on Judaism and Christianity?

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.

1. 'Islam is a lot more dangerous than Christianity (or for a better comparison, Judaism)'
2. The Qu'ran and the Old Testament are essentially just as 'dangerous'
Conclusion: The 'danger' must be caused by other factors.

It's really very simple.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:05:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:41:27 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.


The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.

I don't really understand what substance such 'anti-Islam' arguments such as these have if you acknowledge that there is no substantive difference in 'evilness' between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Why not declare war on Judaism and Christianity?


"If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted."

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.

1. 'Islam is a lot more dangerous than Christianity (or for a better comparison, Judaism)'
2. The Qu'ran and the Old Testament are essentially just as 'dangerous'
Conclusion: The 'danger' must be caused by other factors.

It's really very simple.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:19:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:05:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:41:27 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.


The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.

I don't really understand what substance such 'anti-Islam' arguments such as these have if you acknowledge that there is no substantive difference in 'evilness' between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Why not declare war on Judaism and Christianity?


"If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted."

So Islam isn't the problem? lol

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.

1. 'Islam is a lot more dangerous than Christianity (or for a better comparison, Judaism)'
2. The Qu'ran and the Old Testament are essentially just as 'dangerous'
Conclusion: The 'danger' must be caused by other factors.

It's really very simple.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:20:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:19:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/25/2015 5:05:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:41:27 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.


The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.

I don't really understand what substance such 'anti-Islam' arguments such as these have if you acknowledge that there is no substantive difference in 'evilness' between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Why not declare war on Judaism and Christianity?


"If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted."

So Islam isn't the problem? lol


Of course it's a problem - because people take it seriously.

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.

1. 'Islam is a lot more dangerous than Christianity (or for a better comparison, Judaism)'
2. The Qu'ran and the Old Testament are essentially just as 'dangerous'
Conclusion: The 'danger' must be caused by other factors.

It's really very simple.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:24:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:20:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2015 5:19:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/25/2015 5:05:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:41:27 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:46:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is Reza Aslan's argument actually that since there are many people who call themselves Muslim who don't engage in violent behavior or have dangerous beliefs (which is no doubt true), and that since much of today's religious violence owes in large part to social and political factors, that Islam is totally fine and we should do nothing to destroy it?

Even if the second part were true, the credit certainly doesn't go to Islam itself, but to the people who dissent from Islamic doctrines whether they care to admit it or not.


The Koran is an incredibly impractical, ridiculous and contradictory book if taken literally (just like the Bible), so of course not everyone is going to follow it in the same way. If someone truly believes the Koran is perfect and the literal word of God, you cannot blame them for Jihad or any number of moral crimes. I'm sorry, but an interpretation of the Koran which condones such behavior is simply too justifiable. In order to be a good Muslim, you're expected to be willing to do some pretty horrific sh1t. After all, the Koran was written during a time in which such behavior was commonplace and required to spread and maintain the religion.

Islam is compatible with peace, but it's not conducive to peace. It creates a situation in which people are forced to choose between being a good Muslim, and listening to what their conscience tells them is right. It stands in the way of peace so long as Muslims take it seriously (which, unfortunately, many do). If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted.

I don't really understand what substance such 'anti-Islam' arguments such as these have if you acknowledge that there is no substantive difference in 'evilness' between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Why not declare war on Judaism and Christianity?


"If Muslims treated the Koran as Christians treat the Bible, we wouldn't have a problem. But many of them don't, and that's why Islam should be combatted."

So Islam isn't the problem? lol


Of course it's a problem - because people take it seriously.

I thought that Islam was by its very nature greivously worse than all others and that it must be destroyed, not that people are interpreting it too seriously.

The influence of Christianity simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant the kind of assault required of Islam, and it's getting less dangerous every day. Although I detest the actual content of the Bible about as much as the content of the Koran.

1. 'Islam is a lot more dangerous than Christianity (or for a better comparison, Judaism)'
2. The Qu'ran and the Old Testament are essentially just as 'dangerous'
Conclusion: The 'danger' must be caused by other factors.

It's really very simple.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 6:35:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 2:02:46 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2015 7:28:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
Still waiting on those explanations.
I was occupied with other discussions here. I have zero motivation to write a lengthy response to you, as it has become a rather dry activity for me to refute people here on the same things that have been said for years. I really urge you to read what I wrote again, and stop making presumptions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 6:55:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 6:35:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/7/2015 2:02:46 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2015 7:28:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
Still waiting on those explanations.
I was occupied with other discussions here. I have zero motivation to write a lengthy response to you, as it has become a rather dry activity for me to refute people here on the same things that have been said for years. I really urge you to read what I wrote again, and stop making presumptions.

If you've already covered this stuff before, then I wouldn't mind if you just linked me to your previous discussions, so long as they are relevant to the quotes I mentioned (or quotes like it). If you want me (and many others) to take seriously the proposition that Islam isn't a threat to peace, then you will need to at least make an effort to explain why the quotes I listed are not what they seem. Otherwise, it's impossible for me to interpret them as anything but calls for religious conquest. Surely you can appreciate why I would interpret them in that way.