Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 182 (93933)
03-22-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Corkscrew
03-16-2004 7:00 AM


Re: Different versions of Koran
..... the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.
1. I don't think white rasins are going to be any kind of motivation for sacrificing to get to heaven.
2. Considering the 16 wives of Mohammed including one bedded as a child, methinks real virgins is the sensible rendering of the text, and of course, pity the virgins whoever they may happen to be and the lowly role they are to play in eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Corkscrew, posted 03-16-2004 7:00 AM Corkscrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Corkscrew, posted 03-23-2004 4:19 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 182 (94024)
03-23-2004 2:04 AM


Buzsaw. continue here
http://EvC Forum: The Most Dangerous Individual To Ever Live -->EvC Forum: The Most Dangerous Individual To Ever Live
quote:
Yah, to keep the peace I guess it would be ok, but I need to make the point here that both Jesus and Mohammed prophesied eventual world dominance by their religions.
1. I believe that Prophet Muhammad do not prophesy world dominance. If you think so, please quote. A Qur'an verse or hadith would be fine.
quote:
The difference is how their followers were to achieve it. Jesus taught by word and example to evangelize without violence. Mohammed taught by word and example by violence and to FIGHT FOR THE CAUSE OF ALLAH.
2. You clearly misuse the word 'prophecy'. A prophecy is going to happen regardless of whether Xtians and Muslims (and Jews) strive to achieve or not. If we are taught how to achieve a 'prophecy' then it's not prophecy... it's called 'Protocols for World Domination'.
Besides, the 'Muslim world domination' scenario is nonsense... one doesn't see Muslim soldiers stepping out of their lands and attacking non-Muslim countries today, one sees the opposite. Afghanistan? Iraq? Who's currently bent on world domination, I ask you?
quote:
Did you count the number of times in the link that this phrase was used, most of them without reference to defensive action? This is what gave this man and his religion such a bloody history. I believe I needed to make this point in this thread in order to make my point. The shedding of blood percipitated by the doctrine of Jesus effected mostly the shedding of the blood of his own followers by those who rejected his clear instructions to love and do no violence.
3. I ask for you to quote a verse. A verse! Show me one verse you pick from there, that said Muslims are allowed to do offensive violence or violence without reason.

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 03-23-2004 10:47 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
Corkscrew
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 182 (94039)
03-23-2004 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
03-22-2004 6:21 PM


Re: Different versions of Koran
The Mohammed propoganda machine will, of course, say that they get 'virgins'....but the text of the Koran leads to 'raisins'as being the real reward. But, like in all religions, everything is based on B.S. There is no god, never was one, never will be one: full stop!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2004 6:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-23-2004 8:26 PM Corkscrew has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 182 (94255)
03-23-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Corkscrew
03-23-2004 4:19 AM


Re: Different versions of Koran
but the text of the Koran leads to 'raisins'as being the real reward.
The text of the Quran neither says nor implies rasins. Nor do the fundamentalist Islamics interpret it as rasins. Trust me, they're not blowing themselves to smitherines for a bowl of white rasins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Corkscrew, posted 03-23-2004 4:19 AM Corkscrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Corkscrew, posted 03-23-2004 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 182 (94280)
03-23-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Andya Primanda
03-23-2004 2:04 AM


Re: Buzsaw. continue here
1. I believe that Prophet Muhammad do not prophesy world dominance. If you think so, please quote. A Qur'an verse or hadith would be fine.
I apologize for taking so long to answer, Andyea, and appreciate your patience. I do not know which translation this is taken from but it basically says the same message as the copy I use which is Arberry's translation.
Sura 9:30 "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. The Jews say, "Ezra is a son of God"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is a son of God." Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided? They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, son of Mary, for lords besides God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! Far from His glory be what they associate with Him! Fain would they put out God's light with their mouths: but God only desireth to perfect His light, albeit the infidels abhor it. He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the guidance and a religion of the truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it.
2. He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with Guidance and the Religion of Truth (Islam), that He may establish (make) it (Islam) superior over all religions. And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness." [48:28] Also, "It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to establish (make) it superior over all religions even though the Polytheists hate (it)." [9:33]
(Hadith}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-23-2004 2:04 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-07-2004 4:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Corkscrew
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 182 (94289)
03-23-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Buzsaw
03-23-2004 8:26 PM


Re: Different versions of Koran
Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran
By ALEXANDER STILLE
To Muslims the Koran is the very word of God, who spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad: "This book is not to be doubted," the Koran declares unequivocally at its beginning. Scholars and writers in Islamic countries who have ignored that warning have sometimes found themselves the target of death threats and violence, sending a chill through universities around the world.
Yet despite the fear, a handful of experts have been quietly investigating the origins of the Koran, offering radically new theories about the text's meaning and the rise of Islam.
Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today.
So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.
Christoph Luxenberg, however, is a pseudonym, and his scholarly tome The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran had trouble finding a publisher, although it is considered a major new work by several leading scholars in the field. Verlag Das Arabische Buch in Berlin ultimately published the book.
The caution is not surprising. Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses received a fatwa because it appeared to mock Muhammad. The Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed because one of his books was thought to be irreligious. And when the Arab scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet, he was injured after being thrown from a second-story window by his students at the University of Nablus in the West Bank. Even many broad-minded liberal Muslims become upset when the historical veracity and authenticity of the Koran is questioned.
The reverberations have affected non-Muslim scholars in Western countries. "Between fear and political correctness, it's not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam," said one scholar at an American university who asked not to be named, referring to the threatened violence as well as the widespread reluctance on United States college campuses to criticize other cultures.
While scriptural interpretation may seem like a remote and innocuous activity, close textual study of Jewish and Christian scripture played no small role in loosening the Church's domination on the intellectual and cultural life of Europe, and paving the way for unfettered secular thought. "The Muslims have the benefit of hindsight of the European experience, and they know very well that once you start questioning the holy scriptures, you don't know where it will stop," the scholar explained.
The touchiness about questioning the Koran predates the latest rise of Islamic militancy. As long ago as 1977, John Wansbrough of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London wrote that subjecting the Koran to "analysis by the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism is virtually unknown."
Mr. Wansbrough insisted that the text of the Koran appeared to be a composite of different voices or texts compiled over dozens if not hundreds of years. After all, scholars agree that there is no evidence of the Koran until 691 59 years after Muhammad's death when the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem was built, carrying several Koranic inscriptions.
These inscriptions differ to some degree from the version of the Koran that has been handed down through the centuries, suggesting, scholars say, that the Koran may have still been evolving in the last decade of the seventh century. Moreover, much of what we know as Islam the lives and sayings of the Prophet is based on texts from between 130 and 300 years after Muhammad's death.
In 1977 two other scholars from the School for Oriental and African Studies at London University Patricia Crone (a professor of history at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton) and Michael Cook (a professor of Near Eastern history at Princeton University) suggested a radically new approach in their book Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World.
Since there are no Arabic chronicles from the first century of Islam, the two looked at several non-Muslim, seventh-century accounts that suggested Muhammad was perceived not as the founder of a new religion but as a preacher in the Old Testament tradition, hailing the coming of a Messiah. Many of the early documents refer to the followers of Muhammad as "hagarenes," and the "tribe of Ishmael," in other words as descendants of Hagar, the servant girl that the Jewish patriarch Abraham used to father his son Ishmael.
In its earliest form, Ms. Crone and Mr. Cook argued, the followers of Muhammad may have seen themselves as retaking their place in the Holy Land alongside their Jewish cousins. (And many Jews appear to have welcomed the Arabs as liberators when they entered Jerusalem in 638.)
The idea that Jewish messianism animated the early followers of the Prophet is not widely accepted in the field, but "Hagarism" is credited with opening up the field. "Crone and Cook came up with some very interesting revisionist ideas," says Fred M. Donner of the University of Chicago and author of the recent book Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing. "I think in trying to reconstruct what happened, they went off the deep end, but they were asking the right questions."
The revisionist school of early Islam has quietly picked up momentum in the last few years as historians began to apply rational standards of proof to this material.
Mr. Cook and Ms. Crone have revised some of their early hypotheses while sticking to others.
Mis-translated possibility:
Seventy-two dark-eyed virgins await in Paradise
"We were certainly wrong about quite a lot of things," Ms. Crone said. "But I stick to the basic point we made: that Islamic history did not arise as the classic tradition says it does."
Ms. Crone insists that the Koran and the Islamic tradition present a fundamental paradox. The Koran is a text soaked in monotheistic thinking, filled with stories and references to Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Jesus, and yet the official history insists that Muhammad, an illiterate camel merchant, received the revelation in Mecca, a remote, sparsely populated part of Arabia, far from the centers of monotheistic thought, in an environment of idol-worshiping Arab Bedouins. Unless one accepts the idea of the angel Gabriel, Ms. Crone says, historians must somehow explain how all these monotheistic stories and ideas found their way into the Koran.
"There are only two possibilities," Ms. Crone said. "Either there had to be substantial numbers of Jews and Christians in Mecca or the Koran had to have been composed somewhere else."
Indeed, many scholars who are not revisionists agree that Islam must be placed back into the wider historical context of the religions of the Middle East rather than seeing it as the spontaneous product of the pristine Arabian desert. "I think there is increasing acceptance, even on the part of many Muslims, that Islam emerged out of the wider monotheistic soup of the Middle East," says Roy Mottahedeh, a professor of Islamic history at Harvard University.
Scholars like Mr. Luxenberg and Gerd- R. Puin, who teaches at Saarland University in Germany, have returned to the earliest known copies of the Koran in order to grasp what it says about the document's origins and composition. Mr. Luxenberg explains these copies are written without vowels and diacritical dots that modern Arabic uses to make it clear what letter is intended. In the eighth and ninth centuries, more than a century after the death of Muhammad, Islamic commentators added diacritical marks to clear up the ambiguities of the text, giving precise meanings to passages based on what they considered to be their proper context. Mr. Luxenberg's radical theory is that many of the text's difficulties can be clarified when it is seen as closely related to Aramaic, the language group of most Middle Eastern Jews and Christians at the time.
For example, the famous passage about the virgins is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for "houri," which means virgin, but Mr. Luxenberg insists that this is a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, hur means "white raisin."
Mr. Luxenberg has traced the passages dealing with paradise to a Christian text called Hymns of Paradise by a fourth-century author. Mr. Luxenberg said the word paradise was derived from the Aramaic word for garden and all the descriptions of paradise described it as a garden of flowing waters, abundant fruits and white raisins, a prized delicacy in the ancient Near East. In this context, white raisins, mentioned often as hur, Mr. Luxenberg said, makes more sense than a reward of sexual favors.
In many cases, the differences can be quite significant. Mr. Puin points out that in the early archaic copies of the Koran, it is impossible to distinguish between the words "to fight" and "to kill." In many cases, he said, Islamic exegetes added diacritical marks that yielded the harsher meaning, perhaps reflecting a period in which the Islamic Empire was often at war.
A return to the earliest Koran, Mr. Puin and others suggest, might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, as well as one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity.
"It is serious and exciting work," Ms. Crone said of Mr. Luxenberg's work. Jane McAuliffe, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, has asked Mr. Luxenberg to contribute an essay to the Encyclopedia of the Koran, which she is editing.
Mr. Puin would love to see a "critical edition" of the Koran produced, one based on recent philological work, but, he says, "the word critical is misunderstood in the Islamic world it is seen as criticizing or attacking the text."
Some Muslim authors have begun to publish skeptical, revisionist work on the Koran as well. Several new volumes of revisionist scholarship, The Origins of the Koran, and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, have been edited by a former Muslim who writes under the pen name Ibn Warraq. Mr. Warraq, who heads a group called the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, makes no bones about having a political agenda.
The actual reward in paradise: White raisins
"Biblical scholarship has made people less dogmatic, more open," he said, "and I hope that happens to Muslim society as well."
But many Muslims find the tone and claims of revisionism offensive. "I think the broader implications of some of the revisionist scholarship is to say that the Koran is not an authentic book, that it was fabricated 150 years later," says Ebrahim Moosa, a professor of religious studies at Duke University, as well as a Muslim cleric whose liberal theological leanings earned him the animosity of fundamentalists in South Africa, which he left after his house was firebombed.
Andrew Rippin, an Islamicist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, says that freedom of speech in the Islamic world is more likely to evolve from within the Islamic interpretative tradition than from outside attacks on it. Approaches to the Koran that are now branded as heretical interpreting the text metaphorically rather than literally were widely practiced in mainstream Islam a thousand years ago.
"When I teach the history of the interpretation it is eye-opening to students the amount of independent thought and diversity of interpretation that existed in the early centuries of Islam," Mr. Rippin says. "It was only in more recent centuries that there was a need for limiting interpretation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-23-2004 8:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 182 (98343)
04-07-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
03-23-2004 10:47 PM


Re: Buzsaw. continue here
quote:
I apologize for taking so long to answer, Andyea, and appreciate your patience. I do not know which translation this is taken from but it basically says the same message as the copy I use which is Arberry's translation.
Sura 9:30 "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. The Jews say, "Ezra is a son of God"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is a son of God." Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided? They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, son of Mary, for lords besides God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! Far from His glory be what they associate with Him! Fain would they put out God's light with their mouths: but God only desireth to perfect His light, albeit the infidels abhor it. He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the guidance and a religion of the truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it.
2. He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with Guidance and the Religion of Truth (Islam), that He may establish (make) it (Islam) superior over all religions. And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness." [48:28] Also, "It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to establish (make) it superior over all religions even though the Polytheists hate (it)." [9:33]
(Hadith}
Sorry if it took me so long to answer you, for I have to consult this matter with several knowledgeable colleagues. here. First, a critique of Arberry's translation. Your quoted verse '9:30' is actually verses 9:29--33.
Sura 9
at-Tawbah (Repentance)
[Free-Minds.org translation, with some adaptations]
25.God has granted you victory in many battles. And on the day of Hunayn when you were pleased with your great numbers but it did not help you at all, and the land became tight around you for what it held, then you turned to flee.
26.Then God sent down tranquility upon His messenger and the believers, and He sent down soldiers which you did not see, and He punished those who disbelieved. Such is the recompense of the rejecters.
27.Then God will accept the repentance of whom He pleases after that. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
28.O you who believe, those who have set-up partners are impure, so let them not approach the Masjid al-Haram after this calendar year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
29.Fight those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, and they do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and they do not uphold the system of truth (Din al-Haqq), from among the people who have been given the Scripture (utu al-Kitab); until they pay the fine (jizya), willingly or unwillingly.
30.The Jews said: Uzair is God’s son, and the Nazarenes said: The Messiah is God’s son. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. God will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!
31.They took their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god but He, be He glorified for what they set-up.
32.They want to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses such and lets His light continue, even if the rejecters hate it.
33.He is the One who sent His messenger with guidance and the system of truth, to make it expose all other systems, even if those who set-up partners hate it.
Taken as such, I agree that the verse 29 might indicate an explicit command to fight nonbelievers and 'people who have been given the Scripture (original text "utu al-Kitab"). It might be noted that Jews and Christians are collectively addressed in the Qur'an as 'Ahl al-Kitab', the 'People of the Book' not 'utu al-Kitab', 'those who were given the book'. However, verse 30 and 31 describes common practice of Jews and Christians (elevating the Messiah (Jesus) and their priests and monks to Gods) so I consider that 'utu al-Kitab' refers to Jews and Christians.
So, taken as such, verses 29 to 31 could be taken as a command to fight nonbelievers, Jews, and Nazarenes [Christians]. However, verse 25 refers to the day of Hunayn. Hunayn is the name of a place near Mecca, the site of a war between early Muslims, commanded by Muhammad, against attacking pagans. The war happened when pagan tribes outside Mecca tried to reconquer Mecca, which had been won by Muslims. It could be taken as a context for verses 29 to 31. [Or not. I am undecided on this.] Some claimed that there were Jews and Christians in the attacking pagan force, hence the command to fight all three groups in verse 29, but this claim needs confirmation.
However, were it actually intended to mean that us Muslims should fight nonbelievers, Jews and Christians, it would still be in self-defense, in context with the event at Hunayn. Furthermore, 9:29 did not specify that we are allowed to attack. Therefore I refer to another Qur'anic verse:
2: 190 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.
The earlier part of chapter 9 also describes that the nonbelievers had a treaty with Muslims, but they were the ones who broke the deal and attack. Quoted some verses:
9:4 Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set-up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. God loves the righteous.
This is the command for Muslims to keep their part in the treaty, even if it's with the 'musyrikin' [those who set-up partners beside God]
9:8 How is it that when they come upon you they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and most of them are wicked.
9:9 They purchased with God’s revelations a small price, so they turn others from His path. Evil indeed is what they used to do.
9:10 They do not respect those who are believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. These are the transgressors.
This part tells us that the musyrikin broke the deal. So what does God say about them? Here:
9:12 And if they break their oaths after making them, and they denounce the authority of your system; then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God who is more worthy to be feared if you are believers.
So I rest my case. Verses 9:29--31 is a command to fight nonbelievers, Jews, and Christians that broke their treaty with Muslims and attacked Muslims first. It does not mention that Muslims should attack, because taken in textual and historical context, the verses talk about a situation where Muslims were defending.
I shall continue with this part:
quote:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to establish (make) it superior over all religions even though the Polytheists hate (it)." [9:33]
You said the verse is a prophecy (or command) that Islam would eventually dominate the world. Although I rather like that conclusion, I'd check if it actually said so. More from me later.
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 04-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 03-23-2004 10:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 182 (99189)
04-11-2004 5:11 AM


*bump*
I, for one, am interested in seeing buzsaw's response to Andya.
PE

"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 12:16 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 182 (99343)
04-12-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Primordial Egg
04-11-2004 5:11 AM


Re: *bump*
I, for one, am interested in seeing buzsaw's response to Andya.
I guess my only response is that beginning from Mohammed on and beginning at Mecca, the obvious intent and meaning of the statements in the Quran is for Islam to conquer first at home, then neighboring nations and finally worldwide. There are all sorts of premises to claim one has first been attacked or that a promise has been broken. The same goes for the Hadiths and Sunnas. Even if a tenth of the faithful have the Jihad mindset as did their prophet, that's millions and there sure aren't many outcries from their more peaceful acting brethren about their horrendous cowardly terrorism against mostly defensless helpless men, women, and children, unarmed civilians.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-11-2004 5:11 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-12-2004 2:33 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 163 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-13-2004 4:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 164 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-13-2004 4:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 182 (99444)
04-12-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
04-12-2004 12:16 AM


Re: *bump*
buzsaw writes:
the obvious intent and meaning of the statements in the Quran is for Islam to conquer first at home, then neighboring nations and finally worldwide
Buz, you might have missed this, but the whole of Andya's last post was dedicated to debunking this claim. Its a shame you don't deign it worthy of a proper read and response, but I suppose the easy conclusion to draw is that you don't to hear anything that might alter your pre-conceived notions of Islam, because your preconceived notions represent a caricature of reality, which allow you to vent your fury and feel self-righteous at the same time.
...and why should you hear anything which might change your mind?
On a slightly different topic:
buzsaw writes:
Even if a tenth of the faithful have the Jihad mindset as did their prophet, that's millions and there sure aren't many outcries from their more peaceful acting brethren about their horrendous cowardly terrorism against mostly defensless helpless men, women, and children, unarmed civilians.
I've often heard this said about Muslims but I don't get it. Who exactly should be denouncing terrorism who hasn't already done so? Which Islamic brethren? As far as I'm aware, all the major Islamic leaders have denounced terrorism of all forms (including state sponsored terrorism), but I'm interested in what you'd still like to see.
Maybe its the media you should be blaming for not reporting, or at the very least not drawing enough attention to, the many many denunciations which have taken place?
PE
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-12-2004]

"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 12:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 10:44 PM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 10:52 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 182 (99558)
04-12-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Primordial Egg
04-12-2004 2:33 PM


Re: *bump*
all the major Islamic leaders have denounced terrorism of all forms (including state sponsored terrorism),
Mmmm, well, what about Yasser Arafat, the militant Sheites of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Liberia, Nigeria, Some Sheite leaders in Iraq, Syria, etc, etc. Many leaders like the slithery snake, Arafat mouth the opposite of what they practice and support. Often it's the leading clerics that fan the fires of terrorism and Jihad, while mouthing opposition in public. Many of the fundamentalist Islamic nations were publicly jubilant over the 9/11 attacks within their own nations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-12-2004 2:33 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-16-2004 8:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 182 (99560)
04-12-2004 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Primordial Egg
04-12-2004 2:33 PM


Re: *bump*
Buz, you might have missed this, but the whole of Andya's last post was dedicated to debunking this claim. Its a shame you don't deign it worthy of a proper read and response,
My response is what I seem to have to keep repeating. The grim reality by present observation and history is that Andya can debunk till the cows come home, but the bloody Jehad buck stops with Mohammed, his book and the Hadiths written by his closest successive desciples.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-12-2004]

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-12-2004 2:33 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-13-2004 4:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 182 (99603)
04-13-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
04-12-2004 12:16 AM


Re: *bump*
quote:
I guess my only response is that beginning from Mohammed on and beginning at Mecca, the obvious intent and meaning of the statements in the Quran is for Islam to conquer first at home, then neighboring nations and finally worldwide. There are all sorts of premises to claim one has first been attacked or that a promise has been broken.
You're not going to change your mind. I am banging my head against a brick wall. Well then, you just wait there until Islam conquers the world.
quote:
Even if a tenth of the faithful have the Jihad mindset as did their prophet, that's millions and there sure aren't many outcries from their more peaceful acting brethren about their horrendous cowardly terrorism against mostly defensless helpless men, women, and children, unarmed civilians.
You're closing your ears. Muslim leaders froam every nation had spoken out against every kind of terrorism, whether done by Muslims (al-Qaeda etc.) or others (Israel, US).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 12:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 182 (99604)
04-13-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
04-12-2004 12:16 AM


Re: *bump*
[deleted double post, but still banging my head against a brick wall]
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 04-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 12:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 182 (99608)
04-13-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
04-12-2004 10:52 PM


Re: *bump*
If you're not going to appreciate my debunking, then at least I can show the spectators that Buzsaw's premises are faulty therefore his words are worth nothing.
Oh, and I think you want to shift the focus to early Islamic history? Just because Christianity has to borrow the power of Roman empire to spread does not give you the right to say that Islam should not be liberating the colonized regions of Middle East.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 04-12-2004 10:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2004 1:00 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024