Senseless dribble! So much idiocy that it hurts the brains.
1) Syria is not a "Muslim country". It's a secular state that has been under emergency rule since 1963. It's as stupid as calling France a Catholic country.
2) I thought Powell was out of the political scene. How then can one call him a "high level political official"?
3) If Mohammed was perfect and Muslims are supposed to emulate him, why then aren't Muslims marrying 13 brides?
Then again, anyone associating with Fox, Horowitz and the gang has got to be clueless.
She was talking about the demographics.
(Aside: notice how Wikipedia describes the Levantine peoples as having been "Arabized?")
Well, lixy, you're never really "out" of the political scene if you've ever been "in." Look at Tom Daschle. Look at James Baker.
As you well know, Muhammad's numerous brides were mostly war prizes, except for little Aisha. "4 bride" rule was an instance of Mohammed saying, "Do as I say, not as I do:"
In other cases (i.e., those not specifically addressed by Mohammed,) we have Qur'an 33:21:
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. "
She makes a lot of sense, Powell was wrong to say what he said. Considering the ideology and the brutaly bloody history of Islam it is perfectly appropriate for people to be concerned about a muslim becoming president.
Calling Syria a secular state like France is stretching things.
Powell was secretary of state and he still has a lot of clout as he is one of the most highly respected people who has been in government in recent memory.
Emulate means strive to copy or be like. It doesn't mean be an exact duplicate. Besides doesn't the Koran put the limit at four wives, but you can kidnap and rape any number of slaves.
Since you can't dispute the message, you attack the messenger.
What about Bill Clinton?
If you are still making nationally reported endorsements in a presidential race, you are still on the scene.
I'm sure we could go on all day. The political class seems to revolve between jobs in government, the financial sector, and teh military-industrial complex.
As opposed to Christianity's own bloodless history? St Bartholomew's Day massacre anyone? Salem Witch Trials? The Wars of Religion? Hapsburgs vs Villois? Crusades? Ireland and England? It's always a nice bit of irony to see an argument deriding the apparent intolerance and inconsistencies of a people's belief system based on one's own stereotypes.
Muhammad, long before Europeans ever adopted the same principle (long long before,) had a policy of tolerance of other religions (the revealed faiths such as Christianity and Judaism) as well as an edict on how to treat non-combatants and POWs (they were to be afforded the best sustenance available, given food and water before their own troops,) and a sura forbidding the mutilation of an enemy's body (after death.) It is a shame that certain sects of contemporary Islam ignore these aspects of the hadith, and is should not affect the way we judge the religion as a whole...unless you want others opinion's of Christianity to be based on extremists like Westboro Baptist Church or other similar abusers of faith.
I honestly don't have time to argue with you guys all day as I'm in the middle of finals and I know this is going to spark a bunch of posts arguing against my points, so if you are actually interested in learning about a religion that is so harshly stereo typed as backwards and fundamentalist by our media and government (I'm not arguing that there aren't followers of the religion that are, simply that it is not simply the faith itself that causes this) a good book to read would be Islamic Ethics of Life: Abortion, War, and Euthanasia edited by Jonathan Brockopp.
Was this the tolerance you were referring to?
So we're fought until we pay "jizya with willing submission and feel (ourselves) subdued."
Jihad is, of course, fighting:
"Paradise is under the shade of swords."
With this prargraph you have brought up some stereotypes yourself while ignoring relevant facts in order to support your beliefs.
Your arguement is a common one that is so badly flawed it is difficult to decide where to begin.
Since you chose to ignore Jesus in order to make your point about Christianity I guess I'll start with Jesus. Where in the teachings of Jesus can you find the ideology that lead to that supposedly "Christian history" that you have brought up?
Since that will be impossible for you to answer I'll make it easier for you. What teachings of Jesus did the perpetrators of your so called "Christian history" use to rally the masses to their cause?
The simple fact of the matter is this. The only "Christian history" that can truly be called that is the life of Jesus. Everything that came after that is either the use of his teachings or the abuse of his good name.
What you are describing as "Christian history" is actually common human behaviour that was going on long before Jesus came along and tried to show people another way. A way which is non-violent.
Again you are wrong. The Romans were Pagans but Judaism was an officially recognised religion, even after the Jews were driven out of the Holyland. Because the early Christians were a sect of Judiasm they enjoyed that same official recognition. Jews and early Christians got along, even mohammad complained that they were friends of each other.
If mohammad had tolerance for other religious beliefs why did he order the death penalty for apostacy? A lot of Hindus and Buddists because of it. If he was tolerant of oter religions, why when he was dying, was mohammads last order kill all the Jews and Christians in the Arabian penninsula?
It's too bad mohammads concerns about mutilating a body only came into effect after it was dead. Because there are sura's ordering people mutilated when they are a live.
Why is it a shame that some contemporary muslims are ignoring the Hadith? They are the moderates. The ones who are staying true to their religions origins are the fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism and a lack of questioning is dictated in the koran. If fundamentalism is the general view of islam it isn't because of some government or media conspiracy. If anything the media and the government have been deliberately misleading people into believing that islam is a lot nicer than it really is. That Bin Laden and others have somehow gotten it all wrong. That when fundamentalists go out and kill non-believers they have somehow perverted mohammads orders to kill non-believers.
What the government and the media don't tell us is that the peaceful sounding Meccan Islam is what is known as Taqqiya and that it was abrogated (overridden) by the later Medinan Islam. It is the Medina Islam that the jihadists are following. But the media and the government keep pushing the PC public relations spin that the Meccan Islam is the "true Islam".
You and DD seem to misunderstand me. I was wondering why you wouldn't mention ol' Bill. That's the first name I think of if you wanted to refute Lixy's point.
I don't see how anything either of you has written has served to counter any of my points. You basically attempt to hold Muhammad responsible for what amounts to a violent doctrine of conversion or conquer, which is not in the Koran or the hadith.
Even as Sifu is obviously able to see that it was not Jesus who was responsible for later interpretations of religion in the hands of people that led to violence, is it impossible to see the same in Islam? How is it that I'm painting an inaccurate Christian history because I utilize examples after Christ, yet your interpretation of Islamic History is accurate even though you utilize events that occurred while after Muhammad's death.
You act as if Islam is so backwards it could not adjust or relate to contemporary times, as if they could not adapt what are sometimes anachronistic practices and beliefs to today's environment, while Christians can.
You're utilizing an fairly easy figurehead in Christ to make your argument, as he is pretty unique in terms of religious figures as his entire message and life was one based on peace.
My point about Muhammad and Islam having a longer history than Europeans was in regards to the deportment of POWs, treatment of enemy's bodies...not religious toleration. The point about religious toleration still stands, Christianity was tolerant of other religions until it rose to prominence after which there have been clear examples of religious persecution.
You must be reading a different Qur'an and Hadith than everyone else.
Edit: btw, why don't you give us your take on where the Islamic scholars who authored "The Reliance of the Traveler" erred in section o9.0 regarding jihad.
As to your assertion that Islam can be modernized (or has been), explain to us why all of the 4 Schools of Sunni jurisprudence hold that the "gates of ijtihad are close" since the 10th century, thus outlawing further jurisprudence:
No, I got it. Bill's brain isn't so good after his bypass surgery, but he's more-or-less back in thanks to his wife's cabinet position. The bypass slowed him down quite a bit though.
I'll get on that right after you explain to me papal infallibility and a geocentric universe.
Are you trying to make a sarcastic joke or are you serious?
Of course it is impossible because mohammad was very supportive of violence and he was an active participant in violence. There is no misinterpretation going on with the jihadists, they are following the example set by mohammad and they are obeying his commands.
ie mohammad said kill apostates and idolaterers so a gang of jihadists just tore though Mumbai shooting everything in site. Where is the misinterpretation?
Because when Jesus was alive he thoroughly addressed the issue of violence and told his followers that violence is not his way.
Mohammad had an extensive history of cruelty, violence and encouraging others to engage in it with him or for him. If muslims have continued to be cruel and violent after mohammads death it is entirely his fault for encouraging it when he was alive.
Thanks to Jesus, killing in the name of religion was a backwards anachronism well before mohammad was born. Mohammad set the ideological clock back hundreds of years. Then he said that's it, I am the seal of the prophets, my way is the right way and that is final. Sealed means finished, done, completed, no more changes.
There was an imam in London who recently said that "islam is not a buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want". Picking and choosing is exactly what the so called moderate muslims are doing. They are picking the early Meccan islam to follow while choosing to ignore the later Medina islam which abrogates the earlier Meccan islam.
What they need to do is decide, islam yes or islam no, the so called moderate islam maybe is helping noone.
Mohammad had no problem in using Jesus in order to pursue his own selfish ends, so it is perfectly fair to keep Jesus in the discussion now.
You neglect the fact that the deportment of POW's was an issue because mohammad and his followers were busy making war on others. What about all the women who were hauled off as slaves? What about forcing them to have children to supply the jihad with fresh troops?
NO NO NO. Christianity did not rise to prominence. Christianity became very popular, then in it's 3rd century the Roman State invaded, took it over and inflicted a Roman Orthodoxy. So get your facts straight, Christianity did not take over Rome and then get nasty. Rome took over Christianity, then things got nasty. Because the Roman emporer didn't want to follow Jesus, he just wanted to use Jesus for his own selfish ends.
All religion = politics
This practice that you guys love to employ of addressing my posts in pieces is so fucking asinine as you take shit out of context, and generally try to 'win' (if any of us wasting our time on the internet could ever win anything other than the big loser of the week award) by simply parceling out posts and trying to find points that you can attempt to discredit. At least when I do it, I do once section and leave it at that so you can respond.
This is such a pain in the ass because you are wrong on a few of your points where you're telling me I'm wrong. I've seen this time and time again with you Sifu, and though I thought you were dogmatic with your approach and generalizations about martial arts, you're proving even more dogmatic in your view of Islam.
How can you separate Christianity from the things done in its name yet not do the same for Islam? Christianity's history is just as shrouded in myth and oral traditions as well as textual interpretations and incorporations of other belief systems, how the hell do you know exactly what the original tenants of the religion were? For that matter, how do you know what Muhammad was engaged in? I'd love to see your primary source evidence for this, you know you're just going off of interpretations of events that other's have created for you, much as I am, but at least I'm objective enough to recognize the inconsistencies in any religious tradition.
And YES YES YES, Christianity rose to prominence. I honestly don't know how you can rationalize your separation of the two here, if the Romans did not adopt and proselytize Christianity, you probably wouldn't have Christians in such large numbers today. Muhammad did not actively engage in the creation of an empire - that occurred a bit later than him. He defended Medina and then took Mecca after being driven out.
I wouldn't waste too much effort, common sense doesn't go very far around these parts.
SlimJim, this is a futile exercise. You have better chances to convince Ben Laden that his interpretations of the Quran is wrong than to dampen these guys' hatred towards the Mooslimz.