Sultan Attempts to Educate Powell

We had a thing called “the Reformation” about 500 years ago. I’m not a Roman Catholic so I can’t explain either to you. That said, where’s the Islamic reformation that has re-interpreted Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 towards a more peaceful interaction with non-Muslims.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
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.
[/quote]

What have we not addressed? You started talking about Christianity, which is a non-sequitur. Christianity may be the most violent religion in the world, but it still has nothing to do with Islam.

Sure.

Sirat Rasul Allah:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm

Qur’an and Hadith:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler):

[quote]
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.[/quote]

He did quite a bit more than that. He attacked the Banu Quraiza, the Quraish, the Jews of Khaibar, caravans, writers,…

[quote]lixy wrote:
SlimJim, this is a futile exercise. You have better chances to convince Ben Laden that his interpretations of the Quran is wrong [/quote]

I notice that very little is done by Muslims to educate other Muslims on terrorism. They always seem to be misunderstanding their religion, what with the daily terrorist attacks and all.

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

Peace,[/quote]

Lixy,

Did you here about the latest Islamic rioting in Malmo?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
slimjim wrote:
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.

What have we not addressed? You started talking about Christianity, which is a non-sequitur. Christianity may be the most violent religion in the world, but it still has nothing to do with Islam.

For that matter, how do you know what Muhammad was engaged in? I’d love to see your primary source evidence for this,

Sure.

Sirat Rasul Allah:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm

Qur’an and Hadith:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler):

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.

He did quite a bit more than that. He attacked the Banu Quraiza, the Quraish, the Jews of Khaibar, caravans, writers,…
[/quote]

fuck, you guys are going to make me fail inorganic chem.

My statement about Christianity was to offer a basis of comparison when making a statement about the apparently violent nature of Islam, showing that no matter the tennets of the faith, it can be abused when used by people to motivate others to action contrary to the belief system. In each instance I gave there were people purporting to uphold the principles of Christianity by engaging in violent acts to advance the faith, which is obviously in direct opposition to its basic principles.

Does that explain it better? Making an argument for the supposed superiority of Christianity does nothing to counter my point that Islam is not intrinsically violent in nature. Nor is Christianity for that matter and it is not something that I am arguing.

I’m not sure if you know what a primary source is, but those aren’t primary sources - especially the one about the biography of Muhammad…still an interesting read though - But, it would be nice if you guys would go read “misconceptions about Islam” from the USC website, it would alleviate a lot of the necessity for me to respond here.

Muhammad’s role developed to include that of a statesman as well as a religious leader - his life is going to have instances where he acted as such, this still does not detract from the basic tennets of the religion which generally preached relgious tolerance and righteous action.

Yes, well, the difference is that the tenants of Islam as understood by the 4 Schools and as they relate to non-Muslims, are violent and expansionary in nature. Muhammad was a violent and expansionary guy during his Medinan period. Jesus wasn’t.

Perhaps I’ll provide some doctrinal examples on jihad from each of the 4 Schools later.

If the sources I gave, such as the Qur’an and Sunnah, are not primary sources, why does the USC “misconceptions” page spend so much time quoting from them? Don’t they know that they’re not primary sources, or have they misunderstood Islam as well?

Further, why did they not discuss the “sword verse” (Surah 9:5) as it relates to the abrogation of earlier, peaceful Meccan statements made by Muhammad? Aren’t they practicing kitman?

The website cites and discusses primary sources making it a secondary source. You can glean excerpts of primary sources from their commentary, but it is not a primary source unless you’re looking for a source on contemporary interpretations.

I would argue that the interpretation of jihad as a physical war rather than a spiritual, internal struggle of the individual is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
The website cites and discusses primary sources making it a secondary source. You can glean excerpts of primary sources from their commentary, but it is not a primary source unless you’re looking for a source on contemporary interpretations.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I listed the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sirah as primary sources. I’ve cited primary sources (the Qur’an and Hadith) throughout this discussion. Oh well.

[quote]
I would argue that the interpretation of jihad as a physical war rather than a spiritual, internal struggle of the individual is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.[/quote]

Why does Muhammad himself wage physical jihad then during his Medinan period of revelation? Why the deaths of non-believers at Khaibar, or the Battle of the Trench, or at Medina? Were these “spiritual, internal struggles?” Can you point me to the part in the Qur’an or Hadith which teaches jihad as an “internal struggle?”

[quote]slimjim wrote:
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. [/quote]

It is not asinine at all. I read your post in it’s entirety then then I address individual parts of it in my response. For anyone who bothers to read my reply it is easier for them to follow which part of your post I am addressing. Besides some of your points really stand out as something that needs addressing.

I think what you don’t like is it allows me to highlight the fallacy of some of the things you have written in a way that is easy to follow instead of massing it all at the bottom of the post so people have to try and figure what I am talking about.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

The combat sports forum is by far the most dogmatic part of this site. It is why I rarely bother to participate in it.

My views of Islam have evolved and changed over many years. The more I have learned about Islam the more I have come to realize that our leaders and the media have lied to us. That the threat to western society is very real and growing.

[quote]
How can you separate Christianity from the things done in its name yet not do the same for Islam? [/quote]

Because they are two totally different religions with radically different ideologies. It is idiotic to treat them the samje when they clearly are not.

The ideology of Christianity that originated with Jesus was peaceful and non-violent. When people who say they are Christian resort to violence they are ignoring his teachings.

The ideology of Islam is violent. ie Mohammad said kill non-believers. So when muslims go out and kill non believers in the name of Islam they are doing exactly what their religion teaches them to do. That is why it is appropriate to blame Islam for the violence that is perpetrated in it’s name.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

With Jesus we have the things he said and did. There are key events in his life that demonstrate the kind of man he was. ie His arrest at Gethsemane. Peter drew out a sword and attacked Keifus’ servant, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and Jesus surrendered peacefully. Then he was taken away given an unfair trial and crucified.

I am objective enough to realize that inconsistancies in the bible regarding Jesus appear to be out character and therefore may not be accurate.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Christianity did not rise to prominence at all. It was a persecuted underground movement that spread through attraction till eventually a lot of Romans were closeted Christians. They were closeted because they could be fed to lions in the coloseum for practicing it.

The Roman emporer Constantine came to realize this and on the eve of an important battle had his legionnaires paint crucifixes on their shields. They won the battle so Constantine realized that Christianity could be useful to him in advancing his agenda so he decreed it to be the state religion.

What we are told about Constantine today is a bunch of bullshit propaganda. We are told Constantine had a conversion to Christianity and it was a great moment for Christianity because when it became the Church of Rome it was able to grow and Constantine used his power as emporer to call the council of Nicea so we could get all the innacuracies out of the bible.

Out of all the prophcies that Jesus made he prophesized that he was going to motivate the Roman legions to victory in combat. Which is exactly what Constantine used Christianity for. I would not call that a conversion, it was a usurpation.

The early Christians did not need the Roman government to spread their religion, it was an attractive religion and they had the Roman network of roads.

The council of Nicea was the worst thing that happened because entire gospels were ripped out of the bible and Apostles were eliminated in order to produce a bible that would be useful to the Roman emporer.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

When Mohamad was starting out in Mecca he had very few followers and was vulnerable to the powers that ran Mecca. So he had to watch what he said so they would not become concerned and do something about him. That early Meccan Islam where Mohammad was not free to speak his mind and was trying to mislead people about his true intentions,(Taqqiya) is where all the touchy, feely, nice, passages from the koran that liberals like to use to reassure us about Islam come from.

They were meant to mislead and placate people then and they are still being used for it today. Eventually the Meccans realized that this guy was up to no good so they threw him out of town.

Then Mohammad went to Medina. It was in Medina that Mohammad and his followers went into business robbing caravans coming out of Mecca. The wealth this generated attracted followers to join his gang which eventually grew to be an army.If Medina needed defending from the Meccans it is because of Mohammad going out, causing trouble and it following him back.

With an army to back him up Mohammad changed his tune. This is why the Medina Islam is so violent and why it abrogates the Meccan Islam.

The activities that Mohammad engaged in after he went to Medina were very important to building the empire that came after him. One of the things he would do is attack Jewish settlements, kill all the men and older boys, then dragged all the women and girls off as slaves to be passed amongst his men.

Putting all the slave women to work as breeders is how the muslims were able to raise the army that invaded Africa and other areas.

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

Peace,[/quote]

Oh great Mufti why don’t you enlighten us as to why Bin Laden is wrong.

Even better why don’t you try and explain why you call reasoned critical analysis hatred.

I think it is because your people have found it a very effective way of discouraging others from engaging in the kind of critical analysis of your religion that your people refuse to do.

I think it is because your people have found that as soon as you accuse critics of being haters you will have a bunch of liberal weenies who will unthinkingly jump to your defense without considering if there is any basis to the criticism.

That bullshit may work real well for you in Sweden but it isn’t going to work here where people are more open minded.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll get on that right after you explain to me papal infallibility and a geocentric universe.

We had a thing called “the Reformation” about 500 years ago. I’m not a Roman Catholic so I can’t explain either to you. That said, where’s the Islamic reformation that has re-interpreted Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 towards a more peaceful interaction with non-Muslims. [/quote]

Mohammad was the seal of the prophets. That means no more changes. You cannot reform something that is not supposed to be changed.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
slimjim wrote:
The website cites and discusses primary sources making it a secondary source. You can glean excerpts of primary sources from their commentary, but it is not a primary source unless you’re looking for a source on contemporary interpretations.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I listed the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sirah as primary sources. I’ve cited primary sources (the Qur’an and Hadith) throughout this discussion. Oh well.

I would argue that the interpretation of jihad as a physical war rather than a spiritual, internal struggle of the individual is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.

Why does Muhammad himself wage physical jihad then during his Medinan period of revelation? Why the deaths of non-believers at Khaibar, or the Battle of the Trench, or at Medina? Were these “spiritual, internal struggles?” Can you point me to the part in the Qur’an or Hadith which teaches jihad as an “internal struggle?”
[/quote]

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.religion.islam/2005-11/msg00239.pdf

This should clear up some of the discrepency in terms of interpretations.

Let’s try a little experiment here, replace Muslim and Islam in your posts with Communist and Communism…we’ve been down a similar road before, I would suggest that it would only facilitate further divides and violence from both sides (Western world and Islamic world…they’re just general terms, if any of you assholes nitpick that one you can go to hell.)

[quote]Sifu wrote:
slimjim wrote:
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.

It is not asinine at all. I read your post in it’s entirety then then I address individual parts of it in my response. For anyone who bothers to read my reply it is easier for them to follow which part of your post I am addressing. Besides some of your points really stand out as something that needs addressing.

I think what you don’t like is it allows me to highlight the fallacy of some of the things you have written in a way that is easy to follow instead of massing it all at the bottom of the post so people have to try and figure what I am talking about.

[/quote]
Now is this where I’m supposed to respond? in the middle of all this crap?

[quote]

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.

The combat sports forum is by far the most dogmatic part of this site. It is why I rarely bother to participate in it.

My views of Islam have evolved and changed over many years. The more I have learned about Islam the more I have come to realize that our leaders and the media have lied to us. That the threat to western society is very real and growing.

How can you separate Christianity from the things done in its name yet not do the same for Islam?

Because they are two totally different religions with radically different ideologies. It is idiotic to treat them the samje when they clearly are not.

The ideology of Christianity that originated with Jesus was peaceful and non-violent. When people who say they are Christian resort to violence they are ignoring his teachings.

The ideology of Islam is violent. ie Mohammad said kill non-believers. So when muslims go out and kill non believers in the name of Islam they are doing exactly what their religion teaches them to do. That is why it is appropriate to blame Islam for the violence that is perpetrated in it’s name.

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.

With Jesus we have the things he said and did. There are key events in his life that demonstrate the kind of man he was. ie His arrest at Gethsemane. Peter drew out a sword and attacked Keifus’ servant, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and Jesus surrendered peacefully. Then he was taken away given an unfair trial and crucified.

I am objective enough to realize that inconsistancies in the bible regarding Jesus appear to be out character and therefore may not be accurate.

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.

Christianity did not rise to prominence at all. It was a persecuted underground movement that spread through attraction till eventually a lot of Romans were closeted Christians. They were closeted because they could be fed to lions in the coloseum for practicing it.

The Roman emporer Constantine came to realize this and on the eve of an important battle had his legionnaires paint crucifixes on their shields. They won the battle so Constantine realized that Christianity could be useful to him in advancing his agenda so he decreed it to be the state religion.

What we are told about Constantine today is a bunch of bullshit propaganda. We are told Constantine had a conversion to Christianity and it was a great moment for Christianity because when it became the Church of Rome it was able to grow and Constantine used his power as emporer to call the council of Nicea so we could get all the innacuracies out of the bible.

Out of all the prophcies that Jesus made he prophesized that he was going to motivate the Roman legions to victory in combat. Which is exactly what Constantine used Christianity for. I would not call that a conversion, it was a usurpation.

The early Christians did not need the Roman government to spread their religion, it was an attractive religion and they had the Roman network of roads.

The council of Nicea was the worst thing that happened because entire gospels were ripped out of the bible and Apostles were eliminated in order to produce a bible that would be useful to the Roman emporer.

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.

When Mohamad was starting out in Mecca he had very few followers and was vulnerable to the powers that ran Mecca. So he had to watch what he said so they would not become concerned and do something about him.

That early Meccan Islam where Mohammad was not free to speak his mind and was trying to mislead people about his true intentions,(Taqqiya) is where all the touchy, feely, nice, passages from the koran that liberals like to use to reassure us about Islam come from.

They were meant to mislead and placate people then and they are still being used for it today. Eventually the Meccans realized that this guy was up to no good so they threw him out of town.

Then Mohammad went to Medina. It was in Medina that Mohammad and his followers went into business robbing caravans coming out of Mecca. The wealth this generated attracted followers to join his gang which eventually grew to be an army.If Medina needed defending from the Meccans it is because of Mohammad going out, causing trouble and it following him back.

With an army to back him up Mohammad changed his tune. This is why the Medina Islam is so violent and why it abrogates the Meccan Islam.

The activities that Mohammad engaged in after he went to Medina were very important to building the empire that came after him. One of the things he would do is attack Jewish settlements, kill all the men and older boys, then dragged all the women and girls off as slaves to be passed amongst his men.

Putting all the slave women to work as breeders is how the muslims were able to raise the army that invaded Africa and other areas. [/quote]

[quote]slimjim wrote:

I’ll get on that right after you explain to me papal infallibility and a geocentric universe.[/quote]

Not sure what you’re asking about with the geocentric universe.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
slimjim wrote:
The website cites and discusses primary sources making it a secondary source. You can glean excerpts of primary sources from their commentary, but it is not a primary source unless you’re looking for a source on contemporary interpretations.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I listed the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sirah as primary sources. I’ve cited primary sources (the Qur’an and Hadith) throughout this discussion. Oh well.

I would argue that the interpretation of jihad as a physical war rather than a spiritual, internal struggle of the individual is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.

Why does Muhammad himself wage physical jihad then during his Medinan period of revelation? Why the deaths of non-believers at Khaibar, or the Battle of the Trench, or at Medina? Were these “spiritual, internal struggles?” Can you point me to the part in the Qur’an or Hadith which teaches jihad as an “internal struggle?”

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.religion.islam/2005-11/msg00239.pdf

This should clear up some of the discrepency in terms of interpretations.[/quote]

Well, good luck on your finals. We can talk about this in a couple of days.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Chushin wrote:
slimjim wrote:

the basic tennets of the religion… generally preached relgious tolerance and righteous action

and

… jihad as a physical war… is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.

Please provide evidence (i.e., Islamic doctrinal teachings) to support these assertions.

Edit: Basically I’d like to see the parts of the Koran that support this.

Hello?

Do you have any evidence, or just your opinion?[/quote]

It’s quite simple. You either take the Holy Book as a whole and try to derive the general message, or you can isolate and try to interpret verses the way so many violent groups have done.

You act as if you’ve never considered or run across diverging interpretations of texts before. Coming from adults, this is very depressing. If supposedly educated people don’t have the philosophical level to understand that black and white are concepts out of this world, what does one expect of Somali children?

If you’re looking for The Truth, you should be asking God. Otherwise, people arguing whose interpretation of affair X is the right one gets old quite fast. I dare you to find any form of consensus on any single issue but that of the uniqueness of God and the divine legitimacy of Muhammad’s message among Muslims. If you would consider an interpretation by a self-professed expert “evidence” (on the internet of all places), you’re probably looking at the wrong religion. And THAT, is just my opinion…

[quote]slimjim wrote:
The website cites and discusses primary sources making it a secondary source. You can glean excerpts of primary sources from their commentary, but it is not a primary source unless you’re looking for a source on contemporary interpretations.

I would argue that the interpretation of jihad as a physical war rather than a spiritual, internal struggle of the individual is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.[/quote]

The info on that website was not produced by USC it was written by MSU (Muslim Student Union). It is a public relations piece. All they have done is take some of the touch feely nice parts from the Koran which are vague and difficult to understand in some instances.

If you look at the numbers of the passages they are quoting some of them are very early and are overridden by later passages. They aren’t clearing misconceptions at all they are just trying to mislead people by spoon feeding them the nicer bits of the Koran a while ignoring the viscous bits.

Your argument about physical Jihad is not supported by the historical record.