Are you kidding me? He compares him to King David's negative characteristics, not the ones that are most revered in Christian tradition. Just in case you aren't a Christian or haven't read the Bible, the Kind David he compares Muhammad to is the one that has an unflattering depiction as an adulterer and a murderer. Its hard to believe he would actually come in with his biased view and give the main prophet of the book he is criticizing the dubious distinction of being like one of the most revered individuals amongst Christians. Its completely counterproductive! You are right though, this isn't an unbiased criticism of Jeffrey's work. Just the same, you should admit that Jeffrey's work was incredibly biased as well. Being a scholar doesn't change his preconceived notions about the religion, book or prophet; and it most certainly doesn't change his agenda. Like I said before, if this is your only proof, we are back at square one and no one has proven or disproven anything.
I hate to get involved with the side discussion but, http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_terror_08_27.asp Al Qaida clerics distributing revised editions of Koran ABU DHABI — Qatar has banned the import and distribution of unauthorized Korans. Officials said the Islamic Affairs Ministry has ordered mosques and clerics to use only Korans and other Islamic text approved by the government, Middle East Newsline reported. They said Al Qaida-aligned clerics have employed Korans revised to promote the doctrine of Islamic war against the West...
israel has now killed 350 people and wounded 1500. all because 0 people had died due to rocket fire uptill saturday. very proportionate. very reasonable. very necessary. very fruitful.
sigh...you said it. an apple and a banana are both fruits. look, you can use the "it's not apples to apples" argument for basically any situation, ever. Because, when are two situations ever the same? Never. The point was to create a hypothetical comparable analogy and see what the personal response would be. the point was not to create the exact same scenario...if it was, I would have just said, pretend you are a Palestinian or Israeli. The thread had/has been fairly heavy anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian - which is fine. I never supported either side and can see how both sides have valid logical arguments as to why they're "right". I was just trying to point out the tit for tat argument that concludes that the Israelis are wrong because their response has been disproportionate only makes sense if you are not personally involved. If you're an Israeli (or in a similar situation in America) your viewpoint would definitely be different. good for him. sigh again... you're right, they should all just stay there and continue getting picked off, then. look, i understand that i've had life a lot easier than most folks, as an American, as a caucasian, whatever. but I also know some universal truths. like life is what you make of it. save up, buy a plane ticket...or whatever. if it's me, i'm finding a way out of that cycle of violence. frankly, this is basically the script for immigration. life sucks where you are, it is hard, difficult to leave, sometimes even life threatening, but you decide to do it, etc. America is what it is today because of people like this (I know, I know, the middle eastern situation is not the same as it was for Irish people, or Italians, or Germans, etc., etc....I'm making a comparison, not saying two things are exactly the same.) but beyond that, thanks for painting my comment with a brush as being one-sided. i said nothing about which "side" should be the ones buying up tickets and leaving. it was a broad and generalized comments about people on both sides of the fight. If I'm an Israeli I'm picking up and leaving, too. Heck, imo, you can just move the entire freaking country for all I care. They're just as moronic for sticking to their guns and fighting it out. yes, as noted above, that's exactly what i did, except I called both sides moronic, because they are - when your stance is that you won't be happy until the other party is gone, and you are going to resort to crazy levels of violence otherwise, as both sides have done, for hundreds, if not thousands of years, that's moronic ...unfortunately, your clearly biased, one-sided view of the situation looked right past the fact that I was chastising both parties and assumed I was speaking only about one side. Great work! This kind of misguided, emotion driven response is part of the problem in the first place.
Amusing circular logic. He must be biased because he wrote this, and this is clearly unflattering and biased because we all know he is a biased Islam-hater as we established earlier. I apologize for trying to discuss maters that fall into the realm of your faith using non-faith based methodologies. I am a sucker for every available opportunity to bang my head against the wall.
"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." -- Barack Obama
Well done on coming up with the worst comparison I've seen then. You say you are neutral on this topic, but your initial comparison was an Israeli defense. How can you say others are biased when you yourself cannot come up with an unbiased comparison? The amount of Israelis who were against an entire Jewish state is astounding, so I think that speaks for itself. I could be Israeli and have the same viewpoint. Look at the authors Simha Flapan or Norman Finkelstein. They describe Israel's war of 'Independence' being decided through acts of war crimes. Once again you say you're neutral on the subject, yet started off with that biased comparison to make Israel's acts seem like defense. Anyone with 20+ IQ would think you're Pro-Zionism from that dumb comparison you were trying to validate. But all you show now is even more lack of understanding about the conflict. It's never that easy to get up and leave. Especially when Israel determines if you will work, eat, live for another day. Like I said before, anyone would assume you were Pro-Israeli when you come up with half-wit comparisons that doesn't even prove or help prove valid points. You blow past what Gandhi said, and then say resorting to violence is moronic. In case you didn't get it: So, here, for your small IQ - I shall explain. He knows violence is never the answer, but according to common sense - right & wrong - Palestinian Arabs are doing what any people would have done when blatant injustice is handed over there heads. It's like blaming Native Americans for having so many casinos. That is there fault too, no?
How does this prove anything? I can pick up a copy of the Quran and edit and say, "hey, here you go, here's a new version of the Quran." There is one official version of the Quran and it's the Uthman Codex (3 copies I believe still exist today). Nothing in this text has changed and nothing has been altered. All official copies of the Quran are based on the Uthman Codex. Islam came into existence in a culture that transmitted knowledge orally, thus, the Quran was memorized and passed on to others through oral transmission. A person who memorizes the Quran is known as a Hafez. In the Battle of Yamama a lot of the Hafezs were killed and the Caliph at the time felt that if the Quran was not eventually written down and a standardized text produced, they could risk losing it. So the Prophet's companions, who had all memorized the Quran, gathered and verified the verses and produced an official copy. This doesn't mean that other versions have never existed, but those copies contained errors and mistakes, which is why they weren't preserved or considered official. This was all done less than 20 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.
I think this is all that needs to be said. Zionism, the main ideology of the Israeli regime, and its promotion of racism are at the root of the problem here. There is really no difference between apartheid South Africa and Israel (which is one of the reasons the two were such close allies). If you were against racism in one place, you should be against it in the other. If not, you're a hypocrite and/or a religious fanatic that believes in some sort end of days or armageddon theory. Keep schooling these boys eckostylez.
You've got to be kidding me... I don't disagree with everything you say, but that little snippet has to be one of the most ignorant things in this thread. You really think Israel allows freedom of movement? Those people would kill (and are killing) to get out of Gaza. One of the major reasons this whole conflict exists is because Palestinians do not have freedom of movement. You can't even travel a few miles down a road without hitting a checkpoint and being interrogated and searched for hours. Most Gazans and most in the West Bank have a Palestinian I.D. card that does not allow them to leave the territories.
Well, for one thing, it proves that some people here don't understand what the words "never" and "can't" mean. We could split hairs over any number of points you made in the above paragraph, but it really means nothing. Absolutely nothing. Know why? Words are subjective. Meaning is alterable. If one muslim cleric can proclaim islam a religion of peace, while another can justify it as rationale for terrorism and warfare, the ideology of unaltered original text becomes totally pointless. Religions and religious people are obsessed with some idealized "sacredness" of a pure transmission from whatever sky-god conduit happens to be en vogue, but that's only a means to an end. Amazingly (sarcasm), people for some reason seem to think such statements of textual purity or insightful research lends merit to whatever outright interpretation of said text fits their own goofy worldview.
Let's talk about this...because I agree with you. But I can only talk about this from my own experience in reading the Bible, my own faith, and myunderstanding what other's viewpoints are reading the very same text...is this a good place for that, or do we need a new thread?
Probably a new thread. I was about to edit my previous post with an apology for going so offtopic (again).
or perhaps over st. arnold's christmas ale! do those in this thread who call themselves Christians recognize there's a significant Church presence among Palestinians? i'm not about the "defend people who call themselves Christians at any cost, and above other human beings" mantra...but most of the people willing to stand behind a drawn line are usually of that mindset, anyway.
