True true... Funny how biblical accounts of the great flood, or other catastrophes are all natural disasters that are explained as God's wrath... I am certain that somewhere in the South Pacific, the Tsunami is being billed as an angry god..... Or in New Orleans, some ignorant fool is blaming the Hurricane on God's wrath...... PATHETIC !! DD
im a nice guy, never lose my temper, but talking like that about someones religion is where i draw the line ive never said anything bad about anyones religion before
It's clear that there are good and bad Muslims just like there are good and bad Christians and Jews and Hindus. Is there any reason we can't talk about it and ask questions and challenge each other?
I have no idea what an "ayya" is and granted I dont know how to tell whether I have the "real" qur'an or not, but here is what I have: Title: Sacred Writings, Islam The Qur'an. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. The chapter is called "The Criterion" as I stated in my original post. Arabic: Al Furqan. Verse, or line, or whatever: 35-36.
How foolish of me to give you the benefit of the doubt yet another time to reply to one of my responses to one of your loaded comments with something of more substance than an attempt at a clever remark. You want to engage in the discussion? You're argument is completely illogical. You tirelessly attempt to find root causes of today's current events in Islamic scriptures yet at the same time dismiss any critique on Christianity in relation to atrocities committed in its name claiming irrelevance. There is no denying that Islamic fundamentalism is a cause of a great deal of violence in today's world. However, if you want to critique the scriptures and original message of a religion, it's entire history must be examined and that is why Christianity is relevant. Because at points in its history, it was also manipulated. So you can't just claim there are root problems in Islam and that there are none in Christianity simply based on present day events. If you want to examine a religion's message, it's history must be examined in its entirety because it can be manipulated at any point in time based on the same unchanging message. At some point in time, someone was able to manipulate these messages. That is why I can't take you seriously at all. Based on the reasoning behind your argument, you either have an agenda or are a complete imbecile incapable of patching together a train of coherent thoughts. If you want to critique the present day Muslim world, you can start by examining its political history and the rise of modern sectarian movements within the last half century. I wouldn't expect you to go through so much trouble though to feed your existing prejudices. You would rather jump to conclusions based on blind ignorance. If you want to critique the Islamic scriptures, you can't just dismiss critiques on Christianity. It doesn't work that way.
an ayya is a verse. if you come by any mosque, a member will be happy to give you an english - arabic quran.. some of the well known ones are The Holy quran - translated Yousuf Ali " " " - translation by Pickthall The Noble Quran - Dr. Muhsin Khan & Taqi-ud-Din Hilali as for the edition you have, how would you feel about learning christianity from the above mentioned authors? he is a christian author editing the quran, great professor no doubt, but id get the top of the line stuff for your learning experience or atleast the stuff most muslims have.
<b>thacabbage You want to engage in the discussion? You're argument is completely illogical. You tirelessly attempt to find root causes of today's current events in Islamic scriptures yet at the same time dismiss any critique on Christianity in relation to atrocities committed in its name claiming irrelevance.</b> Tirelessly? Did I write 50 words about this whole thing? What critique of Christianity did I dismiss? You must be referring to my shrugging off of Eric Rudolph, a lone wackjob, as a counter-point to the madness of the al-Qaeda network... <b>There is no denying that Islamic fundamentalism is a cause of a great deal of violence in today's world. However, if you want to critique the scriptures and original message of a religion, it's entire history must be examined and that is why Christianity is relevant. Because at points in its history, it was also manipulated. So you can't just claim there are root problems in Islam and that there are none in Christianity simply based on present day events. If you want to examine a religion's message, it's history must be examined in its entirety because it can be manipulated at any point in time based on the same unchanging message. At some point in time, someone was able to manipulate these messages.</b> And someone is doing it right now... in an increasing maelstrom of violence. That's what's important. <b>That is why I can't take you seriously at all. Based on the reasoning behind your argument, you either have an agenda or are a complete imbecile incapable of patching together a train of coherent thoughts.</b> Your mother wears Army boots! <b>If you want to critique the present day Muslim world, you can start by examining its political history and the rise of modern sectarian movements within the last half century. I wouldn't expect you to go through so much trouble though to feed your existing prejudices. You would rather jump to conclusions based on blind ignorance. If you want to critique the Islamic scriptures, you can't just dismiss critiques on Christianity. It doesn't work that way.</b> You love to listen to yourself don't you? What critiques on Christianity? I stated that I had read criticisms here before and I don't feel offended by them so I am perplexed why people over-react to criticisms of Islam. I'm all for discussion. Look at how many of you here just want to drown it out.
I was referring to your overall posting history ie: the time you posted a ridiculous propoganda peice from an anti-Islamic site and incessantly defended its contents even though you admitted you had no understanding of what it alluded to. Uh no, look no further than your response to SamFisher. Are you completely incapable of basic reason? How many times do I have to say it? There is no doubt that Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for present day violence. Your argument is flawed if you are going to keep trying to root out problems in the historical source and at the same time dismiss critiques on Christianity. It's obvious based on your track record that you find problems with Islam. You've stated it yourself in other threads. Fine by me, that's your prerogative. I couldn't care less how much you criticize Islam but your entire argument is flawed. You keep parroting things like " I thought we were concerned with the present; which religious fanatics are causing the problems worldwide?" Any religion is easily manipulated. What is even funnier is your (lack of) understanding of the religion and the conclusions you've formed: You somehow have concluded that a historical anecdote through the alleged voice of God is an inclusionary divine order to the people. Brilliant! It's simple what the message is: God is saying that he destroyed past nations who disobeyed his command as a warning to the people of Arabia at that time. If you think that is foolish, that is fine. But it is yet another display of your stupefying ignorance that you somehow arrived at the conclusion that it is an order to kill non-Muslims or that it is the cause of violence today. And yes, I haven't forgotten the show you put on in your "Al-Tazkiyah" thread. In the future, please try to educate yourself on a topic before you jump to conclusions to feed your bias. The thread starter and others in the past have asked questions about Islam in genuine curiosity. If you are genuinely curious as you claim, perhaps you might want to try that approach. It's a much better way of gaining knowledge on a subject than the "I want to find the source causes of today's violence in Islam" illogical drivel you've spewed. You can't on the one hand claim genuine curiosity and then at the same time take that approach.
<b>thacabbage I was referring to your overall posting history ie: the time you posted a ridiculous propoganda peice from an anti-Islamic site and incessantly defended its contents even though you admitted you had no understanding of what it alluded to.</b> Incessantly? <b>Uh no, look no further than your response to SamFisher.</b> Eric Rudolph and the Crusades? That's all over. <b>Are you completely incapable of basic reason? How many times do I have to say it? There is no doubt that Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for present day violence. Your argument is flawed if you are going to keep trying to root out problems in the historical source and at the same time dismiss critiques on Christianity.</b> What critiques of Christianity have I dismissed? Relevance please? <b>It's obvious based on your track record that you find problems with Islam. You've stated it yourself in other threads. Fine by me, that's your prerogative. I couldn't care less how much you criticize Islam but your entire argument is flawed. You keep parroting things like " I thought we were concerned with the present; which religious fanatics are causing the problems worldwide?" Any religion is easily manipulated.</b> What are my problems with Islam? Did you not see where I welcomed Islamic neighbors? Please rise above your veiled name-calling... <b>What is even funnier is your (lack of) understanding of the religion and the conclusions you've formed: You somehow have concluded that a historical anecdote through the alleged voice of God is an inclusionary divine order to the people. Brilliant!</b> I believe I asked a question about who that "we" represented... <b> It's simple what the message is: God is saying that he destroyed past nations who disobeyed his command as a warning to the people of Arabia at that time.</b> ... then when I got the answer from several people, I expressed relief that Christians have a New Testament that gives them a new covenant with their Creator. Lots of people here criticize the Old Testament for it's anti-homosexual agenda. Why is any Holy Book above critical evauation? <b>If you think that is foolish, that is fine. But it is yet another display of your stupefying ignorance that you somehow arrived at the conclusion that it is an order to kill non-Muslims or that it is the cause of violence today.</b> Nowhere did I say that. It is obvious that the Muslim readers here are not taking that line and murmering it in prayer as they slay infidels every day of the week. But you cannot deny that there is an escalating violence that attaches itself to a fundamental/literal reading of that and other verses from the Koran. <b>And yes, I haven't forgotten the show you put on in your "Al-Tazkiyah" thread. In the future, please try to educate yourself on a topic before you jump to conclusions to feed your bias.</b> I talked to a man last week for about an hour about just that. He was retired military and had worked in the Middle East for years and also in the Pentagon. He thinks that that is a HUGE PROBLEM. I'm glad that from your Ivory Tower somewhere you are comforted by your own assurance that it is no big deal. <b>The thread starter and others in the past have asked questions about Islam in genuine curiosity. If you are genuinely curious as you claim, perhaps you might want to try that approach. It's a much better way of gaining knowledge on a subject than the "I want to find the source causes of today's violence in Islam" illogical drivel you've spewed. You can't on the one hand claim genuine curiosity and then at the same time take that approach.</b> You are putting words in my mouth. I'll have to go back and look, but I don't think I wrote anything about finding the "source causes of today's violence in Islam." I asked a couple of critical questions about a verse which was posted and have spent the rest of my time defending my right to ask critical questions. There is no need to be so threatened by my questions.
giddiup, are you familiar with the Rorschach Test(aka Ink Blot Test)? It's the deal where they show people more or less random images and people confabulate the bits and pieces of randomness into a picture? The general idea is that the picture that they see reveals more about the viewer than the actual picture itself. It is my humble opinion that you to some degree have approached Islam as your own personal Rorschach test. In Islam, Christianity, and Judiasim, God is perfectly and absolutely just in judging people because God is perfect and supreme. Though mention of God's wrath is toned down a bit in the New Testament, it nevertheless exists. The following quotes were the result of a quick and sloppy boolian search. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-5 [rquoter] My brothers, you do not need anyone to write to you about the day or the year when these things will happen. You your-selves surely know that the day of the Lord will come just like a person who comes to steal in the night. When people are saying, `Everything is quiet and safe,' they will be destroyed. It will all happen very quickly. And there will be no way out. It will be like the pain that a woman has when a child is born. But you, my brothers, are not in the dark. That day should not surprise you like a person who comes to steal. You all belong to the light. You belong to the day. We do not belong to the night or to the dark. [/rquoter] 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 [rquoter] This proves that God will judge right. And he will say that you are good enough for the kingdom of God because you suffer for it. God will do what is right. He will give trouble to those who are troubling you. And he will give rest to you who are having troubles, and to us also. He will give this rest when our Lord Jesus comes back from heaven. The Lord Jesus will come with his strong angels in flaming fire. He will punish those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the good news of our Lord Jesus. They will be destroyed for ever. That will be their punishment. They will be for ever separated from the Lord and from his great and wonderful power. [/rquoter] Revelation 16:1-12 [rquoter] Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, "Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth." The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died. The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: "You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve." And I heard the altar respond: "Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments." The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done. The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. Then I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. [/rquoter] Additionally, I think you fail in one major consideration when you examine the actions of people who profess to be Muslim Jihadists and use that as a basis for judging Islam to be a religion of hate; only God is good and perfect. Man is flawed. To steal from Marshall McCluhan, "The Medium is Not the Message". Claiming Islam is hateful because a group of followers profess hatred is like saying that Christianity is paper because the Bible is printed on paper. It makes no sence. A significant subgroup of modern Islam is hateful and nasty but worldly people and actions are not and never have been the basis upon which to measure Islam, any more than it would have been reasonable to damn Christianity as violent and evil durring the Crusades. That Christian violent streak passed, as can this current wave of violent Islam. Violence is not central to the belief but rather a manifestation of a group of it's current adherents.
Just a side note, but you DO realize that millions of Muslims around the world do view the US invasion of Iraq (and some even Afghanistan) as a modern day Crusade, right? Not arguing whether it's true or not, but just pointing out that millions out there view it as such, and it's especially alarming to them when they hear/see things like Abu Ghraib, the use of white phosphorus, the burning of bodies which is strictly prohibited in Islam, Gitmo, and other methods the US military is using in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just thought I would point that out to you...
This is actually what I was saying earlier, and not in regards to giddyup's views, but rather generally speaking. There is a relatively new field in political science known as political-psychology, and one of its pioneers is Robert Jervis. He had a publication called "Hypotheses on Misperception", in which he uses his knowledge of human psychology and applies it to politics. People have a tendency to search out for 'evidence' (even if it's not based on facts/truths) and attempt to validate their preconceptions regarding a specific issue, and Jervis argues that this is inevitable and a normal part of the human psychology, in part because it provides a certain comfort and reassurance to one's self.
Hot damn, someone back here finally called me normal! Stick that in your pipe, Dr. Rorschach and smoke it...
I find many critiques from the left from a secular point of view on organized religion to be very valid and insightful. What is funny though is the absurdity of the right's criticism's of opposing religious ideologies, all the same time hypocritically trumpeting their own beliefs for what they deem a higher morality. Giddyup has put on a display of the latter for us all.
<b>thacabbage LOL! You have no problems with Islam because you "welcomed Islamic neighbors." Briliant! That's almost as fresh as when a bigot claims he isn't a bigot because he "even has a black/gay/Arab friend." Look, you misunderstood me. When I said you had problems with Islam, I didn't mean it as an attack on you. There is nothing wrong with finding a certain religious teaching problematic. You even have said so yourself that you found problems with Islam. My problem is the illogical process through which you are going about this - jumping to conclusions on textual issues which you admittedly had no knowledge of (the Tazkiyah thread) and cherry picking to feed your prejudices.</b> Where do you get off accusing me of cherry-picking? 1. The Tazkiyah thread was born of a conversation that I heard on the radio. The participant were the host, Laura Ingraham, Steve Emerson, a reknown terrorism expert, and some general. It was only when I come to this board do I found out that "they are all worked up about nothing." You'll have to excuse my skepticism for the out-of-hand dismissal that it received here. The web article I found was not what initiated the discussion. I went looking for an article which would succinctly summarize what I heard these guys talking about on the radio for over an hour. 2. I responded to a thread started here-- as I do most threads about religiious topics. If that's cherry-picking, so be it... <b< When I said you had problems with Islam, I was pointing out what you had already yourself stated and showing that your motive was in opposition to the claims you made of genuine curiosity. There's nothing wrong with finding problems in an ideology so you don't need to get all defensive and pull the "I even have a ___ friend" card to defend yourself.</b> I really wish, then, that you would clean up your tone. Hell, I have problems with my chosen religion. You make it sound unpardonable to have a problem with something. That's why I'm here asking questions and chatting about this stuff. People get so freaking threatened by anything that hints of a criticism. If the personal assaults on my character and integrity would stop, I would have no need to defend myself. I probably shouldn't even try, but you have me all wrong here... <b>I was referring to your later post when you already had made up your mind. "And this is the religion of peace that we hear so much about? At least Christians have a New Testament..." and "At least Christians have the notion of Free Will." don't exactly sound like expressing relief but rather sardonic responses from your biased perspective.</b> I was being sarcastic. Christian fundamentalism gets waxed here so I don't see why Muslim fundamentalism should get a pass. Fundmental religious views cause a lot of problems in this world-- regardless of the sect. <b>Look, who are you trying to fool? Everyone here knows you have some sort of agenda to prove the illegitimacy of Islam. That's fine. Now stop claiming that you are somehow unbiased and the source of your queries is your genuine curiosity. Go back to digging up articles from propoganda sites. You may get farther with that.</b> That's just crazy. Why would you say that? I have posted critical things and personal confessional things that are negative about Christianity? I think some of the abrupt things that DaDakota writes about religion are pretty right on. Please stop making me out to be some kind of modern Crusader. <b>When did I say any Holy Book was above critical evaluation? You didn't even know what the f*cking speaker's voice "We" represented yet somehow you felt you had the necessary knowledge to arrive at a conclusion.Brilliant!</b> I echoed a question. I don't think I provide any kind of answer. I did make an anti-fundamental comment. Really, where's the crime? You accused me of writing a treatise. I challenged you to find 50 words that I "wrote" on the subject. Can you come up with them yet? <b>I don't think anyone (or I atleast) have any problem with you trying to criticize Islam. My problem is the dishonest way in which you are going about it, claiming to have no bias while at the same time getting in a few snide remarks, and how illogical your entire argument is.</b> Hasn't my illogical argument made the cover of at least one of the major news magazines? <b>Do you really believe some of the things you write? You simply "asked a couple of critical questions?" Yea, don't mention the fact you felt the need to throw in a few jabs in comparison to Christianity. Your bias and agenda are clearly apparent. Instead of pleading objectivity and curiosity why don't you just stick to the approach you took in the last portion of your post that I quoted above? It's much more productive than dishonestly pussyfooting about and taking subtle jabs.</b> My bias is based on what I am familiar with. That only seems natural. Only an atheist would be objective about these matters. Anyone with half the mind you have understands that. Look, I don't enjoy these personal attacks and derailments, but I will continue to address them because I don't think that bullies should be allowed to get away with this kind of crap. Have a nice day!
I should clean up my tone? You were the one making sarcastic remarks in a denigratory manner about another religion ["And this is the religion of peace that we hear so much about? At least Christians have a New Testament..."]. If anyone should clean up his tone, it is you. Sigh. Do you even read my posts? Nowhere did you address Islamic fundamentalism. You were adressing the religion itself in its original form as the thread's topic intended. I'm seriously bewildered by you. Are you somehow incapable of making that distinction? How is a critique on original Quranic text a critique on fundamentalism? You are basically bashing the original religious text because some nutjobs in the Middle East misinterpreted it. How does that work? And in case you try to deny it again, here it is once more => "And this is the religion of peace that we hear so much about? At least Christians have a New Testament..." You saw a line from a religious text and accosted the religion itself. That is NOT an attack on fundamentalism like you claim. Like I said earlier, I could care less if you want to critique Islam. My problem is the ambiguity of your argument. You keep claiming to be critiquing modern day fundamentalism but then find all of your evidence in historical texts. It would be rather difficult to find 50 words of substance from you considering the majority of your posts are composed of back handed sarcastic comments. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. If you are relying on some wave of populist fervor as proof of the legitimacy in your argument, then that would explain why you have some of the biases you have to begin with. I think it's pretty obvious to any objective party that you have some sort of agenda here that you are out to fulfill. Again, there is no problem with that. I just wish you would stop trying to deny it and operate under the guise of curiosity and distanced objectivity. Can you please stop whining? You did this in the other thread too. Noone is telling you not to post. I disagreed with what you had to say and I replied to it.
steve emerson is a freaking joke. his whole plan on how to defeat terrorism is say stupid crap in the media. than use that crap as 'open-source' information. than say that see i have evidence that this stupid crap is true because its in the media. he makes bush look honest and truthful and well-informed.