Re: Christian Fundamentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism
T Wake
news:MVvBf.7298$0m4....@fe15.lga...
> The big winners :
Whilst I am sure your rant was interesting (I never read much of it) can I
ask why you think this was appropriate for any of the groups you posted it
to?
Cosmopolite
The fundamentals of energy work the same way for all religions. :)
Tim Campbell
Simply read the Koran and note the directives on how devout Muslims of
all times are to conduct themselves.
And then read the Bible and note how the devout lived in an earlier
time and then more importantly, read of how the devout are directed to
live in this day...
The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context, only
for that time and situation whereas the Koranic directives to violence
are clearly stipulated to be for all time.
After doing this reading one will then have greater insight into why
the world geo-political situation is as it is today...
Mike Andrade
news:1138150117.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context,
> only for that time and situation
So it was ok by God for the ancient Hebrew people to commit genocide
because it happened a long time ago but it's not ok today? Is that
what you're saying?
--
Mike
Creepiest movie line of all time: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I
can't do that."
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
>
> So it was ok by God for the ancient Hebrew people to commit genocide
> because it happened a long time ago but it's not ok today? Is that
> what you're saying?
>
No, I am simply saying that a violent occurance in biblical history is
one thing but the clear direction to violent action against all who are
not as they are, for all time, as is in the Koran, is quite something
else.
Mike Andrade
>
> Mike Andrade wrote:
>
>>
>> So it was ok by God for the ancient Hebrew people to commit
>> genocide because it happened a long time ago but it's not ok
>> today? Is that what you're saying?
>>
> No, I am simply saying that a violent occurance in biblical
> history is
> one thing
Was it evil? Was it evil for God to order the destruction of an
entire civilization?
but the clear direction to violent action against all
> who are not as they are, for all time, as is in the Koran, is
> quite something else.
>
Where is this "direction to violent action against all
who are not as they are, for all time?"
--
Mike
The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life.
- George Carlin
Pace Sanders
I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
Michael Rhino
criticism, but there is a difference between the two. Almost all American
Christians accept the bill of rights. They may try to reduce rights, but
that are not actively opposed to them. Many Muslims are actively opposed to
the bill of rights.
Orion
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> The big winners :
>
> Fascism, Totalitarianism, Terrorism, Fear.
>
> The big losers :
>
> Reason, Science, Truth, Freedom.
>
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
>
> 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
> prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
> the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime
> itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.
> Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common
> themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a
> suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
>
> 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
> viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the
> objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
> population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
> marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
> egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
>
> 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
> significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
> scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other
> problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
> controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and
> disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
> "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
> socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
> national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals,
> and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably
> labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
>
> 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
> identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
> that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
> allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
> military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
> possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and
> increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
>
> 5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
> the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
> viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion
> and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian
> laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the
> country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
>
> 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
> were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray
> from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure
> media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
> resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
> threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible
> with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the
> general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
>
> 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
> apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
> an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
> constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
> "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as
> unpatriotic or even treasonous.
>
> 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
> the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by
> their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
> predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
> militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's
> behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was
> generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the
> ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the
> "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite
> was tantamount to an attack on religion.
>
> 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
> ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
> corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
> ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
> military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
> means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
> pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
> interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
>
> 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
> seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
> of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
> or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion
> or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin
> to a vice.
>
> 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
> and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
> were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
> considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
> Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty
> harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were
> strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and
> literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
>
> 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
> maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
> populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
> power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often
> merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against
> political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or
> "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
> police power.
>
> 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
> to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
> corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial
> gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the
> benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
> position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example,
> by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus
> under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
> unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
>
> 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
> opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
> were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
> desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
> election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
> destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to
> a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
All forms of ultra-conservatism and fundamentalism are equally wrong.
Both border on xenophobia and fascism. Personally i think anarchism is
the best for all.
coco
Mike Andrade wrote:
> "Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:1138150117.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context,
> > only for that time and situation
>
> So it was ok by God for the ancient Hebrew people to commit genocide
> because it happened a long time ago but it's not ok today? Is that
> what you're saying?
In fact the Bible says those not carrying out Gods orders to commit
Genocide are wrong!:
example 6 - Moses (God's chosen agent) is upset. It seems that the
Israelites have let all the women and children live - this is
unacceptible to God. To make things right all the male children are
killed and only the virgin women are spared from death.
Numbers 31:15 And Moses said to them, Have ye saved all the women
alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD, in the matter
of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the
female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
alive for yourselves.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_bibl1.htm
God killed 250 Jewish leaders and their families: Korah, Dathan, Abiram
and about 250 of the leaders of the Israelites decided that they wanted
to abandon God's instructions and adopt a more democratic form of
government. They complained to Moses about the status of the
priesthood. They believed that the entire congregation is holy, and
that the priests should not exalt themselves above the common folk.
They also objected to Moses' status as a dictator. God caused the
ground to open and swallow the four main leaders. They were and their
families were killed and descended into Sheol, the underground caverns
where the dead live a shadowy existence. God sent fire to burn alive
the remaining 250 leaders, their wives and children.
Numbers 16:1-35 "Now Korah...and Dathan and Abiram...and On...rose up
before Moses, with...250 princes of the assembly, famous in the
congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together
against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much
upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and
the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the
congregation of the LORD?...And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto
Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I
may consume them in a moment...And it came to pass...that the ground
clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and
swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained
unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to
them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and
they perished from among the congregation. And there came out a fire
from the LORD, and consumed the 250 men that offered incense."
God sent a plague which killed 14,700 Jews: Following the mass murder
of 254 leaders and their families, almost all of the Israelites
complained about the terrible loss of life among these holy people. God
was displeased and sent a plague which killed almost 15,000 Israelites.
Numbers 16:41-49 "...all the congregation of the children of Israel
murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the
people of the LORD...And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up
from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment.
And they fell upon their faces. And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a
censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense,
and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them:
for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun...And he
stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed. Now
they that died in the plague were 14,700, beside them that died about
the matter of Korah."
God orders genocides: The Israelites had exterminated the Amorites. God
ordered them to also wipe out the Bashan in the same way.
Numbers 21:34-35 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I
have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and
thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites,
which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his
people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his
land."
OsherD
Pace Sanders typed:
>I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
The 2004 USA Election was a fascinating example of liberal/leftist
stupidity. The Dumbocrats chose Jobs "yes" and Self-Defense "no".
Since the public is mostly Job-Oriented, the public was able to
overcome the Dumbocrat idiocy and vote "yes" for both Jobs and
Self-Defense. Of course, the Republicans blew a chance to be for both
Jobs and Self-Defense. Since both parties have nothing much to say on
Jobs (except that Dumbocrats pour money into Mediocre teaching), the
liberal/leftists don't seem to have any brains at all, while the
Republicans at least fight Terror. It's basically a no-brainer vs a
half-brain. As for Islamist Terrorists, they really are closer to
no-brainers than half-brainers, so that's why so many Dumbocrats like
them. I think they go together rather "naturally", somewhat like laws
of physics.
Osher Doctorow
OsherD
Orion typed:
>All forms of ultra-conservatism and fundamentalism are equally wrong.
>Both border on xenophobia and fascism. Personally i think anarchism is
>the best for all.
Your style of writing, and perhaps of thinking, is to use words or
parts of words like "ultra-", "fund-," "xeno-", "fasci-" and especially
the suffix "-isms". It's funny to me that you throw in "anarchism" as
a counteraction to the other "isms". Then you use the super-vague
expression "border on", and the "catch-all" descriptions "xenophobia"
and "fascism".
Has it occurred to you that the opposite of "fundamentalism"
technically is "superficiality" according to dictionary meanings of
these words? I think that anarchism is in fact superficial. What are
they for? Are they for the Individual in every Plurality, or the
Pluralities to which most Individuals belong? When anarchists propose
a plan, do they ask how any Individual other than themselves will feel
and think and live under this plan? Do they ask how any Pluralities
other than their own will do under this plan? And how to they choose
Pluralities to support? By pure numbers? That would favor cockroaches
or ants. By people being playful and loudmouthed and jumping up and
down for joy? That would favor literal jungle inhabitants and idiots
and morons and soap-opera audiences. And that's what anarchy is - the
Law of the Jungle, which we've got already in most of the world except
that it's well disguised.
Osher Doctorow
Pat Flannery
Orion wrote:
>All forms of ultra-conservatism and fundamentalism are equally wrong.
>Both border on xenophobia and fascism. Personally i think anarchism is
>the best for all.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
>
"Anarchists of the world disunite!" :-)
Pat
Lloyd Parker
"Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists both deserver
>criticism, but there is a difference between the two. Almost all American
>Christians accept the bill of rights.
Not so. They don't want the gov't to stay out of religion; they want it to
promote THEIR religion and force it on others. They don't like freedom of
speech or press if it goes against their morals.
>They may try to reduce rights, but
>that are not actively opposed to them. Many Muslims are actively opposed to
>the bill of rights.
>
>
So are many Christians.
Pat Flannery
OsherD wrote:
I think that we should go with the concept of a anarcho-syndicalist
commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for
the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely
internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major
decisons.
This has a lot going for it, especially when compared to strange women
lying in ponds distributing swords as a system of government. Supreme
executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony involving some watery tart throwing a sword at
you. I mean if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Pat
Lloyd Parker
"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This comparison is absurd...
>
>Simply read the Koran and note the directives on how devout Muslims of
>all times are to conduct themselves.
>
>And then read the Bible and note how the devout lived in an earlier
>time and then more importantly, read of how the devout are directed to
>live in this day...
>
>The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context, only
>for that time and situation whereas the Koranic directives to violence
>are clearly stipulated to be for all time.
The OT calls for stoning children who don't respect their parents, killing
witches, stoning adulterers...
Lloyd Parker
"Pace Sanders" <paces...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
>
right-wingers lack any familiarity with.
Lloyd Parker
"OsherD" <mdoc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>From Osher Doctorow mdoc...@comcast.net
>
>Pace Sanders typed:
>
>>I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
>>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
>
>
>The 2004 USA Election was a fascinating example of liberal/leftist
>stupidity. The Dumbocrats chose Jobs "yes" and Self-Defense "no".
>Since the public is mostly Job-Oriented, the public was able to
>overcome the Dumbocrat idiocy and vote "yes" for both Jobs and
>Self-Defense. Of course, the Republicans blew a chance to be for both
>Jobs and Self-Defense. Since both parties have nothing much to say on
>Jobs (except that Dumbocrats pour money into Mediocre teaching), the
>liberal/leftists don't seem to have any brains at all, while the
>Republicans at least fight Terror.
By capturing bin Laden? By turning a nation which had no terrorists into a
bastion for them?
>It's basically a no-brainer vs a
>half-brain. As for Islamist Terrorists, they really are closer to
>no-brainers than half-brainers, so that's why so many Dumbocrats like
>them.
OK, official idiot alert!
>I think they go together rather "naturally", somewhat like laws
>of physics.
>
Or you and stupidity?
>Osher Doctorow
>
Orion
Actually i think anarchy is the natural state of man rather than
something enforced by law. My point is that strong national governments
have not always existed.
Gregory L. Hansen
coco <aozo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Andrade wrote:
>> "Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:1138150117.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context,
>> > only for that time and situation
>>
>> So it was ok by God for the ancient Hebrew people to commit genocide
>> because it happened a long time ago but it's not ok today? Is that
>> what you're saying?
>
>In fact the Bible says those not carrying out Gods orders to commit
>Genocide are wrong!:
>
>example 6 - Moses (God's chosen agent) is upset. It seems that the
>Israelites have let all the women and children live - this is
>unacceptible to God. To make things right all the male children are
>killed and only the virgin women are spared from death.
I think his point is that God may have commanded that some time in the
past, but there's no instruction to Jews today to keep on killing women
and children of particular characteristics today.
And, well, the relevance of that for Christians is something else. The
Old Testament is filled with God's instructions to Jews. Paul sort of
absolved Christians of sins like wearing clothes made of two different
kinds of fibers.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Immortalist
"Orion" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1138205605.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OsherD wrote:
>>
>> >All forms of ultra-conservatism and fundamentalism are equally wrong.
>> >Both border on xenophobia and fascism. Personally i think anarchism is
>> >the best for all.
>>
Aristotle's Golden Mean: doctrine that right action lies in the middle
position between the extremes of excess and deficit.
"There are, then, three kinds of disposition- towards excess, towards
deficiency and the virtuous mean. Each is, in a sense opposed to the others,
as when the brave man seems rash to the coward, and cowardly to the rash
man. But the mean is not necessarily the middle, for rashness is nearer to
courage than is cowardice."
"It is not easy to be good, as it is no easy task to find the middle. Even
finding the middle of a circle takes skill."
"Anyone can get angry, or be generous, but to do so to the right person, to
the right extent, at the right time with the right motive in the right way
is not easy. It is best to aim at the mean by avoiding the vice which most
contrary to it, and guard against the vices to which we are more inclined.
Especially, we must guard against pleasure, because pleasure cannot be
judged impartially."
-- Aristotle
www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/aristotle.htm
The Golden Mean: For every emotion, every desire or appetite, every
behavioral disposition, there is a corresponding moral virtue, as well as
moral vices. Virtues and vices are states of character. According to
Aristotle, emotions and desires have purposes with respect to the whole
person, but they fulfill these purposes only if they are felt at the right
time, in the right way, to the right degree. How you are conditioned to feel
and respond to life situations is your character. This "right amount" of an
emotion or desire is said to be the mean between the extremes of excess and
deficiency. Thus, for every feeling you have, you can be virtuous (if your
character is such that you feel it in the appropriate way), or you can
exhibit the vice of excess (too much of the feeling) or the vice of
deficiency (too little). For example, with respect to anger there is the
vice of short-temperedness (excess), the vice of insensibility (deficiency)
and the virtue of even-temperedness. There is also a golden mean with
respect to the disposition to perform certain kinds of actions. For example,
the generous person has the virtue of being disposed to give away money in a
fitting way (neither too much or too little). Our rational soul, when it is
operating effectively, can tell through experience what is fitting-but until
our feeling and dispositions are aligned with what reason dictates, we are
not excellently rational.
http://philosophy.okstate.edu/reitan/OverviewofAristotle.htm
Aristotle's Golden Mean
http://faculty.db.erau.edu/schliepr/ethics/aristotle.html
Aristotle's Golden Mean of Midlife
http://www.bestyears.com/aristotlemean.html
A "mixed" economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a
hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of the
lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of intellectual
chaos. It is the attempt to gain the advantages of freedom without
government having to give up its power.
A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce positive
results, because they always force people to act against their own
interests. When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other
regulations in the hopes that more control will produce better results.
Sometimes the results are so destructive they must either be removed, or the
people must be violently oppressed to make them accept it.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_MixedEconomy.html
In economics and politics, a mixed economy is an economy which combines
regulated free market capitalism and a limited number of socialist
institutions and state ownership of some sectors of the economy such as
social security environmental regulation, labor regulation, product safety
regulation, progressive taxation public education health care
Most democratic countries, including the United States, have mixed
economies. It is nearly impossible to have pure capitalism (the government
regulates nothing) or pure socialism (the government runs everything), but
the term mixed economy is generally used when an economy has reasonably
significant portions of both socialism and capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Mixed Economies Somewhere between the complete laissez-faire capitalism of
the market economy and the strict central controls of the command economy
lie the territories of the mixed economies. In practice, every economy in
the world is some form of a mixed economy, but there are vast differences
between them in terms of how much of each economic theory they support.
Generally, however, mixed economies will have areas that are public (closest
in principle to the command economy) and areas that are private (most
similar to a market economy).
Private Sector These are areas of a nation's economy that are left to the
self-regulating devices of the market economy. If the government is
involved in this sector at all, it is only to function as a referee (to
ensure fair competition between all competitors). In Canada, many areas of
the economy are within the private sector. A quick trip to the mall will
expose us to competition, profit motive, entrepreneurs, privately owned
land, labor and capital, and the laws of supply and demand.
Public Sector These are areas of a nation's economy deemed too important or
not profitable enough to be left to the private sector. Governments in
mixed economies will get involved in the production of some goods or
services in order to guarantee essential services to all citizens or to try
and encourage private interest in the economy. In Canada, services like
public transportation and postal service are examples of areas deemed too
important to all citizens to leave to the instabilities of the marketplace.
Recently, in a wave of privatizations (selling public sector companies to
private owners), services like telephone companies, liquor stores and
registry services have been taken from the public sector and placed in the
private sector.
http://www.cssd.ab.ca/tech/social/tut9/lesson_25.htm
Orion
present governments are by far more intrusive.
Gregory L. Hansen
Orion <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
>Actually i think anarchy is the natural state of man rather than
>something enforced by law. My point is that strong national governments
>have not always existed.
National governments started when thugs came to villages and demanded they
be paid to protect the villagers from other thugs. People wear t-shirts
that declare their allegience to musical groups, beer brands, and other
entities higher than themselves. Throw a bunch of people together and
what happens? They form clubs, cliques, congregations, and crime gangs
with chapters in cities throughout the US. Some are international. The
Crips aren't a national government, but they have some of the qualities of
one, including laws that they enforce. In small, egalitarian groups there
will emerge leaders who lead not by threat, but because others think they
have a good idea and are happy to follow along.
Humans are social animals. Individually they can make do against nature
with their powers of intellect and their thumbs, at least for a time. But
only coordinated actions can make a human society prosper. Strong
national governments don't have to have always existed for anarchy to be
anathema to human nature. Governments arose on every populated continent
without cultural interchange among themselves. When population densities
rise and the level of technology is up to the task, you can't stop
government from forming.
--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit". --William
Somerset Maugham
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>>The Old Testament directives to violent action were, in context, only
>>for that time and situation whereas the Koranic directives to violence
>>are clearly stipulated to be for all time.
>
>The OT calls for stoning children who don't respect their parents, killing
>witches, stoning adulterers...
Leviticus 19 is great, isn't it? Then there is the dad, a biblical
hero of sorts, who offers his daughters to crowds of men because he is
afraid; a god who makes a bet with satan and lets him kill all the
children, animals, crops, and servants of a devout follower of god, so
that this devout man laments and wonders what he might have done
wrong; all just over a silly bet between powerful deities. And so on.
The overarching thrust of the OT has nothing at all to recommend
itself to anyone as a moral guide. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Jon
Orion
> National governments started when thugs came to villages and demanded they
> be paid to protect the villagers from other thugs. People wear t-shirts
> that declare their allegience to musical groups, beer brands, and other
> entities higher than themselves. Throw a bunch of people together and
> what happens? They form clubs, cliques, congregations, and crime gangs
> with chapters in cities throughout the US. Some are international. The
> Crips aren't a national government, but they have some of the qualities of
> one, including laws that they enforce. In small, egalitarian groups there
> will emerge leaders who lead not by threat, but because others think they
> have a good idea and are happy to follow along.
>
> Humans are social animals. Individually they can make do against nature
> with their powers of intellect and their thumbs, at least for a time. But
> only coordinated actions can make a human society prosper. Strong
> national governments don't have to have always existed for anarchy to be
> anathema to human nature. Governments arose on every populated continent
> without cultural interchange among themselves. When population densities
> rise and the level of technology is up to the task, you can't stop
> government from forming.
> --
> "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit". --William
> Somerset Maugham
Karl Marx called this historical materialism, the materialistic prison
of consumption we find ourselves in. Maybe the capitalism and the state
is part of human evolution.
Mike Combs
news:dr83jo$8gt$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> >
> >Pace Sanders typed:
> >
> >>I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
> >>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
The Leftists want to tear down the whole rotten capitalist system that keeps
down the poor oppressed proletariate. The Islamists want to tear down the
whole rotten Christian/Jewish system that keeps down the poor oppressed
Muslims. I guess Leftists consider there to be overlapping planks in these
respective platforms.
> By capturing bin Laden? By turning a nation which had no terrorists into
a
> bastion for them?
Did Abu Nidal not count as a terrorist in your book?
I just got through reading that Saddam was training at least one group of
4,000 terrorists. Now this was from an Iraqi source, and one might rightly
wonder if the source had a vested interest in us believing that. But the
source went on to say they were mostly intended to target Israel and Iran.
On the one hand, that would undercut the argument Saddam posed a direct
threat to the US (as opposed perhaps to US interests). But on the other
hand, it's not an unreasonable leap to suppose that having trained lots of
terrorists that Saddam might not have passed on an opportunity to strike at
a nation which he hated so.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn
Mike Combs
> In article <Z1BBf.2024$Ou1....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
> >Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists both deserver
> >criticism, but there is a difference between the two. Almost all
American
> >Christians accept the bill of rights.
>
> Not so. They don't want the gov't to stay out of religion; they want it
to
> promote THEIR religion and force it on others. They don't like freedom of
> speech or press if it goes against their morals.
There's a difference between griping about how nice it would be to legislate
morality, and forming organized political groups with the express purpose of
destabilizing and violently overthrowing a secular government in order to
impose a (literal, not metaphorical) theocracy. Some Christians may do the
former, but as far as I can tell only Islamists are doing the latter in
large numbers and in many different regions of the planet.
Make no mistake: In my opinion Christian fundamentalists are just as
incorrect as the Muslim variety. But until you can point to a large and
well organized Christian political group advocating the violent overthrow of
our constitutional democracy, I don't see any justification for the argument
that one is no better or no worse than the other.
Immortalist
> Mixed economy is the idea of classical liberalism. But in reality,
> present governments are by far more intrusive.
>
There only seems to be three alternatives here, a pure type capitalism, a
pure type socialism, or a mixed type socialism and capitalism. If true then
you are probably wrong about different "kinds" of things and are merely
describing "degrees" of difference betwee these two things and their
possible mixtures.
The mixed economy is an idea of classical liberalism and is the idea upon
which a majority of societies or nations organize their governments and
economies. Pure type socialism only exists in a few places and pure type
capitalism has never been observed anywhere but in Darwins jungle.
aozo...@aol.com
And Jesus reaffirmed everything in the Old Testament!
Eric Chomko
: I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
: of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
Yes, it must be only liberals that defend Islam. Does that mean only good
conservatives are Christian? Just trying to understand your "logic".
Eric
Lloyd Parker
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:dr8327$8gt$9...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Z1BBf.2024$Ou1....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>> >Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists both deserver
>> >criticism, but there is a difference between the two. Almost all
>American
>> >Christians accept the bill of rights.
>>
>> Not so. They don't want the gov't to stay out of religion; they want it
>to
>> promote THEIR religion and force it on others. They don't like freedom of
>> speech or press if it goes against their morals.
>
>There's a difference between griping about how nice it would be to legislate
>morality, and forming organized political groups with the express purpose of
>destabilizing and violently overthrowing a secular government in order to
>impose a (literal, not metaphorical) theocracy.
Like Eric Rudolph?
>Some Christians may do the
>former, but as far as I can tell only Islamists are doing the latter in
>large numbers and in many different regions of the planet.
Ever hear of the IRA?
>
>Make no mistake: In my opinion Christian fundamentalists are just as
>incorrect as the Muslim variety. But until you can point to a large and
>well organized Christian political group advocating the violent overthrow of
>our constitutional democracy, I don't see any justification for the argument
>that one is no better or no worse than the other.
>
You're painting hundreds of millions because of the actions of a few.
Eric Chomko
Eric Chomko
: "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
: news:dr83jo$8gt$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
: > >
: > >Pace Sanders typed:
: > >
: > >>I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
: > >>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
: Politics makes strange bedfellows.
: The Leftists want to tear down the whole rotten capitalist system that keeps
: down the poor oppressed proletariate. The Islamists want to tear down the
: whole rotten Christian/Jewish system that keeps down the poor oppressed
: Muslims. I guess Leftists consider there to be overlapping planks in these
: respective platforms.
I think that you don't know thw difference between Flower Children and
Black Panthers as you seem to lump them under the same label. Or is one of
them more like you? Do tell...
: > By capturing bin Laden? By turning a nation which had no terrorists into
: a
: > bastion for them?
: Did Abu Nidal not count as a terrorist in your book?
: I just got through reading that Saddam was training at least one group of
: 4,000 terrorists. Now this was from an Iraqi source, and one might rightly
: wonder if the source had a vested interest in us believing that. But the
: source went on to say they were mostly intended to target Israel and Iran.
: On the one hand, that would undercut the argument Saddam posed a direct
: threat to the US (as opposed perhaps to US interests). But on the other
: hand, it's not an unreasonable leap to suppose that having trained lots of
: terrorists that Saddam might not have passed on an opportunity to strike at
: a nation which he hated so.
Now these 4000. Were they terrorists or troops? Saddam tied to a country
and a standing army can't hide like actual terrorists which tend to come
from a country but no necessarily be tied to it.
Why are these 4000, terrorists? To support your notion that going into
Iraq was justified?
Eric
: --
Lloyd Parker
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of
the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have
come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will
pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
Lloyd Parker
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:dr83jo$8gt$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> >Pace Sanders typed:
>> >
>> >>I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
>> >>of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
>
>Politics makes strange bedfellows.
>
>The Leftists want to tear down the whole rotten capitalist system that keeps
>down the poor oppressed proletariate.
Big fat lie.
> The Islamists want to tear down the
>whole rotten Christian/Jewish system that keeps down the poor oppressed
>Muslims.
Big fat lie #2.
>I guess Leftists consider there to be overlapping planks in these
>respective platforms.
>
I guess a pissant little fascist might say that.
>> By capturing bin Laden? By turning a nation which had no terrorists into
>a
>> bastion for them?
>
>Did Abu Nidal not count as a terrorist in your book?
And Tim McVeigh lived in the US.
>
>I just got through reading that Saddam was training at least one group of
>4,000 terrorists.
Then you read a lie.
>Now this was from an Iraqi source, and one might rightly
>wonder if the source had a vested interest in us believing that. But the
>source went on to say they were mostly intended to target Israel and Iran.
Yeah, sure.
>On the one hand, that would undercut the argument Saddam posed a direct
>threat to the US (as opposed perhaps to US interests). But on the other
>hand, it's not an unreasonable leap to suppose that having trained lots of
>terrorists that Saddam might not have passed on an opportunity to strike at
>a nation which he hated so.
>
>
Which one would that be?
Androcles
http://www.boreme.com/boremerigid/media-pictures/tourettes-institute.jpg
Androcles
<aozo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138220811.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Orion
considered unethical. Therefore contrary to western banks, in many
islamic banks interest is cosidered unethical.
Brian Fletcher
When the individual is ready , freedom follows.
Only happens when you have learned to appreciate and respect those who are
still prisoners of "group think".
The internet is a vehicle for "pure anarchy", but it wont prevent the law
makers from representing the majority.
Anarchy is best left where you find it. Between your ears.
BOfL
>
Brian Fletcher
Evolving into what? (socio economically speaking)
BOfL
Orion
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> Evolving into what? (socio economically speaking)
>
> BOfL
Into more materialist societies. Hunter-gatherer societies were much
less materialist than we are today.
zinnic
More correctly, there was much less material to possess. They shared
only to survive! as a group!
Zinnic
Orion
>
> More correctly, there was much less material to possess. They shared
> only to survive! as a group!
> Zinnic
When population grew in number and density, civilizations and states
were necessary.
zinnic
Unless the more powerful are 'unready'.
> Only happens when you have learned to appreciate and respect those who are
> still prisoners of "group think".
And when the "prisoners of group think" learn to tolerate those who are
prisoners of "I think"
> The internet is a vehicle for "pure anarchy", but it wont prevent the law
> makers from representing the majority.
Only insofar as it remains a vehicle of the minority!
>
> Anarchy is best left where you find it. Between your ears.
True for most subjective philosophy.
Zinnic (cynic, tsynick etc etc)
> >
zinnic
And anarchy became impractical!
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
> >
> Where is this "direction to violent action against all
> who are not as they are, for all time?"
>
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
*Slay them wherever ye find them* and drive them out of the places
whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. -
2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion
reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no
persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is
hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and
forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If
you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. -
3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are
dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah
3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for
the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is
slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah
4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith
fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find
them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure
till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that
they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends
of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.
God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns
supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men
among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they
shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of
understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter
in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from
obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the
unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
- 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has
been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion
of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the
tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The
unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: )
Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay
tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of
Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh
with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. -
9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in
return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause,
kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find
harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of
the disbelievers....
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
- 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have
made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free,
either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the
battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low,
bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds
be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit
them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. -
48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the
unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to
enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn
forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. -
98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to
shame.
(verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
Rick Hohensee
Hey, does umuc have full Usenet?
--
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee Party of one
candidate, President of the United States of America
humb...@smart.net Maryland, USA
Ground troops out of Iraq Put the CIA under INS
Semi-legalize drugs Prosecute Bush Tighten the borders
Isolate Israel Tax churches halve military aquisitions
platform http://www.smart.net/~humbubba/platform
Hohensee-Feingold Amendment http://www.smart.net/~humbubba
Brian Fletcher
"Orion" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1138232615....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Half the world is dying of scarcity, and half from abundance. Which are
becoming more materialistic?
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:1138236586.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That fits your perspactive perfectly.
Power is only given, not taken.
>
>> Only happens when you have learned to appreciate and respect those who
>> are
>> still prisoners of "group think".
>
> And when the "prisoners of group think" learn to tolerate those who are
> prisoners of "I think".
"Think" being the common denominator.
>
>> The internet is a vehicle for "pure anarchy", but it wont prevent the law
>> makers from representing the majority.
>
> Only insofar as it remains a vehicle of the minority!
The majority always have "potential' control. The minority know how to
manipulate. Keeps the world functioning.
>>
>> Anarchy is best left where you find it. Between your ears.
>
> True for most subjective philosophy.
> Zinnic (cynic, tsynick etc etc)
As opposed to .....?
BOfL
>
>
>> >
>
Mike Andrade
Since all of these are quoted out of context, and /none/ of them
actually say what you claim, your argument is moot. Thanks.
--
Mike
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long
period of time.
- George Carlin
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Mike Andrade wrote:
>
>> >
>> Where is this "direction to violent action against all
>> who are not as they are, for all time?"
>>
>
>KORAN commands to kill infidels:
>
>Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
>
>On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
>
>*Slay them wherever ye find them* and drive them out of the places
>whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. -
>2:191
>
>Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion
>reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no
>persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
>
>Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
>(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is
>hateful to you.
>
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest
who represents the LORD your God must be put to death." (Deuteronomy 17:12
NLT)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death
for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)
"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death
by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."
(Leviticus 20:27)
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty
of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9)
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that
some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by
encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the
facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable
act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy
all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock." Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Orion
christanity but many fundamentalists and conservatives do not respect
what was written in the original form.
T Wake
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote in message
news:dr8g1a$319$1...@home.itg.ti.com...
>
> I just got through reading that Saddam was training at least one group of
> 4,000 terrorists.
Well whoever wrote it was wrong.
Rusty
>
> This has a lot going for it, especially when compared to strange women
> lying in ponds distributing swords as a system of government. Supreme
> executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
> farcical aquatic ceremony involving some watery tart throwing a sword at
> you. I mean if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some
> moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
>
> Pat
Is it really that different from a bunch of old men wearing tight,
highwater pants, silk stockings, cod pieces, puffy shirts, scarves,
lacy cuffs, powdered wigs and writing with goose feathers?
;-)
Rusty
Eric Chomko
: One thing i like about some versions of islam is that profit is
: considered unethical. Therefore contrary to western banks, in many
: islamic banks interest is cosidered unethical.
Yes, but not having a sense of time/value of money doesn't encourage those
with money to save. What sense is there to give money to a bank for
savings if there is no interest? That you'll simply know it will be
there?!? Also, what makes you think those that don't give interest aren't
getting interest elsewhere? No, it is better that we all are on the same
page. You may not like it but there IS a time/value relationship to money
because someone is willing to pay for it.
And once upon a time Islamic banks were much better than the rest of that
part of the world (i.e. Europe). That was a 1000 years ago. Could it be
that their no interest policy has made them secondary in that part of the
world over the last 1000 years? I sincerely think so.
It is one thing to treat people as family, but then again, business is
business.
Eric
Orion
If i'm not mistaken what you're saying is that everyone has to right to
the product of it's labour. In this sense this should be a universal
norm.
The problem with any capitalist system is that it usually degenerates
into corporatism and plutocracy (socialism for the strong) in practice.
Gregory L. Hansen
Karl Marx was obsessed with his pet demon-- the exploitation of others for
personal gain. It's not hard to find social structures where a flow of
wealth up a pyramid is not a primary factor. Not Soviet Russia, of
course-- the capitalist pigs couldn't beat them in their appetites. But
non-profit organizations, rotary clubs, Green Peace, and others would
qualify. More universal to humans than a lust for wealth is the creation
of social structures. And a national government is just another social
structure. Even communist governments are governments.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
> >
> Since all of these are quoted out of context, and /none/ of them
> actually say what you claim, your argument is moot. Thanks.
>
Now you're simply being foolish.
Go read them for yourself and you will see that there is indeed Koranic
backing for the Islam-related violence we see in the world today.
Their scripture advocates it for today and for all time.
Orion
> Karl Marx was obsessed with his pet demon-- the exploitation of others for
> personal gain. It's not hard to find social structures where a flow of
> wealth up a pyramid is not a primary factor. Not Soviet Russia, of
> course-- the capitalist pigs couldn't beat them in their appetites. But
> non-profit organizations, rotary clubs, Green Peace, and others would
> qualify. More universal to humans than a lust for wealth is the creation
> of social structures. And a national government is just another social
> structure. Even communist governments are governments.
> --
> "Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
> containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
> -- 1 Samuel 6:11
But many of his ideas are true. Capitalism does involve unequal power
relationships in society.
However there are criticisms. Some today question the theoretical and
historical validity of "class" as an analytic construct or as a
political actor.
Mike Andrade
>
> Mike Andrade wrote:
>
>> >
>> Since all of these are quoted out of context, and /none/ of them
>> actually say what you claim, your argument is moot. Thanks.
>>
>
> Now you're simply being foolish.
Um, I'm not the one reading stuff into things.
> Go read them for yourself and you will see that there is indeed
> Koranic backing for the Islam-related violence we see in the world
> today.
I didn't see it. Then again, I saw no context, either. You could be
correct, but based /solely/ on what those verses said, none of them
support your claim.
>
> Their scripture advocates it for today and for all time.
>
An unsupported claim. Frankly, I do not believe it. Of course, I do
not place my faith in the written word, either.
--
Mike
I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more
likely he is to have extreme prejudice.
- Clint Eastwood
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
>
> I didn't see it. Then again, I saw no context, either. You could be
> correct, but based /solely/ on what those verses said, none of them
> support your claim.
> >
> > Their scripture advocates it for today and for all time.
> >
> An unsupported claim. Frankly, I do not believe it. Of course, I do
> not place my faith in the written word, either.
>
OK Mike, I've simplified it for you a bit. I've narrowed it to just
three of the above verses:
Research the context.
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have
made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free,
either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the
battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low,
bind your captives firmly.
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
- 9:5
*Slay them wherever ye find them* and drive them out of the places
Mike Andrade
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html
--
Mike
Registered Linux User #2
(Linus and I go way back)
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
> >
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html
>
"Christians have killed in the name of God, as have Hindus, Buddhists,
Jews, and others. But it is Muslims who have most recently been accused
of turning "divine commandments" into a divine license to kill."
Hmmmm, let's see, why might Muslims have been accused of this? Could it
be that, as we have seen, their scripture specifically and directly
exhorts them to "slaughter the infidels?"
According to the Koran the "infidels," meaning Jews and Christians, are
not innocents.
Mike Andrade
What you fail to understand is that so-called "sacred texts" can be
interpreted to mean anything one wants. Funny how /scholars/ differ
from your particular bias. Just in case you weren't aware, scholars
are people who devote their lives to studying those texts. While it
certainly doesn't absolve them of bias, the scholarly community
generally acts as a checks-and-balances system. I'd suggest you look
into studying what they have to say. You may learn something.
Ignorance is not a life sentence.
--
Mike
You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
- Herb Cohen
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>interpreted to mean anything one wants.
Sigh. I really wonder whether you yourself believe half of what
you're saying here.
Let me see. First, you don't believe that there are any Islamic
exhortations to violence against infidels. Then, when *presented* with
long list of quotes to the effect, you go on the "oh, this is taken
out of context" tack (I gather it didn't occur to you that, the moment
you pick this line, the burden of proof is on you, to present the
context and show how a given quote doesn't really mean what it says).
Then you try the "oh, all religions did it" angle and when this
doesn't quite seem to have the right effect yo go for "it doesn't
matter what it says ther because it can be interpreted any way one
wishes". Cute. So lets see, in order.
1) While it is certainly true that most religions at various times
killed in the name of God (note, "most", not necessarily all, I'm not
aware in budhists engaging in such and the Bahai for sure didn't), it
is most certainly not true that most religions have exhortations to
such actions written into their scriptures. That's an important
distinction since the scriptures carry quite different weight for the
believers than occasional exhortations of some religious leader do.
2) Of all the significant religions the *only one* that carries
within its scriptures repeated (many times) exhortations to
*unlimited* in time and space warfare against *all* nonbelievers is
Islam.
3) Yes, it is true that "sacred texts" can be reinterpreted.
Religions do it at times, when times are changing. Note, though, that
"can be" is not the same as "have been" and that it is important who
is doing the reinterpretation. What sholars think matters zip here.
The only thing that carries weight are reinterpretations by religious
authorities acknowledged as such by all or, at least, the vast
majority of the believers. And here we get to the crux of the matter.
Over the centuries, this process of reinterpretation by religious
authorities occured, both in Judaism and in Christianity (at least all
significant sects of it) numerous times, taking the rough edges of the
original versions. There was no similar process in Islam, yet. And,
until such process occurs, your words above are empty of content. It
is not how you interpret the Quoranic statements that matters, not
even how scholars interpret them. It is how the believers interpret
them that matters.
So, bottom line, what you're doing is no different from plugging your
ears and exlaiming "I don't hear it, it is not there". Not a very
wise approach.
If you're not among the people whose historical horizon extends no
further than few years back, you may be aware of the fact that the
20th century ended just few years ago. And in this 20th century we
had a "Messianic" cult named Nazism which had its own "holy
scriptures", the "Mein Kampf", which spelled quite explicitly the
Nazis goals and intentions (whatever else you can accuse Hitler of, he
was quite honest about spelling out his goals to the whole world). Of
course, nice people like you looked at it and dismissed it out of
hand. It was "stuff for internal consumption", it was "demagogery to
exhort the party faithful", it was this and that but whatever it was
it couldn't possibly mean what it said because what it said was
unthinkable, right? Well, as it turned out, quite wrong. It just
meant what it said.
So, a big lesson of the 20th century (if it had not been learned
before) is that when people say that they want to kill it they may
actually mean it. Or, more succintly, in the words of George Will,
that "the unthinkable isn't". Think about it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <Xns975841728A...@216.77.188.18>, Mike Andrade
<don't...@think.so> writes:
>>"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>news:1138336341.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike Andrade wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Christians have killed in the name of God, as have Hindus,
>>> Buddhists, Jews, and others. But it is Muslims who have most
>>> recently been accused of turning "divine commandments" into a
>>> divine license to kill."
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, let's see, why might Muslims have been accused of this?
>>> Could it be that, as we have seen, their scripture specifically
>>> and directly exhorts them to "slaughter the infidels?"
>>>
>>> According to the Koran the "infidels," meaning Jews and
>>> Christians, are not innocents.
>>>
>>What you fail to understand is that so-called "sacred texts" can be
>>interpreted to mean anything one wants.
>
>Sigh. I really wonder whether you yourself believe half of what
>you're saying here.
>
>Let me see. First, you don't believe that there are any Islamic
>exhortations to violence against infidels.
No more so than Judeo-Christian ones.
>Then, when *presented* with
>long list of quotes to the effect, you go on the "oh, this is taken
>out of context" tack (I gather it didn't occur to you that, the moment
>you pick this line, the burden of proof is on you, to present the
>context and show how a given quote doesn't really mean what it says).
>Then you try the "oh, all religions did it" angle and when this
>doesn't quite seem to have the right effect yo go for "it doesn't
>matter what it says ther because it can be interpreted any way one
>wishes". Cute. So lets see, in order.
>
>1) While it is certainly true that most religions at various times
>killed in the name of God (note, "most", not necessarily all, I'm not
>aware in budhists engaging in such and the Bahai for sure didn't), it
>is most certainly not true that most religions have exhortations to
>such actions written into their scriptures.
I've posted several from the Old Testament.
>That's an important
>distinction since the scriptures carry quite different weight for the
>believers than occasional exhortations of some religious leader do.
Old Testament.
>
>2) Of all the significant religions the *only one* that carries
>within its scriptures repeated (many times) exhortations to
>*unlimited* in time and space warfare against *all* nonbelievers is
>Islam.
No moreso than the Old Testament.
>
>3) Yes, it is true that "sacred texts" can be reinterpreted.
>Religions do it at times, when times are changing. Note, though, that
>"can be" is not the same as "have been" and that it is important who
>is doing the reinterpretation. What sholars think matters zip here.
>The only thing that carries weight are reinterpretations by religious
>authorities acknowledged as such by all or, at least, the vast
>majority of the believers. And here we get to the crux of the matter.
>Over the centuries, this process of reinterpretation by religious
>authorities occured, both in Judaism and in Christianity (at least all
>significant sects of it) numerous times, taking the rough edges of the
>original versions. There was no similar process in Islam, yet. And,
>until such process occurs, your words above are empty of content. It
>is not how you interpret the Quoranic statements that matters, not
>even how scholars interpret them. It is how the believers interpret
>them that matters.
>
So by your logic, every Moslem should be out killing "infidels." Yet they're
not, so obviously they don't all interpret them that way.
Mike Andrade
news:7mkCf.26$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <Xns975841728A...@216.77.188.18>, Mike
> Andrade <don't...@think.so> writes:
>>"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>news:1138336341.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike Andrade wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.htm
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Christians have killed in the name of God, as have Hindus,
>>> Buddhists, Jews, and others. But it is Muslims who have most
>>> recently been accused of turning "divine commandments" into a
>>> divine license to kill."
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, let's see, why might Muslims have been accused of this?
>>> Could it be that, as we have seen, their scripture specifically
>>> and directly exhorts them to "slaughter the infidels?"
>>>
>>> According to the Koran the "infidels," meaning Jews and
>>> Christians, are not innocents.
>>>
>>What you fail to understand is that so-called "sacred texts" can
>>be interpreted to mean anything one wants.
>
> Sigh. I really wonder whether you yourself believe half of what
> you're saying here.
I really don't care what you wonder.
>
> Let me see. First, you don't believe that there are any Islamic
> exhortations to violence against infidels.
Apparently you have reading comprehension problems.
Then, when *presented*
> with long list of quotes to the effect, you go on the "oh, this is
> taken out of context" tack (I gather it didn't occur to you that,
> the moment you pick this line, the burden of proof is on you, to
> present the context and show how a given quote doesn't really mean
> what it says).
Not when it doesn't actually say what it is /claimed/ to say...that
"Allah" has commanded the murder of /all/ non-Muslims for /all time./
<snipped the remainder of inanity based on a strawman>
Learn to read before making an ass of yourself...oops, too late.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>news:7mkCf.26$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>> Andrade <don't...@think.so> writes:
>>>"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>news:1138336341.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Andrade wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.htm
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Christians have killed in the name of God, as have Hindus,
>>>> Buddhists, Jews, and others. But it is Muslims who have most
>>>> recently been accused of turning "divine commandments" into a
>>>> divine license to kill."
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm, let's see, why might Muslims have been accused of this?
>>>> Could it be that, as we have seen, their scripture specifically
>>>> and directly exhorts them to "slaughter the infidels?"
>>>>
>>>> According to the Koran the "infidels," meaning Jews and
>>>> Christians, are not innocents.
>>>>
>>>What you fail to understand is that so-called "sacred texts" can
>>>be interpreted to mean anything one wants.
>>
>> Sigh. I really wonder whether you yourself believe half of what
>> you're saying here.
>
>>
>> exhortations to violence against infidels.
>
>
>> with long list of quotes to the effect, you go on the "oh, this is
>> taken out of context" tack (I gather it didn't occur to you that,
>> the moment you pick this line, the burden of proof is on you, to
>> present the context and show how a given quote doesn't really mean
>> what it says).
>
>"Allah" has commanded the murder of /all/ non-Muslims for /all time./
>
Educate yourself.
svirk
> Mike Andrade wrote:
>
> > >
> > Where is this "direction to violent action against all
> > who are not as they are, for all time?"
> >
>
> KORAN commands to kill infidels:
SV
That is ignorant nonsense. The quotes you posted are grossly out of
context and are a perfect example of anti-Islamic propoganda.
> *Slay them wherever ye find them* and drive them out of the places
> whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. -
> 2:191
SV
This is a good example of what I said above. Do you know the what the
verse just before the one you posted reads? I'm sure you don't as you
are merely a victim of propoganda so let me post it:
"And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but
do not transgress. Surely, God loves not the transgressors." (2:190)
If I posted the entire passage you might perhaps begin to realize that
Islam allows the Muslims to defend themselves against attack but
forbids aggression. I will post one passage that basically outlines the
Islamic philosophy (as I understand it) concerning war:
"Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made,
because they have been wronged and God, indeed, has power to help them.
Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because
they said, 'Our Lord is God.' And if God had not repelled some people
by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques,
wherein the name of God is oft remembered, would surely have been
destroyed. And God will, surely, help him who helps HIM. God is,
indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
Those who, if WE establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and
pay the Zakat(charity) and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with God
rests the final issue of all affairs." [Quran 22:39-41]
> Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
> (different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is
> hateful to you.
SV
There is no problem with this. When a community is under seige or
attacked it may be necessary to take up arms and fight. Self defence is
not only a right but it may become an obligation no matter how much you
may dislike the notion or taking up arms. In the US they have the
"selective service" otherwise known as the "draft". Every young male
must sign up and if necessary the government can force those men to
fight in a war.
That is a start and much more could be said but it ought to be enough
for you to realize your post was dishonest.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
svirk
Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> Hmmmm, let's see, why might Muslims have been accused of this? Could it
> be that, as we have seen, their scripture specifically and directly
> exhorts them to "slaughter the infidels?"
SV
That is ignorant nonsense.
> According to the Koran the "infidels," meaning Jews and Christians, are
> not innocents.
SV
More ignorant nonsense.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
svirk
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> Let me see. First, you don't believe that there are any Islamic
> exhortations to violence against infidels. Then, when *presented* with
> long list of quotes to the effect, you go on the "oh, this is taken
> out of context"
SV
He was correct to say so as I have pointed out in another post. It is
easy to take quotes out of context since most of the people reading
this newsgroup are ignorant of the Quran.
> tack (I gather it didn't occur to you that, the moment
> you pick this line, the burden of proof is on you, to present the
> context and show how a given quote doesn't really mean what it says).
SV
I have done so in another post earlier today.
> 1) While it is certainly true that most religions at various times
> killed in the name of God (note, "most", not necessarily all, I'm not
> aware in budhists engaging in such and the Bahai for sure didn't), it
> is most certainly not true that most religions have exhortations to
> such actions written into their scriptures.
SV
The Quran has no such exhortations either... in fact quite the opposite
is true.
> 2) Of all the significant religions the *only one* that carries
> within its scriptures repeated (many times) exhortations to
> *unlimited* in time and space warfare against *all* nonbelievers is
> Islam.
SV
Pathetic and ignorant nonsense. You have just swallowed anti-Islam
propoganda and done no study of the matter.
> So, bottom line, what you're doing is no different from plugging your
> ears and exlaiming "I don't hear it, it is not there". Not a very
> wise approach.
SV
You are chastising others for not taking a wise approach... that is
funny. You are commenting on Islam from a position of utter ignorance.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Mike Andrade
news:ausCf.27$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <Xns97586907997...@216.77.188.18>, Mike
> Andrade <don't...@think.so> writes:
>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>news:7mkCf.26$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>
>>> In article <Xns975841728A...@216.77.188.18>, Mike
>>> Andrade <don't...@think.so> writes:
>>>>"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>>news:1138336341.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Andrade wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.h
>>>>>> tm l
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Mike
Get thee down. Be thou funky.
svirk
Eric Chomko wrote:
> Orion (dan...@bezeqint.net) wrote:
> : One thing i like about some versions of islam is that profit is
> : considered unethical. Therefore contrary to western banks, in many
> : islamic banks interest is cosidered unethical.
>
> Yes, but not having a sense of time/value of money doesn't encourage those
> with money to save.
SV
That is true. My understanding is that Islamic system discourages
hoarding of wealth. Islam does encourage investing though so capital is
put to use and the investor shares in the profits. It is essentially a
capitalist system without the institution of interest... if such a
thing can be imagined.
"Those who devour interest do not rise except as rises one whom satan
has smitten with insanity. That is because they say, 'Trade also is
like interest;' whereas God has made trade lawful and has made interest
unlawful..." [Quran 2:275]
> What sense is there to give money to a bank for savings if there is no interest?
SV
The bank invests the money you put there. In the present system the
bank guarantees a particular rate of return regardless of their acutal
profits or loss. I presume in the Islamic system the bank would give
you a rate of return based directly on the success or failure of their
investments. The lender and borrower are bound together and share in
the loss or gain.
> And once upon a time Islamic banks were much better than the rest of that
> part of the world (i.e. Europe). That was a 1000 years ago. Could it be
> that their no interest policy has made them secondary in that part of the
> world over the last 1000 years? I sincerely think so.
SV
The downfall of the Islamic world was due to many reasons but not
taking interest was not one of them... in fact they had begun to take
interest in roundabout ways. The Muslims moved away from the Islamic
system and also began to take interest. At first in creative ways to
try and get around the "rules" and then more openly. There is not one
so-called Islamic state that does not deal in interest and there hasn't
been one for a long time. The Islamic empires were built without resort
to usury/interest but later in time the rulers and people became
greedy.
> It is one thing to treat people as family, but then again, business is business.
SV
Islam is concerned with all facets of life and thus has regulations
concerning business.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
svirk
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> Check out what the terms "Dar el Islam" and "Dar el harb" mean.
> Educate yourself.
SV
"Abode of peace" and "Adobe of war"
Can you tell me where these terms are found in the Quran? Let me save
you the trouble and tell you that those terms and the concept are not
in the Quran. They are a construction, or perhaps more rightly, a tool
of the more militant minded among the Muslims.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
svirk
Pace Sanders wrote:
> I am intrigued by the liberals who defend Islam; considering it is one
> of the most radically predjudicial faiths of all time...
SV
I presume you know very little about the faith beyond simple
propoganda.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Mike Andrade
news:1138385895.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Facts tend to disorient and confuse bigots. Thus, they ignore them.
--
Mike
My friends tell me I have intimacy issues. But they don't really
know me.
Orion
fascist ones.
T Wake
"Orion" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1138390008.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hamas and Jihad are just one branch of islam, both right-wing and
> fascist ones.
>
I agree. It is like people saying the IRA / UVF are representative of
Christian behaviour.
(I still think Atheism is the way forward :-) )
Orion
some aspects of primitivism.
Tim Campbell
svirk wrote:
> That is ignorant nonsense. The quotes you posted are grossly out of
> context and are a perfect example of anti-Islamic propoganda.
>
Will you kindly explain then, SV, how "context" somehow softens or even
neutralizes the meaning of the following quote:
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
Sirah- 9:5
Tim Campbell
coco wrote:
>
> In fact the Bible says those not carrying out Gods orders to commit
> Genocide are wrong!:
Yes Coco, you are referring to biblical HISTORY in what you posted but
I am simply saying that a violent occurance in biblical history is one
thing but the clear direction to violent action against all who are
considered infidels (Jews and Christians), for all time, as is in the
Koran, is something else indeed.
Mike Andrade
It is something else. It is a lie. Congratulations on being a
religious bigot. You've earned it.
--
Mike
"I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses." - Victor Hugo
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
> >
> It is something else. It is a lie. Congratulations on being a
> religious bigot. You've earned it.
>
It is not religious bigotry Mike. I'm not asking anyone to hate Islam
or Muslims. I'm just making a simple observation which your ideology
prevent. you from seeing the logic of.
Go to a bookstore and read the Koran; you will find it enlightening.
Mike Andrade
You are promoting religious bigotry and hatred. I've read the Koran
in several different translations. The fact that you cannot see your
bigotry or hate-mongering belies your so-called "logic." You're
simply an ignorant bigot. It's quite that simple.
--
Mike
.....File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
Tim Campbell
Mike Andrade wrote:
> I've read the Koran
> in several different translations.
OK then how do you spin the referred to passages to make them say
something other than what they are clearly saying?
You haven't given us your opinion of what these passages are truly
conveying if, as you believe, they are conveying something other than
their simple meaning.
Mike Andrade
>
> Mike Andrade wrote:
>
>> I've read the Koran
>> in several different translations.
>
> OK then how do you spin the referred to passages to make them say
> something other than what they are clearly saying?
I don't.
>
> You haven't given us your opinion of what these passages are truly
> conveying if, as you believe, they are conveying something other
> than their simple meaning.
>
I read the opinions of people who actually study. Try it. As I
said, ignorance is not a life sentence.
--
Mike
I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.
- Theresa of Avila
svirk
> svirk wrote:
>
> > That is ignorant nonsense. The quotes you posted are grossly out of
> > context and are a perfect example of anti-Islamic propoganda.
> >
>
> Will you kindly explain then, SV, how "context" somehow softens or even
> neutralizes the meaning of the following quote:
SV
And if I explain well will it change your attitude in any way?
> When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
> them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
>
> Sirah- 9:5
SV
This is a long explanation of the verse in question... that verse, 9:5,
seems to be the favorite verse of many when they attempt to make a case
against Islam. I think it would be correct to assume you have not read
the surrounding verses in an attempt to understand the passage. It
would be helpful if I discuss the general principles of war in the
Quran before commenting on the verse.
War has always been and apparently will always be a part of mans life
and as such the Quran contains a number of injunctions concerning it.
The Muslims are not allowed to start hostilities but are allowed to
fight back when hostilities are initiated by others.
"Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made,
because they have been wronged and God, indeed, has power to help them.
- Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only
because they said, 'Our Lord is God.' And if God had not repelled some
people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues
and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft remembered, would surely
have been destroyed. And God will, surely, help him who helps HIM. God
is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty - Those who, if WE establish them in the
earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid
evil. And with God rests the final issue of all affairs." [Quran
22:39-41]
Permission to fight is given to the victims of aggression.The cruel are
repelled with the help of the righteous to establish freedom of faith
and worship. God helps those who help to establish freedom and worship.
It follows that fighting is permitted when a people have suffered from
aggression, when the aggressor has no cause for aggression and he seeks
to interfere with the religion of his victim. The passage also states
the duty of the victim, if and when he attains power, is to establish
religious freedom and to protect all religions and religious places.
This teaching is clear and precise. The Muslims took to war because
they were forced. Aggressive wars are forbidden by Islam. The Muslims
are promised power but are warned that this power must be used to help
the poor and for the promotion of peace.
"And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but
do not transgress. Surely, God loves not the transgressors. And slay
these transgressors wherever you meet them and drive them out from
where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than slaying.
And fight them not in and near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you
therein. But if they fight you, then fight them. Such is the requital
for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely, God is Most
Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and
religion is professed only for God. But if they desist, then remember
that no hostility is allowed except against the wrongdoers." [Quran
2:190-193]
Aggression against a religion must be met with active resistance
because such persecution is worse than bloodshed. If an enemy attacks
the Muslims are free to reply but if the enemy desists the Muslims must
also desist. Fighting will last as long as religious persecution lasts
and freedom is not established.
"Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past will
be forgiven them; and if they return to their misdeeds, then verily the
example of the former peoples has already gone before them. And fight
them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly to God. But
if they desist, then surely God is Watchful of what they do. And if
they turn back, then know that God is your Protector - an excellent
protector and an excellent Helper!" [Quran 8:38-40]
"And make ready for them who fight you whatever you can of armed force
and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the
enemy of God and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not,
but God knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of God, it shall
be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged. And if they
incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust
in God. Surely, it is HE Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. And if they
seek to deceive thee, then surely God is sufficient for thee. HE it is
Who has strengthened thee with HIS help and with the believers;" [Quran
8:60-61]
If an offer of peace is made by the aggressors the Muslims are to
accept it even at the risk of being deceived. They are to put their
trust in God. Deception will not help against Muslims who are relying
on the help of God. Their victories are not due to themselves but to
God. An offer of peace can not be rejected even though it may only be a
trick with which the enemy hopes to gain time or some other advantage.
Now let me turn to the verse(s) in question;
"And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever
you find them and take them captive, and beleaguer them, and lie in
wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe
Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, God is
Most Forgiving, Merciful." [Quran 9:5]
When read in context and with an understanding of the Islamic rules for
fighting as outlined above there is no cause for non-Muslims to
complain. The verse refers to a period of time when the Muslims had
gained the upper hand over their persecutors. The persecutors were
given a 4 month period to see for themselves that their plans had been
frustrated and Islam was now dominant. These verses come just before
9:5 quoted above.
"So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot
frustrate the plan of God and that God will humiliate the disbelievers.
And this is a proclamation from God and HIS Messenger to the people on
the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that God is clear of idolaters, and
so is HIS Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but
if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of God.
And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve,
Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a
treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided
anyone against you. So fulfill to these the treaty you have made with
them till their term. Surely ALLAH loves those that are righteous."
[Quran 9:2-4]
The reference in 9:5 is to those who persecuted and attempted to
destroy the fledgling Muslim community and continued to do so. They
were granted respite for four months to travel the land in safety to
see whether or not Islam had triumphed and whether the word of God was
true. At the end of this period war was to be resumed against the
idolatrous Arabs, except of course those with whom there were treaties.
It should be noted that this war did not extend to any disbelievers
without discrimination, but only those that were avowed enemies of
Islam, had began hostilities, broken their oaths and plotted to expel
Muhammad(pbuh) from the city, as is outlined by 9:8-13 part of which is
quoted below:
"And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your
religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief -- surely, they have no
regard for their oaths, - that they may desist. Will you not fight a
people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the
Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you?
Do you fear them? Nay, God is most worthy that you should fear HIM, if
you are believers." [Quran 9:12-13]
Even then if any of those who had for so long hounded and persecuted
the Muslim community asked for asylum it would be granted so they could
hear the message of Islam and they were free to accept or leave, as is
outlined in 9:6.
"And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection of thee, grant him
protection so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his
place of security. That is because they are a people who have no
knowledge." [Quran 9:6]
If you have read this far I hope you are satisfied with my explanation.
Also, I hope you realize copying one or two verses from the Quran in
order to bash Islam is likely dishonest or at best ignorant.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Tim Campbell
svirk wrote:
>
> Aggression against a religion must be met with active resistance
> because such persecution is worse than bloodshed. If an enemy attacks
> the Muslims are free to reply but if the enemy desists the Muslims must
> also desist. Fighting will last as long as religious persecution lasts
> and freedom is not established.
>
I understand this interpretation.
And yes there are verses in the Koran that advocate violence toward
those who are attacking the Muslims...this I understand.
The problem arises concerning those verses that advocate violence
toward "the infidels" simply and solely because they are "infidels."
Dan Bloomquist
Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> The problem arises concerning those verses that advocate violence
> toward "the infidels" simply and solely because they are "infidels."
Yea, I know what you mean. There is a lot of that in the bible.
***
When YHWH brings you into the land that you are about to enter and
clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gekizites, the
Amorites, the Perizites, the Hivites and the Jubusites, 7 nations
mightier and more numerous than you, and when YHWH gives them over to
you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no
covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry Š for that
would turn away your children from following me Š Break their altars,
smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols
with fire. For you are a people holy to YHWH your God Š (who) has chosen
you out of all the peoples of the earth to be his people Š Take care
that you are not snared into imitating them, after they have been
destroyed before you Š Every abhorrent thing that YHWH hates they have
done for their gods
***
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Tim Campbell
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> Yea, I know what you mean. There is a lot of that in the bible.
>
Yes Dan, you are referring to biblical HISTORY in your post but
I am simply saying that a violent occurance in biblical history is one
thing but the clear advocacy to violent action against all who are
svirk
SV
There are no such verses. Those who disbelieve are free to do so. Islam
recognizes the right of freedom of conscience and freedom of belief and
that as far as one's religious belief is concerned one is answerable to
God alone. No man has the right to punish another for his choice of
belief.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Dan Bloomquist
Tim Campbell wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>Yea, I know what you mean. There is a lot of that in the bible.
>
> Yes Dan, you are referring to biblical HISTORY...
Ahhh, of course. Those that read the bible as 'the word of god' have it
all wrong! It is only an historical oddity and has nothing to do with
modern christianity.
Thanks for the clarification.
Orion
Orion wrote:
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > Half the world is dying of scarcity, and half from abundance. Which are
> > becoming more materialistic?
> >
> > BOfL
I would say that 30% of the world is rich and 70% is relatively poor.
That's most of the world. Less than 1% are perhaps very rich. Few
people are dying from extreme wealth but many are dying from extreme
poverty.
Tim Campbell
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> Ahhh, of course. Those that read the bible as 'the word of god' have it
> all wrong! It is only an historical oddity and has nothing to do with
> modern christianity.
>
You're not addressing my main point Dan...but that's OK...
At least you are not saying that the words in the Koran advocating
violence against "the infidels" don't really mean what they say...as
the others here are trying to assert...