Pirates suck.

[Saladin MD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

No offense taken.

You've had a rough start to the anesthesia forums. We've got no shortage of loud opinions and offensive topics here, but it's usually nice to establish some credibility before you jump into the fray. Otherwise, the dogs are unleashed.

I get what you mean. I was wrong to start this topic in this thread, as it was insensitive to the mother whose son is being deployed. I realize that, and I apologize.

 

[DO4lifer]

i think its awesome that people can discuss such sensitive topics without getting too out of hand. Definitely inappropriate for copro to misquote religious text, but he got pwned because of it.

No one should be trying to quote text that you aren't a part of.

Remember that Simpsons episode where Homer was accused of sexual harassment when he tried to grab the gummy bear off that woman's behind? Then they took quotes from his explanation to the cops and turned it into a confession. You can quote any text and make it how you want. When you quote passages, you look more intelligent.

Peace out 👍

 

[coprolalia]

Oh and there's much more. Do you want any more?

YEAH, I WANT MORE! THIS IS GREAT STUFF!

ALL religion is stupid, childish nonsense. Religion has caused far more woe and enmity among people in the world than it has provided comfort and solace. It is based on fairy tales and people claiming to hear the voice of some mythical being, then the subsequent divine right to conquer and dictate to them how to act and behave.

Let's have more! Christianity is clearly no more or less stupid than Islam. And, if you're now going to deny that there exist terrorists in the world who have used their interpretations of many of the above passages to justify the killing of innocent people in the world, your an even bigger idiot than I previously surmised.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

i think its awesome that people can discuss such sensitive topics without getting too out of hand. Definitely inappropriate for copro to misquote religious text, but he got pwned because of it.

No one should be trying to quote text that you aren't a part of.

😕

I can send you to specific websites where those quotes came from, and they are not all "anti-Islam" sites. Or, you're instead just going to take Saladin's word for it that his translations are the "true" and "real" ones? That's good critical thinking.

🙄

-copro

 

[Saladin MD]

YEAH, I WANT MORE! THIS IS GREAT STUFF!

ALL religion is stupid, childish nonsense. Religion has caused far more woe and enmity among people in the world than it has provided comfort and solace. It is based on fairy tales and people claiming to hear the voice of some mythical being, then the subsequent divine right to conquer and dictate to them how to act and behave.

Let's have more! Christianity is clearly no more or less stupid than Islam. And, if you're now going to deny that there exist terrorists in the world who have used their interpretations of many of the above passages to justify the killing of innocent people in the world, your an even bigger idiot than I previously surmised.

-copro

Copro, it's fine that you are an atheist, agnostic, etc. To you your own thing and to me mine. You are free to practice whatever you believe. But show some sensitivity and tolerance towards people of faith, as people of faith should show towards people who choose not to believe, like yourself.

In reality, atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted and hateful as religious people. The way you just bashed Islam and Christianity is pretty much the same way that Muslim extremists bash Christianity and how Christian zealots bash Islam. It's the same intolerance. Atheists--like Muslims and Christians--have all types within their ranks, including intolerant bigots.

And no, I don't deny that extremists botch the religion.

😕

I can send you to specific websites where those quotes came from, and they are not all "anti-Islam" sites. Or, you're instead just going to take Saladin's word for it that his translations are the "true" and "real" ones? That's good critical thinking.

🙄

-copro

I call your bluff. Show me the website. I guarantee you that the original "translation" comes from an anti-Islam (or anti-religion) website.

Secondly, there is no reason to take my word for the translations I gave. Here is Oxford's translation of the Quran, so you can check for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nkey2yqygyq

 

[coprolalia]

Copro, it's fine that you are an atheist, agnostic, etc. To you your own thing. You are free to practice whatever you believe. But show some sensitivity and tolerance towards people of faith, as people of faith should show towards people who choose not to believe, like yourself.

In reality, atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted and hateful as religious people. The way you just bashed Islam and Christianity is pretty much the same way that Muslim extremists bash Christianity and how Christian zealots bash Islam. It's the same intolerance.

And no, I don't deny that extremists botch the religion.



I call your bluff. Show me the website. I guarantee you that the original "translation" comes from an anti-Islam (or anti-religion) website.

Secondly, there is no reason to take my word for it. Here is Oxford's translation of the Quran, so you can check for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nkey2yqygyq

(1) Why? Many "non-extremists" want to put prayer in schools, teach Creationism (under the auspices of "Intelligent Design") in scientific classrooms, rely on faith above all else to couch the unexplainable instead of fomenting and advancing scientific curiosity, and engage in a whole host of other things that don't have any quantifiable basis in reality. Don't kid yourself. You're not as tolerant as you like to believe you are.

(2) What you call "hatred" and "bigotry" I call a reality check. There's no sense playing nice when people have an agenda. There are many "activists" who aren't quite so extreme that would love for us to go back to the 1400's. I'm completely egalitarian. All men and women are created equal, just not in the eyes of God. And, they should be given equal rights and access to everything that's entitled to them and their fellow man provided they are willing to accept the responsibility and fair share of their end of the bargain in being considered equal. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's called "positive atheism", and it doesn't mean what it implies. Google it.

(3) I'm not going to download a PDF file. There are a whole host of translations of the Koran available on the web. Many different translations. Translating any language, especially an "ancient" one, into the text of another is inherently fraught with a lot of "what were they really trying to say here" discussions and arguments that often carry on across decades of scholarly debate. You assume that translation is a direct process, when actually it is as much interpretation especially when idioms are used.

I'll just take this one from a reputable and well-respected online source:

"When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
-Sura 47:4

Terrorists have literally used this quote and carried it out, as described, to justify their actions.

Now, if you're going to try to tell us all that this is somehow a "misinterpretation" of the Qu'ran, I'm going to call you a complete intellectual fraud. And, although I don't agree to and adhere to the Bible, I challenge you to find a quote anywhere in it that even closely matches the graphic violence of this one.

-copro

 

[DO4lifer]

copro, you know whats funny. I googled your "quote" for my own understanding.

1st hit: An article talking about how people misquote the Quran.

2nd hit: An anti-Islam website.

Turns out what you quote refers to war time. Honestly man, you aren't Muslim nor a scholar in Islamic studies. Please stop quoting things you are ignorant in. 👍

From "Quran Explorer"
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Other translations
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

So if you kill them, how do you make them prisoners? That's not what its saying. Basically, you don't kill them, but instead take them as POWs. Sounds pretty fair, and in line with current war time strategies.

again copro, please stop.

 

[coprolalia]

again copro, please stop.

NO.

Did or did not Islamic terrorists use this passage from the Koran to justify beheadings of captors in Iraq in the eyes of Allah and their religion?

It's a simply "yes" or "no" question.

-copro

 

[2win]

Whatever I saw on TV when terrorists with a Coran in their hands was not in your "translation" - they were beheading prisoners. Also remember 9/11. Remember the day when they were celebrating the death of Christians in the "islamic countries"....
On the other side - I have friend Muslims and they are wonderful people. Maybe I attract the good ones!
In my experience - a great one - I was on call when my wife had a C section. The ONLY one (colleague with me ) who offered to change the call WITHOUT to pay back (and this is something for a resident) was a Muslim friend, no Christian, no Jew. And I am an ORTHODOX Christian. I think that we have to judge carefully through our experience.

 

[DO4lifer]

NO.

Did or did not Islamic terrorists use this passage from the Koran to justify beheadings of captors in Iraq in the eyes of Allah and their religion?

It's a simply "yes" or "no" question.

-copro

I don't know any terrorists. The Muslims I know are cool people. 👍

If you know terrorists, you should probably report it or something.🙄

 

[coprolalia]

I don't know any terrorists. The Muslims I know are cool people. 👍

If you know terrorists, you should probably report it or something.🙄

Huh? What? At least try to stay on topic.

Again, I'll continue to make the case that interpretation is paramount to translation.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Whatever I saw on TV when terrorists with a Coran in their hands was not in your "translation" - they were beheading prisoners. Also remember 9/11. Remember the day when they were celebrating the death of Christians in the "islamic countries"....
On the other side - I have friend Muslims and they are wonderful people. Maybe I attract the good ones!
In my experience - a great one - I was on call when my wife had a C section. The ONLY one (colleague with me ) who offered to change the call WITHOUT to pay back (and this is something for a resident) was a Muslim friend, no Christian, no Jew. And I am an ORTHODOX Christian. I think that we have to judge carefully through our experience.

Listen, I was (in fact) hanging out with a Muslim guy last night. I've got no problem with the individual, just what he believes. Otherwise, nice guy.

-copro

 

[spyyder]

Listen, I was (in fact) hanging out with a Muslim guy last night. I've got no problem with the individual, just what he believes. Otherwise, nice guy.

-copro

"Wow, you hung out with a MUSLIM! Whoa did he try some jihad on you? Oh man, last week I was hanging out with a black dude, I thought he might try to rob me! I've got no problem with the individual, just his color bothers me."

Do you know how ******ed/racist that sounds?

 

[pgg]

I got back from Iraq in the past 6 months, and at least for the area I was in, the vast majority of the local populace was glad that we were there.

(1) The underlined part is ludicrous. Keep convincing yourself of that. The vast majority of Iraqis hate your colonial presence. But I guess you can convince yourself of this just like the British said this when they occupied India (and Iraq, for that matter).

Speaking as someone who's also been to Iraq (and Afghanistan), my experience reflects NavyFlightDoc's. Interpret that as you will.

Idly curious - have you been to Iraq? If so, when, where, how long, and what was the nature of your interaction with the people?

 

[NavyFlightDoc]

apparently i shouldn't have left my computer alone for 6 hours, so that i would have known that I was ludicrous.

I guess people aren't glad they don't have to worry about being randomly taken prisoner and tortured and killed by the regime in charge of the country.

I'm not some boot-camp fresh soldier, so please don't patronize me with your question about how Saddam got into power. Most military officers make a point of knowing what the political situation is where they are going, and I am no exception.

More to my point (and I don't expect you to have found a representative sampling of Iraqi professionals in the past 6 hours, so don't bother responding today unless you have), you should talk to some of them about why they left their country to come here. It wasn't just for the money.

 

[Saladin MD]

Reply forthcoming...I will reply after rounds and clinic, God-Willing. Peace be unto you.

 

[izzygoer]

Now, if you're going to try to tell us all that this is somehow a "misinterpretation" of the Qu'ran, I'm going to call you a complete intellectual fraud. And, although I don't agree to and adhere to the Bible, I challenge you to find a quote anywhere in it that even closely matches the graphic violence of this one.

-copro

2 Chronicles, Chapter 15 12-13

"And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. "


Deuteronomy, Chapter 13: 6-10


If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

 

[Saladin MD]

Speaking as someone who's also been to Iraq (and Afghanistan), my experience reflects NavyFlightDoc's. Interpret that as you will.

You were a part of a colonial army. The only ones who ingratiate themselves to the colonial army are the minority, i.e. the traitors who benefit from said occupation. The fact that you were part of a colonial army hampered your ability to ascertain the obvious: the Iraqi people hate your army and want you out, just like any freedom loving people would want the occupier out.

Idly curious - have you been to Iraq? If so, when, where, how long, and what was the nature of your interaction with the people?

Your anecdotal experience means nothing. See below.

apparently i shouldn't have left my computer alone for 6 hours, so that i would have known that I was ludicrous.

I didn't say you were ludicrous. I said your claim was.

I guess people aren't glad they don't have to worry about being randomly taken prisoner and tortured and killed by the regime in charge of the country.

Yes, thank God they don't have to fear any of that from the US colonial army:



But you're right: thank God it's not random. If you are Muslim, then the US government will arrest you, detain you without charge or trial, and do these kind of things to you.

You talk about regime change. I asked you a simple question, which you were unable to answer: who put the regime in power in the first place!?

I'm not some boot-camp fresh soldier, so please don't patronize me with your question about how Saddam got into power. Most military officers make a point of knowing what the political situation is where they are going, and I am no exception.

Ummm...I asked you a simple question, so answer it. You don't seem to even know what I am talking about. Again, I ask: who put Saddam into power? Which country helped lead the coup that put his party into power and thereby circumvent democracy in the region? I'll give you a hint: it starts with the letter "U" and ends in "A".

More to my point (and I don't expect you to have found a representative sampling of Iraqi professionals in the past 6 hours, so don't bother responding today unless you have), you should talk to some of them about why they left their country to come here. It wasn't just for the money.

Yes, many Iraqis fled from Iraq when America led a coup to put Saddam's tyrannical party into power. Oh dang, did I just give out the answer to my question above? And how nice is it that America has a reason to invade: "We need to illegally invade Iraq to remove the regime we illegally put into power! Now thank us you pathetic Iraqis for liberating you from the tyrant we put in power over you in the first place!"

As for you asking for a poll, sorry but you strike out again:

A recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes shows that Majority of Iraqis support attacks against American soldiers; Overwhelming majority want America out of Iraq; Vast majority of Iraqis think America has worsened the situation in Iraq

And the U.S. State Department itself confirms this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Keep fooling yourself because it is the only way you can get some sleep. You are no different than the Soviet soldiers who invaded Afghanistan. Part of a neo-colonial army, nothing else.

 

[Saladin MD]

"Wow, you hung out with a MUSLIM! Whoa did he try some jihad on you? Oh man, last week I was hanging out with a black dude, I thought he might try to rob me! I've got no problem with the individual, just his color bothers me."

Do you know how ******ed/racist that sounds?

Haha, he doesn't realize it though. Bigots never realize how bigoted they are.

Again, I'll continue to make the case that interpretation is paramount to translation.

The quotes you provided were neither interpretation or translation. Many of the verses you cited were completely different, indicated by when I said "imaginary" and showed you the real verse. You have lost all credibility. Sorry.

Whatever I saw on TV when terrorists with a Coran in their hands was not in your "translation" - they were beheading prisoners.

Yes, because all you know about Islam comes from the TV. The media, especially channels like Fox News, have an axe to grind against Islam.

As for radicalization of certain Muslims, that certainly is a problem. But we must ask: why are these Muslims becoming so radicalized? The answer is painfully obvious: the foreign policy of the West.

Also remember 9/11. Remember the day when they were celebrating the death of Christians in the "islamic countries"....

Umm...sorry, but the vast majority of Muslims and their leaders sent condolences to America.

About 2,000 Americans died because of the actions of a handful of Muslims. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died at the hands of the US government and the regime it funds, i.e. Israel. So I am still waiting for condolences.

On the other side - I have friend Muslims and they are wonderful people. Maybe I attract the good ones!

Maybe you are a racist bigot. You sound like those white racists who say "I have black friends and they are wonderful people, but maybe I attract the good ones", which implies that the majority of blacks are anything but.

You said you are an Orthodox Christian. I ask you: tally up all the Christians that have died at the hands of Muslims in the last fifty years, and I will tally up the Muslims that have died due to Christians...It will be at least a 1:10 ratio.

Did or did not Islamic terrorists use this passage from the Koran to justify beheadings of captors in Iraq in the eyes of Allah and their religion?

It's a simply "yes" or "no" question.

The answer is not a simple yes or no. You haven't spent much time interacting with extremists, whereas I spend a lot of my free time debating and refuting Muslim extremists. They do not use the Quran or Prophetic traditions to justify their killings, since the Islamic canon clearly and emphatically prohibits the killing of non-combatants:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

The Prophet found a woman who was killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

During some of the Ghazawat (military skirmish) of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim

Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

A woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

A woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

Maliks Muwatta

Book 021, Hadith Number 008.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

"The Messenger of Allah forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'"

Book 021, Hadith Number 009.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

The Messenger of Allah saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.

Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Abu Bakr [the Prophet's best disciple] told his troops: "I advise you ten things. Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." ​

When Muslim extremists do what they do, they justify it by using political--not religious--arguments. They justify it by using emotional arguments about how many Muslims have been killed by the Christians and Israelis and how we must respond in kind.

Meanwhile, it is the orthodox Muslims who refute the extremists by showing that our religious canon prohibits killing non-combatants, even if the enemy does it.

(3) I'm not going to download a PDF file. There are a whole host of translations of the Koran available on the web.

There are many translations of the Quran, and many of them are OK. The Oxford one is simply the best I've seen. Interesting that you are not interested in it.

The fact that there are many reliable translations of the Quran does not help your case, since you did not use any reliable translation when you provided those bogus quotes in your initial post.

It's like arguing with your attending that systolic hypertension is defined as BP above 110 and then quoting wikipedia as your proof. When your attending shows you a medical book to prove you wrong, you fire back: "But there are many medical sources, not just this one book!" Yes, replies the attending, but wikipedia is not one of them.

"When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
-Sura 47:4

That is not from any reliable translation. Rather, you once again got it from an anti-Islamic website. You are a dishonest guy with no credibility whatsoever. I'm very familiar with anti-Islam websites, and the way you wrote "-Sura 47:4" just like that particular website proves that you copied/pasted it. You simply copied/pasted straight from JihadWatch, a vitriolically anti-Islamic website. This shows that you are a liar. Liar.

In any case, the verse in question is about when the enemy fights the believers for their faith, killing them and running them out of their homes...then in that case, Muslims are told to fight back. Your "translation" is way off. The correct translation simply says to strike at them until they are subdued, then to take them as captive, then to free them after the war is over either through generosity or through prisoner ransom (i.e. exchanging Muslim prisoners for Non-Muslim ones, a fee, etc.):

"Thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens."

Terrorists have literally used this quote and carried it out, as described, to justify their actions.

The verse says that as soon as the war is over, you are to free prisoners. I don't think terrorists like that one bit!

Now, if you're going to try to tell us all that this is somehow a "misinterpretation" of the Qu'ran, I'm going to call you a complete intellectual fraud.

The only fraud is you. You quoted verse numbers and I showed you the verses, meaning you completely made it up. You've lost all credibility.

And, although I don't agree to and adhere to the Bible, I challenge you to find a quote anywhere in it that even closely matches the graphic violence of this one.

I accept your challenge. Whereas the Islamic canon clearly and emphatically declares that Muslims may only kill combatants (and forbids the killing of women and children), the Bible has some quotes that sanction the killing of women and children:

1 Samuel 15:2-3 "Kill men and women, children and infants."

Ezekiel 9:5-7 "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, 'Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.' So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 'Defile the Temple!' the LORD commanded. 'Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!' So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

Deuteronomy 13:12-15 "If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities...saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods',Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."

Deuteronomy 7:2-5 "Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them...Thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."
​

And there are many more...just search any anti-Christian website.

Again, I don't agree with this bashing tactic. I am only trying to counter your point here and give perspective. Oftentimes I find that some Christians bash Islam and the Quran without knowing what is in their own religion and own book. As Jesus [as] is reported to have said in the Bible itself: when you reach to take out a splinter in the eye of another, first remove the splinter from your own eye.

I do not at all think that Christianity is a barbarous religion. That was not my intention here. I believe Christianity is a religion of love. I simply wanted to refute a particular point in this thread.

Peace.

 

[pgg]

Idly curious - have you been to Iraq? If so, when, where, how long, and what was the nature of your interaction with the people?

Your anecdotal experience means nothing. See below.

So, from your avoidance of the question, I'll assume that you've never been there. OK.

 

[2win]

"you are an Orthodox Christian. I ask you: tally up all the Christians that have died at the hands of Muslims in the last fifty years, and I will tally up the Muslims that have died due to Christians...It will be at least a 1:10 ratio."

So you're talking about Kosovo? Say "thank you" to USA that choosed to bomb us on the Easter eve.
So now you're OK with the US Christians.
I hoped that we'll not get here but you brought it up....Sorry for you dude - let' s see some facts - http://www.neobyzantine.org/movement/problems/index.php
Please....

 

[NavyFlightDoc]

Saladin, no question about it, those pictures show something that was 100% wrong. That's why they are so disturbing. I think you know better than to think those actions are representative of the "US colonial army."

I didn't answer your question about Saddam being placed in power in part by the intervention of the USA, because it was couched in a terribly condescending manner. I didn't have to google it, because I knew it, which was inferred by my response. A little embarrassing for you if you didn't understand that.

Honestly, I wish we weren't there, I think every American service member does. No one wants to go, no one wants to be away from their families and lives that they are used to. But belittling the sacrifice of the individuals involved doesn't win any friends, or arguments.

I sleep well at night, the Marines I served with spent there time building up the infrastructure and making sure that when we left the local populace would have access to basic things like electrical power. No shots fired, in anger or otherwise.

Have a good night, and may the Lord bless you and keep you.

 

[Saladin MD]

So, from your avoidance of the question, I'll assume that you've never been there. OK.

Let's not be Sarah Palin. I've been to France. That does not make me an expert of the region. I have not been to Iraq, but I am well-read on the history of Iraq. Let me ask you: have you read even a single history book on Iraq? If so, please name it.

In any case, the point is that it matters little that you've been there. Your anecdotal experiences mean nothing. I have already established the statistical proof that shows Iraqis want the USA out and even support attacks on American soldiers.

"you are an Orthodox Christian. I ask you: tally up all the Christians that have died at the hands of Muslims in the last fifty years, and I will tally up the Muslims that have died due to Christians...It will be at least a 1:10 ratio."

So you're talking about Kosovo? Say "thank you" to USA that choosed to bomb us on the Easter eve.
So now you're OK with the US Christians.
I hoped that we'll not get here but you brought it up....Sorry for you dude - let' s see some facts - http://www.neobyzantine.org/movement/problems/index.php
Please....

First of all, I am not here to make this Team Christianity vs Team Islam. I hate such mentality. I believe in La Convivencia, i.e. Andalusia during its Golden Age.

I do not at all deny that atrocities have been committed by Muslims against Christians. However, I said in the last 50 years, and nothing in your link talks about what has been going on in the last 50 years.

You really don't get it: I am not trying to make this an us vs them thread. I don't believe in any of that. We are all human beings, and people of faith, who should live in mutual co-existence.

The issue here, however, is simply to explain why there is so much Islamic radicalism prevalent today. That is all. Not to bash Christianity or Christians in general. The surge of Islamic radicalism is directly related to the Western foreign policy.

The only reason I mention this is not to bash Christianity, but because it is the here and now, and we need to make changes to this, if we want to live in peace, harmony, and mutual co-existence.

Islam and Christianity have a bitter history, and it's time to abandon the war path. The war mongers on BOTH sides (the neo-cons and even the Obama "regime", along with Al-Qaeda and the extremists in the Muslim world) feed off each other's fury. America causes Al-Qaeda's ranks to swell when it wages wars against Muslim lands and interferes in the domestic affairs of Muslim countries...I don't like Al-Qaeda and I want to see that wretched organization whither away and die out. So America needs to stop being the number one recruiter for Al-Qaeda.

There are many things that Muslims need to do, but this is another topic. Here I was only trying to refute someone who insinuated that Islam is inherently a violent religion.

I think you know better than to think those actions are representative of the "US colonial army."

That's what Saddam says when you point to atrocities committed by his regime.

Honestly, I wish we weren't there, I think every American service member does. No one wants to go, no one wants to be away from their families and lives that they are used to. But belittling the sacrifice of the individuals involved doesn't win any friends, or arguments.

I sleep well at night, the Marines I served with spent there time building up the infrastructure and making sure that when we left the local populace would have access to basic things like electrical power. No shots fired, in anger or otherwise.

Have a good night, and may the Lord bless you and keep you.

I am glad that you don't want to be there, and I am also glad that you are pursuing medicine (saving lives) instead of the military (killing lives).

Peace be unto you.

 

[coprolalia]

Saladin:

I knew if I pushed hard enough, you'd show your true colors. Thank you for confirming that.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

"Wow, you hung out with a MUSLIM! Whoa did he try some jihad on you? Oh man, last week I was hanging out with a black dude, I thought he might try to rob me! I've got no problem with the individual, just his color bothers me."

Do you know how ******ed/racist that sounds?

Do you even understand how much of a straw man that is?

You can choose not to be Islamic. You cannot choose not to be black. If you're going to try to counter-argue, at least try to make it somewhat intelligent.

Furthermore, I could tell you about how I ran into this guy at a local bar (he wasn't drinking though), how his wife left him but he won't get a divorce because of the religious/family connotations, and how he has "hooked up" with at least two other women since this went down a couple of years ago. When you see bullsh*t, call bullsh*t.

Yes. Religion is stupid. People are hypocrites. Instead of facing their own hypocrisy and admitting to it, they use religion to make themselves feel better about their own personal humanity, as well as to justify and absolve themselves for their very human actions. It is a super-ego, in every bit of the Freudian sense of the word, crutch. Nothing more.

So, yes, I feel no qualms about chastising people for their childish, hypocritical, self-serving beliefs... especially when they try to judge me with them.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Islam and Christianity have a bitter history, and it's time to abandon the war path.

Maybe it should be time to abandon religion too...

-copro

 

[Saladin MD]

Saladin:

I knew if I pushed hard enough, you'd show your true colors. Thank you for confirming that.

-copro

You have been shown to be a liar.

 

[coprolalia]

You have been shown to be a liar.

I am many things, but I am definitely not a liar.

Then again, baseless and unsupportable accusations are the last refuge of sick minds and the morally defeated. And, this is about what I would expect from your ilk.

-copro

 

[Saladin MD]

I am many things, but I am definitely not a liar.

Then again, baseless and unsupportable accusations are the last refuge of sick minds and the morally defeated. And, this is about what I would expect from your ilk.

-copro

Yes, you are a liar. 🙂 You claimed that you got a Quranic "translation" from other than an anti-Islam website and from a "reliable Quranic translation". You lied about this. Google proves your lie. Very simple.

And what do you mean by "ilk"? And what do you mean by "showing your true colors"? Please elaborate.

 

[coprolalia]

Yes, you are a liar. 🙂 You claimed that you got a Quranic "translation" from other than an anti-Islam website and from a "reliable Quranic translation". You lied about this. Google proves your lie. Very simple.

And what do you mean by "ilk"? And what do you mean by "showing your true colors"? Please elaborate.

You know what, give it a f**king rest, dude. You can call me a liar all you want, but I've answered that charge - at least twice now. You, on the other hand, are just making yourself look like Al-Qaeda. You're a goddamn broken record. And, it's getting really f**king annoying.
-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Oh... and please go away! Your bunging-up this forum with your b.s.

-copro

 

[Saladin MD]

You know what, give it a f**king rest, dude. You can call me a liar all you want, but I've answered that charge - at least twice now. You, on the other hand, are just making yourself look like Al-Qaeda. You're a goddamn broken record. And, it's getting really f**king annoying.
-copro

Your melting down. And you really show the depths of your bigotry that you accuse any religious Muslim of being like Al-Qaeda.

 

[coprolalia]

Your melting down. And you really show the depths of your bigotry that you accuse any religious Muslim of being like Al-Qaeda.

No, I'm accusing you of trying trying to make this a forum on Islam, and showing your true colors (arrogant, self-serving, self-aggrandazing).

And, just so we're clear (and, despite the fact that I've said this already): all religion is stupid in my book. I make no special distinctions for Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc.

Please, please, please GO AWAY! You're going to make this forum completely suck and probably get us both banned in the process! You've made it abundantly clear that you are not interested in the field of anesthesiology for the right reasons. Therefore, you do not belong here on this forum.

GO AWAY!

-copro

 

[Saladin MD]

Copro: please read my post in the other thread. Peace be unto you, and forgive me for any transgressions against you. Let us put an end to this silly internet war, and I apologize for my part in it. Good luck with finishing up your residency! Almost there!

 

[2win]

I got your point Saladin - remember that my Orthodox people never tried to get muslim childs to enslave them (like your people did), never went in Arabia to conquer your ancestors land. We never had an apology for all the criminal acts commited by your ancestors. Your "relatives" fed their horses in our church in Constantinopole...This is respect???
And now in the muslim countries the christian faith cannot be exercised - that's the the truth. In Denmark and Sweden your boys have in their agenda sharia - the muslim law. Did you send them emails - maybe - I think you're a smart and wise young man.....
I need only one think to give you credit - say Thank You AMerican Christians for allowing my parents (emigrants from a muslim country) to settle here. Thank you Christians allowing me to exercise my faith and to post on this forum (after 9/11). Shame of you muslims that burned US flags. You deserve( terrorists) to eat pig three times a day ( as a punishment ).
Would you?
And this "peace unto you" - say it after that.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. . .And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - excerpts from 1 Corinthians 13:4-13 "

 

[DO4lifer]

2win, weren't you the one wishing a blessed Easter? What happened to love thy neighbor and turn thy cheek?

if history is to be remembered, then one must mention the crusades. The slaughter of every everybody in their path whether Christian or Muslim based on the Pope's wishes. The Christians of Jerusalem actually fought alongside the Muslims because they lived freely under their rule and were able to practice without persecution.
Here is a tidbit copied from here.
"Pope Urban II (1088-1099, see art below) was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE]" --> doesn't this concept sound awfully familiar???

Don't even bring up slavery...it hasn't been that long since we were guilty of that across this great country of ours. And we were BRUTAL...even had to have a war between ourselves to end it.

Youtube has videos of our soldiers blowing up mosques. I think thats a bit more disrespectful than horse feeding don't you think?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6RbnNZivqo[/youtube]

Flag burning was status quo during the 60s.

The term terrorist has been thrown around quite loosely. A terrorist commits act of terror. This would mean a gang member who does a drive-by or an invasion of a sovereign country (hint hint).

Lets end this discussion because most of us have obviously forgotten our history class lessons from many years back. 😕

I got your point Saladin - remember that my Orthodox people never tried to get muslim childs to enslave them (like your people did), never went in Arabia to conquer your ancestors land. We never had an apology for all the criminal acts commited by your ancestors. Your "relatives" fed their horses in our church in Constantinopole...This is respect???
And now in the muslim countries the christian faith cannot be exercised - that's the the truth. In Denmark and Sweden your boys have in their agenda sharia - the muslim law. Did you send them emails - maybe - I think you're a smart and wise young man.....
I need only one think to give you credit - say Thank You AMerican Christians for allowing my parents (emigrants from a muslim country) to settle here. Thank you Christians allowing me to exercise my faith and to post on this forum (after 9/11). Shame of you muslims that burned US flags. You deserve( terrorists) to eat pig three times a day ( as a punishment ).
Would you?
And this "peace unto you" - say it after that.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. . .And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - excerpts from 1 Corinthians 13:4-13 "

 

[Bertelman]

Lets end this discussion

Seriously. I never thought I would consider closing my own thread, but this discussion sucks. Tip: none of you will convince anyone else to think differently. You have succeeded only in entrenching each other's views.

I don't believe every thread should end in some clear resolution, but now you're just pissing in the wind. I appreciate irony more than the average person, but someone took a great thread about pirates, both the legit kind and the insufferable NL team, and turned it into crap.

 

[coprolalia]

 

[Saladin MD]

I got your point Saladin - remember that my Orthodox people never tried to get muslim childs to enslave them (like your people did), never went in Arabia to conquer your ancestors land. We never had an apology for all the criminal acts commited by your ancestors. Your "relatives" fed their horses in our church in Constantinopole...This is respect???
And now in the muslim countries the christian faith cannot be exercised - that's the the truth. In Denmark and Sweden your boys have in their agenda sharia - the muslim law. Did you send them emails - maybe - I think you're a smart and wise young man.....
I need only one think to give you credit - say Thank You AMerican Christians for allowing my parents (emigrants from a muslim country) to settle here. Thank you Christians allowing me to exercise my faith and to post on this forum (after 9/11). Shame of you muslims that burned US flags. You deserve( terrorists) to eat pig three times a day ( as a punishment ).
Would you?
And this "peace unto you" - say it after that.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. . .And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - excerpts from 1 Corinthians 13:4-13 "

Peace be unto you, 2win.

There are some inaccuracies in your post above (such as the claim that Christians did not take Muslim slaves). Nonetheless, I acknowledge that historically Muslims have committed atrocities against Christians. What your post did not mention however was that Christians have committed equal atrocities against Muslims. You mention horses eating in Christian churches (???), yet perhaps you do not know that during the Crusades the Christians ate the Muslims (cannibalism), burned down mosques full of people they herded into them, etc.

Generally historians and academics agree that Muslim rule was more tolerant than Christian rule. Muslims would let Jews and Christians live in their lands and practice their religion relatively freely. On the other hand, Christians expelled both Muslims and Jews from their lands, and forced conversions. That is after all what the Spanish Inquisition was. That is also what went on during the Crusades.

It might interest you to know that whenever Christians ruled Jerusalem, they would immediately expel Jews. Whenever Muslims would rule Jerusalem, they would allow Jews back. Jews and Christians could practice their religion in Muslim lands, whereas Muslims and Jews could not in Christian lands.

I will now post a very unbiased source that confirms how Muslims treated Jews historically. Again, this is not about today (since anti-Semitism has risen due to Israeli actions). This is historically I am talking about. I will cite the words of Rabbi Ted Falcon in "Judaism for Dummies". Those of you who know the "For Dummies" series know that it is a very neutral source. Keep in mind that Senator Joseph Lieberman praised this book:

"A concise and upbeat primer on the Jewish faith, Jewish history, and what it means to be a Jew."

(Senator Liberman's review of "Judaism for Dummies"​

Ok, this is what Rabbi Falcon says of Jews under Islamic rule:

In general, Jews tended to be better off in Islamic lands than Christian lands during the Middle Ages. Jews and Christians were both considered "Peoples of the Book"--worshiping the same God as Muslims and using holy scriptures--and were therefore protected under Islamic law. The Jewish focus on scholarship gained them admiration, and the Jews, who quickly learned to speak Arabic, were allowed to be a part of the robust intellectual life of the Islamic Empire...to the Jews, Islamic rule was actually a relief from the humiliating treatment they had gotten from the Christians...

Granted, not all Islamic leaders were the same. Whilst most of them were tolerant and ensured the security of life and property, every now and again there were massive forced conversions to Islam, property confiscation, and so on. However, as a whole, these persecutions were shorter in duration and less ferocious than had occurred, and were later to occur, in Christian lands.

(Judaism for Dummies, by Rabbi Ted Falcon, p.162)​

With regards to the present day situation, the Muslim world is sunk in its Dark Ages, just like Europe was in when it carried out such atrocities against Muslims. The status of minorities in Muslim countries today is atrocious, and I acknowledge this; it is something that the Muslim world will struggle with, just like not more than 60 years ago blacks were treated like dogs in America. These things take time, and there are most definitely Muslims working to improve the condition of Non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim world. It will however take a long time, and blood, sweat, and toil.

One thing I advise you is to eschew this Team Islam vs Team Christianity mentality. The only reason I even mentioned that historically Muslim lands were more tolerant than Christian ones was not to bash Christianity, but to show perspective and take away from this stereotype of Muslims that is prevalent today. I think that is important if we are going to do any interfaith dialogue. Christians have this false conception that Christendom has always been tolerant whereas the House of Islam has always been violent, brutal, etc., which is just simply not historically accurate.

Peace be unto you.

 

[2win]

Peace be unto you, 2win.

There are some inaccuracies in your post above (such as the claim that Christians did not take Muslim slaves). Nonetheless, I acknowledge that historically Muslims have committed atrocities against Christians. What your post did not mention however was that Christians have committed equal atrocities against Muslims. You mention horses eating in Christian churches (???), yet perhaps you do not know that during the Crusades the Christians ate the Muslims (cannibalism), burned down mosques full of people they herded into them, etc.

Generally historians and academics agree that Muslim rule was more tolerant than Christian rule. Muslims would let Jews and Christians live in their lands and practice their religion relatively freely. On the other hand, Christians expelled both Muslims and Jews from their lands, and forced conversions. That is after all what the Spanish Inquisition was. That is also what went on during the Crusades.

It might interest you to know that whenever Christians ruled Jerusalem, they would immediately expel Jews. Whenever Muslims would rule Jerusalem, they would allow Jews back. Jews and Christians could practice their religion in Muslim lands, whereas Muslims and Jews could not in Christian lands.

I will now post a very unbiased source that confirms how Muslims treated Jews historically. Again, this is not about today (since anti-Semitism has risen due to Israeli actions). This is historically I am talking about. I will cite the words of Rabbi Ted Falcon in "Judaism for Dummies". Those of you who know the "For Dummies" series know that it is a very neutral source. Keep in mind that Senator Joseph Lieberman praised this book:

"A concise and upbeat primer on the Jewish faith, Jewish history, and what it means to be a Jew."

(Senator Liberman's review of "Judaism for Dummies"​

Ok, this is what Rabbi Falcon says of Jews under Islamic rule:

In general, Jews tended to be better off in Islamic lands than Christian lands during the Middle Ages. Jews and Christians were both considered "Peoples of the Book"--worshiping the same God as Muslims and using holy scriptures--and were therefore protected under Islamic law. The Jewish focus on scholarship gained them admiration, and the Jews, who quickly learned to speak Arabic, were allowed to be a part of the robust intellectual life of the Islamic Empire...to the Jews, Islamic rule was actually a relief from the humiliating treatment they had gotten from the Christians...

Granted, not all Islamic leaders were the same. Whilst most of them were tolerant and ensured the security of life and property, every now and again there were massive forced conversions to Islam, property confiscation, and so on. However, as a whole, these persecutions were shorter in duration and less ferocious than had occurred, and were later to occur, in Christian lands.

(Judaism for Dummies, by Rabbi Ted Falcon, p.162)​

With regards to the present day situation, the Muslim world is sunk in its Dark Ages, just like Europe was in when it carried out such atrocities against Muslims. The status of minorities in Muslim countries today is atrocious, and I acknowledge this; it is something that the Muslim world will struggle with, just like not more than 60 years ago blacks were treated like dogs in America. These things take time, and there are most definitely Muslims working to improve the condition of Non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim world. It will however take a long time, and blood, sweat, and toil.

One thing I advise you is to eschew this Team Islam vs Team Christianity mentality. The only reason I even mentioned that historically Muslim lands were more tolerant than Christian ones was not to bash Christianity, but to show perspective and take away from this stereotype of Muslims that is prevalent today. I think that is important if we are going to do any interfaith dialogue. Christians have this false conception that Christendom has always been tolerant whereas the House of Islam has always been violent, brutal, etc., which is just simply not historically accurate.

Peace be unto you.

Thank you for the info Saladin - the Christians mentioned by me were Orthodox Christians. Nothing to do with the crusades. Also it is true that we expelled jews. I think that you will be able to make a difference in the future for your brothers in faith. glty
2win

 

[dragonfly99]

saladin
I agree with you that coprolalia's supposed Koran quotes posted above are inaccurate...I have read the Koran and I don't see those passages in there...it seems they have either made up the stuff, or taken great liberties with their translation. I agree that most of the violent passages in the Koran really deal with defending your religion from invaders, and/or instances of war. It basically says avoid fighting if you can,but if not then defend yourself.

I have been reading the Koran and it seems to me to be in many ways similar to the Old Testament...lots of admonitions about being obedient to God, avoiding idol worshipers (must have been common back in the day?) and also being willing to fight to defend your religion. You are right, there are a lot of bloodthirsty sounding passages in the Old Testament, however if you are really trying to argue that Christianity is equally violent vs. some other religions like Islam, I think you would need to be quoting Jesus. I am not too religious, but I have to say that out of the major world religions, Christianity (IF one actually follows its tenets) is the most peaceful one, at least of the religions I'm familiar with (i.e. Judaism, Islam, Christianity). I guess Buddhism might be up there too...

I realize that the crusades happened, but I think it would be hard for someone to argue that Jesus would have supported the crusades...or killing anyone. That's really not what he preached...so if you look at it in a historical context, it was basically misguided, from the perspective of the Christian belief system.

I agree that perceptions of US foreign policy (some correct, some incorrect I think) have fueled a dislike of the US by some people in other countries, particularly the Middle East. I also think that regardless of what we do, there are some number of Muslims who will not like us, or anyone in the West, because they feel our way of life is corrupt and believe they need to bring us "in line" with their beliefs and/or punish us for how decadent we are. That is a problem, because I personally don't plan to give up my computer, my music or take to dressing in really long gowns and cover up my face when I go out. I think that these really orthodox beliefs likely have more to do with culture than with religion per se, however...I really can't find much in the Koran saying that women should be covered up head to foot and shouldn't be seen in public...though there are passaged referring to dressing modestly and being chaste. I have to say that I have major problems with what the Koran says is the proper role for women, though...and that it says if a women is behaving badly she should be beaten and confined to her house. Ummm...urgh...no that's not OK with me, and I personally doubt that God feels that way.

I liked the pirate thread too...I guess we shouldn't have hijacked it to discuss world religions.

 

[exgatr]

Why so serious?

Pirates are douche-nozzles and they got what was coming to them.

So what if they're poor? I treat poor patients all the time and they don't try to take me hostage. If they did I'd beat down their skinny, starving asses and not refill their dilaudid.

Take that Kenyans (or wherever they're from)!

 

[radslooking]

I didn't know where deuteronomy and anesthesia intersected, but thanks to this thread, now I know

 

[Saladin MD]

Thank you for the info Saladin - the Christians mentioned by me were Orthodox Christians. Nothing to do with the crusades. Also it is true that we expelled jews. I think that you will be able to make a difference in the future for your brothers in faith. glty
2win

Peace be unto you, 2win.

You are right in that Eastern Orthodox Christians were historically more tolerant than Western Christians. Yes, I was talking about Christianity overall. During the Crusades, the Eastern Orthodox Christians were also baffled by the Franks.

What I think is that both Islam and Christianity have had a very long history. It is incorrect to reduce either to a simple one line assessment. We're talking about hundreds of years, with many different empires that rose and fell, each with their different policies and varying circumstances.

I think that Rabbi Falcon's summary of the Islamic empires is spot on and very balanced:

Granted, not all Islamic leaders were the same. Whilst most of them were tolerant and ensured the security of life and property, every now and again there were massive forced conversions to Islam, property confiscation, and so on. However, as a whole, these persecutions were shorter in duration and less ferocious than had occurred, and were later to occur, in Christian lands.

(Judaism for Dummies, by Rabbi Ted Falcon, p.162)
​

I think it's balanced because it neither portrays the simplistic picture of a barbaric Islam that most people incorrectly think of today, nor does it depict a completely rosy and idealistic picture of the House of Islam that many Muslims might fool themselves into believing was the case.

I think that one needs this balanced, even-handed, and (most importantly) honest approach when looking back at history.

Thank you for your clarification by the way. Peace be unto you.

 

[coprolalia]

 

[Saladin MD]

Peace be unto you, DragonFly.

First, I just want to say thank you for such an enlightened post. Very nice to see!

saladin
I agree with you that coprolalia's supposed Koran quotes posted above are inaccurate...I have read the Koran and I don't see those passages in there...it seems they have either made up the stuff, or taken great liberties with their translation. I agree that most of the violent passages in the Koran really deal with defending your religion from invaders, and/or instances of war. It basically says avoid fighting if you can,but if not then defend yourself.

Exactly correct. God says in the Quran that aggression is not permitted, except at those who aggress upon you. It is only allowed to fight those who fight you for your faith, drive you and your people out of their homes, etc.

I have been reading the Koran and it seems to me to be in many ways similar to the Old Testament...lots of admonitions about being obedient to God, avoiding idol worshipers (must have been common back in the day?) and also being willing to fight to defend your religion.

I really encourage you to download the Oxford translation of the Quran that I linked to in my previous post. It really is the best translation I have seen...by far! It stays true to the text but at the same time avoids being cumbersome, which I think that some of the other translations become due to the conversion from one language (Arabic) to another (English).

With regards to idol worshiping, I think it is very important to understand that the main message of Islam is simply: there is no deity worthy of worship except God. The admonitions in the Quran are not simply against idol worshipers, but rather against all those who associate partners with God. The Quran argues that *most* human beings are guilty of shirk (associating partners with worship). Muslims believe that this was true not only then (i.e. as you said, idol worship was common then, as the Quran was revealed to an idol worshiping people), but also today.

We believe that Islam is not only a monotheistic faith, but the purest of monotheisms. There is a very stringent commitment to this idea of monotheism in Islam.

Islam contends that Christians took Jesus (son of Mary) as a god besides God, that Jews took their rabbis as gods besides God (because they allowed the rabbis to legislate the Law, i.e. placing the Talmud at the level of the Old testament), Hindus and other religions are obviously polytheistic, and even atheists and the like Islam contends are atheists because--as the Quran says--they placed themselves as gods, or their desires.

(I understand some of the above would be offensive to others, but it is only a theological difference, as Christians would argue that Muslims will not be saved for not taking Jesus as their savior Lord.)

What I mean to say is that it is much more than just a rejection of idolatry, if by that one means simply stones crafted in the shape of gods. Rather, a Muslim is commanded to completely unify all forms of worship towards the One God. So, for example, the Quran repeatedly says not to ask anyone for help except for God, rejecting the concept that some religions (and some sects of Islam) have, namely that one can go through saints or intermediaries to reach God. All of the various acts of worship must be directed towards God, and it is much more than just prayer, since a lot of things come under the banner of worship.

The Quran teaches us that the ONLY purpose for our creation is to worship God alone. That is why we were created. Hence, there is a very strong emphasis in Islam on this topic, and it is the beginning, middle, and end of Islam.

You are right, there are a lot of bloodthirsty sounding passages in the Old Testament, however if you are really trying to argue that Christianity is equally violent vs. some other religions like Islam, I think you would need to be quoting Jesus. I am not too religious, but I have to say that out of the major world religions, Christianity (IF one actually follows its tenets) is the most peaceful one, at least of the religions I'm familiar with (i.e. Judaism, Islam, Christianity). I guess Buddhism might be up there too...

I do not think Christianity is a blood-thirsty religion. As I said earlier, I think Christianity is--for the most part--a religion of love. You see, what I believe is that all religions have soft readings and hard readings. What I mean by this is that some people will read the books and texts, highlighting the softer side of the religion, whereas others will read the *same* books and texts to get a very harsh religion. In other words, it's not so much the religion itself, but moreso the people who interpret them.

I realize that the crusades happened, but I think it would be hard for someone to argue that Jesus would have supported the crusades...or killing anyone. That's really not what he preached...so if you look at it in a historical context, it was basically misguided, from the perspective of the Christian belief system.

I agree 100%. I would not at all contend that the Crusades can be used as a proof to say Christianity is a violent religion. It would be as erroneous as to say that Al-Qaeda and terrorism today are a proof that Islam is inherently a violent religion.

I agree that perceptions of US foreign policy (some correct, some incorrect I think) have fueled a dislike of the US by some people in other countries, particularly the Middle East.

Yep.

I also think that regardless of what we do, there are some number of Muslims who will not like us, or anyone in the West, because they feel our way of life is corrupt and believe they need to bring us "in line" with their beliefs and/or punish us for how decadent we are.

Yes, but these would be a very small group of Muslims, and this small group of Muslims would also hate the Muslim majority as well. Furthermore, on the flip side, many "Bible thumping" Christians would hate the majority in the West, calling them decadent in their ways.

Gallup Poll did a survey of the one billion Muslims in the world, and what they found was that the majority of the Muslims admired the West in general, thought that there are many things Muslims can learn from the West, etc., but were just hurt overall by the West's foreign policy.

I strongly recommend the book published by Gallop Poll, which is entitled "Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think", by John Espozito. I think it really shows how the vast majority of the Muslims are people, just like people in the West. We Muslims have always said that the Muslims we see portrayed in the media and news are a minority; this book proves objectively--with statistical backing--that this is very much true.

That is a problem, because I personally don't plan to give up my computer, my music or take to dressing in really long gowns and cover up my face when I go out. I think that these really orthodox beliefs likely have more to do with culture than with religion per se, however...I really can't find much in the Koran saying that women should be covered up head to foot and shouldn't be seen in public...though there are passaged referring to dressing modestly and being chaste.

One really needs to define what is meant by "orthodox". I don't think groups like the Taliban are orthodox at all. I think they don't understand Islam at all, and are in direct violation of it. For example, the way they search peoples' cars and take out music tapes to smash, this is completely inappropriate. Islam forbids such invasion of privacy and private property; in fact, what one does within the privacy of his own home--including fornication--is to be ignored.

It is for example a popular misconception that Islam is a religion which says to go stone or lash anyone who fornicates. Not true! Prophet Muhammad said that there is lenience in what people do in the privacy of their own homes and cover of the night.

The entire stoning and lashing thing, however, would take me an entire post to explain, and I'm more than happy to do it, God-Willing. Just let me know if you do want me to explain. But in this post, my intention is simply to say that the groups like the Taliban have a completely incorrect understanding of Islam and are not orthodoxy because in fact they go against the classical Islamic scholarly tradition.

I think that today, orthodoxy is represented by Al-Azhar University, and in scholars such as Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, Shaykh Salman al-Oudah, Ustadh Yasir Qadhi, Ustadh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Suhaib Webb, etc. I would say that these all (and many more) are orthodoxy, whereas Taliban and their ilk are not orthodox at all.

I have to say that I have major problems with what the Koran says is the proper role for women, though...and that it says if a women is behaving badly she should be beaten and confined to her house. Ummm...urgh...no that's not OK with me, and I personally doubt that God feels that way.

Prophet Muhammad said:

"The most perfect of the believers in their belief are those with the best manners, and the best of you are those who are best with their wives." (Riyadh as-Salihin, Chapter 34, Nr. 278, Ibn-Hanbal, No. 7396)​

And Prophet Muhammad advised his disciples:

"The best of you is the one who is best towards his wife." (al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977).​

Prophet Muhammad said:

"The people of the household of Muhammad have been surrounded by many women who are complaining about their husbands (abusing them). Those men are not among the best of you." (Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2141)​

The Prophet's disciple narrated:

"I went to the Apostle of God [Muhammad] and asked him: What do you command about our wives? He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2139)​

And Prophet Muhammad said explicitly:

"Do not beat the female slaves of God." (Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2141)​

And Prophet Muhammad said:

"None of you should flog his wife." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol.7, #132)​

In another instance, Prophet Muhammad condemned a man because he abused his wife. A woman came to him asking whom she should marry, and when the name of the wife-beater came up, Prophet Muhammad showed his disapproval and pointed her to another man:

"So far as Abu Jahm is concerned, he is a great beater of women, but but Usama b. Zaid (is good to marry)." (Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3526)​

As for Prophet Muhammad's own conduct, this is what the Prophet's wife said after he (the Prophet) had died. Aisha [ra] said:

"The Messenger of God [Muhammad] never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah." (Musnad Ahmad)​

So we have:

(1) The best of you are those best to their wives.
(2) The worst of you are those who beat their wives.
(3) Do not beat your wives.
(4) Men who beat women shouldn't be married.
(5) Prophet Muhammad never hit a woman.

Then what is all this about wife-beating in Islam? Actually, all of this controversy comes from one single verse in the Quran, which the critics of Islam have named "the wife beating verse". However, the truth of the matter is that this verse closes the door to beating one's wife. "What!?" people might say to this. Yes! The verse completely closes the door to hitting one's wife in ALL situations except one single situation, which is when a wife cheats on her husband. In all other situations, it is completely forbidden to hit one's wife, as the Quran says: "seek not against them any means."

Prophet Muhammad said:

"Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should treat women well. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that--except if they commit open sexual lewdness (fahisha mubina). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and [if that fails] spank them without indecent violence (ghayra mubarrih). Then, if they desist, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over you is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision." (Sahih al-Muslim)
​

Notice that this verse is the Prophetic explanation of the Quranic verse, namely the one that the critics of Islam have dubbed as the "wife-beating verse". That verse is here:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given them more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are qanitat (obedient to God), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As for those women whose nushuz you have reason to fear: (1) admonish them; (2) then banish them to beds apart; (3) then hit them (lightly). But if they return to obedience, seek not against them any means. God is Most High!" (Quran, 4:23)
​

The word "nushuz" above refers to "fahisha mubina", meaning that this verse has nothing to do with when a wife is disobedient in general, but only when she is cheating on her husband. As an Islamic scholar named GF Haddad explains:

fahisha mubina = adultery.

Nushuz in the verse, as shown, is an euphemism for adultery because her primary marital duty is spelled out in the hadith as "not allowing whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house." Al-Maziri also said that another interpretation of the words in that hadith said it referred to a woman sitting in seclusion with a stranger inside her husband's house. (Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim.)
​

Dr. Khalid Abou Fadl explains:

The Prophet uses the expression fahisha mubina as the equivalent of nushuz, and that nushuz means a fahisha mubina (a grave and known [sexual] sin). If that is so, then nushuz cannot mean disobedience or a case of simple disagreement. If there is a serious disagreement, then the state may compel an arbitration. But this is entirely different from a fahisha mubina. A fahisha mubina usually means a grave sexual sin. For instance, a fahisha mubina is sexual activity short of intercourse, or intercourse [itself]... A fahisha mubina is not disobedience, arrogance or insolence. It is sexual lewdness.​

So the general rule in Islam is that it is categorically forbidden to beat one's wife, as Prophet Muhammad said: "do not beat them" (Sunan Abu Dawood), except for in the one situation, which is fahisha mubina (open sexual lewd act), i.e. catching one's wife with another man in the husband's bed.

But hold your horses...it's not that easy. So you catch your wife in bed with another man, you can't just unbuckle your belt and beat the crap out of her like a lot of men would do. There are three steps you must follow, by Islamic Law.

First: you admonish the wife, i.e. with words. Again, remember we are talking about wives who are nushuz, i.e. openly flouting your authority. So if by your stern words you can get her back in line, i.e. she promises not to do it again, then the matter MUST stop there, and this is what the Quranic verse means by "returning to obedience", whereupon it a Muslim man has "no means against her", i.e. he is disallowed to go to step two or three.

SECOND: If words fail, then you go onto step two which is to stop sleeping in bed with them. At first, I used to think this means that you tell your wife that she must sleep on the sofa, but then an Islamic scholar corrected me and said that it is the man who must sleep on the sofa, not the woman. If this does the trick, then the matter stops here.

THIRD: If all that fails, then you can spank them. However, there are many restrictions to this, as follows:

1) It cannot be done in front of the children, as that would instill poor values in the children and humiliate the mother in front of her own children.

2) He cannot cause her to bleed, nor break any bones, nor leave any mark or bruise on the body.

3) It is forbidden to hit the face and other sensitive areas.

4) And there is one more restriction, which is the miswaq rule, which basically says that the spanking cannot hurt more than the feeling one gets when hit by a toothbrush.

Now I totally understand that all of this would be unacceptable to Westerners, many of which would say that it is never acceptable to hit a woman, no matter in which way. While I understand that, I would like to make it clear that Islam only allows it in this one singular situation.

If a man hits his wife in any other situation--or excessively even when the wife cheated on her husband--then she has the right (which she should use) to go to the court and initiate a divorce, and he will be forced to let her stay in the house, pay an alimony to her, etc. If, for example, she can show a bruise that he caused her (and if the proof goes against him), then the Islamic court takes punitive action against him, including qisas (which is corporal/criminal punishment). This is a long topic, and I've already typed up a book, so I'll just end here.

I'll close by reiterating the command of Prophet Muhammad , as narrated by his disciple:

"I went to the Apostle of God [Muhammad] and asked him: What do you command about our wives? He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2139)
​

Again, the supposed "wife-beating" verse in the Quran is actually a prohibition on beating wives, as the emphasis is on "then you have no way against them" and "do not show them hostility any longer", so long as they do not continue in any open sexual lewdness.

I highly recommend www.TheDeenShow.com, as a general resource for Non-Muslims interested in Islam...not just for those who are interested in converting, but for those who want to just increase their general knowledge about the second largest religion in the world.

Peace be unto you.

 

[Saladin MD]

Haha, but my posts are so short/succinct! 😛

 

[tncekm]

Religion has caused far more woe and enmity among people in the world than it has provided comfort and solace.

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I just want to make this point: IMHO, isn't the cause of anything. It is simply a tool used and manipulated by humans to influence other humans. Humans love it because it gives them something larger than life to aspire to. However, in the absence of "religion" as we know it other things would emerge, and we've seen this. I'd go so far as to say several of the popular left-wing movements have replaced religion for them. Ironically, they feel "smarter" than the religious people but they're essentially the same.

Overall point: people are the problem, not religion.

Evidence: Christianity was once very imperialistic, but the western culture that accepts Christianity changed in a way that it no longer acts in such a way. The bible hasn't changed, just the culture.

Having said that, I'm sure to some degree various texts will be more or less accommodating to promoting actions/activities/lifestyles that aren't compatible with what we perceive as civilized society.