Muslims

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Hey, here's a link that is very informative; it's literally called Islam 101. It helps people learn more about the religion of Islam, and stuff like that. A positive link, not negative or whiny, but normal and positive.

http://www.islam101.com/

the following excerpt taken from the site -

About 1400 years ago, in his last sermon, Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) said:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white — except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: Do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.”

Does that apply across the brotherhood of humanity or does it mean within Islam? the phrase "the Muslims constitute one brotherhood" is delimiting isn't it?

And note that superiority is possible "by piety and good action." So, if Islam is the only religion and one is Islamic, one is superior. This is certainly the case in Islamic countries where Christians and other religions are second class, not allowed freedom of worship, not allowed to evangelize, taxed, and constant objects of attack. The are denied political rights and forced to live under Sharia when not Muslim. So, some are more superior than others on the basis of piety and practice.

Beware of reading western values into these statements. Look at the practice in Islamic countries.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ok let me get your reasoning here... the old testament is only included in the bible because the new testament is different from it? WHY include the Old Testament at all then? That makes no sense.

And furthermore, you both continue to ignore the fact that MILLIONS of christians use quotes from both the old and new testament to justify killing. This can NOT be denied... For you to say the new testament is nothing like the old testament is false anyway. Theres plenty of scary stuff in there. Have you even read Revelations?

Now, I said that the New changed a lot of the old.

You mean you yourself have read the Bible! ...yeah, well I have too. I know perfectly well that the bible does not contain all flowery prose and good ole advice like James Allen or Tolstoy. It is scary.

Killing 'justified', in the bible, is always when in a war. Nowhere will you find that you should "slew thy brother" for ANY reason.
God didn't let David get away with the order to kill the man, whose wife he wanted.
Cain didn't get away (only literally) with murdering his brother.

To "do battle" is justified though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Does that apply across the brotherhood of humanity or does it mean within Islam? the phrase "the Muslims constitute one brotherhood" is delimiting isn't it?

And note that superiority is possible "by piety and good action." So, if Islam is the only religion and one is Islamic, one is superior. This is certainly the case in Islamic countries where Christians and other religions are second class, not allowed freedom of worship, not allowed to evangelize, taxed, and constant objects of attack. The are denied political rights and forced to live under Sharia when not Muslim. So, some are more superior than others on the basis of piety and practice.

Beware of reading western values into these statements. Look at the practice in Islamic countries.

You fail to make the distinction between culture and dogma. These things do not occur in ALL muslim societies. There are extremists and there are moderates just like in anything else. To me, interpreting that quote the way you did would take a real reach. While interpreting it to mean something less extremist is much easier for me to do. So again it comes down to interpretation by the actual practitioners involved.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

To "do battle" is justified though.

And widely open for interpretation. Which is the crux of my point.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You fail to make the distinction between culture and dogma. These things do not occur in ALL muslim societies. There are extremists and there are moderates just like in anything else. To me, interpreting that quote the way you did would take a real reach. While interpreting it to mean something less extremist is much easier for me to do. So again it comes down to interpretation by the actual practitioners involved.

IRex, first off...I had to reply when I spotted your comment about the distinction of culture and dogma.
Is there a distinction? Or is there MUCH of a distinction? As an atheist, you may be used to trying to see a distinction. However, as you can plainly see, Women wear veils and such for religious reasons, and it has been around for a long time, so it IS A CULTURAL THING AS WELL.
People don't just sit down, undogmatically and decide what idiosyncrasies to practice just for the hell of it. Culture always reflects beliefs.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And widely open for interpretation. Which is the crux of my point.

and which needs Entian large posts to discuss properly, so I give up here.

[truthiscool]

I also dissagre muslums are iteresting people but not savage

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

there is MUCH violence in the bible. There's also a lot of sex and drugs in it.
I wish I could be super specific for you Rad, about the detailed dos and donts of the bible, but it would be a long post, and worth another thread in itself.

You could try one of the famous Landover Baptist Bible Quizzes:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0...tosinquiz.html

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

People don't just sit down, undogmatically and decide what idiosyncrasies to practice just for the hell of it. Culture always reflects beliefs.

Well sure. Thats essentially along the lines of my point that Islam (and the Koran) is not some kind of rigid and dysfunctional religion by its very nature. Instead, what you have is how it operates and how it is interpreted in SOME cultures. People are much more eager to condemn a religion in whole form rather then stop and look at the culture currently involved in the issues we are discussing.

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious Rex, I've responded to two of your points now in the Religious Knowledge thread. I look forward to your response.

[Lief Erikson]

I think the West (this is a generalization) may be very hypocritical. Europe has expressed its support for the legality of the cartoons, yet many countries in the European Union have established laws against Holocaust denial. Isn't this saying, "freedom to insult Muslims and enrage them is acceptable, but freedom to insult the Jews and enrage Westerners and Israelis is not acceptable."

Because of our Western mentality, we view Holocaust denial as much worse and much more serious than cartoon publishing. From the Eastern mentality, things look very different. I think we may be being very hypocritical to accept the cartoon publishing while imprisoning people for Holocaust denial.

Some on this thread have said the Muslims are simply being "big babies" over something that is "no big deal." That is simply a Western perspective talking to an Eastern one, and not understanding the other side's point of view. I think Holocaust denial is horrible and disgraceful, but I don't know how we can justify banning it because of our beliefs while we allow cartoons published in spite of Muslim beliefs. Clearly, in our view there are some boundaries to free speech. Where should those boundaries lie, however? Or should there be any? Should our free speech boundaries exclude only those issues that are serious to us in the West, while permitting what is serious to vast numbers of people in the East?

I think we may be playing double standard. Where exactly should the boundary be laid, between what is allowed and what is not, or should the boundary be laid at all?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think the West (this is a generalization) may be very hypocritical. Europe has expressed its support for the legality of the cartoons, yet many countries in the European Union have established laws against Holocaust denial. Isn't this saying, "freedom to insult Muslims and enrage them is acceptable, but freedom to insult the Jews and enrage Westerners and Israelis is not acceptable."

Lief, do you truly think so? Holocaust and the dead of millions should be compared, in your opinion, to a mere belief? You think the suffering of millions of Jews should be teased, even though we know it happened, is the same as the mockery of a prophet?

If there's hypocrisy here, it's of the Muslim countries. As if they had never drawn any cartoons about Jesus of the Holocaust.

Because of our Western mentality, we view Holocaust denial as much worse and much more serious than cartoon publishing.

And you think that's wrong. Then lives of people are less worthy to you than a belief system I suppose.

[The Gaffer]

In the UK, this issue is framed around the definition of race versus religion. i.e. it is illegal to incite hatred on the basis of race (being something that a person has no control over).

So, Jews are a race; Muslims aren't. Therefore you can't incite hatred against Jews, but in theory you can against Muslims (witness Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party, who got off on this technicality: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4671026.stm). This has led to a perception of inequality which Bliar tried to rectify with an "incitement to religious hatred" law.

Thankfully, this was ditched by Parliament (by one vote!). I say thankfully because such a law would be mis/used by the more foaming-mouthed amongst us to repress dissent. This incident with the cartoons should serve to underline that fact: legislating in this area only plays into the hands of the numpties.

So anyway, race seems like a good line along which to draw this kind of thing. Race is immutable, and we know that it's the basis of prejudice, so we should do something to protect it. Religion is about belief, so we should slag it off at will.

However, there is no accounting for being a complete idiot, which is why all of the editors of these newspapers should get the sack.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Lief, do you truly think so? Holocaust and the dead of millions should be compared, in your opinion, to a mere belief?

People have died over this in the Middle East. The rage that's visible on the part of hundreds of millions shows clearly how they feel about this- that they feel about the same about this as many of us do about the Holocaust. It's a different mentality.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

You think the suffering of millions of Jews should be teased, even though we know it happened, is the same as the mockery of a prophet?

I'm not saying it "should be" teased. I think it definitely should not be teased. However, should we imprison people for it? That plainly is a rejection of freedom of speech when it goes past a certain boundary.

If we are going to curtail freedom of speech in this area, an area that offends the sensibilities of hundreds of millions of us, yet allow things that evoke the same reaction in hundreds of millions of others, that looks like hypocrisy. It's a Western mentality that says, "Holocaust denial is far worse than cartoon insults." That's a Western perspective. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly Western and Israeli. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, countless others would reverse the priorities and say, "cartoon insults that disrespect God are worse than claims that insult the memory of millions of humans."

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In the UK, this issue is framed around the definition of race versus religion. i.e. it is illegal to incite hatred on the basis of race (being something that a person has no control over).

So, Jews are a race; Muslims aren't.

Actually that is a persistent mis-statement. Jews are a religious group as are Muslims. Race has nothing to do with it. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew and he wasn't the same *race* as Sharon.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's a different mentality.

Got that right.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's a Western mentality that says, "Holocaust denial is far worse than cartoon insults." That's a Western perspective.

So in effect, what your saying is that Westerners perceive millions of deaths as something not to kid about but Muslims don't view those deaths as important.

A cartoon depicting a *prophet* whose image isn't supposed to be shown can hardly be put in the same arena as making fun of the deaths of millions.

[Insidious Rex]

...according to you. According to many muslims the lives of mere humans (including their own) pales in comparison with mocking The Prophet or god. Again... its a cultural perspective that both sides have a hard time comprehending.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If we are going to curtail freedom of speech in this area, an area that offends the sensibilities of hundreds of millions of us, yet allow things that evoke the same reaction in hundreds of millions of others, that looks like hypocrisy.

Absolutely. Its like the bold faced hypocrisy of the french crowing about free speech when it comes to bashing Muhammad but having no problem with banning muslim head scarves.

[truthiscool]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually that is a persistent mis-statement. Jews are a religious group as are Muslims. Race has nothing to do with it. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew and he wasn't the same *race* as Sharon.

i agree. Rase has nothing to do with it

[truthiscool]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually that is a persistent mis-statement. Jews are a religious group as are Muslims. Race has nothing to do with it. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew and he wasn't the same *race* as Sharon.

i agree. Rase has nothing to do with it