I know the common reaction to that kind of argument is that the Bible has plenty of verses about destroying the "other" as well. The only major difference is that Christianity grew up from its violent roots several hundred years ago, and Islam still seems to love dwelling there.
The UAE's top court deciding last week that it is ok for a man to beat his wife if he doesn't leave marks is proof of that.
Originally posted by Lucius
The problem with Islam is that at its core, it is fundamentally violent religion. No amount of rationalizations or logical word twisting can change the meaning of these verses.Either truly moderate can Muslims denounce shit like this or get the hell away.
I could go on, the book is filled with this barbaric shit and I haven't even started on the Hadith.
The problem with you is you apply this "literal" interpretation to both the Christian and the Jewish Bible, thereby severely diminishing your credibility. I've read the Quran but I don't know what the versus "mean". I'm sure there's someone that could tell me if I cared to ask. I just know that the Muslims I've met are normal, especially the ones on campuses, and I don't think the majority of Muslims are violent, even if you claim the religion breeds violence. That doesn't detract from the fact that we should eradicate the fundamentists, though.
That ruling is also proof that it is NOT a tiny minority of Muslims who believe in that barbarism, its a SIGNIFICANT chunk. Iran stoning a woman for adultery?
A Muslim on a website I frequent was talking about that, and said, (and I paraphrase) "While I agree the woman should be punished for her adultery, stoning is a barbaric way to execute someone. Perhaps a prison sentence would be more approprate, or at least a quick and simple beheading. So you see, we Muslims are not all bloodthirsty like the Iranians."
So first:
1. This guy calls himself moderate, but he ok with the death penalty for adultery? How many more of the 99percent of supposed "moderate peaceful" muslims would feel the same way? In my opinion, and based on this, calling yourself a moderate isn't enough: That man wasn't.
2. Agree that a woman needs to be PUNISHED (legally) for adultery? C'mon!!! I thought slavery was old news...
Originally posted by truejedi
That ruling is also proof that it is NOT a tiny minority of Muslims who believe in that barbarism, its a SIGNIFICANT chunk. Iran stoning a woman for adultery?
Look, I agree with you mostly. Most Muslims understand that while their rules apply to them, they have to adhere to the present times. In Judaism, we don't have a San Hedrin so we don't have the death penalty for any of the Judaic crimes. At the same time, the death penalty is only warranted to false witnesses of capital murders, capital murderers, idolatry, and adultery..
Originally posted by truejedi
That ruling is also proof that it is NOT a tiny minority of Muslims who believe in that barbarism, its a SIGNIFICANT chunk. Iran stoning a woman for adultery?A Muslim on a website I frequent was talking about that, and said, (and I paraphrase) "While I agree the woman should be punished for her adultery, stoning is a barbaric way to execute someone. Perhaps a prison sentence would be more approprate, or at least a quick and simple beheading. So you see, we Muslims are not all bloodthirsty like the Iranians."
So first:
1. This guy calls himself moderate, but he ok with the death penalty for adultery? How many more of the 99percent of supposed "moderate peaceful" muslims would feel the same way? In my opinion, and based on this, calling yourself a moderate isn't enough: That man wasn't.
2. Agree that a woman needs to be PUNISHED (legally) for adultery? C'mon!!! I thought slavery was old news...
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
Mark 10:11 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."
Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."
Matthew 5:27-30 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."
Your intolerance is disgusting.
As far as I can tell, your rejection of Islam stems from the increasingly tense standoff between Western and Middle Eastern cultures. Although such mistrust is not historically unique, it is certainly disappointing, especially coming from someone bragging about the Renaissance.
First and foremost, you have failed to make the key distinction that Muslims in Iran are not Muslims in Indiana. Refusing to learn more about a culture in your own region because "you want to live" is the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen a bigot come up with to remain ignorant. (Ignorance is the only possible explanation that I could think of to explain your idea that speaking to a Muslim would endanger your life):
Originally posted by truejedi
Well, I see them on the news every day or so. Generally killing people. Do you really suggest I go find muslims to talk to? I would rather live.
I'd also like to point out that none of the evidence you've supplied suggests that Islam is particularly dangerous as an ideology. Everything that you've cited has originated in the Middle East, a region of the world with a fundamentally different cultural heritage than that of the United States. Expressions of Islam arising in that environment will be influenced by the fierce sectarian tensions that have lasted for centuries, as well as unique geographic considerations like resource scarcity and competition. The militant strain of Islam is not its only incarnation. American Muslims serve as the only example necessary to prove that Islam is not more inherently violent than is Christianity. Nothing you've said about the faith itself cannot be equally applied to Christianity, which I am quite sure you do not regard as a religion of death.
Your other claim, about the various rulings on Sharia Law, suffers from this same deficiency. American Muslims live civilized, modern lives every day. Thus it cannot be that Islam itself is the cause of the problem. (Extremism is the problem there.)
Today's cultural conflict is not between Christianity and Islam. It is between the Enlightenment and the Old world. There is really no difference between the beliefs of Christianity and the beliefs of Islam but for the temperance of the Enlightenment. So long as you restrict your interviews to the Muslims brought up on the ideals of the Enlightenment, I suspect you'll come out ok.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Your intolerance is disgusting.As far as I can tell, your rejection of Islam stems from the increasingly tense standoff between Western and Middle Eastern cultures. Although such mistrust is not historically unique, it is certainly disappointing, especially coming from someone bragging about the Renaissance.
First and foremost, you have failed to make the key distinction that Muslims in Iran are not Muslims in Indiana. Refusing to learn more about a culture in your own region because "you want to live" is the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen a bigot come up with to remain ignorant. (Ignorance is the only possible explanation that I could think of to explain your idea that speaking to a Muslim would endanger your life):
I'd also like to point out that none of the evidence you've supplied suggests that Islam is particularly dangerous as an ideology. Everything that you've cited has originated in the Middle East, a region of the world with a fundamentally different cultural heritage than that of the United States. Expressions of Islam arising in that environment will be influenced by the fierce sectarian tensions that have lasted for centuries, as well as unique geographic considerations like resource scarcity and competition. The militant strain of Islam is not its only incarnation. American Muslims serve as the only example necessary to prove that Islam is not more inherently violent than is Christianity. Nothing you've said about the faith itself cannot be equally applied to Christianity, which I am quite sure you do not regard as a religion of death.
Your other claim, about the various rulings on Sharia Law, suffers from this same deficiency. American Muslims live civilized, modern lives every day. Thus it cannot be that Islam itself is the cause of the problem. (Extremism is the problem there.)
Today's cultural conflict is not between Christianity and Islam. It is between the Enlightenment and the Old world. There is really no difference between the beliefs of Christianity and the beliefs of Islam but for the temperance of the Enlightenment. So long as you restrict your interviews to the Muslims brought up on the ideals of the Enlightenment, I suspect you'll come out ok.
you obviously skipped all the posts from last night. read them, and then get back at me. You are horribly mis-representing my position, and I refuse to deal with your false-accusations.
EDIT:
On second thought, forget it, if THAT is your beginning position, it would take entirely too much effort to have any kind of discourse skirting anywhere near the actual issue...