This makes no sense whatsoever, religion is a human construct.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama: Religion is not responsible for terrorism
- Thread starter Maninthemirror
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
This makes no sense whatsoever, religion is a human construct.
HiredN00bs
Member
I hate religious apologetics. I suppose it's necessary as a stopgap solution to create a more tolerable world, but the mental gymnastics that are required to make backwards morals modern just come off as desparate and deceptive. Just throw the damn thing away.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Have you read what the Punishment is?
1. The adultery act has to be fully committed, and I mean penetration
2. four witnesses should witness the actual penetration as it is happening
3. Each of the four witnesses should have be with the best moral characters of society, dont lie, dont cheat, always tell the truth, dont coerce, have not hurt anyone morally, spiritually or physically, are righteous and good.
4. These four witnesses exist in a society where such four witnesses each are the norm not the exception.
you are refering to an essentially PURE society described above which do you find existent today? No. In that completely pure society if adultery happens the chances of the act happen would be astronomically low, the chances of 4 witnesses witnessing the act of penetration happening is then even exponentially higher to point of virtually impossible today and improbable in a pure islamic society
Ok, and what is the punishment for adultery if this hypothetical situation occurred?
Religion in its roots does promote conflict, for it especially creates the image of an "us" fighting a "them", a kind of "right vs wrong" kind of bullshittery, a battle of sorts between who is "worthy" to the cosmic king. We inherit this illusion in society on worth and "right" people, and we've made a fucking mess there too, but it starts with religion, for it is there the nonsense of free will and self start. Those illusions have lead to incredible befuddlement.
Of course, this kind of projection alone doesn't do much. It becomes an issue when it warps a person's reason to forget about reality and fall victim to that petty abstractionist one-upmanship kind of game. It's the issue of religion and layering one's own ego that you can promote slavery and that people really are "less thans". ISIS is an example of taking this sort of ego projection, this kind of subjective validation, and asserting it as objective validation. This can only happen if the falsehoods were bought into from the beginning. They have bought into an illusion of reason founded entirely on unreasonable potholes. It can be called terrorism because it is primarily done as a vehicle of direct violence; religion brings violence under more sincere, less directly confrontational views, even if they too are just as flakey for they still cause violence and confrontation.
Of course, this kind of projection alone doesn't do much. It becomes an issue when it warps a person's reason to forget about reality and fall victim to that petty abstractionist one-upmanship kind of game. It's the issue of religion and layering one's own ego that you can promote slavery and that people really are "less thans". ISIS is an example of taking this sort of ego projection, this kind of subjective validation, and asserting it as objective validation. This can only happen if the falsehoods were bought into from the beginning. They have bought into an illusion of reason founded entirely on unreasonable potholes. It can be called terrorism because it is primarily done as a vehicle of direct violence; religion brings violence under more sincere, less directly confrontational views, even if they too are just as flakey for they still cause violence and confrontation.
Nonsense, nothing binds the 20,000 westerners who are fighting for ISIS except for Islam.
disconnection and disaffection.
20,000 fighters out of how many?
(I now see my number is more foreign fighters, the number of westerners is lower, though the foreign fighters are still there to fight a religious war)
Noone really knows. Does it matter?
disconnection and disaffection.
Probably, also beards, most likely.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Ok, and what is the punishment for adultery if this hypothetical situation occurred?
if the improbable situation in the pure islamic society with no sins or literally impossible situation in todays society, the punishment is flogging if the person is healthy (aka mature age not ill or senior) and doesnt leave a mark on the skin while the flogging is going on or after the flogging with a device which doesnt leave a mark like a hide. the arm of the person should not go all the way and half way thru so there is no mark of flogging while flogging or after flogging (that also means no soreness or redness which is a mark).
quite a contrast from Saudi method isn't it.
Maninthemirror
Banned
(I now see my number is more foreign fighters, the number of westerners is lower, though the foreign fighters are still there to fight a religious war)
Noone really knows. Does it matter?
yes. because 20,000 is 0.01% of muslims in Europe alone based off the population of 55 million muslims in Europe, there are more murderers per year in Europe than there are Daesh fighters in the west from the west.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
if the improbable situation in the pure islamic society with no sins or literally impossible situation in todays society, the punishment is flogging if the person is healthy (aka mature age not ill or senior) and doesnt leave a mark on the skin while the flogging is going on or after the flogging with a device which doesnt leave a mark like a hide. the arm of the person should not go all the way and half way thru so there is no mark of flogging while flogging or after flogging (that also means no soreness or redness which is a mark).
quite a contrast from Saudi method isn't it.
Adultery should result in flogging, you honestly think that is acceptable. I also take issue with the concept that flogging is going to be done but not leave a mark. Flogging is whipping or beating. This sounds like the husband who has learned to hit his wife without leaving a mark.
The point is, you can read the text, and you should be able to ignore it. Adultery should never result in a physical punishment.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Adultery should result in flogging, you honestly think that is acceptable. I also take issue with the concept that flogging is going to be done but not leave a mark. Flogging is whipping or beating. This sounds like the husband who has learned to hit his wife without leaving a mark.
The point is, you can read the text, and you should be able to ignore it. Adultery should never result in a physical punishment.
A husband is not allowed to beat his wife. ironically there is no restriction on the wife on beating her husband. I am still sore from when my wife hit me with the book on my ass for not cleaning the blinds yesterday. and if you are going to ignore the improbabilty of it happening in a pure islamic society and impossibility in todays society then you are not looking at it with an open mind. Islam says cheating on the spouse and having sex without marriage is a sin which causes too many issues in society with broken homes, unwanted pregnancies, financial burdens, angry relationships between friends and family. which is why even after these impossible hurdles there is some form of punishment. In society in US. I would think the mental anguish from your friends and family if you cheat on your wife causes more damage on the person than the punishment Islam prescribes.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
A husband is not allowed to beat his wife. ironically there is no restriction on the wife on beating her husband. I am still sore from when my wife hit me with the book on my ass for not cleaning the blinds yesterday
You are completely missing what I said. Based on the Quran you think it should be acceptable to flog (whip/beat) someone for committing adultery. Even if we are talking about this hypothetical situation. Why is it acceptable to physically punish someone for adultery?
Nah, religions are nothing to be afraid of. People are what you need to keep your eye on.
I was generalizing, when I say religion, I guess I mean religious people...but religions also scare me because of what's written and people interpret it word for word, black and white.
Maninthemirror
Banned
You are completely missing what I said. Based on the Quarn you think it should be acceptable to flog (whip/beat) someone for committing adultery. Even if we are talking about this hypothetical situation. Why is it acceptable to physically punish someone for adultery?
explained above sorry
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
explained above sorry
You really didn't explain it though, which is fine. Good day.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Obama's assertion is that religion doesn't lead to terrorism. A single counterexample would disprove this assertion, instead we have at least 20,000 counterexamples.yes. because 20,000 is 0.01% of muslims in Europe alone based off the population of 55 million muslims in Europe, there are more murderers per year in Europe than there are Daesh fighters in the west from the west.
Your argument seems to be construed thusly:
There are 280 million guns in America, but only 15000 killed someone last year, which is approximately 0.005%, therefore guns are not deadly ???
Shake Appeal
Member
Westerners join ISIS because ISIS provides a worldview in which their beliefs, their very identities, are validated and privileged. If we offered them real equality, real integration, real prosperity — rather than marginalizing and ghettoizing them, treating them as intruders and blowing the everliving shit out of their relatives overseas — they might be less disaffected, less distraught, less open to exploitation by cultists.Nonsense, nothing binds the 20,000 westerners who are fighting for ISIS except for Islam.
So no, religion doesn't "lead" to terrorism. It is, however, a very valuable recruitment tool when you demonize entire populations of people on the basis of their religion.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Obama's assertion is that religion doesn't lead to terrorism. A single counterexample would disprove this assertion, instead we have 20,000 counterexamples.
Your argument seems to be construed thusly:
There are 280 million guns in America, but only 15000 killed someone last year, which is approximately 0.005%, therefore guns are not deadly ???
we have 20,000 brainwashed by the perversion of the faith. not the implementation of the faith. which is what Obama is saying. If the 20,000 were fighting for the implementation of the faith, then it would religious. subsequently Obama is saying if you respond then by saying that the 20,000 are following what they view as implementation of the faith, that view is a lie
next....
Has it ever crossed your mind that the conviction you have about your interpretation being the only right one doesn't differ much from those who use islam to commit terrorist acts?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Has it ever crossed your mind that the conviction you have about your interpretation being the only right one doesn't differ much from those who use islam to commit terrorist acts?
well if you believe their conviction is based on true notions and not false notions then yes. except from what I have read and studied . their view is based off false notions. this is coming from a practicing adherent muslim. Now you can say they are practicing adherent too but if Quran says one thing and they do something else and keep on doing things against the nature of the faith, its based off false notions. I mean terror acts started in the 60s in muslim communities, its a relatively new phenomena looking at history
Noooooo...
Basically people are always raised to believe certain arbitrary things, ranging from moral rules to superstitions even, and they latch onto the person who delivers those things if they feel like the world they currently live in is wrong and broken somehow. This can lead people to support violent dictators and sometimes these oppressive governments tout themselves as a religious authority and sometimes they don't (from ISIS to Nazis).
Religion is one way to spread fucked up dogma but it's not the only way, I was raised as a devout Muslim but stopped believing in my teens but only because I did not like the actual beliefs, my first step was questioning why I should hate a person who is gay, not what the empirical evidence is for God having talked to Mohammad. Stopping people from taking on fundamentalist views starts with letting them understand other cultures and in my case I was lucky enough to grow up in the US and be exposed to certain things that I was told is wrong. That's why Muslims correctly state that not all of them are like these ISIS people because even though there are only subtle differences in the religious scriptures/scholars they follow, that is because they expand from that to the moral rules they believe in. There's only a small minority of Muslims that will jump from wearing headscarves and being anti-gay marriage to wearing burqas and beheading Christians.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that you should make people more cultured to get rid of religion. Just that anyone who does meet more different people will just be a better/more tolerant person. Learning more about other cultures and religions is easier than ever with how connected you can be to random people who live thousands of miles away.
I'm not sure where you and I differ because I agree with what you're saying. Maybe I'm missing an emphasis or failed to convey it in my own post. I'm certainly not saying religion is the only means through which people commit themselves to disastrous ideals. Nor am I saying it creates a black hole from which no person can ideologically return.
I think what I'm conveying is that blind faith, faith in faith itself. Is part in parcel to religion. Faith in faith I find to be precarious at best. You can't really separate that aspect from the religion and in good faith say you're still a believer. At that point you are quite clearly guided by secular ethics and morals. It just so happens that you can find agreeance in a religions teachings, and can't find a way to disprove it. So you instead say you believe in the values it teaches and you can reasonably accept the supernatural doctrinal facts. It's these facets of faith and proclaiming your submission to religious leaders and enacting an ancient and antiquated collection of moral law that may replace reason where it is needed. When people act on faith there is a chance for them to be misguided.
I'm saying that dynamic is present in terrorism, not that all people of faith find themselves entirely misguided and devoid of their own will and morals. Or it's only the religious that struggle in this way. That would be far too strong of a statement, patronizing to no good to boot. But conflating faith as a virtue itself is very much part of religion.
Westerners join ISIS because ISIS provides a worldview in which their beliefs, their very identities, are validated and privileged. If we offered them real equality, real integration, real prosperity rather than marginalizing and ghettoizing them, treating them as intruders and blowing the everliving shit out of their relatives overseas they might be less disaffected, less distraught, less open to exploitation by cultists.
So countries handing out free education, free homes, free food, free lives, and a relatively safe country to these immigrants for just entering the country is making them join a group that wants to dominate everything? No if they need to join a group like ISIS to validate their "identities" there is something way worse then their living conditions.
Westerners join ISIS because ISIS provides a worldview in which their beliefs, their very identities, are validated and privileged. If we offered them real equality, real integration, real prosperity — rather than marginalizing and ghettoizing them, treating them as intruders and blowing the everliving shit out of their relatives overseas — they might be less disaffected, less distraught, less open to exploitation by cultists.
So no, religion doesn't "lead" to terrorism. It is, however, a very valuable recruitment tool when you demonize entire populations of people on the basis of their religion.
There's a lot of meat to this, but I would wager it goes more beyond religion. The fact we marginalize everybody, for any reason at all, is what creates the social conflicts we have. We continue to label and look at ways to put down people for being "other", some being more natural variations like age, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and where on this single rock ball one was birthed into being. It's why people join ideological groups: they find their "ingroup" to get away from the "outgroup" constantly putting them down. They have been taught to feel confronted in a world where everyone is of the world, and as such are a caught in a game of constant validation and confrontation by the "other".
It's no surprise at all that these types of projections onto one another lead to conflict, suffering, and eventually violence. Again, coupling this with the ego and identity problem, and you have an enormous, mind boggling mess of variables that have created the stage in the drama of the world today. It's why most of our social situations today are pure toxin, in every part of the world.
well if you believe their conviction is based on true notions and not false notions then yes. except from what I have read and studied . their view is based off false notions. this is coming from a practicing adherent muslim. Now you can say they are practicing adherent too but if Quran says one thing and they do something else and keep on doing things against the nature of the faith, its based off false notions
So the answer is no, because based on what you have studied your interpretation is the only right one.
You don't see that's exactly how they think and how dangerous that is?
That could be, though that's an assumption on your part (that violates Ockham's razor). If it was called the Disaffected State of Iraq and Syria and not suspiciously only distraught people of the Salafi persuasion moved there and every single one was atheist before being recruited by a person of ill intent that himself was formed ex nihilo, then your argument would be much stronger.Westerners join ISIS because ISIS provides a worldview in which their beliefs, their very identities, are validated and privileged. If we offered them real equality, real integration, real prosperity rather than marginalizing and ghettoizing them, treating them as intruders and blowing the everliving shit out of their relatives overseas they might be less disaffected, less distraught, less open to exploitation by cultists.
At the same time then I could argue they wouldn't be so disaffected, distraught and open to exploitation by cultists if they weren't, from their earliest years, brought up with the notion they are superior people and should rule over the unbelievers. Which leads to massive cognitive dissonance with their low social standing.
Oh yeah shit I forgot it's always the other's fault.So no, religion doesn't "lead" to terrorism. It is, however, a very valuable recruitment tool when you demonize entire populations of people on the basis of their religion.
That could be, though that's an assumption on your part (that violates Ockham's razor). If it was called the Disaffected State of Iraq and Syria and not suspiciously only distraught people of the Salafi persuasion moved there and every single one was atheist before being recruited by a person of ill intent that himself was formed ex nihilo, then your argument would be much stronger.
At the same time then I could argue they wouldn't be so disaffected, distraught and open to exploitation by cultists if they weren't, from their earliest years, brought up with the notion they are superior people and should rule over the unbelievers. Which leads to massive cognitive dissonance with their low social standing.
Oh yeah shit I forgot it's always the other's fault.
It's like the Muslims immigrants who come to the western world ask to be respected yet think lowly of every other way of life but at the same time expect those ways of life to pay for their welfare. Religions clash and egos flare over who is the "true" follower of god's word, a god that till this day has no real evidence of even existing.
So when people say religion is the problem it's because religion usually dictates somebodies whole way of life to where it creates conflicts with other religions making it harder and harder for coexistence.
Kenshin001
Member
explained above sorry
You didn't explain it you avoided it and here we get to the crux of the issue. Since flogging is proscribed in the Quran do you think adulterers should be flogged?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
You didn't explain it you avoided it and here we get to the crux of the issue. Since flogging is proscribed in the Quran do you think adulterers should be flogged?
Something, something, disingenuous, I'm sure the mental anguish from their family/friends would be worse.
It was the issue I was getting at, he asked for extreme examples, I gave one...then what happens oh football! Time to move the goal post. Really like how we are discussing flogging though, as a means of punishment that doesn't leave a mark or bruise. Right. You cannot criticize or see a flaw in a holy text that is supposedly the infallible word of God, can you?
We can use Apostacy in Islam as another example. See I can look at that and say nah, you should be able to do this without getting executed.
You can go back and forth between the ISIS/Muslim threads and see the same apologists working tirelessly. I'm exhausted and deflated just reading their "No True Muslim" bromides.
Religion is responsible for all kinds of things; like entire kingdoms and civilizations from the Saudis to the Holy Roman Empire. If you can officiate an empire that spands centurties with religion you can surely mint a gaggle of violent zealots. The Crusades were terrorism, also expansion and treasure stealing. They were also very religious. The Pope said the templars could do whatever and they would be immune to repercussions, spiritual and otherwise.
That's what religion does in these situations - and we all know it. The Pope says you can murder children and go to heaven. Cue up a line of guys who will murder children with a clean conscience. Only religioun provides this out and it has been used all over the world again and again.
Religions are fucking crazy and they make people do crazy shit. They allow logic to be put on a shelf. We can't label religions as dangerous to modern society though, we're not ready to have that battle. So we get Obama running defence.
Every single thing ISIS is doing can be found in the Muslim faith. They are following the letter of that book more than any other Muslim has done for centuries. Who cares if they are more Muslim or less than others? They're deeply religious and they are willing to die for a theocracy that upholds a religious legal and wellfare system. How can you not say it isn't religious? Good people prefer to shy away from hard truths rather than offend those who are entirely too quick to be offended. And over what? A magic man no one will ever meet.
Yesteryear it was the Christians who were monsterous and crazy. Today it's some Muslim throwbacks, a century from now it will be the fucking Scientologists. Religion will always be a path to insanity.
Religion is responsible for all kinds of things; like entire kingdoms and civilizations from the Saudis to the Holy Roman Empire. If you can officiate an empire that spands centurties with religion you can surely mint a gaggle of violent zealots. The Crusades were terrorism, also expansion and treasure stealing. They were also very religious. The Pope said the templars could do whatever and they would be immune to repercussions, spiritual and otherwise.
That's what religion does in these situations - and we all know it. The Pope says you can murder children and go to heaven. Cue up a line of guys who will murder children with a clean conscience. Only religioun provides this out and it has been used all over the world again and again.
Religions are fucking crazy and they make people do crazy shit. They allow logic to be put on a shelf. We can't label religions as dangerous to modern society though, we're not ready to have that battle. So we get Obama running defence.
Every single thing ISIS is doing can be found in the Muslim faith. They are following the letter of that book more than any other Muslim has done for centuries. Who cares if they are more Muslim or less than others? They're deeply religious and they are willing to die for a theocracy that upholds a religious legal and wellfare system. How can you not say it isn't religious? Good people prefer to shy away from hard truths rather than offend those who are entirely too quick to be offended. And over what? A magic man no one will ever meet.
Yesteryear it was the Christians who were monsterous and crazy. Today it's some Muslim throwbacks, a century from now it will be the fucking Scientologists. Religion will always be a path to insanity.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Religion is just the excuse bad people use when they do bad things. If religion did not exist, they would just find another excuse.
There very well might do that, but they wouldn't get near as much support. ISIS is able to appeal to individuals religious views to support what they are doing. People take religion very seriously, after all there is eternity to worry about. A sizable amount probably wouldn't go along with things for such a short term gain, but when you bring in their eternal soul...things change.
soul creator
Member
Religion is just the excuse bad people use when they do bad things. If religion did not exist, they would just find another excuse.
Following your logic, the common defense of "socioeconomic conditions!" and "western influence!" also apparently no longer contributes to terrorism. Since you're implying that these are just naturally evil people that would just find another excuse to do whatever bad things they're doing.
I'll be certain to let every sociologist and psychologist know that external factors and other societal norms apparently can no longer shape human behavior, and people are just naturally evil or good regardless of the environment they find themselves in.
You can go back and forth between the ISIS/Muslim threads and see the same apologists working tirelessly. I'm exhausted and deflated just reading their "No True Muslim" bromides.
This. Each thread related to Islam gets Maninthemirror performing feats of mental gymnastics that are hard to believe, and it's massively exhausting to read.
Maninthemirror, do you not understand that the basic gist of everything you've said in this and previous threads is a No True Scotsman fallacy?
guns don't kill people
Not sure if this is a serious comment, but just to be clear the two subjects are not even close to being related.
Stereogatari
Banned
yes. because 20,000 is 0.01% of muslims in Europe alone based off the population of 55 million muslims in Europe, there are more murderers per year in Europe than there are Daesh fighters in the west from the west.
20,000 is a fucking huge number. You can't just brush the significance of it, even it is a very small percentage. The IRA didn't get 20,000 Catholics across the world coming to their aid.
Westerners join ISIS because ISIS provides a worldview in which their beliefs, their very identities, are validated and privileged. If we offered them real equality, real integration, real prosperity — rather than marginalizing and ghettoizing them, treating them as intruders and blowing the everliving shit out of their relatives overseas — they might be less disaffected, less distraught, less open to exploitation by cultists.
So no, religion doesn't "lead" to terrorism. It is, however, a very valuable recruitment tool when you demonize entire populations of people on the basis of their religion.
This is definitely worth discussing, and a good point. 20,000 people don't go and fight for ISIS if they're integrated in the societies they come from (that includes ISIS fighters from Muslim majority countries btw).
If you want religious people to stop killing others in the name or their religion, you just need to give them stability, safety, and a chance to make a decent living. Once people have peace, they won't want to risk losing it by engaging in violence.
I agree with this.
Maninthemirror
Banned
20,000 is a fucking huge number. You can't just brush the significance of it, even it is a very small percentage. The IRA didn't get 20,000 Catholics across the world coming to their aid.
This is definitely worth discussing, and a good point. 20,000 people don't go and fight for ISIS if they're integrated in the societies they come from (that includes ISIS fighters from Muslim majority countries btw).
20,000 out of 55 million is insignificant and just shows how many muslims are not buying into Daesh perverted ways
Maninthemirror
Banned
So the answer is no, because based on what you have studied your interpretation is the only right one.
You don't see that's exactly how they think and how dangerous that is?
well you have a choice as someone who is NOT muslim and consider both interpretations equally valid having not studied islam. Which interpretation in this case would you rather have, the moderate muslims or the Daesh view
Maninthemirror
Banned
Something, something, disingenuous, I'm sure the mental anguish from their family/friends would be worse.
It was the issue I was getting at, he asked for extreme examples, I gave one...then what happens oh football! Time to move the goal post. Really like how we are discussing flogging though, as a means of punishment that doesn't leave a mark or bruise. Right. You cannot criticize or see a flaw in a holy text that is supposedly the infallible word of God, can you?
We can use Apostacy in Islam as another example. See I can look at that and say nah, you should be able to do this without getting executed.
lets look at what is the punishment for apostasy in Islam:
[88:22] Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher;
[88:23] Thou hast no authority to compel them.
[88:24] But whoever turns away and disbelieves,
[88:25] Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment (Hell)
[88:26] Unto Us surely is their return,
[88:27] Then, surely, it is for Us to call them to account.
where is that wordly punishment
[4:138]Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the way.
where is the wordly punishment. oh wait let me see, how is God saying you can believe again after disbelieving if punishemnt for apostasy is death. oh my
[50:46] We know best what they say; and thou hast not been appointed to compel them in any way. So admonish, by means of the Qur’an, him who fears My warning.
where is the punishment ?
[42:7] And as for those who take for themselves protectors beside Him, Allah watches over them; and thou art not a guardian over them.
where is the punishment
[42:49] But if they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guardian over them. Thy duty is only to convey the Message. And truly when We cause man to taste of mercy from Us, he rejoices therein. But if an evil befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, then lo! man is ungrateful.
again, people apostate, where is the call to murder?
[40:26] And when he came to them with truth from Us, they said: ‘Slay the sons of those who have believed with him, and let their women live.’ But the design of the disbelievers is but a thing wasted.
where is the punishment? oh wait sorry thats what happens sometimes when people DO believe and die because of it.
[24:55] Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ But if you turn away, then upon him is his burden, and upon you is your burden. And if you obey him, you will be rightly guided. And the messenger is not responsible but for the plain delivery of the Message.
where is the punishment for apostasy. this sounds like freedom to apostaste to me.
The biggest mistakes made by some muslims and non-muslims
1. they believe Hadith is equal to Quran
2. to non-Muslims both hadith and Quran are man written books in their view so lets look at it from the MUSLIM point of view
3. Who sent the Quran as per Muslims: God
4. Who sent the Hadith: No one, it was compiled 300 years after death of Holy Prophet
5. Logic dictates that to Muslims the word of God supercedes anything especially something which Muslims see as written 300 years later by men
6. Quran says no Death for apostasy while a few hadith out of thousands have examples of death for apostasy (and their source is one person. Ikramah)
Logic dictates you would take the Quran over the Hadith if any hadith contradicts the Quran through the muslim point of view.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
lets look at what is the punishment for apostasy in Islam
I like how you brushed off the portion discussing how you disingenuously engaged on the topic of adultery and the punishment.
Did you even look at the link, just curious. The whole point of this entire discussion is about one thing: You have a text that is open to interpretation, once you allow this you allow a severe threat to build.
This is why Obama is an awful leader. He doesn't deal with reality as it exists. He and his administration seem to put too much stock in the abilities of his oratorical prowess to the point of thinking it will conjure the world as they desire it.
He's also accomplishing the opposite of what he's setting out to do here. By pronouncing whether ISIS is legitimately Islamic -effectively saying to the enemy that he has a preferred definition of Islam - his war against them becomes a religious one.
This little lecture didn't get us any closer to dealing effectively with the threat of ISIS. In fact it probably just handed them propaganda.
Glad to see some people posting Wood's Atlantic essay here. Everyone should read it. Especially those who are about to cut and paste my tag in here.
He's also accomplishing the opposite of what he's setting out to do here. By pronouncing whether ISIS is legitimately Islamic -effectively saying to the enemy that he has a preferred definition of Islam - his war against them becomes a religious one.
This little lecture didn't get us any closer to dealing effectively with the threat of ISIS. In fact it probably just handed them propaganda.
Glad to see some people posting Wood's Atlantic essay here. Everyone should read it. Especially those who are about to cut and paste my tag in here.
Poodlestrike
Banned
You are completely missing what I said. Based on the Quran you think it should be acceptable to flog (whip/beat) someone for committing adultery. Even if we are talking about this hypothetical situation. Why is it acceptable to physically punish someone for adultery?
It's not acceptable. Thus the ridiculous conditions.
totally agree.This is why Obama is an awful leader. He doesn't deal with reality as it exists. He and his administration seem to put too much stock in the abilities of his oratorical prowess to the point of thinking it will conjure the world as they desire it.
He's also accomplishing the opposite of what he's setting out to do here. By pronouncing whether ISIS is legitimately Islamic -effectively saying to the enemy that he has a preferred definition of Islam - his war against them becomes a religious one.
This little lecture didn't get us any closer to dealing effectively with the threat of ISIS. In fact it probably just handed them propaganda.
Glad to see some people posting Wood's Atlantic essay here. Everyone should read it.
This guy gets it.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words don't hurt me. Remember that fun little mantra folks used to say to bullied kids. This is how ISIS thinks. They don't give 2 shits if we call them Islamic terrorists or not. Neither do potential recruits either I would guess. It is the open hot war that ISIS is concerned about and I would hazard another guess and say it is the open hot war which makes ISIS numbers grow. Not what we call them.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I like how you brushed off the portion discussing how you disingenuously engaged on the topic of adultery and the punishment.
Did you even look at the link, just curious. The whole point of this entire discussion is about one thing: You have a text that is open to interpretation, once you allow this you allow a severe threat to build.
What is open to interpretation in the links I provided. The Quran clearly has no death for apostasy and in fact discourages any action against apostates for apostasy and the only examples of death is Hadith which has been invalidated by many scholars. Looking from Muslim perspective given Quran is the word of God and Hadith was written 300 years after death of Holy Prophet by memory, what supercedes what, using logic, from muslims perspective, does the Quran or does it not have the final say over a couple of Hadith. its common sense. If you remove the hatred from your heart you will see the light. guaranteed
This is why Obama is an awful leader. He doesn't deal with reality as it exists. He and his administration seem to put too much stock in the abilities of his oratorical prowess to the point of thinking it will conjure the world as they desire it.
He's also accomplishing the opposite of what he's setting out to do here. By pronouncing whether ISIS is legitimately Islamic -effectively saying to the enemy that he has a preferred definition of Islam - his war against them becomes a religious one.
This little lecture didn't get us any closer to dealing effectively with the threat of ISIS. In fact it probably just handed them propaganda.
Glad to see some people posting Wood's Atlantic essay here. Everyone should read it. Especially thise who are about to cut and paste my tag in here.
Oh please. The majority of what he said was good. It's helpful to remind people to not slip into anti-Islamism rhetoric. I certainly disagree that "no religion is the cause of terrorism" but that is one remark in an over-arching message which is by all means a good one. It could have been achieved without that remark as well.
Obviously a speech won't get us any closer, he even stated that ISIS is a significant threat to the world including muslims. That it will be a long fight as we are not fighting a conventional nation. That it will take time.
As much as I admire polemic values of truth seeking, a woefully misplaced ideal is thinking it's a means to run a nation and enforce legislation. It's especially no way to deal with internationally politics. That is the reality that exists, and Obama understands that.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
If you remove the hatred from your heart you will see the light. guaranteed
See man, this is the crap that annoys the piss out me when it comes to talking with you. You always do this. Always.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This is why Obama is an awful leader. He doesn't deal with reality as it exists. He and his administration seem to put too much stock in the abilities of his oratorical prowess to the point of thinking it will conjure the world as they desire it.
He's also accomplishing the opposite of what he's setting out to do here. By pronouncing whether ISIS is legitimately Islamic -effectively saying to the enemy that he has a preferred definition of Islam - his war against them becomes a religious one.
This little lecture didn't get us any closer to dealing effectively with the threat of ISIS. In fact it probably just handed them propaganda.
Glad to see some people posting Wood's Atlantic essay here. Everyone should read it. Especially those who are about to cut and paste my tag in here.
Disagree. By denying that ISIS is Islamic, he's deliberately denying the "holy war" aspect (unlike his predecessor). They can still twist it around, of course, but they were doing that anyway.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.