-
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.
US confirms guards kicked, threw water on, urinated on Koran
- Thread starter Triumph
- Start date
- Status
m0dus said:
Again, Muslims might think Christianity is compatible with Islam, but that's because they don't understand Christianity! The bolded part of your quote is the essential problem - if you don't believe that, you reject the Christian faith.
Lets turn this around: Christians believe Islam is compatible with Christianity, but they don't believe that the Koran has any inspiration or anything to do with God, and that Muhammed never talked to Gabriel or God.
It's about the same degree of incompatiblity.
The Catholic Church has opened up greatly to inter-faith dialog, but it most certainly does NOT think all faiths are a path to God. The position of the church is still that the only way to God is through Jesus.
The Vatican said:
http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html
Well, Christianity and Islam are alot more compatible than lets say... Islam and sikhism or Christianity and Sikhism. Yes we do not think Jesus is the son of god or is god, but we still believe in him as the second most important prophet, only secong to Prophet Muhammed (especially with us Shias, we believe Jesus will be walking with our leader, the 12th Imam at the day of judgement). And the fact that we believe in one god and basically everything that the Christian believe pre Jesus time. In fact, if you read the Quran and the Bible, you will notice that a lot of the content in both books are similar, same with the Torah. In fact, it is recommended that if we do not have the Quran on hand for advice on what we actions we should take, we should turn to the Bible or the Torah because they are the next best thing for advice.
And just to clear up some things, Allah is god in Arabic. The reason why I'm clearing this up is because I've heard muslims say that they believe in one god, and then some ignorant person tells them that they don't believe in god, they believe in Allah. Allah and god are the same thing.
And just to clear up some things, Allah is god in Arabic. The reason why I'm clearing this up is because I've heard muslims say that they believe in one god, and then some ignorant person tells them that they don't believe in god, they believe in Allah. Allah and god are the same thing.
Instigator
Banned
Azih said:
It's the only tribe that mattered. One faith for one people.
Fatghost28 said:
So that would mean they're NOT Christians, but, in fact, Muslims!?! OMGWTFBBQ!!
I'd say they understand Christianity quite well, in fact--they have a pretty long history together. It still seems to me, after many centuries, that many western Christians don't understand Islam (I once heard a few friends of mine making fun of the word "allah," obviously without realizing that 'Allah' is the arabic word for 'God', and that christian sermons in arabia use the word 'Allah' for the name of God)
You don't have to accept someone's beliefs as your own to respect them--which is a problem some Western Christians I know seem to have.
So you're saying that we are Christians and not, in fact, muslim!? OMGWTFBBQ!!!
And yet he said Muslims believe in Jesus and his teachings, but they hold the 'oneness' of God to be paramount, thus they reject that Jesus was his son. Does that somehow demean the message Jesus carried? Enough to burn in the fires of eternal damnation? Which is MORE important, here--the message/word of god, or the messenger? Wouldn't you say, for christians, that accepting jesus into their heart as the Son of God is part of acknowledging the validity of his message, while for Muslims, the message itself is the most important thing? When Mohammed died, his closest friend told the gathered mourners, "those of you who followed only mohammed, he has died. But those of you who worship God--God is enternal, and can never die." Basically telling them that the message, not the person, was the most important thing.
Instigator
Banned
n3mo_toad said:Prejudice? Racism? elitism? Such thinking has many names, my friend. None of them particularly fitting for any religion.
Just stating it as I see it.
None of these terms had much meaning 2 and 3 thousands years ago.
You have a good point, but do consider that it's always been like this. When Muslims in Chechnya are oppressed...how often has the Saudi Arabian government offered assistance and spoke out against it? In reality, most of these countries only care about one thing...themselves. The Koran is a different issue since doing something to it is a personal insult to themselves. Only when they are personally insulted they will be inclined to do something about it. It's obviously backwards...but this kind of "I only care about myself" mentality has been apparent for the last 200 years.
Instigator
Banned
Azih said:
:lol
I'm not trying to be smug about it.
Judaism is a very exclusive club.
Fatghost28 said:
I'm probably looking at it differently because I see no real connection between gods and morality. My problem with Lewis' argument is that he states the three as though they were exclusive. It's theoretically possible to me that Jesus was a liar and a lunatic, or a lunatic and the son of god.
Granted, given the particulars, I certainly can't justify referring to Jesus as much more than an insane cult leader, but given that the judeo-christian god also sounds insane, I'd have a hard time saying that Jesus didn't fit in with him.
But that was all an aside to the discussion. I was replying to your post, not Lewis' writings, and your post suggested that, if Jesus weren't lord, then we would have no reason to treat each other kindly. The fact is, "treat others kindly" does work far better than "treat others badly," regardless of what Jesus' mental health.
Azih said:
If christians started rioting and killing because they heard about someone burning down a church halfway around the world, I would think less of them as a group as well. The fact that self-described *moderate* muslims say that disrespecting the Quran makes them enraged makes me think that I''ve underestimated just how bad that religion is.
Mumbles said:
Do you think the people that were killed were killed purposely? Do you really think that muslims would kill other muslims who haven't done anything because a few americans really disrespected our SYMBOL (seems I can't emphasize this enough for you). Those deaths were definitely accidental and teh reason why CERTAIN groups started rioting is because our SYMBOL, the Quran was disrespected. If you really base your whole opinion of a religion based on the actions of a select bunch of people, then I think less of you as a person.
Xenon said:
As the Commander in Chief of all the United States' military forces, George W. Bush is held responsible for all actions the soldiers under his command carry out on duty. That is an undeniable truth and responsibility of the President of the United States of America.
Anyone who says that Jesus/God, and only Jesus/God is always right and/or moral: Look at the story of the destruction of Sodom.
Edit: the best comparison I can think of to urinating on the Qu'ran would be burning down the whole frickin Vatican City while beheading the Pope, sticking a handheld cross through it, light it on fire, hold it triumphantely above one's head, urinating on a cross, and screaming "DEATH TO CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO CHRISTIANS! DEATH TO JESUS!" on live television. That's how extreme it is.
Edit: the best comparison I can think of to urinating on the Qu'ran would be burning down the whole frickin Vatican City while beheading the Pope, sticking a handheld cross through it, light it on fire, hold it triumphantely above one's head, urinating on a cross, and screaming "DEATH TO CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO CHRISTIANS! DEATH TO JESUS!" on live television. That's how extreme it is.
GSG Flash said:
Yes, I know full well that the Quran is a symbol. The fact that people reacted so extremely to the desecration of a symbol is the exact problem - their reaction was completely out of line. Granted, I'm not surprised that extremists would do so, but that's because I have a low opinion of extremists.
As to whether the deaths were accidental, it doesn't matter. It's a predictable consequence of their behavior, and so the fault lies with them.
GSG Flash said:
Hey, I'm just going by what people say about themselves and their religion here. If I had a bunch of muslims saying that they weren't really affected by the news, and that it was just another weak attempt at disrespecting them, then that would be one thing. Instead, I see people emphasizing how they see it as absolutely horrible, and worse than arson or assaulting helpless people. You can explain that as much as you want, but don't bother asking me to respect it.
GaimeGuy said:
If the word of God has meaning beyond what is inscribed in bound paper, then there's no meaning to getting so upset. You know, that kind of behaviour is called idolatry. You don't displace that kind of feelings from golden statues onto books.
On the otherhand, the vatican example you described, describes significant destruction of property, which would be a wholesale attack on not just the religion, but the country as well.
As for the western wall, well, if they're using it as a temple, it would be pretty damned inconvinient for anyone to burn that down. Well it kinda is; it's a place of worship for people of that religion... and burning it down would have similar ramifications to burning down a temple or three.
How's the wall different from the book? Not that different from an iconic perspective I'd supposed, but on a practical level, there's only one wall, and the damage would be irreversible and completely not on par with the desctruction of a koran or several dozen of them. Moreover, the wall serves as a communal place of worship, where followers get to feel closer with their god. The koran, as a singular book like item, isn't quite as significant in that sense either.
Seriously though, attacks on any of these religious icons would deeply offend anyone of their respective religion, bible, torah or koran. But it does seem that at least some groups seem to want to take offense and have a very archaic impractical view of what that kind of behaviour means. Maybe its time to update those views, that have no place in any modern civil society.
Mumbles said:
It really seems to me that you either have nothing you cherish in this world more than yourself/material things, or you simply have no clue. Its obvious even to me that this desicration went hand-in-hand with the other fouls the US committed on the inmates at Guantanamo, the inmates in Abugrab, and the deconstruction of Iraq. literally, it's just more fuel to the fire that has been burning for a couple years now. You need to understand this is NOT an isolated incident. Our sad excuse for a foreign policy has contributed to the seething rage building up in these countries, because it is arguably one of the worst foreign policies of any nation in the world today. You have to seriously be shortsighted if you are confused as to why people don't write off some idiot pissing on what they hold to be the divine word of God. No pun in intended, but it is literally the big ol' straw that broke the camel's back (heh). Jesus, I'M getting pissed just thinking about it, because it reflects us (americans) in such an awful light. Gaimeguy makes an excellent point--is nearly akin to someone burning down the vatican or assasinating the pope, because it is an affront to what people of a particular religion hold most dear. If you can't understand that, well . . . that's sad.
Either you don't understand what Mumbles was saying, or you're irony-impaired.n3mo_toad said:
Any particular Koran is a material thing -- paper, ink, and glue. The words of the Koran, as an abstraction, cannot be destroyed. It's fair to be offended when someone makes a symbolic action against your beliefs...BUT IT IS STILL JUST A SYMBOL.
No one says it's ok to kill. What we're trying to explain is WHY people became angry enough to riot, by explaining how THEY feel, as well as by trying to draw a comparison that people of other faiths coudl relate to.Chrono said:
n3mo_toad said:
You're right, but not in the way you think. As far as I can tell, humans are material, and yes, I do value humans highly.
Literally?
Anyway, the mistreatment of prisoners is IMO *far* worse than some guy peeing on a book. Bush's huffing about the latter, while avoiding any mention of the former, is simply unacceptable. The fact that *everyone* seems to be concentrating on the latter, over the former, is just pathetic.
You know what? maybe I don't understand how someone could hold a copy of a book in higher regard than a human life. Maybe I don't understand how some low-rank soldier peeing on a book could take attention away from people being humiliated, tortured and killed. But like I said, you won't get any respect for such a perspective out of me, whether I really understand or not. Frankly, I'm offended by the idea that I *should* respect the opinion that peeing on books is even close to killing a human.
And no, I'm not saddened by that. Humans matter far more than copies of books, the end.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Thanks goodness we live in a society where aberrant behavior, such as the mistreatment of prisoners, is exposed and discussed.
Since all of this happened, I have read about and gotten a better understanding, in broad terms, the Muslim reverance for the Koran. However, there is something of a contradiction here. When the occupation resistance fighters detonate car bombs near Shiite mosques that kill people, don't Korans get damaged in the process? Do people protest this? I can't recall any protests of this sort.
Since all of this happened, I have read about and gotten a better understanding, in broad terms, the Muslim reverance for the Koran. However, there is something of a contradiction here. When the occupation resistance fighters detonate car bombs near Shiite mosques that kill people, don't Korans get damaged in the process? Do people protest this? I can't recall any protests of this sort.
Guileless: There have been many protests in Iraq, some of them in response to bombings at or near mosques.
Of the bombings that target mosques in Iraq, most (all?) of them are Sunni groups targeting places where Shia worship. There may have been some cases where it was the other way around, especially early on, but all the destruction is starting to bleed together for me.
Right now it seems that very few Sunni Arabs in Iraq identify with Shia Arabs as being co-religionists or part of the same community, and vice versa. So one group won't protest for another, and nobody wants to run the risk of being bombed while you protest yesterday's bombing. The lack of security has put a low ceiling on Iraqi demonstrations, which is why you'll rarely read about them in the US media.
And yes, it's nice to live in a society where some segments of our newsmedia work hard to hold the state accountable. But it could be better, I think.
Of the bombings that target mosques in Iraq, most (all?) of them are Sunni groups targeting places where Shia worship. There may have been some cases where it was the other way around, especially early on, but all the destruction is starting to bleed together for me.
Right now it seems that very few Sunni Arabs in Iraq identify with Shia Arabs as being co-religionists or part of the same community, and vice versa. So one group won't protest for another, and nobody wants to run the risk of being bombed while you protest yesterday's bombing. The lack of security has put a low ceiling on Iraqi demonstrations, which is why you'll rarely read about them in the US media.
And yes, it's nice to live in a society where some segments of our newsmedia work hard to hold the state accountable. But it could be better, I think.
Yes it does, there's a reason that manslaughter carries a lower penalty than murder. Figure it out. People getting crushed in a riot that was partially caused by a panicky and inexperienced security force is not the same thing as a lynch mob. So stop using terminology that implies the latter when the reality is the former.
At least it has been established that the severe reaction that defacing the Quran casued was par for the muslim course and that any bit of sensitivity training would have established very extremely clearly to anyone in Guantanamo that you do *not* violate the Quran.
As for how dumb/stupid/irrational/mental/crazy that reverance may or may not be I get the feeling that this is a cultural divide that just won't be crossed by some people. I'll try one last time.
Two Points.
One: The more I've thought about it, the more I've realised that it is impossible to overestimate the importance of the Quran in Islam. The whole point of the existence of Islam is that it revealed the Quran. It is seen as the one incomparable thing that sets Islam apart from (and above) all the other religions as it is believed to be direct from God without going through any modification *at all*. That's a unique claim. Note that whenever muslims debate theology with christians they almost always go straight to Bible criticism. That's because the complete untouchability of the *Quranic text* is *the* cornerstone of the religion. Here's a free tip for those of you who want to discredit Islam/prove it false. Don't go after the actions of muslims contemporary or historical, don't go after the historical record of the Prophet Muhammad, this won't do you any good, you have to go after the validity of the Quran.
Secondly: Qurans are destroyed everyday, Planes crash, cars crash, Houses burn, and so do the Qurans in them. The tsunami destoryed thousands of them and damaged thousands more and this is seen as a sad thing but nothing more. It is understood that the Quran is preserved in the memory of millions of muslims and millions of copies
However desecrating or destroying the thing requires the express intent of insulting/desecrating the religion. That's really the only plausible motivation for doing so (and this was certainly the case in Guantanamo). The insult however isn't the enraging part. I am telling you that the my initial reaction (and I am certain this is true for most every other muslimbody else) to hearing about the newsweek report of "Quran being flushed down toilet by a guard" was complete and absolute horror. It is an act that is beyond comprehension as you never think in a million years that anything like that would ever be done intentionally.
Edit: To Mandark
The mosque bombings are pretty much all Sunni on Shia violence. It's the same brand of violence that happens in Pakistan all the time. This http://www.country-studies.com/saudi-arabia/shia.html website is actually a pretty decent summary of why.
n3mo_toad said:
Yes. Two different, distinct faiths. In other words, you can't be both. Therefore, they are incompatible.
A Honda is a car. A Toyota is a car. A honda is not a toyota. Jesus is God, Allah is God, Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is not the son of Allah. It's not interchangeable. It's not compatible.
A PS2 and an Xbox are both video game consoles, and they have many games in common, but a PS2 game won't work on an Xbox! Islam and Christianity are both religions, who share a common mythological ancestry and share many of the same core stories and often similar morality, but you cannot believe in orthodox Islamic dogma and orthodox Christian dogma at the same time! They are contradictory.
Christians can respect Muslims and vice versa, but you can't be a Christian and think Muslims are correct. Nor can you be a Muslim and think Christians are correct. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
Which is the position of the Catholic Church: Respect for Islam, but also noting that the Church believes that Christianity is the "right" answer.
Yes. Apparently this is very hard for some people to grasp, and instead they think that Muslims and Christians have a compatible religion. Because they don't.
And the point of Christianity is that Jesus is God and the Son of God who died for the sins of mankind in order to reconcile humanity with God. Muslims say this is untrue and generally don't even believe Jesus died and was resurrected! ie: Muslims would say that the entire point of Christianity is incorrect. Therefore Islam is not compatible with Christianity.
Yes, since Jesus' principle message is that he is the Son of God. Jesus is his own message! If you reject that Jesus was God, you reject the whole point of Jesus' mission and the whole point of Christianity.
Whether or not Muslims burn in hell (or whether or not Christians burn in hell for that matter) is up to God, not the Church. I don't know if Muslims believe Christians go to heaven if they don't convert to Islam.
Once again, Jesus is his own message. You can say he was a crazy guy with a few good ideas, but you can't say you are Christian if you do so. Muslims can say they think Jesus was a prophet who didn't die on the cross and never said he was the son of God, but now you are again rejecting the purpose which is the foundation of Christianity.
Jesus clearly and often taught that the way to God is through Jesus and ultimately, through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. It's not about accepting Jesus' "message". It's about accepting Jesus.
But Jesus said that he, himself, is the message. Again, it's a simple thing to grasp:
Christianity and Islam are two different religions. You cannot believe in the orthodox beliefs of both religions at the same time. To make them fit with each other, you have to say one of the religions is wrong.
My point is, just because someone is jesus or god doesn't mean they're always right.Fatghost28 said:
We're made in God's image. We make mistakes. And, as the story of Sodom shows, God isn't exactly perfect, either.
So the people who are saying that it's impossible for jesus to have lied or do anything wrong, well, they're full of bull, because NOTHING, and NO ONE, not even the deity which today's monotheistic religions worship (God/Allah/Adonai/Yahweh/Whatever) is perfect, as seen in the Torah.
Well, I don't remember specifically, but God was angry with the people of Sodom, and planned to burn it down unless Abraham could find at least fifty righteous people in it. Abraham was able to convince God that the murder of 49 righteous people in the village would not be right, and was able to convince God to allow the village to survive if Abraham could find one righteous citizen of Sodom. (Or something like that).Fatghost28 said:
I don't remember if Abraham found the amount of righteous people required to save the village, but the sotry shows that even God has flaws (and if you think about it, it makes sense. after all, if god was perfect, and we were all made in god's image, we should all be perfect too, right?)
GaimeGuy said:
Abraham managed to get God to agree that if Abraham could find one rightous person in Sodom, God would spare the city. No rightous person could be found in Sodom, so God destroyed Sodom for it's sins.
And no, Mankind was created in Gods image and was perfect, but fell from that perfection. Man brought sin into the world and that's why he was expelled from Eden.
GaimeGuy said:
You're not following the semantics here. Jews and Christians and Muslims all say they worship the same god. However: they all also think the other guys aren't doing it properly/have the message mixed up.
You can't be a Muslim and also a Christian at the same time. You realize that, right? The fundamental beliefs that make one a Christian preclude the possibility that that same person could also be a follower of Islam, right? And the beliefs that a follower of Islam have would preclude the possibility of that same person also being a christian, right?
In other words, you cannot be a Muslim, and believe the Koran is 100% correct, divinely inspired, and the Word of God...and also believe Jesus was the Son of God who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead three days later. It's mutually exclusive.
It doesn't matter if Christians say the Muslims worship the same god but do so incorrectly and it doesn't matter if the Muslins say the Christians worship the same god but do so incorrectly. It doesn't matter if religious scholars all agree that Allah as referred to in the Koran is intended by Mohammed and Muslims as the same god as in the Torah and the Bible. The point is that you can't be a Christian and believe the Muslims are correct. You can't be a Muslim and believe the Christians are correct.
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
GaimeGuy said:
So we agree on this: Christianity and Islam are not compatible religions then.
Let me put it another way:
Muslims say they worship the same God as Christians.
And Christians say they worship the same God as Muslims.
However: they actually worship very different ideas of God.
Secular religious scholars say they worship the same God because both Gods come from a similar mythological source. Islamic religious scholars say they worship the same God because the Koran says Muslims worship the same god. Christian religious scholars are a bit more divided on the issue.
The fact is, you cannot take "Allah" and place him in Christianity and you couldn't take "Jesus as God" and place him in Islam.
In other words: you can take Zeus and replace him with Jupiter and he "fits". They are the same god with different names in different languages.
You cannot take Thor and replace him with Hercules. They are different Gods, though they have a similar mythological archetype.
Jesus Christ as God - which is the central tenet of Christianity - does not fit in an Islamic context. Allah - meaning the Islamic conception of God, not the just the arabic word for "god" - does not fit in a Christian context.
Good grief guys, give it a rest already! Nobody cares anymore, and you're arguing in circles!
GaimeGuy, I just wanted to nitpick here a bit, hopefully for your own benefit. See, this here is what I meant about you arguing (fairly well, I'll allow), and yet without knowing enough specifics about what you're arguing about. You admit that you are not familiar with the story of Sodom ("Or something like that", "I don't remember if Abraham...."), and yet you're trying to use it as an argument.
It's a recipe for disaster, and one you should try to correct. I don't mean to jump on you here, just trying to be helpful
GaimeGuy said:
GaimeGuy, I just wanted to nitpick here a bit, hopefully for your own benefit. See, this here is what I meant about you arguing (fairly well, I'll allow), and yet without knowing enough specifics about what you're arguing about. You admit that you are not familiar with the story of Sodom ("Or something like that", "I don't remember if Abraham...."), and yet you're trying to use it as an argument.
It's a recipe for disaster, and one you should try to correct. I don't mean to jump on you here, just trying to be helpful
Boogie said:Good grief guys, give it a rest already! Nobody cares anymore, and you're arguing in circles!
GaimeGuy, I just wanted to nitpick here a bit, hopefully for your own benefit. See, this here is what I meant about you arguing (fairly well, I'll allow), and yet without knowing enough specifics about what you're arguing about. You admit that you are not familiar with the story of Sodom ("Or something like that", "I don't remember if Abraham...."), and yet you're trying to use it as an argument.
It's a recipe for disaster, and one you should try to correct. I don't mean to jump on you here, just trying to be helpful
Tis true. I did not remember the actual result of Abraham's search, but I was pretty certain of the rest of the story.
Fatghost28 said:
No, see, Allah is just the Arabic word for "God."
Allah is ASSOCIATED with Islam because Arabic is the predominant language in the Muslim world. You're speaking of the annotation, not the connotation of the word.
However, I do agree with you as to the religions being incompatible (otherwise, they wouldn't be considered different religions.
)Allah was used by Christians before Muslims in Arabic, do some reading
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html
http://www.equip.org/free/DI220.htm
http://www.albushra.org/varia/allah.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html
http://www.equip.org/free/DI220.htm
http://www.albushra.org/varia/allah.htm
GaimeGuy said:
Once again, "God" is not a name, it is a title or a description. Allah is just the arabic translation of that description. The entity that it describes carries a different definition in either religion despite having the same title/label.
However, I do agree with you as to the religions being incompatible (otherwise, they wouldn't be considered different religions.
Right. They're different religions because they have radically different beliefs and so you can't say they worship the same thing. A Baptist and a Catholic are both Christian - they have the same core beliefs. They are different styles or rituals but worship the same God.
A Buddhist is technically more compatible with Christianity than a Muslim because a Buddhist can believe that Jesus is the Son of God and is God - while a Muslim cannot.
Anyway, this has been fun.
- Status