Are the Muslims really the biggest threat . . .

Page 9 of 17 [ 242 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 17  Next


Are Muslims the Biggest threat to the modern world?
Yes 24%  24%  [ 12 ]
No 76%  76%  [ 38 ]
Total votes : 50

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

05 Sep 2012, 8:03 pm

Oodain wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Yes, I do. I don't think there's any situation in the modern world that the shari'ah punishment is applicable to, and in general, the rule against compulsion still applies. That is, no one can be forced to be Muslim, regardless of what religion they were raised to believe.


What's different about the modern world that makes the punishment not applicable, then?


do christians still kill entire villages to steal the virgins?

no(at least not int he west that i know of), well theres your answer.

life happens, as time passes the behaviors in a religion that no longer hold relevance (for an example integrated muslims in the west) it simply doesnt happen, even if the scriptural evidence is still there.


This is different. There's nothing in Christianity that says to kill entire villages to steal virgins and the very early Christians didn't do this. The hadiths have within them punishments for apostasy. Most modern Islamic scholars uphold these. Most countries under national Sharia law enforce them. The world does change, but scripture doesn't. This is a pertinent question to ask. What is it about the modern world that means our interpretation of scripture needs to change (particularly this part of it?)


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age:25
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

05 Sep 2012, 8:16 pm

judges 21:7-23

Quote:
7 "How can we provide wives for those who are left, since we have taken an oath by the LORD not to give them any of our daughters in marriage?" 8 Then they asked, "Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah?" They discovered that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people of Jabesh Gilead were there. 10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan. 13


what changes is however a quite good question.

personally i think what changed in many societies was that we started laying more wheight in rationality than religion,
thus people are more inclined to question religion to begin with and less inclined to commit acts of violence dicated through it.

that of course is a gross oversimplification, there are plenty of factors, from a fair and functional court system that negates the need for regulating punishment through religion to the modern ethical framework we have constructed(something that requires education to be effective)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

05 Sep 2012, 8:33 pm

^Those people are Jews (I know early Christianity was a form of Judaism) and it's a one-off occurrence. There is no command from Jesus to do such a thing. And yes, before you start, I am aware that Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the old laws. But, I hardly think your example qualifies as a 'law'.

I'm not a Christian or even a fan of Christianity, but I was raised in that tradition, so I have a certain respect for the structure of the Bible and how it is interpreted by modern Christians. When people quote Old Testament atrocities like that, they misrepresent the religion. In the same vein, I was interested in how Islam is interpreted by modern Muslims. I want to know why they disagree with scholars.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age:25
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

05 Sep 2012, 8:57 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
^Those people are Jews (I know early Christianity was a form of Judaism) and it's a one-off occurrence. There is no command from Jesus to do such a thing. And yes, before you start, I am aware that Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the old laws. But, I hardly think your example qualifies as a 'law'.

I'm not a Christian or even a fan of Christianity, but I was raised in that tradition, so I have a certain respect for the structure of the Bible and how it is interpreted by modern Christians. When people quote Old Testament atrocities like that, they misrepresent the religion. In the same vein, I was interested in how Islam is interpreted by modern Muslims. I want to know why they disagree with scholars.


one misrepresents the modern religion, but in this case you were talking about a religion over the course history.

i also think that there is just as good a chance that much of what people use against islam is of the exact same nature.

so in essence the argument is excactly the same for islam and christianity


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Cei
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2011
Age:22
Posts: 165
Location: USA

06 Sep 2012, 2:45 am

Tequila wrote:
Cei wrote:
That is, no one can be forced to be Muslim, regardless of what religion they were raised to believe.


I disagree.

You can be ruled over by people who violently believe in a certain doctrine (not necessarily Islam) and who will kill anyone who tries to dissent (in any way, either orally, through gestures, clothing, music, et al), or to question, or tries to do their own research, or to leave its grip.

So Islam (or Christianity) can be imposed upon people.

If I put on my car stereo and put my music on, which one person in the car hates, are they being forced to listen to it even if they can "tune it out"? Even though they can still hear it and they still hate my choice of music?

What would you call the situation that holds in much of Afghanistan? Or Saudi Arabia? (I'm aware that liberal Muslims probably get Saudi Arabia thrown at them a bit, a bit like a lot of Jews get stick from anti-Israel/anti-Semitic people, but it's worth asking.)


Okay, bad phrasing. That should have been may, not can. It is possible, but should not be happening.

puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Yes, I do. I don't think there's any situation in the modern world that the shari'ah punishment is applicable to, and in general, the rule against compulsion still applies. That is, no one can be forced to be Muslim, regardless of what religion they were raised to believe.


What's different about the modern world that makes the punishment not applicable, then?


Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

06 Sep 2012, 7:31 am

Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age:41
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

06 Sep 2012, 10:51 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.


The majority of Muslims live in south-east Asia/ East Asia 1,005,507,000 of the 1,619,314,000 muslims in the world.
They are mostly Sufis and hold almost none of the beliefs ascribed to Muslims here.
What we are really talking about is the Saudis not Islam at all.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

06 Sep 2012, 10:52 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.


The majority of Muslims live in south-east Asia/ East Asia 1,005,507,000 of the 1,619,314,000 muslims in the world.
They are mostly Sufis and hold almost none of the beliefs ascribed to Muslims here.
What we are really talking about is the Saudis not Islam at all.


And the Iranians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Nigerians...

Also, most Muslims (75-90%) are Sunni, not Sufi.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age:41
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

06 Sep 2012, 11:15 am

puddingmouse wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.


The majority of Muslims live in south-east Asia/ East Asia 1,005,507,000 of the 1,619,314,000 muslims in the world.
They are mostly Sufis and hold almost none of the beliefs ascribed to Muslims here.
What we are really talking about is the Saudis not Islam at all.


And the Iranians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Nigerians...

Also, most Muslims (75-90%) are Sunni, not Sufi.


Sufi and Sunni are not exclusive terms like Protestant and Catholic.
Most Sufi are Sunni although the Alevis in turkey are the most Sufi.
The troubling Muslims just like the Troubling Xtians and Jews belong to politically motivated sects.
Wahhabism and the Saudi support of it is the problem in Islam.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age:29
Posts: 9,121
Location: Cottonopolis

06 Sep 2012, 11:31 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.


The majority of Muslims live in south-east Asia/ East Asia 1,005,507,000 of the 1,619,314,000 muslims in the world.
They are mostly Sufis and hold almost none of the beliefs ascribed to Muslims here.
What we are really talking about is the Saudis not Islam at all.


And the Iranians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Nigerians...

Also, most Muslims (75-90%) are Sunni, not Sufi.


Sufi and Sunni are not exclusive terms like Protestant and Catholic.
Most Sufi are Sunni although the Alevis in turkey are the most Sufi.
The troubling Muslims just like the Troubling Xtians and Jews belong to politically motivated sects.
Wahhabism and the Saudi support of it is the problem in Islam.


I know, but it's hard to say how many Sunni practitioners (most Muslims) are also Sufi. Also, Sufism is a mystical practice more than it is a theological system, so it's possible to go chasing after divine love through mystical practices and still believe nasty things about apostates, as per your scriptures. Mother Teresa was a mystic but she still believed that the poverty was ennobling and women should never use birth control.
Mainstream (non-Sufi) Sunni and Shi'a interpretation of scripture also troubles me. Most Muslims I've met have been Sunni or Shi'a with only a minimal interest in Sufism (the same way you get Catholics who are into Christian meditation, but they're still Catholics). I've even met Muslims influenced by Salafism - in the West, who are of Desi origin (so, nothing to do with Saudi Arabia). I think Islam is becoming more radical across the globe, and this isn't limited to KSA.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age:41
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

07 Sep 2012, 7:54 am

puddingmouse wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Cei wrote:
Because I don't believe it was intended that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, only if they're just "converting" to do something like steal or spy. That's not applicable anymore because it's no longer in the context of warfare. Imagine if someone could move to another country, commit all sorts of crimes and sabotage there, then skip back across the border and say "I'm not one of you anymore, your laws don't apply to me, you can't do anything about it, hah", then keep doing the same thing over and over. Do you just leave them alone?


I get it now, thanks.

@Oodain. No, I still think the comparison between the two texts in Christianity and Islam isn't applicable here. It's different because much of the 'Islamic world' still interprets scripture that way. Muslims like Cei are the exception on a global scale, not the rule.



The majority of Muslims live in south-east Asia/ East Asia 1,005,507,000 of the 1,619,314,000 muslims in the world.
They are mostly Sufis and hold almost none of the beliefs ascribed to Muslims here.
What we are really talking about is the Saudis not Islam at all.


And the Iranians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Nigerians...

Also, most Muslims (75-90%) are Sunni, not Sufi.


Sufi and Sunni are not exclusive terms like Protestant and Catholic.
Most Sufi are Sunni although the Alevis in turkey are the most Sufi.
The troubling Muslims just like the Troubling Xtians and Jews belong to politically motivated sects.
Wahhabism and the Saudi support of it is the problem in Islam.


I know, but it's hard to say how many Sunni practitioners (most Muslims) are also Sufi. Also, Sufism is a mystical practice more than it is a theological system, so it's possible to go chasing after divine love through mystical practices and still believe nasty things about apostates, as per your scriptures. Mother Teresa was a mystic but she still believed that the poverty was ennobling and women should never use birth control.
Mainstream (non-Sufi) Sunni and Shi'a interpretation of scripture also troubles me. Most Muslims I've met have been Sunni or Shi'a with only a minimal interest in Sufism (the same way you get Catholics who are into Christian meditation, but they're still Catholics). I've even met Muslims influenced by Salafism - in the West, who are of Desi origin (so, nothing to do with Saudi Arabia). I think Islam is becoming more radical across the globe, and this isn't limited to KSA.


Not limited to but certainly fomented by.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2012, 8:34 am

In Pakistan Muslims are the biggest threats to Christians. A Christian half-wit girl was put in peril of her life because she was accused of tossing written verses from the Q'ran into the trash. It turned out she was probably framed by a Muslim. The fact that even a trivial act of tossing a piece of paper with a verse from the Q'ran is grounds for death indicates the nature and degree of the threat.

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age:27
Posts: 29,227
Location: Lancashire, UK

07 Sep 2012, 8:39 am

ruveyn wrote:
In Pakistan Muslims are the biggest threats to Christians.


Violent, supremacist Islamic thugs are the biggest threat to Christians across many parts of the Muslim world and frankly it's shameful that the Western media black out all coverage in what is going on in places like Egypt and Syria. I haven't got time for any organised religion but what is happening in these countries is utterly appalling. It's been going on since forever though.

This story is from Pakistan from the last week:

Quote:
Lahore: August 31, 2012. (PCP) - http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/he ... ewsid=3720

A story of fear and blasphemy is in making in one of the Muslim majority area of Lahore like Mehrabad, a slum of Islamabad from where 600 hundred Christian families fled from home after Muslim mob attack after arrests of minor disabled Christian girl under blasphemy charges.

The venue of new horror and fear is reported by Christians via e-mails and SMS by Christian residents of LDA, Walton Road, Lahore, where Muslims sprayed bullets on homes of Christians on night of August 30, 2012, issuing warning “Convert to Islam or leave this neighborhood”. Today on August 31, 2012, Muslims are gathered in hundreds around Christian’s homes and chanting slogans “Naara-e-Takbeer” which is used by Jihadists before attack to kill.

Rev. Dr. Jamil Nasir of Church Of Pentecost Lahore Pakistan, resident of same locality of Walton Road Lahore, says “It happened two nights ago when I was at a meeting and my family was alone at home. Some Maulvis (Islamic Clerics) came to my house and started banging and kicking the door. They wanted to meet me. My family was very scared and my children were crying and praying inside. They left and came back again. One of them said to me, “I want to become Christian". I said, “I do not make anybody Christian". The other one said "I was a Muslim and now I have become Christian, I need your help". I understood the situation and knew that they were trying to harass me. So I did not answer them. They threatened me when they left”



Mike_Garrick
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age:27
Posts: 254

07 Sep 2012, 8:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
In Pakistan Muslims are the biggest threats to Christians. A Christian half-wit girl was put in peril of her life because she was accused of tossing written verses from the Q'ran into the trash. It turned out she was probably framed by a Muslim. The fact that even a trivial act of tossing a piece of paper with a verse from the Q'ran is grounds for death indicates the nature and degree of the threat.

ruveyn

What exactly happens to someone in America if they publicly burn a US flag exactly?
Last I checked they were lucky not to be beat to death by a mob.

That's a flag. Not even a holy, spiritual item. Just a flag.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2012, 8:51 am

Mike_Garrick wrote:
What exactly happens to someone in America if they publicly burn a US flag exactly?
Last I checked they were lucky not to be beat to death by a mob.

That's a flag. Not even a holy, spiritual item. Just a flag.


That is a blatant exaggeration. First of all it is not illegal to burn your own flag as long as no fire safety laws are violated. Second, in Pakistan punishment for blasphemy is part of their Law. In the U.S. the First Amendment protects most forms of speech, writing or expression. (Fomenting a riot or insurrection is illegal in the U.S.)

ruveyn