We're told Islam is “the religion of peace.” Muslims and Muslim-apologists constantly tell us that claims to the contrary are lies or intentional misinterpretations. When Bill Maher pointed out that every page of the Koran contains hate, Rep. Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress, threw a hissy fit, calling Maher’s claim “absurd, ridiculous and untrue.” But is it really?
It's easy to take quotes out of context to warp the meaning of a text. The Bible, the Constitution, and every other legal or religious text all have been subjected to this, where people read quotes selectively or interpret the words well beyond their reasonable meanings. We’re not going to do that here. These quotes speak for themselves, like when the Qur’an instructs believers to KILL nonbelievers:● “Slay the nonbelievers wherever you find them. Drive them out.” (2:190)
There’s plenty more where that came from, but it isn’t just killing the infidels that Islam counsels.
● “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’” (8:7)
● “. . . kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. . .” (2:191)
● “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.” (8:12)
● “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.” (8:12)
● “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” and make a “wide slaughter among them.” (47:4)
● ”Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.” (8:59)
● “. . . fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (9:5)
● “A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. . . Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.” (Ishaw:327)
Islam also requires infidels to pay a “tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (9:29), and Muslims should fight Jews and Christians until they “pay [this] tribute. . . and are utterly subdued.” (9:27).
Muslims also are instructed that they may not take Jews or Christians as friends. (5:51) (“Seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper” (4:89), “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people.” (3:118)). Of course, this rule doesn’t apply if you need to use infidels for self-defense purposes. (3:28)
Islam doesn’t like women either, despite the claims of various Muslim groups that Islam is not hostile to women. For example, Tabari IX:113 advises us that women should be beaten, but not severely, because they’re like domestic animals whose bodies are here for our enjoyment:● “Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. . . Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran.” (Tabari IX:113)
But don’t worry, it’s ok because women are stupid:● “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.” (Tabari I:280)
Of course, so are all infidels:● “The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing.” (2:172)
There’s a lot more, but this should be more than enough to put the lie to the idea that critics of Islam are taking the Qur’an out of context.
Religion of peace, huh?
What's more, there is something fundamentally rotten about Islam's view of Allah. Indeed, Allah is a pretty shitty sadist. According to the Qur’an, Allah actually makes nonbelievers incapable of knowing “the truth”:● “Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs.” (6:23–27)
Why would a god intentionally prevent people from becoming believers? The answer can be found in this next quote. Apparently, Allah extends the lives of nonbelievers so that they can commit more sins. Why? So that Allah can inflict greater punishment on them:
● “Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all.” (6:35)● “Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them.” (3:178)
And make no mistake, he revels in punishing nonbelievers and he tells Muslims they should rejoice in the suffering Allah will inflict. (2:162, 2:168, 3:5 (“Allah is mighty and capable of revenge”), 3:195, 5:86, etc.)
What kind of god creates people who cannot become believers, for the sole purpose of enjoying punishing them in the afterlife? That's the definition of sadism. And that tells you what you need to know about Islam.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The Qur’an, A Book of Hate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Andrew: My son was a Middle East Studies major at UCLA (don't ask). When he went on to his grad work, he came to live with me in San Francisco. After he moved into his own place, he left the Koran among the books I was storing for him temporarily. Until that time, I knew only what I had read about the Koran (aka The Noble Q'uran). So I read it, from cover to cover, making notes as I went. Previously, I had been tolerant of Islam, but that changed after a full reading. As you said, you only picked some of the highlights--there are many more.
What I've seen in the years since then is the defense that the Bible has similar passages. Yes, it does. But for Judaism, that's not particularly important since it also has learned rabbis who understand the word "exegesis." Some things, such as the Ten Commandments, stand for all time. Other parts of the Mosaic law are applicable to the times, and can change over decades and even centuries. Christianity is in some ways in itself an exegesis of the Bible, since it incorporates the Law of Moses along with its adaptation to the times, and the belief that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies bringing a new message to mankind.
Islam knows nothing of this, and is by command of Allah through Mohammed, his Prophet an expressly non-exegetic religion. What was in 570 must be in 2011. Mohammed emerged from the cave with his revelations, and nothing has changed since.
Some say that "moderate Muslims" are trying to bring Islam into the 21st century. They're damned few and far between, and by the very nature of "change," these moderates are apostates. We all know what Islam says to do with apostates.
Christians and Jews can respond to the faux argument that the Bible says to kill all the peoples who oppose them by pointing out two milennia of theological development and revelation. Muslims can do no such thing. So long story longer, the Bible says "an eye for an eye," which simply means the punishment should fit the crime. The Koran says "kill the infidel" which simply means "kill the infidel," then, now, and forever.
I don't remember from my reading of the Koran that Isa (not-Jesus) said "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Isa said he's coming back to destroy the Christians who distorted the immutable words of the Koran.
I do not like anything about Islam and I do wish the Democrats would stop flirting with them. These quotes are proof of what is wrong at Islam's heart. The probably surprises you coming from a liberal?
Janet, It actually doesn't surprise me because the fact that you are here tells me that you are open to truth. I do appreciate that quality in people.
Unfortunately, too many on the left are blinding falling for the idea that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend, without realizing with whom they are aligning themselves.
Lawhawk, I would go further in defense of the Bible actually. Yes, it contains some passages that talk about punishing sinner (like stone the adulter), but it never says "see that group of people? Go kill them all." And it never says "once a nonbeliever, always a nonbeliever."
Moeover, the quotes I've got here were culled from 10-12 pages of similar quotes that had been gathered and when you read through that many quotes about "kill the nonbelievers" and "torture them" and Allah is really going to enjoy punishing them, then you really see a huge difference between a couple of outdated passages that say "stone an adulter" (passages which have been overruled in the New Testament by "hate the sin, love the sinner") and the Qur'an's "kill them in the nastiest way possible."
That's a huge difference.
In terms of moderate Muslims, they certainly do exist, and I think they are trying hard to bring Islam into the 6th and 7th centuries with the idea of eventually hitting their own Enlightenment. But as long as their holy book keeps these kinds of passages spread throughout, they're fighting a huge uphill battle.
Lawhawk, One more point. What does it say about the fathers out there who go to the mosque, and hear "your daughters are stupid and here just for their husband's enjoyment," and yet they stick with that religion?
Truthfully, that's an "F*** you! I'm outta here!" moment in my book.
Andrew,
I truly believe Mohammed was a sadist. He treats his followers abominably and then exhorts them to treat non-believers worse. I also believe the majority of the Islamic faith have a Christianized version floating around in their heads. The problem is they haven't really read the Koran and leave it up to the Imams to interpret it. How many Christians have read The Bible?
Also, I believe, the notion of a 5th century self-destructive religion practicing in the 21st century is beyond the ken of most people in Christian nations. I certainly didn't believe it until 9-11,2001. I learned quickly, yet still the have a hard time believing that their book hasn't been revised since th 5th century. I am getting there though.
Andrew: I concur. As for the "moderates," I see them more as "Jack Mormons," or "lapsed Catholics." They pay lip service to Islam, but are really quite uninterested in following anything more than the outward forms with no dedication to or understanding of the actual words of their foundational document, the Koran. As long as they are wishy-washy and lukewarm, they are ciphers who will be dealt with when the worldwide Caliphate is established.
For now, the only Muslims of significance are the practicing Middle East Sunnis (think SS) and the Shiites (think Gestapo) and their acolytes here in the United States. I'd throw in the Wahhabis, but they're a sort of blending of the other two, with Saudi supremacy thrown in for good measure.
Fathers who believe their daughters are stupid and proper slaves for their [chosen] husbands are known as "devout Muslims." We condemn our Christian cults which believe that, but who is there of any significance in Islam to condemn the Muslim belief? Perhaps Salman Rushdie, but he's been in hiding for decades since the death fatwahs.
Doesn't every good father believe his daughters are stupid and deserving of slavery? (I hope my daughters aren't reading this)
For those very few Islamic religious intellectuals who actually do want to see Islam join the 21st century and become a true religion instead of a murderous mass political/theological cult, I see their battle not as uphill, but insurmountable. Unless the imams and ayatollahs are all suddenly struck by an exegetic thunderbolt from Allah, the reformers will always be an endangered fringe.
Joel, It's hard not to see Allah as a sadist, given the things the Qur'an attributes to him. When you start to see all these quotes on page after page, it gets to be pretty obvious that this isn't a god who is looking to be fair and good and improve his people or people generally, this is a god who is looking to settle scores, even with people he's essentially entrapped. If any human engaged in similar behavior, we would have no qualms about calling them a sadist.
I think you're absolutely right that modern Westerners have a hard time grasping Islam because there is nothing comparable in our experience. We have the benefit of 1000 years of enlightenment and moderation intermixing with religion to soften the edges and make the relationship between God and man less intense and more theoretical. Thus, it's very hard for us to understand the overwhelming power Islam can have over its members. In fact, we tend to see people with that kind of absolute all-consuming blind faith as cultists.
So it never occurred to most Westerners that there was this thing out there telling it's people to kill us and that people would truly feel compelled to believe that and act upon it. Even now, I think secular liberals still don't grasp that this can be what motivates many of these terrorists -- they keep looking for "self-interest" explanations.
In terms of them getting there, I think that will happen. Their exposure to the West (particularly as their kids become Westernized) will start to pull that back into their religion. But I really think they will need to re-write the Qur'an at some point to remove this "kill them all" mentality.
Interestingly, as you note, there is a very good chance that few Muslims have actually read the Qur'an, just as I suspect the vast majority of Christians have never read the Bible -- other than selected passages. So the key will be to create a new generation of "moderate Imans" who will need to push out the literalist/fundamentalist elements.
Lawhawk, I'm more hopeful that it will change because of the number of Muslims who have left the Muslim hinterlands and have become exposed to the rest of the world. These are the ones you're describing as lapsed Catholics. They apparently want to remain Muslims, but they also seem to want no part of the version being practices in the hinterlands. As their numbers grow, I think that will create pressure on Islam to moderate. It will take a long time to have any influence in places like Pakistan, but I can see it starting from the west and pushing it's way in.
I would suggest that US policy should be aimed at pushing that change along.
Andrew: The radicalization of American Muslims who had previously (for at least two generations) been able to reconcile Islam with American citizenship does not give me a great deal of hope. I admire your optimism about the Middle East, but I just don't share it. Much of what is going on in Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, and even Turkey is the reaction of "enlightened" Muslims who think their governments have been too cozy with the West and are using Islam for purposes other than those planned by the Prophet. I think it far more likely that as the Middle East Muslims become more educated, they will read the Koran that they formerly paid lip-service to and realize that they have been far too tolerant toward the degenerate West and what Gaddafi calls the Crusaders.
I do lay much of the blame for their success on the weakness of mainstream Christianity. There is such a thing as exegesis, and it's not the same thing as the current trend of making it up as you go along. Christians who believe in everything believe in nothing (as in my earlier article on Evangelical adoption of Muslim characters as being merely different forms of Christian characters). People who feel the very real need to believe in something are more likely to allow uncivilized behavior based on a book that has clear visions of God and redemption than on a civilized religious book that its own priests and pastors neither practice nor understand.
At least for Christianity, those who only know the verses which apply to the goodness and humane nature of Christ and his divinity have gotten the fundamental belief right. For Muslims, knowing only the passages of the Koran that the West can stomach is most definitely not an understanding of the fundamental beliefs of Islam.
"We" cannot re-write the Koran. Only Muslim theologians can do that, and those who try die or go into hiding. I hope you're right and pray I'm wrong, but I still hold to my belief that Islam will only get worse whenever and wherever it succeeds in beating Christianity back and denying the right to investigate and/or embrace other religions.
One major problem is the people who call Islam a religion of peace. It is this major dishonesty which hinders understanding of Islam. I understand most of the people calling itself Islamic are peaceful. It is their religion that isn't.
Islam is a religion suited to terrorists and their organizations. Until it changes with the times, it's practitioners should be considered terrorists and the people who call themselves Islamics warned they can be mis-identified as terrorists. That is until they change their religion from the inside or leave it completely.
Nothing else will do. We can thank Bush for his unhelpful description of Islam.
This is pretty disturbing stuff and it makes me wonder how these guys can go on Fox News and other outlets and claim that this is all a lie? Are they not reading their own book or are they flat out lying? Neither alternative commends them.
Ed, I'd say they're lying. If they weren't, then this would be easy to fix -- you take the Qur'an to a panel of translation experts and you ask them to translate it in public so that everyone can see what they do. Then when none of this stuff shows up, you let people know you've been lied about.
But they won't do that because these quotes will come up throughout the book.
Joel, Bush did indeed start this "Religion of Peace" garbage.
I think you're right that treading quietly in the name of political correctness will only make this worse. We should be pointing out where Islam is rotten and expose what it actually says and how it's taught. Unless we do that, there's no reason for them to change it.
In fact, think about this in other contexts? Did civil rights leaders say, "well, Jim Crow isn't really racist, it's a 'law of togetherness'" and then hope that somehow attitudes would change? No, that would have been stupid. So they called it what it was and they made the defenders of racist laws stand up and explain why they thought it was ok to be racist. When they couldn't, the public's views on race changed and things began to get better.
This is always the case, when you pretend something isn't the way it really is, all you do is freeze it in place and make it worse. Truth and exposure are the only things that change the nasty practices that lurk in the shadows.
Andrew, don’t harsh my buzz man! …Muslims are just people who want the same things that we do dude, you’re just an Islamo-phobic neocon.
We’ve all heard it before, liberals tweaking the nose of the tiger, but this time he won’t bite.
This guttural religion exist in the squalor of the world. It feeds on primitive illiterate cultures where the sixth century is just fine. Trying to reach an understanding with people that want you dead is dumb, especially when it’s sanctioned by their God. Good read Andrew, I have read excerpts from the Qur’an never the entire book, let’s just leave it that Lawhawk read it, close enough for me.
Lawhawk, I'm more optimistic for two reasons. First, I think the history of immigration in the US has shown that the kids and grandkids of immigrants become very Americanized. And American kids will not tolerate the fundamental principles of Islam in their daily lives. So I think that progress toward a weak Islam is inevitable in freer societies.... plus, I suspect that even the Europeans are starting to crack down on the fundamentalist types in their midsts.
Secondly, I think that the Arabs are starting to run out of excuses in the Middle East. They've blamed Israel, they've blamed us, they blamed governments that we supposedly put into place. But as they start getting their hands on these countries and running them in their way (see e.g. Iran, Palestine, Pakistan), they are turning these places into hell holes. And one of the guiding principles of revolutions is that once you take power, you take responsibility, and the people will stop forgiving your failures.
Don't get me wrong, this won't be without bumps and it won't happen over night. We're probably looking at a lot of civil wars and nastiness throughout the Middle East. But the end result will be that they will probably wake up and realize that trying to run a 4th Century Kingdom of Hate isn't a good idea.
In terms of Christianity being at fault, I agree and I disagree. I disagree in that this issue really has spawned itself deep in the Muslim hinterlands where Christians dare not go. So Christians couldn't have done much about it -- though governments could, but that's another issue.
I agree in that the the softening of Christianity into a "do what feels right" religion as is happening in many parts of it (a coworker of mine once quit her church because "they talk about God too much and I don't like that" ???????), it has made it impossible for a large chunk of the population to see the danger Islam poses, to understand that this is a question of belief and not poverty or a response to the actions of US policy, and to grasp that we cannot allow practices like honor killings to take place.
Going back to the civil rights analogy I mentioned with Joel, I see these groups as basically saying, "if the Klan wants to hate blacks, then they should be allowed because we can't judge anyone else." That is no different than their approach to Islam, and the fact that one is based on a belief about the inferiority of another race and the other is based on a belief about the inferiority about infidels is irrelevant -- even though they can't see that.
Thanks Stan, sorry about your buzz! ;-)
I think you're right that Islam has thrived by targeting people who live in squalor and have nothing. It has instilled in them a sense of victimization and pending revenge.
And we can't make peace with people who want to kill us. Instead, we need a strategy to pull their followers away from them and "deprogram" them, while simultaneously eliminating the ones who are preaching terror and war.
Andrew: Radicalized Muslims (and not only immigrants) are a relatively new phenomenon in America. I don't think the "immigrants become Americanized" past works here. The immigrants are bringing radical Islam with them, and the madrassas are growing like weeds. They are successfully being encouraged to be "in America, but not of America." That works perfectly in a society that has carried multiculturalism into a religion of its own, with a government that believes assimilation is racist. And there's the additional unwillingness of the Obama administration (and several of its predecessors) to promote and understand American exceptionalism.
As for running out of excuses, that doesn't stop liberals from believing that the only reason they haven't succeeded in creating utopia is that they haven't spent enough of other people's money. The Muslims have the fault of the Jews and the Crusaders so deeply embedded in their psyches that logic and facts won't shake it. The only alternative is to blame themselves, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Democrats have been blaming Republicans for every war and recession since Andrew Jackson, but facts haven't changed that view either.
At this point, I think we have to once again agree to disagree. We should revisit the topic a year from now after we have a better picture of what all the unrest and violence in the Middle East really is leading to.
Lawhawk, We can disagree, because we're conservatives and we allow different opinions! LOL!
It will be interesting to see what the Middle East looks like in a year, that's for sure. But I think we're talking 100 years before we see much real change in either direction.
Andrew,
In this climate of lies perpetuated by the MSM, this is far more easier said than done. I hope the next President has the moral cojones to state the obvious about Islam and follow through.
The only alternative is war. It will have to be war to push regular people to understand just what Islam is as it is so constituted today. I can not predict when it will start. I only know that this will happen.
Unless someone in Authority will put his career as a politician on the line to correct this, we will go willy-nilly into this war, more unprepared than we were in WW2. This is scary stuff. Obama doesn't have the ability to understand this. He still believes in unicorns and fairy dust.
The reason for the Crusades was the proliferation of Islam. They were created and sanctioned in order to stop Islam from grabbing more and more territory. They were not created to take care of a noble's third son, nor were they created for Christian glory.
Despite many attempts to re-categorize the Crusades as unprovoked unsuccessful attacks, they actually were mostly successful in stopping many incursions.
I am upset that we may be forced into war, when there is a more peaceful alternative. I am not saying it will be totally peaceful, just less bloodshed.
Joel, In truth, the war already started. It started in the 1990s when they blew up embassies and attacked the Cole. Since that time, it's spread to large battlegrounds like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's got alternate theaters in places like Nigeria and Sudan. There have been battles on Western soil, such as 9/11, the Spanish thing, the shoe bomber, Breslan, the Moscow theater, Indonesia. We are at war, but people don't realize it.
The problem is that this isn't the kind of war that can be won with bombs. The bombs can harass the enemy, but the only way to win it will be to change the minds of the other side, and that requires a significant rethink of our strategy and what we are willing to do.
Unfortunately, liberals will prevent that because they will absolutely refuse to wage the kind of psychological war it will take. They see it as a violation of human rights to exploit Islam to influence our enemy, which means we are doomed to centuries of carnage.
very interesting article, Andrew and wonderful comments from everyone. I must admit to be essentially ignorant of Islam, but have clearly been troubled by some of the things said. Certainly, the actions of jihadists are intolerable as has been the Islamic world's non-stop hatred of Israel. I must admit, some of this I have tended to blame by assumption on theocracies and fundamentalist sensibilities.
Likewise, I have always wanted to be careful of translations, if only because I had no real knowlege of how easy it would be to translate accurately over the centuries. I find it difficult to reconcile with the fact my personal physician is a Muslim. I have wondered to myself how many Muslims are non devout. I know for certain that many Americans who describe themselves as Christians are pretty hands off on doctrinal matters. Perhaps many who came to this country are somewhat similar. Just don't know.
The one type of Islam I feel that is on an appropriate track is Sufism, at least the type common among many modern practitioners. I have heard this referred to as Islamic Mysticism, but from what I have read about it, it seems to have as much in common with Hinduism or Buddhism than Islam. I would have a hard time seeing true practitioners as violent, however.
Jed, Thanks! You make a good point about translations and I tried to stick with translations that are considered reputable.
You raise a really good point about there being different kinds of Muslims. I know, for example, that the Shia and Sunni hate each other even more than they hate us westerners. And I've seen a clear difference in the Middle East between the more moderate countries and the more fundamentalist countries. So it's very possible that there are different strains of Islam that either teach different principles or simply ignore some parts of Islam's teachings. I'm not 100% sure which it is, though I do know that the Wahhabi are putting out a particularly nasty, militant version of the Qur'an. The National Geographic Channel had a special on it some time ago, and they made the point that Islam has always forbid killing yourself, which prevented suicide bombers. So the Wahhabi "reinterpreted" this prohibition to say that it was permissible to kill yourself so long as you kill nonbelievers in the process. Then they rushed out this interpretation, complete with new Qur'an verses to schools all over the world.
I suspect there are a lot more moderate Muslims than people realize. In fact, I suspect they're probably the vast majority of Muslims, as with any other movement. I think the key to "fixing" Islam will be to get these people engaged in controlling the others.
How dare you make fun of the Qu'ran and denigrate a great religion!! Islam is a religion of peace, no matter how many quotes you manipulate and take out of context. It's because of narrow-minded Christians like you that we got the Crusades and terrorism and everything else that's wrong in the Middle East! If not for the knee-jerk Bible beaters, that part of the world would have been an oasis of peace and enlightenment while we White people were still trying not to kill each other. Go learn some history, fools.
Looks like you guys got a fatwa. How dare you.
Tolerance-lover,
When you finish with your insults, come back here with your quotes and information and learn a little bit about the Koran. Also learn about why the Crusades actually happened.
As much as you would like to think it is Christian aggression, it wasn't.
One more thing. The Islam people are actually used to losing. They lose all the time. They blame it on their people being unfaithful. In actuality, it is because they stick to their religion.
Their religion, like it or not, isn't accepted by a lot of people. It is forced on many. Losers usually spend their time forcing their beliefs or religion on others. They do it by intimidation.
Why the Imams hate the Crusades is they lost almost every time. Unfortunately the Imams haven't learned and are not likely to learn that it isn't right to force their religion on others.
Dear TL, If that is your real name... how dare you! I'm am not a Christian! I am in fact, the President of Iran, Atmahdinnerjob. I was this (--><--) close to tricking these honkeys into doing my will. You have ruined everything. Damn you.
Hmm. A troll. A not very exciting troll. Yawwwwwwn.
Ed, It's hard to take trolls seriously, especially when they're as halfhearted as this one. There ought to be a school or something. . .
Andrew, I resent that! Maybe I don't have more than one college degree yet, but I also don't usually do online head-fakes. I had to think for a while to come up with that, so I'd like you to at least appreciate the effort.
T-Rav, Would it surprise you that I suspected it was you? I'm not sure what it was, but there was something that said "fake" about it. We must teach you troll grasshopper! ;-)
T-Rav,
I wouldn't have known it was you.
Still.....
Andrew, no, it wouldn't surprise me; most people have a particular writing style, and if you see it often enough, you can usually ID it even with a different name. So no, I'm disappointed at my weak trolling skills--though I was glad to see I fooled Joel--but not surprised. But I was out of contact for most of the evening, so I figured amusing myself would be easier. Anyway, yeah the Koran sucks.
T-Rav, "Anyway, yeah the Koran sucks." LOL! Yep, that about sums it up.
On your trolling skills, a lack of trolling skills is probably a commendable thing, as trolls really are vile human beings. Of course, I understand that certain groups actually train people to troll. . . but I think you have to drink George Soros' blood before they let you into the program. :-(
a couple of late-in-the-game comments: I thought I heard sarcasm underlining TL/TRav's rant. Maybe I just hoped to hear it because it was so goofy... but so many troll types believe goofy stuff.
On Sunday, the preacher defined tolerance as perverted application of the concept of Grace. Grace has God saying 'I have standards that you aren't meeting, but I love you anyway', while tolerance says 'I have no standards so I can like you as you are'. That's a bad paraphrase, but it was pretty cool. And proof that I am not very tolerant.
We as humans have a hard time getting our mind around God. He says harsh things in the OT, but He was attempting to show His people how to avoid being takien over by the evil that surrounded them. But those who complain ignore the fact that He loved and protected the Hebrews, and took them back every time they repented. Then in Christ we have the culmination of the Law, the method by which we can finally attain righteousness - but it is ONLY through Him. And He still has standards of Right & Wrong.
As for the blame applied to the mainline "Christian" denominations: I think you have a point there. The definition of "missions" was changed from conversion and assistance to assistance without conversion - both here and abroad. It may not have had a direct affect on the uprising of Islam, but it def. had an affect on those westerners who reacted to the rising - the minimizing and "tolerating" that occured.
And lastly, I have always thought that Islam is one of the more perfect man-made religion - you get to define the good guys and the bad guys based on who agrees with you; the good guys are encouraged to kill the bad guys - with as much pain and degredation as possible; men are superior to women; men's weaknesses (ex: inability to control their impulses when seeing a bare ankle) are women's fault and women are required to act in a way to avoid triggering men's weaknesses; and a god just as limited, bloodthirsty, and cruel as man. What could be better????
rlaWTX, Excellent points. First, in TL/T_Rav's fake rant, there was definitely a sense in his words that his heart wasn't in it. Most trolls are a good deal nastier because they are trolling to fulfill a personal failing.
I think you're right about the change in the Christian mission. In fact, to hear many of these groups tell it today, they are little more than a private version of the Peace Corp, rather than being a religious organization. Would it have helped to be push harder to convert in countries like Pakistan? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly would have helped in places like Egypt or Indonesia where Islam was not so well enshrined.
I agree with you about Islam, what a perfect thing to tell people who are living in fairly squalid surroundings -- nothing is your fault, it's those other guys and god wants you to get revenge against them! That's remarkably similar to Nazism.
What amazes me about Islam's hostility to women is not that some guy came up with the idea, but that so many fathers and mothers stick with a religion that says your wife, your mother and your daughters are inferior animal-like creatures and should be slaves. I honestly just can't grasp a person can think like that.
Finally, I think there is a real key difference in something you've said. The Christian God wants to help humans. No matter how much people want to misinterpret the Bible as intolerant, they cannot hide that fact -- the Christian God wants everyone to live a happy, good life. By comparison, the Muslim Allah is cruel and sadistic and wants to punish those who don't follow him. That's a HUGE difference and its importance should not be understated.
It's incorrect and self-defeating to assume that all (or even most) liberals are Muslim apologists. It's important that we don't allow conversations like these to degenerate into taking cheap shots at liberals for no real reason. Spread the sad, disgusting truth about the Qur'an and you will see that good people - regardless of their political affiliation - will stand against its hate, oppression and violent, misogynistic ways.
Bill Maher is about as liberal as it gets, right? :P HE publicly pointed out that the Qur'an is full of hate! To everyone reading this, I beseech you: focus on the real issue at hand, spread the FACTS about Islam, don't alienate liberals from the cause by acting as though they are aware and complicit. I've never met a liberal who knew the truth about the Qur'an and still supported religious tolerance for this hateful cult. Spread the TRUTH to anyone and everyone. We must be united against this evil.
Anon, I point that out in the intro, that Maher publicly pointed out what is in the Koran and got blasted for it. People really do need to understand what the Koran really is.
Post a Comment