Research on Belief in God

[patricknd]

Can we all admit that there is a real dilemma here? The Western liberal tradition guarantees freedom of expression to everyone, and is clearly antithetical to the idea of banning any religion or discriminating against any members of that religion. At the same time, that tradition is also strongly supportive of equality between the sexes, a principle which not only is not supported in Muslim countries, but which Muslim immigrants in Western countries frequently show no allegiance to.

I remember during the Gulf War in the early 90s, American armed forces for the first time featured large numbers of women. There were times when these women had to interact with locals, and they were ordered to wear appropriate clothing to show respect for Muslim culture. No one seemed to have any problem with this, but all I could think of was, if the American military had been called to South Africa for some reason, would we have ordered African-American soldiers not to go to certain places so as not to offend the racist sensitivities of White South Africans?

I don’t agree with Foxxy on everything, but there is a problem, indeed, a paradox, with the multi-cultural ideal. If every culture is considered equal, none better or worse than any other, then a culture that discriminates against women is just as worthy of our respect as one that doesn’t. But by not discriminating against that culture, we are discriminating against women. I don’t see how this can be avoided.

In other words, sometimes we have to make a stand. Is the principle of equal rights for women just a reflection of a different culture, no better and no worse than a culture that discriminates against women? Or is a culture that guarantees equal rights for women a higher and better culture than one that does not? We have no problem with the higher and better stand when it comes to race. We never applied the multi-cultural ideal to apartheid, we never claimed that apartheid was just as worthy of existing as a culture that guarantees equal rights for all races. Why do we not make the same claim with regards to women?

If Islam can’t exist as a religion without discrimination against women, then I’m sorry, but I have a problem with Islam. I understand that a great many moderate Muslims in Western countries have adopted the view that women are equal members of society, and I don’t have any problem with them. But when the Quran describes the relationship between men and women as not one of equality, and that book guides the lives of hundreds of millions of people is Islamic societies, don’t we have a right, really, a duty, to criticize Islam? Am I missing something?

Edit:


Thanks for this discussion, Echoes. But again, I don’t find everything clear:



Yes, this supports the notion of self-defense, fighting only those who have attacked you. But that is preceded by:



What does this mean? What are the sacred months in this context? Are they a period in which followers of Allah will allow themselves to be attacked, without fighting back? Or is it a period in which they will not fight against people who are not attacking them, but after which they will?

And this:



What does it mean by “their term has ended”? It sounds as though these non-believers can be fought after being given a certain grace period, even if they are not attacking the believers.

It seems to me that the most lenient, as it were, interpretation of these and other passages is that they are open to interpretation. People who want to claim that the exhortation to fight non-believers is only made in self-defense can cite passages to support this. But anyone who wants to initiate fighting against non-believers (and I'm not primarily thinking of critics of Islam here, but of Muslims who want to use the Quran to justify their actions) can also find support for this position.

Not to mention, of course, that wars all through history have frequently been rationalized as self-defense. The U.S. does this, all the time, and certainly a group like Isis could claim what they're doing is self-defense. And in fact, the verses in 9 and elsewhere could be interpreted the same way, that fighting is rationalized as self-defense. After all, if the polytheists simply criticize Islam, without actually resorting to violence, couldn't believers fight them on the grounds of self-defense?

i'm much too lazy to cite and praise specific parts of this but......Great Post !!!!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."-- Salman Rushdie

This is precisely on point, and I self-identify as a Christian, though I doubt many Christians would accept me as such.

je suis charlie

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is precisely on point, and I self-identify as a Christian, though I doubt many Christians would accept me as such.

je suis charlie

Rushdie has it right, Islam is not the only religion that descends to this level when you consider the abortion clinic bombings, child molestations, the denial of rights to gays and other things that Christianity foists upon us every day. What do we do? Turn the other cheek, it says that somewhere in the bible, I've been told, or eradicate the Islamic menace with a new improved Crusades 2015? Maybe a world wide pogrom against all organized religions? Who would lead it? I just don't have the time, Foxxy?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Rushdie has it right, Islam is not the only religion that descends to this level when you consider the abortion clinic bombings, child molestations, the denial of rights to gays and other things that Christianity foists upon us every day. What do we do? Turn the other cheek, it says that somewhere in the bible, I've been told, or eradicate the Islamic menace with a new improved Crusades 2015? Maybe a world wide pogrom against all organized religions? Who would lead it? I just don't have the time, Foxxy?

Imagine the marketing opportunities in today's world...I mean, the last time we had Crusades, they were totally Midieval in their marketing tactics...relics and sh!t don't hold a candle to NIKE Lebron Crusader 12'ves...Gatorade Muslim Blood XTREME...not to mention the bump in profit and jobs for companies like General Dynamics. This is going to be better than New Coke!!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Imagine the marketing opportunities in today's world...I mean, the last time we had Crusades, they were totally Midieval in their marketing tactics...relics and sh!t don't hold a candle to NIKE Lebron Crusader 12'ves...Gatorade Muslim Blood XTREME...not to mention the bump in profit and jobs for companies like General Dynamics. This is going to be better than New Coke!!

They do hold most of the oil reserves though. Where are we going to fight them? Detroit? The Philippines? Paris? London? Iraq? Iran? All over the world at once? That's a logistical nightmare.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They do hold most of the oil reserves though. Where are we going to fight them? Detroit? The Philippines? Paris? London? Iraq? Iran? All over the world at once? That's a logistical nightmare.

Yea, but just like the Crusades were partially a ploy to get rid of some a$$hole knights by paying them to go die...we can get the Tea Party involved, because you know those dudes masturb@te to thoughts of killing Muslims, so they'd be glad to go anywhere to fight. Imagine an army in Tricorn hats and "Don't Tread on Me" flags going off to war. I'm a pacifist, but I'd support that...

 

[rhubroma]

I obviously feel these translations, are worth being posted in two threads:

De tout coeur avec Charlie Hebdo.

The Hammock: by Michele Serra

I would have wanted to leave this cubical of ink space empty today, as a sign of mourning and disconsolate impotence; but then I thought that terrorism has an invincible enemy, and this enemy is the normalcy of our daily lives. That is the habits, the useful and useless gestures, the banal tasks, work, reading, writing, the exchange of words: in short the dense and super powerful social plot we weave that the terrorist intends to lacerate. Its objective is to render us different than we are: either more afraid, or meaner, or more disoriented. If, to the contrary, we are able to—in the case of terrorism—remain unchanged, well then we cannot but be victorious, like an enormous and pacific river that submerges each malevolent asperity. My job is to write every day and I want to and must do so. We imagine—like what happened at London after the Islamic carnage in the subway—the confusion, the dismay, a brief flash of panic, and then the city restarted chewing its day. Each one of us—not only the satirical cartoonists—is a potential target of a bomb or shooting. However, we are so, so many and so, so alive and so, so busy, that to stop us is impossible. It’s like stopping time that ineluctably passes by.

In the pencil massacre young fanatics slaughter old libertines, by Michele Serra

It’s not true that for Charlie Hebdo nothing is sacred. Sacred, in that old Parisian news magazine, is liberty. Liberty danced, naked and happy like Wolinsky’s ladies, around the fragile journalistic trenches of desks covered with paper, pens and pencils, dailies, black magic markers (the arsenal of the victims) upon which the unrepentant French satire artists, most of whom were old, have fallen: old libertines murdered in cold blood by their bigoted young assassins. Seasoned veterans like Georges Wolinsky, Charb, Cabu, who were unscathed after numerous court hearings for obscenity, who had evaded being censored time and time again and experienced failures, had even survived many bitter quarrels within the most adversarial world of satirical journalism; to then die thusly, slaughtered by two blood thirsty and craven imbeciles who of liberty they can’t and don’t want to know anything about. Liberty is to fanatics what fish are to dry land.

The stock of Charlie Hebdo and of its precursor, Hara Kiri, is that of the rational secularism and fervent laicism, which is so deep rooted in France, of the République: with a strong constitution of sexual freedom, anarchic and anticlerical imprint that blossomed, though was already present back in the Belle époque and dada eras, with the 1968 generation of social revolution. The undisputed inspirer of the magazine was Francois Cavanna (of Piacenza origins), an old-timer, rebellious hippy author of hilarious and merciless lines about all the people who fall into the clutches of power and religion, which demand no less than total submission. Cavanna died in his bed about a year ago, ninety years-old, pail and thin like a guru, spared from this horror and the agony of knowing about the macabre offense, so deeply inflicted, his jolly tribe has had to sustain.

The trademark of that satirical milieu, unaltered over the last decades despite being the target of numerous warheads, is a sort of sacrosanct freedom of expression extremism, which even irritated the self-righteous and decency-minded left and was always loathed by the traditionalist right. The gay chief editor of the news magazine, Philippe Val, just a few years ago, following a television debate was followed and beaten-up by a group of homophobic Christians who wanted to teach him the correct way of existing in the world. It was a humiliating vendetta, though nothing before the monstrous outcome of the new conflict in which Charlie Hebdo, let’s say by its very nature, could not have not gotten itself embroiled in the thick of the battle: that between liberty of expression and Islamic fundamentalism. It is a long war that “officially” began in 1989 with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses. It is a domestic war within Europe; let’s not forget that, from its very first act. For it appears that the death sentence placed on Rushdie was inspired by the London radical Islam matrix, as if the stubbornness of that part of Islam against the freedom of expression were sharpened, irreparably, by the promiscuity with our customary ways, including our (sacrosanct) shameless rudeness.

Satire, by its very nature, is a language of boundaries; is extreme in its discipline and is not concerned with making people feel comfortable. Remaining (and unfortunately we are obliged to do so) within the bellicose metaphor, it is like a platoon of party-poopers, who inevitably break up the ranks, disrupt the established order and destabilize the roles. It would be totally immoral to, here and now, reopen the debate about blasphemy, or if you like insolence before the religious dogmas. It would be the most blasphemous thing to do before those innocents killed, who certainly died for liberty (in the name of liberty and for the cause of liberty). It would be as if from backstage, and with our asses safe and sound, we idiotically were to permit ourselves the right to evaluate the risk these fallen had placed upon themselves for defending all of our freedom to independent thought and expression.

Let us thus limit ourselves to certify that, on the battlefield of freedom of speech and liberty of expression, satire cannot but be at the front line, and that Charlie Hebdo decided not to take one step backwards. This while knowing all too well—let’s not forget that—that even just being a news magazine substantially comprised of a few jolly-minded, mostly senior hippy cartoon illustrators, a collision with the Islamic iconoclasts was inevitably part of the game at stake. The victims of this massacre all wielded, metaphorically, or in reality, their drawing pencil in hand. The pencil, in this veritable Ground Zero of freedom of the press, was the minimal, yet supper imposing, skyscraper that was knocked down. Put a pencil in your pocket over the next few days to feel yourselves closer to Charlie Hebdo, even if you never read it, even if you don’t like satire very much and you find it excessive, upsetting and provocative.

Let us thus salute them with an open smile—they wouldn’t want anything better—those passionate guys, just as intelligent as they were harmless: the chief editor Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), Cabu (Jean Cabus), Tignous (Berdard Verlac), Georges Wolinsky, ravaged by the black hole of political-religious hatred, along with the journalist, Bernard Maris, in addition to five other colleagues and two policemen. Try to imagine, to get a grasp on the import of the massacre of Rue Nicolas-Appert, if the cartoonists each day who in the satirical vein make you reflect upon things, or laugh over the stupid follies of humanity in your own news sources, were to be slaughtered by a pogrom of fanatics, creating an emptiness on those so whimsical, but oh so indispensable, pages. Let us never forget, not even for a second, the perfumed scent of liberty, and how much we are indebted, as Europeans, to France and Paris

 

[thirteen]

I obviously feel these translations, are worth being posted in two threads:

De tout coeur avec Charlie Hebdo.

The Hammock: by Michele Serra

I would have wanted to leave this cubical of ink space empty today, as a sign of mourning and disconsolate impotence; but then I thought that terrorism has an invincible enemy, and this enemy is the normalcy of our daily lives. That is the habits, the useful and useless gestures, the banal tasks, work, reading, writing, the exchange of words: in short the dense and super powerful social plot we weave that the terrorist intends to lacerate. Its objective is to render us different than we are: either more afraid, or meaner, or more disoriented. If, to the contrary, we are able to—in the case of terrorism—remain unchanged, well then we cannot but be victorious, like an enormous and pacific river that submerges each malevolent asperity. My job is to write every day and I want to and must do so. We imagine—like what happened at London after the Islamic carnage in the subway—the confusion, the dismay, a brief flash of panic, and then the city restarted chewing its day. Each one of us—not only the satirical cartoonists—is a potential target of a bomb or shooting. However, we are so, so many and so, so alive and so, so busy, that to stop us is impossible. It’s like stopping time that ineluctably passes by.

In the pencil massacre young fanatics slaughter old libertines, by Michele Serra

It’s not true that for Charlie Hebdo nothing is sacred. Sacred, in that old Parisian news magazine, is liberty. Liberty danced, naked and happy like Wolinsky’s ladies, around the fragile journalistic trenches of desks covered with paper, pens and pencils, dailies, black magic markers (the arsenal of the victims) upon which the unrepentant French satire artists, most of whom were old, have fallen: old libertines murdered in cold blood by their bigoted young assassins. Seasoned veterans like Georges Wolinsky, Charb, Cabu, who were unscathed after numerous court hearings for obscenity, who had evaded censored time and time again and experienced failures, had even survived many bitter quarrels within the most adversarial world of satirical journalism; to then die thusly, slaughtered by two blood thirsty and craven imbeciles who of liberty they can’t and don’t want to know anything about. Liberty is to fanatics what oil is to water.

The stock of Charlie Hebdo and of its precursor, Hara Kiri, is that of the rational secularism and fervent laicism, which is so deep rooted in France, of the Republique: with a strong constitution of sexual freedom, anarchic and anticlerical imprint that blossomed, though was already present back in the Belle époque and dada eras, with the 1968 generation of social revolution. The undisputed inspirer of the magazine was Francois Cavanna (of Piacenza origins), an old-timer, rebellious hippy author of hilarious and merciless lines about all the people who fall into the clutches of power and religion, which demand no less than total submission. Cavanna died in his bed about a year ago, ninety years-old, pail and thin like a guru, spared from this horror and the agony of knowing about the macabre offense, so deeply inflicted, his jolly tribe has had to sustain.

The trademark of that satirical milieu, unaltered over the last decades despite being the target of numerous warheads, is a sort of sacrosanct freedom of expression extremism, which even irritated the self-righteous and decency-minded left and was always loathed by the traditionalist right. The gay chief editor of the news magazine, Philippe Val, just a few years ago, following a television debate was followed and beaten-up by a group of homophobic Christians that wanted to teach him the correct way of existing in the world. It was a humiliating vendetta, though nothing before the monstrous outcome of the new conflict in which Charlie Hebdo, let’s say by its very nature, could not have not gotten itself embroiled in the thick of the battle: that between liberty of expression and Islamic fundamentalism. It is a long war that “officially” began in 1989 with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses. It is a domestic war within Europe; let’s not forget that, from its very first act. For it appears that the death sentence placed on Rushdie was inspired by the London radical Islam matrix, as if the stubbornness of that part of Islam against the freedom of expression were sharpened, irreparably, by the promiscuity with our customary ways, including our (sacrosanct) shameless rudeness.

Satire, by its very nature, is a language of boundaries; is extreme in its discipline and is not concerned with making people feel comfortable. Remaining (and unfortunately we are obliged to do so) within the bellicose metaphor, it is like a platoon of party-poopers, who inevitably break up the ranks, disturb the established order and destabilize the roles. It would be totally immoral to, here and now, reopen the debate about blasphemy, or if you like insolence before the religious dogmas. It would be the most blasphemous thing to do before those innocents killed, who certainly died for liberty (in the name of liberty and for the cause of liberty). It would be as if from backstage, and with our asses safe and sound, we idiotically were to permit ourselves the right to evaluate the risk these fallen had placed upon themselves for defending all of our freedom to independent thought and expression.

Let us thus limit ourselves to certify that, on the battlefield of freedom of speech and liberty of expression, satire cannot but be at the front line, and that Charlie Hebdo decided not to take one step backwards. This while knowing all too well—let’s not forget that—that even just being a news magazine substantially comprised of a few jolly-minded, mostly senior hippy cartoon illustrators, a collision with the Islamic iconoclasts was inevitably part of the game at stake. The victims of this massacre all wielded, metaphorically, or in reality, their drawing pencil in hand. The pencil, in this veritable Ground Zero of freedom of the press, was the minimal, yet supper imposing, skyscraper that was knocked down. Put a pencil in your pocket over the next few days to feel yourselves closer to Charlie Hebdo, even if you never read it, even if you don’t like satire very much and you find it excessive, upsetting and provocative.

Let us thus salute them with an open smile—they wouldn’t want anything better—those passionate guys, just as intelligent as they were harmless: the chief editor Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), Cabu (Jean Cabus), Tignous (Berdard Verlac), Georges Wolinsky, ravaged by the black hole of political-religious hatred, along with the journalist, Bernard Maris, in addition to five other colleagues and two policemen. Try to imagine, to get a grasp on the import of the massacre of Rue Nicolas-Appert, the cartoonists each day in the satirical vein make you reflect upon things, or laugh over the stupid follies of humanity in your own news sources, were to be slaughtered by a pogrom of fanatics, creating an emptiness on those so whimsical, but so indispensable, pages. Let us never forget, not even for a second, the perfumed scent of liberty, and how much we are indebted to, as Europeans, France and Paris.

and they are… merci!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yea, but just like the Crusades were partially a ploy to get rid of some a$$hole knights by paying them to go die...we can get the Tea Party involved, because you know those dudes masturb@te to thoughts of killing Muslims, so they'd be glad to go anywhere to fight. Imagine an army in Tricorn hats and "Don't Tread on Me" flags going off to war. I'm a pacifist, but I'd support that...

This - I want to use that as my signature.

Funny and true at the same time.

 

[Hugh Januss]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...wn-in-alabama-and-all-hell-is-breaking-loose/

Religious crackpots American style.

 

[Echoes]

Thanks for this discussion, Echoes. But again, I don’t find everything clear:


Quote:
9:5: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

What does this mean? What are the sacred months in this context? Are they a period in which followers of Allah will allow themselves to be attacked, without fighting back? Or is it a period in which they will not fight against people who are not attacking them, but after which they will?

Very good question. After a little bit of research, I found out that it was a period of 4 months in which the Arabic tribes traditionally ceased fighting because they were "holy": Moharram, Resjeb, Dhulkadha & Dhulkaggia. So it's a Polytheist tradition that dated back from much older times and that the Prophet (P.H.) respected. Moharram was the month of their pilgrimage, and Resjeb was the month of fasting.

My source is this(in French, sorry).

You'd think that it wouldn't be self-defence if the fight was delayed by 4 months?

The explanation is that the Banu Sakr (probably with the help of the Quraish - the Polytheists in question) massacred the Khuza'a (allied with the Muslims). It was a violation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, since it stated that "an attack on an ally of the party, will be considered an attack on the party itself". Muhammad (PH) gave the Quraish three options: dissolve their alliance with the Banu Bakr, compensate by paying money or dissolve the Treaty.

They chose the third option. That means that after the "holy months" when the Quraish traditionally don't fight (as mentioned above), the situation would be back as it was prior to the Treaty and prior to the Treaty, the Muslims were persecuted by the Polytheists and not the opposite (this can easily be verified, I think). So yeah, the Muslims were ordered to be ready to kill because they knew their enemy would resume the fight. Beside, you'd note that there's also talk about captures (so the killings are ordered only if there's no other solution).

This verse is the most controversial one of the whole book - known as the "Sword Verse" - and yet it considers the possibility of Polytheists repenting and Muslim forgiving them.

Quote:
9:4: Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended].

What does it mean by “their term has ended”? It sounds as though these non-believers can be fought after being given a certain grace period, even if they are not attacking the believers.

First I note again that this verse considers the possibility of Pagans sticking to the Treaty, which again the Muslims were to let free. So there is no exhortation to massacre/genocide.

The answer to the question is that the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah affirmed peace for 10 years, which both parties agreed on. It's the way it was. I

What would happen next? Either a new treaty was to be negotiated or the situation would have got back to what it was before but again prior to the Treaty, Muslims were the ones to get persecuted and not the opposite.

Not to mention, of course, that wars all through history have frequently been rationalized as self-defense. [...]

Again this is another debate. It's going to get too long to discuss. You might have a point but I think it's important to stick to the point that we discuss.

I was responding to an outrageous lie that claimed that the Koran encouraged Muslims to kill non-believers strictly because of their beliefs. It was a very serious accusation, careless and very dangerous for the world we are living in today.

I claimed it was mighty wrong, not only that order does not exist but that the opposite order exists. I'll repeat it, because it's important for honest readers of this thread to bear it in mind: "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (Al-Baqarah - verse 256).

I proved my points and I showed that your objections were not admissible (thank you for the contradiction though, it helped me understand it a bit more and I guess some here wouldn't even have dared to do it). So I'll stick to that and again if the readers are honest they might revise their judgment (or even better, make a little bit of research by themselves and check out if what I'm saying is correct but I guess most won't do it and won't revise their judgment AND claim I am the one who is dogmatic...)

 

[Jspear]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...wn-in-alabama-and-all-hell-is-breaking-loose/

Religious crackpots American style.

Hey Hugh...just curious...who stated the quote in your signature?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hey Hugh...just curious...who stated the quote in your signature?

I don't know, probably some internet T-shirt printer.

 

[BigMac]

You don't understand, when Foxxy labels people it is not a personal attack because he is right, he's always right. So, just a fact, not an attack. If I call you an idiot, and you in fact are an idiot, then I am just stating a fact and not attacking you.

Did you not label me an anti-Semite? Or was it a neo-Nazi?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Did you not label me an anti-Semite? Or was it a neo-Nazi?

To the best of my recollection I pretty much kept out of that little skirmish. I may have commented if I thought you said something that was strikingly anti-Semitic since that sort of thing does annoy me.

 

[Merckx index]

I proved my points and I showed that your objections were not admissible (thank you for the contradiction though, it helped me understand it a bit more and I guess some here wouldn't even have dared to do it). So I'll stick to that and again if the readers are honest they might revise their judgment (or even better, make a little bit of research by themselves and check out if what I'm saying is correct but I guess most won't do it and won't revise their judgment AND claim I am the one who is dogmatic...)

I thank you for the discussion, but I still don't find the matter settled. E.g., there are analyses like this:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Also, on 9:5 that you earlier discussed,

This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Some of this argument is just academic, what was really meant at that time? And clearly a large majority of Muslims don't regard fighting non-believers as part of their religion, regardless of what it says in the Quran. Unlike Foxxy (if I understand him correctly) I don't see Islam as some menace bent on conquering the world. But it's easy to understand how a minority would find justification for terrorist acts in passages like these (and literally dozens of others).

 

[Christian]

I have not commented on the Paris terror acts yet because really, what is there to say and what do I have to contribute to the discussion.

But two thinks caught my eye so I will comment on them.

An Imam in Luxembourg suggested that "all big monotheistic religions get together and elaborate a codex of things that must be respected at all costs, that are sacred, that is to say, that cannot be made fun of."

This already used to exist: it was known as "The Inquisition". Religion - ALL religion - is ridiculous, and the right to point that out is fundamental in the emancipation of the people from these men (piests, imams, etc.) who claim authority on our lives on this world (the only world that actually exists) because of their supposed contacts to a higher dimension.

I also read a poem by Charb, one of the caricaturists killed:

Peins un Mahomet glorieux, tu meurs.

Dessine un Mahomet rigolo, tu meurs.

Gribouille un Mahomet ignoble, tu meurs.

Réalise un film de merde sur Mahomet, tu meurs.

Tu résistes à la terreur religieuse, tu meurs.

Tu lèches le cul aux intégristes, tu meurs.

Pends un obscurantiste pour un abruti, tu meurs.

Essaie de débattre avec un obscurantiste, tu meurs.

Il n’y a rien à négocier avec les fascistes.

La liberté de nous marrer sans aucune retenue, la loi nous la donnait déjà, la violence systématique des extrémistes nous la donne aussi.

Merci, bande de cons.

Every verse ends with "you die". "Paint a glorious Mohammed, you die. Paint a disgusting Mohammed, you die", etc. Finally it says: "There is nothing to negociate with fascists. The law already gave us the freedom to have fun without restraints, the extremists' systematic violence gives it to us as well. Thanks, you bunch of idiots".

This is the lesson I draw from these events. You CANNOT win with extremists. Whether you make fun of them or not, if you ever have the misfortune to run into one of them, they will kill you. They're terrorists, that's what terrorists do. They will not ask you what your stance is on the danish caricatures. They don't care. You cannot argue with these people - "there is nothing to negotiate with fascists". So you might as well show them (paint them) for what they are: ridiculous.

And that is what Charlie Hebdo did. People say they were insensitive to muslims - this could not be further from the truth. They insulted terrorists, not muslims. They were brave to do so, braver than all of us. Ask the people in the World Trade Center or in the Madrid Train Station if they feel like they'd offended muslims at one point in their lives. Of course they didn't. And yet they died. You cannot win with these people.

Many *** sites like buzzfeed and so on now show "The 20 most iconic" caricatures, right next to the article about the 32 fuzziest kittens to keep you warm this winter. If I had to choose one caricature that, to me, summarizes what Charlie Hebdo did, it would be this one:

It shows a desperate Mohammed, covering his eyes out of despair. The caption reads: "Mohammed overwhelmed by the extremists". And Mohammed complains: "It's tough to be loved by idiots". How any muslim could find this offensive is beyond me. In no way does it suggest that every muslim is an idiot, or that the whole religion is a joke. It only makes fun of extremists. Of this "bunch of idiots".

There is nothing to negotiate with fascists.

 

[Erythropoietin]

God is about as likely as Santa Claus. If you believe in either one, you need to grow up.

 

[Christian]

Pope Francis: People Who Insult Religion "Can Expect A Punch"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSV-GD9gA-U

 

[ray j willings]

It seems this thread has gone a bit quiet due to the events in Paris.

I was watching the BBC this morning and there was a good debate about religion going on. Being an atheist the point no one seems to mention to a person of religious beliefs who states that its not chance that the Moon and earth are lined up perfectly etc. Fact is the moon is actually moving away from the earth and there will be a wipe out of our civilisation unless we move to a new planet etc. It's not sitting still. it never did it was just the right conditions but they are not being designed, they were created by gravity and they are not going to last forever.
Our existence needs to be put into perspective of the time/existance of our universe.
We are like a sand grain on a beach getting washed away.

There are estimated at least 60 million earth like planets just in our solar system alone. Fact. We have telescopes etc "scientific method"
To believe in a mighty power that has created all and only deals with our "grain of sand" is just nonsense and lacks any common sense and really does show a lack of understanding of what we do know using the scientific method "fact" about our universe.

 

[BigMac]

It seems this thread has gone a bit quiet due to the events in Paris.

I was watching the BBC this morning and there was a good debate about religion going on. Being an atheist the point no one seems to mention to a person of religious beliefs who states that its not chance that the Moon and earth are lined up perfectly etc. Fact is the moon is actually moving away from the earth and there will be a wipe out of our civilisation unless we move to a new planet etc. It's not sitting still. it never did it was just the right conditions but they are not being designed, they were created by gravity and they are not going to last forever.
Our existence needs to be put into perspective of the time/existance of our universe.
We are like a sand grain on a beach getting washed away.

There are estimated at least 60 million earth like planets just in our solar system alone. Fact. We have telescopes etc "scientific method"
To believe in a mighty power that has created all and only deals with our "grain of sand" is just nonsense and lacks any common sense and really does show a lack of understanding of what we do know using the scientific method "fact" about our universe.

You mean galaxy. The point would stand, as there are billions and billions of galaxies. Anyway, good post.

 

[Christian]

George Carlin did a great piece on this. In a different context, but the message is still valid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

And I believe it was Hitchens who started out a debate by saying, the universe couldn't care less if you and I are here tonight or not.

One day humanity will be gone and the universe will go on like it always has.... and the only thing left from humanity will be a golden record with a speech from an old nazi

 

[rhubroma]

It seems this thread has gone a bit quiet due to the events in Paris.

I was watching the BBC this morning and there was a good debate about religion going on. Being an atheist the point no one seems to mention to a person of religious beliefs who states that its not chance that the Moon and earth are lined up perfectly etc. Fact is the moon is actually moving away from the earth and there will be a wipe out of our civilisation unless we move to a new planet etc. It's not sitting still. it never did it was just the right conditions but they are not being designed, they were created by gravity and they are not going to last forever.
Our existence needs to be put into perspective of the time/existance of our universe.
We are like a sand grain on a beach getting washed away.

There are estimated at least 60 million earth like planets just in our solar system alone. Fact. We have telescopes etc "scientific method"
To believe in a mighty power that has created all and only deals with our "grain of sand" is just nonsense and lacks any common sense and really does show a lack of understanding of what we do know using the scientific method "fact" about our universe.

Ok, but you must consider that there are those who think that the universe was created 6000 years ago. And in 6 days! The 7th, of course, being a day of rest.

 

[RetroActive]

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Albert Einstein

 

[Echoes]

Some further thoughts.

So on the other thread, I proved that Nazism is based on the hatred of all revealed religions (which is one thing that they have in common with many posters here), no let us have a look with who are the real racists of the 21st century.

A couple of posters here (beside what I just mentioned) - one of whom I had the weakness to support in the last few months, I must say I've been very naive because I should've seen where he was heading to (many posters did see it, congrats to them), I've really been fooled and feel embarrassed : mea culpa - have hinted at Europe being standardised, "our Europe", "European lasting fraternity", "we have a common culture", etc etc. which has to be protect from the rest of the world of course.

This is typical of the 40's. Europe was also on its way to unification by then. Now do we have a common culture? Definitely not. Not the same language, not the same political ideas, not the same interest, not the same literature, etc etc.

Besides, as a Belgian, why should I feel solidarity towards Portugal and not towards the Congo. We have a lot of cultural ties with the Congo. The French have more cultural ties with Algeria than with Poland. The Portugese have more affinities with Brazil than with Finland, etc etc. Not saying that the Estonians are celebrating the Waffen SS every year (official celebrations with the government and all), which certainly not my culture.

What however do we all have in common: Slovenians, Finns, Portugese, Brittons ?? I may even extend to the USA and Canada because the EU is not an end in itself, it's meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union - the TAFTA is a powerful illustration of it. What these countries have in common is that they are all white-skinned people in their majority! Only thing in common. That means that a "European fraternity" is based on racism. A world-scale apartheid that cuts hus apart from the rest of the world and which leads to an aggressive foreign policy towards the rest of the world that we have been noticing these last few years.

These are the true racists of today. I insist and I accuse. It's just a confirmation of my previous analyses.