Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
You accuse me of misrepresenting your position and changing mine. But this whole discussion has revolved around whether Islam is inherently violent and aggressive or whether there can be peaceful interpretations of it.
|
And to this, there is one fundamental question: do you deny that there is a militant aspect to Islam, in its doctrine and its teachings? If you do, then you are not stating the truth. If you do not, then you are backpedaling and changing your position.
Quote:
|
This in response to a mention by you of the lack of churches in Saudi Arabia. If that wasn't meant to say that banning churches is an inherent part of Islam (and thus, presumably, representative of the faith), what *was* the point?
|
I would think that the point would be obvious, the same point I've been hammering since I first posted. The Koran teaches that non-believers are to be given three choices: conversion, death, or submission. The banning of churches in Saudi Arabia would certainly imply submission to a clear-thinking individual. Perhaps not to you.
Quote:
|
So you're not just claiming there is a militant aspect to it; you're claiming that all Muslims must agree with that militant aspect -- including your definition of what it means, since you dismiss peaceful interpretations of it as not counting as rejection.
|
I'm claiming that the teachings of Islam presume a militant aspect to jihad. I'm claiming that no mainstream Muslim cleric has ever denied that militant aspect. I'm claiming that you, in your painfully long-winded series of posts, have completely failed to prove otherwise.
Quote:
|
Do you see why I might think you're not being clear or consistent on your points?
|
Since I've only been making one point, no. Skirt around it as much as you like.
Quote:
What's more important: the outdated esoterica of a religion's holy book, or how that religion is practiced today? After all, don't the believers define the faith? Do Jews and Christians support slavery, polygamy, genocide, killing homosexuals, etc. -- all practices accepted in the Old Testament? Do they observe the draconian punishments of Leviticus? Most American Catholics use birth control, despite the pronouncements of their church. Do they simply "not understand their faith"? Martin Luther was profoundly anti-Semitic; do you think Protestants must therefore do the same?
You are treating Islam as a special case, and Muslims as retarded children who can only do what they are told.
|
Well, let me just ask, what evidence have you furnished that Islam is not a special case? Because, if you have furnished it, I must say, I haven't seen it.
So, just to further educate you, let's take a look at a few quotes from Iran's most revered religous leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "Those who know nothing of islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundred of other Koranic psalms and Haditha urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim..."
Quote:
|
Well, you're entitled to that opinion. Me, I think Muslims are every bit as capable of outgrowing the tribal roots of their faith as Christians and Jews were.
|
Tell that to Khomeini and his fellows in Iran. Because, fundamentally, this is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Quote:
|
Now tell me. How are you *not* "dismiss(ing) that majority *and* suggest(ing) that they're all just suicide bombers in waiting"?
|
You're spinning, and you're honestly beginning to bore me now. The majority you speak of are the very masses who protest against Danish cartoons in the streets, not because they have anything against cartoons or against the Danes, but because their religious leaders incite them to do so.
Quote:
|
You realize, right, that most governments of Islam majority areas are not Islamic Republics, even though they're run by Muslims? So your question has already been answered. But please: provide me a list of Arab or Persian governments that charge the jiyza.
|
You can find it yourself. I've not researched the collection of jiyza, but after a cursory search, here's what I found:
http://www.encyklopedia.infopolska.p...parts_of_Egypt
Quote:
Quote:
|
With one small difference, the Old Testament nowhere commands the destruction or subjugation of non-believers, whereas the Koran does. And you, o great learned scholar, have failed to prove otherwise.
|
As already noted, so the hell what? The Bible commands lots of things that no Jew or Christian does anymore.
|
No where does the Bible command anyone to kill gays, or adultresses, or any other such nonsense. While it is true the Bible records such acts of violence, no where is it set out as a commandment for believers to act upon. My point is that in the Koran, unlike the Bible, there are repeated commandments for Muslims to act violently, and it specifically states against non-believers, during a host of given circumstances. This, in my view, is the distinction that explains all the violence that is being fomented on the behalf of Islam. And it explains a lot of the silence that is the subject of this thread.
Quote:
|
Then why did they do it so often in their holy book?
|
And again you miss the point. Human beings are inherently violent. Jesus Christ preached to "turn the other cheek" and yet Crusading armies invaded Palestine for nigh 600 years. Yet somehow you expect the reverse from the followers of the Koran, when that holy book actually preaches the reverse, and commands its believers to subjugate un-believers.
Quote:
|
Oh, wait. They didn't subjugate. They slaughtered and drove out. My bad. You're right; Islam is *much* worse.
|
Has Golda Meier or Menahem Began called for the destruction of any states that you know of? Has the Pope called for "Death to <insert the name of the country of your choice here>"? Oddly, Islamic religious leaders of no small note have. Not 500 years ago, but just a few weeks and months past. All I'm claiming is that Islam has a pronounced militant aspect. You are denying this.
Which one of us needs glasses?
Quote:
|
On the extremist militant side, using Islam to justify their political goals and tactics. Most of those groups are small, and the larger ones -- Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas -- are hardly monolithic. Hezbollah's the worst of the big guys, but even they have built their popularity more on the social services they provide than on their militant actions -- though those do draw some support for "standing up to Israel."
|
I'm not sure how reassuring that little discrepancy is to the people they kill. I'm sure you can see right through such fine distinctions, though.
Quote:
|
It must be nice to know you're right and not have to deal with contrary evidence.
|
It's nice to know you still haven't furnished any.
Quote:
|
The guy condemns suicide bombings in two cites, and supposedly endorses them in another. That seems like opposites unless there were specific qualifiers that I didn't notice in skimming the links.
|
Well, I guess in your book, two out of three isn't all that bad.... Shall we nominate him for the Good Neighbor's Club? With any luck, he might move onto your block.....
Quote:
Most Arabs have a moral blind spot when it comes to Israel. But you're simply wrong.
Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified.
Your arrogance would be justified if you actually read stuff.
|
And so would the lies that spew from your mouth. You read my quote, and as far as I'm concerned, it still stands.