Some of the most Patriotic Americans I know are "Muslim"

[Hobbit]

Allah literally translates to "God." I don't have a whole lot of facts for the other points, but at least I can clear that up.

Oh, and as for the degredation of women, it really wasn't any different than any other area of the world at that time.

 

[cptpwichita]

So as a religious leader and spokesmen for god don't you think he should have:

1.stopped his followers from raping

2.stopped his followers from committing assassinations

3.stopped his followers from committing acts of torture

4.set a new standard for treating women

5.stopped his followers from committing acts of theft (raiding caravans and looting cities)

are you gonna still try and convince us that mohammed was a good guy and muslim women are treated just as well or better than non-muslim women and that god is showering his blessings on islamic countries.or why not just admit that islam is perverse and its founder (mohammed) is perverse and it is a man made religion centered around an arab moon god(the satanic verses) which tries to claim a history in both judaism and christianity but denies the fundamental tenets of both.or you could simply try and prove how what i have said is incorrect and enlighten us.or you can run scared and avoid the issues i have talked about.I believe it will probably be the last.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not saying Islam is a good religion, it's just that everyone here seems to think it's a horribly violent, paganistic, polytheistic, irredeemably evil practice, and it's not. Most of the horrible practices that are blamed on Islam are performed by a minority and go against the teachings of the Quran, much like the Spanish Inquisition was performed by a minority of Christians are was directly against the teachings of Christ.

1. Mohammed wasn't always a bad guy. He just took quite a while to change. Late in his life, he turned away from the violence of his past.

2. Once again, the Muslim standards for treatment of women were no worse than they were anywhere else in the world. Being a radical women's rights activist is not something you can just expect of somebody in the 7th century A.D. In fact, the treatment of women was a little better than anywhere else. Although it's better now than it was then, Islam does not treat women as inferior, simply different. Yes, from our western viewpoints, forcing them to cover their faces and take care of the house is oppressive, but they are not western and have different standards. To the female Muslims, the coverings over their bodies are a protective shell, preventing prying eyes from staring at her. It helps prevent a lot of sexual assaults and ludeness from men. They also do not resent their place in the home. Their first priority is caring for the children and the home, while their husband's first priority is to provide for the household, and this is just fine with them.

3. For the last time, Allah is NOT one of the old Arabic gods. The one the Muslims refer to as Allah is the same god of the Jewish and Christian faith. Just pick of the Quran sometime and that's painfully obvious. Some of the symbols of the old Arabic religions may have carried over, but so what? Many symbols of Easter and Christmas, such as the Christmas Tree and Easter Eggs, are derived from ancient pagan symbols from the festivals of winter and spring. This was intended to make pagans more accepting of the Christian religion, and there's really nothing wrong with this. Even the Greeks discovered Christianity by thinking of Him as the unknown god they had a shrine to in the middle of Athens.

4. We are all stuck on this planet together and might as well try to get along. Yes, it's hard to get along with Muslims, but it's worth a try. Telling them that their religion was founded by a violent madmen, is cruel to women, and worships an ancient pagan moon god is more likely to get you a broken nose than a friend. How would you like it if somebody told you that all Christian holidays were really pagan holidays and that Christianity was just a cleverly disguised form of Baal worship? (and yes, I've heard somebody make that arguement before)

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Hobbit
The one the Muslims refer to as Allah is the same god of the Jewish and Christian faith. Just pick of the Quran sometime and that's painfully obvious.

Don't want to nitpick too much, but Christians do not agree with this statement. To a Christian, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just as much part of the Godhead as is God the Father. Christians worship a triune God; Muslims do not, and in fact, view such a belief as polygamy.

 

[cptpwichita]

Originally posted by Hobbit
I'm not saying Islam is a good religion, it's just that everyone here seems to think it's a horribly violent, paganistic, polytheistic, irredeemably evil practice, and it's not. Most of the horrible practices that are blamed on Islam are performed by a minority and go against the teachings of the Quran, much like the Spanish Inquisition was performed by a minority of Christians are was directly against the teachings of Christ.

1. Mohammed wasn't always a bad guy. He just took quite a while to change. Late in his life, he turned away from the violence of his past.

2. Once again, the Muslim standards for treatment of women were no worse than they were anywhere else in the world. Being a radical women's rights activist is not something you can just expect of somebody in the 7th century A.D. In fact, the treatment of women was a little better than anywhere else. Although it's better now than it was then, Islam does not treat women as inferior, simply different. Yes, from our western viewpoints, forcing them to cover their faces and take care of the house is oppressive, but they are not western and have different standards. To the female Muslims, the coverings over their bodies are a protective shell, preventing prying eyes from staring at her. It helps prevent a lot of sexual assaults and ludeness from men. They also do not resent their place in the home. Their first priority is caring for the children and the home, while their husband's first priority is to provide for the household, and this is just fine with them.

3. For the last time, Allah is NOT one of the old Arabic gods. The one the Muslims refer to as Allah is the same god of the Jewish and Christian faith. Just pick of the Quran sometime and that's painfully obvious. Some of the symbols of the old Arabic religions may have carried over, but so what? Many symbols of Easter and Christmas, such as the Christmas Tree and Easter Eggs, are derived from ancient pagan symbols from the festivals of winter and spring. This was intended to make pagans more accepting of the Christian religion, and there's really nothing wrong with this. Even the Greeks discovered Christianity by thinking of Him as the unknown god they had a shrine to in the middle of Athens.

4. We are all stuck on this planet together and might as well try to get along. Yes, it's hard to get along with Muslims, but it's worth a try. Telling them that their religion was founded by a violent madmen, is cruel to women, and worships an ancient pagan moon god is more likely to get you a broken nose than a friend. How would you like it if somebody told you that all Christian holidays were really pagan holidays and that Christianity was just a cleverly disguised form of Baal worship? (and yes, I've heard somebody make that arguement before)

1.mohammed had people who disagreed with him killed i personally have studied 12 in the hadiths (these are lone individuals as there are also groups of people)here are 5
1-kab bin al ashraf (jew who voiced his opinion)
2-sallam ibn abu'l huqayq (khazraj got mohammeds permission to kill him)
3-al-nadr bin al-harith (before he was executed he asked who would take care of his daughter mohammed replied "hell-fire")
4-uqba bin abi mu'ayt
5-abdullah bin ubai bin salul al-aufi (asked "o you muslims!who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family")
mohammed raided caravans and allowed torture and rape
keeping 1/5 of the booty.he also instituted a tax of 50%on those he subdued that he let live he also usually killed captives if he could not get a ransom for them.oh yeah he also made his adopted son divorce his wife so he could have her(he pinned this one on god) etc.,etc.,etc.,


2.1-men are allowed 4 wives and as many concubines as they like
2-men can beat their wives an-nisa(women)4:34
3-women go to hell for being ungrateful to husbands
4-most people in hell are women
5-women are deficient in mind
6-a women ruler can not succeed
7-wife's rights can be given to other women
8-men can divorce twice
9-women can't work
10-women are not suppossed to stomp their feet when they walk

3-who are al-lat,al-uzzan,and manat?and why does mohammed say their intercession is to be hoped for?these are referred to as the satanic verses because satan supposedly gave them to mohammed and as soon as mohammed found this out he said he was tricked by satan and gabriel set him straight.

4-"they desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,so that you might be (all)alike;therefore take not from among them friends until they fly(their homes)in allah's way;but if they turn back,then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

 

[Merlin1047]

I'd like to believe your assertion regarding the patriotism of American muslims, but unfortunately I have not seen any evidence to support that.

During the months following the Sep 11 attacks, interviews with muslims were conducted by all the networks and many major newspapers. The muslims participating were asked repeatedly to denounce the Sep 11 attack. They were asked why there had been no organized condemnation of those attacks.

Maybe I missed it, but I never heard or read a definitive answer to those questions. Just a lot of mumbling, equivocating and tap-dancing.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
I'd like to believe your assertion regarding the patriotism of American muslims, but unfortunately I have not seen any evidence to support that.

During the months following the Sep 11 attacks, interviews with muslims were conducted by all the networks and many major newspapers. The muslims participating were asked repeatedly to denounce the Sep 11 attack. They were asked why there had been no organized condemnation of those attacks.

Maybe I missed it, but I never heard or read a definitive answer to those questions. Just a lot of mumbling, equivocating and tap-dancing.

And once you point that out, the silence becomes even more deafening...........

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
1.mohammed had people who disagreed with him killed i personally have studied 12 in the hadiths (these are lone individuals as there are also groups of people)here are 5
1-kab bin al ashraf (jew who voiced his opinion)
2-sallam ibn abu'l huqayq (khazraj got mohammeds permission to kill him)
3-al-nadr bin al-harith (before he was executed he asked who would take care of his daughter mohammed replied "hell-fire")
4-uqba bin abi mu'ayt
5-abdullah bin ubai bin salul al-aufi (asked "o you muslims!who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family")
mohammed raided caravans and allowed torture and rape
keeping 1/5 of the booty.he also instituted a tax of 50%on those he subdued that he let live he also usually killed captives if he could not get a ransom for them.oh yeah he also made his adopted son divorce his wife so he could have her(he pinned this one on god) etc.,etc.,etc.,


2.1-men are allowed 4 wives and as many concubines as they like
2-men can beat their wives an-nisa(women)4:34
3-women go to hell for being ungrateful to husbands
4-most people in hell are women
5-women are deficient in mind
6-a women ruler can not succeed
7-wife's rights can be given to other women
8-men can divorce twice
9-women can't work
10-women are not suppossed to stomp their feet when they walk

3-who are al-lat,al-uzzan,and manat?and why does mohammed say their intercession is to be hoped for?these are referred to as the satanic verses because satan supposedly gave them to mohammed and as soon as mohammed found this out he said he was tricked by satan and gabriel set him straight.

4-"they desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,so that you might be (all)alike;therefore take not from among them friends until they fly(their homes)in allah's way;but if they turn back,then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

Why can others not see this? For those who do not know, you can find the koran ONLINE for reading to prove this simple point. There are other passages rather clear and they make a similar point toward the killing of infadels.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
1.mohammed had people who disagreed with him killed i personally have studied 12 in the hadiths (these are lone individuals as there are also groups of people)here are 5
1-kab bin al ashraf (jew who voiced his opinion)
2-sallam ibn abu'l huqayq (khazraj got mohammeds permission to kill him)
3-al-nadr bin al-harith (before he was executed he asked who would take care of his daughter mohammed replied "hell-fire")
4-uqba bin abi mu'ayt
5-abdullah bin ubai bin salul al-aufi (asked "o you muslims!who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family")
mohammed raided caravans and allowed torture and rape
keeping 1/5 of the booty.he also instituted a tax of 50%on those he subdued that he let live he also usually killed captives if he could not get a ransom for them.oh yeah he also made his adopted son divorce his wife so he could have her(he pinned this one on god) etc.,etc.,etc.,


2.1-men are allowed 4 wives and as many concubines as they like
2-men can beat their wives an-nisa(women)4:34
3-women go to hell for being ungrateful to husbands
4-most people in hell are women
5-women are deficient in mind
6-a women ruler can not succeed
7-wife's rights can be given to other women
8-men can divorce twice
9-women can't work
10-women are not suppossed to stomp their feet when they walk

3-who are al-lat,al-uzzan,and manat?and why does mohammed say their intercession is to be hoped for?these are referred to as the satanic verses because satan supposedly gave them to mohammed and as soon as mohammed found this out he said he was tricked by satan and gabriel set him straight.

4-"they desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,so that you might be (all)alike;therefore take not from among them friends until they fly(their homes)in allah's way;but if they turn back,then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

When dealing with controversial religious attributions, you should cite every statement you make if possible. I don't know a great deal about Islam and the Koran, but one should be careful not to put to much stock into individual unflattering statements regarding religious texts. For instance, in the Old Testament, Abraham (who later acquired a second wife, Hagar), after God informed him he would be the father of a great nation, twice gives his wife sexually to another to protect himself (Gen. 12:10-16; 20:1-2). An uncritical (or maybe even critical) mind might condemn Abraham for this, but according to the Bible, it apparently didn't affect God's view of him.

As for the individual actions that you have attributed to Muhammed, I don't have the knowledge, time or energy to refute them (if they can all be refuted at all, which perhaps they cannot). Yet I did look into Muhammed's marriage to his son's wife, Zaynab. There is at least one interpretation of the marriage to Zaynab that I found on the net that contradicts your own interpretation. The quote from the Koran is contained within. I merely point this out so that others reading your post will cast a skeptic eye to it, until they have read the Koran (and perhaps commentary to it) themselves:

- http://www.ai-deutschland.de/Main/Gilchrist/Vol1/2c.html -

None of Muhammad's marriages has evoked as much comment as that with Zaynab bint Jahsh. This woman was his cousin and had been the wife of his adopted son Zaid. Muhammad had arranged the marriage but it appears that it went sour after a while. A remark by Muhammad himself one day added to the deteriorating relationship.

He had occasion to visit the house of Zaid, and upon seeing Zainab's unveiled face, had exclaimed, as a Moslem would say at the present day when admiring a beautiful picture or statue, Praise be to God, the ruler of hearts! The words, uttered in natural admiration, were often repeated by Zainab to her husband to show how even the Prophet praised her beauty, and naturally added to his displeasure. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 235).

Zaid then determined to divorce her but, upon approaching Muhammad, was told to keep her as his wife. Things did not improve, however, and Zaid duly divorced her. Shortly afterwards Muhammad himself took her in marriage, giving by far the biggest wedding-feast he had given for any of his wives. A scandal soon broke out because he had married the ex- wife of his own adopted son, something frowned upon by the Arabs as tantamount to incest. A revelation in the Qur'an soon justified the marriage:

Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God. But thou didst hide in thy heart that which God was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear God. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality their marriage) with them. And God's command must be fulfilled. Surah 33.37

The biography of at-Tabari suggests that Muhammad was visibly moved by Zaynab's beauty when he beheld her on this occasion and in many works this incident has led to a severe censure of Muhammad because it seems that he had caused the divorce between her and Zaid and had manipulated the situation so that he could marry her. This censure may well be unfounded. Zaynab was his own cousin and Muhammad had known her for many years and it is hard to believe that after all this time he was suddenly infatuated by an opportune view of her beauty. There seems to be much merit in the argument that Muhammad would have taken her in marriage himself at first rather than give her in marriage to Zayd (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 295).

There is therefore a strong presumption that in the case of Zaynab bint Jahsh, Muhammad was not carried away by passion . . . it is unlikely that he was swept off his feet by the physical attractiveness of Zaynab. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 330, 331).

Furthermore the marriage caused no rift between Muhammad and Zaid and he remained loyal to Muhammad until his death on the battlefield at Muta. "One of the greatest tests of the Prophet's purity is that Zaid never swerved from his devotion to his master" (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 236). It is, however, hard to find a motive for the marriage if the attractiveness of this woman for Muhammad is denied altogether and it must be presumed that he had a deep spirit of affection for her. In his favour we must also remember that he steadfastly encouraged Zaid to keep her as his wife even when Zaid expressed a desire to divorce her. On the balance of probabilities Muhammad must be acquitted of the charge that he caused the divorce and took advantage of it to satisfy his own whims and desires.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
When dealing with controversial religious attributions, you should cite every statement you make if possible.

If you can't take something in context, it doesn't help.

I don't know a great deal about Islam and the Koran, but one should be careful not to put to much stock into individual unflattering statements regarding religious texts. For instance, in the Old Testament, Abraham (who later acquired a second wife, Hagar), after God informed him he would be the father of a great nation, twice gives his wife sexually to another to protect himself (Gen. 12:10-16; 20:1-2). An uncritical (or maybe even critical) mind might condemn Abraham for this, but according to the Bible, it apparently didn't affect God's view of him.

-And in CONTEXT what does that mean? You are babbling.

As for the individual actions that you have attributed to Muhammed, I don't have the knowledge, time or energy to refute them (if they can all be refuted at all, which perhaps they cannot). Yet I did look into Muhammed's marriage to his son's wife, Zaynab. There is at least one interpretation of the marriage to Zaynab that I found on the net that contradicts your own interpretation. The quote from the Koran is contained within. I merely point this out so that others reading your post will cast a skeptic eye to it, until they have read the Koran (and perhaps commentary to it) themselves:

- http://www.ai-deutschland.de/Main/Gilchrist/Vol1/2c.html -

Why in the world are you arguing a point you claim you know nothing about citing 3rd hand references and taking the word of man over the word of God?

-And you do so claiming you have no time or energy to do so.

You seem to be a proponent of Islam just to dispute the Bible.

You ARE the weakest link.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
I'd like to believe your assertion regarding the patriotism of American muslims, but unfortunately I have not seen any evidence to support that.

During the months following the Sep 11 attacks, interviews with muslims were conducted by all the networks and many major newspapers. The muslims participating were asked repeatedly to denounce the Sep 11 attack. They were asked why there had been no organized condemnation of those attacks.

Maybe I missed it, but I never heard or read a definitive answer to those questions. Just a lot of mumbling, equivocating and tap-dancing.

See Detrioit Free Press Article: Muslims in Military: Arab American Proudly Serves U.S.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terror2001/muslim9_20011009.htm

 

[Reilly]

QUOTE]Originally posted by NewGuy
If you can't take something in context, it doesn't help.
-And in CONTEXT what does that mean? You are babbling.

I mean in the context of the entire belief system, what it says about god, piety, charity, faith, etc. You could easily pick out segments of the Old Testament that would suggest Jews are, by sacred belief, warlike and filled with trickery, but that would be an inadequate description of Jewish faith.

Originally posted by NewGuy
Why in the world are you arguing a point you claim you know nothing about citing 3rd hand references and taking the word of man over the word of God?

That is simple. I don't believe in your God and your word (as interesting as I find it). [Please don't try to convert me or tell me I am going to hell. That is not intellectual argument, it is merely a protestation of your religious beliefs, and while I respect them, they don't persuade.]

As for the point that I made concerning Muhammed and Zaynab, I do know something about it - that which I read both in the 3rd party cite and in the online Koran (which you referred me to). What is wrong with citing a 3rd party, especially when it itself cites the text within? All I ask is that people look at these issues more critically than you yourself appear willing to do.

 

[NewGuy]

I mean in the context of the entire belief system, what it says about god, piety, charity, faith, etc. You could easily pick out segments of the Old Testament that would suggest Jews are, by sacred belief, warlike and filled with trickery, but that would be an inadequate description of Jewish faith.

You don't know what "context" is then. You seem to think you can take a koran and understand it in context, and claim you know nothing about it.

You THEN turn around and claim the Bible to have problems with statements but obviously do not understand ITS context either.

Clue 1: Both books are PRIMARILLY about salvation, which all muslims I have ever known and almost all you will ever meet or hear about understand. YOU however, can't figure that out. You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently.

Originally posted by NewGuy:
Why in the world are you arguing a point you claim you know nothing about citing 3rd hand references and taking the word of man over the word of God?

That is simple. I don't believe in your God and your word (as interesting as I find it). [Please don't try to convert me or tell me I am going to hell. That is not intellectual argument, it is merely a protestation of your religious beliefs, and while I respect them, they don't persuade.]

1. You now admit your only purpose to try to prove the koran correct is because you believe the Bible false.

2. I can try to convert you or do what ever I want in America. -And I really don't care what you think about it.

3. I have no desire to convert anyone. I DO however, have a desire to point out those who blaspheme the Word of God as you keep doing. You promote a religion of death with no clue as to its main point, how it works, what it is about, andthe final result as it relates to the world.

As for the point that I made concerning Muhammed and Zaynab, I do know something about it - that which I read both in the 3rd party cite and in the online Koran (which you referred me to). What is wrong with citing a 3rd party, especially when it itself cites the text within? All I ask is that people look at these issues more critically than you yourself appear willing to do.

-No, you wish them to AGREE with you while you continue to denounce the Bible for personal reasons. You will not spout death causing dogma without opposition as long as I am around.

 

[Reilly]

Are you insane, or just not very bright?

Originally posted by NewGuy
You don't know what "context" is then. You seem to think you can take a koran and understand it in context, and claim you know nothing about it.

You THEN turn around and claim the Bible to have problems with statements but obviously do not understand ITS context either.

I don't profess to understand the Koran very well at all. I was merely responding to an earlier post that made representations about the religion, that I believed, were inaccurate (I used one example to show this). I do, however, believe that if one is to understand any religion, they should examine the religion as a whole, not just portions of the primary text on which it relies. That is the context that I am talking about - the whole primary text, how the religion has evolved, current beliefs, etc.

I also wasn't claiming that the Bible has problems. I was attempting to show that by taking individual stories or statements out of a text (like the Bible or Koran) to illustrate something about the meaning of the text itself, you risk doing an injustice to the belief system as a whole. The portion of my message about Abraham was to show that one should not interpret Christianity or Judaism based on these small segments of the Bible alone.


Clue 1: Both books are PRIMARILLY about salvation, which all muslims I have ever known and almost all you will ever meet or hear about understand. YOU however, can't figure that out. You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently.

I don't understand the relevance of your point about salvation, but I never claimed that the Koran is any example of how to live. I would have to read and study it to make any judgements like that, and I haven't done so.

1. You now admit your only purpose to try to prove the koran correct is because you believe the Bible false.

When did I admit this? I don't want to prove the Koran correct and I have no desire to show to anyone that the Bible is false.

2. I can try to convert you or do what ever I want in America. -And I really don't care what you think about it.

You are right. Feel free to try if you like. I just didn't want you to waste your time.

3. I have no desire to convert anyone. I DO however, have a desire to point out those who blaspheme the Word of God as you keep doing. You promote a religion of death with no clue as to its main point, how it works, what it is about, andthe final result as it relates to the world.

I don't think that I blasphemed, except in so much as I said that I don't believe in your god or the Bible (I'll give you that one). I don't think that I misrepresented what you believe in any way though. Even the Abraham comment was only to say that the Bible (or Judaism or Christianity) should not be judged too harshly on the basis of any individual story from it.

I am not promoting anything. I just hope that people look critically at Islam, as I would hope they critically examine all of their beliefs. I also think many pious Muslims would disagree with you that it is a religion of death, and I would hope that before anyone takes your word on this, that they examine the religion and its adherents closely.

-No, you wish them to AGREE with you while you continue to denounce the Bible for personal reasons. You will not spout death causing dogma without opposition as long as I am around.

First, why did you capitilze "AGREE?"

I am not denouncing the Bible. I don't believe in it, but I don't begrudge you your belief in it, and I am not trying to convince anyone not to believe in it. I am happy for you that you find comfort in your religion. Go forth, proselytize, be happy.

In the future, please refrain from mischaracterizing my statements or manufacturing statments and then attributing them to me (i.e, "You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently.").

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Are you insane, or just not very bright?

Originally posted by NewGuy
You don't know what "context" is then. You seem to think you can take a koran and understand it in context, and claim you know nothing about it.

You THEN turn around and claim the Bible to have problems with statements but obviously do not understand ITS context either.

I don't profess to understand the Koran very well at all. I was merely responding to an earlier post that made representations about the religion, that I believed, were inaccurate (I used one example to show this). I do, however, believe that if one is to understand any religion, they should examine the religion as a whole, not just portions of the primary text on which it relies. That is the context that I am talking about - the whole primary text, how the religion has evolved, current beliefs, etc.

I also wasn't claiming that the Bible has problems. I was attempting to show that by taking individual stories or statements out of a text (like the Bible or Koran) to illustrate something about the meaning of the text itself, you risk doing an injustice to the belief system as a whole. The portion of my message about Abraham was to show that one should not interpret Christianity or Judaism based on these small segments of the Bible alone.

Thanks, you have just proved my point by arguing the same thing I already said.

Newguy: Clue 1: Both books are PRIMARILLY about salvation, which all muslims I have ever known and almost all you will ever meet or hear about understand. YOU however, can't figure that out. You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently.

Reilly: I don't understand the relevance of your point about salvation, but I never claimed that the Koran is any example of how to live. I would have to read and study it to make any judgements like that, and I haven't done so.

Then you are not skilled enough to understand these books, nor are you skilled enough to know anything relevant and make a point about them. If you know nothing about a book except an editorial, you certainly are not qualified to make an argument based on it.

1. You now admit your only purpose to try to prove the koran correct is because you believe the Bible false.

When did I admit this? I don't want to prove the Koran correct and I have no desire to show to anyone that the Bible is false.

See above: Did you or did you NOT say that you don't believe in the Bible, and then go on to promote how good the faith, charity, and ethics were of the koran? Did you not argue against people claiming it to be a tome of improper beliefs? Did you not tell people to examine it more critically as you claim you have done yourself?

I am not promoting anything. I just hope that people look critically at Islam, as I would hope they critically examine all of their beliefs. I also think many pious Muslims would disagree with you that it is a religion of death, and I would hope that before anyone takes your word on this, that they examine the religion and its adherents closely.

Many being 3? If they don't follow the text, it doesn't matter what they think about the book.

I am not denouncing the Bible. I don't believe in it, but I don't begrudge you your belief in it, and I am not trying to convince anyone not to believe in it. I am happy for you that you find comfort in your religion. Go forth, proselytize, be happy.

Yes, you are. You claim you do not believe in it, then you promote the koran by advertising it as being positive when it is not. This is saying that you like corn flakes better than rasin bran because it smells better, but rasin bran is something you are not denouncing. Rediculous. When you promote anything, you denounce the other opposing item in the discussion. In this case, you go as far as telling the opposing people they are wrong, and claiming you are right while admitting you know nothing about the subject.

This makes you to be a blaspheming subversive troublemaker.

In the future, please refrain from mischaracterizing my statements or manufacturing statments and then attributing them to me (i.e, "You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently.").

Ummmm. Fine. If you could point out where I DID that. As you just pointed out, and as I reiterated, you DID just that. So, your statements are completely IN character, and you are wasting your breath.

 

[Reilly]

Ok, obviously not very bright. I know this is a waste of time, but I will respond anyway.

Originally posted by NewGuy

Thanks, you have just proved my point by arguing the same thing I already said.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then you are not skilled enough to understand these books, nor are you skilled enough to know anything relevant and make a point about them. If you know nothing about a book except an editorial, you certainly are not qualified to make an argument based on it.

Well, in this particular case, I did read the passage in the Koran and included editorial from a third party demonstrating (as the included passage capably does on its own) that the poster misrepresented the story of Muhammed and Zaynab.


See above: Did you or did you NOT say that you don't believe in the Bible, and then go on to promote how good the faith, charity, and ethics were of the koran? Did you not argue against people claiming it to be a tome of improper beliefs? Did you not tell people to examine it more critically as you claim you have done yourself?

I did say that I don't believe in the Bible.
I did not promote the value of the faith, charity, or ethics of the Koran.
I did say that before making a judgment on the Koran (and Islam), a person should carefully study the whole text and belief system (and what they say about faith, charity and the like) and then draw their own conclusions.
No, I did not argue against people claiming it to be a tome of improper beliefs.
I did say that one should not merely rely on someone claiming it is a tome of improper beliefs, but should, once again, carefully study the whole text and belief system (and what they say about faith, charity and the like) and then draw their own conclusions.
I never claimed to have examined critically. I also have no strong opinions on the Koran, precisely because I have not studied it carefully.

Many being 3? If they don't follow the text, it doesn't matter what they think about the book.

That is clearly not true. A text, and its meanings, can be interpreted in many different ways, and hence adhered to by different people in different ways.

I am also will to bet more than 3 Muslims would disagree that it is a tome of improper beliefs. In fact, on this point, I am willing to engage in a rather substantial wager with you. I will then e-mail you the names and phone numbers of four Muslims who disagree and you can just mail me a check. What do you say?


Yes, you are. You claim you do not believe in it, then you promote the koran by advertising it as being positive when it is not. This is saying that you like corn flakes better than rasin bran because it smells better, but rasin bran is something you are not denouncing. Rediculous. When you promote anything, you denounce the other opposing item in the discussion. In this case, you go as far as telling the opposing people they are wrong, and claiming you are right while admitting you know nothing about the subject.

As I explained above, I have not promoted the Koran, just as I have not denounced Christianity. I did attempt to show that the story of Muhammed and Zaynab was misrepresented (he was wrong) on the message board, and ecouraged others to examine Islam carefully before making conclusions about it.
Since I am neither Christian nor Muslim, I am not promoting or denouncing either. However, based upon what I know of each (which falls somewhere between nothing and a lot), I tend to think that there is probably much that is valuable in both religions.

This makes you to be a blaspheming subversive troublemaker.

OK.

Ummmm. Fine. If you could point out where I DID that. As you just pointed out, and as I reiterated, you DID just that. So, your statements are completely IN character, and you are wasting your breath.

Instances in which New Guy has misrepresented me:
1. "You THEN turn around and claim the Bible to have problems with statements" - My point was that the story of Abraham should not be construed as a problem with Christian faith or the bible.
2. "You claim the koran is a great example of how to live apparently." - see above.
3. "You now admit your only purpose to try to prove the koran correct is because you believe the Bible false" - As I have stated, I think that they are both false.
4. "Did you not tell people to examine it more critically as you claim you have done yourself." - I have never claimed to have examined the Koran critically. I merely said one should before making judgments about the text or religion as a whole. It is still on my "to do' list.
5. "Did you or did you NOT say that you don't believe in the Bible, and then go on to promote how good the faith, charity, and ethics were of the koran" - I never made a value judgement regarding the Koran and Muslims vis-a-vis faith, charity,etc. I did say that when evaluating a religion based on certain statements in a text, one should view the statements in the context of the religion as a whole. In fact, here is my quote: "I mean in the context of the entire belief system, what it says about god, piety, charity, faith, etc." This is a call to examine these issues with respect to any religion, not a promotional statement vis-a-vis Islam and the Koran.

Now why do you continue to capitalize words like "IN," "NOT," "THEN," "DID." Oftentimes, they seem like odd places for emphasis.
Let me know about that bet.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, in this particular case, I did read the passage in the Koran and included editorial from a third party demonstrating (as the included passage capably does on its own) that the poster misrepresented the story of Muhammed and Zaynab.

I did say that I don't believe in the Bible.
I did not promote the value of the faith, charity, or ethics of the Koran.
I did say that before making a judgment on the Koran (and Islam), a person should carefully study the whole text and belief system (and what they say about faith, charity and the like) and then draw their own conclusions.
No, I did not argue against people claiming it to be a tome of improper beliefs.
I did say that one should not merely rely on someone claiming it is a tome of improper beliefs, but should, once again, carefully study the whole text and belief system (and what they say about faith, charity and the like) and then draw their own conclusions.
I never claimed to have examined critically. I also have no strong opinions on the Koran, precisely because I have not studied it carefully.

[ A text, and its meanings, can be interpreted in many different ways, and hence adhered to by different people in different ways.

As I explained above, I have not promoted the Koran, just as I have not denounced Christianity. I did attempt to show that the story of Muhammed and Zaynab was misrepresented (he was wrong) on the message board, and ecouraged others to examine Islam carefully before making conclusions about it.
Since I am neither Christian nor Muslim, I am not promoting or denouncing either. However, based upon what I know of each (which falls somewhere between nothing and a lot), I tend to think that there is probably much that is valuable in both religions.


Instances in which New Guy has misrepresented me:


Now why do you continue to capitalize words like "IN," "NOT," "THEN," "DID." Oftentimes, they seem like odd places for emphasis.
Let me know about that bet.

(sigh)....I am through wasting my breath. You clearly contradict everything you say to confuse, then complain you don't understand, and then cry out you are a victim. Typical socialist mentality. I will not entertain you any longer. Spew your garbage at someone else. What I have said is fact and anyone can plainly see your agenda and fallicy.

For reference, those words are capitalized for emphasis to take things IN CONTEXT. -Which you are so fond of not being able to do, as you point out, since many things can be "interpreted" many ways.

When you learn how to take things in context, we will talk. I bet you are one of thoise guys that puts the apostrophy AFTER the "s" to show singular possessive as well.

 

[Reilly]

So no bet then?