Jump to content

Ever a Conspiracy Theory Proven True?


Recommended Posts

You can try to weasel out of it, Yama, but the fact of the matter is that the Koran and the Hadith together form the written basis for Islam, and they're objectively anti-Jew when read honestly. Unless, of course, you'd like to speak in opposition to about a thousand years of Islamic theologic thought?

 

Unfortunately, it is you who is doing the 'weaseling' as me and Jim were talking about Koran, not Hadith.

 

But what about Hadith? Yes, there is a hadith about Dajjal (ie, Anti-Christ) which says that he will have (amongst others) army of 70 000 Jews with him (from Iran!) who will be killed in the battle. Again, this is not an all-inclusive commandment about the Jews. Hey, Koran's second Sura (meaning, it is one of the last Muhammed recited) says that all the believing Christians, Jews and Sabians will be rewarded in Heaven along with the Muslims. Why don't you weasel your way out of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kinda what I'm getting at, there... When you stop and think about it, there's something a little disturbing when a woman wants to call you "Daddy" in a sexual situation, and when two sexual partners are calling themselves mommy and daddy, don't you find that just a little, shall we say, odd?

 

It would, if I didn't know what it was all about.

 

It's reverting to a very primitive and basic state as well as attempting to recalling earlier experiences with affection. This is why couples flirt with each other at dinner by feeding each other: obviously, we can feed our own damn selves and sure as hell know how to use a fork. It's just a callback to that helpless state when we were children.

 

Such a helpless state is more appealing, because it gives an opportunity to show that person affection. We all gather around the baby in swaddling clothes, but who the hell cares about the bratty 9-10 year old or the self-absorbed adolescent?

 

On the flipside, girl calling me "daddy" is a way of complementing me and calling me to my manly duty. She is saying "my father was fully capable of protecting me and providing for me, and so are you (with a good helping of double entendre)." Ditto ditto when I call her "mama," it's my way of saying "like my mom, you are fully capable of being attentive to my needs, except in THOSE kinda ways (ie, "hey good lookin', whatcha got cookin'?")."

 

Here's where I'm coming from. I'm a HUGE fan of Eric Berne's "Transactional Analysis." It posits that we have three modes of thinking: The Parent, which deals in rules, regulations and morality; The Adult, which deals in objectivity; and finally, there is The Child, which deals in emotions.

 

"Transactions" are attempts to get "strokes," ie, attention from other people. They occur b/n the three archetypes I just mentioned, ie, adult-adult, parent-child, adult-child, etc. Much of intimacy with other people is a child-child interaction, very basic, primitive, without any of the adult complications of decorum and pretense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would, if I didn't know what it was all about.

 

It's reverting to a very primitive and basic state as well as attempting to recalling earlier experiences with affection. This is why couples flirt with each other at dinner by feeding each other: obviously, we can feed our own damn selves and sure as hell know how to use a fork. It's just a callback to that helpless state when we were children.

 

Such a helpless state is more appealing, because it gives an opportunity to show that person affection. We all gather around the baby in swaddling clothes, but who the hell cares about the bratty 9-10 year old or the self-absorbed adolescent?

 

On the flipside, girl calling me "daddy" is a way of complementing me and calling me to my manly duty. She is saying "my father was fully capable of protecting me and providing for me, and so are you (with a good helping of double entendre)." Ditto ditto when I call her "mama," it's my way of saying "like my mom, you are fully capable of being attentive to my needs, except in THOSE kinda ways (ie, "hey good lookin', whatcha got cookin'?")."

 

Here's where I'm coming from. I'm a HUGE fan of Eric Berne's "Transactional Analysis." It posits that we have three modes of thinking: The Parent, which deals in rules, regulations and morality; The Adult, which deals in objectivity; and finally, there is The Child, which deals in emotions.

 

"Transactions" are attempts to get "strokes," ie, attention from other people. They occur b/n the three archetypes I just mentioned, ie, adult-adult, parent-child, adult-child, etc. Much of intimacy with other people is a child-child interaction, very basic, primitive, without any of the adult complications of decorum and pretense.

 

I dunno... I suppose it can be rationalized that way, but I still find it a tad on the "squicky" side of things. Possibly because the most memorable practitioners of that form of inter-couple address that I've known were later charged with unspecified acts of child abuse, and had their kids removed. Once the other guy I'm talking about made that connection for me, I haven't been able to look at the issue in the same way.

Edited by thekirk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it is you who is doing the 'weaseling' as me and Jim were talking about Koran, not Hadith.

 

But what about Hadith? Yes, there is a hadith about Dajjal (ie, Anti-Christ) which says that he will have (amongst others) army of 70 000 Jews with him (from Iran!) who will be killed in the battle. Again, this is not an all-inclusive commandment about the Jews. Hey, Koran's second Sura (meaning, it is one of the last Muhammed recited) says that all the believing Christians, Jews and Sabians will be rewarded in Heaven along with the Muslims. Why don't you weasel your way out of that?

 

Ah, yes... One quoted passages against how many others calling the Jews subhuman? And, how many commentators over the years "interpreting" things out of those same sources? Suuuuure, there's no anti-Jewish sentiment in the Islamic written canon, none at all.

 

 

Simply admit it: You're a pro-Islamic apologist, and in denial about the real facts of the faith. Do me a favor, and go tell the Coptic Christians living in Egypt how they have nothing to fear, the Koran says they're going to heaven right along with the Muslims. That ought to really be comforting, in the coming years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ya go, willfully ignorant one:

 

The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time, though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed [the Jew] Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?” Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” This was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam… [Huwayyisa] replied exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 554)

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-murder.htm

 

Sounds like something out of the Manson trials, doesn't it? Nope, that's from the scriptures of the "Religion of Peace".

 

You know, when practising Christians tell me to my face that they believe Christ died for our sins, I believe they really believe that. When practising Catholics tell me to my face that they believe the wine and bread really do transform into the body and blood of Christ, I believe they really believe that. When practising Mormons tell me to my face that they believe that Christ witnessed to the American Indians after his Ressurrection, I believe that they really believe that. And when a practising Muslim looks me in the eye, and says, "Well Jim, what the Koran says about the Jews, you have to understand that I did not write it, but it is in the Koran, so it is the word of God, that in the end times even the rocks and trees will call out to the faithful to kill the Jews," well fuck me blind running, I believe that is what he, and millions of other Muslims, believe. But of course, they don't have the benefit of you to tell them what they REALLY believe, I'm sure you'd set them right fucking straight, now wouldn't you?

 

I can't give you 4 years of undergraduate studies, to a large part focussed on Islamic Studies, as I've had. And I can't give you long night shifts sitting alone with a Muslim talking theology, as I've had. And I can't give you years of living in a fucking dorms WITH Muslims, and with women DATING Muslims. And I won't repeat to you the stories of a girl I dated who moved to Abu Dhabi with her Muslim husband, and still has night terrors over what happened to her there. But if you actually want to educate yourself, and hear what THEY THEMSELVES have to say, then go to http://www.memri.org and have a look and listen to contemporary Muslim media.

Edited by Jim Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites

While we were in the cave, up came Thuman bin Malik bin Ubaydullah al-Taymi cutting grass for a horse of his. He kept coming nearer until he was at the very entrance of the cave... I went out and stabbed him under the breast with the dagger. He shrieked so loud that the Meccans heard him. (al-Tabari 1439)

 

 

When he asked who I was I told him that I was one of the [Muslims]. Then he laid down beside me and lifting up his voice began to sing: "I won't be a Muslim as long as I live, nor heed to their religion give."

 

I said (to myself) 'you will soon know' and as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I it out at the back of his neck. (al-Tabari 1440)

 

 

Amazingly, the murder spree was not yet finished. The Muslims killed a third Meccan on the way back and took another prisoner. Muhammad was told about the various murders, including that of the sleeping shepherd whose only "crime" was to say that he would never be Muslim. He reaction:

 

{Muhammad] laughed so that one could see his back teeth. He asked me the news and when I told him what had happened, he blessed me. (Tabari 1441)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where I'm coming from. I'm a HUGE fan of Eric Berne's "Transactional Analysis." It posits that we have three modes of thinking: The Parent, which deals in rules, regulations and morality; The Adult, which deals in objectivity; and finally, there is The Child, which deals in emotions.

 

"Transactions" are attempts to get "strokes," ie, attention from other people. They occur b/n the three archetypes I just mentioned, ie, adult-adult, parent-child, adult-child, etc. Much of intimacy with other people is a child-child interaction, very basic, primitive, without any of the adult complications of decorum and pretense.

 

All of that would seem to ignore group dynamics common to all higher mammals of the herd ilk (and the Great Apes are certainly a herd animal). Older male/younger female is a dynamic that has been happening for tens of millions of years. Alpha males tend to be older, and have a wider selection of females to impregnate. Younger females are more fecund and more likely to carry the alpha male's genes successfully into the next generation.

 

In my opinion, any psychological theory which does not explain behavior in the higher apes as well as it does in humans has a 99% probability of being total crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jason L

It would, if I didn't know what it was all about.

 

It's reverting to a very primitive and basic state as well as attempting to recalling earlier experiences with affection. This is why couples flirt with each other at dinner by feeding each other: obviously, we can feed our own damn selves and sure as hell know how to use a fork. It's just a callback to that helpless state when we were children.

 

Such a helpless state is more appealing, because it gives an opportunity to show that person affection. We all gather around the baby in swaddling clothes, but who the hell cares about the bratty 9-10 year old or the self-absorbed adolescent?

 

On the flipside, girl calling me "daddy" is a way of complementing me and calling me to my manly duty. She is saying "my father was fully capable of protecting me and providing for me, and so are you (with a good helping of double entendre)." Ditto ditto when I call her "mama," it's my way of saying "like my mom, you are fully capable of being attentive to my needs, except in THOSE kinda ways (ie, "hey good lookin', whatcha got cookin'?")."

 

Here's where I'm coming from. I'm a HUGE fan of Eric Berne's "Transactional Analysis." It posits that we have three modes of thinking: The Parent, which deals in rules, regulations and morality; The Adult, which deals in objectivity; and finally, there is The Child, which deals in emotions.

 

"Transactions" are attempts to get "strokes," ie, attention from other people. They occur b/n the three archetypes I just mentioned, ie, adult-adult, parent-child, adult-child, etc. Much of intimacy with other people is a child-child interaction, very basic, primitive, without any of the adult complications of decorum and pretense.

 

Or its just because some people are really, really, kinky? People are going to sexualise just about anything you can think of, including child-parent relationships. Squicky as all hell but then no one is telling anyone they have to have a sexual relationship with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or its just because some people are really, really, kinky? People are going to sexualise just about anything you can think of, including child-parent relationships. Squicky as all hell but then no one is telling anyone they have to have a sexual relationship with them.

 

OK, wait, what the heck was this thread about again? When I pitched in about Paul I thought this was another one of those religion threads, but it's about conspiracy theories? :blink: How did we get from there to here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, wait, what the heck was this thread about again? When I pitched in about Paul I thought this was another one of those religion threads, but it's about conspiracy theories? How did we get from there to here?

 

That could be explained but then your body will need to be disposed of, because, IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, wait, what the heck was this thread about again? When I pitched in about Paul I thought this was another one of those religion threads, but it's about conspiracy theories? :blink: How did we get from there to here?

 

Er... Have you been on TankNet long? I mean, seriously, this is the only place I've seen where a thread can start out discussing the finer points of WWII German armor procurement, transition to early Christian theology by page two, segue into WWI English battleship track records, and finally end up at a discussion of the details of Alester Crowley's Satanic beliefs. Only to be revived two years later to go through a similar transmogrification and wind up in a discussion of current politics. I sometimes think that we all do this on purpose, playing a perverse game of hot-potato.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest manunancy

The Lutherans showed up long after the Muslims appeared and started obliterating Eastern Christianity. The Crusades were a fairly weak and short-lived counterstroke against centuries of Muslim aggression. The Lutherans didn't do terribly much regarding the Muslims. The Holy League, the Hapsburgs, the Knights of St John, etc were the ones that held the frontier against the savages.

 

And the French, true to form, played both sides, mostly favoring the savages...

 

Well by that time period France was stuck in a rather uncomfortable sandwich with Charles V being both king of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor - and not exactly friendly with France. The turcs were a convenient counterweight for that.

 

In a smilar fashion we supported (not very effectly, but the intention was there) the scots and the irish when things wer sou with the british.

 

I'd call that realpolitic rather than favoring the savages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not he is trying to pick a fight, your effort to change the subject suggests you can't back your claim about Muslim fathers being the only one's who use firearms in Europe.

 

 

As I've said before, I sometimes use hyperbole. If you're too fucking thick to get it, it's your problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well by that time period France was stuck in a rather uncomfortable sandwich with Charles V being both king of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor - and not exactly friendly with France. The turcs were a convenient counterweight for that.

 

In a smilar fashion we supported (not very effectly, but the intention was there) the scots and the irish when things wer sou with the british.

 

I'd call that realpolitic rather than favoring the savages.

 

 

I know. I had to take a shot at the French, though. ;) When I play the period in wargames as the French, the Ottomans are a useful counterweight to the HRE. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lived in Muslim countries and seen good and bad people, just as I have in Christian countries. Why must all Muslims be held accountable for the things that only some do in your mind?

 

 

 

 

So have I. As most of the Muslims I've spoken to it about have explained, what the Koran says and how it is interpreted is just like what The Bible says and how it is interpreted. Context and education are everything. The more backward the person, the less well educated they are, the more literal they are in their interpretation. The better educated, the more subtle the interpretation. Rather like Christians again.

 

 

Here's a fun Arab Ramadan show. We watch shows about Santa during Christmas, during Ramadan they watch shows about Jews kidnapping Christian children and slaughtering them for their blood to put in their Passover matzahs. Blood libel anyone? This is popular Muslim entertainment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe for Catholic Clergy the vow of chastity was a big mistake.

 

There were excellent reasons for the vow of chastity when it was instituted. The time may be passed for that now, I agree. While the reasons for the vow are cloaked in theological grounds, it was in fact instituted for very real political and economic reasons.

 

As for homosexuals in the clergy, first off: there has NEVER in all human history, been a culture which permitted homosexual marriage, until we invented it in the last 10-20 years. It is unnatural, as every one of our forebear civilizations attest. I love how they say it's a "right" now. If a certain act or institution has never existed in human history, it is utterly laughable to suddenly claim it as a "right". The APA listed homosexuality in the DSM until political pressure, bullying, and even death threats forced the APA membership in the '70s to cave to the homosexual lobby. I suggest you do your OWN googling on the subject--I'm fucking sick of having to do peoples' work for them, especially when I've posted the fucking links over and over yet you lot seem too fucking lazy to read what I post.

Edited by Jim Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ya go, willfully ignorant one:

 

The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time, though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed [the Jew] Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?” Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” This was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam… [Huwayyisa] replied exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 554)

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-murder.htm

 

Sounds like something out of the Manson trials, doesn't it? Nope, that's from the scriptures of the "Religion of Peace".

 

So you've began moving goalposts and present a quote which is not from Koran, not even from a proper Hadith, but from a biography which most Muslim scholars consider unreliable?

 

And even then, sadly, you fail, because once again the quote was not a command for inclusive genocide, but shouted in middle of a conflict against a certain tribe of Medinan Jews, with whom Muhammed had a serious fallout and who were plotting to assassinate him.

 

Just a hint, Jim: You MAY want to use sources other than webpages designed for anti-Islam propaganda.

 

You know, when practising Christians tell me to my face that they believe Christ died for our sins, I believe they really believe that. When practising Catholics tell me to my face that they believe the wine and bread really do transform into the body and blood of Christ, I believe they really believe that. When practising Mormons tell me to my face that they believe that Christ witnessed to the American Indians after his Ressurrection, I believe that they really believe that. And when a practising Muslim looks me in the eye, and says, "Well Jim, what the Koran says about the Jews, you have to understand that I did not write it, but it is in the Koran, so it is the word of God, that in the end times even the rocks and trees will call out to the faithful to kill the Jews," well fuck me blind running, I believe that is what he, and millions of other Muslims, believe. But of course, they don't have the benefit of you to tell them what they REALLY believe, I'm sure you'd set them right fucking straight, now wouldn't you?

 

Jim, there is NO SUCH QUOTE IN KORAN.

 

Jews (along with Christians and Sabians) were 'People of the book', who - according to Koran - would go to heaven just like Muslims, if they were righteous (though in Muhammed's opinion, many were not).

 

I can't give you 4 years of undergraduate studies, to a large part focussed on Islamic Studies, as I've had.

 

Obviously you can't, because your ignorance is such that I don't believe you have ever done such studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes... One quoted passages against how many others calling the Jews subhuman? And, how many commentators over the years "interpreting" things out of those same sources? Suuuuure, there's no anti-Jewish sentiment in the Islamic written canon, none at all.

 

Sure, there are passages portraying Jews negatively. So what? These are mostly related to Muhammed's conflict with the Medinan Jewish tribes. Once again, you completely fail to show even slightest understanding of the subject. Hey, do you even know that Arabs (and Muhammed) trace their origins to Israelites (by Ishmael)? IOW, Arabs, by their own folk mythology, are descendents of the Jews! For most of their history, Jews have been better off under Muslim rulers, compared to Christian rulers.

 

Simply admit it: You're a pro-Islamic apologist, and in denial about the real facts of the faith. Do me a favor, and go tell the Coptic Christians living in Egypt how they have nothing to fear, the Koran says they're going to heaven right along with the Muslims. That ought to really be comforting, in the coming years.

 

Hey thekirk, you DO realize that those Coptics have lived alongside Muslims for almost 1400 years, right? Seems to be that this would be unlikely to be the case if the Koran actually did preach genocide to non-Muslims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for homosexuals in the clergy, first off: there has NEVER in all human history, been a culture which permitted homosexual marriage, until we invented it in the last 10-20 years.

 

Not true, strictly speaking, although it has been by no means common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show of hands, who here has dated women who were married to Muslims? Who here has witnessed Muslim treatment of his female friends firsthand? I have done both. They're fucking savages.

I've had a couple of Muslim girlfriends, & one of my (non-Muslim) cousins is married to a Muslim woman. His (Hindu) father was the last person to accept it, & until he died, he couldn't hide his disapproval. Her family didn't like it, but accepted it much more easily.

 

I've known many Muslims, & some are fucking savages - but so are some white English people I've known. Visit any US prison & I know you'll find hordes of non-Muslim fucking savages. Most of the Muslims I've known have been decent people. The parents of my first Muslim girlfriend, at university, were of the "We wish you'd remain a virgin until you marry a nice Muslim, but we respect your right not to conform to our preferences" school. She was careful what she told them, but only so as not to hurt them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, you mention only one innocuous source, and neglect to discuss the more heinous ones. The Koran has also been translated differently many times over the years, and the amount of residual anti-semitism left is usually dependent on the audience the translation is aiming at.

 

I'm not going to go back and dig through all the original sources, but the Wikipedia does a fair job at outlining what the Hadith say:...

 

... the fact of the matter is that the Koran and the Hadith together form the written basis for Islam, and they're objectively anti-Jew when read honestly. Unless, of course, you'd like to speak in opposition to about a thousand years of Islamic theologic thought?

The Hadith is a collection of sayings attributed to Mohammed, but not canonical. Anybody can dispute the validity of any one of 'em. There's a Turkish project examining all of them, their first known appearance, stylistic clues to their origins, etc., & they're throwing them out wholesale. Many were clearly invented centuries after Mohammed's death, for local & temporary political or ideological reasons. There are clusters of related ones which appear in the same place, at the same time, in the same style, & are obviously linked to local politics of the time.

 

There have been previous reviews of this kind, but no Sunni one on the same scale. The Shias are more discriminating in general, rejecting more as fabricated, but every Muslim scholar accepts the idea that there are false hadiths. They also accept that even if accepted as valid, individual hadiths must be read & interpreted in context, & that one should understand that they are likely to not be the exact words of Mohammed, since human memory is faulty & they were generally written down many years later. They have to be read in conjunction with the Koran, to see if they're compatible with it (another criterion used by the Turks).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hadith is a collection of sayings attributed to Mohammed, but not canonical. Anybody can dispute the validity of any one of 'em. There's a Turkish project examining all of them, their first known appearance, stylistic clues to their origins, etc., & they're throwing them out wholesale. Many were clearly invented centuries after Mohammed's death, for local & temporary political or ideological reasons. There are clusters of related ones which appear in the same place, at the same time, in the same style, & are obviously linked to local politics of the time.

 

There have been previous reviews of this kind, but no Sunni one on the same scale. The Shias are more discriminating in general, rejecting more as fabricated, but every Muslim scholar accepts the idea that there are false hadiths. They also accept that even if accepted as valid, individual hadiths must be read & interpreted in context, & that one should understand that they are likely to not be the exact words of Mohammed, since human memory is faulty & they were generally written down many years later. They have to be read in conjunction with the Koran, to see if they're compatible with it (another criterion used by the Turks).

 

Sorry, but source of that?

 

Wikipedia (I know...) has this

 

Criticism of the Hadith by Muslims

 

A Muslim who denies the authority of the Hadith, following the Quran alone, is often called a Quranist.

 

Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–1898) is often considered the founder of the modernist movement within Islam, noted for his application of "rational science" to the Quran and Hadith and his conclusion that the Hadith were not legally binding on Muslims.[11] His student, Chiragh ‘Ali, went further, suggesting nearly all the Hadith were fabrications.[11]

 

Ghulam Ahmed Pervez (1903–1985) was a noted critic of the Hadith and believed that the Quran alone was all that was necessary to discern God's will and our obligations. A fatwa, ruling, signed by more than a thousand orthodox clerics, denounced him as a 'kafir', a non-believer.[12] His seminal work, Maqam-e Hadith argued that the Hadith were composed of "the garbled words of previous centuries", but suggests that he is not against the idea of collected sayings of the Prophet, only that he would consider any hadith that goes against the teachings of Quran to have been falsely attributed to the Prophet.[13]

 

Al-Shafi'i, a Muslim scholar, ruled that "only the Koran can abrogate the Koran, and only a Sunna can abrogate a Sunna".[14] But when scholars ran into trouble seeking to have Hadith overrule aspects of the Quran, they "probably" invented the category of al-Tilawa bidun al-hukm, the doctrine that there had originally been a Quranic verse which supported the Hadith - and could thus overrule the troublesome Quranic invocation - even though it no longer survived.[14]

 

The 1986 Malaysian book "Hadith: A Re-evaluation" by Kassim Ahmad was met with controversy and some scholars declared him an apostate from Islam for suggesting that "“the hadith are sectarian, anti-science, anti-reason and anti-women".[11][15]

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith

 

Seems that the uncanonicalness of hadiths is fairly modern...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, there are passages portraying Jews negatively. So what? These are mostly related to Muhammed's conflict with the Medinan Jewish tribes. Once again, you completely fail to show even slightest understanding of the subject. Hey, do you even know that Arabs (and Muhammed) trace their origins to Israelites (by Ishmael)? IOW, Arabs, by their own folk mythology, are descendents of the Jews! For most of their history, Jews have been better off under Muslim rulers, compared to Christian rulers.

 

 

 

Hey thekirk, you DO realize that those Coptics have lived alongside Muslims for almost 1400 years, right? Seems to be that this would be unlikely to be the case if the Koran actually did preach genocide to non-Muslims.

 

You do follow the news, do you not? Are you aware of the steady work being accomplished across the Islamic world, forcing conversions, driving out other religious faiths, and outright killing them? Let's see... Ba'Hai and Zoroastrians in Iran--Both of whom have pretty lengthy histories of being harassed to death. Then, there are Christians in Palestinian areas around Israel, Jews anywhere in the Islamic world. Animists and Christians in South Sudan, Buddhists in Southern Thailand, Christians in Indonesia, and who else? Note a common trait for all those sects and ethnic groups: They lived in peace for a long time, but never were allowed to increase their numbers or much of anything else. All of these groups are undergoing slow-motion genocide as they are either forced to "submit" to Islam (which is a far more accurate translation of that lie which describes it as the Religion of Peace) or die. The Coptics are merely in the end stages of the process which destroyed Christian communities across the Middle East. Remember, at the time of the first Islamic attacks on the Byzantine era, Syria was the cradle of the Christian church, and remained a Christian majority for a long time after. The conversion process took centuries to complete.

 

So, yes, the Coptics have lived side-by-side with the Muslim faith for centuries. Care to guess how long that's going to last? Current political situation in mind, I suspect we're going to see just how open-minded Europe really is about these matters. Personally, I have a bad feeling that the Coptic persecutions and pogroms are going to begin here very shortly, and that the refugees are going to be faced with the same welcome that the German Jews got in the 1930s. God help us all, because I'm pretty sure we're about to watch a replay of the Holocaust, with a similar outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheKirk, you shouldn't point out such about the religion of peace lest they come and chop off your head...

 

Whilst there are surely peaceable and likeable Muslims their fanatical brethren have painted the religion far more effectively than any broad brush here could ever have done. At the end of the day the Muslims will almost certainly try to defeat the West by force of arms. It is what they do, and always have, never to change. Recent history indicates they will lose...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yes, the Coptics have lived side-by-side with the Muslim faith for centuries. Care to guess how long that's going to last? Current political situation in mind, I suspect we're going to see just how open-minded Europe really is about these matters. Personally, I have a bad feeling that the Coptic persecutions and pogroms are going to begin here very shortly, and that the refugees are going to be faced with the same welcome that the German Jews got in the 1930s. God help us all, because I'm pretty sure we're about to watch a replay of the Holocaust, with a similar outcome.

 

See, you have actually hit the nail, by accident probably. 'Persecutions' are entirely political, driven by people who mask their extermist political ambition and bigotry with religion. If the persecutions were because 'Islam says so', all the Jews, Christians etc. would have been driven out of Middle East thousand years ago. You must agree that it is pretty unlikely that all those Muslims would have woken up only within last few years and noticed "hey, the Islam actually says we should kill all the non-Muslims", isn't it?

 

As it is, probably around 95% of the people killed by Muslim extremists are other Muslims. Heck, OBL's ilk organized a bloodbath inside the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Yep, those folks are really pious...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...