Understanding the Enemy

[numinus]

And I can assure you I would be the first to condemn the mosaic law if we had jews running around stoning to death criminals.

You notice how the West tends to ignore his calls to end all wars?

Im an atheist einstein. It is for the Islamic fundamentalist who "translate into literal, verbatim imperative", thats what fundamentalist do.

You not only repeated an irrelevant answer, you utterly failed to understand the question to begin with.

The answer, btw, is NOTHING. Stoning to death or the pope's infallibility in geopolitics have nothing to do with acceptance of faith nor in modern life simply because they were authored UNDER AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MILLIEU. Same goes for your silly assertions.

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

I said 'THE religion (islam) in its entirety'. Are you illiterate as well?

And if, by your own admission, the fundamentalists are the one's doing the absurd interpretations, shouldn't you direct your criticism at the fundamentalists RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE, hmmm?

???? What reasoning would that be? And I am critical of many different philosophies and Epistemologies, fortunately most are limited to theoretical debate without too much impact in the world. Im very critical of many American laws, most wouldnt interpret my criticism as criticism of americans.

'Critical' is hardly the word anyone would use to describe your reasoning.

Do you, for instance reject mathematics entirely in view of godel's incompleteness theorems, hmmm?

Do you deny logic altogether simply because there are paradoxes, hmmm?

I can already see screws in that archaic contraption you call your brain coming loose.

??? Again, my view of Islam is irrelevant. It is the views of the Islamic Fundamentalist who wage jihad against the west because they believe Allah requires that they do so.
I think you are just a little too close to the topic to think rationally about it.

And YET, you insist on criticizing the islamic religion rather than the fundamentalists who wage jihad on the basis of goat-herder logic!

There it is - your idiocy made plain for everyones ridicule.

 

[numinus]

Dude, he quoted a verse and made a comment about Al qaeda. Who is lumping anyone together.

LOL

You are.

 

[jb_1430]

Insufficient. If your criticisms are pointed solely at the doctrine, a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine should not affect your argument. After all, the words aren't going to change - only the various interpretations.

Not sure I follow. My arguement would remain. It would simply become academic. Im still critical of Nazi doctrine even though there was a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine, by those who previously followed it.

And even if every single Muslim "Ignore(s) the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed", as you said you'd have them do, the words of their holy books would not change.

Correct. Im still critical of old testament doctrine regarding stoning of criminals, but it is purely academic as we dont have too much of a problem with Jews or Christians stoning people to death.

In other words, what you'd like to see happen were the problems you'd like acknowledged accepted as truth would not have much, if any, bearing on the problems themselves.

Was that a coherent thought? If you are trying to characterize MY position, I doubt you are even close. If all Muslims ignored all the verses in the haddiths and quran regarding war against the unbelievers, the imams couldnt use them to indoctrinate the minions, the Wahhabi scholars couldnt extol the virtues of jihad against the west to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate, and terrorist couldnt rationalize allahs blessings for their deeds.

That is one passage from a book of many, many passages. I could cherrypick things out of Mein Kampf and say, "Hey, this is positive!" For instance, Hitler had a love of landscape artistry - I like landscape artistry too.

There are plenty of people who think the Qur'an as whole is okay.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/KoranaBookofPeaceNotWarScholarsSay.aspx

Oooohhh let me freakin guess, I bet CAIR is going to "cherrypick things out of" the Koran and say, "Hey, this is positive!" . Like with Mein Kampf, you can still point to the other bad parts. Lets see what CAIR has to say.

The quest to control base instincts such as greed, lust, and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity is known by Muslims as the "great jihad." Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" is a person's most important internal struggle.

Hmmm? Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad". Do quotation marks mean the same thing to Muslims? You can put "jihad" in any koran search and see it is never used.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/simple.html
here you can search 3 different translations
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html
jihad simply doesnt appear in the Quran

Nyang quotes Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."

"Hey, this is positive!", I guess. Why isnt he quoting one of those "Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" " references?... Oh thats right, were going for one of those "Hey, this is positive!" moments. It basically says those who answered the call of Allah and went into battle at Ohud get a great reward.
One might conclude that ALL your arguements are "Insufficient", "So try again".

 

[numinus]

Btw, moses and jesus are considered prophets in the islamic faith - hence jews and christians are peoples of the book. Jihad is never extorted on peoples of the book. Apparently, that doesn't stop goat-herders nonsense crying for the blood of israel. Neither does that stop your nonsense criticism of islam.

Nonsense!

 

[jb_1430]

You not only repeated an irrelevant answer, you utterly failed to understand the question to begin with.

The answer, btw, is NOTHING.

Your about as perceptive as a rock. Try to follow. You asked

does it invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY????

and I responded.

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

If my criticisms are not even directed at the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY, my criticisms certainly wouldnt invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY. I understood the question just fine. As usual you couldnt even begin to comprehend the answer.

Stoning to death or the pope's infallibility in geopolitics have nothing to do with acceptance of faith.

hey, you guys are the authority on faith. Im an atheist so whatever point you are trying to make regarding "faith", I concede that point.

nor in modern life simply because they were authored UNDER AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MILLIEU.

I believe the term is spelled milieu. And if you are arguing that they should ignore all the nasty bits about "slay the idolaters" and "jihad" against the unbelievers because they are only applicable to that milieu in 7th century Arabia, that is my hope as well.

Same goes for your silly assertions.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing debate over the permissibility and scope of ijtihad, among the so called Islamic scholars. Unfortunately among the fundamentalist, there is no debate. Search on "gates of ijtihad", there is a lot written on the debate.

I said 'THE religion (islam) in its entirety'.

Yes you did. I did not.

And if, by your own admission, the fundamentalists are the one's doing the absurd interpretations, shouldn't you direct your criticism at the fundamentalists RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE, hmmm?

"absurd interpretations", Even though you consider the writers of the Buhkari haddiths to be "goat herders" writing "absurd interpretations", doesnt negate the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as second only to the Koran in religious authority. And I am critical of the fundamentalist. If the doctrine was "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", I wouldnt be critical of the doctrine. Since it is "slay the idolaters where you find them" that they are interpreting literaly, I am also critical of that doctrine.

'Critical' is hardly the word anyone would use to describe your reasoning.

Do you, for instance reject......

Im an atheist. I reject the Islamic doctrine. Please dont slay me. I do not reject mathmatics.
I think your perception of my posting of verses from the quran and haddiths, and writings from respected Islamic scholars, as an attack on the religion in its entirety, only further demonstrates my point about the content of those verses and writings. YOU percieve my exposing of them to be an attack on the religion because of their content.

 

[jb_1430]

Btw, moses and jesus are considered prophets in the islamic faith - hence jews and christians are peoples of the book. Jihad is never extorted on peoples of the book. Apparently, that doesn't stop goat-herders nonsense crying for the blood of israel. Neither does that stop your nonsense criticism of islam.Nonsense!

"Never"?? Always!!!! "UNTIL they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Which means always because the christians and the jews are not going to pay your damned tax or aknowledge superiority.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

[numinus]

Your about as perceptive as a rock. Try to follow. You asked



and I responded.



If my criticisms are not even directed at the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY, my criticisms certainly wouldnt invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY. I understood the question just fine. As usual you couldnt even begin to comprehend the answer.

How in hell can you understand the question if you do not even understand the word, hmmm?

Isn't religion precisely the idea embodied in doctrine, hmmm?

hey, you guys are the authority on faith. Im an atheist so whatever point you are trying to make regarding "faith", I concede that point.

Don't berate yourself too much. Not everyone is capable of comprehending the intricacies of theology. For the unfortunate, there is always atheism.

And since we are talking of the islamic faith as it relates to global politics, then you might as well concede the entire argument.

I believe the term is spelled milieu. And if you are arguing that they should ignore all the nasty bits about "slay the idolaters" and "jihad" against the unbelievers because they are only applicable to that milieu in 7th century Arabia, that is my hope as well.

You're at least good for running spell-check. That much, I can concede.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing debate over the permissibility and scope of ijtihad, among the so called Islamic scholars. Unfortunately among the fundamentalist, there is no debate. Search on "gates of ijtihad", there is a lot written on the debate.




Yes you did. I did not.



"absurd interpretations", Even though you consider the writers of the Buhkari haddiths to be "goat herders" writing "absurd interpretations", doesnt negate the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as second only to the Koran in religious authority. And I am critical of the fundamentalist. If the doctrine was "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others as you would have them to unto you", I wouldnt be critical of the doctrine. Since it is "slay the idolaters where you find them" that they are interpreting literaly, I am also critical of that doctrine.

Jews and christians are hardly 'idolaters' since they are part of the same monotheistic tradition. If you are so taken with literal interpretations, you might as well be completely literal.

Im an atheist. I reject the Islamic doctrine. Please dont slay me. I do not reject mathmatics.

And you have no business, WHATSOEVER, accepting or rejecting islamic doctrine nor mathematics since you don't know the first thing about them.

I think your perception of my posting of verses from the quran and haddiths, and writings from respected Islamic scholars, as an attack on the religion in its entirety, only further demonstrates my point about the content of those verses and writings. YOU percieve my exposing of them to be an attack on the religion because of their content.

You're back-pedalling is lost to no one.

So, what are you criticising - for the record?

The doctrine or the interpretation of goat-herders, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

"Never"?? Always!!!! "UNTIL they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Which means always because the christians and the jews are not going to pay your damned tax or aknowledge superiority.

So, all of a sudden, jihad is about taxes, eh?

I can't wait to see what kind of source you would present in support of that nonsense!

 

[numinus]

To those inclined to believe goat-herder logic:

http://www.islamdoor.com/People.htm

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance. Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Koran, is very friendly and tolerant....

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/thebook.htm

IT is well-known that the Koran abounds in references to "the People of the Book."1 From the context in each case it is clear that the author thereby wished to denote the Jews specially, but also in a less degree that he associated the Christians too with them in the title. After the Moslem conquest of Persia, the Zoroastrians endeavoured in some measure to shelter themselves also under that appellation, for the "People of the Book" had the privilege of choosing between embracing Islam on the one hand, and being compelled to pay "the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low" on the other, while all other religious communities had the sword to dread.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/SlideShows/SlideShow.asp?SlideShowID=39&SlideDetailID=360

People of the Book

"Those who believe (in the Koran), and those who follow the Jewish (Torah), and the Christians and the Sabians—any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

—Koran 2:62
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/peopleq.htm

A horde of other verses in the koran that mentions jews and christians to many to post here.

 

[jb_1430]

How in hell can you understand the question if you do not even understand the word, hmmm?
Isn't religion precisely the idea embodied in doctrine, hmmm?

No.

Jews and christians are hardly 'idolaters' since they are part of the same monotheistic tradition. If you are so taken with literal interpretations, you might as well be completely literal.

Yes thats mighty white to give them the opportunity to live another day if they will only accept their "state of subjection".

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

[jb_1430]

So, all of a sudden, jihad is about taxes, eh?

I can't wait to see what kind of source you would present in support of that nonsense!

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

[jb_1430]

http://www.islamdoor.com/People.htm

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance... Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Koran, is very friendly and tolerant....

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/thebook.htm

... for the "People of the Book" had the privilege of choosing between embracing Islam on the one hand, and being compelled to pay "the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low" on the other, while all other religious communities had the sword to dread.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/SlideShows/SlideShow.asp?SlideShowID=39&SlideDetailID=360

Very friendly indeed.

 

[numinus]

No.

Nobody need believe you on this. After all, you have no competence in religious matters anyway.

Yes thats mighty white to give them the opportunity to live another day if they will only accept their "state of subjection".

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

And where is jihad in that, eh?

 

[bewitched]

Nobody need believe you on this. After all, you have no competence in religious matters anyway.



And where is jihad in that, eh?

I believe everything jb says because it's perfectly accurate.
"Jihad, meaning "to strive" or "to struggle", in Arabic, is an Islamic term and considered a duty by some Muslims. It appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen."
wiki.

 

[numinus]

Very friendly indeed.

LMAO.

Your crap is finite after all!