RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy

RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 6:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Mods??? We need a new fora for Sanity and his definition of rational discussion please? PS Sanity Where do you stand on catholicism and the bible? And anglican church on the bible? Im talking the bible that includes the old and new testament? serious question and yes it does relate to the topic. No,he's already rejected this,called it a derail to judaism.....lol.Seriously,check page 1 [:D]

cloudboy -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 6:51:13 PM)
To repeat, I find it illuminating that "militant" Islam is superimposed over the Koran from many high levels, Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) and from other centers. Maybe this is just a "soft" way of opposing the West and a strong way to legitimize local power structures. From their POV, random terrorism will never compare with the Western invasions, drone strikes, and meddling in the region. >These spasms of terrorism cry out for a conversation among Muslims about faith and tolerance. Islamic reformers could point out that the Koran prescribes no punishment at all for blasphemers besides telling others to keep their distance from them. The holy book that decrees death for blasphemy is the Bible (Leviticus 24:16). Fortunately, a Saudi liberal, Raif Badawi, has kick-started a public discussion about Islam and modernity on his blog. Good for Saudi Arabia for promoting this kind of debate! Well, no. Actually, our Saudi allies sentenced Badawi to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” The first 50 lashes were delivered in a public flogging on Friday, and Badawi is scheduled to receive 50 more every Friday until he reaches 1,000. “Raif raised his head toward the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back," Amnesty International quoted a witness as saying. There is a difference between murdering cartoonists and flogging bloggers. But still! Saudi Arabia could play a leadership role in Islam. In the mid-20th century, King Abdul Aziz al-Saud overcame traditionalists who opposed cars, radio and the telegraph as non-Islamic by having the Koran read aloud on the radio. Yet since then Saudi elites have retreated, sipping whiskey at private parties while deferring publicly to the traditionalists. Saudi Arabia does not allow Christian churches and sometimes has confiscated Bibles. (I once smuggled in a Bible to see what would happen if I were caught; Saudi customs officials searched the wrong bag.) The kingdom oppresses Shiites, funds extremist Wahhabi madrasas across the Islamic world and last month referred two women to its antiterrorism courts — for driving cars. To be blunt, Saudi Arabia legitimizes Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance.< http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/nicholas-kristof-an-islamic-reformer-lashed.html?ref=international&_r=0

Aylee -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 7:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee And this has to do with military troop training and tactics how? Or the topic? The contention is that this terrorism is mired in Islam. The science says that it isn't. If you can't see the relevance of what motivates modern Arabs to commit terrorist acts when discussing why terrorists don't like X or Y then best of luck to you. The specific post of mine you replied to had to do with indiscriminate shooting. My response had to do with Islamic culture and military training and tactics regarding shooting. Terrorism, not so much. I think that it is great that you are snipping but you may want to make sure you read and understand the above posts before replying.

Aylee -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 7:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And yet, you insist they're mired in the 7th century. You'll have to decide which at some point, if you want to pretend logic. Their ideology is mired in the seventh century Its the ideology, stupid Ah, so if that's the case - to re-ask the question that you dodged earlier - how would you explain the billions of Muslims who live amongst Christians and others and, rather than slay them, and stuff, sort of get on with them, live and work with them, and that kind of thing? Or would such people not, in fact, be 'Muslims' in your book, by definition? Would Syria be a good example of one of these places? Or Paris? Or Manhattan. I could go on all day... Paris and Manhattan would indeed be good examples. Syria is a bit difficult, of course, because there you have mostly Muslims giving grief to other Muslims. What percentage of Muslims in Manhattan or Paris, do you think, have not, ever, in their lives, followed any of the alleged dictates in the Koran to kill or even persecute their non-Muslim neighbours, friends or workmates? I have a feeling it's actually quite high. In Paris, it's all of them, bar - what, three, four? Except the ones persecuting the French Jews, of course. They are what. . a percent or so of the population and receive 40% of "hate" crimes done by Muslims? (My numbers should be close if not exact.) I mean, there IS a reason that Jews are fleeing France and all of Europe.

Aylee -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 8:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Good war advice. Or what to do when assaulted--which doesn't essentially differ from your own view to shoot blindly and sort it out later. Anything on the topic? I do not think that I have ever advocated "spray and pray," which IS the Islamic culture's method of firearm use. Inshallah is not my method of accomplishing things either. Which is another issue with Islamic culture and their soldiers (which is actually the reason behind "spray and pray"." I have even commented about Boko Haram possibly trying to bring back Janissaries. I have used that verse to advocate for bringing back crucifixion for jihadiscum/terrorists/RIFs/whatever you want to call them. I have also stated that I believe that a large amount of jihadiscum/terrorists/RIFs/whatever will need to be killed before change is effected. Shooting blindly? Not so much. On topic? Islam's problem with blasphemy is the death written into its own scripture that ya'll want to ignore. laughable Aylee, considering you advocate turning the place to glass. Still, its nice to see you are thinking about gun control. [8\|] Hey now, I am also good with fuel air explosives. But, yeah, all of that takes targeting. And a LACK of Inshallah. Is there some reason that you are addressing ME instead of the topic at hand?

Aylee -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 8:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Only in your tiny brain bruv. Let me get this straight. . . As long as it is MUSLIMS selling women into slavery, stoning them, not allowing them civil rights, honor killing them, and so forth. . . it is hunky-dory in your world. Ya know this does not surprise me. You have repeatedly shown that you do NOT consider women as equal humans. After all, women should not be allowed to defend themselves. . . Thousands of girls being raped and threatened is okay. . . And let's see. .v. you are likely okay with the latest pedophilia stuff coming out of the UK. I can see why you sympathize with Boko Haram and ISIS.

Musicmystery -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 8:26:19 PM)
I don't think you've got it straight quite yet...

stef -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 8:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer That is a senseless response, Sanity. Well, it IS "Sanity".

Lucylastic -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 9:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Only in your tiny brain bruv. Let me get this straight. . . As long as it is MUSLIMS selling women into slavery, stoning them, not allowing them civil rights, honor killing them, and so forth. . . it is hunky-dory in your world. Ya know this does not surprise me. You have repeatedly shown that you do NOT consider women as equal humans. After all, women should not be allowed to defend themselves. . . Thousands of girls being raped and threatened is okay. . . And let's see. .v. you are likely okay with the latest pedophilia stuff coming out of the UK. I can see why you sympathize with Boko Haram and ISIS. No, YOU have laid that at his feet. ONLY YOU are resonsible for your idiotic assumptions

Aylee -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/15/2015 11:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Only in your tiny brain bruv. Let me get this straight. . . As long as it is MUSLIMS selling women into slavery, stoning them, not allowing them civil rights, honor killing them, and so forth. . . it is hunky-dory in your world. Ya know this does not surprise me. You have repeatedly shown that you do NOT consider women as equal humans. After all, women should not be allowed to defend themselves. . . Thousands of girls being raped and threatened is okay. . . And let's see. .v. you are likely okay with the latest pedophilia stuff coming out of the UK. I can see why you sympathize with Boko Haram and ISIS. No, YOU have laid that at his feet. ONLY YOU are resonsible for your idiotic assumptions He defended child rapists.

Lucylastic -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 1:09:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Only in your tiny brain bruv. Let me get this straight. . . As long as it is MUSLIMS selling women into slavery, stoning them, not allowing them civil rights, honor killing them, and so forth. . . it is hunky-dory in your world. Ya know this does not surprise me. You have repeatedly shown that you do NOT consider women as equal humans. After all, women should not be allowed to defend themselves. . . Thousands of girls being raped and threatened is okay. . . And let's see. .v. you are likely okay with the latest pedophilia stuff coming out of the UK. I can see why you sympathize with Boko Haram and ISIS. No, YOU have laid that at his feet. ONLY YOU are resonsible for your idiotic assumptions He defended child rapists. No, He absolutely did NOT not once. YOU made an assumption that proved to be wrong, in more ways than one, and this isnt the first time you have made that claim, he made an attempt to explain the word of grooming from the report to TheHeretic then the shit hit the fan He responded to you in post http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4726516 quote: Dont put words in my mouth. I have never blamed anybody other than the perpertrators. You stupid remarks show you "Still" havent read the report. I did say the girls were looking for love, some even claimed they loved the victim, that doesnt mean I think that makes it okay and saying it does only makes you look like a silly. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4726767 The report section with the expression grooming in it, that several people swore blind wasnt there.... please note that the mod mentioned in post http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4727013 We have few rules in the Feisty sections, but I am currently seeing a need for one or two more. It has been a rare occurrence when I have found someone insinuating that someone was a ‘criminal’ or someone that encouraged, took part or enabled ‘criminals’ and ‘criminal activity’, but when I have, it has been removed from the forum. Now, creating a guideline for this could get tricky because many will ‘interpret’ anything we come up with from a personal standpoint that could get complicated or shall I say, nitpicky. So, for the moment and especially on this thread, if you are tempted to accuse someone that is not personally involved in the thread ‘news’ or ‘situation’, of taking part, being a party to, allowing, encouraging or involved because of where they reside or any other 'factoid', you will face moderation. It is as simple as that. Complicate it and that would be on you, not moderators or staff, to interpret as you do or to explain further by way of arguing ‘points’. If in any manner I believe you are insinuating that someone uninvolved in this ‘news’ is a party to or encouraging it, that is what staff will be working from. Just don’t do it. I may have to post this on every page until everyone gets it, but I am serious about this. Choose your words any way you must, to assure you aren’t insinuating that someone is a party to this in any manner. Thank you for your compliance as we move forward. And here you are doing it again. why?

tweakabelle -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 2:48:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy According to Mustafa Akyoi, a Turkish Journalist,, "Blasphemy" is not a punishable offense as described by the Quran. I must say, it helps me to have someone versed in ISLAM who knows its history and texts -- put the actions of militants in perspective. >The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts. All these doctrinal innovations, as it were, were brought into the literature of Islam as medieval scholars interpreted it, according to the norms of their time and milieu. ....Before all that politically motivated expansion and toughening of Shariah, though, the Quran told early Muslims, who routinely faced the mockery of their faith by pagans: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.” Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.< First of all apologies as I came to this thread rather late. My first reaction to the OP was to google the text quoted in the OP to wit: "God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them." You can see the full results here: https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=God+has+told+you+in+the+Book+that+when+you+hear+God%E2%80%99s+revelations+disbelieved+in+and+mocked+at%2C+do+not+sit+with+them+until+they+enter+into+some+other+discourse%3B+surely+then+you+would+be+like+them. I clicked on the first link:http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=140 I was surprised to see the verse listed as (4:140) not (33:57–61) the verse others discussed at the beginning of the thread. I was even more surprised to see that no less than seven (7) different translations were listed, with no particular one given a higher status despite significant variations in the translated texts. The results that I read supported cloudboy's assertions. I could find nothing that mentioned massacring the 'unbelievers' or 'blasphemers' at the end of the translated quote, or any text that supported the alternative reading offered by Sanity and one or two others. All 7 translations concluded with translations that closely approximated the first translation's rendering, which was: " so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together " The importance of the fact that there are 7 differing renderings of the same quote should not be underestimated. Those with some academic training in the humanities will be well aware of the numerous pitfalls inherent in cross cultural comparisons. Picking one isolated bit of another culture and comparing it to another culture (say Western culture) is fraught with dangers. For example, picking one quote from the Quran and reading it literally - as some have done in this thread - is a gross error. This is taking the quote out of context and dangerously ascribing a meaning to it that may not be that intended in the original. For a more complete understanding, the quote should be read against the culture as a whole and a failure to do this is (at an academic level) a serious flaw. Reading and understanding religious texts is a serious discipline of its own - theology - even without straying across cultural borders. For instance there are considerable controversies and disputes about the meanings of Biblical texts within Western theology. One doesn't need academic training to realise that cross cultural theologies are especially open to misinterpretation and abuse by untrained people taking one or two quotes out of context and claiming - as some have done consistently above - that their interpretation represents the essence of the religion in question. That is a case of the blind leading the blind (are you listening Sanity?) So, whatever your views on Islam, please be seriously sceptical about those who posit a quote or two and claim it represents the essence of the religion. They are almost certainly going to be incorrect in their claims. If religious scholars whose life work has been the study and interpretation of Quranic texts cannot agree on the translations and interpretations of particular sections of the text what chance is there that someone with no training in the discipline and a strong ideological bias against Islam is going to get it right?

tweakabelle -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 2:53:34 AM)
sorry double post

Bhruic -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 3:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Saw the context. And it still makes no sense. As long as you can get a good derail out of it, what does it matter "I hold the ideology to no one" does indeed make no sense, Sanity. In fairness, did you not say " It makes no sense to talk about 'the ideology' without referring to the people who (you) claim to hold that ideology, too. "? You said he was holding someone to an ideology, and he replied he was holding it to no one. Made sense to me... at least grammatically.

Bhruic -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 3:18:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy These spasms of terrorism cry out for a conversation among Muslims about faith and tolerance. Islamic reformers could point out that the Koran prescribes no punishment at all for blasphemers besides telling others to keep their distance from them. The holy book that decrees death for blasphemy is the Bible (Leviticus 24:16). The Bible, and the Prophet, according to the Hadith... Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' — Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260 Although... as with most religious writing, this seems confused and self contradictory. He would not have burned him, but he would have killed him? Burning is Allah's punishment, but killing is not? Religion with interpretive loopholes... imagine that!

Staleek -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 6:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic My mistake... I read too quickly. Sorry. I don't think it is about converting people to Islam. It is about punishing the infidels, Isn't it? Nope. Remember the vast majority of the Muslim world isn't implicated in any of this terrorism. I am not talking about the "peaceful Muslims who don't do any harm", I am talking about the Malaysians, Indonesians, Indians etc who don't commit terrorism, but are also followers of Islam. Furthermore, you can tell a lot about the terrorists from their targets. The defining quantifier of the targets is that they have extensive interests in the nation states the terrorists are coming from. For example look at Iraq. We in the west have been bombing the country, consistently, since 1991, as well as an illegal invasion. If you're an Iraqi and you're under 33 years old all you know to watch the skies for Americans. Another thing to consider is that most of these countries are in fact secular states (or once where). Iran was a secular democracy until we fucked it up. Look at a map of Palestine, and look at how the Palestinian land shrinks over the decades. The recent attack took place in France, which of all European countries has introduced legislation to specifically target Muslims (such as the banning of the burka etc). This is a problem of Middle Easterners feeling excluded and oppressed (often with justification), and retaliating. Dislike religion personally all you like, but objectively it can't be blamed for this.

Musicmystery -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 6:25:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Except the ones persecuting the French Jews, of course. I mean, there IS a reason that Jews are fleeing France and all of Europe. Fleeing? France has the third largest Jewish population, after the US and Israel. Additionally, according to a 2005 poll made by the Pew Research Center, there is no evidence of any specific antisemitism in France, which, according to this poll, appears to be one of the least antisemitic countries in Europe,[58] though France has the world's third largest Jewish population.[1] France is the country that has the most favourable views of Jews in Europe (82%), next to the Netherlands, and the third country with the least unfavourable views (16%) next to the UK and the Netherlands. Between 2000 and 2009, 13,315 French Jews moved to Israel, or made aliyah, an increase compared to the previous decade (1990–1999 : 10,443) that was in the continuity of a similar increase since the 1970s.[64] A peak was reached during this period, in 2005 (2005: 2,951 Olim) but a significant proportion (between 20 and 30%) eventually came back to France. But that's out of 600,000 in the French Jewish community.

cloudboy -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 6:41:01 AM)
There's a principle of law similar to what you are saying: IF you read a statute and think you understand it, it's proof that you don't.

cloudboy -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 6:55:03 AM)
Americans have a hard time connecting those dots.

Sanity -> RE: Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy (1/16/2015 7:08:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy These spasms of terrorism cry out for a conversation among Muslims about faith and tolerance. Islamic reformers could point out that the Koran prescribes no punishment at all for blasphemers besides telling others to keep their distance from them. The holy book that decrees death for blasphemy is the Bible (Leviticus 24:16). The Bible, and the Prophet, according to the Hadith... Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' — Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260 Although... as with most religious writing, this seems confused and self contradictory. He would not have burned him, but he would have killed him? Burning is Allah's punishment, but killing is not? Religion with interpretive loopholes... imagine that! Its okay to chop off all of ones fingers or their hands and feet or crucify them or bury them alive or decapitate them apparently, you just cant burn them alive

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875