Xellas wrote:Let's suggest that behind EVERY one of those 6000 attacks you mentioned, there was a support network of 100 people, and no support networks had ANY overlaps (more than likely a gross overestimation). That makes 600,000 different people supporting this extreme, bloody version of Islam. Or less than 5% of the estimated worldwide total of Muslims. If the religion itself was at fault, that number would be at least up in the 20% range, more than likely higher.
So, in your opinion, having 5% of a religion support killing everyone who opposes it is simply a... quirk?
Xellas wrote:They are also known for organized charity, advancement of the medical world by leaps and bounds in their time, and uniting of a horribly bloody segment of the world under one rule that minimizes the violence and bloodshed. At least up until we walked in and started stirring things around because we didn't agree with who was in charge.
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
I call having 5% of a religion be misguided and stupid (And that 5% number was VASTLY EXXAGERATED if you didn't catch that) to be exactly that... having stupid people involved. I fail to see how that 5% makes the other 95% of the people evil because they follow the same (generally speaking) faith. Apparantly you people are very set on taking numbers literally rather than looking at the overall points I'm trying to make.
In response to their history of conquest... Try finding history about pre-Islamic clan warfare, which if I remember corretly was far bloodier than what Islam did.
As for the article you pointed me to... well I just got done taking a class with a professor who spent 20 years living among them, and he has absolutely nothing but kind things to say about them. The fact that you can pull one article from someone who has negative things to say about them doesn't prove anything one way or another. That article simply
The overall point I'm making is that you can't call an entire RELIGION evil simply because a MINORITY commits evil in it's name. A good example of an EVIL religion is black mass satanism, where the majority of worhsippers perform heinous acts as a part of day to day life. Compare to Islam, where a very small group of rather vocal nutjobs have taken it upon themselves to make everyone miserable.
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7
How great would the world be if we REALLY practiced that?
Xellas wrote:I call having 5% of a religion be misguided and stupid (And that 5% number was VASTLY EXXAGERATED if you didn't catch that) to be exactly that... having stupid people involved. I fail to see how that 5% makes the other 95% of the people evil because they follow the same (generally speaking) faith. Apparantly you people are very set on taking numbers literally rather than looking at the overall points I'm trying to make.
That's funny, I recently (*) came to the conclusion that about 5% of any group is made up of complete and unredeemable assholes.
(*) When a nazi party got 7.9% of the votes in one of Germany's federal states this year.
Axelgear wrote:
Not to be a grammar nazi (No pun intended), it's Christandom and/or Christianity and Buddhist. There's no such thing as Christianism.
While I am thankful for correction, I'd like to point out my profile wich kind of states that enlish isnt my primary language (its the third language I learned, and the second I can actually speak )
The JAM wrote:Perhaps, we should start by first asking some very basic questions:
1. Who are they?
Primarily, the Sunni population of Iraq.
More accurately, that would be Sunni arabs as we are quite friendly with the kurds who are also Sunni.
If you measure by violence and barbarism Al Queda and foreign fighters gain a more prominent position. The Sunni Iraqi arabs are generally not the suicide guys and a large fraction of them have already been won over by negotiation. That makes them a different type of enemy.
Calbeck wrote:
2. What do they want?
Return of control of Iraq's government, economy, and military, all three of which they overwhelmingly dominated since Hussein came to power in 1979, despite being a minority culture.
Again, the motivations of the other sides to this conflict change depending on which faction they belong to. Whether the Sunni Baathists would end up on top were we to pull out and Iraq were to fall to an authoritarian/totalitarian minority is very much an open question. In that sort of fight, which counts for more, brutality or numbers?
I read the entire Posting, and while it is certainly correct to some degree, the place where it was posted forced me to take it with a bit of consideration. THEN I read some of the follow up Posts, and was this close -> <- to throw up over my keyboard. And people in Germany think they have it bad with stupid NeoNazis... Sheesh.
Btw: one Problem with Islam, that almost everytime gets brought back to discussion is, that they treat their women badly. What people who bring this up forget is, this culture missed out on the french revolution. Yes, dont laugh now. They didnt have the cultural bang that caused the west to shift gears wich spiralled us to the place we currently are. And tbh, its not like we have been treating our women as equals since ages. One part of switzerland got woman voting rights in 1990. Switzerland, of all places, huh? To the point of this Btw: this process takes time, and I believe they have just now started to see that women do have indeed have a use for their heads besides... you know...
Merry wrote:So Ralph's suggestion is to ban islam from islamic countries.
You might want to check history books: even the romans didnt manage to rout out christians back in the early days, despite throwing them to lions, prosecuting them and even killing them on sight if caching them praying/preaching.
Lets say you liberated germany after ww2, and did try to wrench christianism from them: do you honestly believe you could have done that? (and if you go into brainlock mode by saying christianism cant be routed out because it is the ONE TRUE FAITH or some other garbage, lets say germany was buddhistic).
To start off, christianity, not christianism, unless you're trying to be insulting. Islam is in the midst of a multi-century decline that preceded the creation of the USA. Arguably, it started from the ~1100 AD Sunni decision to "close the doors to ijtihad". It certainly dates from the turning back of the muslims from Vienna and their defeats in France at the hands of Charles Martel. The muslims know that they are in a great deal of trouble irrespective of Iraq. This is part of the reason why they are so militant about the hijab that a growing number physically abuse and kill to enforce its use. Their extremism is partially born of desperation and that's not going to change no matter what we do. This religion hasn't worked on a societal basis for centuries.
Ralph is conflating two issues. The rightness and wrongness of Islam and the necessity of removing violent zealotry. The british did not convert its Indian possession to christianity, though they did promote the religion by permitting missionary work. The Empire's reaction to thuggee and suttee was rather different. In this narrow sense, Ralph has a point.
Axelgear wrote:You cannot brand the entirity of the Muslim world as evil because of, all be it a majority, the people in the Middle East.
Shortly after 9/11, my religion professor told our class that Arabs (or was it the Middle East as a whole?) accounted for only 13% of the Islamic world.
Wow, that's actually a surprise to me.
It's a bit more credible when you consider nations like Indonesia. But yeah, it surprised me too.
LoneWolf23k wrote:Ralph, the fallacy in your argument is that it ignores the many Muslims who live, both here in the West as well as in the Middle-East, without any inclinations towards violence and terrorism.
We can't win this if we treat every Muslim in the Middle-East as being no better then the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.
He also reiterates a point he refuses to argue; the idea that Mohammed was a pedophile. There are sources that say differently...
Both sides of the argument can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha's_age_at_marriage. The collections of hadiths that put Aisha's age at 9 when her marriage was consummated and 6 or 7 when she was married are generally considered the most reliable around. Casting doubt on these collections casts doubt on an awful lot of widely believed Sunni Islam. So are you arguing that a major chunk of Sunni Islam is simply unreliable, having so badly mistaken Aisha's age and misreported her personal testimony or do you accept the evidence of those collections of hadiths as accurate (preserving the bulk of the Sunni tradition) but putting Mohammed into the category of scientific ignoramus (also problematic for most muslims) and arguably a pedophile?
What's your opinion?
Last edited by TMLutas on Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
I read a Muslim website that basically said only the Koran is infallible, not the traditions of the Hadiths (though this was a painful decision for the writer to come to).
Tom Mazanec wrote:I read a Muslim website that basically said only the Koran is infallible, not the traditions of the Hadiths (though this was a painful decision for the writer to come to).
The non-hierarchical nature of Islam, especially Sunni Islam makes an appeal to authority this anonymous pretty weak. Any muslim can throw up a website and say what he wants. He has to justify why his interpretations are better than somebody else's. We don't have that here.
The fact of the matter is that lots of Islam is functionally hadith based, not koran based. One attempts to discredit a major hadith source at your peril because all sorts of things simultaneously become doubtful.
Yes, that is a problem. The Baptist Church cannot "excommunicate" the Westboro Baptist Church, while mine could excommunicate a "Westboro Catholic Church".
TMLutas wrote:Both sides of the argument can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha's_age_at_marriage. The collections of hadiths that put Aisha's age at 9 when her marriage was consummated and 6 or 7 when she was married are generally considered the most reliable around. Casting doubt on these collections casts doubt on an awful lot of widely believed Sunni Islam. So are you arguing that a major chunk of Sunni Islam is simply unreliable, having so badly mistaken Aisha's age and misreported her personal testimony or do you accept the evidence of those collections of hadiths as accurate (preserving the bulk of the Sunni tradition) but putting Mohammed into the category of scientific ignoramus (also problematic for most muslims) and arguably a pedophile?
What's your opinion?
This is one of the problems with the non-hierarchical nature of Islam, alas; it depends on who you believe. For instance, while the writer of hadiths who reported Aisha's age is usually reliable, the same scholars note the quality and veracity of his hadiths drops off when they start being relayed through Iraq (then Persia). Since his account of Aisha's age, which was used as justification for the calculations thereafter, dates from after he entered Iraq, it opens the door.
That's the center of the "pedophile" argument, which much of the Islamic devout find an uncomfortable topic at best; it all comes down to one hadith that inspired the setting down of others. Disbelieve that hadith, and the age problem goes away... but then you have to evaluate all the remainder of that author's hadiths.
Honestly, wedding girls off too young has a long tradition. I believe it was a celtic custom, if a girl got her period, it was legal and normal to marry her away and get her pregnant. Granted, this normally happens around 13ish, but there have been occations where girls got pregnant and gave birth at 10, so...
Tom Mazanec wrote:Yes, that is a problem. The Baptist Church cannot "excommunicate" the Westboro Baptist Church, while mine could excommunicate a "Westboro Catholic Church".
And that's just too bad, because we'll just have to keep recruiting a bunch of motorcyclists to sit between them and the military funerals, and rev their bikes up...
Merry wrote:I read the entire Posting, and while it is certainly correct to some degree, the place where it was posted forced me to take it with a bit of consideration. THEN I read some of the follow up Posts, and was this close -> <- to throw up over my keyboard. And people in Germany think they have it bad with stupid NeoNazis... Sheesh.
Ah, yes, that's rather a part of that particular forum. I should say on their behalf that there are a very large number of old marines and soldiers, and some folks who have served in the Middle East. The old guys, particularly the Korean vets posting in that thread, don't bother tiptoeing around. If you participated on that forum regularly, you'd find they were pretty nice guys and definately have reasons for what they're saying there (and they're not always hostile, either).
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
Merry wrote:Btw: one Problem with Islam, that almost everytime gets brought back to discussion is, that they treat their women badly. ... its not like we have been treating our women as equals since ages.
Granted, but still, I think you'll have a very hard time finding any time or place anywhere within the entire history of Christendom (or Judaism, for that matter) which has ever treated women as badly as a major part of Islam treats women today. If you find anything that even approaches Talibanism for oppression of women, it'll probably be some small cultic group, not anything that has ever controlled a whole country.
I think Mary was about 14 when she got pregnant, and she would have been married before then. But calling Joseph a pedophile is pushing it. After all, tradition holds that...
See, in any religion, the vast majority of the faith is made up of the <I>congregation</i>--- the followers who do little more than fill the pews. Their primary contribution to the faith is to drop money in the offering plate when it comes around... or raising funds with bake sales or selling flowers on streetcorners or fundraisers or what have you.
These people make up about three fourths of the faithful.
Of the remaining 25%, call about 20 percent the administrative. The ushers, the deacons, the secretaries, the custodial staff... the people who handle the infrastructure and maintenance.
the remaining 5 percent? The field workers. Preachers, evangelists--- missionaries.
See, boys, when you see a Baptist missionary out in the Congo, <I>you know very well who's signing his support check back home.</i> You see an islamic terrorist out on the field--- or more likely see the explosion he sets off--- you know darned well every piece of equipment he has, every gun, every bullet, every block of C-4, every airplane ticket was paid for by other Muslims. And it was brought to him by a logistics column of Muslims that stretches back a thousand miles.... that in their turn get every dime in their hands from Muslim congregations around the world and from Muslim governments around the world.
You know for a FACT that every last one of them got their training and indoctrination in a Muslim school, their religious instruction in a Muslim mosque. These are not some extremists who ran off on their own to the lamentation of their holy leaders--- they were <I>hand picked</i> from the masses, given their guns, bombs, airline tickets and their instructions, and then set loose on the rest of us. And as has been demonstrated repeatedly before you for decades, <I>Every Muslim, from infancy on, is taught to aspire to be like them.</i>
You see a Catholic priest, you know he comes from the Catholic church, and who he answers to. You see a Baptist Missionary, you know where his support comes from. You meet a Jewish Rabbi, you know where his beliefs and dogma originated.
You see a Muslim rioting in the street, or hear him screaming "death to the Jew pig," or watch him dress his son up as a suicide bomber, or see him take a plane hostage--- don't insult the intelligence of those around you by pretending he isn't a Muslim.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
See, in any religion, the vast majority of the faith is made up of the <I>congregation</i>--- the followers who do little more than fill the pews. Their primary contribution to the faith is to drop money in the offering plate when it comes around... or raising funds with bake sales or selling flowers on streetcorners or fundraisers or what have you.
These people make up about three fourths of the faithful.
Of the remaining 25%, call about 20 percent the administrative. The ushers, the deacons, the secretaries, the custodial staff... the people who handle the infrastructure and maintenance.
the remaining 5 percent? The field workers. Preachers, evangelists--- missionaries.
See, boys, when you see a Baptist missionary out in the Congo, <I>you know very well who's signing his support check back home.</i> You see an islamic terrorist out on the field--- or more likely see the explosion he sets off--- you know darned well every piece of equipment he has, every gun, every bullet, every block of C-4, every airplane ticket was paid for by other Muslims. And it was brought to him by a logistics column of Muslims that stretches back a thousand miles.... that in their turn get every dime in their hands from Muslim congregations around the world and from Muslim governments around the world.
You know for a FACT that every last one of them got their training and indoctrination in a Muslim school, their religious instruction in a Muslim mosque. These are not some extremists who ran off on their own to the lamentation of their holy leaders--- they were <I>hand picked</i> from the masses, given their guns, bombs, airline tickets and their instructions, and then set loose on the rest of us. And as has been demonstrated repeatedly before you for decades, <I>Every Muslim, from infancy on, is taught to aspire to be like them.</i>
You see a Catholic priest, you know he comes from the Catholic church, and who he answers to. You see a Baptist Missionary, you know where his support comes from. You meet a Jewish Rabbi, you know where his beliefs and dogma originated.
You see a Muslim rioting in the street, or hear him screaming "death to the Jew pig," or watch him dress his son up as a suicide bomber, or see him take a plane hostage--- don't insult the intelligence of those around you by pretending he isn't a Muslim.
... Simply amazing. I didn't think you were this stubborn and hard-headed RHJ, but apparantly I underestimated you. I'm amazed that you actually think that the vast majority of Muslims SUPPORT suicide bombings and other terrorist activities. Certainly, there are some who do support it, at least in words, but I doubt that the majority are donating at their local mosque to the "Support killing the Americans" fund.
The closest I'd say that the direct support comes from is from corrupt officials who siphon money from the zakat to the terrorists. That's not the fault of the people donating so much as the fault of evil people higher up in the ranks. And most of those extremist most likely ARE people who ran off on their own after being fed up with the standard religion.
But you know what? I don't care about this debate anymore. Obviously i'm just banging my head against several brick walls here. RHJ has made it perfectly clear that he has a warped view of Islam and would rather hold onto that than even enterain the idea that Islam might not be the grand evil anti-American conspiracy that he thinks it is. I might continue lurking just to see what gets said, but I'm certianly not gonna continue attempting to change the mind of someone who doesn't even want to listen. See you all in other threads.
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7
How great would the world be if we REALLY practiced that?
Honestly, wedding girls off too young has a long tradition. I believe it was a celtic custom, if a girl got her period, it was legal and normal to marry her away and get her pregnant. Granted, this normally happens around 13ish, but there have been occations where girls got pregnant and gave birth at 10, so...
For normal men, you could wave away this sort of thing but Islam's founder is supposed to have known better, being under direct divine tutelage. The biology of little girls would have been known to the angels and thus they would have not directed him to marry such a youngster and hurt her in that way. But if his instructions came from a different source...
)
