UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Mr_B]

DJC said:

Chaps, before we go too far down the "Islam is violent" path, a little history research might be in order. Historically Islam has been far more tolerent than Christianity. There is a large amount of irony in the current calls for Jihad, invoking the spirit Mehmed II and Suleiman, in that Mehmed and Suleiman were both very tolerant and enlightened rulers, esp. towards their conquered Christian citizens. What was regarded as blatent heresy in the Christian religion was accepted, you could practice whatever version of Christianity you liked and basically Christians under their rule had a damn site better time of it than under any of the normal Popes and Western dudes.

That's all great, but its 2011 now.

[DJC]

carmonk said:

'University of Wales' degree, eh? In that case, please forgive me for my hubris in daring to challenge any of your statements, I have really learned my lesson now.

Thats Ok. I presumed you wouldnt know much about the National Library and its similar resources as the British Library (done some research in there aswell) which is why I gave you the rope

Like I said, its all in the research. Ill leave the thread to you and the other religious numty now...Toodles

[Godzuki]

DJC said:

Thats Ok. I presumed you wouldnt know much about the National Library and its similar resources as the British Library (done some research in there aswell) which is why I gave you the rope

Like I said, its all in the research. Ill leave the thread to you and the other religious numty now...Toodles

Ah, so you come into a thread, make a claim, then fail to back it up when asked? Good luck using that in 'university'. Unfortunately, and no-one wants it to be this way, but Islam is undergoing an issue that it is struggling to get past, and that is the violence done inn its name. If you don;t want to talk about, then don;t, but please quit your pretentious and condescending attitude. Toodles.

[carmonk]

andy_s said:

carmonk said:

andy_s said:

carmonk said:

No offence, but you need to do some research.

I've lived and worked with 'normal, average' muslim arabs for 12 years. I've worked in the security field during that time. I've a degree in Security and Risk Management and am doing a post-grad in Terrorism Studies. I've monitored Islamic terrorism for over a decade as part of my job. I've seen Qaddafi backed rebels in Tchad with my own eyes in the eighties, while everyone elses idea of a terrorist was the IRA.

To paraphrase, I'm all researched out.

(I agree with your above comment though)

I'm talking about researching what the Koran teaches, and what Islam promotes in its followers. Still, being that you've many years experience living amongst Muslims, can explain why you believe the Koran promotes peace and has been somehow corrupted by a minority? If you want I'll relist some of the intolerant calls to arms and murder in the Koran as a starting point, and that's not even touching on hadith and the related Chinese whispers.

Like the Old Testament, it's all down to how it's sold, how it's interpreted and how people then manipulate it to their own ends. As an example, there's no mention of women having to wear a burkha in the Koran for example, in fact it is men that should use a hijab, but where the Koran says that men and women should dress modestly, this has been interpreted in some states as a head to toe covering while in others it's a headscarf and others make no prescription. I realise you probably know this, but it serves as a good example.

All religion is open to interpretation, just so long as you're a moderate. That way you can reinterpret the nasty bits, or the bits that are no longer pertinent to modern life, and keep the nice bits. The issue of individual interpretation is an important part of the religious control mechanism as it is careful not to exclude the moderate believer.

In your example, you're broadly correct (although arguably the Koran does stress modesty to a degree where a burkha might be a logical extrapolation) but as was pointed out quite forcefully by a practicing Muslim in another thread, the Koran is not the sum total of Islamic instruction by any means. Hadith and related pick-and-mix sayings play a very significant part in what Muslims do, how they behave and what they believe. Whether religious instruction comes from one book or another is a moot point, the issue is that it's there and it's followed.

andy_s said:

It's more vulnerable to abuse because religion plays such a bigger part of their lives than ours. They pray 5 times a day, fast for a month once a year, take pride in a bruised forehead - we're lucky if we get married in church nowadays.

I don't understand your point. You talk as if irrational and reasonless behaviour is not only a good thing, but is unavoidable. Unless you mean that those trying to somehow 'pervert' the religion have more influence on the religious population because of their pietism, in which case I think you're making a false distinction between religious teaching and the religion itself. There is no difference, it's one and the same. It's not like religion was from god and then the nasty men took over. It's all man made, it's a continuous process and nothing changes.

andy_s said:

If we all were fervent believers and went to church every Sunday and said grace before we ate and didn't work on a Sunday and believed in god as our lives were pretty crap without it (3-500 years ago this was perhaps the case) and were taught the teachings in the Old Testament were literal by our spiritual guide and everyone around us accepted and believed that too, then we too would be stoning adulteresses to death and cutting off the hands of thieves.

Maybe, again I'm not sure what your point is.

andy_s said:

Although there are some differences, the Koran is pretty much the same book as the Old Testament, there are calls to arms if taken literally, in both works, but again, there is the usual stuff about loving thy neighbour...

Indeed it is similar to the Old Testament, and a more vile and violent publication is difficult to find. In what way is that a mitigating factor?

andy_s said:

I'm not a scholar in either, but I do see how both have been manipulated over the centuries on both sides to achieve quite different goals than those set out originally.

You don't have to be a scholar to understand that not only is manipulation part of religion, but that strict adherence to the scriptures mean that the fundamentalists are actually more true to their beliefs than the moderates. That's what people, and it seems you, don't seem to grasp. These extremists embrace the pure form of Islam - the literal interpretations of all its teachings. They aren't crazy people who have latched on to Islam as a cover for their atrocities, they are the true believers who are willing to fight and sacrifice themselves in their fight against the kuffar.

[carmonk]

DJC said:

carmonk said:

'University of Wales' degree, eh? In that case, please forgive me for my hubris in daring to challenge any of your statements, I have really learned my lesson now.

Thats Ok. I presumed you wouldnt know much about the National Library and its similar resources as the British Library (done some research in there aswell) which is why I gave you the rope

Like I said, its all in the research. Ill leave the thread to you and the other religious numty now...Toodles

Look, if you've been to a library as well as having a degree then you've beat me twice over. I'm not religious but I admit that right now I'm fighting the urge to pray to you.

[The real Apache]

carmonk said:

DJC said:

carmonk said:

'University of Wales' degree, eh? In that case, please forgive me for my hubris in daring to challenge any of your statements, I have really learned my lesson now.

Thats Ok. I presumed you wouldnt know much about the National Library and its similar resources as the British Library (done some research in there aswell) which is why I gave you the rope

Like I said, its all in the research. Ill leave the thread to you and the other religious numty now...Toodles

Look, if you've been to a library as well as having a degree then you've beat me twice over. I'm not religious but I admit that right now I'm fighting the urge to pray to you.

thanks monk, that made my day and AndyS?... you speak much sense

[elster]

Godzuki said:

Sorry, DJC, but saying 'but it is peaceful' means nothing. It clearly isn't. Maybe the majority of its followers are not violent, but is there any other religion that has so much blood on its hands in recent times, or so brutal? Hell, even in Islamic states like Pakistan, and Saudi, it is most brutal. Just so you know, I've worked in Saudi. I've seen how absurd it is.

I've worked in Central Africa and have seen the violent side of Christianity.

Islam/Christianity is a whole tomato/tomato thing.

The scriptures are very comparable, you can find comments from the koran and match them with the bible.

[ATG]

carmonk said:

You don't have to be a scholar to understand that not only is manipulation part of religion, but that strict adherence to the scriptures mean that the fundamentalists are actually more true to their beliefs than the moderates. That's what people, and it seems you, don't seem to grasp. These extremists embrace the pure form of Islam - the literal interpretations of all its teachings. They aren't crazy people who have latched on to Islam as a cover for their atrocities, they are the true believers who are willing to fight and sacrifice themselves in their fight against the kuffar.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are assuming that there is a single, correct interpretation of a religious text and that then allows people to choose "strict adherence to the scriptures".

But it is pretty obvious that in general there isn't a single, unambiguous way of interpreting what any bit of text means, let alone religious text.

Forget religion and look at text that is deliberately written to try to be as clear as possible. For example, think about a legal contract. It is a document drafted using a special, technical language whose sole purpose is to try to remove ambiguity. And just how well does that work in practice? It hardly needs saying, but if it did work well, why do we need lawyers and the judiciary to give their opinions of what contracts mean?

No one can objectively look at the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other religious text I've ever heard of and say it's interpretation is simple and clear. If we can't manage clear expression in an instruction manual, let alone a contract, why on earth would we expect a hotch potch collection of ancient histories, myths, polemics and poems to yield up a single clear meaning?

So it seems to me self-evidently obvious that the idea that there is such a thing as a "correct, literal" interpretation of the Koran is just utterly ridiculous.

Religious lunatics might want to believe they personally know what the Koran means, and it might be convenient for people who want to dismiss Islam out of hand to erect flimsy straw man arguments and agree with them. But both groups are being intellectually lazy and dishonest, and completely unconvincing.

[Godzuki]

elster said:

I've worked in Central Africa and have seen the violent side of Christianity.

Islam/Christianity is a whole tomato/tomato thing.

The scriptures are very comparable, you can find comments from the koran and match them with the bible.

Indeed. I was in Calabar for a good few months, and the incidents up north between Christians and the Muslims was shocking, to say the least.

[rich1231]

Getting worse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-1294485...

[carmonk]

ATG said:

carmonk said:

You don't have to be a scholar to understand that not only is manipulation part of religion, but that strict adherence to the scriptures mean that the fundamentalists are actually more true to their beliefs than the moderates. That's what people, and it seems you, don't seem to grasp. These extremists embrace the pure form of Islam - the literal interpretations of all its teachings. They aren't crazy people who have latched on to Islam as a cover for their atrocities, they are the true believers who are willing to fight and sacrifice themselves in their fight against the kuffar.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are assuming that there is a single, correct interpretation of a religious text and that then allows people to choose "strict adherence to the scriptures".

But it is pretty obvious that in general there isn't a single, unambiguous way of interpreting what any bit of text means, let alone religious text.

That sounds like typical apologist rhetoric to me. I bet you don't see a problem interpreting religious scripture in a nice way, so why do you protest that the alternative view is incorrect? Surely a literal interpretation where appropriate is truer than a set of fabricated metaphors. Why do assume the scriptures are inherently nice and fluffy? And why on earth do you say there is no way of interpreting what any bit of text means? Of course there is, otherwise society would be in chaos. If I read the words, "Kill a man," it's pretty obvious what it means. What other interpretations do you have for it?

Many religious verses are clear in their meaning. How would you recommend a person, or perhaps more pertinently an ill-educated desert dweller, interpret the words, "To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great value." What nicey-nicey interpretation do you have for "Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"? and why do you believe that a person taking that verse literally is not being true to their religion?

Religion was not created for the intellectual, it was created for the common, uneducated man, so all this nonsense about metaphorical interpretation is moot.

ATG said:

Forget religion and look at text that is deliberately written to try to be as clear as possible. For example, think about a legal contract. It is a document drafted using a special, technical language whose sole purpose is to try to remove ambiguity. And just how well does that work in practice? It hardly needs saying, but if it did work well, why do we need lawyers and the judiciary to give their opinions of what contracts mean?

I'm afraid you sound like one of the lawyers whose profession you're invoking, with your apologist weasel words.

ATG said:

No one can objectively look at the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other religious text I've ever heard of and say it's interpretation is simple and clear. If we can't manage clear expression in an instruction manual, let alone a contract, why on earth would we expect a hotch potch collection of ancient histories, myths, polemics and poems to yield up a single clear meaning?

I never said there was 'a single clear meaning' to all scriptures, but surely you can see that literal interpretation is more honest than inventing baseless fluffy metaphors. Some parts are unambiguous, that's clear, but fine, let's forget those. Let's say that all the scriptures are open to interpretation and answer me this: Why do you condemn those who interpret them as calls to arms yet support those who interpret them as love everyone and let's all get along? If you're saying that religion is inherently good then please, provide your evidence as I'd love to see it.

ATG said:

So it seems to me self-evidently obvious that the idea that there is such a thing as a "correct, literal" interpretation of the Koran is just utterly ridiculous.

Religious lunatics might want to believe they personally know what the Koran means, and it might be convenient for people who want to dismiss Islam out of hand to erect flimsy straw man arguments and agree with them. But both groups are being intellectually lazy and dishonest, and completely unconvincing.

Please go ahead and answer the questions I've asked. If you are right then it should be a doddle.

Edited by carmonk on Saturday 2nd April 15:25

[The real Apache]

rich1231 said:

Getting worse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-1294485...

"The Taliban had nothing to do with this, it was a pure act of responsible Muslims," spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency by phone from an undisclosed location.

"The foreigners brought the wrath of the Afghans on themselves by burning the Koran," he said.

Responsible? pure act? retards the lot of em

[carmonk]

The real Apache said:

rich1231 said:

Getting worse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-1294485...

"The Taliban had nothing to do with this, it was a pure act of responsible Muslims," spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency by phone from an undisclosed location.

"The foreigners brought the wrath of the Afghans on themselves by burning the Koran," he said.

Responsible? pure act? retards the lot of em

I'd be interested in seeing a poll of how much Muslims in the UK agree with these actions.

[Godzuki]

Who is this spokesperson? The thing is that when there is an event like this, we do get condoning, be it nutty Imams, clerics, etc.

[Mermaid]

Ban all religions or tax it out of existence.

Edited by Mermaid on Saturday 2nd April 18:29

[ATG]

carmonk, yet again you are making no sense. Go back and read what I wrote. How can you conclude from that that I think a "fluffy" interpretation is either more or less correct than a "non-fluffy" interpretation? What I said (pretty clearly, I thought) was that the idea that there is such a thing as a simple, correct interpretation is a self-evidently silly idea.

How is that being an apologist? How does that betray inate pro-fluffyism? I'm not claiming one interpretation is right and another is wrong. I'm saying the concept of religious literalism is pretty silly.

For every verse you pull out which talks about violence, any 3-year old could find ones that unambiguously proscribes it ... "thou shalt not kill" is fairly unambiguous, wouldn't you say?

So where exactly does literalism get you when you're faced with two sentences that seem equally clear and yet are entirely contradictory?

[ATG]

carmonk said:

Please go ahead and answer the questions I've asked. If you are right then it should be a doddle.

Edited by carmonk on Saturday 2nd April 15:25

Wasn't very hard

[carmonk]

ATG said:

carmonk, yet again you are making no sense. Go back and read what I wrote. How can you conclude from that that I think a "fluffy" interpretation is either more or less correct than a "non-fluffy" interpretation? What I said (pretty clearly, I thought) was that the idea that there is such a thing as a simple, correct interpretation is a self-evidently silly idea.

And I made the point that if any interpretation is to be held above any other it is logical for it to be the one with the miniumum of metaphorical content (as far as logic can be applied to religion). If you disagree, say why, but please don't keep on saying the same thing.

ATG said:

How is that being an apologist? How does that betray inate pro-fluffyism? I'm not claiming one interpretation is right and another is wrong. I'm saying the concept of religious literalism is pretty silly.

So if a group interpret the Koran and haddith, taking the literal meaning wherever possible, and come to conclusion that violence is required of them, are they wrong?

ATG said:

For every verse you pull out which talks about violence, any 3-year old could find ones that unambiguously proscribes it ... "thou shalt not kill" is fairly unambiguous, wouldn't you say?

Where in the Koran does it say that? It says, "Do not take any human being's life - that God willed to be sacred - other than in the pursuit of justice." And, "Anyone who murders any person who has not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people." So when you factor in that in Islam apostasy, adultery and disbelief itself are all 'horrendous crimes' then that pretty much invalidates your example.

As you point out (and as any three year old knows, to enter into the spirit of things) all religious texts contain myriad contradictions. Yet a follower of religion must make a choice. So tell me, when faced with fifty directives to wage war as opposed to a couple to abstain from violence, why do you try and make out that the message is not one of violence? Of course the common sense solution is to dismiss it all as nonsense, which it is, but that's beside the point.

ATG said:

So where exactly does literalism get you when you're faced with two sentences that seem equally clear and yet are entirely contradictory?

You're saying that for every statement in the scriptures there's an alternative opposed statement? I know the message is frequently contradictory but that's taking it too far. Or are you trying to prove a point by focusing on exceptions?

ATG said:

carmonk said:

Please go ahead and answer the questions I've asked. If you are right then it should be a doddle.

Edited by carmonk on Saturday 2nd April 15:25

Wasn't very hard

You haven't done it yet.

[JagLover]

When people describe Islam as being historically a 'tolerant' religion. That is in comparison to countries such as Spain that drove out all non-christians and subject to inquisition any who converted who might have done so in pretence (along with numurous others). It doesn't mean that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It spread by the sword as the Arabs swept through the middle east and North Africa. The unbeliever might be permitted to live, but they will do so under muslim rule, and for those who 'blaspheme' they will see how 'tolerant' Islam is.

[Lost soul]

It is time to leave them to the st desease and squalor that they seem to like fk them all the primitive retards