Islam doesn't condone terror

[b&wpac7]

Elsewhere then?

If you build it, I will come.

 

[PHenry42]

Ok, I requested a mod splitting of the thread.

 

[FRM48]

You really need to read about Tawfik Hamid, it might help you to understand how difficult it will be to hammer out a peace treaty.Strangely enough it also relates to this topic on Islam.

 

[razeontherock]

Well, if you have no clue about a lasting solution, maybe you shouldn't bash those of us who do. I have offered a basis of justice and equality, and of reworking the status quo to that end. I do maintain that it's not only just, but totally reality-based. Moreso than any variant of victor's justice, which is pretty much guaranteed not to last. Conflicts do not end when one side wins. Victors can impose terms on losers, but as long as the underlying causes of the conflict remain, so does the conflict, ready to break out again if cracks appear in the machinery of subjugation.

I shall humour your purpose for this thread, I've committed to it. Heck, I'm the one who gave you homework, it would be a most severe break of trust for me to bail out. I still hope we can treat cordially, despite the harsh words.

But as you wondered several times whether Islam has anything to do with the animus towards Israel, I shall answer you and neatly bridge it to your general query about Islam and war. To misquote Bertolt Brecht, it's both a holy war and a normal war. It's a normal war in the sense that it's fought over something completely secular: Homeland and right to live in it. It's a religious war in the sense that Islam commands us to fight on behalf of other Muslims who are suffering oppression and injustice. So yes, there is Islamic basis for a united front against Israel. As for whether I condone terror, no, not indiscriminate against a general population. Only against those who are directly guilty through their conscious actions of enacting and perpetuating Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Cynical that I am, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that justice won't be enacted until imposed by Islamic bayonets, or the threat of such. Should the Islamic world bring Israel to heel, though, I would hope it would give the Jews the same justice I'm demanding for the Palestinians. I don't believe in permanent revocation of rights or infliction of injuries because of alleged war guilt, and I stand by that consistently.

Interesting mix of reasonable and downright scary!

I am glad you feel you have a workable means to peace re: the Israeli conflict.

I don't think "Islamic bayonets" will accomplish anything, except more suffering. Primarily for Palestinians and/or other Muslims. With the rising price of oil, that might change as the Arab world becomes more able to afford competitive weapons, but have you seen US' arsenal? We could wipe out Iran's threatened invasion of foot soldiers w/o risking a single soul.

As far as victor's justice not being a lasting solution, of course you are right. There are also Bible stories of Jews being subjugated by their foes by having one eye gouged out, and Israel's enemies being utterly destroyed. Hopefully we can keep such barbarism in our past?

Do note the the part of your quote I bolded seems to me to condone terrorism, (by you personally rather than Islam) albeit it on a limited scale. While I sympathize with your frustration, I urge you to learn from history. I also hope you are not planning on doing anything personally with a bayonnet in the middle east?

 

[razeontherock]

how difficult it will be to hammer out a peace treaty.

Understatement of millennia!

I don't think Henry's idea of a do-over is realistic. I am curious to learn about this, esp what actually happened 1947-49, from both sides.

 

[PHenry42]

Interesting mix of reasonable and downright scary!

Thank you. That means that I must be doing something right.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[PHenry42]

And Servant of Jesus manages to miss the point again. Or deliberately twists it. Isn't there something in the Bible about false witness? Oh well, I doubt it matters, it's not like anything I say will actually make any difference for what he thinks. And I doubt he'll be able to convince anyone not already so. Rational people can read the whole thing on their own without any need or use of his "interpretations".

 

[Servant of Jesus]

And Servant of Jesus manages to miss the point again. Or deliberately twists it. Isn't there something in the Bible about false witness? Oh well, I doubt it matters, it's not like anything I say will actually make any difference for what he thinks. And I doubt he'll be able to convince anyone not already so. Rational people can read the whole thing on their own without any need or use of his "interpretations".

Don't generalize- show me where I have erred, if that is in fact the case.

 

[PHenry42]

Don't generalize- show me where I have erred, if that is in fact the case.

First you'll have to convince me that you're sincere. Go on.

 

[Montalban]

No, it isn't. Look it up. It is proof via assumption of the contrary, and demonstration that the contrary leads to an absurdity, something we know is not true. It can be done entirely without analogy. Analogies have no inherent proof value in logic anyway, they're just illustrative devices.

What you did was use an analogy to show that what I said was absurd.

You refuted nothing. The example of a bank robber was not an analogy, it was an example of absurdity following.

No. It was an analogy... you extended mine in an effort to show my analogy was absurd if taken to a 'logical' conclusion. Except you made a false comparison.

I seriously doubt you accept the current possession of the Hagia Sophia for that matter, you're bluffing.

I have said what I think of this. You don't accept this, based on projection...(example to follow from you...)

The spiteful attitude you display all over and your lash-out how I supposedly should support its restoration speak volumes.[/quote]
Which is projection

Do you actually ever make posts that aren't somehow connected to bashing Islam? It doesn't seem like that.

If you need to personalise things then it speaks volumes about your argument about Islam.

 

[Montalban]

First you'll have to convince me that you're sincere. Go on.

Accusing everyone of a lack of sincerity whilst avoiding evidence from Islamic sources on the use of violence makes for irony.

 

[plenary]

Accusing everyone of a lack of sincerity whilst avoiding evidence from Islamic sources on the use of violence makes for irony.

But, Montalban, don't you know, that Muhammad is right and everyone else is a liar and is wrong? Muhammad said so himself and who are we to question what the "prophet" Muhammad taught....
Does it matter that Christianity still has the gift of prophecy? NO. Because Muhammad said he was the seal of the prophets and that is that...
Does it matter, that Christ said that one shouldn't curse? Does it further matter that Muhammad was full of curses? Of course not, because Muhammad is right and everyone else is wrong.

But when one reads the following verse it all comes together:

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"

And by this we know, why Muhammad is always right, because a Muslim has no other choice but to BLINDLY accept what Muhammad taught, even when it contradicts the laws of Love as taught by Christ Himself.

 

[Montalban]

But, Montalban, don't you know, that Muhammad is right and everyone else is a liar and is wrong?

It's my experience that Islamic apologetics is about discussing everything but Islam.

99.9% of argument in particular seems to be about switching the discussion to Christianity.

It seems to me that Islam cannot face scrutiny.

I think for the most part Islam gets people converting (when it's done freely) based on anti-Christian sentiment, and a whole lot of 'just-so' argument about Islam.

There's a lot of anti-Christian sentiment - such as the allegations violence has been done in the name of Christ, or that Christianity held back science in the middle ages, and so on - coupled with myths about Islamic tolerance and an awful lot of misrepresentation of their own faith - such as the use of the verse "There shall be no compulsion in religion" - which was abrogated.

 

[plenary]

Yes, indeed, I even wanted to paste that verse...

Qur'an 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion."

There is no compulsion, but one who discards his religion should be killed... How can that be...

Is it any wonder, that the minds of so many get corrupted?
Do they really think, that killing in the name of God does please God?

They say Christ is a great prophet, but they totally neglect the highest laws of Christianity, which is to love God with hearth, mind and soul and to love the neighbor as oneself?

How is killing or terrorizing the neighbor the same as loving the neighbor?


But Muslims can and will not think for themselves, as that is forbidden in islam.

Bukhari:V2B24N555 "I heard the Prophet say, 'Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.'"

Sure, Muhammad....


And the people that suffer the most, are the Muslims themselves... It is a great tragedy.

A human life is a human life.. Whether he/she be Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever his/her mindset... All suffering of persons is a tragedy, non excluded...

The way to the heavens is LOVE (of God and fellow man).... The way to the hells is HATE (the love of self and the love of the world).... And whatever Muhammad may have proclaimed, the laws of love is the doctrine of Christ (because they claim the Bible is corrupt, which is nonsense, when one regards the laws of love.. The laws of Muhammad are the laws of hatred, so even if the Bible was to be corrupted, it's folly to say that Muhammad is right, because he cannot be right, because his message conflicts with the laws of love)... And the doctrine of Christ is Truth, as Christ Himself Is the Truth.

 

[razeontherock]

Accusing everyone of a lack of sincerity whilst avoiding evidence from Islamic sources on the use of violence makes for irony.

It also makes for insight! C'mon Henry, you can do better.

 

[PHenry42]

It's a figure of speech, that possession is 9/10 of the law. Our Aussie Brother sometimes uses turns of phrase that are so totally foreign to me, I'm surprised to see him use this axiom. Anywhere I have lived, actual practice holds it to be true, which is sad.

Well, if it's just a figure of speech which means to imply that that's how it usually turns out in practice, it's utterly worthless as an actual legal (or moral) argument, destroying the very basis of his position. The universe rests its case.

It also makes for insight! C'mon Henry, you can do better.

I can, but canning is not doing. I already stated at page 3 or so why it wouldn't be worth my time, I don't feel like repeating myself. The subsequent behaviour of Servant of Jesus has simply proven that my initial assessment was right. Just look at this gem:

No- I do try- by having the courage to directly point to verses in the Qur'an that promote violence, and to terrorist acts, and then looking Muslims directly in the eye, and saying "No- that is not right or acceptable, and you must change!".

In other words, neither a willingness to discuss or understand, nor interest in what we actually believe and think, simply a preconclusion that we are evil and must change.

I would be willing to bet at ten to one odds that he's never opened a Quran, or factchecked his copypasta, or knows what those numbers of hadith verses means, or even knows the difference between Quran, Hadith and Tabari. But then, betting is gambling, and that's haram...

You've shown yourself sincere, raz, and I will engage you as soon as you're ready for it. Everyone else has the burden of proof that they're worth my time. That's my final word on it.

 

[razeontherock]

Well, if it's just a figure of speech, it's utterly worthless as an actual legal (or moral) argument

Right. So this could be a subtlety of language, meaning that it's more of a light-hearted comment.

In other words, neither a willingness to discuss or understand, nor interest in what we actually believe and think, simply a preconclusion that we are evil and must change.

That was referencing a quote by Servant of Jesus, which our quote function doesn't preserve. If you're unwilling to respond to him I respect your wishes, but I do think his mind is not so cut and dried as you surmise. I think cultural and language differences may come into play here too, to the effect that 'where he's coming from' is different than you conclude.

If I may try, it may not be SoJ actually assumes he knows how you think, but will state how it appears, with the expectation you will correct where he may be wrong. This is actually a fairly common way to converse, in our society.

Likewise, I recognize the concepts and verbiage of Koran are so foreign to me that I don't have the background to even be able to approach it. For example I just learned that Islam also has an unforgivable sin, and that is idolatry. Now I can easily see why the Christian claims of the Divinity of Christ are so problematic for Muslims, but before today I had no concept of this.

These types of things change everything, right? Mutual understanding is a worthwhile goal.

 

[JJWhite]

For example I just learned that Islam also has an unforgivable sin, and that is adultery.

Not adultery... idolatry. And, that, of course, only if it is not repented from before death and the person had no excuse.

 

[razeontherock]

Not adultery... idolatry. And, that, of course, only if it is not repented from before death and the person had no excuse.

Thank you for the correction! Yes, that is what I meant; can't believe I typed that out. (I corrected it) Interesting qualification added to that too ...