Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished

[wyominghansen]

And yet somehow, through all of that, we've ended up where we are today.

Whereas the muslims, with their untouched word, are still beheading people and killing infidels

Yeah and stoning people for BS reasons like falling in love with the wrong guy..

~edited to comply with forum rules--please do not post links to explicit sexual or violent material~

Sorry about that Jumbo but the attatched story was quite thought provoking.

[BigMike619]

Your turn. Got any sevens?

That is the quote of the thread.

well played Yoda. :notworthy

[wyominghansen]

Since no one else stepped forward, I will. That list of Qu'ranic verses posted earlier is a joke. Those verses are very likely taken completely out of context, with no view to how they are viewed by the Muslim community, or what Muslim scholars have to say about them.

Koran 8:12

Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

How is that taken out of context?

For instance, there is apparently a doctrine in Islam where later verses supersede previous verses. Does that list indicate where those verses fall within that doctrine? Are there later verses that might modify the Muslim view?

Read the islamic Hadiths many of them are even more extreme than the Koran.

If you want to know what Islam teaches, ask a Muslim.

I have asked some Muslims that have changed their views because of the views stated in the Koran and Hadiths.

Not a Buddhist, or a Christian, or a Jew.

I am (D) none of the above.

[techboy]

What's the point of that color thing? Is it just to make it difficult to use the quote feature here?

How is that taken out of context?

If you have to ask, then you have no understanding of the word "context". What came before it? What came after? What was the setting? Where was this recorded? What does it say in the original Arabic? Are there any nuances that don't carry over into English, especially since official doctrine states that the Qu'ran is only the Qu'ran in Arabic? What's the definition of believer? Unbeliever? Smite? Is it literal, or is it figurative? Is it part of a larger story that is making a point? Is it mitigated by later verses? Do the vast majority of moderate Muslims take these things in the same way as liberal Jews, who don't stone people to death?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I doubt you do either.

I have asked some Muslims that have changed their views because of the views stated in the Koran and Hadiths.

Right, because bitter ex-members are the best source for the actual practices and interpretations of believers.

[Thiebear]

What's the point of that color thing? Is it just to make it difficult to use the quote feature here?

If you have to ask, then you have no understanding of the word "context". :

Well I know that there wurd context... the quote i put up of "current" leaders in Afghanistan talking about a Christian convert. It wasn't one lone whack-job? It was several from several mosques and leadership positions.

is that in context enough for you or do i have that one wrong also.

I'm sure i can grab verbatim quotes over the last year from 30+ leaders to ensure the "maverick" is not be pushed up as a Pat Robertson type.

That the death to anyone that dares reject Islam and go Christian is a very real in the teachings and thoughts of "the leadership"

Lina Joy wants to marry a Christian man and start a family, but while she converted from Islam in 1990 and was baptized several years later, the government maintains her religious designation as Muslim on her identity card.

That's significant because if she does marry and have children, they could be taken from her under the Islamic religious law which does not allow parents who are "apostate," or in defiance of God, to raise children.

So she is asking the Malaysian government to stop classifying her a Muslim. She says the government has no right to tell her what she should believe.

Malkin noted that even Joy's legal advisor, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, has faced death threats because of his defense of her case.

The Wall Street Journal yesterday summarized her plight:

"While Muslim-majority Malaysia is considered a largely moderate, modern society, renouncing one's Muslim faith still is considered both sinful and illegal by Islamic authorities – who have gained increasing sway of late. Ms. Joy's apostasy case, now before Malaysia's highest court of appeal, has inflamed public debate, divided the legal community … and threatens to set off political tremors in this Southeast Asian nation of 25 million people."

The circumstance is that before the civil government, which is heavily controlled by Islamic belief, can remove the Muslim designation, it says Joy first must get a decision of the Islamic religious court, a parallel court system in Malaysia, declaring her "apostate."

She is resisting that, because that conclusion would provide the same result for her: a government standing by to take any children she might have.

The court ruling is expected in the coming weeks.

"We are at a crossroad, whether we go down the line of secular constitutionalism or whether that constitution will now be read subject to religious requirement," Benjamin Dawson, one of Joy's lawyers, told the Journal.

A previous court opinion in her case said as long as she is ethnic Malay, she is Muslim, even though the civil constitution in Malaysia guarantees freedom of religion. The court's opinion said that was not freedom of "choice" but a freedom to practice Islam.

Multiple countries: Same results. If your born there your it, you want out, be prepared to die. I can understand why there are so many. Its not a choice. Its a freedom GIVEN to you by the government/Clerics and if you want to be Apostate you can't raise children.. thus killing off your traitorous family line.

[CrabR]

but many many many times those bullets are in context. Sometimes holy books mean exactly what they say.

Right, because bitter ex-members are the best source for the actual practices and interpretations of believers.

Yes they are, because they are no longer arebrainwasher and are free to seek the truth and not the church dogma. I used to believe just like you and i was told to believe otherwise was just the devil tempting me. All cults are the same

and Jesus was a hippie even hippies got mad, you ever tried to snatch a hippies last joint

[dwbiggs]

I always find it really odd when people not of a faith try to tell people of a faith what their faith really says. Why would an atheist tell me that my interpreatation of the Bible is wrong? Why should a non-Muslim tell a Muslim that his reading of the Qu'ran is off?

I find it funny that both sides claim to know the right interpretation :doh:

[Thiebear]

I have put up disclaimers on my "Agnostic" at best attitude towards religion:

I thought faith and religion were a beautiful thing: Until men decided they needed to be in charge of it and gave out positions of power to administer it as they see fit.

Thats why i try and use recent events (not 200 BC quotes) and from many different "men in power" positions own words (not one lone quack).

[dwbiggs]

I used to believe just like you and i was told to believe otherwise was just the devil tempting me. All cults are the same

I went to a fundamental Baptist church when I was a kid and according to them basically if you weren't out witnessing a majority of your day you were being tempted by the devil. The fire and brimstone they preached scared the S out of me and cured me of religion.

[Zguy28]

I went to a fundamental Baptist church when I was a kid and according to them basically if you weren't out witnessing a majority of your day you were being tempted by the devil. The fire and brimstone they preached scared the S out of me and cured me of religion.

Fundamentalism is fundamentally flawed, no matter what religion. Its belligerent by nature, which is sad when it comes to Christianity, considering that the Apostles of Christ, as recorded in the Bible, were anything but belligerent to non-Christians.

[dwbiggs]

Thats your interpretation...God himself/herself was pretty beligerant and non-understanding...mass genocide with a flood, turning people to stone...and on and on. How are his people expected to interpret the religion if not by the example of its creator?

[techboy]

but many many many times those bullets are in context. Sometimes holy books mean exactly what they say.

I'm glad you posted. I was beginning to think that you had changed user names on me...

Yes they are, because they are no longer arebrainwasher and are free to seek the truth and not the church dogma. I used to believe just like you and i was told to believe otherwise was just the devil tempting me. All cults are the same

If that's what you believed, then you didn't believe just like me.

and Jesus was a hippie even hippies got mad, you ever tried to snatch a hippies last joint

Don't harsh my buzz, man.

[techboy]

Thats why i try and use recent events (not 200 BC quotes) and from many different "men in power" positions own words (not one lone quack).

I was never responding to you, Thiebear. While I think it's still important to search out whether or not a particular spokesperson can really claim to represent a group's thinking, it is certainly appropriate to allow representatives of a group to speak for themselves. That's what I've been saying all along. I'd just caution that it's important to listen to all voices, not just the loudest or most extreme.

[One Shot]

techboy, I have an honest question for you.

You seem to cite a good amount of sources and writings when in a debate about subjects like these, and I respect that you have the ability to back your arguments up. To some it may make you a royal pain in the ass, but whatever, that's the beauty of it.

I guess it doesn't really apply to this thread, because this thread is about interpretations of written and concrete text, so the facts are undisputed. But you also put out written info when you're debating the existence of God, and for that I ask, what makes you believe that these sources are valid?

[wyominghansen]

If you have to ask, then you have no understanding of the word "context". What came before it? What came after? What was the setting? Where was this recorded? What does it say in the original Arabic? Are there any nuances that don't carry over into English, especially since official doctrine states that the Qu'ran is only the Qu'ran in Arabic? What's the definition of believer? Unbeliever? Smite? Is it literal, or is it figurative? Is it part of a larger story that is making a point? Is it mitigated by later verses? Do the vast majority of moderate Muslims take these things in the same way as liberal Jews, who don't stone people to death?

This is the Surah in it's entire context from a Muslim Web Site (not even an extremist site): http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/008.asp

And the setting is :Al Anfâlurah 8. Spoils Of War

8:12Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Ith yoohee rabbuka ilaalmala-ikati annee maAAakum fathabbitoo allatheena amanoosaolqee fee quloobi allatheena kafaroo alrruAAba faidriboofawqa al-aAAnaqi waidriboo minhum kulla bananin

In reference to your question about their definition of smite and non-believers:

8:50If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) theysmite their faces and their backs, (saying): "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-

8:55For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

[techboy]

I guess it doesn't really apply to this thread, because this thread is about interpretations of written and concrete text, so the facts are undisputed. But you also put out written info when you're debating the existence of God, and for that I ask, what makes you believe that these sources are valid?

Well, I guess that you'd have to ask me about a particular source in order for me to be specific, but in general, when I cite a source in support of a point, it's only to make a well-established factual point (which I might then draw a more controversial conclusion from ). So, in general, I try to only use facts which are well-established in whichever scholarly field they apply to, and try to only cite sources that are credible academics.

For instance, in the argument I put forth supporting the historicity of the Ressurection of Jesus, I only use facts to support my argument which are agreed upon by a large (or even vast) majority of historians and other scholars, both Christian and non-Christian.

When a fact is agreed upon by a large (or even vast) majority of experts in the field, and when bias can be ruled out because non-believer experts also agree, I think that's about as valid as you can get in this life.

Again, though, you'd have to be more specific for me to be.

This is the Surah in it's entire context from a Muslim Web Site (not even an extremist site):

No, that really isn't.

You have not provided the passages around that verse. You have provided the Arabic, but we don't know what it means. There's no indication of variant translations, or how scholars have read this passage over the centuries. You have not provided any sense of where the verse appears in the Qu'ran, and whether or not other verses in other places interact in some manner with it, mitigating its meaning. You have not, for instance, addressed whether or not later verses mitigate this one, as Islamic doctrine apparently allows.

Heck, I don't blame you. Proper understanding of religious doctrine takes a lot of time and work.

That being said, however, given that you obviously haven't moved beyond surface, out-of-context readings of Qu'ranic passages, I think the only honest thing to do is to allow the people that have put in the work (the Mulsim scholars) to interpret and explain their own doctrine.

And again, why bother? Even if you're "right", if that's not how Muslims see it or practice it, who cares? Personally, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't want to put in the effort to be a Qu'ranic scholar, so I choose to take Muslims at their word when they say they don't want to behead me as an infidel.

For those extremists that do, I have no problem taking the appropriate actions, of course.

[Larry]

Skipping over huge parts of this thread to comment on:

And again, why bother? Even if you're "right", if that's not how Muslims see it or practice it, who cares? Personally, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I don't want to put in the effort to be a Qu'ranic scholar, so I choose to take Muslims at their word when they say they don't want to behead me as an infidel.

The problem I have with a philosophy of taking non-violent Muslims at their word is that the impression I get is that the only such Muslims I see are the ones who are in countries where Muslims haven't taken over the government yet.

For example, I at least get the impression that there are virtually no countries that are majority Muslim, that don't also impose special taxes on non-Muslims. And ban them from several professions. (I do seem to recall that Iraq, under Saddam, wasn't nearly as gung-ho for such measures as his neighbors were.)

The impression I get is that, when Muslims go from being a minority to a majority, then suddenly the number of Muslims who believe in tolerance for other faiths seems to disappear. That, frankly, Muslims seem to believe in religious tolerance for minority faiths only in countries where Muslims are a minority faith.

[techboy]

For example, I at least get the impression that there are virtually no countries that are majority Muslim, that don't also impose special taxes on non-Muslims. And ban them from several professions. (I do seem to recall that Iraq, under Saddam, wasn't nearly as gung-ho for such measures as his neighbors were.)

I don't think that's necessarily true. What about countries like Turkey or Pakistan?

Again, though, I have no problem with having a problem with countries or peoples that do things like sponsor terrorism or behead "infidels". And, the truth is, as a Christian I'm not all that fond of Islam anyway. I simply object to people cutting and pasting a few verses from the internet and acting like they're Qu'ranic scholars.

[joeknows]

The first and third sentences are simply erroneous, and based on a pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of God in the Bible. (The second is sadly true).

William Lane Craig is one of my favorite Christian scholars, but he is also a highly respected philosopher and writer, and he wrote this a while back in response to a question.

As a libertarian, I also happen to really like the thought at the end about how it's a mistake to legislate God's laws.

In any case, God showed mercy in the Old Testament, and Jesus was anything but a hippie, as the sellers in the Temple could have attested.

well sir i stated my impressions and in my perspective they are spot on.

i HAVE read the bible from cover to cover, twice in the last 2 years. i havent taken the time to memorize versus but if youwant i can dust it <the bible> off and we can have a go .......

i ihave had plenty of down time..... ya know being broke and getting a divorce blah blah blah..... so yeah i have read it. in fact the most life changing decision i have made in my life came from reading that book 2x.

as for jesus being a hippie..... i dunno man he was pretty damn forgiving which means he was pretty damn liberal..... but EVERYONE has to draw a line somewhere..... even jesus......