Geert Wilders' film Fitna attacks Islam.

[obeygiant]

Fitna (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103) via Liveleak.

The Hague - Geert Wilders, Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), has called his just-released Fitna a 'respectable film'. He admitted that Muslims may not be happy with it, but emphasised that he had always stuck to the facts. He said he believes that the film is also 'one thousand kilometres within the framework of the law'.

While noting that he hoped that Fitna's release would cause no disturbances, Mr Wilders stressed that the maker of the film could not be held responsible for any riots or boycotts that might result, and that it was not meant to provoke disruption. Rather, he said, the images in Fitna were intended to make clear the dangers contained in the Qur'an and Islam.

He also said that he hoped it would lead to discussions of the disadvantages of the faith, both in the Netherlands and abroad, and explicitly invited Muslims to engage in such discussions.

This film is very harsh towards Islam. I'm curious as to how the Muslim community will react.

[Iscariot]

This film is very harsh towards Islam. I'm curious as to how the Muslim community will react.

How about "badly"?

[Dont Hurt Me]

They will be burning things,killing folks etc in the name of the religion. Remember how they acted to a cartoon. Amazing how people in the 21st century want to embrace primitive deity worship to the point of killing others because they dont adhere to these ancient fictional beliefs.

[paddy]

This kind of stuff needs to come out, and I'm glad it did, but having watched it it does seem needlessly inflammatory and overly emotive at times. A bit biased IMHO.

[TBi]

I'm curious as to how the Muslim community will react.

Normal muslims will react as any normal person would react after being insulted. They'd voice their opinion and boycott the movie.

The radical muslims* on the other than, I don't want to know how they will react...

* I hate to call these radicals "muslims" because most real muslims, who are honest and law abiding people, do not believe that the way these radicals react is symbolic of the muslim faith.

[shu82]

***** 'em, tolerance is a two way street. I can tolerate crap said concerning me, so can they. No one is immune from freedom. Rioting would only prove the film makers right anyway.

[paddy]

* I hate to call these radicals "muslims" because most real muslims, who are honest and law abiding people, do not believe that the way these radicals react is symbolic of the muslim faith.

Exactly, an the problem is that radicalism was all the film showed. And what the F were those statistics on the number of Muslims living in Europe (with the sinister music in the background) about?

[NAG]

In other news, rational people will act rationally and irrational people will act irrationally.

[Lord Blackadder]

In my (cynical) opinion, Wilders associates Islam with RPGs, suicide bombings etc. and he wants to see Muslims react to his film with these sorts of activities to prove his "point".

To be honest, the only thing that keeps fundamentalist Christians in this country from suicide bombings and religious genocide is the fact that they live in a wealthy society that is relatively well-served by the rule of law. Take all the Christian fundies in the US (and elsewhere) and put them in Iraq, and swap out the US military with that of a Muslim nation, and you'd have the exact same situation in reverse...people would be blowing themselves up for Jesus rather than for Allah.

[NAG]

In my (cynical) opinion, Wilders associates Islam with RPGs, suicide bombings etc. and he wants to see Muslims react to his film with these sorts of activities to prove his "point".

To be honest, the only thing that keeps fundamentalist Christians in this country from suicide bombings and religious genocide is the fact that they live in a wealthy society that is relatively well-served by the rule of law. Take all the Christian fundies in the US (and elsewhere) and put them in Iraq, and swap out the US military with that of a Muslim nation, and you'd have the exact same situation in reverse...people would be blowing themselves up for Jesus rather than for Allah.

Yup, thats why fighting these guys with bombs and stuff is kind of silly. You have to make it so they already lost if they decide to go blow something up (basically have them in the same position as the christian fundies).

And no, egging them on with rather inflammatory videos isn't going to help. It's a bit like poking a stick into a beehive and complaining that only angry bees come out instead of honey.

[digitalnicotine]

I guess I'm a cynic, as I don't believe a word about his intentions regarding this film. An easy way to get your 15 minutes of fame is to inflame a group that is known to have radicals who react on behalf of the entire group, (whether they are all in agreement or not). In other words, it's an attention seeking action. The information he is purporting is already widely accepted as at least partially true (ignorant or not), so the educational factor is bunk. Manipulating religious texts to serve your cause? Gosh, nobody has ever tried that before! :eek:

It's clearly biased, and comes off way more like propaganda than a documentary. A video agenda that is loaded with extremes, targeting not only those responsible, but everyone of the faith. And he has the nerve to say he takes no responsibility for potential reactions. :rolleyes: I hope he's held responsible for the consequences of his actions in making/releasing this film.

[Lord Blackadder]

I hope he's held responsible for the consequences of his actions in making/releasing this film.

I disagree to a certain extent - yes, he should be seen as the incendiary he is, but at the same time people who are willing to kill other people in the name of religion must also be held fully responsible for their own actions, regardless of the fact that they were provoked.

In short, would I be surprised if some mullah issued a fatwa against Wilders and people try to kill him? No. But does that in any way justify the people trying to kill him or anyone else? Hell. No. I think this is part of the point Wilders is trying to make, though he's going about it in the wrong way IMO.

[digitalnicotine]

I disagree to a certain extent - yes, he should be seen as the incendiary he is, but at the same time people who are willing to kill other people in the name of religion must also be held fully responsible for their own actions, regardless of the fact that they were provoked.

In short, would I be surprised if some mullah issued a fatwa against Wilders and people try to kill him? No. But does that in any way justify the people trying to kill him or anyone else? Hell. No. I think this is part of the point Wilders is trying to make, though he's going about it in the wrong way IMO.

Killing is extreme, and not at all what I had in mind when I said I hope he is held responsible. I'm sure he is fully aware of the risks he's taken in releasing this film, and has taken appropriate precautions. But there are ways of making one responsible that are far less extreme than killing them, or condoning their murder. Perhaps preventing him from making more propaganda, and a public apology for deliberately offending those who have the faith, and do not partake in such radical actions, etc.

The irony is, it's quite possible that he will have to greatly alter his lifestyle now in order to preserve his safety, and will view his film as a sacrifice for his cause. It reminds me of the mentality of suicide bombers, albeit, less extreme. I agree his methodology is horribly flawed, and will do absolutely nothing to dissuade those who fully believe their murderous actions are righteous. This leaves him with no point, imo.

[leekohler]

I don't give a crap how they react, nor do I care about their feelings. Deal with it. That's life.

[stevegmu]

I guess I'm a cynic, as I don't believe a word about his intentions regarding this film. An easy way to get your 15 minutes of fame is to inflame a group that is known to have radicals who react on behalf of the entire group, (whether they are all in agreement or not). In other words, it's an attention seeking action. The information he is purporting is already widely accepted as at least partially true (ignorant or not), so the educational factor is bunk. Manipulating religious texts to serve your cause? Gosh, nobody has ever tried that before! :eek:

It's clearly biased, and comes off way more like propaganda than a documentary. A video agenda that is loaded with extremes, targeting not only those responsible, but everyone of the faith. And he has the nerve to say he takes no responsibility for potential reactions. :rolleyes: I hope he's held responsible for the consequences of his actions in making/releasing this film.


He is a politician, not some filmmaker looking to make a name for himself.

Just how should he be 'held responsible?' Beheading? Locked up for expressing his beliefs? He can't be held responsible if irrational, brainwashed zealots choose to murder 'defending Islam.' If anyone should be held accountable, it is the Imams, who drive their flocks to violence, rather than guide them to peaceful, rational disagreement.

I see the members from the 'religion of peace' have succeeded in having Fitna removed from LiveLeak. Who was it who was going on about freedom of speech in England/Europe?

[lofight]

Everybody's aloud to out his/her opinion. I think this film is a very good thing. That's doesn't mean i like Wilders, because i don't..

[Lord Blackadder]

If anyone should be held accountable, it is the Imams, who drive their flocks to violence, rather than guide them to peaceful, rational disagreement.

How about the members of the "flock" who actually commit the violence?

Both side irritate me...this is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

[stevegmu]

How about the members of the "flock" who actually commit the violence?

Both side irritate me...this is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

They, as well, but those who brainwash them are just as, if not more responsible.

Unfortunalely, LiveLeak doesn't have a pair, so removed the vid before I could watch it.

[digitalnicotine]

He is a politician, not some filmmaker looking to make a name for himself.

Just how should he be 'held responsible?' Beheading? Locked up for expressing his beliefs? He can't be held responsible if irrational, brainwashed zealots choose to murder 'defending Islam.' If anyone should be held accountable, it is the Imams, who drive their flocks to violence, rather than guide them to peaceful, rational disagreement.

I see the members from the 'religion of peace' have succeeded in having Fitna removed from LiveLeak. Who was it who was going on about freedom of speech in England/Europe?

Killing is extreme, and not at all what I had in mind when I said I hope he is held responsible. I'm sure he is fully aware of the risks he's taken in releasing this film, and has taken appropriate precautions. But there are ways of making one responsible that are far less extreme than killing them, or condoning their murder. Perhaps preventing him from making more propaganda, and a public apology for deliberately offending those who have the faith, and do not partake in such radical actions, etc.


Obviously missed my elaborating above.

How about the members of the "flock" who actually commit the violence?

Both side irritate me...this is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

Agreed.

[Cleverboy]

Normal muslims will react as any normal person would react after being insulted. They'd voice their opinion and boycott the movie.

The radical muslims* on the other than, I don't want to know how they will react...

* I hate to call these radicals "muslims" because most real muslims, who are honest and law abiding people, do not believe that the way these radicals react is symbolic of the muslim faith. Nice to know good people with clear thought remain vocal. I worked for a muslim run business years ago. After 9/11, more and more threats were being made to their churches and schools. Heard a story the other day of a school teacher telling a muslim child she was going to hell, and encouraged the students to mock her until she went home and cried herself into a depression. Pretty f-ed up.

~ CB

[skunk]

Unfortunalely, LiveLeak doesn't have a pair, so removed the vid before I could watch it.Every cloud has a silver lining.

[Sesshi]

I'm curious as to how the Muslim community will react.

Oh I don't know.

How would the black community in the US react when a publicity-seeking politician with debatable, but not entirely unclear white supremacist leanings releases a 'respectable film'?

[Iscariot]

In my (cynical) opinion, Wilders associates Islam with RPGs, suicide bombings etc. and he wants to see Muslims react to his film with these sorts of activities to prove his "point".

To be honest, the only thing that keeps fundamentalist Christians in this country from suicide bombings and religious genocide is the fact that they live in a wealthy society that is relatively well-served by the rule of law. Take all the Christian fundies in the US (and elsewhere) and put them in Iraq, and swap out the US military with that of a Muslim nation, and you'd have the exact same situation in reverse...people would be blowing themselves up for Jesus rather than for Allah.

*Inserts the possibility of an impending economic collapse*

[leekohler]

*Inserts the possibility of an impending economic collapse*

Oh no- please don't. We have enough problems already. ;)

[dpaanlka]

The video is back on LiveLeak.

My opinion is that I'm glad it was made. I don't understand the people who continue to insist it is a teeny tiny isolated fringe minority of muslims who believe this way. I've had muslims tell me to my face they believe things along these lines.

Next, somebody will point to WBC, or other fringe sects of Christianity for comparison. Sorry, that isn't comparable. Besides the fact that the WBC doesn't kill anybody, those types are nowhere near the same percentage of Christianity as "extreme" muslims are of Islam.

[Iscariot]

The video is back on LiveLeak.

My opinion is that I'm glad it was made. I don't understand the people who continue to insist it is a teeny tiny isolated fringe minority of muslims who believe this way. I've had muslims tell me to my face they believe things along these lines.

Next, somebody will point to WBC, or other fringe sects of Christianity for comparison. Sorry, that isn't comparable. Besides the fact that the WBC doesn't kill anybody, those types are nowhere near the same percentage of Christianity as "extreme" muslims are of Islam.

I agree with your first statement. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the United States as well as the rest of the Western world is hugely exaggerated, but it certainly seems to be true that fundamental Islamicism is neither rare nor benign.

However, your second statement is off the mark. Christian Fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous as any other kind of religious fundamentalism, or any form of fundamentalism. The only difference between the two at this particular stage of history is scale and opportunity.

[robanga]

When is the last time you have seen Christian fundamentalists tell you that there goal is for everyone to live under their theocracy?

When have you known a deacon from an "Assembly of God" church tell you that the Bible clearly says if unbelievers will not convert they should be put to the sword?

When have you seen a bunch of Christian fundamentalists plot to blow up the world's second largest building in Kuala Lumpur because it rests on the soil of an Islamic state?

When have you seen cells of Christian fundamentalists attempt to get chemical agents, plans for buildings, attack public transportation, kidnap Islamic tourists strolling through Georgia,

I've never seen a Baptist preacher on any flight I have been on attempt to light a fuse on his shoes and bring down the aircraft.

Have you ever seen a Christian fundamentist attack the ticket desk at Emirates Airlines or blow up a Mosque in Detroit?

Just as dangerous. Just as dangerous? Really?

[dpaanlka]

However, your second statement is off the mark. Christian Fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous as any other kind of religious fundamentalism, or any form of fundamentalism. The only difference between the two at this particular stage of history is scale and opportunity.

I think the phase of Christian fundamentalism has past. Christianity has "grown up" in a way that Islam has as of yet not.

Also, I don't agree that Islamic fundamentalism is over-exaggerated. Can you prove that it's over exaggerated? I suppose, perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists want me to believe that they're a larger percentage of the muslim population than they really are?

If that's the case they've certainly succeeded.

[skunk]

When is the last time you have seen Christian fundamentalists tell you that there goal is for everyone to live under their theocracy?

When have you known a deacon from an "Assembly of God" church tell you that the Bible clearly says if unbelievers will not convert they should be put to the sword?

When have you seen a bunch of Christian fundamentalists plot to blow up the world's second largest building in Kuala Lumpur because it rests on the soil of an Islamic state?

When have you seen cells of Christian fundamentalists attempt to get chemical agents, plans for buildings, attack public transportation, kidnap Islamic tourists strolling through Georgia,

I've never seen a Baptist preacher on any flight I have been on attempt to light a fuse on his shoes and bring down the aircraft.

Have you ever seen a Christian fundamentist attack the ticket desk at Emirates Airlines or blow up a Mosque in Detroit?

Just as dangerous. Just as dangerous? Really?Yes indeed, far more dangerous. Has it escaped your notice - as it clearly has escaped the notice of Mr Wilders - that while 3,000 were killed by Muslims in New York, one hundred times that number of Muslims have been killed by Christians in Afghanistan and in Iraq, by Jews in Palestine and in Lebanon? The difference is opportunity and capability. We in the West usually have it all our own way, which is why we are so shocked when the occasional counterstrike gets through. If you insist on seeing things from a religious perspective, how do you feel about the shooting down of an Iranian airliner full of innocent Muslims by Christian sailors on the USS Vincennes? How do you feel about the political subversion of Muslim states such as Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Somalia and others by US and other Christian governments aiding or installing corrupt regimes? Long term political, economic and military impotence will drive any population to embrace extremism.

[Iscariot]

I think the phase of Christian fundamentalism has past. Christianity has "grown up" in a way that Islam has as of yet not.

Also, I don't agree that Islamic fundamentalism is over-exaggerated. Can you prove that it's over exaggerated? I suppose, perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists want me to believe that they're a larger percentage of the muslim population than they really are?

If that's the case they've certainly succeeded.

Christianity has not grown up in a way that Islam hasn't. Reduced to fundamentalism they both espouse similar values that similarly retard human progression and science. I blame neither religion, but rather fundamentalism.

I said the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is over-exaggerated. Their numbers certainly are not.

[robanga]

Yes indeed, far more dangerous. Has it escaped your notice - as it clearly has escaped the notice of Mr Wilders - that while 3,000 were killed by Muslims in New York, one hundred times that number of Muslims have been killed by Christians in Afghanistan and in Iraq, by Jews in Palestine and in Lebanon? The difference is opportunity and capability. We in the West usually have it all our own way, which is why we are so shocked when the occasional counterstrike gets through. If you insist on seeing things from a religious perspective, how do you feel about the shooting down of an Iranian airliner full of innocent Muslims by Christian sailors on the USS Vincennes? How do you feel about the political subversion of Muslim states such as Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Somalia and others by US and other Christian governments aiding or installing corrupt regimes? Long term political, economic and military impotence will drive any population to embrace extremism.


Those actions were by Christian Fundamentalists? Those actions were taken by the United States Government. This government is not fundamentalist by a long shot or even Christian by a long shot. There may have been a few Christians in the ranks but I would hardly describe what you have listed above as an attack on Islam by Christendom or the beginning of another round of crusades.

This is one political system against another yes, but to say that Christianity is as dangerous fundamentally? Wow.

[dpaanlka]

Christianity has not grown up in a way that Islam hasn't.

Sure it has. Christianity used to be the same way hundreds of years ago. Now it isn't.

Islam = Christianity hundreds of years ago.

Yes indeed, far more dangerous. Has it escaped your notice - as it clearly has escaped the notice of Mr Wilders - that while 3,000 were killed by Muslims in New York, one hundred times that number of Muslims have been killed by Christians in Afghanistan and in Iraq

Not in the name of the Pope. The U.S. Government is not a religion. The A310 being shot down by the United States - clearly an accident by all reasonable accounts and analysis.

Nothing in "Fitna" is an accident.

The United States isn't dangerous unless you pose some sort of threat to the United States. Rule of thumb - don't pose a threat to the United States.

[skunk]

There may have been a few Christians in the ranks but I would hardly describe what you have listed above as an attack on Islam by Christendom or the beginning of another round of crusades.That is exactly how it reads to millions of Muslims.

[dpaanlka]

That is exactly how it reads to millions of Muslims.

Only by their own imagination and emotion.

The sailors on the ship didn't say "Praise Jesus, we've killed the infidel Airbus!"

[skunk]

Not in the name of the Pope. The U.S. Government is not a religion. The A310 being shot down by the United States - clearly an accident by all reasonable accounts and analysis.You're not very good at seeing things from the other side, are you?

[Iscariot]

When is the last time you have seen Christian fundamentalists tell you that there goal is for everyone to live under their theocracy?

That's one of the basic tenets of any organized religion, even if it isn't fundamentalist. The examples are plentiful from evangelism to attempts to regulate abortion, same-sex marriage and school curriculum based on the morality of the bible.

When have you known a deacon from an "Assembly of God" church tell you that the Bible clearly says if unbelievers will not convert they should be put to the sword?

Evangelical Alliance, which represents 1.2 million Christians, 2006.

When have you seen a bunch of Christian fundamentalists plot to blow up the world's second largest building in Kuala Lumpur because it rests on the soil of an Islamic state?

That's ridiculously specific — why would Christian fundamentalists plot to blow up something to further Islamic values?

But how about three self-described Christian "activists" in Texas plotting to blow up a Church? The "Concerned Christians" of Jerusalem (1999) plotting to incite extreme acts of violence?

[dpaanlka]

You're not very good at seeing things from the other side, are you?

I don't have to sympathize with their views to be aware of their views.

But how about three self-described Christian "activists" in Texas plotting to blow up a Church? The "Concerned Christians" of Jerusalem (1999) plotting to incite extreme acts of violence?

That isn't a widespread problem. You're comparing three Christians in Texas to all of Islamic fundamentalism, which is clearly much more widespread.

I myself even gave the example of the WBC. I'm aware that there are extremists in Christianity. They're just nowhere, not even CLOSE to being on the same level as in Islam.

[Iscariot]

Sure it has. Christianity used to be the same way hundreds of years ago. Now it isn't.

Islam = Christianity hundreds of years ago.

Non-fundamental Christianity is no more moderate than non-fundamental Islam. There are millions of peaceful, intelligent and civilized Christians and Muslims all over the world. Fundamental Christianity is just as extreme as Fundamental Islamicism. The difference is, again, scale.

[dpaanlka]

Non-fundamental Christianity is no more moderate than non-fundamental Islam. There are millions of peaceful, intelligent and civilized Christians and Muslims all over the world. Fundamental Christianity is just as extreme as Fundamental Islamicism. The difference is, again, scale.

Democracy and Liberalism were born of Christian nations and people. Show me an example of such progressive innovations in any Muslim nation. Christianity did indeed "grow up" - I'm not here to argue if one fundamentalist Christian is as bad as a fundamentalist Muslim. I agree, the difference is the scale. What is causing the scale of radical Muslims to be so huge, and apparently growing, in this modern world of sharing and information and liberalism?

And listening to these extreme Muslims - they seem to hate everybody, not just Christians and Jews. What the hell could anybody possibly have against buddhism?

[robanga]

There is a difference in scale you are right. So that makes fundamentalist Islam much more dangerous than the same fringe of Christianity (and many would say much more widespread in the former faith)

To claim that they are of equal danger to society is beyond belief. Its like ignoring the Bear in your back garden, and chasing a way a yipping little poodle from your front garden.

[skunk]

I don't have to sympathize with their views to be aware of their views.Without exercising your imagination, you will not see it as millions of Muslims see it. These are not "Fundamentalists", these are ordinary, outraged members of the Umma who see themselves as being under sustained attack.

all of Islamic fundamentalism, which is clearly much more widespread.No it isn't. See above.

[dpaanlka]

No it isn't. See above.

Yes it is. See above.

Western countries don't attack anyone in the name of Jesus.

[skunk]

Democracy and Liberalism were born of Christian nations and people.Bollocks. Democracy and Liberalism were born of eighth to fifth century BCE Mediterranean civilization.

[skunk]

Western countries don't attack anyone in the name of Jesus.They have and they do. What was that George Bush said about God whispering in his ear?

[dpaanlka]

Bollocks. Democracy and Liberalism were born of eighth to fifth century BCE Mediterranean civilization.

Then killed by Mediterranean civilization.

They have and they do. What was that George Bush said about God whispering in his ear?

President Bush often has to make connections to his own Christian faith to connect with the larger Christian conservative population. This doesn't mean we attacked Iraq solely to kill Muslims in the name of Jesus and expand Christianity.

Really, these comparisons are just silly. Don't let your Bush hatred overcome you.

[Iscariot]

Democracy and Liberalism were born of Christian nations and people. Show me an example of such progressive innovations in any Muslim nation. Christianity did indeed "grow up" - I'm not here to argue if one fundamentalist Christian is as bad as a fundamentalist Muslim. I agree, the difference is the scale. What is causing the scale of radical Muslims to be so huge, and apparently growing, in this modern world of sharing and information and liberalism?

Actually, Democracy and Liberalism were born of Greek nations. Their principals were preserved until the assimilation of Greek and Arabic knowledge during the renaissance.

Here are some fantastic innovations in Muslim nations during the Islamic Golden Age, before they backslid backwards into the progressive vacuum of fundamentalism:


Preservation of hundreds of thousands of Greek texts;
The pursual of humanistic, rational and scientific discourses in their search for knowledge, meaning and values;
60,000 treatises, poems, polemics and compilations were published each year;
Origin or development of public hospitals and libraries;
Degree-granting Universities;
Astronomy observations as research institutes;
Significant contribution to the globalization of the period;
Cash crops and crop rotations;


This is but a small sample — the list of innovations or expansion of existing ideas or techniques goes on well beyond what can possibly be conveyed in a forum post. The Islamic empire's contribution to the modern world is undeniable.

[dpaanlka]

Actually, Democracy and Liberalism were born of Greek nations. Their principals were preserved until the assimilation of Greek and Arabic knowledge during the renaissance.

Arabic ≠ Muslim

Here are some fantastic innovations in Muslim nations during the Islamic Golden Age, before they backslid backwards into the progressive vacuum of fundamentalism:


Preservation of hundreds of thousands of Greek texts;
The pursual of humanistic, rational and scientific discourses in their search for knowledge, meaning and values;
60,000 treatises, poems, polemics and compilations were published each year;
Origin or development of public hospitals and libraries;
Degree-granting Universities;
Astronomy observations as research institutes;
Significant contribution to the globalization of the period;
Cash crops and crop rotations;


This is but a small sample — the list of innovations or expansion of existing ideas or techniques goes on well beyond what can possibly be conveyed in a forum post. The Islamic empire's contribution to the modern world is undeniable.

Excuse me for not being quite as impressed by poems and telescopes as yourself. Remember, while all this sky-watching and crop-selling was going on, they failed to prevent their own demise into tyrannical ideology, oppressive behavior, and fanatical religion, while at the same time, western Christian nations rose out of it and have reached far higher than any Muslim nation ever has.

[skunk]

Then killed by Mediterranean civilization.On the contrary, as Iscariot points out, the traditions were preserved and added to by Muslims and formed the core stimulus to the flowering of Renaissance thought when transmitted to the then backward Europeans by the Muslims in the universities of Toledo and elsewhere in Spain.

President Bush often has to make connections to his own Christian faith to connect with the larger Christian conservative population. This doesn't mean we attacked Iraq solely to kill Muslims in the name of Jesus and expand Christianity.

Really, these comparisons are just silly.The difference is meaningless. Try explaining the niceties of that one to the average dead Muslim.

[dpaanlka]

The difference is meaningless. Try explaining the niceties of that one to the average dead Muslim.

That's their lack of understanding, not mine. I'm already well friggin' aware that Muslims think everything revolves around their religion.

You keep mistaking my unsympathetic attitude as to not understanding why they feel Islam is being attacked.

[KingYaba]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

>>On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families.

I wonder if there is any correlation between these threats and those the Danish cartoonists received so many months ago? Glad they put it back up.

[Iscariot]

Arabic ≠ Muslim

This all occured during the Islamic Golden Age. Interesting that it's called the Renaissance and not the Golden Christian Age.

Excuse me for not being quite as impressed by poems and telescopes as yourself.

Ridiculous! We wouldn't have modern science and technology without the important advancements made during the time period, which I will remind you was the 8th to 13th century. Your failure to be impressed is coming from an ever growing obvious bias to disregard anything that conflicts with your world-view. You may be unwilling to accept the importance of Islamic contribution to modern society, but scholars, scientists, engineers and doctors worldwide have written research paper after tome on the subject. Forgive me for appreciating history objectively.


Remember, while all this sky-watching and crop-selling was going on, they failed to prevent their own demise into tyrannical ideology, oppressive behavior, and fanatical religion, while at the same time, western Christian nations rose out of it and have reached far higher than any Muslim nation ever has.

Which I have, of course, stated numerous times in numerous threads. Why you feel the need to repeat it as if it somehow negates the important of their contribution is beyond me. Of course, Christianity was only able to crawl out if it's fundamentalist black hole thanks to Greek and Arabic knowledge that they obtained by conquering historically important sites. Meanwhile Islam succumbed to the economic costs of empire while being assailed externally and internally.

[digitalnicotine]

Skunk, you're pointing out truths that some are just not able to accept. I have lived in several Muslim nations, and concur with your ability to see through their eyes on how things appear. Whether or not their "vision" is purely accurate is questionable. But then, isn't that the root of this topic? Don't both sides have questionable views of the other, based on propaganda (among other things) just like the video footage in question? How many of you who doubt what Skunk claims have actually ever lived in a Muslim nation, among Muslim people? Knowing someone who is Muslim and living in USA is not a fair basis for such conclusions. Judging any large group of people based on your experiences with one is called prejudice.

[dpaanlka]

Skunk, you're pointing out truths that some are just not able to accept. I have lived in several Muslim nations, and concur with your ability to see through their eyes on how things appear. Whether or not their "vision" is purely accurate is questionable. But then, isn't that the root of this topic? Don't both sides have questionable views of the other, based on propaganda (among other things) just like the video footage in question? How many of you who doubt what Skunk claims have actually ever lived in a Muslim nation, among Muslim people? Knowing someone who is Muslim and living in USA is not a fair basis for such conclusions. Judging any large group of people based on your experiences with one is called prejudice.

How much understanding and sympathy should I exhibit? Where is the line drawn from "I understand your views" to "you are just plain wrong."

Should I understand and sympathize all the way to the declaration of Sharia law in the United States?

The other side of this debate doesn't seem content with understanding. They want agreement.

[digitalnicotine]

How much understanding and sympathy should I exhibit? Where is the line drawn from "I understand your views" to "you are just plain wrong."

Should I understand and sympathize all the way to the declaration of Sharia law in the United States?

The other side of this debate doesn't seem content with understanding. They want agreement.

Why jump right to the extreme? I never said understanding and agreeing are the same thing. What I did say, is that basing your understanding of a group of people on a single experience with a single person is prejudice. Where did sympathizing even come into the debate? There is a difference between sympathizing with someones view, and understanding it. Understanding their views is what skunk outlined. Sympathizing would be saying you feel sorry for the things that led to their views.

As far as wanting agreement? Do I want you do change your views to align with my own? Only if you decide to do so on your own, based on knowledge you possess and obtain. I don't want you to agree just for the sake of agreeing, because that would mean you're not really expressing your views and beliefs, but just mimicking what you think others want you to say, which is lame, imo. By debating, I think both sides want to share the things that led to their beliefs, in hopes of giving the opposition something else to consider and think about. Whether or not this sways your opinion is up to you.

[skunk]

How much understanding and sympathy should I exhibit?Enough to demonstrate a meaningful engagement with the problem of perception, if you wish to contribute in a constructive fashion.

Should I understand and sympathize all the way to the declaration of Sharia law in the United States?I believe the secular, humanist tradition is quite strong enough to hold its ground against a theocracy. You should have more confidence.

The other side of this debate doesn't seem content with understanding. They want agreement.You do not seem to want to understand either. Blinkered confrontation will not solve the problem.

As digitalnicotine says, unless you can make an honest attempt to see things through Muslim eyes, there is not much hope of an improvement.

[Iscariot]

The other side of this debate doesn't seem content with understanding. They want agreement.

The same could be said for Creationists, fundamental Christians, or fundamentalism of any yarn. But because fundamentalism creates a vacuum of knowledge and progress, they will always be behind the secular and moderate alike.

The only danger is succumbing to a similar 'wipe 'em out, silence the dissent' fundamentalist attitude, which you seem dangerously close to espousing yourself with your inability to separate fact from fiction and history from doctrine.

[Macky-Mac]

Enough to demonstrate a meaningful engagement with the problem of perception, if you wish to contribute in a constructive fashion.

I believe the secular, humanist tradition is quite strong enough to hold its ground against a theocracy. You should have more confidence.

You do not seem to want to understand either. Blinkered confrontation will not solve the problem.

As digitalnicotine says, unless you can make an honest attempt to see things through Muslim eyes, there is not much hope of an improvement.

hmmmmm, maybe you should consider applying these principals in your own statements about the christians you're always railing against?

[skunk]

hmmmmm, maybe you should consider applying these principals in your own statements about the christians you're always railing against?It is precisely the confrontational attitude of some Christians - and Muslims - towards those of other faiths and none which triggers so many cultural battles. It is this refusal to accommodate against which I rail.

[aquajet]

They want agreement.

If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the Gallup organization's world poll (http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/26410/gallup-center-muslim-studies.aspx) of Muslim populations in various countries in the Middle East as well as Muslim populations in the West. In a nutshell, the values and ideals of mainstream Muslims aren't all that different than our own.

Of particular interest is the pdf which discusses moderate vs. extremist views:

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in March 2006, for example, found that a full third of Americans -- 33% -- believe mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims...

However, Gallup data intended to gauge the prevalence of an “extremist” mindset among Muslims debunk the notion that terrorism enjoys widespread support. Not only are those who sympathize with terrorist acts a relatively small minority, but the most frequently cited aspect of the Muslim world that Muslims themselves say they admire least is “narrow-minded fanaticism and violent extremism."

[Gelfin]

109:1 Say: O disbelievers!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;
109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.


The Qur'an devotes an entire book to those who do not follow its teachings, and the above is it. All of it. Gosh, how will the world ever survive such intolerance as this? Truly, this is a religion of hatred unlike any seen before on the Earth.

(Yes, I know it says some substantially more unkind things in other places, but the point is, like the Bible, it's all in which parts you choose to take seriously and how you individually choose to apply them to your life.)

[robanga]

Of course there are always verses like these....

008:012: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

This a belief system based on an interesting theory that God actually NEEDS people to force others to follow HIM.

Somehow that seems rather an ungodly quality, but thats just my opinion.

[Macky-Mac]

It is precisely the confrontational attitude of some Christians - and Muslims - towards those of other faiths and none which triggers so many cultural battles. It is this refusal to accommodate against which I rail.

well then, it seems that you and dpaanlka are greatly in agreement here......you want to rail against those whose religious views lead them to a confrontational attitude.....and so does he.

[Iscariot]

Of course there are always verses like these....

008:012: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

This a belief system based on an interesting theory that God actually NEEDS people to force others to follow HIM.

Somehow that seems rather an ungodly quality, but thats just my opinion.

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." -2 Chronicles 15:12-13

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." Deuteronomy 13:7

Just as an appetizer. There are approximately 842 violent or cruel passages in the bible and God kills over 2.2 million people. The Quran has far fewer violent passages overall, but a greater percentage of it's passages are violent in nature, by about three to one, IIRC. However, in the Quran God only kills approximately four people. To claim either tome is inherently more violent is erroneous and dishonest, as both books contain more than their fair share of violence, cruelty and calls-to-arms.

[robanga]

I'm not defending Judaism at all. But to call Judaism or for that matter Christianity a threat comparable to Islam is to ignore the clear and present danger that is all around you today. If you ignore it out of blind hate of all faiths, or simply defend it because you have more of a bone to pick with Christianity or the like...then I can see why one perhaps take this stance, but beyond that I find it amazing

The other thing to understand about the Bible (from the Christian) or the Torah is that what you are reading is a record of what was done. Not what you are being called to do as a matter of course. Apparently we understand from the text what happened to those that were in Israel before it was taken by the believers. It gets even more juicy as you point out in several areas.

There are at least 111 verses of the Koran that do not simply tell you what occurred and then why it occurred, but instead exhort you to take action upon what the prophet is telling you. If you look at and compare the verses in context (or as close to context as you can, after all a follower of Islam will tell you no translation outside of Arabic really is good for these type of things) you really begin to see the difference.

Show me verses that clearly tell Christians to take these types of actions toward the non believer;

009:029: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Indeed instead you will find a pretty pacifist Christian faith, that tells you to leave what is Caesars to Caesar and love your enemy.

Clearly we see Islamic fundamentalists all over the world, putting their faith to action. If you truly believed these things, one can easily understand why.

[digitalnicotine]

It's interesting the number of you quoting from the Qur'an. I swear not one of you has ever read it, and are using quotes you found online to fuel your agenda. It's easy to twist scripture to your own agenda. It's easy to trust in translations by those with an agenda, and declare it to be truthful, and accurate. It's easy to ignore all things that contradict your agenda, and magnify those that align.

I refuse to use quoted (translated) scripture in order to prove or disprove a point. It's always been way too easy to manipulate, and people generally don't put forth the effort to check your quotes for accuracy.

However, using alleged quotes from the Qur'an as a basis for declaring an entire religion as "right" or "wrong" is just as lame as using their using the Bible to justify their hatred. And it's not new, it's gone on throughout history. The Crusades were indeed a violent means of forcing the Christian faith on non-believers, and using all sorts of sadistic implements to torture and kill those who didn't toe the line. I don't need to quote scripture in order to back up this claim, the evidence and history are widely known, (and easily forgotten in modern times). In Muslim nations, being Muslim is not optional. It's do or die. When you are forced to believe in a faith, how much of yourself do you put into that task? Do you truly believe? Or do you merely go through the motions in order to preserve your life (and likely resent it)? So saying that all people who are Muslim are extremists is complete bs. Even saying that all Muslims believe in the Qur'an is a stretch.

The entire mentality that their holy book claims it's righteous for them to kill non-believers is a huge case of pot-kettle-black. As was pointed out earlier, the Muslim extremists view the western world as Christian and/or Jewish. They do not care about separation of church and state. They do not care if you are an athiest who happens to live in one of their targeted nations. They do not care if you are a devout Muslim who happens to live in one of their targeted nations. To them, we are all Christians or Jews. Just because the present day reflects the Muslim extremists utilizing this blatant exploitation of misguided interpretation, doesn't mean it's new, or exclusive to them. Read some history, and you'll recognize that there have been extremists in every major religion, and the blood baths that have resulted are repulsively excessive on all counts.

The problem is on both sides. The extremists ignorance in assuming we are all of one of these faiths, and therefore targets. Western ignorance in assuming that all Muslims are extremist murderers who can't tolerate (and therefore must kill) anyone who doesn't believe in their faith. Both of these attitudes are what lead to the violence. Both of these attitudes are what result in propaganda that does nothing but inflame the ignorance, and lead to people feeling righteous about their views. It's just a matter of time before that false righteousness becomes bloodshed. Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands. This is not a new conflict, it's been going on since the beginning of both religions. A lot of people are looking for a reason to hate and kill, and "religion" has far too often afforded them the opportunity to do both.

As long as we continue to perpetuate this ignorance and hatred, there will always be killing fields filled with extremists and innocent bystanders. Hatred and killing is never the answer. Until we all learn this, it will continue.

[Iscariot]

I'm not defending Judaism at all. But to call Judaism or for that matter Christianity a threat comparable to Islam is to ignore the clear and present danger that is all around you today. If you ignore it out of blind hate of all faiths, or simply defend it because you have more of a bone to pick with Christianity or the like...then I can see why one perhaps take this stance, but beyond that I find it amazing

Or we "ignore it" because we recognize that Islamic Fundamentalism has retarded Islamic cultural, scientific and technological progress for the past eight or so centuries, and that as a result they represent a non-threat. They may have thousands upon thousands willing to die for their cause, but they lack the operational capabilities to mount any kind of offensive. IEDs and Guerrilla warfare may be tactically sound as a defensive strategy, if you have enough bodies willing to die, but it's ability to overthrow any nation on Earth with even a decent military presence is demonstrably poor.

Any weapons the Islamic Fundamentalists have at their disposal are either seriously outdated or simply sold to them by a third-party. They are always going to be several steps behind. The operational capabilities of all Islamic states combined would not even be able to match that of the much-derided French, who are among many nations on the planet with the capability to reduce any united Islamic front to ash in a matter of hours to days. Afterall, their most terrifying and effective attack to date used utility knifes.

Whereas any fundamentalism with an power base within a first world nation represents a much more dangerous fringe element. If Christian Fundamentalists have the ear of the President, for example, they immediately have access to more power than all of Islam combined. If you consider fundamentalists with 800 years of societal non-development dangerous, then you should consider fundamentalists with todays impressive technologic and economic wealth vastly more dangerous.

[Gelfin]

It's interesting the number of you quoting from the Qur'an. I swear not one of you has ever read it, and are using quotes you found online to fuel your agenda. It's easy to twist scripture to your own agenda. It's easy to trust in translations by those with an agenda, and declare it to be truthful, and accurate. It's easy to ignore all things that contradict your agenda, and magnify those that align.

That was actually a bit of the point I was getting at, and apparently I did not do so clearly enough. The Qur'an says both things. The Bible says both things. The followers of both books cherry pick the parts that allow them to do what their own consciences tell them to do, and then pretend they do so with the authority of God behind them. In so doing they believe they are absolving themselves of responsibility for their own consciences.

The "oooo Islam is scary unlike anything ever before it and you should fear it and go along with us when we tell you it needs to be destroyed" message is pure propaganda. The number of crazy Islamists is a tiny impurity in the whole of the religion. The number of people who really want to convert the entire world to a strict Islamic state are probably few enough they couldn't do so if we gave them free rein to try, even allowing for the fact that the Qur'an might seem to suggest it in a few places.

Most people of every faith find extremism distasteful, and my only real beef with the moderates is that they serve to run interference and legitimize the extremists by extension. The hardest thing to deal with when it comes to extreme religion is that when an extremist member of a religion does something crazy, the moderate wants to say, "criticize the craziness, but don't criticize the religion." Usually, however, it turns out the extremist's magic book really does say that, and if the moderate follower took the book as seriously as he reflexively says it ought to be taken, he'd be out doing crazy things too, and it's hard for the moderate to dance around why he isn't.

[robanga]

Again , not really meaning to turn this into a Christianity vs Islam thing, other than to refute the poster's contention that they are "equally as dangerous".

Certainly extremism in any form has dangers. Look at what environmentalist extremists do for instance, great idea to defend the environment, bad idea to burn down homes and businesses.

Again I ask any of you that say " Both holy writings tell you do the same thing" to come up with examples in the Christian side of the Bible that tell you do these things. You are going to be looking really long and really hard, so get yourself a beverage. This is a commonly said thing out in the debate world however, I don't blame you for saying it. It is just is not based in fact.

This is where the fundamentalist issue diverges. There is no comparison between very fundamentalist christian leanings and the same side of things on Islam, because the basis of the message is very different.

On faith teaches you that God does not really need you to do anything other than believe, indeed He does not even NEED you to do that, it's your opportunity to do so. (its probably the only non-performance based faith in existence but don't quote me on that ) Indeed everyone is equally unclean in their system.

The other faith teaches you that indeed there are MANY things you must do to meet the standards of God. (very performance-based).

Herein lies the difference.

[Iscariot]

Again , not really meaning to turn this into a Christianity vs Islam thing, other than to refute the poster's contention that they are "equally as dangerous".

That's a straw man, because you are taking it out of context. Both are "equally as dangerous" when driven to fundamental extremes and when given equal opportunity. I was said poster, and if you go back to my original post, you will see that I framed my argument using those two qualifiers. With equal scale and equal opportunity, fundamentalism of any stripe is going to be equally dangerous. It doesn't matter what doctrine you adhere to, or even if it's religious in nature at all.

You can argue in this current stage of history that Islamic Fundamentalism is more dangerous because it's more widespread, and you could argue that Christian Fundamentalism is more dangerous because it represents a larger threat to our way of life by virtue of it's location within the first world. Both could be considered to be valid arguments. However, to put forth the notion that one form of fundamentalism is inherently less dangerous than the other is simply not based in reality and flies in the face of two thousands years of history.

Certainly extremism in any form has dangers. Look at what environmentalist extremists do for instance, great idea to defend the environment, bad idea to burn down homes and businesses.

This is not comparable. To be sure, this is terrorism, but it's of a different kind that's not motivated by fundamentalism. I'm becoming less and less convinced you understand the debate and more and more convinced you're simply interested in promoting your faith above another.

Again I ask any of you that say " Both holy writings tell you do the same thing" to come up with examples in the Christian side of the Bible that tell you do these things. You are going to be looking really long and really hard, so get yourself a beverage. This is a commonly said thing out in the debate world however, I don't blame you for saying it. It is just is not based in fact.

I have already listed a Bible passage that states unequivocally that you should kill your own family members if they are caught in idolatry. I didn't need to get myself a beverage, the total number of violent passages within the books that compose the bible is nothing short of astounding.

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." - Deuteronomy 17:12

'Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." -Deuteronomy 17:2-5

"One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die." - Leviticus 24:10

Also see:
Romans 1:24
Ezekiel 9:5
Jeremiah 48:10
Ezekiel 35:7
etc.

[robanga]

I am not promoting any faith. The examples you use are about the formation of Israel and have very little to do with the covenant of God with his people, once Christ had arrived on the scene.

Again not from the Torah, not from the old testament but from the faith post Christ. Big difference.

Look there, not in the book of Kings or Judges etc, because those only provide half of the story of that belief system.

[sushi]

Don't let your Bush hatred overcome you.
Most interesting point! :)

[robanga]

Whoops missed your reference to Romans 1:24 ok let's take a look at that shall we?

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Hello? This is encouraging people to blow themselves up at your local market? Hmmm .... I'm not seeing a connection there.

[robanga]

This however is a little different than Romans 1:24

004:091: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

From the religion of peace.....

[Iscariot]

I am not promoting any faith. The examples you use are about the formation of Israel and have very little to do with the covenant of God with his people, once Christ had arrived on the scene.

Again not from the Torah, not from the old testament from the faith post Christ. Big difference.

Then you're being selective in which texts to follow. Christian Fundamentalists are not. Similarly, moderate Muslims would be selective in which texts to follow, and Islamic Fundamentalists are not. Both opt for far more literal interpretations, in which case both sets of religious texts are equally violent (albeit in somewhat different ways, as I posted above).

Really though, this isn't an important pillar of comparison. History illustrates that both sets of fundamentalism are inherently dangerous and violent, and far more importantly, both retard human progress. Innovation only truly flourishes in a free-thinking environment.

Whoops missed your reference to Romans 1:24 ok let's take a look at that shall we?

I meant the full text continuing on to 32. "They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things".

Hello? This is encouraging people to blow themselves up at your local market? Hmmm .... I'm not seeing a connection there.

There's nothing in the Qu'ran that suggests people blow themselves up in a local market. As far as I know, there were no explosives when the Qu'ran was supposedly written, which means you're exagerating and you know it.

From the religion of peace.....

I am not defending Islam, which should be evident by now. I suppose you have much more of a platform when you distort the facts though.

[robanga]

Well you did not say all the way to verse 32 :cool:


24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

C'mon now you know the writer was not speaking of earthly death but spiritual death as in " the wages of sin is death"

Dramatic in its stance? I'll give you that. But not quite as dramatic as this little gem;

008:065: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand

[Iscariot]

008:065: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand

Actually, it's "urge the believers to fight", not to war, which is vastly different. Much of 008 actually deals with God's mercy, like 008:69 and 008:70, which specifically extends God's mercy and even betterment to the good among any prisoners. The whole section is pretty tame actually, which means you're already stretching after digging up four or five passages to my dozen or so of the Bible.

I can go blow for blow with you all day -- and eventually I'm going to win, because the Bible's a whole lot longer. However, I've already won, as your argument has dwindled down from actually engaging me on a logical basis to quoting Quran passages and making hyperbolic claims about suicide bombings.

[obeygiant]

Romans 1:24
Ezekiel 9:5
Jeremiah 48:10
Ezekiel 35:7
etc.

Looks like someone has been reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. :)

Let me also recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Quran. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm)

[Iscariot]

Looks like someone has been reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. :)

Let me also recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Quran. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm)

Actually, I was just Googling. I wish I had known of that resource, would have made this a lot faster :o

[obeygiant]

Both the Bible and the Quran have good and bad things about them. However at this point in history, radical Islam seems to have more "legs" as it were.

[Iscariot]

Both the Bible and the Quran have good and bad things about them. However at this point in history, radical Islam seems to have more "legs" as it were.

That's pretty much what I was saying, with the caveats that: a) Islam doesn't pose much of an operational threat due to 8 or so centuries of oppression and b) Christianity doesn't have the same numbers as Islam, but they may be better positioned to pose a threat if so chosen. In any case, it's not the religions themselves that pose a threat, but rather any kind of fundamentalism.

[digitalnicotine]

Both the Bible and the Quran have good and bad things about them. However at this point in history, radical Islam seems to have more "legs" as it were.

Time will tell. It's such a subjective thing, and valid arguments can be made all over the place. When you look at what's going on now in Iraq from a radical Islamic viewpoint, he or she may think the opposite? It's much easier now to travel and gather information online, in news, etc., in order to have a more accurate picture of what's truly going on right now, but even then, it's still subjective to personal bias. Iscariot is doing an excellent job of thinking beyond bias, but throughout this thread personal bias is pretty evident, almost to the point of questioning whether some are possibly bigots against a certain group/religion. While I'm glad nobody has made that assumption, I'm sure many of us had the thought cross our minds, as it's very easy to falsely appear that way during conflict.

I'm torn right now as far as who has more "legs". Sometimes, the weapon of choice is more subtle than suicide bombers. Disinformation is a very powerful weapon right now on both sides. The strategies being used by the US military in Iraq are no less appalling than that of the Islamic extremists. While our methods do not include suicide bombers or televised beheadings, they do include equally destructive methods. The claim that they do not know who is the enemy, so shoot/blow up now, ask questions later, will have serious consequences now, and in the future. I hate this strategy with a passion, and firmly believe that if the enemy cannot be identified, one shouldn't engage. This would lead to a withdrawal of troops, most likely. And I support that wholeheartedly. We are merely aiding in creating another generation of Islamic extremists, and giving validity to their extremism.

The devastating effects of this are already evident in the US soldiers who are casualties of the Iraq war. Check out the suicide rates of soldiers who couldn't live with themselves after being encouraged to kill anyone who could possibly pose a threat. The psychological turmoil these men and women are enduring (and not enduring), will have an impact on their own nations. They are (hopefully) going to reintegrate into our communities, and they will not be prepared to let go of what they have done, and witnessed. And I know from personal experience that veterans of this type of war (like our brothers and sisters who fought in Vietnam) don't come home feeling especially patriotic. Especially when they discover their nation has renigged (yet again) on her promise to take care of them when they get home. This is another method of creating extremists.

So I withhold any firm opinions of who has more "legs", because sadly, I can foresee a lot more bloodshed yet to come.

[Iscariot]

(snip)

Thanks!

What cannot be stressed enough is that it's not the threat of death we should fear, but the threat of censorship and the oppression of free-thought. During the Islamic Golden Age, the Islamic empire was a bastion for invention and free thought. However it was run aground by economic collapse and the siege of enemies. They succumbed to fundamentalism and have since suffered for centuries. The greatest danger is not what fundamentalism does in the hands of others, but what it does when it places a rock in yours.

[robanga]

Actually, it's "urge the believers to fight", not to war, which is vastly different. Much of 008 actually deals with God's mercy, like 008:69 and 008:70, which specifically extends God's mercy and even betterment to the good among any prisoners. The whole section is pretty tame actually, which means you're already stretching after digging up four or five passages to my dozen or so of the Bible.

I can go blow for blow with you all day -- and eventually I'm going to win, because the Bible's a whole lot longer. However, I've already won, as your argument has dwindled down from actually engaging me on a logical basis to quoting Quran passages and making hyperbolic claims about suicide bombings.

The suicide references surely are a stretch yes.

[robanga]

Time will tell. The psychological turmoil these men and women are enduring (and not enduring), will have an impact on their own nations. They are (hopefully) going to reintegrate into our communities, and they will not be prepared to let go of what they have done, and witnessed. And I know from personal experience that veterans of this type of war (like our brothers and sisters who fought in Vietnam) don't come home feeling especially patriotic. Especially when they discover their nation has renigged (yet again) on her promise to take care of them when they get home. This is another method of creating extremists.

So I withhold any firm opinions of who has more "legs", because sadly, I can foresee a lot more bloodshed yet to come.

War is horrible from a personal standpoint, no debate there but its pretty core to our nature from a collective standpoint. Some would argue that its because of sin :eek:

[robanga]

Thanks!

What cannot be stressed enough is that it's not the threat of death we should fear, but the threat of censorship and the oppression of free-thought. During the Islamic Golden Age, the Islamic empire was a bastion for invention and free thought. However it was run aground by economic collapse and the siege of enemies. They succumbed to fundamentalism and have since suffered for centuries. The greatest danger is not what fundamentalism does in the hands of others, but what it does when it places a rock in yours.

Islamic contributions to when Europe was recovering from losing a third of its population to the plague and coming out of the dark ages is a fact. All these things such as strides math and invention, agreed.

It is hugely silly IMHO to claim that these systems are of equal problem to the world. One can only look around us to see that. This is why we have war between the west and Islam and will continue to do so for generations. In many respects the extremists are right it is a class of cultures.

How can the Islamic system survive in the age of the free exchange of digital information? How can it survive with Brittney Spears showing her digital bare stomach and legs over Youtube to the all the youth of Pakistan?

The truth is that it can't not without control of the information and without striking back and trying to control the non-believer. Islam's golden age that you are so found of, came after a few centuries of military expansion and the conquering of many jews, christians and polytheists.

We are facing another such time. Its only the collective societies of the west, India and eventually China that can end this threat. This will not based on a single faith but some shared values. (capitalism for one). The amount of life loss we are seeing now is only the beginning.

[skunk]

This is why we have war between the west and Islam and will continue to do so for generations.But do we? Are you characterising the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as "wars against Islam"? Iraq was pretty much a secular state, and Afghanistan was hosting the men who organised 9/11, so religion doesn't really add up as a casus belli. The conflict, whatever it is, certainly has not been going on for generations so far, either: this is a common mistake to make, but it may well continue now that the mass killing in Iraq has fed so many thousands into the ranks of the aggrieved.

How can the Islamic system survive in the age of the free exchange of digital information?It probably can't, except if given the gift of a common enemy, something our governments seem particularly good at.We are facing another such time. Its only the collective societies of the west, India and eventually China that can end this threat. This will not based on a single faith but some shared values. (capitalism for one). The amount of life loss we are seeing now is only the beginning.You think that the shared values of capitalism are going to save the "collective societies" of the West, India and China? What exactly are these shared values? Please elucidate.

[digitalnicotine]

But do we? Are you characterising the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as "wars against Islam"? Iraq was pretty much a secular state, and Afghanistan was hosting the men who organised 9/11, so religion doesn't really add up as a casus belli. The conflict, whatever it is, certainly has not been going on for generations so far, either: this is a common mistake to make, but it may well continue now that the mass killing in Iraq has fed so many thousands into the ranks of the aggrieved.


Excellent point. It's not a war against Islam, it's a war against Islamic extremists (not because of their religion, but because of their actions which are cloaked in fundamentalism), with very little effort taken by either side in preventing the horrible deaths of civilian bystanders. How the children of this generation view it when they are older may be even less distinctively, if that's still possible.

[Iscariot]

Islam's golden age that you are so found of, came after a few centuries of military expansion and the conquering of many jews, christians and polytheists.

Garsh, you're right. Up until this point I've conveniently ignored all history that came before the 8th century.

We are facing another such time. Its only the collective societies of the west, India and eventually China that can end this threat. This will not based on a single faith but some shared values. (capitalism for one). The amount of life loss we are seeing now is only the beginning.

No, we're not. What kind of operational threat do the hard-line Islamic states pose? Even the much-vilified-for-"cowardice" France could lay waste to the entirety of Islam in a matter of hours. If they represented any kind of operational threat, Israel wouldn't be knocking them about like playthings.

[mactastic]

How can the Islamic system survive in the age of the free exchange of digital information? How can it survive with Brittney Spears showing her digital bare stomach and legs over Youtube to the all the youth of Pakistan?
I seem to recall an awful lot of Christians complaining that our society cannot withstand seeing a split-second of Janet Jackson's breast...

In fact, the anti-skin crowd in this country seems to be made up almost exclusively of self-proclaimed Christians. It seems you have more in common with radical Islam than you perhaps thought...