Slashdot Mirror
Islamist Hackers Shut Down Egyptology Research Journal
An anonymous reader writes "Radical Islamist hackers have been harassing Egyptologist Kate Phizackerley's online journal Egyptological and her blog KV64. Phizackerley and her team finally got tired of it and shut their online work down. As blogger Roger Pearse says, 'A bunch of violent scumbags... who never have contributed in any way to the web, have successfully interfered with the scientific effort of the entire human race... Next year there will be more.' How do we route around damage like this?"
No, you route the damage to the attacker. A predator drone should do nicely.
Doing Real Original, Newsworthy and Engaging Science.
We all want to be tolerant and politically correct, but the fact is that there is only one major religion left whose *mainstream* ideology is not only completely intolerant of other religions, but willing to use the violence and the power of the state against any opposing views. There may still be nutball factions in other religions, but only one religion still has the nutballs in the mainstream and ready to kill and oppress for their religion.
Perhaps it would send a clearer message if we stopped celebrating some groups for hacking and DOS's websites of people, governments or companies we don't like?
After all, if it's ok for Anonymous to harass websites who don't conform to "our" cultural preferences, then I suppose it's ok for anyone to harass any website they don't agree with. . .
I have no respect for people who conflate mainstream Sunni Islam with an extremist Twelver Shiite branch. Neither should anyone else.
Educate yourself people.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
stop pussy footing around Muslims. Tell them bluntly, they're entitled to their religion, but they're not entitled to force or enforce any of their beliefs and rules on anybody else. Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
They were in negotiations with the hackers, and the negotiations have stalled, so the hackers have told them they intended to attack the site again.
By posting about it on Slashdot.
Use something like http://ruhoh.com/ for your blog : have all your content in an easy-to-mirror git database. Host a backup in github, have friends with backups.
There is probably a legal solution too, after all, we do complain that this kind of moves are considered like high-level terrorist intrusions. I still find the punishments disproportionate, but they do exist, use the legal process.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
To be fair, Anonymous typically only targets groups that fuck with them or people they don't think should be fucked with. From what I see here, Kate wasn't messing with anyone, she was just posting a journal.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I'm pretty sure that actually Anonymous's actions shutting down websites have been seen to be illegal, and widely condemned (if also widely praised by an entirely different set of people) when they've happened.
Of more concern to me is the precedent any politician shows by attempting to shut down the dispersal of scientific information (or forced dispersal of anti-science propaganda) on religious grounds. That happens in too many countries, and unfortunately the West doesn't seem to be short of such zealots, even if certain areas of the world seem to have slightly more dangerous variants.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, not everyone has to deal with hackers persistently trying to shut down their website because of the content they're posting.
There is no double standard : very few people support DDOSes as a legitimate way of protesting. However, many protest that it is punished more harshly than, say, vandalism inside a shop you disagree with.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yes, that's true that many people condemn Anonymous for shutting down websites, but my point is, there's enough people that hold them up as some sort of 'heroes', that as a society, we send a bit of a mixed message about what's appropriate, even if it *is* illegal.
Religious fundamentalists = "damage". I like that. Of course I'm sad that such damage exists and must be "routed around", but the whole idea of the "damage" metaphor applied to fundamentalists nut-jobs in the context of an enlightened world is just so deliciously apropos. Mind you, this is not a rant against religion, per se, but it is a forthright statement, blunt and loud, about anti-social fuck-wits who think that their religious beliefs justify their behavior.
Fair point, about the punishments compared to other crimes. Perhaps you are even right about their actually being no double standard, but it has appeared to me that in the tech community, there is some amount of approval for some of the actions of Anonymous and similar groups.
Reading the Koran to understand Islam is like reading the Bible to understand Christianity. It doesn't work.
Please...
The exact same can be said for any so-called Christian who claims that we (the world) should be bound by their book.
Just as they have already destroyed those Buddhist statues, and many other such artifacts.
They even want to destroy the pyrimids in Egypt.
IMO: Muslims are even more anti-science than Christians.
I find it interesting that all the posts that point out the simple fact that Islam is a dangerous, disgusting religion are modded negative. Are the Islamist astroturfers bringing out the votes? How democratic!
Cloudflare...
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Islam of any sort is dangerous, retrograde and regressive. Even the most "enlightened" version of Islam has no redeeming qualities compared to its negative qualities.
This is true of most religion, but Islam currently happens to be the most dangerous to the future of humanity.
There is no such thing as "Moderate" Islam
Sure there is - I live in Canada and have good friends who are Ismali Shia Muslims. Generally, most Ismalis you might meet are well educated doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers. Their women are sexually liberated, educated, respected and aren't wrapped in bedsheets from head to toe. Their leader, the Aga Khan, publicly works for secular pluralism and women's rights.
Pfft. Some believer in magic is telling us all to educate ourselves.
Listen. The burden is on you. It's your religion. You want to improve your religion's image? Then convince other members of the Mohammed cult not to blow people up or cut off infidels heads or to stone people to death.
Roger Pearse is a Christian blogger who uses his platform to attack Muslims (or 'Moslems' as he likes to spell it), rights of homosexuals (it's an abominable vice), left-wingers and so on. He may be correct about this incident, but is he really a reliable source?
Yeah, except mainstream Christians stopped killing people who disagreed with them hundreds of years ago. Mainstream Islam still does.
This is typical behavior for the Islamic fundamentalist who are predominantly uneducated.
As opposed to more educated Muslims that have the skill to pilot airplanes into tall buildings.
Yeah, except mainstream Christians stopped killing people who disagreed with them hundreds of years ago. Mainstream Islam still does.
[citation needed]
People are fanatic about it, and kill every day for it.
Security is hard to do for someone who isn't proficient in it. If she wants a blog that can't be hacked, she should either hire a professional or use one of the thousands of blogging services (that is assuming it was a real hack and not just a DoS, these Egyptologists don't seem to understand the difference between the two).
Slashdot just had a discussion on this exact issue: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/18/1846206/hacktivism-civil-disobedience-or-cyber-crime
Ah well lets see how long before they start attacking /.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Do you have trouble fitting such a wide brush through doorways?
I'm sorry, but you are the one who is clueless. I stated that Anonymous typically only targets groups who are actively messing with other people . If you can't understand why that's different than an Islamist group targeting someone for just being someone they don't like, then you are a moron.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Read the Quran. It strongly promotes violance, sexism, war, intolerance of any other religions, etc. That is Islam whether most muslims act that way or not.
"Fuck with" must mean anyone who disagrees with anonymous. There are plenty of examples of this that anyone without their head implanted in their butt cheeks can read. Yes, you are clueless.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that it was "Islamist Hackers" that shut down the journal? What happened to the "negotiations with the hacker"?
Why was the blog hosted by Blogger shut down? Surely it wasn't being hacked was it?
Something seems out of place...
Exactly. It's so incredibly facinating to watch some "Christians" rail about Islam and yet fail to see that the exact charge they just made applies to Christianity...and could be applied to all Christians if one were to choose to be ignorant and intolerant about the whole thing.
Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians.
Islam inherently promotes scientific inquiry.
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God).
This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.
During the Middle Age the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was a far more advanced center of science than anything in Europe. It's where al-Kwarizmi wrote the al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala. Hint: the word algebra is taken from al-jabr. And al-Kwarizmi became the word algorithm.
The first empiricists and theoretical physicists are regarded to be Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Haytham
It was only when the sons of Genghis Khan rode into Baghdad that this golden age came to an end.
I read it. You're absolutely right, violence, sexism, war, intolerance.... Oh wait, that was the Bible I was reading. Nevermind.
At one point in history, Western culture was as religiously zealous as many Islamists are today -- the Inquisition, wars, Salem witch trials, etc.
But at some point the larger culture and its leaders turned away from this kind of mindset. Sure, we still have money & publicity seeking zealots on TV and a few anti-abortion protesters were inclined toward violence, but overall the West hasn't seen the level of religious extremism that grips the Islamic world today.
Even Islamic countries with established governments and no ongoing military conflict have laws that would make the Inquisition leaders blush -- amputations, beheadings, really severe laws against expression which could even remotely be considered blasphemous. And not just in the Middle East, either.
So, despite counter-factual examples in the West and despite the benefits of science, Islamic culture remains highly punitive and opposed to change, yet the West changed when information wasn't as easily available and science wasn't nearly as advanced. Why?
with all respect.
not all Shi'ites are frothing at the mouth lunatics.
Just like not all Sunnis are takfuri, or even worse, wahabis.
--the last sane American left, it feels sometimes.
Extremists are just fundamentalists. And when it's the fundamentals are repulsive it's time to shut the whole thing down. That goes for any religion.
They probably disassemble it and move it on 18-wheelers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
so does the US government with drone strikes?
are we talking about one hacking attempt, done one place?
Well I don't see where is the problem in supporting a given group A and not supporting another group B with other goals and similar methods. I don't think that DDOS is a mean that automatically makes its user right, no more that I believe that everyone using an AK-47 is automatically in the wrong or in the right.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I hear this debate all the time but admit I understand none of it. Does the Qu'ran require the forced submission of unbelievers or not? I keep seeing quotes from it that says unbelievers are to be destroyed. Are you saying this is not correct?
How come you are telling me to read qur'an? Me, being an educated Atheist convert to Islam, shouldn't I know at least a little bit about my own religion?
Yes, I've read the qur'an, more than once, but more importantly, I also read commentaries of it, explaining the context. Which is, as any sane person should know, essential to understand the meaning.
Most of what I've read is that Islam encourages compassion, learning and debating in the best way. I could cite a lot of passages, and I mean a lot, in case you don't believe me.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Well generally non Christians are not bound by the Bible. If you don't believe then it's kind of pointless to worry about it.
Well, did you see what Indiana Jones have done to nazism? He had only a whip and a .38!
-- --
1) What you say is not true. Anonymous targets folks they disagree with.
2) One can define "actively messing with other people" however they want. A jihadist would use the exact same term to describe what they do.
2) Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society. You and the jihadist are in complete agreement that this is acceptable.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Do you think that an illegal action can never be appropriate? I certainly don't see Anonymous as a monolithic group and approve some of their operations (like attacks against Visa during the wikileaks scandal) and would have even approved them if they used even more illegal means. I approved of Telecomix breaking the Syrian laws by helping people create anonymous connections. I approve Tor that helps circumvent some Chinese censor laws.
We don't approve a group because of its method, but because of its goals. We may withdraw support for too extreme methods, but usually, the method is a mean to an end. The end is what makes you support them or not.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Incorrect. What an Islamic state requires is that non-Muslims simply abide by the laws. This is the same in any modern type of government.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Like any religion, the holy book says exactly what the believer wishes it said. And if it says something different, it's an allegory meaning what the believer wishes it said.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And by the way, the same goes for Muslims living under that same Islamic state. The only discrimination between them is that Muslims have to pay a different tax than non-Muslims, and non-Muslims enlisted in the army don't pay taxes at all (whereas Muslims do).
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
You are being misled by people with an agenda.
The Qur'an and the history of Islam generally expresses great tolerance towards other religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
The Koran is just a few new chapters added to the Old Testament, when you get down to it. Any Muslim will readily acknowledge that his religion is an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity. The major difference is, the Muslims have their warrior prophet, whereas the Christians have their turn-the-other-cheek saviour. The Jews are still waiting for their messiah - it's anyone's guess what happens when their arrives.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You don't know what you are talking about at all. First of all, there is no such thing as "wahhabis". This is a term used as a pejorative by a group of Muslims (who have a concept similar to the Catholic concept of Saints) to designate another group of Muslims who contradicted this notion. It's a history lesson that people who use this pejorative usually do not know.
As for Shiites, I know full well that not every Shiite is the same. Which is why I singled out the Twelvers amongst them, which is a group with extremist views.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
apostasy is a death sentence in a number of islamic countries. among them
pakistan
saudi arabia
egypt
Iran
being that its government policy and the state religion is islam it can be surmised that the laws reflect the mainstream ME version(s) of islam.
apostasy=disagreeing with islam
note:the death sentence is not always carried out but generally some form of severe punishment is
2nd note:this is not reflective of westernized muslims is europe & north america
Except when those extremist views contradict the fundamentals...
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
We are talking about one particular method here. I have no problem with people helping others to get around censorship and get communications. On the other hand, *attacking* others to deny them free speech (e.g. taking down their website), I can essentially almost never agree with.
You don't even know what the word "citation" means. Do you? You poor thing.
No TRUE muslim would ever... you know the rest.
Go study Sufism then. If you think Islam is so terrible you need to read the Bible carefully.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Let's hope they never meet the Pro-Lifers here in the US. They might realize they are cut from the same cloth.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Fuck, that's not religion, that's just humanity. You get the same shit out of Hollywood. Religion is just something people happen to believe in. You really think science will solve war, intolerance, and whatever? You haven't been paying attention to history.
Your post deserves a +5, Insightful, but I have no mod point to contribute.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
The whip and the .38 were extraneous. Jones had one hot babe. Without the babe, Jones would have been a nobody.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Disable comments.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language. The Bible tends to be all over the place. Different authors, different translations. It's a mess.
But with both texts, different readings are still possible, if you have your own agenda.
That must be why there are so many churches in Saudi Arabia, or why non-Muslims are so welcome in Mecca--because they're so tolerant.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
> I also read commentaries of it, explaining the context. Which is, as any sane person should know, essential to understand the meaning.
The problem with religious texts is, not every reader is sane. And not every reader wants to know the context. It's the word of God, so why should context matter? You just have to twist his words till they mean what you know they *should* mean. It's an exercise in double-think.
You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.
The issue that concerns you as a non muslim is "Can or should I tar all Muslims with the same brush?"
No you shouldn't, and your actions will actually worsen relations between different groups
FYI I am not a crypto theist of any description, but I can tell when someone is simply being prejudiced
Maybe you need an example closer to your own home:
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist? Is a Quaker or a Unitarian the same as a Fundamentalist Evangelical who uses biblical quotations to argue against homosexuality and "miscegenation"?
Of course they are not, and it would be useful if those who thought they were the same made some effort.
The major problem with understanding Islam for Americans is that your media simply does not allow for the existence of anything extremist fundamentalists.
Imagine a world where you were only told about the most lunatic fringe christians..
Warn the hackers to cease their illegal activities. If necessary give a second warning with the explicit threat of physical rebuke. If they fail to cease their shenanigans then simply locate them but give them the choice of humane execution or amputation of their hands.
Done.
The only "compassionate" thing about Islam is that in the all-out war against infidels you are allowed to merely lie, cheat and use "stratagems" when you have no chances of a direct victory by force (Taqiyya), and that, if strategy demands so, you may enter a temporary truce with "people of the book" but must be prepared to stab them in the back and resume the all-out war the moment "Allah giveth command" (2:109). Yes, the very line that says "forgive and be indulgent" continues with "until".
Unlike Bible, the Koran contains very few contradictions, and it's message is clear. And I really dislike what it says.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Might does make right. Don't forget, the winners write the history books, and the losers don't even get to put their rationalizations for war into the footnotes. I'm aware of that, and the jihadists are also aware of that. Might makes right.
The question is, are we stronger than the jihadists? Is Islam stronger than the jihadists? You know, if the jihadists win, and get their way, it's not going to matter what you or I think, and it's not going to matter what the mainstream Muslim thinks either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
To be a pedant, apostacy is converting away from a religion ("deconverting"?), not simply disbelieving. If you were never a member of the club, you're just an heathen. If you leave the club, you're an apostate.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Kate couldnt take the heat so she got out of the kitchen
And yet, ironically, Islamic extremists want to get women like her back in the kitchen.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Firstly, stop assuming that everyone who is against Islam is supportive of Christianity. Secondly, it's pathetic that among nerds and supposed intellectuals a quip about the Bible can successfully derail a discussion about Islam, when we know for certain that a quip about the Quran rightfully could NOT do the same to a discussion about Christianity.
Lastly, the fact that Muslims are the victims du jour in the geopolitical world does not mean Islam itself should be put upon a pedestal or given special treatment in the social world. Too many of my fellow liberal atheists, in their enthusiasm to accommodate the downtrodden, go too far to make excuses for things they'd normally never accept.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Strictly speaking, a "true Christian" would follow the example of Christ. That is to say, non-violence, loving your neighbor, and allowing yourself to be killed rather than to kill.
Alternatively, he also advocated speaking truth to power and did not shy away from conflict.
No one really likes that level of pacifism, so a lot of Christianity is justifying why adherents aren't living at that level.
Other people don't like that Christ would have told you that you were wrong to your face if you did things that were wrong according to his beliefs. They would consider him "intolerant" for not accepting other, perhaps even contradictory beliefs at face value. Needless to say, the accuracy of that assessment is highly dependent on his actual divinity. If he's God, then he's not intolerant, he's merely right. If he's not, then yes, it would be presumptuous.
Either way, though, while there is not perhaps a complete roadmap to being a "real" Christian in the 21st Century, you can get pretty damn close, if you try. A lot of the "Christians" out there... they aren't even trying.
Some people believe that all voices should be heard. Others believe that some voices should not be heard.
The former group wants to give all people the ability to speak. The latter group wants to prevent some people from speaking.
The Internet protocols developed so far have the potential to give everyone an equally "loud" voice, and so potentially empower the former group. The same Internet protocols can be used to muffle or silence some voices and give more weight to others.
The question you have to answer for yourself is, which group do you prefer to be "in charge of the Internet"?
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
The blinkered thinkers posting extreme anti-muslim rants here are helping those extremists against whom they inveigh.
They provide ammunition for the radical fringe to try to convince the moderate middle that non-muslims are unreasonably opposed to Islam. Also, by raising the level of hysteria, they don't encourage moderates to speak out, especially when their views are subject to attack by their own extreme fringe.
When you chip away at the middle ground, you force more people to move to extremes.
Go study Sufism then. If you think Islam is so terrible you need to read the Bible carefully.
Islam being terrible is not equal to Christianity being not terrible
both are capable of being terrible simultaneously, so I'm not sure what your point is.
What was it about the other religions that made you avoid/reject them, and what was it about Islam that convinced you?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The Qur'an and the history of Islam generally expresses great tolerance towards other religions. People of the Book
Ie, they are allowed a brief despite during the forced conversion, being merely considered a lower class of beings and forced to pay tribute for being allowed to be left alive -- then they need to be put to sword and fire once Allah gives a command to continue extermination (unless they convert to Islam). Yes, quite a stellar example of "great tolerance".
As someone who's not a "person of the Book", and thus has to be slain immediately, especially if I dare to express my views, I think I'll pass praising such a great religion of peace.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
That would imply that the US is operating its drones in pursuit of holy war, as opposed to killing people who oppose the US Government. I find the latter explanation significantly more plausible.
If the opposition is subject to courts of law and the law is on your side, use the courts.
Otherwise, if it's just a matter of having your web site under constant attack, find a "bullet proof" hosting provider and an "angel" to fund its high fees. Bonus points if they are one in the same.
If it's more than that and the legal system isn't an option, move or go into hiding if that will provide safety, hire security, or pay the Danegeld, which in this case means caving in and shutting down.
If you are fortunate enough to be a sovereign nation, literally going to war or taking less extreme political options such as a trade war or engaging in covert cyber-attacks may be options. Just be prepared for your actions to hurt you more than your opposition.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Yes, but you might as well call Unitarians "Christians" if you're going to start talking about unusual offshoots of the major religions.
Yes, but that is a whip and a .38 that these script kiddies don't have.
One way to respond to this is to figure out what these people were trying to suppress, and publicize that information. The information becomes newsworthy for the simple reason that someone tried to suppress it. This is an unintended consequence of trying to suppress information -- the act of suppression itself brings attention to the information. So what specific posts triggered this attack from the fanatics? I we can identify them, we can publicize them. I skimmed the linked articles and did not get a good idea of what set them off.
And 50% of the US population didn't believe in the Bible in the 1960s? I mean, you're talking about a backslide that isn't happening. This is the same conflict we've been having since the Scopes Monkey trial. If anything, despite the bumps, we're making forward progress in the US in science acceptance. What you are seeing is political hacks dredging up something that has always been there and making a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Remove the hot button issues from the political scene, and everything will settle out.
You know, of course, you're 100% wrong. Anonymous is whoever says they are Anonymous. That means that there are people who do what you say they do, and there are others in it for the lulz.
Anonymous can be a bunch of Islamic kids DDoSing some blog. You start putting Anonymous on a pedestal, and it is going to piss on you from the higher vantage point. Because it can.
Wahhabi Islam / Sunni Salafists are just as nuts, if not worse than the Twelvers. Why your comment was modded informative is beyond me. You're making it sound as if only Twelver Shiites are insane when the insanity covers the whole gamut of Quran thumpers.
wonder why islamist use a computer invented by a gay man
I'll take your challenge. Why don't you explain to me where the compassion is in Sura 9.
Yep, and notice how Anonymous never tried to deny anyone's free speech. They took down websites as a way of protesting, but no one ever claimed that it was to stop the spread of an information. The mean is the same, but the goal is very different.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Most religions are like that because they do not tell believers what to do with contradictions. Islam does. Quran 2:106 says: "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?". Here is a partial list of abrogations (keep in mind the Qur'an is not arranged chronologically.
It's hard to explain.
For one, Islam is the purest form of monotheism. The Christian concept of a Trinity has always been a reason for me to reject it, not in the least because I don't find it logical. How can an omnipotent being create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift, or live in a body which leaves him powerless? It's an inherent contradiction. Or is he the begotten son of god? There are so many issues with this too.
Our holy book is still in its original form, leave cosmetic changes, of course. This can be verified by some of the remaining manuscripts of (what's probably) the original compilation. Its simplicity also appealed to me, as opposed to an excessive amount of metaphor, which is another issue I have with Christianity.
This just scratches the surface, of course. But you can find quite a few pretty famous converts who told their story online, some of which are rather interesting. If you're sincerely interested, I advise you to watch some of them.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Only Muslims are considered to be Muslims from birth according to Islam, so nobody really gets a choice. In "democratic" Egypt, just last week seven children were charged, along with the mother, for apostasy. This happens every fucking week if you pay attention.
Cites: the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Their publications are considered to be canon by most of Sunni Islam, and yest, the death penalty is proscribed for apostasy. Here's some more love from the democratic Egypt. Hey. But at least they didn't kill the mother and kids. Congratulations on cheering on such democratic values of peace and love.
In Islam we don't listen to any lunatic proclaiming stuff. There are sciences with defined methodologies, and there are scientists or scholars who debate religious issues, which is much like peer-reviewing in modern science.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Consistent? He changes his mind like a politician. First it's treat with them respectfully, next it's never trust a Jew. God commands that we live honorably. Sorry bruh, God says I need your wife.
unusual offshoots of the major religions.
It's hardly an 'unusual offshoot.' Ismailism is the second largest branch of Shia Islam.
Is that why the grand fucking mufti of Saudi Arabia declared the world was flat and anybody who denied it a Kufr (infidel), therefore making them into apostates deserving of death? Is that your pro-science religion. Take your propaganda, print it out, roll it up, wrap it in a condom and go fuck yourself with it.
I gave up Christianity a long time ago. What I'm really interested in is becoming a "true Scotsman." Do you have any info on how I could become a "real" Scotsman in the 21st century. I was thinking a utilikilt might be a good start.
Pfft. Some believer in magic is telling us all to educate ourselves.
Listen. The burden is on you. It's your religion. You want to improve your religion's image?
No, it's not my job to separate someone else's point of view from my point of view because you are too ignorant to distinguish the two. I do not have the burden to explain my point of view to you just to not be insulted by you.
Religion is just one form of freedom of speech. Take another example that would be closer to your heart.
Say you are a gamer. Someone says "You have to stop gaming! All these violent games cause school massacres.". Lets assume that justification were true, but you only play minesweeper. Is it your job to explain and defend yourself? No, the burden is on ignorant people to inform themselves, and refrain from general statements.
If you outlaw religion, you outlaw free speech. There are many forms of religion, not all are simplistic, anti-science and magical like your world-view would like them.
Finally, Muslims do have that dialogue with radicals, and are shaking their head about the killings. This perspective is just never shown on Western TV and newspapers, contributing to a outside view of "they all are the same".
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Why can't the islamic god create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Seriously, I keep hearing that silly statement applied to the christian god. How does islam get around this issue? As I understand, the islamic god is all-powerful and the sole creator, just like in christianity and judiasm.
This makes me wonder why you didn't choose Judaism or Zoroastrianism.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Why does everyone assume that because I can draw a line between Islamist extremists and Anonymous that I am an Anonymous "hacktivist"? Nowhere did I state that I support vigilantism, or the Anonymous cause, just that I think it's unfair to compare the two in that way.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
There are lots of religious people out there who would tar "athiests" with the same brush.
or would even try to get them?
It is one things to shut down corps or even parts of the US government, it is a completely different thing to go after people who show no restraint in killing people.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The reason is that the parent of my comment was talking about taqiyyah, which is a concept of Twelver Shiism.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Serious question, since you have the insight: Would you get in trouble becoming an atheist again, leaving Islam? There is the whole discussion on punishment on apostasy. How is that seen in your community?
I don't mind religions, many have very kind people that I gladly share this planet with. What I have a problem with is disrespect for human rights (as per the Universal Declaration).
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
great tolerance
I for one welcome ... great tolerance
I never said that.
I could have said kill them all. Which would have given you room for your cretinous stupidity. But thats ok, don't let me stop you moving to an islamic state.
Don't like the idea of removing Islam - who cares. I don't care if you don't like it. Close and remove the mosques, deport any thecrate who states anything countary to our laws. Simply get aggressive.
We would not tolerate priests or the pope stating in a thecratic context what is said by these islamics. Period. Would not be tolerated. So no reason for these scum to have safe harbour.
We`re all equal
So who exactly do Buddhists seek to control? What, in history, was destroyed in the name of Buddha?
You're begging the question... but I'll reply anyway.
Here's just one of the many quotes:
(He turned in mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they felt guilty) to such a degree that the earth seemed constrained to them, for all its spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them,- and they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to Himself. Then He turned to them, that they might repent: for Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
9:118
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Zoroastrianism is anything BUT a monotheist religion and Judaism doesn't have their original holy books. Those were long since lost. And Islam teaches me that those books were abrogated by the Quran, which by the way contains many stories of - and references to previous prophets.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
The issue that concerns you as a non muslim is "Can or should I tar all Muslims with the same brush?" No you shouldn't, and your actions will actually worsen relations between different groups
I think you have made the mistake of confusing this world for an ideal one.
I don't claim this as "fair", but humans will judge others based on the group labels they wear. Non-Muslims will not take the time to learn someone's stance on which Caliphs count for which purposes.
A disturbingly large number of people who identify themselves as Muslims go around blowing up buildings, hijacking refineries, chopping off heads, raping Western reporters to celebrate "democracy", and generally doing their damnedest to make the rest of the world hate them. The rest of the world has no obligation to give a shit about why we shouldn't consider the left hand as bad as the right; The burden rests on "the good ones" to get their own house in order.
And this applies just as well to any other religion, to races, to entire cultures. You don't "just" need to live as a role-model - You need to live as a role model and get everyone else under the same banners as you to do the same.
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist?
No, but I would point to Phelps as yet another reason our species needs to do away with all overt expressions of religion (the biggest applicable "banner" in this situation). Believe whatever the hell you want, but keep it to yourself. We need people like that medicated or even committed, not protected because of the particular brand of vitriol they spew.
Yes that would be a problem, but only if someone chooses to press charges though. Corporal punishment in an Islamic state doesn't necessarily come with strong enforcement and prosecution. It mostly serves as a deterrent inherently. Furthermore, if someone is determined guilty by an Islamic court of apostasy, the convicted has three days in jail to repent. If he becomes Muslim again, he's freed as if nothing happened. From this, follows that if he doesn't want to do that at all, he can just pretend to and flee the country after... Nobody will come after him
You could argue that this is harsh, but it is a deterrent for people who proclaim their Islam only to fight it from the inside and to try to deviate others from it. This is something that happened a number of times in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Oh I donno man, those Scientologist are a pretty wacky bunch. Just be thankful their numbers are few.
Educate yourself people.
I did. That's why I'm an atheist.
From Wikipedia, emphasis mine.
The House of Wisdom flourished under al-Ma'mun's successors al-Mu'tasim (r. 833–842) and his son al-Wathiq (r. 842 – 847), but considerably declined under the reign of al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861).[7] Although al Ma'mun, al Mu'tasim, and al Wathiq followed the sect of Mu'tazili, which supported mind-broadness and scientific inquiry, al-Mutawakkil endorsed a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith.[7] The caliph was not interested in science and moved away from rationalism, seeing the spread of Greek philosophy as anti-Islamic.[7]
Unfortunately, we are almost 800 years past this period. What are the current views of Arab countries on scientific issues? How about the education of women? I know that some wealthy Persian Gulf countries are finally investing in their universities to develop education and research infrastructure, but this is something that has happened in the past decade rather than being an ongoing trend of Muslim countries.
"Explaining the context"
I encountered this when reading the Bible too. Sometimes it's a real explanation showing you what you may not have caught, letting the passage make more sense. But more often it's logical gymnastics attempting to explain away something bad or wrong in the text, or the person explaining just making shit up.
This is true, however Sunnis still practice it, whether or not they call it that or not. The example goes right back to Muhammad: ""Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik: When the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception." Abu Dawud 14:2629" See also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:267 ("War is deceit"). There are many hadiths that make lying permissable if the practicing of one's faith (quite a broad category in Islam) is threatened. There are even hadith that make it permissible to lie in order to get close to a person for the purposes of killing them (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369). In that case, it was a Jewish poet who insulted Muhammad. This is also the reason anybody of sufficient profile who insults Muhammad today has to hire protection.
Great, so when can we get that building permit for a synagogue or church in Mecca?
We need people like that medicated or even committed, not protected because of the particular brand of vitriol they spew.
Why stop with the religious? There are plenty of other belief systems that seem kooky or outright insane to many of our compatriots. I for one would start with Marxism and Objectivism, but even more mainstream views get plenty of vitriol - I'm pretty sure there's a bumper sticker that says "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Considering all of the gridlock and bad policy that results from having such a diverse range of views, our species clearly needs to medicate or commit anyone whose views do not mesh well with the "majority" viewpoint, however that's defined.
I think I'll stick to our current anarchic system, thank you. A state that declares the overtly religious to be mentally ill and deprives them of basic civil rights can do the same to me or anyone else who gets in the way. Not unlike most Islamist regimes, ironically.
1. Speak like you're reading a Robert Burns poem
2. ???
3. Scottish
Your post is just plain bigoted.
His post is reality based unlike yours.
but I can still see religious organizations doing a lot of good things for a lot of people. For instance, Matthew 25 Ministries. Check out the free food banks in your area. I bet most of them are run by churches.
And how many of those poor people are poor due to Christianity's barbaric policies on birth control and abortion?
How much of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is due to the Catholic Church's murderous attitude and bald-faced lies about condoms?
Sorry, sparky, but you don't get to shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun and then claim to be doing good when you toss them a band aid.
Christianity promotes poverty and desperation as a business tactic in order to increase the number of poor and desperate so they have something to point to as a need for their "help".
Utterly morally bankrupt and disgusting.
You could argue that this is harsh
Not only is it harsh, it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern conception of human rights, in particular "freedom of conscience".
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist? Is a Quaker or a Unitarian the same as a Fundamentalist Evangelical who uses biblical quotations to argue against homosexuality and "miscegenation"?
Even though Westboro Baptist pricks spew more shit out of their mouths with every breath then comes out of my ass in an entire month, at least they aren't taking hostages, blowing people up or slowly sawing off heads then posting the video online.
Every religion has had it's dark ages. Christianity has evolved beyond those days but there is a rather large section of Islam that remains in the dark ages. They are primarily the brainwashed ones.
No true Scotsman would ever be a Muslim!
Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society.
We already live in a 'might makes right' society. Blame the justice system for not actually providing justice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you can contact aliens from Skyron, they can help. You don't play tennis, do you?
9:123
Please continue to show me where the compassion is. Oh wait. We're at the end of the chapter. Seems funny to me you had to skip 117 verses to find the one remotely merciful gift, and even that was pathetic when put in context. The entire fucking chapter is about making war on non-Muslims, and it's hardly alone in the Qur'an.
Pray tell me what "mercy" the Qur'an says such Atheists as myself are subject to, per Sura 9, verse 5, et al.
"How can an omnipotent being create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift"
Is not Allah supposed to be omnipotent? Or is it not omnipotence itself that you object to, but the particular form it takes in Christian theology? Can you expand on this?
Also, pointing out some things that bother you about Christianity doesn't explain why you decided to convert to Islam. Islam, like most other religions, makes many specific claims about the world and its history. Did you determine that these claims were true before converting? Or did you convert first, and now "know" that these claims are true because they are (now) part of your religion?
I ask because I am genuinely curious about the conversion process in those adults who do not otherwise seem to be completely befuddled. I can understand someone who is raised in a particular religion either struggling to overcome it, or not, but have never been able to understand how a rational adult makes the free choice of a specific religion (free in the sense of not being determined by powerful social pressures).
Anytime someone tries to understand Islam by 'reading the Koran', you can pretty much call them an idiot.
I'm Muslim by background, albeit a very secular one, but I come from a pretty strong religious background.
The core to Islamic practice is not the Koran, but the Hadith. That is the words and actions of the prophet Mohamed.
The Koran is actually pretty vague on most things and without the context of the Hadith can be read to mean pretty much anything. Heck, you won't even find the 5 daily prayers Muslims do in the Koran. Nor will you find beards. Nor will you find stoning...
The core to Islamic belief is the Koran.
The core to Islamic practice is the Hadith.
Disclaimer, there a group of Koran-only Muslims who try to take out the Hadith and only focus on the Koran, but they're a miniscule minority and IMHO the koran cannot be understood without the hadith... but if it helps progress Islam I support their efforts even if I think it intellectually dishonest.
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist?
No, but who is actually the greatest danger to a secular society?
When a judge wants to post the 10 commandments in a coutroom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When a principal wants to keep a homosexual student from attending prom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When the leaders of the Catholic Church in this country seek to withhold birth control from secular employees, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When I can't buy alcohol on Sunday before noon, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When teenage mothers go on the dole because they weren't educated about birth control, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
The WBC is repugnant, but it's a side show. They have no power. The real danger to secular people in the US comes from "moderate" christians.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Close and remove the mosques, deport any thecrate who states anything countary to our laws. Simply get aggressive.
Speaking as a non-religious US citizen, I'd prefer to deport you first.
We would not tolerate priests or the pope stating in a thecratic context what is said by these islamics.
We do tolerate this, all the time. You can find Christians in the US who are every bit as nutty and prone to violent revenge fantasies as the Islamists - try googling "Christian reconstructionists". They rarely carry out their violent revenge fantasies, fortunately, but you're talking about deporting people for their views and public statements, not violent actions. I'd be pretty happy if we didn't have any religious nutters in this country, actually, but I'm even happier not having to worry about being locked up or thrown out because I express a viewpoint someone else disagrees with.
When we see Muslim outrage over Muslim crimes, then we'll see how not to use too broad a brush with which to paint Muslims. Christian groups regularly denounce unChristian behavior among other Christian groups. Where does that occur in Islam? It doesn't for two reasons, (1) Muslims don't find Islamic practice, no matter how barbaric, all that questionable, (2) the Muslims who do object are generally not around too long before nutjobs come for them.
Muslims do not believe Islam is in need of reformation. Others on the blunt end of Muslim atrocities do believe such a reformation is necessary.
If they can throw Phelps in jail for speech, they can throw you in jail for speech. Criminalizing Phelps is a complete non-starter in any free country.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist? Is a Quaker or a Unitarian the same as a Fundamentalist Evangelical who uses biblical quotations to argue against homosexuality and "miscegenation"?
Even though Westboro Baptist pricks spew more shit out of their mouths with every breath then comes out of my ass in an entire month, at least they aren't taking hostages, blowing people up or slowly sawing off heads then posting the video online.
Every religion has had it's dark ages. Christianity has evolved beyond those days but there is a rather large section of Islam that remains in the dark ages. They are primarily the brainwashed ones.
I seem to recall there were some medical clinic bombings in the US not too long ago, that were apparently perpetrated by believers of this "evolved" Christianity you mention... And in terms of darkness, the Catholic church's own extensive cover-up of child sexual abuse is quite far from the light by any measure I can come up with.
There are nutters who are quite happy to cloak themselves in the labels of any given religion or sect. One's subjective interpretation of the divine can lead one in all kinds of weird and destructive directions. The problem is not any particular religion -- the problem is humanity.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
So the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia who declared "I only deemed it lawful to kill whoever claims that the sun is static and refuses to repent of this after clarification." was a lunatic proclaiming stuff. Sadly people did have to listen to him. That's your defined methodology right there in Islam. Cleric in power gets to decide what is science.
What if the apostate is a woman. Can she freely leave, say, Saudi Arabia?
The Qur'an and the history of Islam generally expresses great tolerance towards other religions. People of the Book
Ie, they are allowed a brief despite during the forced conversion, being merely considered a lower class of beings and forced to pay tribute for being allowed to be left alive -- then they need to be put to sword and fire once Allah gives a command to continue extermination (unless they convert to Islam). Yes, quite a stellar example of "great tolerance".
As someone who's not a "person of the Book", and thus has to be slain immediately, especially if I dare to express my views, I think I'll pass praising such a great religion of peace.
Seriously, read up on some Spanish history. The most tolerant period in Spain, with regard to adherents of other religions being free to pursue their faiths, was during the Moorish period from the early 700s through the 1200s. As the Christian kingdoms expanded, so were all non-Christians persecuted. That whole Spanish Inquisition thing where people were tortured and killed if they didn't convert, and sometimes even if they did, was a decidedly non-Muslim pastime.
.
(I.e., there are assholes everywhere, and your brush is too broad.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Islamic law is all over the map on this issue. One court might sentence the apostate to death and another might figure to let Allah do whatever with him. Stop trying to make us think of Islam as though it were concrete. It isn't. There are so many interpretations it is difficult to find out what is in the religion and what is out of it. Why? Because it is an interpreted religion. It isn't the word of Allah, and it cannot be since Allah is so "other" that he has never communicated directly with man. He does have an escape clause by using an angel like Gabrielle.
The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language.
In Klingon?
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist?
Most Christian organizations are opposed to gay rights. The difference is that the lobbyists from the Catholic Church have a lot more influence than WBC's signs.
So I'd say "No, they're not the same: Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of amateurs."
"First of all, there is no such thing as "wahhabis"." Really? Then what is all that crap Saudi Arabia has been pushing for the last 100 years? We'd call that Wahhabism and people who believe that crock Whahabis. And it is considered a core branch of Islam. Stop white-washing Islam. There is no white-washing Islam's crimes, especially their treatment of women and minorities.
Absolutely wrong. Look at this list and note how many of these incidents were "for the lulz".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Context is important though. Kind of like how saying "information wants to be free" could be the motto of both the EFF and some cyber crime organization intending to steal credit card numbers.
Like any religion, the holy book says exactly what the believer wishes it said. And if it says something different, it's an allegory meaning what the believer wishes it said.
Interesting, .... let's test that.
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:28-31 . . . more
You might be right. Despite the clear commandment to love God and my neighbor, I interpret it as meaning that Hatta's writings have exceeded Hatta's wisdom. What do you suppose the following means?
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. -- Proverbs 17:28
Might take some study and enlightenment.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Islam does NOT promote science. The Qur'an is full of unscientific statements regarding human anatomy, geography, and history. The Arab culture may have once spawned great scientific minds, but that was irrelevant to the Qur'an and in the past.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There is one bit of common ground all organized religions share: misogyny.
You are wrong. There was a Golden Age of Islamic science but it was shut down over 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the Caliph in Bagdad. Now it is forbidden to question, Allah requires your unquestioning obedience. That is as anti-science as you can get. Therefore your post is incorrect, you are misinformed, and as a result you are spreading incorrect information. You might want to stop doing that.
Note that the current theological view of Muslims is that there *are no laws of nature and everything that happens in the will of Allah*. Hence, there is no gravity, only Allah causes things to fall by his will. Allah could just as easily cause something not to fall. Because they believe there are no natural laws Muslims believe it is more profitable to study the sunnah (Qur'an and hadiths) and avoid hellfire of the afterlife than diabolical books about science that the Westerners have. This follows the philosophy set by Al Ghazali: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/imam-al-ghazali-on-studying-science/
The reason Al-Ghazali opposed science and reason is precisely why we embrace it. He opposed it because it would lead people away from Allah. We like science because it allows people to develop reason and reject superstition and false constructs (eg. the fictions of Allah/God/Yaweh/Krishna etc for which there is *zero reputable scientific evidence*).
So, the current theology of Islam is completely anti-science. It wasn't always that way (when the Muslims were reading Greek and Roman texts) but is now.
Love thy neighbor is a great example. How many self-identified christians actually love their neighbors as themselves? Precious few.
Only those who want to love their neighbors will read that passage and actually understand what it means. Those who wish to righteously hate their neighbors will gloss over that passage, and focus on e.g. Leviticus.
You couldn't have picked a better example to prove me right. Religious texts mean what the believer wants it to mean, like a Rorchach test.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Fundamentalism: a movement that insists a holy book be taken literally, but only the parts that the movement believes in.
> The first empiricists and theoretical physicists are regarded to be Muslims.
Debatable. But what has Islam contributed in the last thousand years? I would say, not much when you consider the numbers of Muslims.
Islam is a backwards, barbaric, and anti-science culture. Look at any Muslim country.
That's a very common tactic used by Muslims (and quite a few Christians and Jews, for that matter) to explain away the despicable things in their holy books. It's a very good tactic to cloud the issue, confuse critics, and avoid dealing with the real problem which is the fundamentally disgusting nature of Islam (and Christianity and Judaism... but we're talking about Islam here for now.)
As the Turkish Prime Minister famously said in 2007, "there are moderate Muslims, there is only on Islam. Islam is Islam.". Just because the majority of Muslims don't practice their beliefs doesn't make the *core doctrine* of Islam any less evil. Stop apologizing for evil. Stop defending it. Go and read the Qur'an and hadiths yourself and you will see that they contain more hate speech than Mein Kampf does.
As Sam Harris says, the problem with Islamic Fundamentalists is the Fundamentals of Islam. So get real about Islam, k?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
The huge bulk of pseudo-Muslims don't matter. What matters is to recognize that the totalitarian, supremacist, theocratic, political ideology of Islam is not only false (its claims are not supported by science) but it is genocidally evil and must be opposed with no ifs, buts, or apologies by all Free People. So stop making apologies, you are enabling evil (which incidentally, could be construed as making you evil).
Note also that the pseudo-Muslims, who are not strict in their practice are as much in danger from devout Muslims as we are. Not I use the word 'devout' as this is accurate. Using the word 'extremist' is misleading, the terrorists and Islamic supremacists are devout to *core teachings* of genocide and hate; they are not misinterpreting the teachings in any way (which is the common excuse may by apologists hoping to fool those that don't understand what Islam actually teaches).
It is interesting you mention the Westboro Baptist. While I think they are fruitcakes, Terry Jones is absolutely 100% percent correct to burn a Qur'an with the intent of causing offense. The right to cause offence is protected as Free Speech and it is essential to exercise that Free Speech right (as Terry Jones did). Anyone who opposes it supports censorship (which is why it was suprising Petraeus sent him a note to prevent the burning - Petraeus was in Afghanistan to defend Free Speech, not to say when it may or may not be exercised!). Those that are politically correct and oppose anyone causing offense for anything are *against Free Speech* (although most people don't think it through or are too dumb to realise they are supporters of censorship). I presume you are an opponent of burning Qur'ans but recognize the right of Muslims to burn flags, each other, and us for some perceived injustice (like not converting to Salafi Islam when they demand we do)? Get real. The Westboros may be assholes, and burning Qur'ans is insenstive, but anyone who opposes their exercise of Free Speech is a closet totalitarian (whether they are smart enough to realise it or not).
You are utterly mistaken when you say "You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.". Osama bin Laden was very rich, powerful and had great social status - it was theology/ideology that drove him to murder 3000 human beings. It is clear you don't understand Islam at all and are talking through your politically-left-tinted glasses without knowing anything (no uncommon, once you acquired more facts you would disagree with the left's position in this matter). Go read the Qur'an and hadiths. Go and see how they are mostly about the *obligation* of Muslims to kill and rape and plunder unbelievers and Jews and Christians; and how it is ok molest children because Mohammed married Aisha at age 6 (although he did not consumate until age 9, that's still pedophilia in anyone's book, except the Mohammed's Qur'an, of course).
In short, your position is false and it is evident that you haven't even looked at any evidence against your 'no nothing' position. Go and look at the following sites, and if you are not shocked and still believe that the problem is not Islam but is instead something else then come back here and challenge me. Once you actually know something then you are qualified to debate. Until you know something it is better you stop speaking untruths.
> Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians.
Please name the radical Christian groups that rountinely destroy irreplacable artifacts, because of their faith.
No, but you revere an illiterate pedophile who wrote that his followers had to fight even if they thought they didn't want to.
There is a huge difference: In Islam (and most religions), there are certain debates you Cannot Do. How far do you think an Islamic scholar would get if he said "Y'know, I don't believe in this whole Allah thing. We need to rethink it."?
In science, at least in theory, questioning anything is allowed and encouraged if you can come up with objective evidence for questioning it.
The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language
Ignorant Bullshit. The Qur'an was not created until 150 years after Mohammed's death (assuming he existed, there is little evidence). There were many competing versions of the Qur'an and a single version was taken as canonical and alternatives were burnt. The discovery (and subsequent suppression by uncomfortable Mulims) of the Saa'na Qur'an in 1972 in Yemen shows how inconsistent the Qur'an is. Then the Qur'an has 'satanic versus', then the hadiths have 'weak' hadiths that may or may not be accurate. Your position is ignorant of the facts and therefore bullshit. Do your homework:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [shows how incredibly *inconsistent* the Qur'an is]
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ [this one rips the Qur'an apart and is funny]
Get a clue. Stop repeating the falsehoods made up by the evil Islamist supremacist. Your ignorance has led you to be an unpaid shill for evil.
What are you talking about? The Torah is unchanged in thousands of years. In fact, some passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran are word-for-word identical to passages in the modern Torah.
You've drunk the Islamic kool-aid, apparently.
A shining example of religious logic: "My $HOLY_BOOK must be right because my $HOLY_BOOK says it is right. Therefore, my $HOLY_BOOK is right."
Reminds me of the ol' days... turnin' left onto baka-laka-daka St.
No, I would argue that it's a diabolically inhuman strategy to keep the sheep in line, completely at odds with any shred of morality, and so repugnant that any philosophy that espouses it deserves to be erased from history.
Islam is whatever it's convenient to be for the audience. For liberal Westerners, it presents one face. For the oppressed people under the yoke of Islam, it presents a completely different face.
Mod points if I had 'em. Just because they show 'you' a good face doesn't mean they are a 'net' positive force.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Thank you for citing examples supporting your argument. Oh, wait.
at least they aren't taking hostages, blowing people up or slowly sawing off heads then posting the video online.
Yet...
Dr. George Tiller would tend to disagree with you.
Or just look at the whole list here.
While these aren't Westboro specifically, it's the same side of the coin...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Mostly agree, but WBC gives the moderates a much wider field to be extreme and still seem 'moderate'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
When can we get that building permit for a mosque in the Vatican? Or in some parts of Israel?
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
As for the beginning of the chapter, maybe you missed this verse (emphasis mine):
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]
What does that tell you? That this is talking about a specific group of polytheists; those of Mecca who fought against the Muslims from the very beginning. It also mentions another group of polytheists, who made a treaty with the Muslims on the day of Hudaibiyyah, which they didn't break. It should also be mentioned that after the conquest of Mecca (which was completely without a fight), the Meccan polytheists were allowed to live in Mecca freely for 4 months, before the end of which the vast majority of them converted.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
I'm guessing that in your area the hospitals are for-profit businesses, because anything else would be communism.
The name is just marketing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not really. People may believe anything under an Islamic state, there's just an issue with people converting to Islam with the intention of fighting it from the inside. And the simplest way to deter people from doing so is such a law.
And again, laws don't necessarily mean prosecution, prosecution doesn't necessarily mean suficient evidence is provided which leads to a sentence, a sentence which can easily be circumvented in this case.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
I don't know about this particular issue, but...
Really? Is the sun stationary? I was always under the impression that it was in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way. I dunno, could be wrong...
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Just because women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia (which I oppose) doesn't mean they aren't allowed to travel. They can travel just fine by taxi and by aeroplane.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
This sounds too hateful for my tastes. A majority of people who call themselves muslims are good, reasonable people who are capable of living well next to infidels -- they pay only lip service to their religion, same as most christians do. I do say Islam is irredeemably evil, and trying to excuse it is fooling oneself, yet that doesn't say anything about people whose parents' ancestors happened to live in a particular place. It's only actually believing in what Islam says what's bad.
It's consistency what damns Islam: the Bible contains so many contradictions that there's no such thing as "the christian faith" -- you need to go into massive cherry-picking and willfully ignore parts of the Bible. Some parts of it include outright calls for genocide, thus at least some variants of christianity are inexcusably evil. The Koran leaves no such wiggle room, and it even explicitly provides a resolution in case of contradictions (revelation given later overrides that given earlier) -- and even if we did not have such a resolution, if you take Skeptic's Annotated Quran's list, drop literary devices and "how many angels came to $FIGURE", what's left is: 1. permissibility of alcohol, 2. whether angels and jinn are the same, 3. will Allah forgive the same sin (other than disbelief) more than once?, 4. Epicurean problem (no deity may be both omnipotent and benevolent). Yes, that's the entire list.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I just went and read up on the differences between Sunni's and Shiites. Needless to say, I found the arguments utterly boggling. Countless wars, bitter feuds and rivers of blood have been spilled over essentially what is an argument about inheritance.
Names and places have been changed, but the argument is the same...
Imagine a big extended family with this guy named "Steve" in the middle of it. Steve is quite a musician, wrote a bunch of albums and has amassed quite a large following of people who think Steve is the coolest musician they know. Unfortunately Steve falls off his motorcycle and gets run over by a steamroller... ya know these things happen...
One group of people (We'll call these the Sunny's) believe that Joey, Steve's father in law should be the guy who decides how Steve's music should be listened to, in what arenas, etc.
Another Group (We'll call these guys the Moonies (or Shitties as the Sunny's call them)) believe instead that Allen (Steve's cousin and son in law) and Steve's direct descendants should instead decide how Steve's music should be interpreted.
That's it. Yeah there are some groups that think Steve's 12 decedent is being held in a bunker until the day that the Gods of Rock revival tour starts and he'll be rolled out. Good luck with that...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
In Sri Lanka, the Buddhist monks seek to control the Tamil Tigers.
Buddhism and war have a long history. Check it out sometime.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That is talking about forgiving crimes... what's your point?
Let's quote that passage in entirety and in context:
2:107 Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside Allah, any guardian or helper?
2:108 Or would ye question your messenger as Moses was questioned aforetime ? He who chooseth disbelief instead of faith, verily he hath gone astray from a plain road.
2:109 Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.
Not a single crime mentioned here, just disbelief.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Of course Allah is omnipotent. But being able to create something that you cannot then un-create (or something) is something which is inherently illogical. This example, to me, compares to the Christian belief in Jesus as God-incarnate.
I didn't check every Islamic claim to be true, seeing as this is impractical. Before I became convinced that there has to be a creator, I already knew enough about Islam and other religions to have a reasonably well-founded opinion. But even as a fresh convert, I could easily switch to another religion, no peer pressure keeping me stuck in Islam... but in the following months, while I was learning my religion more thoroughly (specifically focusing on claims more than on dogma), I didn't. I just became more convinced that I had made the right decision. It was only after 11 months that I felt comfortable enough to go to the mosque, so I had plenty of time to reconsider. But I never did. 6 years later, I'm starting to understand Arabic pretty well, and it only makes me understand Islam better and appreciate it more.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Christian groups regularly denounce unChristian behavior among other Christian groups. Where does that occur in Islam?
Here.
It doesn't for two reasons
You do realize that you live in a complete fantasy world, right?
Sure, that's common practice in warfare, isn't it? That poet, Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, also chose to be a part of a war against the Muslims, as he made a treaty with the Meccan polytheists to this end. So his killing was also an act of warfare.
In any case, Islam strictly prohibit murder, rape, stealing and lying. Whether the perpetrator is a Muslim or not, whether the victim is Muslim or not.
Warfare is an exception, and as I understand it Ghandi is no more. Every nation in the world allows killing hostile soldiers during war.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
As for Islam's "crimes" (I presume you meant crimes perpetrated by Muslims) why don't you name some mistreatment of women? Please, enlighten me. Last time I checked (and that's... every day), my wife loves me and doesn't think I mistreat her.
As for wahhabies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbism#Naming_controversy:_Wahhabism_and_Salafism
I rest my case. Nuance is something not everybody likes, I realize that.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
I won't debate idiots like you.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
In Islam we don't listen to any lunatic proclaiming stuff. There are sciences with defined methodologies, and there are scientists or scholars who debate religious issues, which is much like peer-reviewing in modern science.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Show me one testable explanation that these "scientists or scholars" debate. Show me one testable prediction that these "scientists or scholars" debate. You're doing science in the same sense that the cargo cult guys do war fighting.
There's a lot more to it and the issue of inheritance really isn't what started this.
We're talking about the leader of the Islamic state here. After the death of the prophet (pbuh) the senior companions (including 'Ali) voted for who should be the new leader, and they voted unanimously for Abu Bakr. Then when Abu Bakr died, they voted for the next leader to be 'Omar. And after that, 'Uthman. It was only after the reign of 'Omar that the trouble started. A group of thugs from Egypt came to kill 'Uthman, although 'Uthman was very willing to reconsile with them, because they had some valid concerns. After that, most of the remaining companions urged 'Ali to become the new rules, but he repeatedly refused, as he didn't want to carry that burden. When he was finally convinced, there was a group of his followers, most prominent of whom was 'Abdullah bin Saba, who incited him against other companions, and then the battle of the camel happened.
'Ali later prosecuted this group in a harsh way. Those who remained formed Shiism, and now they proclaim that 'Ali should have been the leader all along, while we're not even doubting his leadership skills, we just think the 3 who went before him were a bit more suited to be leaders.
The extremist shiites will say that this account of history is based completely on lies, but unfortunately for them, their main history source (Al Kaafi) is known to be pretty unreliable, and they acknowledge that.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Well, we can start with the destruction of the last piece of the Library of Alexandria following with the assassination of Hypatia.
A little later of course there was the Crusades.
And today of course it's happening in Africa.
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/christian-doctrine-speeds-destruction-artifacts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/06/african-evangelists-destroy-artifacts/?page=all
You are neither right nor wrong. You are not even wrong because you talk about movement without giving a frame of reference. Don't worry I don't deem it lawful to kill you because of that. Only a disgusting piece of shit would threaten death for something like this.
No equivalence with Israel, there are mosques there. In fact, there's a mosque sitting on Judaism's most holy site. There is no equivalence with Vatican City, since it's basically one big church compound, not a large city like Mecca (over 2,500 times the size of Vatican City). The Al-Masjid al-áaram is almost the size of Vatican City, so you're talking the equivalent of putting a church within the Mosque's compound.
Can a Muslim enter Vatican City? Of course. Can he proselytize others to his religion while there? Of course.
When can I enter Mecca? I can't, because the Quran says I'm unclean. Can a Christian proselytize in Saudi Arabia? Nope, illegal.
People may believe anything under an Islamic state, there's just an issue with people converting to Islam with the intention of fighting it from the inside. And the simplest way to deter people from doing so is such a law.
The assumption this makes is that anyone who converts out of Islam had started out with the intention of fighting from the inside, whatever that means. What about someone who was born and raised as a Muslim, then converts to Christianity? And regardless of whether this assumption is unfair, the activities which you claim the law proscribes are also well within the modern (or at least Western) conception of religious freedom. The papacy can certainly excommunicate the nuns calling for female priests, but it certainly cannot have them prosecuted for doing so - not in any country worth living in, anyway.
I guess this is the modern version of burning books.
Proverbs 21:19
Sorry for not giving this my full attention at first.
Yes, it's not mentioned, but if you know the history of the situation, you will see this revelation in perspective.
The Muslims had a treaty with the people of Medina. Unfortunately, some tribes broke the treaty a number of times, one of the people who broke the treaty was Ka'b ibn al Ashrak, who made a deal with the Meccan polytheists to fight against the Muslims, while making obscene poetry to defame Islam in Medina. Then this verse was revealed, which prohibited the Muslims from replying to any of this, binding them by the treaty, even though some of those non-Muslim tribes transgressed.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
I'm not understanding the connection you're making between the idea of an omnipotent god and Jesus in particular. Many people, including myself, think that the very concept of an omnipotent god, if it has any meaning at all, is probably inherently illogical. This would include Allah, the Christian god, etc. I don't see how the Islamic and Christian conceptions of god differ in any fundamental way, in regard to omnipotence and its other inherent characteristics. (Can Allah make a rock too heavy for him to lift? If not, there is something he can not make. If yes, there is something he can not lift. Either way, not omnipotent. Not that this is serious, but neither is the idea of an omnipotent god.) Thank you for sharing something about your conversion experience. So is it true that in six years you've not encountered any fundamental thing in the religion, either in the holy text or its authoritative interpretations, that seems obviously false? Is Islam in conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of the history of our planet, for example (that life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years)?
Sunnis hate the apostate Shiites. Shiites hate the apostate Sunnis. They kill one another in a never ending battle over a schism 1400 years old. Oh, but, the Sunnis are moderate. They want to moderately destroy all who don't agree with them. The Shiite are not. They want to immoderately destroy all who don't agree with them.
They are obviously very different.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
I'll name just one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Frame of reference... like, uh, the Milky Way? Hmmm
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Turkey was pretty active in the sciences during the Ottoman empire.
By the way that's one ruler out of a long line who supported the House of Wisdom.
So sorry, but you are cherry picking.
As far as the current situation it varies depending where you look.
Turkey, for example is modern country with full rights for women. Iran was that way prior to the revolution. When I was in graduate school in the early 70's I had as friends a Iranian couple - the wife was educated as a dentist.
The problem today in Muslim countries is simply radicalism. One can say this was caused by the west.
The fact of the matter is that most Muslim nations from 1200 AD up until WWII were colonies. That seriously impacted their ability to develop.
Now that this period has ended we are seeing some of the liberal Muslim nations make some progress.
And how many fucking centuries did the Pope claim Galileo was wrong? It was only in 1992 that the Catholic church admitted he was right.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Right. Look what happens when people try to build a mosque in the US. A veritable outpouring of religious tolerance.
NOT.
I did not say he was. I asked what was destroyed in his name. People do things in the name of 'X' without knowing what 'X' is all the time. As per your assertion that it is not a religion...
Please do not reinvent the meaning of words in the middle of a conversation.
Please do not reinvent the meaning of words in the middle of a conversation. Or get a dictionary the rest of the world uses.
Yep, and in the end, they let them build it--along with the 2,000 other mosques in the U.S. (up 74% since 2000, incidentally).
Number of churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia: 0 (up 0% since forever).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The Qur'an does not come out and state that apostates should be killed.
Some Islamic nations have that in their legal systems, but it is not an intrinsic part of their religion.
He should be given time and help to resolve his doubts about Islam, but if he still refuses, he needs to be put to death. Although this is something that rarely happens, if at all. I have yet to see a real apostate who isn't a complete idiot or a liar.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Why would any God worth his salt want to be "worshipped"? Any God I worship is going to have to be worthy of worship. I have yet to find one of those in any religion in the world.
All religions are a threat. People may not like what I have to say but I do feel threatened when I hear national Catholic archbishops declare the "atheists are making war upon the church" in response to complaints about the handling of priestly pedophiles.
And how many fucking centuries did the Pope claim Galileo was wrong? It was only in 1992 that the Catholic church admitted he was right.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
The difference is that at lest for the last few centuries, the Vatican didn't say you should kill over it. This cleric did, and it was recent.
if he still refuses, he needs to be put to death.
Yeah, see, if you wanted to defend Islam on this thread, you could start by not making psychopathic statements like this. People like you have no business in a modern, liberal society, and it's silly to expect everyone else to respect your beliefs (or your person, for that matter) when you actively advocate murder in their name.
Oh, and by the way, putting someone to death for apostasy - regardless of their intentions, religious background, etc. - is completely incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's no defense to plead that such a penalty is hardly ever applied (although I can recall multiple cases of apostates being threatened with death just in the last few years), since such laws will by their very existence prevent the free exercise of religion.
Except muslims deny free speech. So it's actually bullshit.
The difference is that you can analyse them on their logical consistency, historical accuracy, predictive power, whether their application would make a better society or a worse one, etc etc.
They aren't based on what a nonexistent bearded guy in the sky said.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
On becoming a True Scotsman:
* I would suggest a Utilikilt yes, unless you have some Scottish blood in you, in which case you might adopt a standard kilt using the appropriate tartan - keep in mind there are also national tartans, city tartans, and tartans for various professions you might utilize. Also keep in mind that historically speaking the concept of a particular tartan pattern belonging to a particular clan is of course a later invention (probably of British origins). At most I believe we can say that certain tartans came from certain areas of Scotland at best.
The utilikilt seems like a fairly practical garment generally. I have been tempted to buy one.
* Learn Gaelic - its a tough language to learn (particularly the inconsistent spelling, but then if you have learned English already it should be like old home week). Its a very mellifluous language. Make sure you are learning Scottish Gaelic mind you, not Irish. BBC Scotland has entire broadcasts in Scot's Gaelic if you wish to acquire the sounds of it while trying to learn the vocabulary and grammar.
* Buy a practice chanter and start learning how to play the bagpipes. Now, by no means does every Scot know how to play the pipes - or even like them necessarily - but for most people there are a few key things that are associated with a true Scot and playing the pipes is one of them.
* Drink Whiskey - Single malts only, avoid blends.
* Pick an accent and acquire it - I particularly like Billy Connolly's accent myself (Glasgow I believe), but the Highland accents from somewhere like the Isle of Skye or the Hebrides, are very attractive.
* Learn to love football (i.e. Soccer) like your life depends on it.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
That's even more hilarious... We've got this unreliable history but we're sticking with it! Pull away a 1000 years of barbarism and butchery that's what you're left with is a bunch of groups who want control of a resource (Islam). There's really NOT alot more to it. There's just a lot of back and forth and baloney.
These groups might as well be fighting over an oasis in the middle of a desert.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
You missed out being permanently drunk. Unless that was what caused you to forget what step 2 was.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There's a lot of assumptions that the people here having this discussion are largely Christians railing against Islam. However, it is worth point out that most people here are probably atheists or agnostic not Christian. I suppose it's hard for some people to imagine but the number of people who believe in any sort of sky daddy is rapidly dwindling in the modern world.
Really? I think these fuckheads didn't get the memo.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> And when it's the fundamentals are repulsive it's time to shut the whole thing down. That goes for any religion.
Toss the baby out with the bath water.
Right.
Likewise we should dismiss Newton simply because he spent the _majority_ of his researching and writing about Alchemy.
Religion, like any practical philosophy can be used to do good, or abused to do evil. Only children think the world is black-n-white wanting to toss the good out along with the bad.
I would say there is a significant difference between the Bible and the Koran, and by extension Christianity and Islam.
The Bible was written by many different people and is usually interpreted that way. The New Testament undoes a lot of the Old Testament, and most importantly Jesus (as described) was a generally okay guy.
The Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God, so all of it is 100% true and leaves less room for interpretation. Mohammed was a total bastard as well, a paedophile, slave owner, polygamist, war monger and general asshat.
Of course it still took Christianity a long time to get where it is now, but at least their main guy is a reasonable role model. The nasty parts of the Bible can be ignored. I'm not sure if Islam will ever reconcile what Mohammed was like with modern (secular) values, or some of the stuff that God is supposed to have said through the Koran.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> A disturbingly large number of people who identify themselves as Muslims go around blowing up buildings, hijacking refineries, chopping off heads, raping Western reporters to celebrate "democracy", and generally doing their damnedest to make the rest of the world hate them. The rest of the world has no obligation to give a shit about why we shouldn't consider the left hand as bad as the right; The burden rests on "the good ones" to get their own house in order.
That's a fucking retarded viewpoint, dealing with the assholes of this world is down to all of us. I lean atheist, does that mean its up to me to keep the actions of other atheists in check? If Jeffrey Dalmer or some other atheist lunatic does something sick is it up to me and other atheists to cure their behaviour ? Also, your viewpoint on the statistics of which groups go around doing wrong is almost entirely dependent on where you live. If you lived in the middle east you would hear no end of talk about how evil christians and jews are killing innocent muslims all over the place. Instead you live in the US where you hear about Muslims being dicks. It's not that what either group is hearing is false, its just that this is all they hear. However, if you *did* look at the numbers of westerners killed by muslims versus muslims killed by westerners in last 20 years, it comes to around 10,000 westerners versus, um.. well, over a million, but who's counting.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Telling truth and proividing citations for this view is "Flamebait" these days. Unbelievable!
That's a fucking retarded viewpoint
I did point out I don't consider it "fair", but you can't just make basic human behavior go away by calling it retarded.
dealing with the assholes of this world is down to all of us.
Absolutely - But how do you prove yourself as one of the "good guys" rather than one of the assholes, if you sit idly by while others tarnish your name?
However, if you *did* look at the numbers of westerners killed by muslims versus muslims killed by westerners in last 20 years, it comes to around 10,000 westerners versus, um.. well, over a million, but who's counting.
Important difference - How many of those killed specifically in the name of their god? Yes, the most well equipped military forces in the world have caused a higher body count than savages wielding 30 year old former-soviet scrap. Only one of those sides has made a point of waging war in the name of Allah. Only one side hijacks oil refineries because they want Sharia and the French won't let them. Only one side crashes planes into buildings in an explicitly declared jihad.
Don't get me wrong, I in no way supported any of our recent wars in the sandbox - I even consider Kuwait a mistake, since Saddam seemed like the only guy in the region who had any shot of eventually heeling all the dogs under one alpha male (and a fairly secular one at that). But thus it stands - One side kills in the name of god, the other just responds in kind.
I lean atheist, does that mean its up to me to keep the actions of other atheists in check?
Of course not! If other atheists, in the name of atheism, went around torturing and killing people - Well, you'd have a choice. You'd either need to very visibly try to keep "your side" in check; or you'd want to ditch that particular banner and distance yourself from it as far and as fast as possible.
You only need to make people under the same banner behave if you actually care about that banner. Conversely, if you care about your group affiliations, you'd damned well better keep other members of your group in check. Otherwise, we end up back at my earlier post - The rest of the world will hold your friends against you. Simple as that.
700 years ago was when the Mongols conquered Baghdad so explain again why your post and the GP's aren't compatible.
You might like to re-read the parent's post. They said, "Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians. Islam inherently promotes scientific inquiry.". This is utter bollocks, anyone who understands the teachings of Al Ghazali (that are still influential on Islam today) knows this. That is why the parent's statements were so very wrong.
Yes. Islamic scholars embraced and extended the writings of the Greeks and Romans. That has all been shut down for over 700 years (not due to the Mongol invasions, which have long since departed). There are only two Nobel Laureate physicists from the Islamic World, and one of those was a colaboration with non-Muslims. Given the length of time and number of Muslims (20% of the World population) it shows how under-represented Muslims are compared to the rest of the world. Why is this? because Islam is anti-science. The parent poster's statements were true 700 years ago but were spoken in the present tense, where they have been wrong for three quarters of a millenia. Admit it, "eric conspiracy" repeated bullshit propaganda and got his facts wrong.
A disturbingly large number of people who identify themselves as Muslims go around blowing up buildings, hijacking refineries, chopping off heads, raping Western reporters to celebrate "democracy", and generally doing their damnedest to make the rest of the world hate them. The rest of the world has no obligation to give a shit about why we shouldn't consider the left hand as bad as the right; The burden rests on "the good ones" to get their own house in order.
An increasing number of nerdy white kids who play video games are going on killing sprees. Time to round them up.
Eco and animal rights terrorists commit violent acts, do we arrest anybody who speaks out about animals and the environment? Then you have right wing gun/abortion/anti-government folks who bombed OKC, Atlanta, and committed a number of shootings over the years.
The common thread in all terrorism is the intent to impose ones values on others, no matter what the underlying beliefs are.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Yes, after a couple of firebombings and the local courts had to be overruled. It's really disgraceful bigoted behavior in a country whose founders believed so strongly in freedom of religion.
What about the Sikh's who were victim of a terrorist attack in Wisconsin? Is that something to be proud of.
You do realize that almost all Muslim countries have Christian churches, right?
For example Iran has 73 Christian churches and even a Christian cable channel.
Good luck finding a Muslim cable channel in the US.
You are conveniently neglecting the fact the Faisal was so incensed by this guy he ordered every copy of his writings destroyed.
He is no more representative of Islam than the nut job that went and assassinated 6 Sikhs in Wisconsin, or the raving loons of the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of Christianity.
Citing the Daily Mail?
You have got to be kidding. That rag has NO credibility.
Going through the 477 comment summaries I can see no mention of what exactly it is that is objected to or what the cause of the attack is trying to bring attention to.
What I like to do is actually look up what it is exactly the person protesting is trying to achieve, especially in the case of suicide bombers.
If you just blindly dismiss your enemy then you're not going to understand or be able to cure it... assuming you want to cure it.
Are we sure this is Islamists because it might make more sense if it was people with a different version of Egypt events who also have a Islamistic bent and don't like her opinion. Or simply people in Egypt who don't like her for writing Egypt's herstory.
I asks some Egyptians if Egypt is a muslim country and they said it's compilcated. It could be that there's nothing of this to do with Islam and there should be info on whether that is true or not with article background to what had happened.
This isn't to defend what has happened of course. But I do notice that when Islam is mentioned it's like bhow black people were mentioned before. I find myself wondering which type of Islamists are being talked about in the same way when I hear black people being talked about I wonder what ethnic group of black people are being talked about and sometimes... the person talking is refering to asians.
I know the world is supposed to be at war with Islam (play the headline with each of these countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Bali, Palestine, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran) .. but I choose not to see good news in the world and in doing so lead the mindseye not to ignorance but peace thanks very much. Even when this kind of thing happens.
A blog I run for the wealth
I see many here quoting the Koran.
Thing is, just like with most Christians, Muslims don't have the faintest clue of what their Holy Book prescribe, and when they do they just "interpret" it in whatever way fits the social context they where born in.
Now, don't get me wrong. Nutty aggressive foaming violent morons ARE a problem, and I do want to see less religion and more education in the world.
But I do have Muslim friends, I had Muslim girlfriends and they have nothing to do with what you see on the TV.
Many, many Muslims are secular, drink alcohol, fuck liberally and don't wear any headscarf and in general adhere to their religion just as our local Christians do.
Violence and fundamentalism are bred by lack of education, the specific flavor of religion is not that relevant.
How much of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is due to the Catholic Church's murderous attitude and bald-faced lies about condoms?
A very great deal of it. And this is good example of why not all Christians are the same.
Most mainstream Protestants (in Britain at least) find Catholic teaching on sexuality to be at least stupid.
The Anglican church in Britain has homosexual ordained vicars and bishops.
Saying that "they are all the same" is at the very least unnuanced, and in my opinion downright dangerous. It is demonising your opponent, one the things that religious people do (Inevitably, since non- or wrong-believers will not be saved).
One time a technological solution and an army of tech savvy individuals would actually be able to fix a real world problem in a simple and elegant way - you all either succumb to provocations of religious haters of one kind or another, or you go on professing your own religious and cultural hatred generalizing across the board.
Nearly 500 comments, and maybe one or two that actually mention tech.
Everything else being one kind of hating or the other and people enabling those haters by giving credence to their posts through replies and arguing with them.
Guys!
It's a fucking scientific blog being hacked by a bunch of fucktard script kiddies.
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT KIND OF BOOK OR FLAG THEY ARE WAIVING IN THE AIR?!!!
To quote the summary:
How do we route around damage like this?"
It's a tech problem. You are supposed to be the tech guys.
In all these years, this is the first time I'm kind of ashamed for being a part of this community.
Kinda getting a vibe as if it's 1930's and I'm with a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals in some public drinking place, and everyone is arguing about pros and cons of German, Italian and Japanese railway systems.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I note your admission that there exist "psuedo Muslims".
By which you actually mean, non-fundamentalists who might self identify as Muslim to some extent or other.
Your problem is that people like you will end up mistaking a "pseudo muslim" for a Fundamentalist religious fanatic and you will call for all of their elimination no matter what the facts are.
In fact I actually agree that Islam is a greater threat to what I'll need to call "Western Civilisation" than, for example Christianity.
To give one example, Muslims are not the only ones who complain about their religious artefacts being "desecrated": see PZ Myers and Catholic communion wafers.
BUT they are however vastly more likely to have members who will murder to gain revenge (see Theo van Gogh).
The closest we come in our views seems to be that Fundamentalist Islam is currently more dangerous than Fundamentalist Christianity.
Agreed.
Many others in this forum have pointed to matters such as some Christians prohibiting contraception and use of condoms as being a cause of spreading AIDS in Africa.
You seem to be saying that not all religions are the same, rightly pointing the great many crimes and evils done in the name of Islam,
but insist that all Muslims are the same. Why the selective nuance?
(As is favoured on internet forums, I will flag up your fallacy for you; "True Scotsman")
I presume you are an opponent of burning Qur'ans but recognize the right of Muslims to burn flags, each other, and us for some perceived injustice
You presume wrongly, my foam-flecked friend. I am a proponent of freedom of expression of all kinds, and I oppose special treatment to anyone based on their religion. One of the few libertarian "thin end of the wedge" arguments I actually agree with.
(Actually, anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about flag burning is as stupid as someone who goes on a rampage cos someone burned a book there are millions of copies of.)
Do you think Christian pastors burn non Christian holy books to bolster freedom of expression? Or might it be because it's the wrong kind of holy book?
Note to self. Do not post when processor is offline. Message remains.
Seriously????
Religion isn't a "practical philosophy". It's superstition and the imposition of doctrine via claims of authority on high.
Religion gives you "demons cause sickness". Science discovers germ theory.
Pfffft. What about Judaism?
How can God punish people for what God makes them do? Both Islam and Christianity are very explicit about humans ultimately not really having much choice in being rightly guided or misguided, yet have no problems in blaming the pot for what the potter does... compared to that, other niggles seem like insanely irrelevant details.
If you outlaw telling a 5 year old to drink bleach, you're "outlawing free speech" as well.
Hogwash. While there is variation among Muslim sects and among individual Muslims, the fact is that mainstream Islam advocates values that pose a threat to those of us who value freedom and equality. That it is acceptable to spread Islam by violence is a mainstream view. That only Muslims can be full citizens is a mainstream view. This is what one finds in the core texts of Islam, in mainstream teaching, such as that at Al-Azhar University, and in the actions and positions of Muslim states and organizations. To take just one example, the 51 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation unanimously condone terrorism. To take another, look around the world at which countries discriminate on religious grounds. Virtually all Muslim countries do; very few others do, and even there, for the most part, it takes the form of symbolic trivia like requiring the powerless monarch to belong to a certain religion.
Why do you choose this frame of reference? The choice is not in any way canonical. Relativity is the only relevant model here. But you're missing the point again. It's not about beeing wrong or right. It is about killing people beacause they have a different opinion.
" Look up the hospitals in your area, many of them probably have "Saint" in their name."
Indeed, but I reckon it's the tax money from me and the other 62 million odd people of the UK that keeps it going rather than anything 'Saint George' has done.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
If Muslims are honest with themselves, they'll realize it has already started. I'm an idol-worshipping atheist (Buddhist flavoured), and get along great with my devout Muslim friends because we all agree that our most profound message is heart-wrenchingly simple: COMPASSION.
The problem just is that more and more people (AKA 'islamists') start believing that implementing the 'holy' Quran literally is going to make this world better.
Let's hope some predator drone finds these twits and sends them a clear warning by dropping a 500kg block of concrete into their house, with a note attached that if they or anybody else ever impedes things like that again, the 500kg concrete is going to be swapped with a few Mk82 bombs with live fuses and real explosives.
Alas, debating with these people is nigh impossible, and the only language they understand is violence, or at least the clear and present danger of ending up having to schedule an appointment with 72 virgins.
And even the Quran knows to how work out problems with their own believers - if a majority of muslims was susceptible to jail sentences or fines for theft or other crimes, the Quran wouldn't mandate chopping off hands and other body parts.
Again, for the people who missed my previous comments, this is not something anyone may do out of their own accord. Someone may be sentenced to death by a judge in a court of law, and that's the end of it. You can disagree with apostasy from Islam being strictly prohibited under an Islamic state, and it may even be contrary to some "universal freedoms" formulated by people, but it's hardly murder.
By the same token, if I disagree with the killing of Osama bin Laden, I could call the soldiers who did it murderers.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
As an actual Scot living near Glasgow, I'd say...
1. Move to Scotland. Unless you're rich, in which case move to a tax haven.
2. Use any excuse to get drunk. Waking up in the morning, for example, should be properly celebrated.
3. Occasionally wonder what both sides aren't telling us about the Independence question, then give up and drink more.
4. Use the word "cunt" primarily as punctuation.
There's more to it than that, of course (like pretending to enjoy haggis) but start with the items above and you'll be well on your way.
I've never heard of this "post count limit". Is that something new?
You say that interpretation of holy texts is fallible. Could there be mistakes in the texts themselves? Where the interpretation is clear, is there anything that could be wrong?
Clearly you think that the overwhelming scientific consensus about the history of the world is wrong, because it conflicts with parts of the holy texts whose interpretation seems clear. When and how did you determine that the scientific community is wrong and the old books are right? Do you agree with many Christian creationists that fossils and other evidence were planted by god to try to trick us or test our faith?
You seem to share with most Christian creationists a basic confusion about what science is and how it works. It is not true that abiogenesis "is a theory which directly stems from the presumption that there is no creator". There is no presumption, just basic intellectual hygiene: avoid adding pieces and parts to your theory unless there is evidence for them. Since there is no evidence for a "creator", there is no good reason to include one.
People used to believe that god pushed the stars and planets around in the sky. Now that we have a universal theory of gravitation, we can calculate their orbits and see their motions as resulting from a natural process. It would not be correct to say that the theory of gravitation "presumes" that there is no creator. There is simply no need to invoke one to explain the motions of the planets. We would make no progress in understanding the universe if we kept saying "god is doing it" rather than figuring out what is really happening. Same thing in biology.
You can disagree with apostasy from Islam being strictly prohibited under an Islamic state, and it may even be contrary to some "universal freedoms" formulated by people, but it's hardly murder.
I call it murder - it's no different if the state does it than if an individual does it. The punishment should fit the crime, and victimless crimes shouldn't be punished at all (although the Western world is still figuring this out). What about this concept is so difficult for the Islamic world to grasp?
By the same token, if I disagree with the killing of Osama bin Laden, I could call the soldiers who did it murderers.
I don't approve of the death penalty even for people like Osama. But he at least was responsible for many deaths (forget 9/11 for a moment - what about the 200-odd innocent Africans killed in the US embassy attacks in 1998?), and so his fate wasn't disproportionate to his actions. Killing someone for making a personal religious decision that you disagree with is fucking sick.
Christianity has no such policies because Christianity is an umbrella term.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Funny thing is, they do not consider the execution of apostates to be against freedom of religion. There's some warped logic behind that.
You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.
The issue that concerns you as a non muslim is "Can or should I tar all Muslims with the same brush?"
No you shouldn't, and your actions will actually worsen relations between different groups
FYI I am not a crypto theist of any description, but I can tell when someone is simply being prejudiced
Maybe you need an example closer to your own home:
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist? Is a Quaker or a Unitarian the same as a Fundamentalist Evangelical who uses biblical quotations to argue against homosexuality and "miscegenation"?
Of course they are not, and it would be useful if those who thought they were the same made some effort.
The major problem with understanding Islam for Americans is that your media simply does not allow for the existence of anything extremist fundamentalists.
Imagine a world where you were only told about the most lunatic fringe christians..
===
The difference between the different Christian sects and fundamental Muslim faith is that we don't follow Sharia law. We do not do eye for eye, or take lives of non-believers. Even in the midst of the Suni religious population, we hear about many evil activites, in the name of Allah. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindi, buddist, all believe in Allah, only in their own way. Sadly the Jihadists exist, to tarnish what is normally a very tolerant people of Muslim faith.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Nice try, it's Hadith that says to put them to death.
Some? Apostasy is a crime in over a dozen Islamic nations representing a good chunk of the world's Muslim population. Muslim states are unique in the world for criminalizing apostasy.
yeah... you lost me here. Good job up until this point, though.
I'm curious: Did you have a religion before Islam? If so, even non practicing, how would you feel if that religion had decreed abandoning it would be punishable by death?
A lot of folks are addicted, but that don't change that its very damaging. It may be a calming habit, but eventually it causes horrible consequences.
umh, i consider magic to be anything that's not explained ... scientology ? nah, that's scambusiness if i read about it here i never bothered since it seems so silly
yet
so maybe i'm a believer too then
the extremists are a minority, their followers maybe not so, but most wouldn't if the heads of the hydra went. I dont know of any muslims around here who could be called terrorists or would ever force their belief on someone, i never known any fight here about it. Sometimes a bit of a row near brussels if some cop made trouble but that's it.
or maybe that one sharya for belgium guy they neutralized (not killed), but he would be the extremist, and now he's gone there seems to be silence.
i think it's safe to consider muslims just human. I also think it's not islam that needs to be seen as a threat, but fanaticism in general, without any kind of racial or cultural bias. Leftwing, rightwing, religious fanaticism
fanatics are the enemy, not the main chunk
at least, that's my humble opinion
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
..and still seem 'moderate'
That is a good point.
Well what should I do, say it isn't so? I'm just being honest...
I stated before that I used to be an Atheist. It's well known, by the way, that both Christianity and Judaism stipulate the killing of an apostate. It just isn't practiced any more. And how I would feel? It would just be more incentive for me to leave the country. The way you're looking at this is that people change their religion regularly. That doesn't happen; people think twice, thrice, hundreds of times, sometimes over the course of years, before changing religion.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Qur'an clearly states that Jews, Christians and Sabians who lived before Islam will go to paradise, because they believe in real prophets and real divine books. Unfortunately most Christians and Jews that I know of don't feel a similar sentiment towards Islam. To be fair, I know one who does, but his views changed during the time we spent together.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
both Christianity and Judaism stipulate the killing of an apostate. It just isn't practiced any more
What the formal doctrines of other religions say is irrelevant, unless there are laws against conversion in majority-Christian nations. The only person in this discussion advocating the killing of apostates is you.
The way you're looking at this is that people change their religion regularly.
I said nothing of the sort; as an atheist I simply don't care whether people change their religion or not. It is their choice, and should remain so, and nobody else should have any say in the matter. And again, if you want to convince the rest of us that Islam isn't a backwards, medieval, totalitarian philosophy, your views on apostates will not help your case.
Shutting down Egyptology Research is going to seriously slow down our progress on the Stargate. If Egyptology Research is not allowed to progress Daniel Jackson will never figure out the secrets which follows that the Ga'ould will most definitely defeat Earth. I am sure that Kinsey is behind all of this, we should never trust the NID, they will stoop to any level to take control of the Stargate ;-)
You are conflating what passes for the mass pseudo-religion (spiritual kindergarten) and True Religion (Spiritual Maturity) -- the latter which is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs. Almost all religions at their core teach the golden rule -- "Treat others how you want to be treated. Love others as you love yourself, etc." This is a very good _practical_ philosophy -- IF you allow it.
Religion is the process of where one's mind is developed to be able to both live and understand the higher patterns and realities. The garbage that passes for "religion" is the (religious) Dogma that was created when somebody says there is only one way (aka, cult.) to understand "God" and usually wants to sell you Heaven Insurance. As George Carlin famously said: "God always needs money!" Of this I would agree with.
However, you are tossing the baby out with the bath water: What you fail to understand is two-fold:
- BOTH the Theists and Atheists will always dwell in ignorance -- while one has belief, one has lack of belief, respectively, BOTH are blind to the higher realities along with not understanding the strengths AND weaknesses of their own system AND polar opposite system. They are like two blind man arguing. The first says "I believe that I can see", whilst the latter says "I don't believe you can."
- ONLY the Mystic has _knowledge_ -- that is EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE. You can tell and show someone how to be a world class drummer but unless they actually DO the work of developing their hand-foot-eye coordination, timing, etc. it they will never develop the skill to be great.
If you want to learn about a topic X you don't go to somebody who only has a belief about X; you go to someone who has experience and knowledge about X.
You also fail to understand the purpose of True Religion because you don't yet understand the importance of the 0th lesson:
"Know Thyself."
--
Mind not Space, is the Final Frontier.
The people who argue that we are (im)morally equivalent to these goat-fekkers are confusing the 1400s (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) with the 1960s. The separation of Church and State (such as it is in the West, see Magna Carta) has not been discovered yet in the MIddle East. Only the Europeans and in some sense the Chinese-Japanese-Koreans and similar have separated the two.
Footnote: high-caliber and high fire rate do not help at all against the mob (adverts not-withstanding, so don't look for me in cities.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
To the oens who hit the 'overrated'.. Exactly what is overrated here? It's a direct counter example of the premise stated, thus completely relevant to the point made. Might it be because you don't like that there is a counter example in the first place, and instead of acknoledging it you want the rest of us to stick our head in the ground just like you?
You are so correct. Look at all the Christian beheading and bombings recently.
We call those "drone strikes" now.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Common misconception, even among Christians.
Turning the other cheek relates to persecution "in [His] name", ie, for being a Christian.
Not to everything.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
i'll have you know haggis is delicious!
it'll put hair on your arse.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.