Many CAD suites have quite decent UIs. They are doing 3D, just in a more logical way (and with different emphasis) on the chaotic artistic "modelling" tools. While not exactly the same the CAD packages can produce 3D meshes with normals, texture coordinates, animations etc etc. The point being that if CAD can have relatively intuitive, discoverable and most importantly *consistent* interfaces, then why can't the modelling tools do it?
Actually, great effort is spent to make aircraft controls as simple and *consistent* as possible. Even beginners can perform basic flight maneuvers in complex aircraft. More complicated things require more study in aircraft, but the simple things remain simple and *obvious* to any pilot with as little as a few hours hands-on training. Think of Einstein who is paraphrased as, "As simple as possible, but no simpler". If simplification of complex systems is good enough for Einstein then its good enough for me. That was the position I tried to outline - Blender can be made simpler, more consistent, and more discoeverable in many places if you think about it. So your aircraft analogy was kinda poor on your part (just shows you understand neither the principles of good software design nor aircraft design - simplify and make consistent where possible).
People complaining about Blender's UI are usually kids who jump on the "bad UI" bandwagon because they can't figure out how to make the next Pixar movie in half an hour.
I know a great deal about computer graphics, since I write a lot of OpenGL (both fixed functionality and GLSL shaders). I also understand a lot of the maths algorithms and modern techniques (parallalx mapping etc). I understand what I'm trying to do, but what I often cannot see is how to do it with Blender. This is because Blender's interface is not discoverable, poorly laid out, and items elided unnecessarily (hidden). I'm not one of the "kids" you lament about. My criticism of the UI is because I'm both a practicing software developer and technical writer and understand the principles of good UI design - and Blender simply doesn't meet them.
The UI of Blender is very well thought out, for the people that actually use it
That is not true. What you are saying is that Blender suits you personally because you have invested a great deal of time to learn it. In fact, the time you have spent learning Blender makes you a worse judge of its interface from the perspective of the requirements of people who are competent and would like to use Blender, but don't want to deal with its interface in the sorry state it is in. There are programs doing far more complicated things than Blender that are far easier (as in intuitive) to use - eg. many software Integrated Development Environments can do a lot more than Blender. It is this property that sets great UI design from mediocre or poor design. Unfortunately it appears you might be good at 3D modelling but are rather clueless about the principles of human-computer interaction and good software UI design.
As an example, take the fantastic product like OmniGraffle for 2D artwork. It is a joy to use even when doing some complex compositions. It is consistent, helpful and works well. It also has pretty good online documentation. In short, a skilled designer put a great deal of thought in (which can also be said for most Apple products - which is why they have often trounced the competition). Most of what you need to do in Blender is actually not that complicated, yet it is a dog to navigate through and the online help is pathetic (eg. non-existent) or woefully out of date; the python messages are not helpful for non-programmers (fortunately I am a developer, but I realise I'm an atypical user) etc etc.
The UI may be fast and efficient. What it is not is 'discoverable'. This makes Blender a pig for those learning it - especially those who know what they want to do (eg. understand computer graphics) and find that trying to get Blender to do what they want is unnecessarily obscure. This appears to be something you don't get, which is why you also fail to understand what so many people are trying to so. I hope this clears the issue people are talking about for you. They are not complaining you can't get by with accelerators or that Blender isn't powerful, they are complaining that accessing that power could be made far more accessible and discoverable with a well-thought out UI design (which is entirely possible for a good designer to do - the trick of design is to orient the interface towards the current task and simplify where you can). Get it now?
Well, there are numerous ways to improve Blender for those skilled in UI design and workflow. As a software developer and trained technical writer (both with plenty of international experience) I see that changing the structure of Blender could improve the product a great deal. It turns out that in my spare time I'm working on a jet combat flight simulator. It's multi-threaded and cross platform (its written in modern Java, so already works on Linux, Windows and Mac with fantastic runtime performance) and I've recently got multi-player communication going with IEEE 1278.1 (just like a military sim) and a SOAP Webservice. For many graphical tasks I write my own algorithms and GLSL shaders (based on a lot of research on the physics of light transmission, atmospheric extinction etc). That covers most of my needs but occasionally I'll license a complex $1000 model from Turbosquid and I'll need to adjust the mesh or normals. That's where Blender can come in handy for a quick tweak along with many other tools.
Given that a modern flight simulator has very very many components, of which building or importing graphic assets are actually a relatively small part of effort to build a product (smaller than many would think, despite the quality of assets having a big apparent impact) I don't want to spend a great deal of time in Blender if I can help it. I'm not interested in spending ages learning Blender, since I'm more of a casual user and would rather spend the time I have making excellent flight dynamics models and integrating devices like the TrackIR (on all of Windows, Mac and Linux).
So you can arrogantly call me "kid" if you wish. However, it is almost certain I know a great deal more about computer graphics/hardware shaders than the average Blender monkey (not a competition, but I'm no n00b). However, I'm not an expert in Blender and don't wish to be one. I just want to get what I need done (eg. reorganize normals, optimize the mesh, etc) because I have so many other tasks to do than merely create models (although I have zero problem with those that do). Learning Blender is certainly not beyond my capabilities, I have a PhD in Physics (Astrophysics, as part of a gravitational microlensing project that has successfully detected several extra-solar planets). I'm also a software developer and technical writer by day. So learning curve Blender is not a problem - time is.
So I still think my statement is valid. Blender is a great product that suffers from a terrible user interface with poor discoverability for users who are doing 'just-in-time' style learning across a huge breadth of technologies and associated applied mathematics [an even larger set of things to learn] for a real multiplayer application - rather than getting deep into a single thing. Blender could use much a better UI *design*, and it ought to work on doing so. So please drop the conceited and arrogant attitude, you'll do everyone a favor (not least yourself). k?
In addition to software development I'm also trained in the Information Mapping methodology for technical writing. I have worked internationally doing technical writing (as well as software development). Because of this training that is why I think the documentation for Blender is poor and the UI is very poorly laid out in terms of workflow and task completion. I'm pleased that Blender has been made available and is so actively maintained. My criticism is that some proper design of the structure could improve the product immensely.
Good on the Blender crew for plugging away at it. When I saw "UI and Usability" my heart leapt, until I saw that was about Retina. The UI in Blender is pretty much the best example of how not to design a UI. The UI has grown by evolution and not by sensible design. Every time I have to use Blender I wish for something better - not in terms of features (although improved reliability of import and export formats would be nice), but in terms of usability. Navigation is loathsome and I find to be troublesome as UI panels don't seem logically arranged to me (its hard to get from import to 3D view and back using menus, so you have to remember the accelerators instead). I hope that someone takes the bull by the horns and rationalizes the Blender UI (sorry, my development time is on another project).
If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions.
Have you looked at what has been going in in Egypt ever since the Brotherhood came into power? The Churches are not happy but are cowed as dhimmis under threat of death (remember, Islam is evil - and when they say they are prepared to kill you they really mean it). Your statement is again false. Go and look at what is *actually* happening in Egypt to the Copts - from *Coptic sources*. Then have a look at the Assyrian population in Iraq (harrassment by Muslims and ethnic cleansing where the Assyrians who have been in Iraq longer than the Muslims). Then look at the ethnic cleansing of Serbians in Kosovo - even this last Christmas the Serbs were not allowed to visit their own church. Look at the firebombings of Churches in Indonesia. Yesterday's machine gun attack by Muslims on Thai Buddhists. Is this the "equality" you speak of? You are a clueless dhimmi that refuses to see the reality of what is going on in the world - and by making (false) statements you are enabling the evil to continue. I bet you don't even know what goes on in world daily - which is why your mental model of Islam does not correspond to the reality in the World today, and why you can't explain why jihadis from Mauretania to Indonesia Aceh are going what they are doing. Simple, Islam is evil and is allowing evil people to do evil things and directing good people to ignore the evil.
Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.
Ah, the bullshit old "it only applied in history defense". Well, you'd better tell the millions of imams around the world that preach this every Friday that they are wrong and Jah-Wren Ryel has the true story. A random survey of mosques in the *USA* found around 80% of them had hate-speech and pro-jihad material. You'd better get around to those mosques to tell them that they have got it wrong and all those verses only applied historically.
Why don't we make a wager. If you go to Gaza and publicly and loudly tell Hamas that they have it wrong and jihad is both only historical and an inner-jihad of self improvement and come back to tell the tale then I will publicly come on to Slashdot and say I was wrong and you were right. My terms of the wager are that you get life insurance and I am the beneficiary of the policy. Wager? You know the logical and probably consequences of such an action - which proves your statements patently false and not correlated with reality. Deep down you know that Islam is evil because it is Islam that drives Hamas and Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. Think that Hamas are out of the mainstream? Well, we can make the wager where you go to Egypt's Tahrir square and openly proclaim you are a Jew and believe in equality for all peoples and religions, including Jews. Surely 80 million Egyptians can't all be muddle-headed extremists, right? Same conditions on the life insurance please. Or why not go to Saudi Arabia, point out your allegation of equality of religion under Islam and start building a Church in Mecca. You know what will happen. You also know that it is Islam that commands the people to do what they do. Deep down you also know that Islam is evil. You know you wouldn't survive in an Islamic country if you try to exercise any Enlightment liberty - even one as fundamental (and as harmless to others) as Free Speech. Islam is evil. We both know it. You know what would happen to your life expectancy if you went to Egypt or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or Indonesia or Pakistan and try to practice what you have been preaching here. Everyone reading these forums can see the colossal holes in your arguments where reality rips them to shreds.
Please go and view Stephen Coughlin's five part series on Islamic Law, Abrogation and the OIC. You still don't know what you are talking about until you see the counter point of view to the one you made up.
Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?
All you needed to do is watch the first twenty five seconds of a video of Qaradhawi that I posted in an earlier video where he states he's been promoting martyrdom operations for twenty years. Watching 25 seconds of video testimony straight from the horses' mouth would disabuse you of your false notion.
It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Lol. I didn't make my statements for you. I wrote them all for reasonable people who have open minds. They can see the partial-truths you put forward and then I have quoted reliable analysis that consider what the statements really mean (including both pro-Islamist and pro-Enlightenment arguments). I haven't yet got to the good bits. Like when Islamists condemn terrorism suckers like you think they are condemning the violence of Al Qaeda but in fact they are doing the opposite - jihad is legal and mandatory under Sharia and the "terrorists" are states like Israel, America and Britain that wage "illegal war" by defending their citizens against jihadis. Check out Stephen Coughlin's analysis of the Sharia aspects of this (and how the OIC's ten year plan at the UN is unfolding). Betcha didn't know that - because you aren't even looking. That's what the people reading will see. Even a child can understand that Islam is evil based on the state of the 57 Islamic countries and their interactions with their neighbours. No amount of sophistry can hide the obviousness of the truth, despite your feeble attempts to select scripture and commentaries that deny what is evident in the world today. You have no theory that can account for the statements made by jihadis, their parent organizations, the imams, or the actions of their nations. I do - I have presented a theory (not my own, far smarter people have come up with it) that explains it all. Islam is an evil political ideology. That explains all the evidence. It explains the actions of Mohammed. It explains the OIC. It explains Al Qaeda. It explains why Islamists lie to Westerners and the Muslim sheeple. It explains why women are treated like property. It explains the Sunni-Shia war currently raging. You have no coherent explaination of these phenomena - therefore your understanding is a worse approximation of reality than mine. Yes, there are many subtlies in understanding Islam - but it is clear that your explanation that "Islam is not evil" and thereby 1.5 billion Muslims have simply got the wrong understanding of what they are commanded to do is ludicrous. That is what the readers will see:)
Let's also get scientific about this, let us consider two theories and see how that matches the evidence we see around the world. We'll then consider the probability that each theory is correct (or the degree to which each theory is correct). The two theories are:
Islam is not an evil ideology
Islam is an evil ideology
Here are some cases, consider which of the two theories best matches the observations:
The existence and actions of of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, the Muslim Brotherhood that are dedicated to the restoration of the Caliphate and eventual domination (either by violent or legal means) of Islam around the world. This is point for "Islam is an evil ideology".
The Qur'an, hadiths and tradition have mixed messages on violence, genocide, intolerance etc. Once you understand abrogation this is a point for "Islam is an evil ideology"
Over 20000 fatal Islamist attacks around the globe since 9/11. Many attacks stated that Islamic principles (an oxymoron, heh) were the reason for the attack. A big point for "Islam is an evil ideology".
The repeated statements by imams that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes and will be killed in a genocide on the Last Day. A point for "Islam is an evil ideology".
The fact that only around 20% of the World's Muslims support jihad either physically, financially or morally (another oxymoron). Once you understand that most Muslims are good *despite* the teachings of Islam and horrific example of the warlord Mohammed then "Islam is an evil ideology" is not ruled out. You can also make a good case for "Islam is not an evil ideology". Therefore this data point could go either way. No points for either.
Slavery is still legal in Sudan, and was only recently removed in Saudi Arabia. A point of "Islam is evil".
Female genital mutilation is a custom restricted to Islamic communities (and therefore permitted and encouraged by Islam). A point of "Islam is evil"
Polygamy. Some men miss out. Many women are not treated well. A point for "Islam is evil"
The OIC plan for enforce Sharia globally and the fact that around 40% of Muslims world-wide agree with this idea. A point for Islam is evil
Islam will permit those of other religions to practice without conversion provided their houses of worship are not repaired, no new houses of worship are built, the practitions submit to discrimination as dhimmis, and pay the hefty jizra protection money or forfeit property and possibly life. A point of Islam is evil
The claim that Islam is the direct word of a supreme being and cannot be questioned. Questioning is considered apostasy and the penalty for that is death. Islam is evil
Questioning Mohammed, or the theocracy is apostasy and is punishable by death. Islam is evil.
If you are a Muslim (including by accident of birth) and decide that you no longer believe in its teachings you are an apostate and this is punishable by death. Islam is evil
If you are a woman and are raped unless you have four male witnesses you are considered and adultress and must be stoned to death. Therapist suffers no penalty. Islam is evil
You may marry a child of any age, since Mohammed himself married Aisha when she was six and he was fifty-four. Islam is evil
Adoption is prohibited in Islam because Mohammed wanted to marry his adopted son's wife so he forced them to divorce so he could have her. Islam is evil
Building a church or proseltyzing in Saudi Arabia is prohibited. No equality of faiths. Islam is evil
Stealing for any reason is punishable by amputation of hands and feet on opposite sides. Islam is evil
Killing of any non-Muslims is permitted if they are no dhimmis and there is no penalty for the murder. Islam is evil
All able bodied men must wage jihad annually (although jihad by providing money is permitted). Islam is evil.
Muslims may rape any non-Muslim women or child (if they are not dh
I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.
Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation and how that vastly changes the interpretation of the verses you presented - because Allah himself has abrogated them and caused them to be replaced with newer and better verses (which, incidentally call for jihad). Instead of living up to your promise, essentially that you will find a Qur'anic verse that will abrogate 9:5 you come up with some secondary source.
First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you...."
Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).
With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*. Islam will let people practice their religions until they die out (as is happening in the Middle East now that Islamists have no moderating influence there). That is exactly akin to the scheme promoted by the mafia with some extra subjugation and humiliation thrown in for good measure. This is evil, yes? Now while individuals may not be compelled to become Muslim provided they accept discrimination against them as dhimmis there is absolutely no provision for Muslims to be ruled over by non-Muslims in the long term (Muslims may be ruled over in the short term until the Muslims achieve dominance, eg via jihad). This is discriminatory in the extreme. Of course, I'm sure Jah-Wren Ryel never thought about this very hard - which is why he still defends totalitarian evil.
I know that the ladies and gentlemen reading this will see how Jah-Wren Ryel's analysis is superficial and misses critical points that a full analysis gives. This superficial analysis leads him to false conclusions that disagree with mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and he cannot reconcile his views with the reality of the acts in the world today eg. the *factual* figures given in the list of attacks at religionofpeace.com - where over 20000 *fatal* jihadi attacks have been carried out since 9/11 because hundreds of millions of Muslims have a common understanding of Islam, from 1400 years of tradition, that is exactly against Jah-Wren Ryel self-deluded interpretation.
Look, all physicists don't want to believe in Quantum Mechanics as the nature of reality. We would much rather have a nice deterministic view of the world but that simply is not the nature of reality. I'd also like Islam to be a religion of peace that seeks coexistence with other religions in the same way Christianity, Judaism and secular humanism. The reality is that, just like quantum mechanics, Islam is not about telling the truth, or not coveting your neighbours wife, or in the sanctity of life, or in living in peace with your neighbours, or rainbows ponies and unicorns. The reality of Islam is that it is a totalitarian, theocratic, misygonistic, genocidal, racist, homophobic, counter-scientific political ideology that is actively working to undermine and eventually remove the liberties in the Free World. It does not seek coexistence, it seeks to dominate the globe. Don't let Jah-Wren Ryel delusions fool you ladies and gentlemen - he simply doesn't know what he is talking about (although he is arrogant enough to think he does - despite him being proven to be ignorant of critical elements of Islamic theory).
2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"
--That's pretty straight-forward.
Abrogated. Therefore non applicable. Anyone who understands Islamic theology knows this.
Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren.
The fact you don't know about abrogration - a *core doctrine* of Islam - shows you know *nothing* about how Islamic theology fits together. I would be exceedingly embarrassed if I were you. Mind you, the fact that you were able to 'defeat' my 'brethren' and they knew even less than you shows the state of knowledge about Islam is woeful. No wonder, to speak plainly about Islam one becomes slandered as a 'racist' (ridiculous - Islam is an ideology, not a race) and to tell the awful truth endangers the whole evil Islamist project and they react with threats of violence and actual violence against anyone who does speak the truth. That's why I defend my point of view so vigorously, there is so many mislead people out there that don't understand Islamic theology correctly. By re-reading the Qur'an and hadiths with the knowledge of how abrogation works you will arrive at the same picture that bin Laden did, Qaradhawi does and I do. The difference is that they don't care if it is evil in human terms, they only care about follow (the imaginary and clearly evil) Allah's will or not (which could well be evil - but that is not their concern).
So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:
Here's your man Qaradhawi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PSbGLJjV4
It takes less than 25 seconds for him to state that he has supported "matyrdom operations" (that is, murder of innocents) for over 20 years. Look at all his other YouTube videos, all the same evil shit. Pray tell what versus he uses to justify terrorism? Your position is completely counter to reality.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al Qaradawi Implement Sharia Gradually No Chopping Hands for 1st Five Years" [7 months ago] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7clSyTDAo
This is evil.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al- Qaradawi - Kill All Pro Syrian Government Supporters" [1 month ago] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yexixuNzuaY
More evil. No only are Muslims commanded to kill other infidels, they are supposed to kill Muslims of other sects.
Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox.
Completely false equivalence. I doubt this Glen Beck guy calls for genocide or the war against people of other faiths. Qaradawi, following his evil ideology, does - which you can easily find if you care to look (but I bet you don't even look, it would fit the nice bubble of unreality you live in).
And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion.
Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.
Do you disagree that it is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim to carry out jihad against infidels? (which clearly means violent jihad and not 'ijtihad' - if you know what that means).
You clearly still have a lot to learn about Islam. You are reading the sanitised taqiyya version meant for suckers. The only thing that matters is not what the Islamists tell non-Muslims (who they are not only permitted to lie to, they are *obliged* as a religious duty). Look for a real picture from an outfit like MEMRI (note, who are )
Aren't you concerned that after seven years of research your regular sources didn't explain in depth abrogation and its significance in interpretation of Islamic Scripture? surely, if you are ob
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil
Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
More commandments to do evil on innocents for having the temerity for Free Speech, Free Thinking, Equality of Women, Rights for homosexuals etc.
If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis and pay jizya (where other commandments require them to feel subjugated and humiliated; this is discriminatory and against equality of religions and peoples, against Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience; in a word - evil). If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?
Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith
Horseshit. Here is where you are chosing to ignore evidence that exactly support my point. Osama did not do what he did because he got out of bed on the wrong side. He did it because the Qur'an and hadiths and jurisprudence commanded him to do it. Osama and I have the same view of Islam. You do not. Similarly, Mohammed said and did the things he did because he invented Islam (contrary to ridiculous claims that Islam existed before Mohammed). Islam was the cause of them, and millions of others, doing these things. Now you can choose to act like a lawyer and choose to exclude evidence. However, you could act like a scientist and take a holistic view and look for evidence that counters your claim. As a trained scientist I look for evidence to counter the claim that Islam as an ideology is not evil and put that against the evidence that it is. Guess what, Islam is, one the whole, evil. On relative terms Islam is also far more evil than many other ideologies that are lesser evils.
I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5. I can't help you read if you don't want to. The conclusion of the analysis is basically that it says what everything things it says - a commandment for aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims. Here, for your convenience I'll provide the link again http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Now perhaps you don't think 9:5 is evil for a simple reason that I have not yet mention - you are a closet Islamist. I cannot discount that fact. An evil person would never see evil no matter how evil something was. A rational person would read the linked argument I've given, consider the numerous aspects (as the analysis does - it is balanced) and then come to the same conclusion what it says - slaughter and subjugate non-Muslims (which is an evil).
Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence for the supposition that Islam is not evil. All you have is a claim about some research and a statement that your Muslim friends are good people: which I don't doubt in the least, they are people after all, and most people are intrinsicly good by nature - it requires religion/ideology to make them do bad things against that nature.
However, we are not talking about people, we are talking about the dictates of an ideology.
Since you have thus far failed to grok a fundamental of the argument, that people and ideologies are different (even if they influence each other), the consider the following:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg [Physicist], quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Grok the point now? See how many Muslims can be good but that does not excuse the evil of the ideology of Islam itself? defending such an evil ideology necessarily makes one evil too. Don't be evil, be a force for Truth, Goodness and Compassion in this world. Oppose evil and do not tolerate the intolerant.
No, why you consider it not evil? Also, it is clear you know about the greater and lesser jihad. How do you think 9:5 is about greater jihad when the hadiths, history and jurisprudence all indicate the lesser jihad - the violent one. Hopefully you have also looked at the hadiths. How could one say that Mohammed was not evil when it is clear he was. He burnt down a mosque *with people inside it* because it wasn't him to decided on the construction. He slaughtered a tribe, killed its leader by kindling a fire on his chest, and then took the leader's wife for himself (that is, raped her on the day he murdered her husband). He *obliged* lying to promote his interests (completely against Christian or Judaic morality). He promoted killing of everyone that didn't follow his edicts (against the Christian message of tolerance). He promoted sexual immorality and polygamy (against Christian and Judiac commandments). To question Mohammed exacts a greater penalty under Sharia than to blaspheme against Allah Himself. This is all evil. I don't believe in the eschatology of an Anti-Christ, but it is pretty clear that if you were to invent a religion and ideology that was against Judiac and Christian morality then Islam is what you'd come up with. The Qur'an commands evil, the hadiths show that great evil was carried out, Al Azhar promote that evil as the will of Allah to this day. And you defend it and so morally disfunctional you cannot see the problem with a verse that clearly commands slaughter and subjugation of innocents. It is a shame your mind is so closed you cannot see the evil you promote - instead you try (and fail) with sophistry to deny the inexorable conclusion of all the evidence.
Sura 9:5 clearly calls for murder, subjugation and paying what is called jiza for innocent people - even if they do not choose to follow Mohammed. Where is you evidence to counter this? you have none!
JavaFX 2 is a nice evolution for those used to Swing (yes, yes, many don't like Swing, but you simply can't beat Swing for power and flexibility once you get some experience in it). It has a much nicer default styling than even Nimbus for Swing, and great built in aesthetic effects (hence the "FX") that mostly get switched on with a simple boolean property. JavaFX makes the same mistake as Swing in that there are no standard Calendar/Date controls, yet just about every application needs these. Fortunately you can use one of the third party controls, or even embed your existing Swing applications into your JavaFX app. That's pretty funky stuff.
Computing is more than just the Web. Javascript is ok for web stuff. Crap for rich clients with functionality that doesn't work well over the network, usually because the datasets are too big (eg. CAD, GIS, graphics/photography, simulations). There is still an ernomous space for rich client technologies like JavaFX, and JavaFX 2 looks really nice and has some great built in styles and effects. It's also pretty easy to program if you are used to Swing.
The entire chapter blows. But 9:5 has been used to justify the slaughter of hundreds of millions (with the Indians getting it pretty bad - which is why the Hindus have strong views on the outright lie that Islam is religion of peace). 9:5 is used as one of the justifications by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf etc for physical jihad, then we have the cultural jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood and OIC (that latter busy passing racist and anti-Free Speech resolutions in the UN and particularly the Human Rights Council that it dominates - they have perverted the UN from its original intent). All of this is understandable from Islamists. What makes it worse is the wannabe-dhimmi cultural relativists (mostly, but not exclusively) from the political Left that mindlessly repeat the taqiyya and demonize those who actually stand up for liberty (and poor defenceless girls) against the totalitarian and evil commandments of Islam and the devout adherents. So, please find me a verse that abrogates the commandment to do evil in 9:5 - you won't find it. Admit it, the ideology called Islam is evil.
Cool. To begin do you understand the principle of abrogration? This is critical.
Let us look at Sura 9. It has many evil ideas in it and is used daily to justify evil acts (eg. to a devout Muslim, jihad against unbelievers is legal and in fact mandatory; that's why what we call terrorism is not illegal under Islamic jurisprudence; they consider it "terrorism" when we defend ourselves from it). Note that there is no verse that abgrogates Sura 9 and Sura 9 abrogates all the other nice verses of the Qur'an (eg. the oft-quoted, "Let there be no compulsion is religion" is abrogated - it simply does not apply; some claim that this verse has not been abrogated but they are negating the rules about abrogation to do so. Sura 9 is among the last This is false. You can't just change the principles of Islam to suit your argument). My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses. It is you that has a differing interpretation of the Qur'an than the four Sunni and single Shia school of jurisprudence. Here's an analysis of the verse, easy to digest and covers both the historicity and supporting evidence: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Can you counter this and still follow the Islamic rules of interpretation? no you can't. This verse stands. This verse is evil. Hence, Islam is evil - and this is why millions of people are oppressed and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence support this. Stop supporting evil. Even better, fight this evil through word and deed (at least stop hassling people on slashdot who do understand the Islamicists interpretation of Islam, which is the *mainstream* interpretation).
It would be nice if Islam was a religion of peace but it simply isn't. All the Islamic schools and a majority of Muslims (who, incidentally, live in South-East Asia, not the Middle East) agree with the interpretations I've given.
False. This is not about me or what I believe. I hate no-one. This is about what the Qur'an commands its followers to do. You are looking at things in the wrong way (personal attacks) rather than what the Qur'an does or does not command. The Qur'an is evil. There are nice versus in it but these are all "abrogated" - look up the term in an Islamic context if you don't know what that means. This is why my understanding of the Qur'an agrees with Osama bin Laden's, and Qaradhawi's, and Erdogan's and Al Azhar's. And that is why your assessment is wrong.
You are the one telling muslims that their religion is evil.
Because it is evil! you haven't even read the Qur'an and hadiths. If you had then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The only reason you are defending the ideology of Islam is because you don't know anything about its core doctrines or the actions of the major players to subvert the liberties of the Free World, eg. OIC
So if you want to learn something how about you read a non-apologetic analysis of the Qur'an. eg. see the following objective analysis of the Qur'an that points out the scientific falsehoods, numerous contradictions, plagerism of Judaic and Christian texts (copies thart still gets all sorts of things wrong)
Then you finally might start to understand what people are trying to say *based on a reading of the Qur'an* - not on your guesswork without actually reading it. You are defending Islam based on 'cultural Muslims' that don't actually follow its teachings. That's why those of us who actually have read the Qur'an think your position is clueless since it is not based on an understanding of the mainstream teachings (which are horrific to Western sensibilities). If you ever do read it you won't believe that other believe that crap (actually, most Muslims only follow what their imam tells them, and they pray in Arabic which they do not understand, and they never read the Qur'an, when they do they often become apostates because of the hideous teachings but can't declare openly because apostasy is punishable by death. Even Qarwadari [you know who he is, right?] admitted a few weeks ago that with the death penalty for apostasy Islam would have died out a millenia ago - many Muslims are either cultural (Muslims in name only) or are secretly apostates but live under continual fear of discovery. Why you would defend this evilness is beyond me. Perhaps you should start reading objective analyses of Islam and its historical implications around the world (eg. 270 million people killed because Sura 9:5 and others commanded it).
So yeah, when I tell Muslims their religion is evil it is *because I know what I'm talking about*. Just like all the counter-jihadis. We're not racist as you suppose. We're pointing out to Muslims that have never read the Qur'an and are being lied to by their imams what the Qur'an really says. We're also trying to stop the "honor" killings and female genitial mutilation that cultural artifacts but imposed as religious obligations for followers (again with the threat of the consequences of apostasy for those that don't submit to the commandments of the imams).
So yeah, I feel it's a good thing to tell non-Muslims the truth about Islam. I try to explain to Muslims too if they have open minds (very hard to deprogramme many of them, until they are ready). Their leaders won't do it (they're far far worse than the Christian clergy for hypocracy and distorting reality to suit their ends - horrific slanders about the Jews). The Liberal Left won't do it (since they have common cause with the Islamists to smash the West and install their own systems of control). The media won't do it (since the liberal arts institutions journalists emanate from are left-leaning so they become cultural relativists too afraid to discern good from clear evil). Our political elites won't do it - they lack the courage to stand up for any principals (rightly or wrongly).
So no, I don't hate Muslims -- they are bigger victims than we are. I hate Islam not because I don't understand it, but because I've examined it closely and found it to insanely evil. In fact the preachments and hadiths (acts of Mohammed) are scarely to be believed - which is why someone like you is so skeptical of the claims we make. It turns out what we say is true because it is what is written in the religious documents of the Qur'an and hadiths. This insanity and indoctrinated hatred is what the Free World and Israel are fighting against. You don't have to believe me, but it is the reality of the current world.
Whatevz. You keep creating and knocking down false strawmen of your own making. Hopefully one day you'll wake up to the fact you are defending totalitarian tyrrany - since no one was worried about your nice cultural Muslim friends the defence of Islamists is the only result of your apologistics.
Man, you're the loon. No matter how one tries to explain oneself you will stick with your initial deluded and inaccurate position.
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.
Don't be an idiot. There is nothing wrong with *respectfully* calling someone of African descent a "black" if they do it themselves. Why deny reality - and all races certainly refer to other races with such terms. Do you feel that statements are only racist when Europeans make them? then who is the racist? who sees the World through racist lenses? you do, because you are racist although you think you are not. What actually matters is the intent - whether you are intending to insult or not. Only a racist would think that it is ok for them to say things but others may not (you are presuming I'm a white). Only a fool denies the reality that some people are pale and some not so.
Same old hate the sin, love the sinner bullshit.
Rubbish. This is much closer to "Hate National Socialism, love the Germans". Islam is an ideology, very much akin to National Socialism in many ways. The statement you made shows you are a cultural relativist that lacks discernment. The "sin" of Islam is not "coveting your neighbor" or even the commandments to commit taqiyya. It is the shooting of little girls that want education - because *mainstream* Islamists follow Mohammeds words about women being "easily confused" and don't agree with female education - sure not every Muslim feels this way (especially not 'cultural Muslims' that are not even considered Muslims by the Islamists or Qur'an; they are apostates) but when hundreds of millions do then one cannot deny the cause as being Islamic doctrine). The "sins" of Islam include commandments for every able bodied man to make war on unbelievers, permit rape and oppression of women (due to the laws about witnesses to rape), permit killing of virgins for adultery, permit disgusting child marriages (because Mohammed did this), prevent adoption (because Mohammed forced his adopted son's wife to marry him), promote inequality (where non-Muslims are second class citizens to be humiliated as they pay jizya), deny science (after Al Ghazali there is no science, and no point studying science, everything is only subject to Allah's will), then there is the commandment and subsequent and continuing campaign for 1400 years to subdue the entire World to make it submit to Islam, then there is the polygamy and maltreatment of women, then there is the utter hypocrisy about homosexuals (where they condemn them in public but in private the Muslim men with no access to women take their sexual urges out on each other, and children). Only an immoral person would defend this. Unfortunately cultural relativism strips one of reason, discernment and morality. It is very sad that people defend the evil ideology of Islam, people like you.
Once again I will say it. I have no problem with 'cultural' Muslims. The proponents of liberty only have a problem with Islamists and the evil ideology of Islam. Your friends are not the problem, Islam is. So stop being a muppet and defending the indefensible - no one wants to hurt your friends. We only want to defend liberty in the West that is being eroded by the Islamists (eg. UN HRC Resolution 16/18) and their amoral cultural relativist defenders, like yourself.
It is not amoral to discriminate against evil ideologies (in fact it is very moral). So get a clue, eh?
Shows how much you don't know. I have Shia Muslim friends. You see, you lack understanding again and misattribute a caricature of some right wing guy to me. Both false. I have zero problem with Muslims (and hate no-one, so stop making shit up). I have a problem with an evil ideology called Islam (whose main victims are, in fact, Muslims). Most Muslims are cool precisely because they are not pious and do not follow the dictates of Islam. I hope you can comprehend that. The Muslims that are devout and strictly follow Islam are the ones to be concerned about. They believe they are on a mission from Allah and can do as they wish to anyone. National borders, sovereignty, Western laws, natural justice mean nothing to these guys. One is right to be concerned with the rise of such 'Islamists' and warn others about them (since most people, including you apparently, are ignorant of the difference between Muslims and Islamists, and that ideology of Islam is the root of much of the strife in the World today). Does that help you get it now? Or do you still want to project your incorrect mental model onto me and the World?
Wait, what? Did I read that right? Did you just claim that the US funnelled weapons to an Al Qaeda franchaise through the US consulate in Benghazi? Really? And you got a +5 for that bullshit? Man.
You really are a muppet that is completely ignorant of what is going on in the World. Then, despite your ignorance, you insult those that do know more than you. Here is General William G Boykin who has a strong supposition that Ambassador Stevens was running guns through Benghazi. Here's an interview with Boykins: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33698.htm
Note that Boykins was *commander* of U.S. Special Forces Command, the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and a CIA staffer. The interview was conducted by a reputable agency, CNS News.
You apoplectic rage was misplaced. Admit it, you have a poor grasp on what is going on. You have the temerity to throw insults at me when you don't even know the facts. I would be ashamed if I was you. Sometimes people know more about a subject than you do. So I would suggest chillin' and opening your mind to what people are trying to tell you. Also, a trivial search on Google will reveal a wealth of facts (including the video link I've posted). Isn't it better to do you research rather than making an (incorrect) assumption as you did.
It is always ok to be wrong. It is arrogance to ignore facts presented to you just because they don't fit with your (incorrect) current worldview. If you open your closed mind and use the Scientific Method you would greatly profit from the diverse points of view on Slashdot.
Stop assuming you already know everything.
Do. your. research.
Slashdot Mirror
Many CAD suites have quite decent UIs. They are doing 3D, just in a more logical way (and with different emphasis) on the chaotic artistic "modelling" tools. While not exactly the same the CAD packages can produce 3D meshes with normals, texture coordinates, animations etc etc. The point being that if CAD can have relatively intuitive, discoverable and most importantly *consistent* interfaces, then why can't the modelling tools do it?
Actually, great effort is spent to make aircraft controls as simple and *consistent* as possible. Even beginners can perform basic flight maneuvers in complex aircraft. More complicated things require more study in aircraft, but the simple things remain simple and *obvious* to any pilot with as little as a few hours hands-on training. Think of Einstein who is paraphrased as, "As simple as possible, but no simpler". If simplification of complex systems is good enough for Einstein then its good enough for me. That was the position I tried to outline - Blender can be made simpler, more consistent, and more discoeverable in many places if you think about it. So your aircraft analogy was kinda poor on your part (just shows you understand neither the principles of good software design nor aircraft design - simplify and make consistent where possible).
People complaining about Blender's UI are usually kids who jump on the "bad UI" bandwagon because they can't figure out how to make the next Pixar movie in half an hour.
I know a great deal about computer graphics, since I write a lot of OpenGL (both fixed functionality and GLSL shaders). I also understand a lot of the maths algorithms and modern techniques (parallalx mapping etc). I understand what I'm trying to do, but what I often cannot see is how to do it with Blender. This is because Blender's interface is not discoverable, poorly laid out, and items elided unnecessarily (hidden). I'm not one of the "kids" you lament about. My criticism of the UI is because I'm both a practicing software developer and technical writer and understand the principles of good UI design - and Blender simply doesn't meet them.
The UI of Blender is very well thought out, for the people that actually use it
That is not true. What you are saying is that Blender suits you personally because you have invested a great deal of time to learn it. In fact, the time you have spent learning Blender makes you a worse judge of its interface from the perspective of the requirements of people who are competent and would like to use Blender, but don't want to deal with its interface in the sorry state it is in. There are programs doing far more complicated things than Blender that are far easier (as in intuitive) to use - eg. many software Integrated Development Environments can do a lot more than Blender. It is this property that sets great UI design from mediocre or poor design. Unfortunately it appears you might be good at 3D modelling but are rather clueless about the principles of human-computer interaction and good software UI design.
As an example, take the fantastic product like OmniGraffle for 2D artwork. It is a joy to use even when doing some complex compositions. It is consistent, helpful and works well. It also has pretty good online documentation. In short, a skilled designer put a great deal of thought in (which can also be said for most Apple products - which is why they have often trounced the competition). Most of what you need to do in Blender is actually not that complicated, yet it is a dog to navigate through and the online help is pathetic (eg. non-existent) or woefully out of date; the python messages are not helpful for non-programmers (fortunately I am a developer, but I realise I'm an atypical user) etc etc.
The UI may be fast and efficient. What it is not is 'discoverable'. This makes Blender a pig for those learning it - especially those who know what they want to do (eg. understand computer graphics) and find that trying to get Blender to do what they want is unnecessarily obscure. This appears to be something you don't get, which is why you also fail to understand what so many people are trying to so. I hope this clears the issue people are talking about for you. They are not complaining you can't get by with accelerators or that Blender isn't powerful, they are complaining that accessing that power could be made far more accessible and discoverable with a well-thought out UI design (which is entirely possible for a good designer to do - the trick of design is to orient the interface towards the current task and simplify where you can). Get it now?
ps. the movie "Constantine" rocks!
Well, there are numerous ways to improve Blender for those skilled in UI design and workflow. As a software developer and trained technical writer (both with plenty of international experience) I see that changing the structure of Blender could improve the product a great deal. It turns out that in my spare time I'm working on a jet combat flight simulator. It's multi-threaded and cross platform (its written in modern Java, so already works on Linux, Windows and Mac with fantastic runtime performance) and I've recently got multi-player communication going with IEEE 1278.1 (just like a military sim) and a SOAP Webservice. For many graphical tasks I write my own algorithms and GLSL shaders (based on a lot of research on the physics of light transmission, atmospheric extinction etc). That covers most of my needs but occasionally I'll license a complex $1000 model from Turbosquid and I'll need to adjust the mesh or normals. That's where Blender can come in handy for a quick tweak along with many other tools.
Given that a modern flight simulator has very very many components, of which building or importing graphic assets are actually a relatively small part of effort to build a product (smaller than many would think, despite the quality of assets having a big apparent impact) I don't want to spend a great deal of time in Blender if I can help it. I'm not interested in spending ages learning Blender, since I'm more of a casual user and would rather spend the time I have making excellent flight dynamics models and integrating devices like the TrackIR (on all of Windows, Mac and Linux).
So you can arrogantly call me "kid" if you wish. However, it is almost certain I know a great deal more about computer graphics/hardware shaders than the average Blender monkey (not a competition, but I'm no n00b). However, I'm not an expert in Blender and don't wish to be one. I just want to get what I need done (eg. reorganize normals, optimize the mesh, etc) because I have so many other tasks to do than merely create models (although I have zero problem with those that do). Learning Blender is certainly not beyond my capabilities, I have a PhD in Physics (Astrophysics, as part of a gravitational microlensing project that has successfully detected several extra-solar planets). I'm also a software developer and technical writer by day. So learning curve Blender is not a problem - time is.
So I still think my statement is valid. Blender is a great product that suffers from a terrible user interface with poor discoverability for users who are doing 'just-in-time' style learning across a huge breadth of technologies and associated applied mathematics [an even larger set of things to learn] for a real multiplayer application - rather than getting deep into a single thing. Blender could use much a better UI *design*, and it ought to work on doing so. So please drop the conceited and arrogant attitude, you'll do everyone a favor (not least yourself). k?
In addition to software development I'm also trained in the Information Mapping methodology for technical writing. I have worked internationally doing technical writing (as well as software development). Because of this training that is why I think the documentation for Blender is poor and the UI is very poorly laid out in terms of workflow and task completion. I'm pleased that Blender has been made available and is so actively maintained. My criticism is that some proper design of the structure could improve the product immensely.
Good on the Blender crew for plugging away at it. When I saw "UI and Usability" my heart leapt, until I saw that was about Retina. The UI in Blender is pretty much the best example of how not to design a UI. The UI has grown by evolution and not by sensible design. Every time I have to use Blender I wish for something better - not in terms of features (although improved reliability of import and export formats would be nice), but in terms of usability. Navigation is loathsome and I find to be troublesome as UI panels don't seem logically arranged to me (its hard to get from import to 3D view and back using menus, so you have to remember the accelerators instead). I hope that someone takes the bull by the horns and rationalizes the Blender UI (sorry, my development time is on another project).
If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions.
Have you looked at what has been going in in Egypt ever since the Brotherhood came into power? The Churches are not happy but are cowed as dhimmis under threat of death (remember, Islam is evil - and when they say they are prepared to kill you they really mean it). Your statement is again false. Go and look at what is *actually* happening in Egypt to the Copts - from *Coptic sources*. Then have a look at the Assyrian population in Iraq (harrassment by Muslims and ethnic cleansing where the Assyrians who have been in Iraq longer than the Muslims). Then look at the ethnic cleansing of Serbians in Kosovo - even this last Christmas the Serbs were not allowed to visit their own church. Look at the firebombings of Churches in Indonesia. Yesterday's machine gun attack by Muslims on Thai Buddhists. Is this the "equality" you speak of? You are a clueless dhimmi that refuses to see the reality of what is going on in the world - and by making (false) statements you are enabling the evil to continue. I bet you don't even know what goes on in world daily - which is why your mental model of Islam does not correspond to the reality in the World today, and why you can't explain why jihadis from Mauretania to Indonesia Aceh are going what they are doing. Simple, Islam is evil and is allowing evil people to do evil things and directing good people to ignore the evil.
Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.
Ah, the bullshit old "it only applied in history defense". Well, you'd better tell the millions of imams around the world that preach this every Friday that they are wrong and Jah-Wren Ryel has the true story. A random survey of mosques in the *USA* found around 80% of them had hate-speech and pro-jihad material. You'd better get around to those mosques to tell them that they have got it wrong and all those verses only applied historically.
Why don't we make a wager. If you go to Gaza and publicly and loudly tell Hamas that they have it wrong and jihad is both only historical and an inner-jihad of self improvement and come back to tell the tale then I will publicly come on to Slashdot and say I was wrong and you were right. My terms of the wager are that you get life insurance and I am the beneficiary of the policy. Wager? You know the logical and probably consequences of such an action - which proves your statements patently false and not correlated with reality. Deep down you know that Islam is evil because it is Islam that drives Hamas and Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. Think that Hamas are out of the mainstream? Well, we can make the wager where you go to Egypt's Tahrir square and openly proclaim you are a Jew and believe in equality for all peoples and religions, including Jews. Surely 80 million Egyptians can't all be muddle-headed extremists, right? Same conditions on the life insurance please. Or why not go to Saudi Arabia, point out your allegation of equality of religion under Islam and start building a Church in Mecca. You know what will happen. You also know that it is Islam that commands the people to do what they do. Deep down you also know that Islam is evil. You know you wouldn't survive in an Islamic country if you try to exercise any Enlightment liberty - even one as fundamental (and as harmless to others) as Free Speech. Islam is evil. We both know it. You know what would happen to your life expectancy if you went to Egypt or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or Indonesia or Pakistan and try to practice what you have been preaching here. Everyone reading these forums can see the colossal holes in your arguments where reality rips them to shreds.
Please go and view Stephen Coughlin's five part series on Islamic Law, Abrogation and the OIC. You still don't know what you are talking about until you see the counter point of view to the one you made up.
Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?
All you needed to do is watch the first twenty five seconds of a video of Qaradhawi that I posted in an earlier video where he states he's been promoting martyrdom operations for twenty years. Watching 25 seconds of video testimony straight from the horses' mouth would disabuse you of your false notion.
It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Lol. I didn't make my statements for you. I wrote them all for reasonable people who have open minds. They can see the partial-truths you put forward and then I have quoted reliable analysis that consider what the statements really mean (including both pro-Islamist and pro-Enlightenment arguments). I haven't yet got to the good bits. Like when Islamists condemn terrorism suckers like you think they are condemning the violence of Al Qaeda but in fact they are doing the opposite - jihad is legal and mandatory under Sharia and the "terrorists" are states like Israel, America and Britain that wage "illegal war" by defending their citizens against jihadis. Check out Stephen Coughlin's analysis of the Sharia aspects of this (and how the OIC's ten year plan at the UN is unfolding). Betcha didn't know that - because you aren't even looking. That's what the people reading will see. Even a child can understand that Islam is evil based on the state of the 57 Islamic countries and their interactions with their neighbours. No amount of sophistry can hide the obviousness of the truth, despite your feeble attempts to select scripture and commentaries that deny what is evident in the world today. You have no theory that can account for the statements made by jihadis, their parent organizations, the imams, or the actions of their nations. I do - I have presented a theory (not my own, far smarter people have come up with it) that explains it all. Islam is an evil political ideology. That explains all the evidence. It explains the actions of Mohammed. It explains the OIC. It explains Al Qaeda. It explains why Islamists lie to Westerners and the Muslim sheeple. It explains why women are treated like property. It explains the Sunni-Shia war currently raging. You have no coherent explaination of these phenomena - therefore your understanding is a worse approximation of reality than mine. Yes, there are many subtlies in understanding Islam - but it is clear that your explanation that "Islam is not evil" and thereby 1.5 billion Muslims have simply got the wrong understanding of what they are commanded to do is ludicrous. That is what the readers will see :)
Let's also get scientific about this, let us consider two theories and see how that matches the evidence we see around the world. We'll then consider the probability that each theory is correct (or the degree to which each theory is correct). The two theories are:
Here are some cases, consider which of the two theories best matches the observations:
I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.
Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation and how that vastly changes the interpretation of the verses you presented - because Allah himself has abrogated them and caused them to be replaced with newer and better verses (which, incidentally call for jihad). Instead of living up to your promise, essentially that you will find a Qur'anic verse that will abrogate 9:5 you come up with some secondary source.
First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. ..."
Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).
With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*. Islam will let people practice their religions until they die out (as is happening in the Middle East now that Islamists have no moderating influence there). That is exactly akin to the scheme promoted by the mafia with some extra subjugation and humiliation thrown in for good measure. This is evil, yes? Now while individuals may not be compelled to become Muslim provided they accept discrimination against them as dhimmis there is absolutely no provision for Muslims to be ruled over by non-Muslims in the long term (Muslims may be ruled over in the short term until the Muslims achieve dominance, eg via jihad). This is discriminatory in the extreme. Of course, I'm sure Jah-Wren Ryel never thought about this very hard - which is why he still defends totalitarian evil.
I know that the ladies and gentlemen reading this will see how Jah-Wren Ryel's analysis is superficial and misses critical points that a full analysis gives. This superficial analysis leads him to false conclusions that disagree with mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and he cannot reconcile his views with the reality of the acts in the world today eg. the *factual* figures given in the list of attacks at religionofpeace.com - where over 20000 *fatal* jihadi attacks have been carried out since 9/11 because hundreds of millions of Muslims have a common understanding of Islam, from 1400 years of tradition, that is exactly against Jah-Wren Ryel self-deluded interpretation.
Look, all physicists don't want to believe in Quantum Mechanics as the nature of reality. We would much rather have a nice deterministic view of the world but that simply is not the nature of reality. I'd also like Islam to be a religion of peace that seeks coexistence with other religions in the same way Christianity, Judaism and secular humanism. The reality is that, just like quantum mechanics, Islam is not about telling the truth, or not coveting your neighbours wife, or in the sanctity of life, or in living in peace with your neighbours, or rainbows ponies and unicorns. The reality of Islam is that it is a totalitarian, theocratic, misygonistic, genocidal, racist, homophobic, counter-scientific political ideology that is actively working to undermine and eventually remove the liberties in the Free World. It does not seek coexistence, it seeks to dominate the globe. Don't let Jah-Wren Ryel delusions fool you ladies and gentlemen - he simply doesn't know what he is talking about (although he is arrogant enough to think he does - despite him being proven to be ignorant of critical elements of Islamic theory).
2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion" --That's pretty straight-forward.
Abrogated. Therefore non applicable. Anyone who understands Islamic theology knows this.
Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren.
The fact you don't know about abrogration - a *core doctrine* of Islam - shows you know *nothing* about how Islamic theology fits together. I would be exceedingly embarrassed if I were you. Mind you, the fact that you were able to 'defeat' my 'brethren' and they knew even less than you shows the state of knowledge about Islam is woeful. No wonder, to speak plainly about Islam one becomes slandered as a 'racist' (ridiculous - Islam is an ideology, not a race) and to tell the awful truth endangers the whole evil Islamist project and they react with threats of violence and actual violence against anyone who does speak the truth. That's why I defend my point of view so vigorously, there is so many mislead people out there that don't understand Islamic theology correctly. By re-reading the Qur'an and hadiths with the knowledge of how abrogation works you will arrive at the same picture that bin Laden did, Qaradhawi does and I do. The difference is that they don't care if it is evil in human terms, they only care about follow (the imaginary and clearly evil) Allah's will or not (which could well be evil - but that is not their concern).
So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:
Here's your man Qaradhawi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PSbGLJjV4
It takes less than 25 seconds for him to state that he has supported "matyrdom operations" (that is, murder of innocents) for over 20 years. Look at all his other YouTube videos, all the same evil shit. Pray tell what versus he uses to justify terrorism? Your position is completely counter to reality.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al Qaradawi Implement Sharia Gradually No Chopping Hands for 1st Five Years" [7 months ago]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7clSyTDAo
This is evil.
More Al Qawadari - "Yusuf al- Qaradawi - Kill All Pro Syrian Government Supporters" [1 month ago]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yexixuNzuaY
More evil. No only are Muslims commanded to kill other infidels, they are supposed to kill Muslims of other sects.
Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox.
Completely false equivalence. I doubt this Glen Beck guy calls for genocide or the war against people of other faiths. Qaradawi, following his evil ideology, does - which you can easily find if you care to look (but I bet you don't even look, it would fit the nice bubble of unreality you live in).
And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion.
Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.
Do you disagree that it is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim to carry out jihad against infidels? (which clearly means violent jihad and not 'ijtihad' - if you know what that means).
You clearly still have a lot to learn about Islam. You are reading the sanitised taqiyya version meant for suckers. The only thing that matters is not what the Islamists tell non-Muslims (who they are not only permitted to lie to, they are *obliged* as a religious duty). Look for a real picture from an outfit like MEMRI (note, who are )
Aren't you concerned that after seven years of research your regular sources didn't explain in depth abrogation and its significance in interpretation of Islamic Scripture? surely, if you are ob
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil
Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
More commandments to do evil on innocents for having the temerity for Free Speech, Free Thinking, Equality of Women, Rights for homosexuals etc.
If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis and pay jizya (where other commandments require them to feel subjugated and humiliated; this is discriminatory and against equality of religions and peoples, against Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience; in a word - evil). If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?
Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith
Horseshit. Here is where you are chosing to ignore evidence that exactly support my point. Osama did not do what he did because he got out of bed on the wrong side. He did it because the Qur'an and hadiths and jurisprudence commanded him to do it. Osama and I have the same view of Islam. You do not. Similarly, Mohammed said and did the things he did because he invented Islam (contrary to ridiculous claims that Islam existed before Mohammed). Islam was the cause of them, and millions of others, doing these things. Now you can choose to act like a lawyer and choose to exclude evidence. However, you could act like a scientist and take a holistic view and look for evidence that counters your claim. As a trained scientist I look for evidence to counter the claim that Islam as an ideology is not evil and put that against the evidence that it is. Guess what, Islam is, one the whole, evil. On relative terms Islam is also far more evil than many other ideologies that are lesser evils.
And your defence?
I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5. I can't help you read if you don't want to. The conclusion of the analysis is basically that it says what everything things it says - a commandment for aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims. Here, for your convenience I'll provide the link again
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Now perhaps you don't think 9:5 is evil for a simple reason that I have not yet mention - you are a closet Islamist. I cannot discount that fact. An evil person would never see evil no matter how evil something was. A rational person would read the linked argument I've given, consider the numerous aspects (as the analysis does - it is balanced) and then come to the same conclusion what it says - slaughter and subjugate non-Muslims (which is an evil).
Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence for the supposition that Islam is not evil. All you have is a claim about some research and a statement that your Muslim friends are good people: which I don't doubt in the least, they are people after all, and most people are intrinsicly good by nature - it requires religion/ideology to make them do bad things against that nature.
However, we are not talking about people, we are talking about the dictates of an ideology.
Since you have thus far failed to grok a fundamental of the argument, that people and ideologies are different (even if they influence each other), the consider the following:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg [Physicist], quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Grok the point now? See how many Muslims can be good but that does not excuse the evil of the ideology of Islam itself? defending such an evil ideology necessarily makes one evil too. Don't be evil, be a force for Truth, Goodness and Compassion in this world. Oppose evil and do not tolerate the intolerant.
No, why you consider it not evil? Also, it is clear you know about the greater and lesser jihad. How do you think 9:5 is about greater jihad when the hadiths, history and jurisprudence all indicate the lesser jihad - the violent one. Hopefully you have also looked at the hadiths. How could one say that Mohammed was not evil when it is clear he was. He burnt down a mosque *with people inside it* because it wasn't him to decided on the construction. He slaughtered a tribe, killed its leader by kindling a fire on his chest, and then took the leader's wife for himself (that is, raped her on the day he murdered her husband). He *obliged* lying to promote his interests (completely against Christian or Judaic morality). He promoted killing of everyone that didn't follow his edicts (against the Christian message of tolerance). He promoted sexual immorality and polygamy (against Christian and Judiac commandments). To question Mohammed exacts a greater penalty under Sharia than to blaspheme against Allah Himself. This is all evil. I don't believe in the eschatology of an Anti-Christ, but it is pretty clear that if you were to invent a religion and ideology that was against Judiac and Christian morality then Islam is what you'd come up with. The Qur'an commands evil, the hadiths show that great evil was carried out, Al Azhar promote that evil as the will of Allah to this day. And you defend it and so morally disfunctional you cannot see the problem with a verse that clearly commands slaughter and subjugation of innocents. It is a shame your mind is so closed you cannot see the evil you promote - instead you try (and fail) with sophistry to deny the inexorable conclusion of all the evidence.
Sura 9:5 clearly calls for murder, subjugation and paying what is called jiza for innocent people - even if they do not choose to follow Mohammed. Where is you evidence to counter this? you have none!
JavaFX 2 is a nice evolution for those used to Swing (yes, yes, many don't like Swing, but you simply can't beat Swing for power and flexibility once you get some experience in it). It has a much nicer default styling than even Nimbus for Swing, and great built in aesthetic effects (hence the "FX") that mostly get switched on with a simple boolean property. JavaFX makes the same mistake as Swing in that there are no standard Calendar/Date controls, yet just about every application needs these. Fortunately you can use one of the third party controls, or even embed your existing Swing applications into your JavaFX app. That's pretty funky stuff.
Computing is more than just the Web. Javascript is ok for web stuff. Crap for rich clients with functionality that doesn't work well over the network, usually because the datasets are too big (eg. CAD, GIS, graphics/photography, simulations). There is still an ernomous space for rich client technologies like JavaFX, and JavaFX 2 looks really nice and has some great built in styles and effects. It's also pretty easy to program if you are used to Swing.
The entire chapter blows. But 9:5 has been used to justify the slaughter of hundreds of millions (with the Indians getting it pretty bad - which is why the Hindus have strong views on the outright lie that Islam is religion of peace). 9:5 is used as one of the justifications by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf etc for physical jihad, then we have the cultural jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood and OIC (that latter busy passing racist and anti-Free Speech resolutions in the UN and particularly the Human Rights Council that it dominates - they have perverted the UN from its original intent). All of this is understandable from Islamists. What makes it worse is the wannabe-dhimmi cultural relativists (mostly, but not exclusively) from the political Left that mindlessly repeat the taqiyya and demonize those who actually stand up for liberty (and poor defenceless girls) against the totalitarian and evil commandments of Islam and the devout adherents. So, please find me a verse that abrogates the commandment to do evil in 9:5 - you won't find it. Admit it, the ideology called Islam is evil.
Cool. To begin do you understand the principle of abrogration? This is critical.
Let us look at Sura 9. It has many evil ideas in it and is used daily to justify evil acts (eg. to a devout Muslim, jihad against unbelievers is legal and in fact mandatory; that's why what we call terrorism is not illegal under Islamic jurisprudence; they consider it "terrorism" when we defend ourselves from it). Note that there is no verse that abgrogates Sura 9 and Sura 9 abrogates all the other nice verses of the Qur'an (eg. the oft-quoted, "Let there be no compulsion is religion" is abrogated - it simply does not apply; some claim that this verse has not been abrogated but they are negating the rules about abrogation to do so. Sura 9 is among the last This is false. You can't just change the principles of Islam to suit your argument). My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses. It is you that has a differing interpretation of the Qur'an than the four Sunni and single Shia school of jurisprudence. Here's an analysis of the verse, easy to digest and covers both the historicity and supporting evidence:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Can you counter this and still follow the Islamic rules of interpretation? no you can't. This verse stands. This verse is evil. Hence, Islam is evil - and this is why millions of people are oppressed and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence support this. Stop supporting evil. Even better, fight this evil through word and deed (at least stop hassling people on slashdot who do understand the Islamicists interpretation of Islam, which is the *mainstream* interpretation).
It would be nice if Islam was a religion of peace but it simply isn't. All the Islamic schools and a majority of Muslims (who, incidentally, live in South-East Asia, not the Middle East) agree with the interpretations I've given.
False. This is not about me or what I believe. I hate no-one. This is about what the Qur'an commands its followers to do. You are looking at things in the wrong way (personal attacks) rather than what the Qur'an does or does not command. The Qur'an is evil. There are nice versus in it but these are all "abrogated" - look up the term in an Islamic context if you don't know what that means. This is why my understanding of the Qur'an agrees with Osama bin Laden's, and Qaradhawi's, and Erdogan's and Al Azhar's. And that is why your assessment is wrong.
Oops, missed some links that might help enlighten you:
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
You are the one telling muslims that their religion is evil.
Because it is evil! you haven't even read the Qur'an and hadiths. If you had then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The only reason you are defending the ideology of Islam is because you don't know anything about its core doctrines or the actions of the major players to subvert the liberties of the Free World, eg. OIC
So if you want to learn something how about you read a non-apologetic analysis of the Qur'an. eg. see the following objective analysis of the Qur'an that points out the scientific falsehoods, numerous contradictions, plagerism of Judaic and Christian texts (copies thart still gets all sorts of things wrong) Then you finally might start to understand what people are trying to say *based on a reading of the Qur'an* - not on your guesswork without actually reading it. You are defending Islam based on 'cultural Muslims' that don't actually follow its teachings. That's why those of us who actually have read the Qur'an think your position is clueless since it is not based on an understanding of the mainstream teachings (which are horrific to Western sensibilities). If you ever do read it you won't believe that other believe that crap (actually, most Muslims only follow what their imam tells them, and they pray in Arabic which they do not understand, and they never read the Qur'an, when they do they often become apostates because of the hideous teachings but can't declare openly because apostasy is punishable by death. Even Qarwadari [you know who he is, right?] admitted a few weeks ago that with the death penalty for apostasy Islam would have died out a millenia ago - many Muslims are either cultural (Muslims in name only) or are secretly apostates but live under continual fear of discovery. Why you would defend this evilness is beyond me. Perhaps you should start reading objective analyses of Islam and its historical implications around the world (eg. 270 million people killed because Sura 9:5 and others commanded it).
So yeah, when I tell Muslims their religion is evil it is *because I know what I'm talking about*. Just like all the counter-jihadis. We're not racist as you suppose. We're pointing out to Muslims that have never read the Qur'an and are being lied to by their imams what the Qur'an really says. We're also trying to stop the "honor" killings and female genitial mutilation that cultural artifacts but imposed as religious obligations for followers (again with the threat of the consequences of apostasy for those that don't submit to the commandments of the imams).
So yeah, I feel it's a good thing to tell non-Muslims the truth about Islam. I try to explain to Muslims too if they have open minds (very hard to deprogramme many of them, until they are ready). Their leaders won't do it (they're far far worse than the Christian clergy for hypocracy and distorting reality to suit their ends - horrific slanders about the Jews). The Liberal Left won't do it (since they have common cause with the Islamists to smash the West and install their own systems of control). The media won't do it (since the liberal arts institutions journalists emanate from are left-leaning so they become cultural relativists too afraid to discern good from clear evil). Our political elites won't do it - they lack the courage to stand up for any principals (rightly or wrongly).
So no, I don't hate Muslims -- they are bigger victims than we are. I hate Islam not because I don't understand it, but because I've examined it closely and found it to insanely evil. In fact the preachments and hadiths (acts of Mohammed) are scarely to be believed - which is why someone like you is so skeptical of the claims we make. It turns out what we say is true because it is what is written in the religious documents of the Qur'an and hadiths. This insanity and indoctrinated hatred is what the Free World and Israel are fighting against. You don't have to believe me, but it is the reality of the current world.
Whatevz. You keep creating and knocking down false strawmen of your own making. Hopefully one day you'll wake up to the fact you are defending totalitarian tyrrany - since no one was worried about your nice cultural Muslim friends the defence of Islamists is the only result of your apologistics.
Man, you're the loon. No matter how one tries to explain oneself you will stick with your initial deluded and inaccurate position.
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.
Don't be an idiot. There is nothing wrong with *respectfully* calling someone of African descent a "black" if they do it themselves. Why deny reality - and all races certainly refer to other races with such terms. Do you feel that statements are only racist when Europeans make them? then who is the racist? who sees the World through racist lenses? you do, because you are racist although you think you are not. What actually matters is the intent - whether you are intending to insult or not. Only a racist would think that it is ok for them to say things but others may not (you are presuming I'm a white). Only a fool denies the reality that some people are pale and some not so.
Same old hate the sin, love the sinner bullshit.
Rubbish. This is much closer to "Hate National Socialism, love the Germans". Islam is an ideology, very much akin to National Socialism in many ways. The statement you made shows you are a cultural relativist that lacks discernment. The "sin" of Islam is not "coveting your neighbor" or even the commandments to commit taqiyya. It is the shooting of little girls that want education - because *mainstream* Islamists follow Mohammeds words about women being "easily confused" and don't agree with female education - sure not every Muslim feels this way (especially not 'cultural Muslims' that are not even considered Muslims by the Islamists or Qur'an; they are apostates) but when hundreds of millions do then one cannot deny the cause as being Islamic doctrine). The "sins" of Islam include commandments for every able bodied man to make war on unbelievers, permit rape and oppression of women (due to the laws about witnesses to rape), permit killing of virgins for adultery, permit disgusting child marriages (because Mohammed did this), prevent adoption (because Mohammed forced his adopted son's wife to marry him), promote inequality (where non-Muslims are second class citizens to be humiliated as they pay jizya), deny science (after Al Ghazali there is no science, and no point studying science, everything is only subject to Allah's will), then there is the commandment and subsequent and continuing campaign for 1400 years to subdue the entire World to make it submit to Islam, then there is the polygamy and maltreatment of women, then there is the utter hypocrisy about homosexuals (where they condemn them in public but in private the Muslim men with no access to women take their sexual urges out on each other, and children). Only an immoral person would defend this. Unfortunately cultural relativism strips one of reason, discernment and morality. It is very sad that people defend the evil ideology of Islam, people like you.
Once again I will say it. I have no problem with 'cultural' Muslims. The proponents of liberty only have a problem with Islamists and the evil ideology of Islam. Your friends are not the problem, Islam is. So stop being a muppet and defending the indefensible - no one wants to hurt your friends. We only want to defend liberty in the West that is being eroded by the Islamists (eg. UN HRC Resolution 16/18) and their amoral cultural relativist defenders, like yourself.
It is not amoral to discriminate against evil ideologies (in fact it is very moral). So get a clue, eh?
Shows how much you don't know. I have Shia Muslim friends. You see, you lack understanding again and misattribute a caricature of some right wing guy to me. Both false. I have zero problem with Muslims (and hate no-one, so stop making shit up). I have a problem with an evil ideology called Islam (whose main victims are, in fact, Muslims). Most Muslims are cool precisely because they are not pious and do not follow the dictates of Islam. I hope you can comprehend that. The Muslims that are devout and strictly follow Islam are the ones to be concerned about. They believe they are on a mission from Allah and can do as they wish to anyone. National borders, sovereignty, Western laws, natural justice mean nothing to these guys. One is right to be concerned with the rise of such 'Islamists' and warn others about them (since most people, including you apparently, are ignorant of the difference between Muslims and Islamists, and that ideology of Islam is the root of much of the strife in the World today). Does that help you get it now? Or do you still want to project your incorrect mental model onto me and the World?
Wait, what? Did I read that right? Did you just claim that the US funnelled weapons to an Al Qaeda franchaise through the US consulate in Benghazi? Really? And you got a +5 for that bullshit? Man.
You really are a muppet that is completely ignorant of what is going on in the World. Then, despite your ignorance, you insult those that do know more than you. Here is General William G Boykin who has a strong supposition that Ambassador Stevens was running guns through Benghazi. Here's an interview with Boykins:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33698.htm
Note that Boykins was *commander* of U.S. Special Forces Command, the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and a CIA staffer. The interview was conducted by a reputable agency, CNS News.
You apoplectic rage was misplaced. Admit it, you have a poor grasp on what is going on. You have the temerity to throw insults at me when you don't even know the facts. I would be ashamed if I was you. Sometimes people know more about a subject than you do. So I would suggest chillin' and opening your mind to what people are trying to tell you. Also, a trivial search on Google will reveal a wealth of facts (including the video link I've posted). Isn't it better to do you research rather than making an (incorrect) assumption as you did.
It is always ok to be wrong. It is arrogance to ignore facts presented to you just because they don't fit with your (incorrect) current worldview. If you open your closed mind and use the Scientific Method you would greatly profit from the diverse points of view on Slashdot.
Stop assuming you already know everything.
Do. your. research.