French church attacked by terrorists

[McHrozni]

Damn you A'isha! I yet again have to rethink some of my notions

So often it feels like a slam dunk that you are wrong, and yet many times you ad the nuance to make my position look weak. A pox upon your house

Ignorance is bliss, why can't I just be happy being wrong?

Challenge her (?) points, look at her sources, and that won't happen very often.

McHrozno

 

[Hlafordlaes]

McHrozno

That's McHrozni, if you don't mind.

 

[Craig B]

My point was that being German was, in the recent past, used to commit attrocities en par to ISIS, but that is no longer the case. This was ended, and not by saying only those who did the actual attrocities deserved blame. Replace German with Muslim and the argument changes completely.

Why is that?

McHrozni

I don't think it does change. Why do I not think that? Those people were to blame who promoted or sustained the Nazi regime. But that group can't be equated with the generality of German patriots, so that Nazis can't be called the "Only true German patriots" or anything of that kind. Why is that? Are you, or are you not, able to tell me why I don't think what I don't think?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

There are some 245 verses in the Qur'an across 25 suwar that talk about Abraham - only Moses is mentioned more. He's considered the first to have brought scripture down for humanity, and is the only other person besides Muhammad to be described as "pure of faith" in the Qur'an, and is almost a foundational figure, the precursor of Muhammad. The stories told about Abraham are mostly direct repeats of stories in the Bible/Torah, including his relationship with Lot, the circumstances of the birth of his son Isaac, and his near-sacrifice of his son to God before being stopped by God.

Given the relative importance of him in the two religions, Islam is more of an "Abrahamic" religion than Christianity is, really.

Tell me why, then, the Cairo Declaration was even necessary, and why the UNDHR is considered too "Judaeo-Christian" for Islam. Tell me why the mainstream proponents in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) preach jihad and/or justify violence against innocents?

Assumptions:
- Atheism. No prophet was a prophet, just a person, or a myth, or a mix thereof.

Definitions
- A religious tradition is a set of teachings that recognizes itself as a body; usually core holy text(s) drive(s) canon.
- Religious traditions are usually manifested as literature, liturgy, and practice.
- The Jewish|Judaeo-Christian tradition involves Jews and, optionally, schisms in Judaism itself and the proselytes thereof.

Islam
- Mohamed's teachings, or those ascribed to him, are his alone.
- Those teachings "poorly connect," if at all, with the Jewish Bible or traditions.
- Christianity is backdoored by Mohamed's teachings themselves, so
- Those teachings also "poorly connect," if at all, with the New Testament or traditions.
- Islam originated with a non-Jew geographically, tribally, religiously and culturally.
- Mohamed was not a member of a Jewish sect, was not trained in the faith, and could not speak for it.
- Islam makes no claim to the effect, and in any case, its genesis had no relation to any group of Christians.
- The text of the Koran has a great many snippets and borrowings from many origins, but no coherent connection to any prior text.
- In practice, Islam abrogates all prior texts and canon. (Clear warning sign the shell game is afoot.)
- All relation of Islam to other faiths is, therefore, by pure self-declaration that it is so.
- Fair comparison, however, of literature, liturgy and practices directly and frontally belies this claim.
- Taken on its own merits and claims, Islam is not part of the Jewish or Judaeo-Christian traditions.
- Islam should be rejected as a fabrication made of whole cloth.

Mohamed
- Mohamed spoke for himself alone.
- Examined as prophet by the traditions he claimed, his tree bore the fruit of violence against innocents and the weak and helpless.
- Mohamed therefore preached and practiced, by the same traditions he claimed, unethical behavior (evil).
- Trees bearing evil fruit are to be rejected, as per the traditions he claimed.
- Taken on his own merits and claims, Mohamed had no new knowledge or ethics worthy of his extraordinary claims.
- Mohamed was no prophet; he was either a knowing, premeditated warlord, or criminally insane. Choose your poison.
- Mohamed should be rejected, and considered a very bad example of a human being.

Islam is a form of extreme self-idolatry so utterly vile that it aims to supress all that is not one man, one culture, one time, one poor set of simple, yet misguided, ideas. It shines no light, fails on its claims, and has no legitimate place. Dismissed.

 

[cullennz]

My point was that being German was, in the recent past, used to commit attrocities en par to ISIS, but that is no longer the case. This was ended, and not by saying only those who did the actual attrocities deserved blame. Replace German with Muslim and the argument changes completely.

Why is that?

McHrozni

Nazi germany were on a par?

Geezus

Get some perspective with ISIS

 

[cullennz]

ISIS influence in western countries is not something you can "bomb or shoot". Bummer, but on the upside for the US it is mostly Europe

 

[Craig B]

Tell me why, then, the Cairo Declaration was even necessary, and why the UNDHR is considered too "Judaeo-Christian" for Islam. Tell me why the mainstream proponents in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) preach jihad and/or justify violence against innocents?

Assumptions:
- Atheism. No prophet was a prophet, just a person, or a myth, or a mix thereof.

Definitions
- A religious tradition is a set of teachings that recognizes itself as a body; usually core holy text(s) drive(s) canon.
- Religious traditions are usually manifested as literature, liturgy, and practice.
- The Jewish|Judaeo-Christian tradition involves Jews and, optionally, schisms in Judaism itself and the proselytes thereof.

Islam
- Mohamed's teachings, or those ascribed to him, are his alone.
- Those teachings "poorly connect," if at all, with the Jewish Bible or traditions.
- Christianity is backdoored by Mohamed's teachings themselves, so
- Those teachings also "poorly connect," if at all, with the New Testament or traditions.
- Islam originated with a non-Jew geographically, tribally, religiously and culturally.
- Mohamed was not a member of a Jewish sect, was not trained in the faith, and could not speak for it.
- Islam makes no claim to the effect, and in any case, its genesis had no relation to any group of Christians.
- The text of the Koran has a great many snippets and borrowings from many origins, but no coherent connection to any prior text.
- In practice, Islam abrogates all prior texts and canon. (Clear warning sign the shell game is afoot.)
- All relation of Islam to other faiths is, therefore, by pure self-declaration that it is so.
- Fair comparison, however, of literature, liturgy and practices directly and frontally belies this claim.
- Taken on its own merits and claims, Islam is not part of the Jewish or Judaeo-Christian traditions.
- Islam should be rejected as a fabrication made of whole cloth.

Mohamed
- Mohamed spoke for himself alone.
- Examined as prophet by the traditions he claimed, his tree bore the fruit of violence against innocents and the weak and helpless.
- Mohamed therefore preached and practiced, by the same traditions he claimed, unethical behavior (evil).
- Trees bearing evil fruit are to be rejected, as per the traditions he claimed.
- Taken on his own merits and claims, Mohamed had no new knowledge or ethics worthy of his extraordinary claims.
- Mohamed was no prophet; he was either a knowing, premeditated warlord, or criminally insane. Choose your poison.
- Mohamed should be rejected, and considered a very bad example of a human being.

Islam is a form of extreme self-idolatry so utterly vile that it aims to supress all that is not one man, one culture, one time, one poor set of simple, yet misguided, ideas. It shines no light, fails on its claims, and has no legitimate place. Dismissed.

The claims of Islam are as absurd as those of other religions. But what is this "has no legitimate place. Dismissed"? Are we to declare it unlawful, and dismiss anyone who objects to its suppression?

 

[Belz...]

I reject that claim made by Islam as nonsense.

It's not Islam's claim. It's part of the definition. Experts agree on this, so it's a bit silly to claim otherwise. The first time I thought it was just an honest mistake, but now you're bending definitions to fit your narrative.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I admire your talent to argue about completely irrelevant details.

 

[cullennz]

Tell me why, then, the Cairo Declaration was even necessary, and why the UNDHR is considered too "Judaeo-Christian" for Islam. Tell me why the mainstream proponents in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) preach jihad and/or justify violence against innocents?

Assumptions:
- Atheism. No prophet was a prophet, just a person, or a myth, or a mix thereof.

Definitions
- A religious tradition is a set of teachings that recognizes itself as a body; usually core holy text(s) drive(s) canon.
- Religious traditions are usually manifested as literature, liturgy, and practice.
- The Jewish|Judaeo-Christian tradition involves Jews and, optionally, schisms in Judaism itself and the proselytes thereof.

Islam
- Mohamed's teachings, or those ascribed to him, are his alone.
- Those teachings "poorly connect," if at all, with the Jewish Bible or traditions.
- Christianity is backdoored by Mohamed's teachings themselves, so
- Those teachings also "poorly connect," if at all, with the New Testament or traditions.
- Islam originated with a non-Jew geographically, tribally, religiously and culturally.
- Mohamed was not a member of a Jewish sect, was not trained in the faith, and could not speak for it.
- Islam makes no claim to the effect, and in any case, its genesis had no relation to any group of Christians.
- The text of the Koran has a great many snippets and borrowings from many origins, but no coherent connection to any prior text.
- In practice, Islam abrogates all prior texts and canon. (Clear warning sign the shell game is afoot.)
- All relation of Islam to other faiths is, therefore, by pure self-declaration that it is so.
- Fair comparison, however, of literature, liturgy and practices directly and frontally belies this claim.
- Taken on its own merits and claims, Islam is not part of the Jewish or Judaeo-Christian traditions.
- Islam should be rejected as a fabrication made of whole cloth.

Mohamed
- Mohamed spoke for himself alone.
- Examined as prophet by the traditions he claimed, his tree bore the fruit of violence against innocents and the weak and helpless.
- Mohamed therefore preached and practiced, by the same traditions he claimed, unethical behavior (evil).
- Trees bearing evil fruit are to be rejected, as per the traditions he claimed.
- Taken on his own merits and claims, Mohamed had no new knowledge or ethics worthy of his extraordinary claims.
- Mohamed was no prophet; he was either a knowing, premeditated warlord, or criminally insane. Choose your poison.
- Mohamed should be rejected, and considered a very bad example of a human being.

Islam is a form of extreme self-idolatry so utterly vile that it aims to supress all that is not one man, one culture, one time, one poor set of simple, yet misguided, ideas. It shines no light, fails on its claims, and has no legitimate place. Dismissed.

You missed Christians and Genisis

 

[A'isha]

You might want to talk to tje Koreans and Chinese about that.

The Koreans and the Chinese demand apologies from Germans and Japanese living in the US?

 

[A'isha]

Tell me why, then, the Cairo Declaration was even necessary, and why the UNDHR is considered too "Judaeo-Christian" for Islam. Tell me why the mainstream proponents in Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) preach jihad and/or justify violence against innocents?

None of this has anything to do with Islam's status as an Abrahamic religion. As for your other arguments:

- Mohamed's teachings, or those ascribed to him, are his alone.
- Those teachings "poorly connect," if at all, with the Jewish Bible or traditions.

They directly connect. The Qur'an is heavily rooted in the Torah, and there are numerous instances in three Traditions of Muhammad referencing Jewish law, ranging from the implicit (the aforementioned judgment on the Qurayza) to the explicit (the hadith where Muhammad was asked to pass judgment on two Jews who had committed adultery with each other, and asked that a Torah be brought to him, and he pointed to the verse in it regarding its mandated punishment for adultery and judged accordingly).

The connections between Islam and Judaism are so strong that Bernard Lewis wrote,

Though the term is not commonly used, one might also speak of a Judeo-Islamic tradition of civilization. From the destruction of the ancient Jewish state to the creation of the modern Jewish state Jews have everywhere been a minority, principally, indeed overwhelmingly, among Christians and Muslims. There have been Jewish communities elsewhere, for example in India and China, but it is surely significant that they appear to have played no role of any importance in the history or culture of those countries or of the Jewish people. Perhaps this is because those communities were small or perhaps because for Jewishness to flourish it needs to receive some attention, some recognition. The Judeo-Islamic tradition differs from the Judeo-Christian tradition in several important respects. The Muslims, of course, retain neither the Old nor the New Testament, regarding both as superseded by their own final revelation, the Koran. But the Muslims have much in common with the Jews that Christians either neglected or rejected. Notable among these is the idea of a holy law regulating every aspect of public and personal life. Some of the regulations are indeed strikingly similar, for example, the rejection by both Judaism and Islam of pork. Both Jews and Muslims were aware of these and other affinities. In the Middle Ages, when Jews in both the Islamic and Christian worlds were sometimes persecuted to the point of martyrdom, a rabbi decreed that it was permissible to feign conversion to Islam in order to survive, but not to Christianity. Believing neither, it was less blasphemous to say that Muhammad was a prophet of God than to say that Jesus was the son of God. On another level, when the first Muslim students were sent by their governments to Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they were told that they might eat Jewish, but not Christian, food. Jews observe the same basic rules as Muslims; Christians will eat anything. These affinities, and my growing awareness of them, certainly helped me to achieve some understanding, even a sympathetic understanding, of Islam, despite the growing tension between Jews and Muslims over the issue of Palestine. It has helped me within my studies of Islamic literature and history and my personal dealings with Muslims, both at home and abroad.

- Those teachings also "poorly connect," if at all, with the New Testament or traditions.

[...]

- In practice, Islam abrogates all prior texts and canon. (Clear warning sign the shell game is afoot.)
- All relation of Islam to other faiths is, therefore, by pure self-declaration that it is so.
- Fair comparison, however, of literature, liturgy and practices directly and frontally belies this claim.

Islam is likewise embedded in the Christian milieu, heavily referencing the New Testament and Jesus' mission. The connections are strong enough for there to be an entire subgenre of "criticism of Islam" based on it. For example, Christoph Luxenberg's The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (Which gained some notoriety a few years back for claiming that the "virgins of paradise" described in the Qur'an were actually grapes) has as its thesis the assertion that the entire Qur'an is a Syriac Christian liturgical text that's being misread by Muslims, and Emmet Scott in his Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy claims that "Islam" actually started as a Christian sect in Arabia which spread to Persia.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

None of this has anything to do with Islam's status as an Abrahamic religion.

Oh, but it very much does. It is in this case that Islam identifies itself as either not part of the tradition, or incapable of overcoming its own internal inconsistencies with the tradition that make it incompatible. This incompatibility fundamentally deals with Islam's insistence on the inequality of humans before God or Allah, and the insistence on the supremacy of Islam over all teachings, the contingency of all rights subject to submission to Islamic obligations.

As for your other arguments:
They directly connect. The Qur'an is heavily rooted in the Torah, and there are numerous instances in three Traditions of Muhammad referencing Jewish law, ranging from the implicit (the aforementioned judgment on the Qurayza) to the explicit (the hadith where Muhammad was asked to pass judgment on two Jews who had committed adultery with each other, and asked that a Torah be brought to him, and he pointed to the verse in it regarding its mandated punishment for adultery and judged accordingly).

That is a good example of a purely superficial connection. The Koran is by no means "heavily rooted" in the Torah. Mohamed did not represent any form of Jewish thinking or tradition. He made up his own version.

The connections between Islam and Judaism are so strong that Bernard Lewis wrote <snip>

Islam is likewise embedded in the Christian milieu, heavily referencing the New Testament and Jesus' mission. The connections are strong enough for there to be an entire subgenre of "criticism of Islam" based on it. For example, Christoph Luxenberg's The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (Which gained some notoriety a few years back for claiming that the "virgins of paradise" described in the Qur'an were actually grapes) has as its thesis the assertion that the entire Qur'an is a Syriac Christian liturgical text that's being misread by Muslims, and Emmet Scott in his Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy claims that "Islam" actually started as a Christian sect in Arabia which spread to Persia.

If Islam, not lay or religious people outside the faith, were actually capable of exploring such relations, this might mean such considerations could be assigned to Islam. Not the case. In fact, should Islam stop to make such considerations, its own traditions come crashing down, as Mohamed gets flagged as a derivation, and no final prophet at all.

Let's make it easier.
Do you agree that:
- All figures in history claiming to be prophets, including and especially Mohamed, were (1) not in touch with a deity and (2) therefore not representative of any divine truths, will, or commands.
- Ordering the death of others for not following ideas you know to be your own is murder.

 

[truethat]

Any time someone refers to the Qur'an, as the Koran they just red flag that they are used to reading biased sources.

1/8th of the world's population is Muslim, if Islam was a violent religion we'd all be dead by now.

And your comments about how Mohammed didn't root the Qur'an in the Torah? Just total ignorance. The People of the Book? What book? Hello. This is BASIC understanding of Islam. So, why bother to have an "opinion" on something when it's obviously based on ignorance?

 

[A'isha]

Oh, but it very much does. It is in this case that Islam identifies itself as either not part of the tradition,

Of course it identifies itself as part of the religious tradition. The stated problem that Rajaie-Khorassani, the Iranian representative to the UN, had with the UNDHR was that it was too secular, not that it was part of a different religious tradition. The Cairo Declaration itself, written a decade after Rajaie-Khorassani's comments, doesn't say a single thing about Judeo-Christianity.

That is a good example of a purely superficial connection. The Koran is by no means "heavily rooted" in the Torah. Mohamed did not represent any form of Jewish thinking or tradition. He made up his own version.

Of course he did, though filtered through his own cultural lens. See The Qur'an in Context, especially "Qurʾanic Readings of the Psalms" and "The House of Abraham and the House of Amram: Genealogy, Patriarchal Authority, and Exegetical Professionalism" by Agelika Neuwirth, "The 'Seal of the Prophets': Towards an Understanding of Muhammad’s Prophethood" by Hartmut Bobzin, and "The Qurʾanic Commandment of Writing Down Loan Agreements (Q 2:282)—Perspectives of a Comparison with Rabbinical Law" by Reimund Leicht.

Let's make it easier.
Do you agree that:
- All figures in history claiming to be prophets, including and especially Mohamed, were (1) not in touch with a deity and (2) therefore not representative of any divine truths, will, or commands.
- Ordering the death of others for not following ideas you know to be your own is murder.

Yes. But none of that, again, has anything to do with Islam's status as an Abrahamic religion.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Any time someone refers to the Qur'an, as the Koran they just red flag that they are used to reading biased sources.

What a load of bollocks.

Here is just one example:

http://www.planet-wissen.de/kultur/religion/salafismus/-lies-kampagne-100.html

That's a salafist in Germany, handing out the books for free for their "Lies!" (Read!) campaign. The sign he has on his back reads "Der edle Koran aus deutsch" (The precious Koran in german).

Here's another one:

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/umstrittene-aktion-fortgesetzt-islamisten-verteilen-kostenlos-koran-ausgaben_aid_737223.html

It says "DER KORAN" on the bloody damn book itself.

When can we expect you to report back how you lecturing them about using the word "Koran" went?

I mean, you seem to be utterly unaware that this books name has native words in different languages.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Oh, and you may want to look at that as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

Like, right at the beginning where it says:

... also romanized Qur'an or Koran

And just for giggles, check out the entries in the other languages on Wikipedia.

 

[Craig B]

Do you agree that:
- All figures in history claiming to be prophets, including and especially Mohamed, were (1) not in touch with a deity and (2) therefore not representative of any divine truths, will, or commands.

I most emphatically agree.

- Ordering the death of others for not following ideas you know to be your own is murder.

It doesn't follow that because there is no God, all prophets are charlatans who know that their messages are self generated. Many or perhaps most prophets may have honestly believed that their messages came from gods, or other supernatural beings.

It was very common in ancient times to believe that dreams and trances, states that we now attribute to the working of the unconscious mind, were signs that the person experiencing them was in communication with the Beyond.

Anyway this is hardly a criticism of Islam as such, for prophecy and suchlike phenomena are features of many religions. If Jesus is not thought of by Christians as a prophet it's simply because they think he's a god - an even more extreme belief.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Anyway this is hardly a criticism of Islam as such, for prophecy and suchlike phenomena are features of many religions. If Jesus is not thought of by Christians as a prophet it's simply because they think he's a god - an even more extreme belief.

Priest, prophet and king. (Prophet in the sense that the uncomfortable truth is being spoken, and is implied as being God's word, etc.)

All three roles are generally agreed as being manifested in the Christ, as well as being divine in nature, but we are drifting towards a discussion for the R&P forum.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Any time someone refers to the Qur'an, as the Koran they just red flag that they are used to reading biased sources.

That's the name, in native English spelling. There is no phonemic voiceless glottal stop in the English language, so placing its symbol, /'/, in English writing is an affectation.

1/8th of the world's population is Muslim, if Islam was a violent religion we'd all be dead by now.

Non-analytical, let's leave it at that.

And your comments about how Mohammed didn't root the Qur'an in the Torah? Just total ignorance. The People of the Book? What book? Hello. This is BASIC understanding of Islam. So, why bother to have an "opinion" on something when it's obviously based on ignorance?

The point is that Islam did not originate as a split from Judaism. It merely attaches itself. Granted, all religion is bollocks, but here we lack the attempt, say, of the Christians to tie into prior scripture as a way to claim legitimacy. Further, it rewrites and restates what it does reference, changing it substantially. I could do the exact same myself with the passing knowledge I have. Today, this is known as hijacking.

Mohamed is spelled with one /m/.

I could go to the firing range and learn to shoot, learn a handful of laws, put on a uniform, and then call myself a cop, too. Bad enough. But if I started making up my own laws and killing anyone and everyone who, without any justification on my part for my actions, refuses to obey, well, I'd be worse than an impostor: a rogue, for own gain and glory.

As for the rest, well, try some form of argument next time.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Of course it identifies itself as part of the religious tradition. The stated problem that Rajaie-Khorassani, the Iranian representative to the UN, had with the UNDHR was that it was too secular, not that it was part of a different religious tradition. The Cairo Declaration itself, written a decade after Rajaie-Khorassani's comments, doesn't say a single thing about Judeo-Christianity.

I wanted to get this in writing for future reference. It speaks to how mainstream institutional Islam, as represented by 54 countries, insists on the supremacy of Islam, therefore Sharia law. It is a fair and accurate portrait of what a typical majority Islam nation is like in terms of related law, democracy or not.

No more moderate-extreme conundrum to be concerned with, thank you.

Of course he did, though filtered through his own cultural lens. <snip>.

I could do the same. I would know I was doing it, too.

Yes. But none of that, again, has anything to do with Islam's status as an Abrahamic religion.

That is the 'yes' to the fact that Mohamed ordered and committed murder I was seeking. What is does, by any stretch, is disqualify him as a prophet within that tradition, coming as it does at the tail end, after Christianity and subsuming it. If Mohamed was not a prophet in that tradition, neither was his invention. Or we could say that all things are the same as their opposites, and lose all sense of meaningful differentiation.

Disqualified. Not Abrahamic, but a cheap knock-off. Not a prophet, but a murdering warlord.