French church attacked by terrorists

[A'isha]

Did any one of the Cairo signatories pipe up to say anything to the contrary?

It's not up to me to prove a negative.

It's all myth, but according to it, descendant of the same tribe, connecting seamlessly with past myth. Who was Mohamed?

As much a descendant of Abraham as Moses was, through Hagar.

Mohamed had the distinct advantage of centuries of learning since, as well as potential exposure to more advanced Greek thought, but chose to drop back to the earliest form of a tribal religion, something Judaism had already morphed from. And don't forget, he subsumed Christianity, and so is responsible for being aware he was violating, deeply, both its teachings and those of Judaism, which never called for a global imposition.

Not only were the ByzantInes engaged at the time in oppressing and executing the non-Orthodox Christian minorities in the empire, two hundred years after Muhammad's death Charlemagne was busily engaged in a conquest of the Pagan Saxons and massacring any who refused to convert to Christianity. Islam developed in a very Judeo-Christian context, and it's no accident that all three religions are very much alike.

 

[Craig B]

... Vienna?

What's happening there at present is very disquieting.

Again, an economic crisis has unleashed a dangerous series of political developments. Let us hope that the memory of the previous events of this kind has remained strong enough to avert a repetition.

 

[Craig B]

What happened at Covadonga?

This process reached its Northern geographical limit in Spain.

The Muslim conquest of Spain in 711 was generally welcomed by the Jews. According to Moslem and Christian sources, Jews provided valuable aid to the Muslim invaders. Once captured, the defence of Cordoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Malaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors.

The conquest triggered a wave of Jewish immigration to Spain after a century of persecution under the Christian Visigoths. Wealth and opportunities offered by Spain was a magnet for many peoples of the Mediterranean region. To Jews throughout the Christian and Moslem worlds, Iberia was seen as a land of relative tolerance and opportunity. Following initial Arab victories, and especially with the establishment of Umayyad rule by Abd-ar-Rahman I in 755, the native Jewish community was joined by Jews from the rest of Europe, as well as from Arab territories, from Morocco to Babylon. Thus the Sephardim found themselves enriched culturally, intellectually, and religiously by the commingling of diverse Jewish traditions.​

 

[metacristi]

You're moving the goalposts and applying some weird kind of special pleading rather than admit you were wrong about what prophets could and did find acceptable.

It seems reasonable to me that any ethical mortal would have disagreed with Sa'd s judgement. What you cited cannot change what I said initially, namely that nothing can excuse the total annihilation of the Quraiza tribe. Muhammad acted here as every warlord eager to destroy his ennemies with little concerns about morality (not surprising given his already present preference for terror), definitely not as the 'quasi-perfect' model of conduct claimed by the muslims.

I don't know why you're so surprised. The Qur'an accepts a lot of things from the Old and New Testaments, often repeating them directly. Muhammad also had no problem with explicitly and knowingly applying Jewish law straight from the Torah.

The Quran borrows from the Bible nothing controversial here. Yet it also changes a lot of things, contrary to what you say the quranic stories often differ markedly (even about Abraham). That biblical story is rather accepted by Muhammad because it is highly compatible with his own violent worldview than the other way around.

No, they're pretty much all closely related, though Islam is closer to Judaism than either are to Christianity.

'Pretty much closely relatied' yet to this day muslims hold that Jews and Christians have in the bible only remains of the original scripture because they 'corrupted' it widely. Islam was built on the back of judaism indeed but this does not mean they are also 'close related'. The myth you propagate has the origins in the cultural relativist desire to create 'greater cohesion' with all costs but it remains nonetheless a myth.

It doesn't say he's not a good example, it says he prayed for his father despite his father being an enemy of Allah because he was good-hearted and gracious.

Frankly the amount of energy you spend defending islam and Muhammad with all costs makes me think seriously that probably you converted Unfortunately the reality is that the Muhammad from the mind of muslims has little resemblance with the Muhammad from history (at least according with islamic sources). No amount of mental gymnastics can make islam as white as you try to depict it.

Actually the Quran says clearly in 60:4 exactly that Abraham is a 'model' for muslims when he declares his ennmity to those who do not follow Allah alone; he definitely must not be followed in his pray that allah pardon his pagan father. And indeed this is the way in which muslims have interpreted this all along their history (the Tafsir al Jalalayn for example is still highly regarded in much of the muslim world).

Of course it does, saying Allah apointed him a guide/example for all the nations.

Probably example for muslims to not pray to allah for non muaslims Anyways I do not think the quran (the only reference accepted by the muslims) has the ideas from Genesis 17:4, 17:5 or 22:18 incorporated thus there can be no Pauline idea of Abraham as a 'father of all who believe' who is so cherished also by the cultural relativists of today.

 

[metacristi]

You're citing a biographer who wrote 120 years after Mohammed's death.

Probably you are kidding. The hadith is also full with these stories about Muhammad saying that 'I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)' or 'I have been helped by terror (in the heart of the enemy)' and so on. Even the quran has inside quite many remarks about 'striking terror in the hearts of the infidels'. The worldwide spread (at least) of Islamic law via aggressive jihad was undeniably central to both Muhammad* and the 'classical' Islamic civilization till the middle of the 19th century (when the pressure of the European Powers made it physically impossible) and yet we still hear that we critics are the 'bigots'.

Even if one sticks only with the quran, as you seem to suggest with your remark, there are still problems. The most important is that unfortunately violence has roots there as well. Not ultimately such an islam will not be able even to justify some central tenets like the 5 time daily prayers. Finally why stop only at rejecting hadith and sira? Maybe what Muhammad preached is not accurately reflected in the quran we have. Finally maybe even Muhammad did not exist at all.


* for example the completely unprovoked attack against the Jews of Khaybar was the central model for the subsequent waves of Jihad outside Arabia

 

[A'isha]

It seems reasonable to me that any ethical mortal would have disagreed with Sa'd s judgement.

Moses sure didn't. He even went a step further than Muhammad did and enshrined such actions into his religious law.

That biblical story is rather accepted by Muhammad because it is highly compatible with his own violent worldview than the other way around.

That's and interesting bit of rhetorical acrobatics in order to blame Muhammad for copying the Bible/Torah verbatim while absolving the Bible/Torah itself for what Muhammad copied.

Islam was built on the back of judaism indeed but this does not mean they are also 'close related'.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Frankly the amount of energy you spend defending islam and Muhammad with all costs makes me think seriously that probably you converted

No, I just have Muslim family.

Actually the Quran says clearly in 60:4 exactly that Abraham is a 'model' for muslims when he declares his ennmity to those who do not follow Allah alone; he definitely must not be followed in his pray that allah pardon his pagan father.

Which is immediately followed by Q 60:7-9, "Perhaps Allah will make friendship between you and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allah has power (over all things), and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zalimoon (wrong-doers those who disobey Allah)."

And al-Tabari's tafsir, which is even more influential and respected than al-Suyuti's Tafsir al Jalalayn, explicitly notes that these verses are entirely unabrogated and still in effect.

 

[trustbutverify]

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

There are many persuasive arguments for Islam being no more intrinsically violent than the other Abrahamic religions, but this nonsense ain't one of them.

 

[truethat]

Probably you are kidding. The hadith is also full with these stories about Muhammad saying that 'I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)' or 'I have been helped by terror (in the heart of the enemy)' and so on. Even the quran has inside quite many remarks about 'striking terror in the hearts of the infidels'. The worldwide spread (at least) of Islamic law via aggressive jihad was undeniably central to both Muhammad* and the 'classical' Islamic civilization till the middle of the 19th century (when the pressure of the European Powers made it physically impossible) and yet we still hear that we critics are the 'bigots'.

Even if one sticks only with the quran, as you seem to suggest with your remark, there are still problems. The most important is that unfortunately violence has roots there as well. Not ultimately such an islam will not be able even to justify some central tenets like the 5 time daily prayers. Finally why stop only at rejecting hadith and sira? Maybe what Muhammad preached is not accurately reflected in the quran we have. Finally maybe even Muhammad did not exist at all.


* for example the completely unprovoked attack against the Jews of Khaybar was the central model for the subsequent waves of Jihad outside Arabia

Do you understand the difference between the Hadith and the Qur'an?

And just to make a point, the Bible is filled with the exact same type of stories. So why is it somehow worse if a Muslim says it?

And Mohammed was in a war at the time of a lot of these statements. So when was Jesus the leader in a war?

Do you expect people who are in a war to say things that are peaceful and loving and caring or to motivate their troops?

Many of the statements attributed to Mohammed as somehow aggressive towards Christians and Jews have been corrupted because people treat M's statements like they are supposed to be like J's statements.

And example of a twisting of a statement is that at one point during the war the troops looked like they were going to lose so there were incidents of desertion. They troops were fleeing down into the villages where the Christians and Jews lived. And Mohammed says to them "do not run to your Christian and Jewish friends, stay and fight" and this gets twisted into him saying "The Christians and Jews are not your friends, kill them."

Lots of stupid stuff like that come out of translations of the "Koran."

 

[cullennz]

Probably you are kidding. The hadith is also full with these stories about Muhammad saying that 'I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)' or 'I have been helped by terror (in the heart of the enemy)' and so on. Even the quran has inside quite many remarks about 'striking terror in the hearts of the infidels'. The worldwide spread (at least) of Islamic law via aggressive jihad was undeniably central to both Muhammad* and the 'classical' Islamic civilization till the middle of the 19th century (when the pressure of the European Powers made it physically impossible) and yet we still hear that we critics are the 'bigots'.

Even if one sticks only with the quran, as you seem to suggest with your remark, there are still problems. The most important is that unfortunately violence has roots there as well. Not ultimately such an islam will not be able even to justify some central tenets like the 5 time daily prayers. Finally why stop only at rejecting hadith and sira? Maybe what Muhammad preached is not accurately reflected in the quran we have. Finally maybe even Muhammad did not exist at all.


* for example the completely unprovoked attack against the Jews of Khaybar was the central model for the subsequent waves of Jihad outside Arabia

Have you read Genisis?

 

[Belgian thought]

Why are people discussing **** against **** on this thread?

 

[McHrozni]

Do you understand the difference between the Hadith and the Qur'an?

And just to make a point, the Bible is filled with the exact same type of stories. So why is it somehow worse if a Muslim says it?

Because Muslim groups have been using these texts to justify and inspire terrorist attacks and medieval behavior for decades. Christians have not done anything remotely similar for centuries.

Do you understand the difference?

And Mohammed was in a war at the time of a lot of these statements. So when was Jesus the leader in a war?

One would argue this is one of the reasons why Christians should be allowed more leeway in interpretations of teachings. They don't follow a long-dead warlord. Muslims do.

And example of a twisting of a statement is that at one point during the war the troops looked like they were going to lose so there were incidents of desertion. They troops were fleeing down into the villages where the Christians and Jews lived. And Mohammed says to them "do not run to your Christian and Jewish friends, stay and fight" and this gets twisted into him saying "The Christians and Jews are not your friends, kill them."

Lots of stupid stuff like that come out of translations of the "Koran."

It's really interesting, then, that people who can understand the Quran in it's native languague are also the ones most likely to commit henious acts of barbarism and justify it by the writings in that book. What's your explanation for that, incidentally?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Actually, they work pretty well. Over 9/10 people have sex.

Since approximately 20% of the world's population at any given time are children under the age of 10, first your number is off.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you?

Second if you want to relate it to HIV

Those that don't practice safe sex are far more likely to contract HIV

Those who practice Islam are far more likely to contract terrorism.

But in the United States for example, deaths attributed to Muslim terrorists versus white nut jobs with guns (somehow we don't call those people terrorists)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Taking the claims of this chemtrails-peddling site at face value, you just quoted a statistic that shows Muslims are six times more likely to be terrorists than the general population.

Great job.

How does this show Islam is not to be blamed again?

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

And just to make a point, the Bible is filled with the exact same type of stories. So why is it somehow worse if a Muslim says it?

Because few, if any, are teaching the more savage elements of the Old Testament as a guideline to modern daily life.

 

[Resume]

Well, there are christians like Steven Anderson, and this jackleg:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

 

[caveman1917]

Because Muslim groups have been using these texts to justify and inspire terrorist attacks and medieval behavior for decades. Christians have not done anything remotely similar for centuries.

Because few, if any, are teaching the more savage elements of the Old Testament as a guideline to modern daily life.

Muh glorious Christians!

 

[Belz...]

Muh glorious Christians!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1305&pictureid=10881[/qimg]

Did the KKK quote the bible's notorious passage "if those uppity ******* become a nuisance in the eyes of the white man, thou shalt lynch them!"?

 

[caveman1917]

Did the KKK quote the bible's notorious passage "if those uppity ******* become a nuisance in the eyes of the white man, thou shalt lynch them!"?

Change "Protestant Christian" to "Islamic"...sounds familiar all of a sudden?

The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman."[14] From 1915 onward, Klansmen conducted cross-burnings not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including prayer and singing hymns.

 

[Belz...]

Change "Protestant Christian" to "Islamic"...sounds familiar all of a sudden?

You're missing the point, which was about how the books were used and interpreted in everyday life.

 

[McHrozni]

Change "Protestant Christian" to "Islamic"...sounds familiar all of a sudden?

KKK is an example of how an actual abuse of scripture for nefarious goals looks like. A weird sect, an interpretation at odds with pretty much everything within the religion and scripture.

ISIS is simply following a straightforward example of Mohamed and his immediate successors. The only 'debate' about it whether this is the most straightforward interpretations or just one of most straightforward ones - the difference isn't really worth mentioning.

Incidentally, if Islam is a peaceful religion, why aren't extreme Muslims extremely peaceful? I got it off a yputube comment

McHrozni

 

[theprestige]

Change "Protestant Christian" to "Islamic"...sounds familiar all of a sudden?

Not really. The KKK doesn't even do cross burnings much anymore. Meanwhile, if ISIS or Boko Haram, were to confine themselves to weekly crescent burnings, I think we would all consider it a great improvement.

It's a pretty depraved extremism, that achieving similarity with the KKK would make the world a better place.