Some thoughts about the Mohammed Cartoons

[Sunni Man]

I didn't ask if you thought you have divine permission to disregard secular law. I asked why you thought you have divine permission to disregard secular

God's laws supersedes man's laws every time.

 

[CFLarsen]

God's laws supersedes man's laws every time.

Which god? Your god, or any god? Does Vishnu's laws supersedes man's laws every time? Does Thor's?

Please answer the rest of the questions.

 

[sol invictus]

sol invictus: Why are you introducing Tu Quoque as a 'defence' here? This thread is about Muhammad cartoons and Islam. If you wish to discuss Christianity or Christianity vs. Islam, then please open another thread. I for one would love to participate.

My point is that the reaction of the west to the cartoon crisis was sickeningly self-righteous and hypocritical, as evidenced by the censorship we impose on much less offensive items in news media.

Criticizing Muslims or the Koran because it contains some objectionable passages follows that same pattern. The bible is as bad or worse. That makes it very hard for a rational person to see that kind of debate as anything other than overt racism.

Quran 5:33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

Criticizing Muslims or the Koran because it contains some objectionable passages follows that same pattern. The bible is as bad or worse. That makes it very hard for a rational person to see that kind of debate as anything other than overt racism.

Now now I'm not criticizing Muslims - I am criticizing Islam based on its own texts. Since Muhammad was the beginning of Islam and responsible for its rules/laws/book etc.. then I am criticizing him. What basis do you have to show that I am criticizing Muslims? I have not once criticized SM personally - because I recognise that to follow Muhammad's example makes him a "Good Muslim" and not a "radical" as the media would have us believe.

We are free to criticize any belief system we wish - for it to then be called "racism" is a pathetic attempt at shutting me up. I spend a LOT of time studying Islamic texts and to be then accused of "cherry picking" or "copy/pasting" or "hating" is nonsense. I am not interested in what Muslims tell me Islam is, for I can and DO go to their own texts to find out for myself. Since when is speaking the truth "hate"?

Yes I agree, some other religions are just as bad, or WORSE, but this is not the thread for that discussion. Also just because we find a belief system that is like or worse than Islam, how does that negate the bad that is in Islam?

With utmost respect, I request that you go to the texts yourself. For even though I do try, sometimes the truth cannot be said in a non-offensive way.

Best Wishes
-JP

ETA: sol invictus: Just in case you were not aware, Islam claims to be '3rd in line' in the Abrahamic Religions. Their deity Allah, claims to have been the same God who revealed these texts (Taurat, Zabur & Injil) with Muhammad being the "seal" of the prophets (which include Abraham, Adam, Jesus, etc..) and the Quran his "last book". Therefore, Islamically speaking, you're still taking issue with Allah's words.

 

[sol invictus]

Now now I'm not criticizing Muslims - I am criticizing Islam based on its own texts.

That's nonsense. You're criticizing a religion actively practiced by 100s of millions of people based on specific passages in one sacred book. It's just as valid as criticizing the Quaker faith because of the passage from the old testament I quoted above.

In case you don't get my point: such criticism is totally invalid.

We are free to criticize any belief system we wish - for it to then be called "racism" is a pathetic attempt at shutting me up.

If all Muslims practice Islam, and you criticize Islam on general grounds, you are attacking the way all Muslims live their lives. Your criticism is invalid, so what can I conclude other than that you are motivated by a desire to smear an entire huge group of people?

I am not interested in what Muslims tell me Islam is, for I can and DO go to their own texts to find out for myself.

That's just classic. Classic. Incredibly naive or disingenuous - which is it?

Islam is what Muslims say it is, by definition. Religions aren't books.

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

That's nonsense. You're criticizing a religion actively practiced by 100s of millions of people based on specific passages in one sacred book. It's just as valid as criticizing the Quaker faith because of the passage from the old testament I quoted above.

In case you don't get my point: such criticism is totally invalid.

Actually as stated, I am criticising ISLAM not Muslims. Your appeal to popularity is irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it is practiced by 1 or 1,000,000. Truth is truth.

Just in case you missed it also, I have not used any "kafir" texts here - all I use is the Quran, Tafseer & ahadith to make my case. I have not said "Sunni Man is an <insert ad hominem here>".

Therefore your claims that I am:
(a)cherry picking
(b)attacking the people and not the beliefs
(c)racist

are all false. Will you be substantiating any of your charges anytime soon? eg. show me where I have attacked Muslims instead of their beliefs?

If all Muslims practice Islam, and you criticize Islam on general grounds, you are attacking the way all Muslims live their lives. Your criticism is invalid, so what can I conclude other than that you are motivated by a desire to smear an entire huge group of people?

Why is my criticizm invalid? You are using the appeal to popularity fallacy here, btw. Again I state: I am not criticizing individual Muslims, but I am speaking against Islam; as I do with any other belief system that has such serious flaws.

That's just classic. Classic. Incredibly naive or disingenuous - which is it?

Islam is what Muslims say it is, by definition. Religions aren't books.

This one is. Islam is as Muhammad set it in his own lifetime. Any innovation is error (would you like the ahadith)? I am sorry, but that comment above ^^^ just shows how little you know about Islam. Yes, there are ahadith rejectors, but Islam doesn't have "one text" as you have falsely stated. This shows you haven't even bothered to READ my previous posts in this thread! I have quoted the Quran and ahadith right here! That should have at least told you there were two!!

1. Quran - Muslims believe this to be the literal, exact, unchanged and unchangeable word of Allah - the Islamic deity.
2. Tafseer - These are commentaries on the Quran written by Islamic scholars. They use the ahadith in order to explain the meaning of the Quran.
3.ahadith - translation in English as "sayings" or "traditions". Plural is English: hadiths (or ahadith arabic translit.). These are purportedly the words/sayings/actions of Muhammad and his companions. A great deal of them tell Muslims how Muhammad lived his life, how to deal with various situaitons, the revelational circumstances of the majority of the Quran etc... They are not considered words of Allah, but inspired texts because they are reportedly regarding Muhammad. Please let me know if you want more information about ahadith ie. classifications of authenticity, authenticity requirements etc..
4.Fatwa - This is a religious ruling on a specific matter. It can be mundane (ie. can Muslims wear jeans) to something like the Salmon Rushdie fatwa (soliciation for murder). A good fatwa gives it sources (from Islamic texts). These are a guide for Muslims on how to live their lives. Usually they rule on something that was not around in Muhammad's time (ie. aeroplanes, dating, etc...) or they clarify for less-informed Muslims (ie. not scholars).

Thanks
-JP

 

[sol invictus]

Actually as stated, I am criticising ISLAM not Muslims. Your appeal to popularity is irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it is practiced by 1 or 1,000,000. Truth is truth.

And you define the truth, rather than the 1,000,000,000 people that practice the religion.

Sure.

Therefore your claims that I am:
(a)cherry picking
(b)attacking the people and not the beliefs
(c)racist

are all false. Will you be substantiating any of your charges anytime soon? eg. show me where I have attacked Muslims instead of their beliefs?

You are not attacking their actual beliefs - you're attacking some straw man you've decided is Islam. But by saying you're attacking Islam, you're attacking them.

Many people identify strongly with their religion. There is no way you can attack it and not attack them - that was the whole point of the cartoon thing. If you can't understand that, go live life for a little longer and come back when you've figured it out.

This one is. Islam is as Muhammad set it in his own lifetime. Any innovation is error (would you like the ahadith)?

Again, nonsense. There is no consensus on that - and never was - among Islamic clerics. Furthermore, as I keep trying to explain to you, there is a huge gap between writings and the way the religion is practiced. It is the later which matters.

Just to see what a huge gap there is among different clerics, compare Islam in modern Turkey to orthodox Wahabism in Saudi Arabia.

I am sorry, but that comment above ^^^ just shows how little you know about Islam. Yes, there are ahadith rejectors, but Islam doesn't have "one text" as you have falsely stated. This shows you haven't even bothered to READ my previous posts in this thread! I have quoted the Quran and ahadith right here! That should have at least told you there were two!!

I never made any such statement. You are either lying about my posts (foolish, since they are right there) or incapable of understanding simple English (since I'm charitable, I'll say that's more likely).

I love this quote:

I am not interested in what Muslims tell me Islam is

'Nuff said.

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

And you define the truth, rather than the 1,000,000,000 people that practice the religion.
Sure.

Not at all. As stated repeatedly, I look at the Islamic texts themselves in order to see what Islam is. I don't need someone else to tell me. If you want to learn about Christianity, you can open the bible, if you want to learn about mormonism you go to the book of Mormon, etc.. I am perfectly willing to play by Islamic rules regarding this. I only use *their* sources. If they were to suddenly reject them, then that's fine and I would too.

You are not attacking their actual beliefs - you're attacking some straw man you've decided is Islam. But by saying you're attacking Islam, you're attacking them.

haha! Please elaborate on what you mean by this. How is attacking their beliefs by quoting their own texts creating a "straw man"?

Many people identify strongly with their religion. There is no way you can attack it and not attack them - that was the whole point of the cartoon thing.

Yes, this is why I have said there are some things that cannot be said without causing offense; but this is not to say they are automatically false (due to offense caused). I never said they didn't identify strongly with their religion. Islam is intertwined with Muslims culture also; I am painfully aware of this fact.

If you can't understand that, go live life for a little longer and come back when you've figured it out.

Ad hominem noted.

Again, nonsense. There is no consensus on that - and never was - among Islamic clerics.

Yes there is. Muslims are to follow Muhammad's Sunna and the Quran when practicing their religion. Ask Sunni Man. There are two problems here:

(a)After Muhammad died and Abu Bakr took over, there was debate over who would take over as Caliph after he died. This argument turned into the war of the camel, in which 20,000 Muslims died. The first two sects of Islam were split off then - today we know them as Sunni and Shia. Yes there are many texts; many of them with their own supplemental texts. But there is NO SECT that does not follow the Quran. This means that the Quran and the tafseer at least, are common to all.
Furthermore, as I keep trying to explain to you, there is a huge gap between writings and the way the religion is practiced. It is the later which matters.

(b)Because there are so many sects and clerics, yes, fatwa's may change depending on the interpretation or acceptance of the supplemental material (ie. NOT the Quran or tafseer).

For you to say that Clerics do not agree that the Quran is from Allah, and that one should not follow Muhammad's Sunnah is absurd!

Please point me to an Islamic sect that denies the Quran!

I never made any such statement. You are either lying about my posts (foolish, since they are right there) or incapable of understanding simple English (since I'm charitable, I'll say that's more likely).

"based on specific passages from ONE sacred book" you said. Sorry but I quoted from the Quran AND ahadith. That is three sources right there (Bukhari and Muslim from the ahadith).

I love this quote:

'Nuff said.

So, if a christian came to you and said that he was a prophet sent from (eg.) Christianity and that you had to kill your children and follow him.....you wouldn't get a bible and check that out?

The big problem with Islam is that you have prominent figures (ie. Osama bin laden) saying Islam is one thing, but others saying it is another.

If we go your route, we don't bother looking at the Islamic texts themselves, but what do we do? Who do we believe? Remember, you're advocating judging a religion by the followers we know and not the texts!

BTW, it was very evil of James Randi to go after poor Mr. popoff like that..... he had so many followers who believed in him! Don't you agree?

Thanks

-JP

 

[ixolite]

Again, nonsense. There is no consensus on that - and never was - among Islamic clerics. Furthermore, as I keep trying to explain to you, there is a huge gap between writings and the way the religion is practiced.

Right. Most people don't know much about their religion, only the stuff their priests tell them. That goes especially for the millions of illiterate moslems.

It is the later which matters.

Nope. It's the basics of the religion what matter - the scripture. The same way we judge Christianity based on the bible we judge Islam on Koran and Ahadith.


But, lets get back on topic: Mohammad cartoons.

Why are the cartoons referred to as "blasphemous", if Mo is considered just a mortal man?

 

[sol invictus]

Not at all. As stated repeatedly, I look at the Islamic texts themselves in order to see what Islam is. I don't need someone else to tell me. If you want to learn about Christianity, you can open the bible, if you want to learn about mormonism you go to the book of Mormon, etc..

Do you not see the utter and obvious fallacy of that? How many Christians obey the bible? How many are kosher? How many don't wear clothings made from more than one kind of fiber? How many turn the other cheek, rather than go on crusades?

Reading the bible will teach you very little about Christianity, because the bible is only one tiny part of the religion as a whole. It's like saying to understand the British you should study William the Conqueror.

haha! Please elaborate on what you mean by this. How is attacking their beliefs by quoting their own texts creating a "straw man"?

I don't know how to say it more clearly than I already have. No one in the world bases their beliefs on the literal word of these books.

Ad hominem noted.

That was a piece of advice, which you evidently need.

Please point me to an Islamic sect that denies the Quran!

Straw man. Of course they don't "deny the Quran". They just selectively ignore parts of it and "interpret" the rest - just like every other religion does with their sacred texts.

"based on specific passages from ONE sacred book" you said. Sorry but I quoted from the Quran AND ahadith. That is three sources right there (Bukhari and Muslim from the ahadith).

Flipflop. You accused me of saying Islam has only one sacred text. I said no such thing. Now you've shifted your ground yet again.

So, if a christian came to you and said that he was a prophet sent from (eg.) Christianity and that you had to kill your children and follow him.....you wouldn't get a bible and check that out?

Brilliant example!! I might, and here's what I would find:

1 Some time later, God tested Abraham’s faith. “Abraham!” God called.

“Yes,” he replied. “Here I am.”

2 “Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”

The big problem with Islam is that you have prominent figures (ie. Osama bin laden) saying Islam is one thing, but others saying it is another.

Yeah, and that never happens with any other religion.

If we go your route, we don't bother looking at the Islamic texts themselves, but what do we do? Who do we believe? Remember, you're advocating judging a religion by the followers we know and not the texts!

What a concept! To judge a belief system based on what people actually believe! Shocking!!

 

[sol invictus]

Right. Most people don't know much about their religion, only the stuff their priests tell them. That goes especially for the millions of illiterate moslems.

But not especially for the millions of illiterate Christians, definitely not.

Nope. It's the basics of the religion what matter - the scripture. The same way we judge Christianity based on the bible we judge Islam on Koran and Ahadith.

If we judge Christians based on the bible, they are murderous self-contradictory madmen who think Jews are forever guilty of the murder of Christ, all gays should be put to death, people who disobey priests and judges should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death (by the town-full), women found to be not virgins on their wedding night should stoned to death, etc.

Oh yeah - and thou shalt not kill, too.

But of course no sane person would ever judge Christians based on the bible. They judge them based on their beliefs and their actions, just as with anyone else.

I can't believe I'm having to say this, especially on a skeptic's forum...

 

[Cainkane1]

I have a question. Why do you Europeans let the Muslims into your country? I mean they rape non islamic women for wearing shorts, riot when someone says something to them that they don't like, destry property so why not stop the madness and halt their immigration to your country? Kick them put if they break the law. America lets them in because of "political correctness" and its making me sick.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have a question. Why do you Europeans let the Muslims into your country? I mean they rape non islamic women for wearing shorts

Really? I hadn't heard about this. Where did it happen?

 

[tsig]

According to the Bible it's mandatory to kill anyone that doesn't obey Christian priests or judges:

From the Oxford Study Bible (one of the better translations):



That's Deuteronomy 17:12 and 13.

That's a "you-too" argument. Since mo stole the story from the bible i can see why they are the same

Being an atheist I could care less what any holy book says

 

[sol invictus]

I have a question. Why do you Europeans let the Muslims into your country? I mean they rape non islamic women for wearing shorts, riot when someone says something to them that they don't like, destry property so why not stop the madness and halt their immigration to your country? Kick them put if they break the law. America lets them in because of "political correctness" and its making me sick.

You're joking, I take it? Not a very funny joke.

That's a "you-too" argument.

No, it is not. Please re-read my posts.

I am simply pointing out that judging Islam by a few passages in the Koran is just as valid as judging Christianity by a few passages in the bible: namely not at all (0=0). And if you do it anyway and then don't apply the same standard to your own religion (or that of your friends and associates), you're a hypocrite of the worst sort.

Since mo stole the story from the bible i can see why they are the same

"Stole". Yet more hypocrisy and ignorance bubbles to the surface.

Tell me, have you ever compared the flood story in Genesis to the Babylonian version, which was written at least 1,000 years earlier?

 

[CFLarsen]

I have a question. Why do you Europeans let the Muslims into your country? I mean they rape non islamic women for wearing shorts, riot when someone says something to them that they don't like, destry property so why not stop the madness and halt their immigration to your country? Kick them put if they break the law. America lets them in because of "political correctness" and its making me sick.

Europe isn't a country.

 

[ixolite]

But not especially for the millions of illiterate Christians, definitely not.

If we judge Christians based on the bible, they are murderous self-contradictory madmen who think Jews are forever guilty of the murder of Christ, all gays should be put to death, people who disobey priests and judges should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death (by the town-full), women found to be not virgins on their wedding night should stoned to death, etc.

We do not judge Christians according to the bible, we judge Christianity according to the bible.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

It goes like that:

A: Religion X sucks.
B: But religion Y sucks too.

That's exactly what you are doing and that IS tu quoque.

Let's see: this is a thread about Islam and your response to it is a tu quoque:

According to the Bible it's mandatory to kill anyone that doesn't obey Christian priests or judges:

Now how does the fact that the bible contains nasty stuff invalidate the fact that the Koran and Ahadith contain nasty stuff? It doesn't, right? So why bring it up and try to go off topic?

 

[ixolite]

I have a question. Why do you Europeans let the Muslims into your country? I mean they rape non islamic women for wearing shorts, riot when someone says something to them that they don't like, destry property so why not stop the madness and halt their immigration to your country? Kick them put if they break the law. America lets them in because of "political correctness" and its making me sick.

Why do you let moslems into the US?

Btw, as CFLarsen pointed out, Europe isn't a country.

 

[ixolite]

Really? I hadn't heard about this. Where did it happen?

I think he refers to the rapes which happened in Sweden etc. Unfortunately I can't post links yet, so try to google.

 

[sol invictus]

We do not judge Christians according to the bible, we judge Christianity according to the bible.

Oh I see - so you would have agreed had I said, "Christianity is a religion which instructs its followers to be murderous self-contradictory madmen who think Jews are forever guilty of the murder of Christ, all gays should be put to death, people who disobey priests and judges should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death (by the town-full), women found to be not virgins on their wedding night should stoned to death, etc."?

Your mistake is that you think there is a definition of Christianity which is independent of those that practice it. That is obvious nonsense - nearly everything about the religion has changed drastically over the years and varies widely across all the various Christian sects. And yet, all of them practice "Christianity".

How is that possible? Because Christianity is not a static thing frozen in place by some old books. It's a hugely complex living and evolving phenomenon.

Yes it is.

It goes like that:

A: Religion X sucks.
B: But religion Y sucks too.

That's exactly what you are doing and that IS tu quoque.

I said nothing of the kind. Point out one single place where I said "Religion X sucks".

Some friendly advice - don't try to put words in other poster's mouths. It really doesn't work, especially not when all the actual comments are visible just above.

Now how does the fact that the bible contains nasty stuff invalidate the fact that the Koran and Ahadith contain nasty stuff? It doesn't, right? So why bring it up and try to go off topic?

That the bible has nasty stuff in it has precisely as much relevance as the fact that the Koran does. An invalid, racist, and hypocritical attack was being launched on Islam and Muslims, and I pointed that out. Sorry if you don't like it.