ace, you promised to disagree with me! and then you didnt even mention that i informed you of pantheism :( i wonder if the particles which constituted shay given's head, the football, the post, and the air between them were also god :(

-----------

anyway. mea culpa. i claimed buddhists were responsible for the caste system. i only really know about the principles of buddhism, and i made some incorrect assumptions about their practices (and about how common buddhism was in india). i intended to say they were responsible in part, but really they have no important effect on the caste system. sorry.

my views actually coincide with the philosophy of buddhism, and buddhists really do seem to be peaceful. the world would be a better place if everyone was a buddhist. but i think it is the philosophy which makes this true and not the religious aspects: reincarnation, afterlife, the dalai lama being reborn, and many other things, are all negative.

so sorry, buddhists. life is suffering i guess.

@gayprince
Your post:
you first of all quoted a sura and a 'translation'.
First of all there are different translations for the quran as different scholars believe it says different things. Second of all what you posted just describes Hell. So whats violent about that? Its showing what will happen :\

Then you started giving 'reasons':
My reply s to them:
A- Who said Islam tampers with Education? Education is called a necessity to going forward in life by Islam (although after your daily duties such as praying 5 times a day). Islam is going back to its golden age again: for example Iran and Turkey. I know Iran might be spark a debate, but nevertheless it is making lots of things by itself as a result of sanctions.

B-Islam is not a misogyny. Islam tells woman to hide some parts of them, to protect them, to show honour for them. A widely known quote from our prophet is 'Heave in under your mother's feat'. And also Islam DOES NOT permit genital mutilation. Under Islamic law whoever does this has a heavy penalty.

C- I follow Islam to the bulk. (Not the Islam you guys 'know' about) I am a shia. I dont have problems with gays. If i can change their opinion I would but if i cant, live and let live.

You guys seriously dont know about Islam :\

@rvw. ahah u are right my english is very bad infact i think that u have misunderstand what i have said, unfortunately to be clear here i should write in my own language cos these are quite complex arguments to explain:P

just a short reply to Reza and Acy.

@Acy. I like your definition of god (always lowercase). I think it can be best described as "all we don't know/we can't control". From "What happens after death?" to "Why do I get sick".

So thinking a supernatural being controls all this is a lazy answer to all these questions. It's quite comfortable too, as you don't need to think about them much: a book, a priest or a church is going to tell you what you have to believe.

---

@Reza

I admit I don't know as much about Islam as I do about Christianity, although I strongly suspect it's the same shit in a different bottle. I am willing to learn though, honestly, as long as u allow me to keep being critical.

A- Translation: Being a translator myself, I admit translations can change a text a lot (Bible has many examples). But please do not insult my intelligence, I can understand anything through translation, from Shakespeare to Darwin. If you want, give the version of the Qran u like in English or Spanish and I will use it for quotes. Sadly I have not enough time and patience to learn Arabic, but seriously, can't Allah send a message that is understood in any language? Why would he make us speak different languages then? Do he want just some of us to understand it fully? Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

B- Hell: Yes, hell is a extremely violent idea. Threatening with eternal suffering for believing/not believing or acting in a particular way is especially hateful and dangerous. It can make people who believe it really miserable, and affects the way they think about others. ("what WILL happen?" Excuse me?) Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

C- Education: Qran, Bible and Torah have been an important tool of making people literate, I admit that. But the problem is they are (bad) fiction books that people take as real. So why shouldn't we use books that either are clearly fiction or teach something useful? Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

D- Misogyny: Well. what you describe is sexism in its core. Women are weaker, so they must be protected (by men, I guess). They have an honour to defend, they should cover parts of their body. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if it said the same about men? Why doesn't it say just "people"? Show me a holy book that says women, can study, work and be the head of a family or a community just as men can, and I will consider that religion to be good and reasonable. What you say is barbarism and insults all women and my intelligence. Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

C- Ok, i'm glad u don't have problem with gays. I have Muslim friends who don't have any problem with me being gay either and I have gone partying with them, so I have never said all Muslim people hate gays. Again do not insult my intelligence! About changing my opinion, I feel the same way about you, matey. I'd love to make you agnostic, but If I can't, I'm not going to do anything against u. Btw, how would you feel if your brother or son was gay and open about it? Would you be so tolerant? You know they are going to Hell! Please, be sincere.


And yes, I admit there is a lot I don't know about Islam, but I have taken the treuble of buying a Qran and reading it. I am willing to learn whatever you want to teach me about Islam. I a, willing to travel to mainly Muslim countries and make Muslim friends. No problem there! However, I demand the right of having my own opinion about it after that. Deal?

Are you ready x? I'm now going to disagree with everything you said. And I can't wait for England to crash out in the group stages in a blaze of pain and disappointment.

First you talk about Leviticus. To me, it really has nothing to do with what the religion is really about. How many people actually abide by this part of the bible? It is just an easy target for any atheist. Get to the heart of the question of the existence of god and issues relevant today and stop beating around the bush with cheap shots.

You dismiss early religion as primitive but it has the basic component, the heart of religion within it. A recognition of a greater power than themselves. And the fact that they recognised natural things as gods does not make them primitive, perhaps it even makes them more valid. You didn't deal with his argument which was that religion is not just self-propelling, it is borne from something tangible.

You try to dodge the accusation that you see religion as a very bad thing in the world using philosophical semantics, "I don't believe in good or bad." You then claim religion "retards humanity." I think we can all see what you're saying there.

You very quickly dismiss religion as a mistake made by early humans. "They don't have time to review all their choices." I have to say I thought it was funny that you assumed such an authoritative tone on proto-human timekeeping. You are familiar with the theory of evolution? Do you think that religion could possibly survive for so long, since neanderthals buried their dead until now, if it was not more positive than negative? That just sounds like your prejudice against religion rearing its ugly head.

You describe religion as psychologically damaging. Is it the parents fault, or the religion's fault? Do you really think that the majority of people have been psychologically damaged by religion? Yet more bold statements with nothing to back them up.

(Many things I don't know the context of)

"Violence is an early part of religion." I would say you are skipping over the earliest part of religion there. Community. That is the start of religion, that is its beginning and you do it an injustice to claim violence as an early part of religion. You claim the crusades were an early part of christianity then? 11th, 12th, 13th century? If you say so.

You make fun of religion by showing how I-like-swords would be condemned for a small transgression with his faith. But not all rules are of equal importance. He lives by the core principles of christianity and that is the most important thing. You do not know who is sent to hell.

I don't know why you tried to defend open hatred towards a group of people because of their religion. That was disappointing to say the least. I don't think I really have to say any more about it.

So there you go, I disagreed with you :) Happy now?

@x:

|> Here were the first christians: Jesus and his disciples.

Of course we were talking about religion in general, not merely Christianity. With Jesus himself was religious as well, he was Jewish.

Also, I never said your premise that many people get their religion from their parents. What I said was that it can't possibly be the only source. I wanted you to explain where the first religious people got it from, what is so difficult that you can't understand that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good
|> |> judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??)
|> |> misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However
|> |> that does not make the rule itself bad."

|> This is precisely the problem with religion! It makes these crazy rules and they
|> survive for centuries! They thus impede progress!

Context: Islam requiring a woman to never leave the house alone.

You yourself call it "good judgement and compassion" to walk a female friend home at night. Yet when Quran says you should it's a "crazy rule" and "impeding progress"...? That's an incredibly clear example of a double standard if you ask me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> If you would like to know more about evolution, consult your local wikipedia.

Everything in the paragraph before that is completely unrelated to anything I said.

Also, I know all about evolution; just for the record, you did figure out I'm not religious myself, right...? (You seem to think I believe in either creationism or intelligent design.) Ever heard the phrase "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it"? Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't defend it when I feel it's unfairly attacked.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> To learn more about sarcasm, consult your local blah blah blah.

I *did* get you were being sarcastic (pretty hard to miss if you enclose the statement in sarcasm-tags), but that doesn't make me magically understand references ("Dan Savage" and your "atheist Baptist Church") within that statement.

agay you seem to use old testaments alot to attack christians who do not practice such things in levticus because it all changes in new testament.
@Islamophobics and agnostics Stop spreading your hate around you don't even know much about what you are arguing about get yourself a holybook ,read it front to cover maybe even talk with a person of faith and stop contradicting yours selfs

Hi Ironhearty,

You seem to be an expert about doing incorrect assumptions about people, even though I have explained myself more than once in this thread (like you saying I hate Islam because of terrorism when I haven't mentioned it once and is last thing of my list of "why to I despise Islam").

I am a Christian myself (Catholic), just an Atheist one. I have read the bible more than once, I know the new testament better than the old one, and I think I know quite a lot about Christianity and its history, from Saint Paul to American denominations. Now, haven't mentioned the old testament one single time in any point, but if you think I have done it, please tell me where exactly.

I bought and read the Qran (partially) to read it in planes and have a better understanding of what is it really about, and not to "work" with second-handed opinions. I admit I don't know everything about Islam, but I am willing to learn if someone is willing to explain.

I also have a great interest in Judaism, but rarely attack it directly cause it's not an imperialistic religion.

I am very interested in religions, both current and "dead" ones, and try to learn about them as much as I can, so I know what I'm attacking. For example I have listened to many college courses on the history of religions.

I have no problem in speaking with people of faith (whatever that means), many of my friends are believers, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. I can debate in a respectful manner with them and they almost never get offended because I almost never make it personal.

I think I am entitled to have an opinion about any subject, even if some people don't like it, and I think I have the right to express it, don't I? Many people give their opinions on sports, history or politics, why can't I give mine about Islam or Christianity?

And I am very Gandhinian about this: "Hate the sin but not the sinner".

My biggest problem with religions is that they are based on lies, such as the existence of god(s), bad literature disguised as holy texts, alleged immutable truths... And it doesn't matter what you say: a lie is a lie is a lie.

Now, would you mind explaining me where exactly have I contradicted myself? Or is it just another of your void statements?

I still think u r cute, though :P

Just to be sure , in no way whatsoever do I mean to personally attack people or offend people in this post. I merely debate against what has been said and ask a few questions and things of my own. ;)


Translation was mentioned - You said 'can't Allah send a message that is understood in any language? Why would he make us speak different languages then?'. Most countries in the world speak different dialects and languages making it impossible for God to speak a language that everyone understood. But, to contradict that, God is supposedly almighty - If he has unlimited power shouldn't he be able to do the impossible ,just as Jesus (supposed Son of God in Christianity; wouldn't the 'Father' be stronger than the 'Son'?) apparently did?


Another religion I want to mention is Judaism - I can't understand why Jews are hated worldwide (especially by Christianity I think). I have been told that Christians hate a Jew betrayed Jesus. Is this not the same as 'sin'? We have all done so much 'sin' in our lives, does this mean that we should all go to Hell? What if a Jew asked for forgiveness, would he still be considered 'evil'?. Christians belive to 'Treat your neighbour like you would like to be treated' (close to that). Since this was something that Jesus supposedly said, it would be doing wrong to go against that (as Jesus is apparently God) but Jews have been hated against and discriminated against repeatedly still e.g the Diaspora and World Wars, but Christians wouldn't like to that being done to them? No offence to any devoted Christians or anyone else but I hardly see any Christians treating their neighbour as themself most of the time.


Another question - In Christianity, they only follow the new testament, may I ask why???
In the old testament, pork and many other animals Christians and many other people eat aren't allowed to be consumed. They are seen as 'dirty' animals according to Judaism and Islam. If you are a Christian, you would probably believe in Noah's Ark then. To get rid of the faeces (according to Islam and Judaism), pigs ate the faeces. I don't see a reason not to believe the old testament (it is still the word of God, only sent by other prophets) but to many religious Islamic and Jews, it looks like Christians disobey the 'food laws'.

Just an edifying aside: Islam requires escorts for women, and the veil and whatnot not because of the Qur'an, but because of the Sunnah al Muhammad. The Qur'an itself doesn't say much about how women are supposed to be treated, just as it doesn't say much on many moral subjects. The reaction to this was for the Muslims to say - The Qur'an doesn't provide enough instruction on how we should live our lives, so the safest way (the path or "Sunnah") is the way of Muhammad. If we strive to live our lives as Muhammad did, we know we are acting in accordance with the will of Allah. So then all the accounts of what Muhammad said and did (the "Hadith") were collected together and decided to be true accounts and part of the Sunnah, or false accounts that were to be ignored. This happened in the 8th and 9th centuries CE.

The problem was that during Muhammad's life, his various lieutenants and governors and whatnot were trying to use his wives as political pawns to gain power and standing with Muhammad. His reaction was to force them to primarily stay home, and to wear veils and be escorted when they went out. This was an expedient solution to ward off the gamesmanship that was surrounding his wives, but due to the nature of Islamic law and tradition, this solution became enshrined in the Sunnah al Muhammad and is now applied to all Muslim women.

It's important to note that Muhammad didn't treat all women with such protectiveness as Muslims treat their women today. Some women actually fought in his battles, even as officers. One of his daughters (the mother of his only surviving male progeny, Ali) even led a revolution against various power factions after Muhammad's death - those on her side were called the Partisans (Shi'a) of Ali, which is basically where the schism between Shi'a and Sunni began.

Anyways, interesting stuff IMO... The law of Sharia is Qur'an > Sunnat al Muhhamad > Fatwas.

interesting post devil.

BlueGalaxy wrote:
|> Christians belive to 'Treat your neighbour like you would like to be treated' (close to that).

There's a difference between theory and practice. Also, due to human nature it's extremely tempting to invent an ".. except when your neighbour does (something you don't like)", *even* if it's nowhere in the Bible.

|> Jews have been hated against and discriminated against repeatedly still e.g the Diaspora and World Wars

To make this slightly less complex, let me divide my answer into two parts:


After the First World War, a peace treaty was signed which forced Germany to pay for all the damage that had been done due to the war. Of course this was a ridiculous amount of money which they could never realistically pay off. Their attempts to do so got the German economy in a situation not unlike the one many Third World countries are in today: every little bit of money generated by their economy is immediately drained out and given to a foreign power. This makes it virtually impossible to ever get anywhere. Needless to say, the German population was less than happy.

The important thing to remember is that, as a politician, you don't have to solve the actual problem; you can get (short term) popularity by *appearing* to solve a (real or imagined) problem. So what the nazis did was find a scapegoat; someone to blame (whether they were even actually related to the problem wasn't even relevant).
A combination of several factors (Jews being above-average rich (making them a plausible target to blame for the rest of the country being poor), Jews being easy to recognize (if you want to blame someone you have to be able to identify them) and the Jewish population being small enough to safely turn them against you (you wouldn't want to blame the Christians; there's way to many of them, plenty enough to fight back)) made Jews the perfect scapegoat.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no actual religious reasons for the nazi-incited hatred of Jews.


Before the 1930s, all the way back to (at least) medieval times, Jews have often been targeted, hated and expelled. The reasons for using *them* (instead of another group of people) were probably not all that different from the nazi's reasons.
When (for instance) the Black Death hits your city, you can't fight the actually problem (at the time, nobody even knew what caused it), but to keep your population somewhat under control, you use a scapegoat. And behold, after you've thrown all the Jews out, the Black Death goes away (obviously, that also would've happened if you *hadn't* thrown all the Jews out...).
Of course, if there don't happen to be any Jews around to use as a scapegoat, you can always blame witches! No, *not* a joke, an illustration! It doesn't matter one damn bit who you blame, just so long as you find *someone* to blame, as long as you can give the population someone to focus their anger on, you can mask the fact you have no idea how to actually improve the situation. In the 1930s nobody believed in witches any more, so the Jews where targeted. Btw, in the 1950s, just after the war, you couldn't exactly go after the Jews any more either, so McCarthyism went after the communists instead.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@devilnis:

Thank you for the corrections. I am aware that my knowledge of Islam is not perfect and/or complete. I try to do my best though!

|> Qur'an > Sunnat al Muhhamad > Fatwas

Those >'s are not arrows, they're greater-thans, showing how different bodies of rules "trump" (outrank?) each other, right? (If memory serves, fatwas are teachings from high-rankings imams?)

|> which is basically where the schism between Shi'a and Sunni began

The last time I heard anything about that was over ten years ago. From what I remember it had something to do with a bowl of soup traded for someone's "first-born rights"? Is that even vaguely related, or was I taught by someone who didn't know much about it himself?

Yes, those are greater-thans. Basically, if the answer to a moral quandry isn't found in The Qur'an, or in the Sunnah al Muhammad, then clerics (Mullahs, Imams) will issue a fatwa that constitutes a learned ruling on righteous behavior. The fatwas aren't nearly as universal as the Qur'an or the Sunnah - Some clerics have very localized followings and will issue Fatwa that are only accepted by perhaps the inhabitants of the local village, whereas the Grand Ayatollah of Iran can issue a fatwa that would be accepted by the vast majority of Shi'a muslims. The Sunni tend to be much more fragmented and provincial in their theological viewpoints, similar to the multitude of denominiations within the Protestant wing of Christianity - Shi'a have a more hierarchial system with generally the Grand Ayatollah on top, much like the pope of the Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

I haven't heard anything about a bowl of soup - Arabian tradition (and the Persian tradition that was quite intermingled with it by the time of Muhammad's death) was succession by acclaim, not necessarily by blood. In accordance with this, the companions of Muhammad (his generals, counselors, etc) began a power struggle after Muhammad died to see who would be the new spiritual leader of Islam. In the midst of this, a strong minority decided that only Allah could choose such a leader, and that lacking any other information the power should thus succeed by blood via patrilinear succession, and thus to Ali who I believe was Muhammad's grandson. By and large, the Shi'a lost this struggle but managed to maintain themselves as a sect of Islam. Later, the founder of the Umayyid dynasty of the Sunni (who would forge an empire that stretched from modern-day Pakistan to Spain) defeated and killed the leaders of the Shi'a sect in the battle of Karbala as part of the "second fitna" (a fitna being a religious civil war). This added strength to the Shi'ite cause because the people rallied together behind their dead martyrs.

The battle of Karbala is generally considered to be the definitive schism between Shi'a and Sunni - The enmity between the two major branches of Islam continues to this day in much fiercer form than the enmity between Catholic and Protestant. If you've ever heard of Ashura, that is one of the most holy holidays for the Shi'a where they mourn the death of the 3rd Caliph and the line of Muhammad. That's why it was such a big deal when Sunni radicals blew up one of the most holy mosques in the Shi'a tradition during Ashura when it was packed to the gills with Shi'a muslims mourning the slaying of their Caliph at Sunni hands. The group responsible for the attack (Lashkar-e-Jhangvi) is loosely associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which are Deobandi (essentially fundamentalist) Sunni organizations. And here you thought they just hated Americans :)

@RvW I believe that the story you have heard about over birthrights being traded for a bowl of soup is the story of Jacob and Esau, sons of Isaac. Esau was Isaac's favorite, and was to inherit his father's right to Israel. However, their mother Rebekah preferred Jacob over Esau. Esau first sold his birthright to Jacob over a bowl of soup, but later, as Isaac grew blind, their father decided to bestow Esau's birthright to him. Rebekah helped Jacob deceive the blind Isaac by wrapping his arms with goatskins so that they felt like Esau's arms and then clothed Jacob in his twin brother's clothes, and it worked.

I have no clue how the schism between Sunni and Shi'a Islam is related to this story, nor the Schism between the branches of Christianity or the three Abrahamic religions. How did you link the two topics together?

Scientology, bitches. End of debate. Holla!

Norris is a god fearing Christian, he is a baptist.

Go change your name to cruise.

@devilnis:
Thank you very much, that's a lot of information I hadn't heard before! Even if this thread is not going to convert anyone, it can still teach. :)

@i-like-swords:
|> How did you link the two topics together?

Probably by it having been (well over) ten years and my recollection not being perfect. Thank you for clearing that up (especially after devilnis's post I really started to wonder where "my version" of the story came from, since it seemed to have absolutely no relation to the correct version).

Chuck Norris might be a Biblethumper, but his beard is all kinds of crazy!

Lots to talk about :D
@gayprince
A-translation: Again as I said before, and which you seem not to have seen, there are various interpretations of what the Qura’an says. I don’t know an English translation that I think is good (this is because im Persian and I favor Persian translations if necessary) the biggest example for the difference in interpretations is when Muslims do woudhou before prayer (a sequence of washing some parts of the body e.g. put water on your face 3 times etc.). There is an aya’a in the Quran which describes this. Sunni’s interpret it as bringing water from the bottom of the hand to the top of the arm. Shia’s do it opposite. Both say the other is wrong.
B- Hell: Hell isn’t eternal. I mean for some people they will be in Hell until God says it is enough, yes there are some people who will be in Hell forever, but that’s for God to decide. Second of all Heaven isn’t only for Muslims. Jews, Christians, anyone with the right moral basis and right attitude God will allow in, I believe. As we muslims say: there are 2 angels on your shoulders at all times. One on the right which records all your good deeds and one on the left which records all your bad deeds. On the day of judgment God weighs to see which one is heavier.
C- Education: Sorry but I need clarification on what your point is here :\
D-misogyny: Men have to cover up too. Islam says women can study, work, and be the heads of families as much as men can. For example: any Islamic country (except Saudi Arabia, they are stupid , hope I don’t offend anyone there). The reason for the covering up of Women is to save their dignity and give them respect. Also it’s the women’s right to wear a hijab (what the clothing up is called) right? So why are hijabs not ALLOWED to wear in schools in European states such as France and Italy? Also studies have proved because of women covering up in muslim societies, the number of rape instances is reduced greatly.
E- If I found out my brother is gay… hmmm. Well I would probably try to bring him back to the right path. Because one of the pillars of islam in shiism is to advice people not to do bad things. That consists of anything from lieing to killing (I know that’s a bit extreme but yeah).
F- Of course you are entitled to your own opinion! Everybody is! And if you seriously do want to go to a muslim nation please choose an appropriate state such as Iran. Not Saudi Arabia (in my opinion they have the wrong views on everything e.g. they don’t allow women to drive all the day etc.) or Dubai. Dubai has nearly nil Islamic principle.
@Blue Galaxy
You say Jews are hated all across the world right? Not true. Muslims hate Zionists. Zionists are different from Jews.
Example? Here: http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Conditions
As you can read from the first article:
“But Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris and issued a ''fatwa'' decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. Similar edicts also protect Iran's tiny Christian minority.”
So no, your point is a bit off.
Information given by devilnis was also wrong on many decrees. But I don’t have time to say what was wrong and will do it as soon as possible
Good day.
Reza

|> im Persian

Ehm, don't you mean Iranian?

|> On the day of judgment God weighs to see which one is heavier.

Let's take the "good Angel" to McDonalds a couple times then. ;)

|> So why are hijabs not ALLOWED to wear in schools in European states such as France and Italy?

Are hijabs (sorry, that word doesn't sound familiar) just a headscarf, or a full burkha? The reason the Netherlands doesn't like burkhas is because it conflicts with our norms and expectation (being able to see someone's face is considered a good thing).

|> Also studies have proved because of women covering up in muslim societies, the number of rape instances is reduced greatly.

Even if the statistics show there's less rape in muslim societies, that still does not mean hijabs are the cause. (Note: correlation is not the same as causality!) Other possible reasons (which also correlate with muslim society) are making it punishable by the death penalty (if memory serves) and an unwillingness for women to report when it does happen (no idea how it really works, but the Western view is that women will generally not be believed / punished themselves because they probably "brought it upon themselves").

(Sorry, got to go *now*, will reply to point E and further later on!)