Does the Koran Sanction Violence?

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:48 am

spot wrote: Thank you for the definition. You make my point for me quite well. Is the Jesus we're discussing the Son of God spoken of in the New Testament who was crucified? Then he isn't onmiscient, he's a man - or are you one of these strange heretics who says he was merely God taking a semblance of man and pretending? No man is omniscient, it's against the nature of man to possess such an attribute. Or are we discussing Jesus the Son of God who sits at the right hand of the Father for eternity? In what way is this aspect of the Trinity related to the man who was crucified, if he now differs in his abilities? Of course the man on the cross didn't know all languages, it's not an ability any man possesses. Whether omniscience is an aspect of God himself is a different question and not one I have an answer to. I'd be very unhappy to encounter any God so self-complete.

There is only one God - that we can, perhaps, describe as an accurate statement from within both of the religions under discussion?

Islam has one understanding of this single existent God, Christianity has a different understanding of the same existent God, each is based on a different scriptural revelation. I see no reason other than faith to insist that one revelation is true and right and the other false and wrong. I see no ground to prefer one description over the other save a personal ethical evaluation. The interpretation of God established by the Koran is rather more attractive to me than that established by the Bible, but being fallible I'm aware that my assessment needn't bind others. Each adherent will, at best, take whatever he can benefit by from his association with religion. Perhaps both Koran and Bible can be said to sanction violence if you filter small enough fragments from each. Perhaps to focus so closely on a small part of either is to insult the whole.
Remarkable theology. I hope you did not come to convince me. Thank you for the effort.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:50 am

Atsila wrote: Remarkable theology. I hope you did not come to convince me. Thank you for the effort.

No I believe he was addressing reasonable people so that would not be you..

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:56 am

spot wrote: Wow. To what subset of Christianity do you adhere, which excludes catholics from the Church?

A proportion of Muslims live a godly life within their faith. A proportion of Christians live a godly life within their faith. I would hesitate to compare or even estimate the proportions but I feel the statements are true. What just God would refuse them whatever reward he offers? A similarly unstated proportion of each live ungodly lives. How can you use their faith as a yardstick to distinguish any of these sets?
The subset called purity of gospel and how this purity is necessary for salvation, which I believe you to disdain. God knows those that belong to HIM and that would include catholics.

Christ is the ONLY way to the Father, no man goes to the Father except through Christ, regardless of what godly life is lived. Catholics and muslims are identical in that they are taught that works will get them there. No one goes to the Father...............Christ is the criterion for all.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:01 am

Atsila wrote: The subset called purity of gospel and how this purity is necessary for salvation, which I believe you to disdain. God knows those that belong to HIM and that would include catholics.

Christ is the ONLY way to the Father, no man goes to the Father except through Christ, regardless of what godly life is lived. Catholics and muslims are identical in that they are taught that works will get them there. No one goes to the Father...............Christ is the criterion for all.

and how do you know Jesus did not mean this simply in the sense that he was first to return to the Father in time?

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:51 am

zinkyusa wrote: No I believe he was addressing reasonable people so that would not be you..
Would it be reasonable to suggest that YOU put your pants on one leg at a time and drop them during private moments?

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:52 am

zinkyusa wrote: and how do you know Jesus did not mean this simply in the sense that he was first to return to the Father in time?
And on what do you base your estimation that you know what you are talking about? That's not a question.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:52 am

Atsila wrote: Remarkable theology. I hope you did not come to convince me. Thank you for the effort.No doubt you have that faith which moves mountains - a perfectly valid use of faith. Why it should also demand that you regard yourself possessed of the sole truth, and that all other truths are wayward lies, I'm not sure. If the commonplace beliefs of rigid exclusivist Christians were any reflection of the mind of God then he'd be the very devil of a deity.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:59 am

spot wrote: No doubt you have that faith which moves mountains - a perfectly valid use of faith. Why it should also demand that you regard yourself possessed of the sole truth, and that all other truths are wayward lies, I'm not sure. If the commonplace beliefs of rigid exclusivist Christians were any reflection of the mind of God then he'd be the very devil of a deity.

Good post spot. It's kind of hard to have a discussion with a closed mind.:-5

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:07 am

spot wrote: No doubt you have that faith which moves mountains - a perfectly valid use of faith. Why it should also demand that you regard yourself possessed of the sole truth, and that all other truths are wayward lies, I'm not sure. If the commonplace beliefs of rigid exclusivist Christians were any reflection of the mind of God then he'd be the very devil of a deity.
Possessed is an interesting application. The mind of God is knowable through HIS word......I am the LORD, I change not." Malachi 3:6 It's about as rigid and commonplace as it gets. The Christian knows the Father is dependable in all matters and does not vaccillate all over the spectrum of possibilities. Humans are experts in this, HE is not. HE says read out of scripture, they say read into them. Your analogy is flawed by the concept that God changes from 'it is written'.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:26 am

Atsila wrote: Possessed is an interesting application. The mind of God is knowable through HIS word......I am the LORD, I change not." Malachi 3:6 It's about as rigid and commonplace as it gets. The Christian knows the Father is dependable in all matters and does not vaccillate all over the spectrum of possibilities. Humans are experts in this, HE is not. HE says read out of scripture, they say read into them. Your analogy is flawed by the concept that God changes from 'it is written'.This is a reasonable interpretation of how to apply the word of God to oneself within the Christian community. Those who extrapolate biblical teaching to invalidate all other religious experience, and to deny any meaningful access between God and his creation other than that mediated by Christian teaching, have taken a view on the purpose of an assortment of texts but particularly John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". That exclusionist principle is enough, if it's insisted on, to devalue Christianity to the point of impotence, and if we need an alternative religion to oust such absolutism from the world then I'll stand against the confrontational literalists in favour of dialogue and mutual understanding. Living the Christian life is admirable. Using texts to hound practitioners of other faiths, or to denigrate others who would call themselves Christians without sharing your interpretation, is abusive. English universities are crawling with evangelical doorsteppers these days, they're an embarrassment to everything the church stands for. It would seem that online forums aren't immune either, but at least here we can get a word in edgeways while being exposed to the nastiness.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:48 am

Atsila wrote: And on what do you base your estimation that you know what you are talking about? That's not a question.

What makes you think that mindlessly spouting quotes from the bible means you know what you are talking about?

Your little book is an old fairy tell written by people who could'nt explain their world scientifically. It was used by priests and other egos to control people by threatening them with damnation and hell fire if they didn't do this and thus...exactly like you are trying to do.

Everything you have spouted off is just an interpretation. You have not proved that the bible is the word of God becuase you can't.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:40 am

spot wrote: This is a reasonable interpretation of how to apply the word of God to oneself within the Christian community. Those who extrapolate biblical teaching to invalidate all other religious experience, and to deny any meaningful access between God and his creation other than that mediated by Christian teaching, have taken a view on the purpose of an assortment of texts but particularly John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". That exclusionist principle is enough, if it's insisted on, to devalue Christianity to the point of impotence, and if we need an alternative religion to oust such absolutism from the world then I'll stand against the confrontational literalists in favour of dialogue and mutual understanding. Living the Christian life is admirable. Using texts to hound practitioners of other faiths, or to denigrate others who would call themselves Christians without sharing your interpretation, is abusive. English universities are crawling with evangelical doorsteppers these days, they're an embarrassment to everything the church stands for. It would seem that online forums aren't immune either, but at least here we can get a word in edgeways while being exposed to the nastiness.
Finally! The church! I wondered what uses you as medium. Abusive now becomes self-abuse, flagellation of the unconsecrated psyche that accuses of hounding and is the master of the practice.

Impotent is the pursuer of the unnatural persuaded by his very own unnatural appetites, which lay outside the manual.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:50 am

zinkyusa wrote: What makes you think that mindlessly spouting quotes from the bible means you know what you are talking about?

Your little book is an old fairy tell written by people who could'nt explain their world scientifically. It was used by priests and other egos to control people by threatening them with damnation and hell fire if they didn't do this and thus...exactly like you are trying to do.

Everything you have spouted off is just an interpretation. You have not proved that the bible is the word of God becuase you can't.
You are confused and therefore unable to ascertain the difference between scipture and the pagan institutions that claim it as a foundation. Don't you agree you are wasteful of limited intellect, or do you like cherry pie?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:54 am

Atsila wrote: You are confused and therefore unable to ascertain the difference between scipture and the pagan institutions that claim it as a foundation. Don't you agree you are wasteful of limited intellect, or do you like cherry pie?

Your resorting to personal attacks would indicate that you have exhausted your limited ability to argue. Do carry on.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:17 am

Atsila wrote: Finally! The church! I wondered what uses you as medium. Abusive now becomes self-abuse, flagellation of the unconsecrated psyche that accuses of hounding and is the master of the practice.

Impotent is the pursuer of the unnatural persuaded by his very own unnatural appetites, which lay outside the manual. :DWhat uses me as a medium? Definitely not the church since I've been uninvolved with any congregation for some years. Perhaps Satan has me in his hot sweaty clutches, who can tell. I don't feel clutched by Satan, admittedly, but I'm sure you're a far better judge than I - you can, after all, tell that I pursue the unnatural. The idea that I've mastered of the practice of hounding is praise indeed, though I suspect you of exaggeration in that regard since I've chased nobody for quite a while.

I do hope you hang around longer then the average absolutist, they flit so readily to newer pastures that it's difficult to adequately explore their desires or motivations. You're prime fertilizer for developing a fruitful harvest of ideas on how to deprogram obsessive believers.

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:16 pm

spot wrote: What uses me as a medium? Definitely not the church since I've been uninvolved with any congregation for some years. Perhaps Satan has me in his hot sweaty clutches, who can tell. I don't feel clutched by Satan, admittedly, but I'm sure you're a far better judge than I - you can, after all, tell that I pursue the unnatural. The idea that I've mastered of the practice of hounding is praise indeed, though I suspect you of exaggeration in that regard since I've chased nobody for quite a while.

I do hope you hang around longer then the average absolutist, they flit so readily to newer pastures that it's difficult to adequately explore their desires or motivations. You're prime fertilizer for developing a fruitful harvest of ideas on how to deprogram obsessive believers.
Your energies are better spent in pursuit of your perceptions of the rational, oblivion dogging the unmindful and chasms unbreachable by lots housing the moribund without semblance or restraint of uncommon motivations. Absolutely rare is the absolutist that is absolutely absolute. Obsolete should be those who are persuaded to neglect links that ensure mastery. Simply put!

Atsila · Post by **Atsila** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:18 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Your resorting to personal attacks would indicate that you have exhausted your limited ability to argue. Do carry on.
I finish what others start........well, occasionally. Consider yourself honored. Mostly I ignore the maturity challenged.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:24 pm

Atsila wrote: I finish what others start........well, occasionally. Consider yourself honored. Mostly I ignore the maturity challenged.

i suppose that means you dont bother talking to yourself as well.........

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:44 pm

Atsila wrote: I gather Newman to be subject to the rules of his affiliation, which were established by the very same. Newman, being catholic, is not subject to biblical commandments, but those of sacred tradition which is entirely non-scriptural. I believe they are very happy with their system and have promoted it for a number of centuries. His dilemma is moral, intellectual, and most certainly spiritual.

OK?

Christians, on the other hand, have no scriptural authority to lie........under any circumstances. Muslims have the authority from their prophet, who speaks for their god, making both liars.

So Catholics are not Christians! That's rather an extreme stance to take isn't it?

If I might remind you, John Henry Newman was a staunch anti-Catholic when he formed his moral, intellectual and spiritual standpoint - it was applying those values that caused him to convert.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:49 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Hey Spot, not to change the subject but I was wondering what your view is on abrogation as regards the Qur'an, seems to be a hot topic among Muslim scholars. Extremists like to use it to say the tolerant messages are over-ruled by the violent one becuase they came later in time. They say there are passages in the Qur'an that imply abrogation (I have not found these yet).

If they are I think the Qur'an was altered by someone I just can believe that is part of the original message. Since it took some time after Mohammeds death before the verses were written down there was ample opportunity for tampering and editing..

I cannot answer for Spot but I would have thought the opposite would be true.

As you imply, the earlier the verse the closer it would be to the message of the Prophet whilst the latter verses are interpretations of lesser teachers.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:52 pm

Atsila wrote: Remarkable theology. I hope you did not come to convince me. Thank you for the effort.

And your alternative interpretation is?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:57 pm

Atsila wrote: Finally! The church! I wondered what uses you as medium. Abusive now becomes self-abuse, flagellation of the unconsecrated psyche that accuses of hounding and is the master of the practice.

Impotent is the pursuer of the unnatural persuaded by his very own unnatural appetites, which lay outside the manual.

Is this English? I recognise the words but the way that they are put together conveys no meaning!

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:18 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: I cannot answer for Spot but I would have thought the opposite would be true.

As you imply, the earlier the verse the closer it would be to the message of the Prophet whilst the latter verses are interpretations of lesser teachers.The origin of abrogation, a word for revising or deleting verses from the Koran and the Hadiths, stems from contemporary reflections on such deletions. Abrogation was designed to account for the facts, though some might say that they were backdated precedents for what was subsequently done. If you look up "Satanic Verses" you'll find the prime and probably apocryphal instance, but there are other realer ones.

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:25 pm

Atsila wrote: There is little need to interpret the koran. It says what it says and is taken literally by people who have been its hostages and kept in the seventh century by its teachings.

The Bible is subject to understanding and that cannot be achieved unless it is studied in depth. Without such study, it most certainly may be used to further any and all activities.

A good understanding of the bible and a reading the koran, will show that the latter has heavily plagiarized the former. Mahomet also included all extant mytholigies of his time. He was illiterate, and certainly influenced by the peoples he conquered, Jewish wives, Jewish scribes, etc. Looking at him through modern medial knowledge and the extraordinary information about him available, it would seem he suffered with temporal lobe epilepsy, which manifests in the behavior he displayed.

Thats what I like a good medical diagnosis (he was a nutter.)

acousticide · Post by **acousticide** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:06 pm

Despite the Muslims calling themselves the religion of peace, here are 2 passages typical of the HUNDREDS like it.

Koran 17:16-17

When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants

Here Allah, the God of the Muslims is clearly stating the exact method that he adopts when he commits genocide of an entire POPULATION. And why does Allah decide to destroy entire populations? Simply because they don't believe in Allah and so Allah will kill them all, to take revenge. Next Allah is indulging in an unbelievable display of conceit. He is actually BOASTING about how many generations he has destroyed after Noah. If Allah had a list of his merits, no doubt genocide of numerous generations of people would top his list. Allah enjoys watching the annhilation of thousands of Non-Muslims at the hands of his pious followers, the Muslims.

Koran 8:37

In order that Allah may seperate the impure from the pure, Put All the impure ones (Non-Muslim), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost

The "All-Merciful Allah" is now specifically instructing all "peace-loving Muslims" to heap up a mountain of corpses of the non believers. Of course, in order to do this holy task for Allah, the Muslim must first go out and attack innocent Non-Muslims and massacre them so that Allah's wishes are fulfilled. Allah seems to have an inexhaustible thirst for the blood of innocents. Note that the reason given to massacre non-believers is that "Allah may seperate the Impure from the Pure". It has nothing to do with self-defense or protection as Muslims try to argue. The explicit purpose for this heinous crime is so that Allah can easily differentiate between the Muslims and Non-Muslims. This way it becomes a lot easier for Allah and his angelic helpers to dump the heaps of murdered Non-Muslims into Hellfire.

Religion of peace?????

Yeah, when only muslims are left, then they can fight between the Shi'ites and Suni's.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:44 pm

Diuretic...may I buy you a drink?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:29 am

I admire your thinking. What's a little squeeze between admiring friends?

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:20 pm

acousticide;505865 wrote: Despite the Muslims calling themselves the religion of peace, here are 2 passages typical of the HUNDREDS like it.

Koran 17:16-17

When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants

Here Allah, the God of the Muslims is clearly stating the exact method that he adopts when he commits genocide of an entire POPULATION. And why does Allah decide to destroy entire populations? Simply because they don't believe in Allah and so Allah will kill them all, to take revenge. Next Allah is indulging in an unbelievable display of conceit. He is actually BOASTING about how many generations he has destroyed after Noah. If Allah had a list of his merits, no doubt genocide of numerous generations of people would top his list. Allah enjoys watching the annhilation of thousands of Non-Muslims at the hands of his pious followers, the Muslims.

Koran 8:37

In order that Allah may seperate the impure from the pure, Put All the impure ones (Non-Muslim), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost

The "All-Merciful Allah" is now specifically instructing all "peace-loving Muslims" to heap up a mountain of corpses of the non believers. Of course, in order to do this holy task for Allah, the Muslim must first go out and attack innocent Non-Muslims and massacre them so that Allah's wishes are fulfilled. Allah seems to have an inexhaustible thirst for the blood of innocents. Note that the reason given to massacre non-believers is that "Allah may seperate the Impure from the Pure". It has nothing to do with self-defense or protection as Muslims try to argue. The explicit purpose for this heinous crime is so that Allah can easily differentiate between the Muslims and Non-Muslims. This way it becomes a lot easier for Allah and his angelic helpers to dump the heaps of murdered Non-Muslims into Hellfire.

Religion of peace?????

Yeah, when only muslims are left, then they can fight between the Shi'ites and Suni's.
Mohadid was an obnoxious s h i t who was thrown out of his own village his views have nothing to do with any God they are entirely his own.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:45 pm

El's Holy Qur'aan 2 ; 190 - 196 = Fighting In Self Defense !

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:21 pm

Final Call, News Report, Dahr Jamail, Posted: Jun 23, 2008

SEATTLE - Dozens of veterans from the U.S. occupation of Iraq converged in Seattle over the weekend to share stories of the atrocities being committed daily in Iraq.

The gathering was a continuation of the â€œWinter Soldierâ€ hearings held in Silver Spring, Md., in March.

At the Seattle Town Hall, some 800 people gathered to hear the testimonies of veterans from Iraq. The event was sponsored by the Northwest Regional Iraq Veterans Against the War and endorsed by dozens of local and regional anti-war groups such as Veterans for Peace and Students for a Democratic Society.

â€œI watched Iraqi police bring in someone to interrogate,â€ said Seth Manzel, a vehicle commander and machine gunner in the U.S. Army, addressing the audience. â€œThere were four men on the prisoner ... one was pummeling his kidneys with his fists, another was inserting a bottle up his rectum. It looked like a frat-house gang rape.â€

Mr. Manzel joined the army after Sept. 11 for economic reasonsâ€”heâ€™d just been laid off, and his wife had just had a baby. Mr. Manzel told another story of the military medics he was with in Tal Afar who refused to treat an elderly man in their detention center. Mr. Manzel described the old man as being jaundiced and lying on the ground, writhing in pain.

â€œThe medics said the old man was just being lazy and they were not authorized to treat detainees,â€ Mr. Manzel said.

Jan Critchfield worked as an army journalist while attached to the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad during 2004. â€œI was with a unit that shot at a man and wife near a checkpoint,â€ Mr. Critchfield said, â€œShe had been shot through her shinbone, and that was the first story I covered in Iraq.â€

Mr. Critchfield told the audience that his unspoken job in Iraq was to â€œcounter the liberal media biasâ€ about the occupation.

â€œOur target audience was in the U.S., and the emphasis was reporting on humanitarian aid missions the military conducted,â€ Mr. Critchfield said. â€œI donâ€™t know how many stories I reported on â€˜chicken dropsâ€™ (distributing frozen chickens in a community). I donâ€™t know what else you can call that, other than propaganda. I would find the highest ranking person I could get and quote them verbatim without fact-checking anything they said.â€

Other veterans told of lax rules of engagement that led to the slaughter of innocent civilians in Iraq.

â€œWe were told weâ€™d be deploying to Iraq and that we needed to get ready to have little kids and women shoot at us,â€ said Sergio Kochergin, a former Marine who served two deployments in Iraq. â€œIt was an attempt to portray Iraqis as animals. We were supposed to do humanitarian work, but all we did was harass people (and) drive like crazy on the streets, pretending it was our city and we could do whatever we wanted to do.â€

As the other veterans on the panel nodded in agreement, Mr. Kochergin continued, â€œWe were constantly told, â€˜Everybody there wants to kill you, everybody wants to get you.â€™ In the military, we had racism within every rank and it was ridiculous. It seemed like a joke, but that joke turned into destroying peoplesâ€™ lives in Iraq.â€

â€œI was in Husaiba with a sniper platoon right on the Syrian border and we would basically go out on the town and search for people to shoot,â€ Mr. Kochergin said. â€œThe rules of engagement got more lenient the longer we were there. So if anyone had a bag and a shovel, we were to shoot them. We were allowed to take our shots at anything that looked suspicious. And at that point in time, everything looked suspicious.â€

Mr. Kochergin added, â€œLater on, we had no (rules of engagement) at all. If you see something that doesnâ€™t seem right, take them out.â€ He concluded by saying, â€œEnough is enough, itâ€™s time to get out of there.â€

Doug Connor was a first lieutenant in the army and worked as a surgical nurse in Iraq. While there he worked as part of a combat support unit, and said most of the patients he treated were Iraqi civilians.

â€œThere were so many people that needed treatment we couldnâ€™t take all of them,â€ he said. â€œWhen a bombing happened and 45 patients were brought to us, it was always Americans treated first, then Kurds, then the Arabs.â€

Mr. Connor added quietly, â€œIt got to the point where we started calling the Iraqi patients â€œ â€˜range ballsâ€™ because, just like on the driving range (in golf), you donâ€™t care about losing them.â€

Channan Suarez Diaz was a navy hospital corpsman who returned from Iraq with a Purple Heart, among other medals. He served in Ramadi from September 2004 to February 2005 with a weapons company. He is now the Seattle Chapter president of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

â€œOur commanding officer wanted us to go through a route that another platoon did and was completely wiped out in an ambush,â€ Mr. Diaz said. â€œWe refused. They canceled that mission and we didnâ€™t go. I donâ€™t think these are isolated incidents. I think this is happening every day in Iraq. The military doesnâ€™t want you to know about this, because itâ€™s kind of like lighting a fire in a prairie.â€

Related Articles:

U.S. Military Accepts More Ex-Felons

Winter Soldiers Tell Tales of Dehumanization

The Iraq Winter Soldier Hearings: A Cry in Silence?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:07 pm

Daniyal;908590 wrote: El's Holy Qur'aan 2 ; 190 - 196 = Fighting In Self Defense !
And what does that passage say, Daniyal? Why would anyone go and look it up if you can't be bothered to quote it for us?

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:48 am

El's Holy Qur'aan 4 ; 92 - 100 = Don't kill another faithful one .

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:27 am

Daniyal;908599 wrote: Final Call, News Report, Dahr Jamail, Posted: Jun 23, 2008

SEATTLE - Dozens of veterans from the U.S. occupation of Iraq converged in Seattle over the weekend to share stories of the atrocities being committed daily in Iraq.

The gathering was a continuation of the â€œWinter Soldierâ€ hearings held in Silver Spring, Md., in March.

At the Seattle Town Hall, some 800 people gathered to hear the testimonies of veterans from Iraq. The event was sponsored by the Northwest Regional Iraq Veterans Against the War and endorsed by dozens of local and regional anti-war groups such as Veterans for Peace and Students for a Democratic Society.

â€œI watched Iraqi police bring in someone to interrogate,â€ said Seth Manzel, a vehicle commander and machine gunner in the U.S. Army, addressing the audience. â€œThere were four men on the prisoner ... one was pummeling his kidneys with his fists, another was inserting a bottle up his rectum. It looked like a frat-house gang rape.â€

Mr. Manzel joined the army after Sept. 11 for economic reasonsâ€”heâ€™d just been laid off, and his wife had just had a baby. Mr. Manzel told another story of the military medics he was with in Tal Afar who refused to treat an elderly man in their detention center. Mr. Manzel described the old man as being jaundiced and lying on the ground, writhing in pain.

â€œThe medics said the old man was just being lazy and they were not authorized to treat detainees,â€ Mr. Manzel said.

Jan Critchfield worked as an army journalist while attached to the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad during 2004. â€œI was with a unit that shot at a man and wife near a checkpoint,â€ Mr. Critchfield said, â€œShe had been shot through her shinbone, and that was the first story I covered in Iraq.â€

Mr. Critchfield told the audience that his unspoken job in Iraq was to â€œcounter the liberal media biasâ€ about the occupation.

â€œOur target audience was in the U.S., and the emphasis was reporting on humanitarian aid missions the military conducted,â€ Mr. Critchfield said. â€œI donâ€™t know how many stories I reported on â€˜chicken dropsâ€™ (distributing frozen chickens in a community). I donâ€™t know what else you can call that, other than propaganda. I would find the highest ranking person I could get and quote them verbatim without fact-checking anything they said.â€

Other veterans told of lax rules of engagement that led to the slaughter of innocent civilians in Iraq.

â€œWe were told weâ€™d be deploying to Iraq and that we needed to get ready to have little kids and women shoot at us,â€ said Sergio Kochergin, a former Marine who served two deployments in Iraq. â€œIt was an attempt to portray Iraqis as animals. We were supposed to do humanitarian work, but all we did was harass people (and) drive like crazy on the streets, pretending it was our city and we could do whatever we wanted to do.â€

As the other veterans on the panel nodded in agreement, Mr. Kochergin continued, â€œWe were constantly told, â€˜Everybody there wants to kill you, everybody wants to get you.â€™ In the military, we had racism within every rank and it was ridiculous. It seemed like a joke, but that joke turned into destroying peoplesâ€™ lives in Iraq.â€

â€œI was in Husaiba with a sniper platoon right on the Syrian border and we would basically go out on the town and search for people to shoot,â€ Mr. Kochergin said. â€œThe rules of engagement got more lenient the longer we were there. So if anyone had a bag and a shovel, we were to shoot them. We were allowed to take our shots at anything that looked suspicious. And at that point in time, everything looked suspicious.â€

Mr. Kochergin added, â€œLater on, we had no (rules of engagement) at all. If you see something that doesnâ€™t seem right, take them out.â€ He concluded by saying, â€œEnough is enough, itâ€™s time to get out of there.â€

Doug Connor was a first lieutenant in the army and worked as a surgical nurse in Iraq. While there he worked as part of a combat support unit, and said most of the patients he treated were Iraqi civilians.

â€œThere were so many people that needed treatment we couldnâ€™t take all of them,â€ he said. â€œWhen a bombing happened and 45 patients were brought to us, it was always Americans treated first, then Kurds, then the Arabs.â€

Mr. Connor added quietly, â€œIt got to the point where we started calling the Iraqi patients â€œ â€˜range ballsâ€™ because, just like on the driving range (in golf), you donâ€™t care about losing them.â€

Channan Suarez Diaz was a navy hospital corpsman who returned from Iraq with a Purple Heart, among other medals. He served in Ramadi from September 2004 to February 2005 with a weapons company. He is now the Seattle Chapter president of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

â€œOur commanding officer wanted us to go through a route that another platoon did and was completely wiped out in an ambush,â€ Mr. Diaz said. â€œWe refused. They canceled that mission and we didnâ€™t go. I donâ€™t think these are isolated incidents. I think this is happening every day in Iraq. The military doesnâ€™t want you to know about this, because itâ€™s kind of like lighting a fire in a prairie.â€

Related Articles:

U.S. Military Accepts More Ex-Felons

Winter Soldiers Tell Tales of Dehumanization

The Iraq Winter Soldier Hearings: A Cry in Silence?

This sounds like anti war propogander to me. Every soldier hates war after all he is in the front line to die, but these soldiers are attending a meeting which is basically anti war they represent a handfull of soldiers who have found themselves in the wrong proffesion.

In countries like Iraq and Afganistan children do shoot at soldiers this is not a perfect world and a bullet from a gun fired by a ten year old will kill as surely as a bullet fired by a green berate.

Muslims seem to want to die for Allah normal people do not strap explosive to themselves a walk in to a cafe and blow themselves up.

The Iraqi police were treating the prisoners as they have always treated them if you don't like that shoot the police along with every one else, they are behaving as they have for thousands of years.

You and I may well feel that a man who would kill his niehbour for drinking water from his well, is an animal but this is normal in that part of the world.

The Iraq war has no legality because it was based on a lie but what is happening happened under Saddam.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:36 am

twizzel;909159 wrote: This sounds like anti war propogander to me. Every soldier hates war after all he is in the front line to die, but these soldiers are attending a meeting which is basically anti war they represent a handfull of soldiers who have found themselves in the wrong proffesion.

In countries like Iraq and Afganistan children do shoot at soldiers this is not a perfect world and a bullet from a gun fired by a ten year old will kill as surely as a bullet fired by a green berate.

Muslims seem to want to die for Allah normal people do not strap explosive to themselves a walk in to a cafe and blow themselves up.

The Iraqi police were treating the prisoners as they have always treated them if you don't like that shoot the police along with every one else, they are behaving as they have for thousands of years.

You and I may well feel that a man who would kill his niehbour for drinking water from his well, is an animal but this is normal in that part of the world.

The Iraq war has no legality because it was based on a lie but what is happening happened under Saddam.

LOLOLOLOLOL Whenever some one speak the truth is Anti - This Or That , Truth Always Hurst When One Rather Live LIE . What about about the 100,000's Iraq's die and still die For that LIE . Not dis-missing our men and woman . dieing for nothing. And they 're about to start another one . Now who Anti-War . Guess you would call it Democracy right . .... Maybe someone should come and mess your house up , And then tell you to clean it up . Bet you see things diffrent then wouldn't you , Then you'll be asking that question Why Do They Hate Us .

Philandthrop · Post by **Philandthrop** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:05 pm

The answer to this question is a resounding "YES".

The Koran does sanction violence against all unbelievers who resist Mohammed and refuse to allow him to humiliate them. The basic two ideas in Islam are dualism (two codes of ethics, as well as two of almost everything) and idea of submission. No one is as submitted as a slave and the master/slave subtext informs all of Islam from top to bottom.

Modern scholarship has revealed the Koran to be a "lectionary" or collection of pieces of sermons and writings of a mysterious Arabian tribal, warrior chieftan. His vicious sermons motivated his followers to raid, attack, kill, plunder, enslave and rape anyone who disagreed with him. His title as Messianic tribal leader was "The Praised One" (mohammed). The Koran is a hodge-podge of texts thrown together out of chronological order, without normal rules of good grammar or good writing, flitting suddenly to new topics, and obviously very poorly edited.

We are asked to believe this poor, haphazard collection of hate diatribes directed equally at Jews, Christians and polytheists, is a great work of art.

It is a lot of incoherent ranting: 61% of the Koran repeats the argument that anyone who disagrees with Mohammed will be violently treated.

The somewhat "gentle" verses of the Koran regarding unbelievers were all written in the prepolitical "Meccan" period. All classical Islamic scholars say these verses were all annulled, surpassed and abrogated by the later political verses composed in the "Medina" period.

Islam divides all humanity into two groups with two codes of ethics for the treatment of each group. "Jihad" is the permanent holy war which Allah commands 164 times in the Koran against the disgusting, subhuman beings that Allah despises. Killing them is never a crime, but occasionally it may be a mere misdemeanor.

Traditionally, Moslems are expected to go on jihad expeditions at least once a year or at most every two years. These are organized military expeditions to force the unbelievers to submit politically to Islamic overlordship, to plunder them, enslave them and force them to convert to Islam. This same process of jihad is going on in Sudan in the year 2008.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:51 pm

As-salaamu alaykum.

You seem very hurt, Philandthrop. Is there some way in which we can help you, or are you just going around the Internet educating as many people as possible with your knowledge?

Philandthrop · Post by **Philandthrop** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:07 pm

You are very kind to offer psychological assistance.

Before accepting your offer, would you please state your credentials...

...in other words:

1) who is "We" (...a therapeutic team? or one person?)

2) is education using factual information wrong in some way, or

3) do you believe that opinions (feelings) are more important than empirical knowledge?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:15 pm

Philandthrop;1027611 wrote: You are very kind to offer psychological assistance.

Before accepting your offer, would you please state your credentials...

...in other words:

1) who is "We" (...a therapeutic team? or one person?)

2) is education using factual information wrong in some way, or

3) do you believe that opinions (feelings) are more important than empirical knowledge?

I wouldn't dream of offering psychological anything. Your hurt is visible to anyone, there's no insight involved in that. "Is there some way in which we can help you" is a reference to the members of the site you just joined and started educating. I take no issue with the facts you've presented since I assume you can back them all up - I treat them as incontestable. The only relevant fact you've left out so far is that the Koran is the revealed word of God, something the Koran itself makes quite clear.

Opinions with no factual basis are, of course, worthless. Testable observation is the bedrock of all useful interpretation.

Philandthrop · Post by **Philandthrop** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:04 pm

"Opinions with no factual basis are, of course, worthless. Testable observation is the bedrock of all useful interpretation."

Dear Spot,

You are obviously a retired academic.

I had no intention of invading a cosy chat with facts, but the question was not answered, so I answered it to the best of my knowledge and as briefly as possible. Proving anything vis-Ã -vis Islam is laborious, because of its frequent dualisms. One must prove which of the dualisms is operative and which is "the slave". I believe the double-speak is an inherent and intentional part of Islam. This is known to the Islamic scholars and jihad strategists. "Jihad is deception."

As far as the question of the Koran being the word of God (or not), that is another topic, deserving its own separate treatment.

Basically, the Koran is the word of God because Mohammed said so and if you disagree with Mohammed, you should be violently treated. (The fallacy of the appeal to motives in place of a rational argument.) The Koran is thus adduced to be the word of God by successful acts of Islamic violence committed against the kufaar. The more the armies advanced into Africa, Asia and Europe, the more Moslems believed in Islam and its invincibility. When Genghis Khan replied even more viciously and the European kingdoms united to counterattack, the First Great Jihad ended and the Moslems experienced period of uncertainty.

In the last 150 years, a revival of classic Islam took place, laying the doctrinal foundation of the present jihad.

We are now in the period of the Third Great Jihad, which began in Iran in the 1980's. 9/11 was its greatest achievement, second only to the slogan "Islam is peace". The successful attacks on civilians in New York, London, Madrid and the attack upon the military headquarters of the world were widely approved by Moslems, though support world-wide is falling, less so in Pakistan. Because so many conspirators have been detained and interdicted, jihad is falling on hard times for the moment, but it will return, and return, until the foundational doctrines of Islam are widely seen to be the specious fabrications of the first four caliphs.

Britain and Europe were softened up to see the German cultists of the day as just a bunch of ****-eyed idealists. No one had bother reading "Mein Kampf". Today, many people just assume the Wahhabist, Qutbist, Talibanist group is unrepresentative of real Islam, when it is actually pure classical Islam with cel phones. Sufism introduced a maudlin, sentimental element (innovation or bid'a is a capital crime in Islam) into Islam. Most Moslems only parrot what their scholars say and ask few questions. They are afraid of being accused of being murtad (apostate) and dragged before the Islamic court. They do not look into textual criticism or learn about other faiths. They are warriors in one way or another. Some warriors need to be forced or conscripted to actually fight.

The war most Moslems wage today is a verbal jihad, to confuse and disinform about Islam. I have encountered new-age, postmodern Moslems, too. They are just as confused about Islam as other postmoderns are confused about just about everything.

The universal postmodern response to facts or erudition is: "Whatever. Why should that be true?"

I believe the West is like the Titanic. The Third Great Jihad is the iceberg. We can still do something about it.

Put another way, Hitler has just invaded Czechoslovakia. Shall we wait until he invades Poland?

By the way, a genocidal jihad is under way in the Sudan and Islamic countries are not stopping it.

This year verbal jihad successfully limited your right to criticize any aspect of Islam at the UN. The people in Moslem countries are the biggest losers. No one can defend them against their own governments. It is illegal to slander Islam.

I don't think you have any reason to be calm about that. First the media, then the intellectuals, then the leaders, then everyone else.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:43 pm

Philandthrop;1027659 wrote: As far as the question of the Koran being the word of God (or not), that is another topic, deserving its own separate treatment. There, I fear, I must challenge your judgement. It's obviously central. The Koran being the revealed word of God, something the Koran itself makes quite clear, indicates that all of these facts you've uncovered about the Koran are God's will. I don't dispute a word of your very carefully researched observations about Islam, I'm sure your analysis is entirely sound since you assure me that it is. To the extent that what you've uncovered is an accurate exposition of the Koran it's thereby an accurate exposition of God's will. I congratulate you on your perseverance. Your most recent facts seem rather less associated with the Koran than your earlier ones in this thread but I'm prepared to accept them as accurate, as distinct to being just your own interpretation, despite their non-Koranic provenance. Perhaps you came to these conclusions on the basis of your worthy Koranic analysis and they therefore carry the same imprimatur as the earlier set. However they're derived, they seem unimpeachably sound arguments entirely in line with what you've discovered from the Koran itself.

Opinions with no factual basis are, of course, worthless. Testable observation is the bedrock of all useful interpretation. I re-iterate that since it's my answer to your key question, "do you believe that opinions (feelings) are more important than empirical knowledge?", and you waltzed straight past it without comment. Did I ring the bell on the Test Your Strength machine there, or are opinions (feelings) more important than empirical knowledge after all? And why on earth do you think your belief or my belief enter into the matter?

I'm not retired. I'm not an academic. I'm not obviously.

The site has a profanity filter. You may not use the word ****, still less ****-eyed. An unadorned "idealists" is perfectly adequate to convey your meaning.

It's my understanding that we're now in complete agreement on all of your statements. Does that also reflect your interpretation of our exchanges so far?

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:02 am

Daniyal;909165 wrote: LOLOLOLOLOL Whenever some one speak the truth is Anti - This Or That , Truth Always Hurst When One Rather Live LIE . What about about the 100,000's Iraq's die and still die For that LIE . Not dis-missing our men and woman . dieing for nothing. And they 're about to start another one . Now who Anti-War . Guess you would call it Democracy right . .... Maybe someone should come and mess your house up , And then tell you to clean it up . Bet you see things diffrent then wouldn't you , Then you'll be asking that question Why Do They Hate Us .

The reason dear boy that no one is going to mess my house up is because in England we live under a legal system which puts my rights above those of the state. In the middle east the state or at least it's leader is seen as all powerful, and not subject to law which in anycase he makes. Try accepting a constitution like ours and life will get better, and there will be no need for wars and suicide bombers. However according to my history books Mohamed did advocate spreading Islam at the point of a sword, what he failed to take into account is the fact the west has more and sharper swords and we use them more effectivelly.

Philandthrop · Post by **Philandthrop** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:19 am

Dear Spot,

I quote you, "The Koran being the revealed word of God, something the Koran itself makes quite clear, indicates that all of these facts you've uncovered about the Koran are God's will."

-Indeed, you have identified the conclusion of Moslem scholars for the past thousand years: "the Koran may be incoherent, unintelligible, stuffed with spelling and grammar errors, written with extremely poor style, every fifth sentence is totally baffling, verses of it are said to have been removed, replaced, left out, forgotten, but isn't it wonderful!"

-They often say, "The Arabic of the Koran is so beautiful that it cannot be translated!" In reality, the Koran is so unintelligible and defective, it cannot be translated. If a source text is gobbledegook, it cannot be translated into any language.

-Moslem scholars basically have to pretend they haven't seen what they have seen. They get around it. And they usually do it very well. They suppress their thoughts and doubts, because such thoughts lead to death as a murtad (apostate). However, more than one sheikh from Azhar University in Cairo (the oldest) has not been able to successfully suppress what they saw. They found a way out of this jail and the books they wrote after fleeing certain death in Egypt and changing their names are available. The final argument for the Koran is the sword which hangs over the heads of all Moslems first, then over the heads of the disgusting kufaar that Allah despises so much.

-The Koran, finally, cannot be understood on its own, due to its character of fragments thrown into a bag and then pasted together as they come out one by one. The "reports" of Allah's messenger and his warrior companions are needed. To explain the context and contents of apparently meaningless commands coming apparently from nowhere. The central religious rites of Islam, its prayers, its pilgrimage to Mecca, etc., are commanded, but in no way explained in the Koran. The Koran is totally useless without the "reports" (hadiths in Arabic)!

-This is where the fun begins. When the "reports" (usually from one to four paragraphs in length each) began to be written, there were soon close to three-quarters of a million of them. Many "reports" were clearly concocted to justify one party in Islam against another. They all wanted the brass ring at the top: the caliphate. One of the caliphs got upset at all the reports flying around and did to the "reports" what was done to the earliest copies of the Koran itself (BLASPHEMY!): he commanded they all be burned! (The purpose of the Koran and the reports (actual name: "Hadiths" or with Arabic plural "Ahadith") was to give unified control to the Caliph, the caesaro-pope successor of the Holy Arab Empire.

-Yes, imagine the blasphemy: the caliphs twice burned the earliest and most accurate copies of the Koran, which had been privately owned by Mohammed's closest family members and associates! The Koran was then rewritten to suit the caliphs and the treachery of manipulating Allah's perfect message was covered up forever!

-It is fun to see all the trouble caused by the conflicting "reports" needed to explain the meaningless Koran, because over half a million hadiths were rejected as fabricated and many of those that remain are considered suspect and/or "inauthentic"! One asks with amusement, "Why should we then trust ANY of the hadiths? Or even the Koran itself? Was Allah playing games with our heads? Was Allah testing our faith to see if we would accept his incoherent, unintelligible ranting?" Most of the Koran (61%) is rants about what Allah wants to do to those horrible kufaar (when he gets his hands on them!) and how amusing it will be!

-Why could Allah not write a better book?

-The difficulty all Moslems face when studying the Arabic grammar of the Koran is that the Koran says it is "mubeen" (clear), but it is not; it says it was delivered letter-perfect, but it is not; it says it guides you, but it doesn't, because you can't understand a word of it without the Hadiths, and the Hadiths appear to have been trumped up and backdated to appear contemporaneous with the Koran.

-All serious Moslem scholars see these things, but the fallacy of the appeal to force in place of a logical argument keeps them silent! This is the worst aspect of the mental jail called Islam. They all know it is intellectually unsupportable, but they try to drag the rest of the world into their mental prison, nonetheless.

"Did I ring the bell on the Test Your Strength machine there"

-Yes, you did.

"I'm not retired. I'm not an academic. I'm not obviously."

-Thank you, you are not obviously "anything". Your anonymity is respected.

"The site has a profanity filter. You may not use the word ****"

-Thomas Bowdler works at Forum Garden.

It's my understanding that we're now in complete agreement on all of your statements. Does that also reflect your interpretation of our exchanges so far?

-I enjoy your refined sense of humour.

:wah:

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:03 am

Philandthrop;1028085 wrote: Why could Allah not write a better book?God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. I thought that was commonly understood.

Given that the Koran is the revealed word of God, something the Koran itself makes quite clear, all of these facts you've uncovered about the Koran are God's will. Who are we to argue with God? The entire point of God is that he's omnipotent, omniscient and mysterious. He wrote the Koran, he fired off a new religion called Islam, you've stated a number of undoubted truths about Islam, that's the way God wants his revealed religion to work, either sign up or perish eternally when he gets round to judging you.

What's puzzling about any of this? It seems an unavoidable consequence of the evidence. Testable observation is the bedrock of all useful interpretation.

Philandthrop · Post by **Philandthrop** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:04 am

To continue the answer to the original question: the Koran supports its twin themes of dualism and submission by violence .

Jeremy Bentham could have been speaking about Islam when he said: "“Fallacy is fraud; and fraud is useless when everything is done by force.”

The basis of Islam is violence against the kufaar, not "faith". When Mohammed died most of the Arabs tried to leave Islam. That is the strongest evidence that Islam is a thought-control and information-control death cult. Mohammed's successor butchered tens of thousands of his distant relatives from various Arab tribes is admired for doing it, even though this proves that the people who knew Mohammed best considered him a fraud and a bully!

To be a Moslem, more than a member of any other faith you must accept "credo quia absurdum". This is what Pope Benedict recently got into a problem over when he affirmed that faith should not be absurd or supported by the threat of violence. The nature of God, he said, is that God should not contradict reason and His messages should be comprehensible. The Koran is just not very comprehensible, due to the way it was collated, chaotically.

The support for the Koran turns out to be a set of 5 main fallacies, the exclusion of contradictory evidence, circular reasoning (proving the Koran by Mohammed and Mohammed by the Koran), the appeal to authority, tu quoque, but first and foremost, the appeal to violence in place of a logical argument.

Basically, today Moslems are saying: "If you say Islam is violent, we will kill you."

I am concerned that you say "the Koran itself makes quite clear"...it actually makes itself quite confusing, since there are several "Words of God" listed. Mohammed here and there praised the "Taurat" and "Injil" (he apparently was so uninformed he hadn't a clue about the other canonical books of the Bible). He apparently thought Jesus had been handed a copy of the "Injil" which is the life story of Messiah written in the third person. He thought his followers wouldn't notice the illogic of this. In his lifetime, Mohammed didn't ever allow his contradictory, illogical texts to be collected, because he was already getting ridiculed for all the contradictions. It would have made it easy to see what we see today. He had his "messages" written down by as many as 50 different scribes (a number of them slaves), but then forced his followers to memorize the texts, instead of just reading them. This allowed him to change things when he wanted opportunistically to change direction. He was caught by his distractors doing this, but he simply had them assassinated using the normative Islamic fallacy of support through violence.

I would like to conclude by reiterating the importance of dual ethics and submission. Submission of the slave to the master (the master/slave subtext) is the second great principle of Islam, one which entirely rules out the Golden Rule, which is not found in the Koran or Hadiths. In this, Islam is consistent, but one needs to be informed to notice that Islam is the only "world religion" that does not teach or contain the Golden Rule. For this reason, I say it is better understood as an Arab supremacist political movement dressed up in religious garb for justification, rather than a religion. If one deems Islam to have two major components, political and religious (ritual), the religious is definitely subservient to the political. Both are supported by the sword.

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:10 am

Now you're just writing at me rather than discussing matters.

You're also copy/pasting material around the internet without attribution, I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to allow that on this site unless you provide a significant degree of value-added discussion alongside it. And, preferably, some cross-referencing or citations.

http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2006/ ... mment-6354

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/golden-rule-islam/

copyright (c) http://www.politicalislam.com/ Copy and use as needed, give us credit and don't edit.

http://mtakbar.wordpress.com/2008/01/12 ... lden-rule/

Democracyistheanswer

Philostein

thinkomatic

As far as the question in the thread title's concerned, "Does the Koran Sanction Violence?", of course it does. It's like asking whether bears breathe. The Koran's the main guiding document of a monotheistic religion. An essential attribute of the main guiding document of a monotheistic religion is that it sanctions violence, what possible use would it be to man or beast otherwise? So does the main guiding document of every other monotheistic religion. It's one of their major functions.

The real question is whether God wrote the book or not and the only way of deciding that is through testable observation, since opinion isn't worth a gnat's whisker.It's demonstrably the case that the Koran is the revealed word of God, something explicitly claimed within the document itself and testified to by God's actions since it was revealed. All of the indisputably accurate facts you've uncovered about the Koran are consequently God's will and neither something to whine about nor something to oppose.

You're the one who asked "do you believe that opinions (feelings) are more important than empirical knowledge". I've been saying all through that they're not, that they carry trivial weight by comparison with empirical knowledge. Is that not your position too?

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:27 pm

As a side issue, "He apparently thought Jesus had been handed a copy of the Injil which is the life story of Messiah written in the third person" is an interesting comment.

I've seen reasonable argument that Jesus had exactly that, and that so (more to the point) did Saint Paul who invented a significant fraction of Christian doctrine. The Koran accounts of Miriam/Mary and the child at the oasis are continually assumed by Christians to be derived from the Bible. Kamal Salibi (a Lebanese Christian academic, Emeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut's Department of History and Archaeology) among others has a good shot at arguing that they're pre-Christian Arabic legends which went independently into both the Bible and the Koran, which is exactly what the Koran claims internally that they are.

Salibi in particular uses Luke's Acts of the Apostles to give a well-argued early Christian context to this.