9/11 Koran-burning: armed congregation vow ceremony will go ahead

[bat1]

this dude is nuts..


adding mWayne and Stephanie Sapp, pistols on their hips, are adamant this Saturday's Koran-burning ceremony at their evangelical church in Florida will go ahead as planned...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7988980/911-Koran-burning-armed-congregation-vow-ceremony-will-go-ahead.html

[Faldur]

You know there is a Politics forum, so we don't have to deal with this crap here..

[scubaman]

You know there is a Politics forum, so we don't have to deal with this crap here..

If you don't like the thread the don't read it. The topic is clearly stated.

[dc_guy_75]

Besides korans, I wish they'd also burn bibles and torahs and all that other bronze-age misogynistic garbage.

[russtafa]

religion is out dated and should be banned

[PomonaCA]

Let's just launch all the nukes and get it over with. I'm tired of all this sneaking around.

[rockabilly]

Let's just launch all the nukes and get it over with. I'm tired of all this sneaking around.

Noo!! That would destroy those precious minerals and black gold.

The new Cold War is heating up.

[Jericho]

Must go to specsavers, thought you said Koreans.

[Jericho]

People burning books...that's some fukked up crazy shit.

[dc_guy_75]

People burning books...that's some fukked up crazy shit.

Not really, korans and bibles provide as much warmth and light as any material of similar density.

[south ov da border]

Not really, korans and bibles provide as much warmth and light as any material of similar density.
:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[PomonaCA]

Not really, korans and bibles provide as much warmth and light as any material of similar density.


My bible brings me much warmth and is a "lamp unto my feet" as said in Psalm 119:105.

I couldn't agree moar!

[Jericho]

Not really, korans and bibles provide as much warmth and light as any material of similar density.

Hardy fukkin har!
Points for balance, but, you know what i mean!

[scroller]

"It follows then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly, please forgive me, as his killing a human, for in the long sum of history they are one and the same flesh." -- Ray Bradbury

[DaveinBoston]

I dont think its as strong a statment as say kidnapping a journalist, torturing him and sawing his head off and playing it on TV and sending the video around the 'net, but I think the guys is getting his point out to the Muslims in a less violent way.

[KimberlyBanxxx]

I'm pretty disgusted at this. This sets a bad example for Christians everywhere and pretty much shows everyone that they're no different than fundamental extremist muslims (is that the right term?). Bullshit in my eyes, love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek my ass. Bigots, and hypocrites, thats all they are. Not to even say what this might do to anger those crazy ass extremist other there...retaliation much? outrage much? What is gained by stooping to their level?

[DaveinBoston]

I'm pretty disgusted at this. This sets a bad example for Christians everywhere and pretty much shows everyone that they're no different than fundamental extremist muslims (is that the right term?). Bullshit in my eyes, love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek my ass. Bigots, and hypocrites, thats all they are. Not to even say what this might do to anger those crazy ass extremist other there...retaliation much? outrage much? What is gained by stooping to their level?

If Muslim extremists burned my bible, I'd be ok with that. They didnt however. They flew 2 planes in the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in PA.

These "peaceful" Muslims (remember, its a religion of peace) continue to fight and kill Americans in the middle east DAILY. I have a friend who was a doctor that was killed in Iraq. A DOCTOR killed by a roadside bomb because he wanted to help these wonderful people. Do you think his wife and 3 kids think it's a religion of peace?

And you equate burning a book.. which is a symbol of this wonderful religion on the same level as what they've done?

[blackrob]

I'm pretty disgusted at this. This sets a bad example for Christians everywhere and pretty much shows everyone that they're no different than fundamental extremist muslims (is that the right term?). Bullshit in my eyes, love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek my ass. Bigots, and hypocrites, thats all they are. Not to even say what this might do to anger those crazy ass extremist other there...retaliation much? outrage much? What is gained by stooping to their level?

Were you disgusted when those muthafuckers blew up the buildings? You need to get a grip I don't want them to let let those towel heads build anything near that place and i'm sure most Americans feel the same way.

[Jericho]

These "peaceful" Muslims (remember, its a religion of peace) continue to fight and kill Americans in the middle east DAILY. I have a friend who was a doctor that was killed in Iraq. A DOCTOR killed by a roadside bomb because he wanted to help these wonderful people.

Why did they need a docors help?

And do you really want to talk about peacful religions, Christian?

[KimberlyBanxxx]

If Muslim extremists burned my bible, I'd be ok with that. They didnt however. They flew 2 planes in the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in PA.

These "peaceful" Muslims (remember, its a religion of peace) continue to fight and kill Americans in the middle east DAILY. I have a friend who was a doctor that was killed in Iraq. A DOCTOR killed by a roadside bomb because he wanted to help these wonderful people. Do you think his wife and 3 kids think it's a religion of peace?

And you equate burning a book.. which is a symbol of this wonderful religion on the same level as what they've done?

Sorry for you're lost, first of all. But do you honestly think that burning their bible will make anything better? If anything shits gonna get worse over there. I don't know that much about Islam, but why blame the whole religion/people for the actions of crazy extremists? Why fight fire w/fire? Why even do something to provoke those people? Burning Qurans won't do shit, won't help things either....I don't mean to equate the burning of Quran to all the shit that extremist do to Americans, but hateful, meaningless acts of violence, is hateful, meaningless acts of violence.


Were you disgusted when those muthafuckers blew up the buildings? You need to get a grip I don't want them to let let those towel heads build anything near that place and i'm sure most Americans feel the same way.

Of course, I was disgusted after 9/11. But I'm able to understand that the actions of those who did it, is not a reflection of all muslims or middle-eastern people as a whole. Smh...

[CORVETTEDUDE]

I am not religiously oriented but, this is in really bad taste. It also shows the "Americans" commiting this perpetude have absolutely no concept nor appreciation of their own freedoms. The ones I fought, bled and killed for.

OK, I'll say it....They're a bunch of hipocritical dick-suckin' religious zealots!

[blackrob]

Sorry for you're lost, first of all. But do you honestly think that burning their bible will make anything better? If anything shits gonna get worse over there. I don't know that much about Islam, but why blame the whole religion/people for the actions of crazy extremists? Why fight fire w/fire? Why even do something to provoke those people? Burning Qurans won't do shit, won't help things either....I don't mean to equate the burning of Quran to all the shit that extremist do to Americans, but hateful, meaningless acts of violence, is hateful, meaningless acts of violence.



Of course, I was disgusted after 9/11. But I'm able to understand that the actions of those who did it, is not a reflection of all muslims or middle-eastern people as a whole. Smh...


they can build all the mosque they want in arab countries we dont want to see that crap around where they blew up the towers. If they build them I hope someone burns them down.

[russtafa]

a bomb would fix them no muslims no problem

[PomonaCA]

Why did they need a docors help?

And do you really want to talk about peacful religions, Christian?


Let's talk about it. And while we're at it, let's talk about it without the playground sneering.

[hippifried]

There's no fucking escape from this lame non-story!

I can't help but wonder why everybody, & I mean everybody, is paying attention to this tacky punk. "Hey, there's assholes!" Okay, but is that news?

Isn't there anything else going on in the world?

[KimberlyBanxxx]

they can build all the mosque they want in arab countries we dont want to see that crap around where they blew up the towers. If they build them I hope someone burns them down.

wow, smfh
ignorant much?

[russtafa]

They hate french people in arab suburbs of paris.They hate australian people in suburbs of sydney and we hate them and blame our governments for importing them.Our governments must really hate their own people for doing this to us,but you americans would not know this.

[shemale-411]

Sounds nlike he cancelled the book burning for now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

He's an asshole oppurtunist. The Arab media would have shown the footage non stop. Not that we don't do the same thing when they burn a flag, or some were handing out candies at 9/11.

[Jericho]

Let's talk about it. And while we're at it, let's talk about it without the playground sneering.

Sure...As soon as you can tell the difference between irony and playground sneering.

[PomonaCA]

Sure...As soon as you can tell the difference between irony and playground sneering.


I'm not waiting. Stop the childish sneering and then we can talk.

[Jericho]

Stop the childish sneering and then we can talk.

Ha, how ironic!

[morim]

Same books should be destroyed...

[Stavros]

Burning books says something about the arsonist rather than the books being burned, and doesn't say much.

Just last weekend Neo-Nazis opposed to the 'Jewification of the UK' planned a demonstration in a part of North London inhabited by a large number of Haredi in which they planned to burn the Torah, deciding later to do this 'in private' but to film it and then put it online. Burning the Torah is supposed to achieve something, what I do not know. Burning a Quran, a Bible, a flag, an effigy of Guy Fawkes on November 5th -gesture politics of the lowest order, pathetic, useless; but a means whereby people advertise their stupidity.

Joshua Bonehill-Paine, one of the organisers is on Wikipedia here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine

A report on the rally which was moved by police to Westminster shows 20 neo-Nazis turned up, overwhelmed by anti-Fascist counter-demonstrators.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/london-anti-jewification-demo-dwarfed-by-anti-fascist-counter-protest

[sukumvit boy]

Yeah me too , but what the fuck ,let's burn some Koreans too. ! And God Bless America LOL.

[trish]

Yeah me too , but what the fuck ,let's burn some Koreans too. ! And God Bless America LOL.
Oh say can you see,
All the hyp-ocra-cy?
Oh so proudly we bragged,
When we lock up our fags...

[martin48]

Let's have a little bit of history - if you visit Beelplatz in Berlin, you will see a simple glass covered vault in the square - with empty bookshelves
These subterranean bookshelves could accommodate about 20,000 books - and remind at the approximately 20,000 books, which the Nazis burnt on May 10th, 1933 on this place: works by journalists, writers, scientists and philosophers, seen as a threat to the Nazi ideology - in former terminology such as "literature, which undermines the moral and religious foundations of our nation" or "writings who glorify the Weimar Republic." Even works by communist thinkers should be wiped out in this "action against the un-German spirit". Among the most maligned authors were e. g. Erich Kaestner, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Heinrich and Klaus Mann, Rosa Luxemburg, August Bebel, Bertha von Suttner and Stefan Zweig.
The philosopher, John Milton, whose books were publicly burned in England and France, gives the best explanation of why authorities down the centuries have seen danger in certain books. "Books are not absolutely dead things," he wrote in his celebrated attack on censorship, Areopagitica, in 1644, "but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are." Anyone who kills a man, Milton said, kills "a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself".

[yodajazz]

If people claim authority by a book such as the Koran, it's better to understand what's really in it. For example, there is a verse, which states something like; "There should be no compulsion in religion". It forbids the killing of non-combatants. The concept of Allah as merciful was important to the Prophet. He stared out every chapter in the Koran but two, with the concept of a merciful God (Allah), along with a few other qualities. So this shows that IS is missing lots of things in the book. And the fact that they are warring with other Muslims, kind of underscores this. And they don't want you to understand the Koran. They want you to persecute people who do, in order to drive them to their side for protection. So burning the Koran helps them in their cause. And the same thing goes as making to cartoons about the Prophet. He expressly forbid images of himself, mostly because he did not want people to worship him, but Allah only. This appears to be what happened in the case of Jesus. I should say however, that the Koran is a high context book. That is, ones very often needs historical or other data, to find the context of many, many things in the book. Often times the interpretations to English might be somewhat inaccurate, because some Arabic words have multiple English meanings, and vice versa. If anyone wants to discuss other aspects of Islam, I would be happy to do so. There are lots of thing that are misunderstood by many people. I took a college course on the history of Islam. This was before the 'radical Islam' movement existed. This 'new' radical movement will not survive. One day it will be just another chapter in the history books. And believe me, it won't be the last chapter, either.

[Stavros]

Thank you for that contribution, Yodajazz. I think we are living through another age in which the contemporary (re-)interpretation of ancient religious texts continues to result in an equal measure of inspiration, misery and confusion. The attempt by radicals to return to the origin of their faith is doomed if they think that replicating exactly what is said in the Bible or Quran is the fulfillment of God's will. There is not only the question -how can anyone know God's will? - but the surely devastating question for Christian killers such as George W Bush and Tony Blair: What does 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' mean? It is not as if there is any doubt, it doesn't even relate to 'Saint' Augustine's confession: Lord, make me chaste...but not yet to produce Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless

We know that both Bush and Blair could use the Just War argument in the context of Christianity, but just as Islam did not emerge as a single system even within Muhammad's lifetime, so the development of Christianity as a 'single system' never really happened, and the dominance in Europe of the Catholic Church was only sustained through the mass extermination of so-called 'heretics' such as the Anomoeans and notably the Cathars, who were pacifists. Indeed, one wonders if Christianity was stripped of its pacifist tendencies precisely to enable the Holy Roman Empire to fulfill its political destiny, noting that it would not have believed there could be any separation between religion and politics. Just as one notes the determination of later generations to break this connection, even among the devout Christians of the American Revolution.

How much any of this is derived from a reading of the Bible depends on whether the Bible is to be taken as a whole, or just in its parts, with the inevitable reality that people will cherry pick those bits which suit them and ignore the rest. Thus the same Christians who cite the Old Testament for their beliefs and actions, ignore the denunciations of masturbation and homosexuality, and have no intention of stoning adulterers to death, as if these instructions did not apply to them. The same people who believe God created the world in 7 days, who believe in Adam and Eve and original sin, choose the Genesis version of the creation because it suits them; that there are seven accounts of creation, one such being in Job is blithely ignored, perhaps because it doesn't feature the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, original sin and seven days. Or it could just be that most people don't read Job so as Yodajazz puts it, they don't really know what is in their own book?

The Quran was unfinished, because Muhammad did not live to complete his work, which was to create a community of the faithful who would live at peace with each other instead of constantly bickering and fighting and wasting their resources. Muhammad had the nous to present his revelations in Arabic, when the competing monotheist ideas of Judaism and Christianity came in other tongues. Islam was a religion that came from the Arabs that was for the Arabs. To understand the Quran thus means to understand the context in which Muhammad lived, to weave one's way through the challenges of the powerful pagan tribes into which he was born, the existence of the Roman and Sassanid empires to the north which Muhammad may have encountered if indeed he travelled that far north, but also to ask why monotheism became such a dominant concept in religion, to which there have rarely been any satisfactory answers, other than that is easier and more convenient to believe in one almighty power rather than a tree god, a river god, a sand god, a love god and so on -and that is before you even start on the goddesses. Christopher Hitchens has pointed out how much of Islam is pinched from other religions, how the Hajj was a ritual that existed before Islam; some may not know that before Muhammad's flight from Mecca, Muslims turned toward Jerusalem to pray, and only turned to Mecca once they reached Medina.

What we end up with is the bizarre situation in which the large number of 'Islamic scholars' who emerged after 9/11 have been determined to prove that Islam is little more than a violent death cult that justifies the execution of infidels and the sexual slavery of women, but cherry pick the same passages from the Quran that are cited by those Muslims -often converts from Christianity- who justify the murder of infidels and the sexual enslavement of women. This is not possible because that is what the Quran actually says, it is only possible through a wilfull re-interpretation of the text to justify anything, including the acts of violence that have so rightly caused outrage and horror among decent people, many of them Muslims.

The status of women illustrates this confusion well. The radical Egyptian, Sayed Qutb, whose writings are required reading among the Islamic revolutionaries, once wrote that capitalism is a 'Jewish plot' to destroy the family. In his writings on women 'Women are Working' he condemned the idea that a woman should leave the home and work when her real work is at home raising a family. The example of Muhammad himself is clearly irrelevant here, as his first wife Khadija was not only older than him but was a merchant who ran her own trading house, in which Muhammad was employed and on whose caravans north to the markets of Damascus it is assumed Muhammad went. She was also the first person to convert to Islam, and in the Quran it is clear that when Muhammad called for women to dress with modesty, it was because most at that time were barely dressed at all. If one can conjure up an image of what the Arabs looked like at that time, think of the way we see the tribes of the Amazon basin. Another point illustrates how contemporary Muslims re-interpret the Quran, for it nowhere suggests women should hide their faces. I have even read somewhere where this obsession with covering the face is called the Saudi Veil, in recognition of the damage that has been done to modern Islam by the strictures of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab who married into the Saudi tribe and through this alliance established a link between politics and religion that has brought ruin across the Middle East and Asia, and whose well-paid evangelists have become a driving force in Islamic education in the United Kingdom and other countries.

Fundamental to all this is what Irving Finkel has argued is the emergence of a moral cosmology after the flood at a time when Middle Eastern religions were being written down. In the millenia before science as we know it emerged to offer practical explanations of the world we live in, it appears human societies -and it is as true of the Middle East and Africa as it is of the Americas- developed concepts of punishment and reward that were designed to give order to social relations, and whose moral content was related to a cosmology which saw no separation between past, present and future, nor any separation between the earth and the heavens. Give it some thought. If people believe in an all-powerful god, and a man or a group of men tell them that if they do not behave in such a way god will punish them, the believers will be genuinely keen to behave. But it has been possible for people who ridicule religious peolple for believing in sky fairies and miracles, to detach the moral agenda from religion and re-cast punishment and reward as law, to replace priests and imams with judges and politicians, to replace religious texts with constitutions

And you need only consider the endless and often bitter debates that rage over the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution to understand how easy it is to not understand what the Constitution says, and what it means. Because as people use texts from the past to justify the present, so they are also attempting to shape the future, but without the doubts that occupied Ophelia, doomed as she was to fall in love with Hamlet:

Lord, we know what we are, but not what we might be.

[yodajazz]

Many people try to critique Islam and other ancient religions in light of today's society. But if you simply put things in perspective of what was happening at the time, things are a lot easier to understand. Take the veil for example. In the time of Muhammed and before, soldiers often got to keep whatever they could pick up, and also take women for their own sexual pleasure (rape). Muhammed had to consider how to control his own soldiers. So when they conquered a town, having the women cover up was a way to keep his own men from running wild. So at that time it really was for their own protection, I believe. When Nasser, the President of Egypt died in 1970 there were videos taken of crowds crying women. Not, one could be observed to be wearing their heads covered. I believe that of ot the radical Islamists practices are more about power and control, rather than religious purity. For example the Taliban's attack on women's education. Muhammad's first wife, ( and Islam's first convert) was a wealthy business woman, who was older than him.

I am one who believes, the life lessons in ancient wisdom are still valid and important. I see them not as keys to an afterlife, but for prescriptions for peace in happiness in our current lives. And for me, it's not so much about belief in an actually God, (by what ever name he/it is called), but understanding that our actions have consequences beyond what is immediately seen.

[Stavros]

Many people try to critique Islam and other ancient religions in light of today's society. But if you simply put things in perspective of what was happening at the time, things are a lot easier to understand. Take the veil for example. In the time of Muhammed and before, soldiers often got to keep whatever they could pick up, and also take women for their own sexual pleasure (rape). Muhammed had to consider how to control his own soldiers. So when they conquered a town, having the women cover up was a way to keep his own men from running wild. So at that time it really was for their own protection, I believe. When Nasser, the President of Egypt died in 1970 there were videos taken of crowds crying women. Not, one could be observed to be wearing their heads covered. I believe that of ot the radical Islamists practices are more about power and control, rather than religious purity. For example the Taliban's attack on women's education. Muhammad's first wife, ( and Islam's first convert) was a wealthy business woman, who was older than him.

I am one who believes, the life lessons in ancient wisdom are still valid and important. I see them not as keys to an afterlife, but for prescriptions for peace in happiness in our current lives. And for me, it's not so much about belief in an actually God, (by what ever name he/it is called), but understanding that our actions have consequences beyond what is immediately seen.

I don't agree that the veil was one way of protecting women from predatory men. As I suggested in my earlier post, and as is implied in the Quran itself, people did not wear many clothes at that time, and there is nothing to suggest that Hijab means covering the face, though it almost certainly does mean covering up the breasts and genital areas. From this perspective, it has been argued that Islam offered women more respect than they had before, although another perspective sees the emergence in Islam of a more patriarchal social structure, with a shift from polyandry to polygamy although the context of the latter is often ignored in contemporary society.

Hijab is little different from women covering their heads when they enter a place of religious worship; you can see members of the Plymouth Brethren in the UK whose clothing bears a reasonable similarity with what Muslim and some Orthodox Jewish women wear in their daily lives, it has been manipulated for political purposes by both the so-called Radicals and their critics in the West.

Your comment on Egypt is a good one, as my own experiences in the Middle East over many years suggests that more and more women have adopted 'modest' attire, when in years gone by it was not considered necessary or even desirable. At one time the veil was actually more a facet of class in the sense that the women who wore it were for the most part wives or daughters from wealthy and politically influential families. The poor could not afford to dress properly; indeed, even today many young women who go to colleges on scholarships from Islamic societies receive a clothing grant which inevitably means they conform to the 'standards' imposed by that society. For what it's worth, I recall a talk on a 16th or 17th century Tsar who would not allow a physician to treat his wife because it meant he might see her face. The Tsar's women, until when I do not know, never emerged from their apartments without a full-face veil, something unheard of in most of the Middle East at that time.

It is all driven by politics.

[yodajazz]

What I have learned in life that when people disagree, it's not that one person is right, and the other is wrong. It is usually that both are right to some extent. The real question is, about which truth, represents the greater truth. The basis of my supposition, is that at some point the Prophet' as a commander in chief, had to promote control of the sexual desires of his men. And this would include, whatever were the norms, going on in the general culture, regarding that basic biological urge. I have one concrete example, from an article I read. It stated that, some of his soldiers approached him, and asked him, if it would be permissible to visit prostitutes to take care of their needs. I assume that this may have come from the Hadith, (stories of actual conduct of the Prophet, submitted by others). Anyway, I did not find his answer(s), since the article was about a related subject. This is just evidence, that the Prophet, had aspects of his life, some of which were put in the Koran, had to directly address social conduct issues. I refer to the aspect of his life as being an administrator. Another aspect him, is his life as a battlefield general. Conduct of war has always been subject of different rules, than that of regular human social life. So just that by itself could be the subject of another thread, or a book. I believe that promoting Understanding, is the way to true peace. There is a line passage in the Koran, that says, that killing of innocent people is wrong. It states that killing one innocent person is like killing all of humanity. We should be using those words to the people that claim to believe. Some spiritual people call that, the power of the Word. It will accomplish more, with more efficiency than burning the Koran, or going to war with Iran.

[Stavros]

What I have learned in life that when people disagree, it's not that one person is right, and the other is wrong. It is usually that both are right to some extent. The real question is, about which truth, represents the greater truth. The basis of my supposition, is that at some point the Prophet' as a commander in chief, had to promote control of the sexual desires of his men. And this would include, whatever were the norms, going on in the general culture, regarding that basic biological urge. I have one concrete example, from an article I read. It stated that, some of his soldiers approached him, and asked him, if it would be permissible to visit prostitutes to take care of their needs. I assume that this may have come from the Hadith, (stories of actual conduct of the Prophet, submitted by others). Anyway, I did not find his answer(s), since the article was about a related subject. This is just evidence, that the Prophet, had aspects of his life, some of which were put in the Koran, had to directly address social conduct issues. I refer to the aspect of his life as being an administrator. Another aspect him, is his life as a battlefield general. Conduct of war has always been subject of different rules, than that of regular human social life. So just that by itself could be the subject of another thread, or a book. I believe that promoting Understanding, is the way to true peace. There is a line passage in the Koran, that says, that killing of innocent people is wrong. It states that killing one innocent person is like killing all of humanity. We should be using those words to the people that claim to believe. Some spiritual people call that, the power of the Word. It will accomplish more, with more efficiency than burning the Koran, or going to war with Iran.

Although I agree in general with your remarks, the problem we face is the same for any religion which relies on an ancient text, because in my opinion we are doomed to interpret and re-interpret such texts in our own time, which for Islam makes the claims of the present day Salaf a complete nonsense -they should have the honesty to state that they are re-interpreting their religion and not pretend that the Quran in particular cannot be interpreted. History has shown that far from being immutable, the 'Word of God' might as well be made of plastic.

There is a similar problem with those Jews in the Occupied West Bank whose claim to a God-given right to the 'Land of Israel' is considered moral, religious, political and legal, as if the intervening millenia and the completely new State of Israel -which many of the religious settlers do not recognise as a 'Jewish state'- was irrelevant. Just as Christians are obliged to, in effect, edit the Old and New Testament to justify all the things they do which are either not there, or which the 'Holy Books' appear to disapprove of or condemn, such as masturbation and sodomy. When was the last time the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope issued a statement urging men not to masturbate?

The case of the military aspects of early Islam is a fine case of how history is read backwards to suit present times, rather than in its context. The Battle of the Trench, viewed as the decisive battle between the Muslims and the Pagan and Jewish tribes for control of Medina, offers up for some the typical reaction of Muslims to the Jews, for of the Confederate tribes who attempted to inflict a decisive defeat on Muhammad and his new religion, the defeated Jews were rounded up after the battle, the men slaughtered and the women taken into 'sex slavery'. What the present day re-interpretations do not reveal is that when Muhammad arrived in Medina he sought an accommodation of the Jewish tribes into his new Community and initially they obliged, but owing to to the complex relations the Jews already had with the existing tribes, plus the influence of the anti-Muslims, the Jewish tribes hedged their bets by deciding after all not to support Muhammad, so that they became seen as having betrayed a pledge -but they did it for political rather than religious reasons. Yet when it came time to punish them, Muhammad's punishment was taken not from the emerging 'Shari'a law', but from the Torah, and in particular from Deuteronomy 20, 10-14 -in other words, Muhammad inflicted 'Jewish' punishment on the Jewish tribes.

The issue of sexual behaviour is even more complex, not least because among the Pagan gods and goddesses whose idols were displayed inside the Beit Allah/House of God in Mecca some were worshipped for their powers to improve fertility and virility in men and women; indeed, a Priapus was found in a household in the Hejaz as recently as the late 19th century. That prostitution in early Islam existed is a fact, but whether or not homosexuality as we understand it existed is a difficult one to prove. We know from the research of Everett Rowson that there were 'effeminate' men or Mukhannathun some of whom were prostitutes, some Eunuchs with access to women's quarters (for those married to wealthy husbands who could afford more than a room to live in)-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun

But this may also relate to anal sex as a fact of life rather than to our notions of homosexuality. The prevalence of anal sex among men in tribal societies has been documented in Papua New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands; whether oral sex between males was also common is harder to assess, for while documented by Gilbert Herdt in Papua New Guinea, it is a subject which, like sex in general, people are reluctant to talk about.

What this means is that in contemporary attitudes, much of the complexity over issues of justice, war and sexuality have been reduced to either/or simplicities precisely because people can't cope with, or don't want to admit that societies, all societies are made up of diverse attitudes to sex, even when everyone appears to believe the same religion, accept the same laws, and so on. A reliance on the content of the Quran enables the Salaf to take verses out of context to suit the moment, with the weird irony that many of the Muslims inflicting violence on other Muslims or anyone else for that matter and who cite without any real authority any verse that says 'Kill the infidels' (as if we were all living in 7th century Arabia) -are the same verses quoted by hysterical pseudo-scholars to 'prove' that Islam places the murder of 'infidels' high on its agenda and there is nothing we can do about it. Verses in the Quran that encourage people to love, to live in peace, to struggle against the temptation to do wrong are simply ignored. People pick and choose what they want to believe to suit the mood.

It may be that one of the reasons why Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab in the 18th century dismissed everything that had developed in Islam since the death of the Messenger was the response of a not very intellectual thinker to a world of complexity he couldn't deal with -his own brother thought he was mad. The Saudi regime has spent billions exporting its monochrome, one-dimensional view of Islam as the only true version of Islam, has demolished mosques and shrines and places of historical interest to Islam in the Hejaz, and is hopelessly embedded in the violent Islam that has seized control of parts of Syria and Iraq which threatens to effectively replace Islam as a religion with a political ideology based on dictatorship and violence.

One option, of course is to dismiss religion as a phoney interpretation of the world which has no credibility precisely because it relies so much on a non-existent deity who has created everything and who made a statement in the 7th century which cannot be changed. That does not deal with the billions of people who do believe in God, but it does remind us that we for ever editing the religious texts of the past to remove those passages we don't like, just as some other passages are interpreted to justify a course of action. All religions are guilty, and tedious and often ineffectiive as it seems to be, we should always try to engage people in a dialogue which does not insult believers, even as it attempts to expose those parts of their faith which are no longer acceptable in the world in which we live.

[buttslinger]

Most religions start backward, one man is enlightened and tries to explain it. Since God is the beginning and end, any explanation of God always comes in too late. Or too early. As Buddha answered when they asked him why he bothered to try and explain God to a bunch of naysayers....
"some will understand"
Just because a bunch of Arabs don't get Islam is no reason to scratch the whole project. Even while Bibles burn, God is in his Heaven and All is right in the World.

[martin48]

It sure is! All is dandy



...... Even while Bibles burn, God is in his Heaven and All is right in the World.

[buttslinger]

Brother Martin, need I remind you that both US and British forces killed 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, not our finest hour, in WWII we bombed the shit out of Europe, because everyone in Europe was in an evil cult. For us, this was a good righteous thing worth dying for. We didn't line up civilians and shoot them, but we sure as hell dropped bombs on civilians.

Blowing somebody away may not me righteous, but it is right. To the person pulling the trigger. If you see a retarded guy walking down the street, you see the guy as retarded, not the world. History is always right, the world is always right. It's the people that are fucked up.

[yodajazz]

Although I agree in general with your remarks, the problem we face is the same for any religion which relies on an ancient text, because in my opinion we are doomed to interpret and re-interpret such texts in our own time, which for Islam makes the claims of the present day Salaf a complete nonsense -they should have the honesty to state that they are re-interpreting their religion and not pretend that the Quran in particular cannot be interpreted. History has shown that far from being immutable, the 'Word of God' might as well be made of plastic.

...

The case of the military aspects of early Islam is a fine case of how history is read backwards to suit present times, rather than in its context. The Battle of the Trench, viewed as the decisive battle between the Muslims and the Pagan and Jewish tribes for control of Medina, offers up for some the typical reaction of Muslims to the Jews, for of the Confederate tribes who attempted to inflict a decisive defeat on Muhammad and his new religion, the defeated Jews were rounded up after the battle, the men slaughtered and the women taken into 'sex slavery'. What the present day re-interpretations do not reveal is that when Muhammad arrived in Medina he sought an accommodation of the Jewish tribes into his new Community and initially they obliged, but owing to to the complex relations the Jews already had with the existing tribes, plus the influence of the anti-Muslims, the Jewish tribes hedged their bets by deciding after all not to support Muhammad, so that they became seen as having betrayed a pledge -but they did it for political rather than religious reasons. Yet when it came time to punish them, Muhammad's punishment was taken not from the emerging 'Shari'a law', but from the Torah, and in particular from Deuteronomy 20, 10-14 -in other words, Muhammad inflicted 'Jewish' punishment on the Jewish tribes.

...
One option, of course is to dismiss religion as a phoney interpretation of the world which has no credibility precisely because it relies so much on a non-existent deity who has created everything and who made a statement in the 7th century which cannot be changed. That does not deal with the billions of people who do believe in God, but it does remind us that we for ever editing the religious texts of the past to remove those passages we don't like, just as some other passages are interpreted to justify a course of action. All religions are guilty, and tedious and often ineffectiive as it seems to be, we should always try to engage people in a dialogue which does not insult believers, even as it attempts to expose those parts of their faith which are no longer acceptable in the world in which we live.

Philosophically, many define God, as "all knowing', the creator of the world/and or universe (as we perceive it.) Our scientific knowledge, should then bring us closer to God. And if human life is evolving the some the rules should evolve with our new understanding. However, principles should never change, but can find new ways to practice the same principles. Charity is a principle. But lets look at the eating of pork. In my view, at the time, the Koran was written pigs were often easily infected with parasites. so it made more sense back then. So for me that was okay for that time, but not important today. However, there are many people that say we should not eat pork, because of how the animals are treated. Others cite that there are still health reasons why pork is bad. But in a hypothetical example where someones kills another because they knowingly but pork by-products in their food, they did not kill the person for religious reasons. That is because Islam, and other religions have important distinctions about the taking of human life. and that is more important than a 'status' violation.

You are correct about the "Battle of the Trench". How the Jews that betrayed the Prophet were treated about rules of war. The Prophet's earlier definition of Jews, and Christians being "People of the Book' have never been invalidated, to this day. There as some Muslims who may believe that the principle was invalidated but that's not the truth. The concept that certain things were changed over time is called 'abrogation'. Are even Islamic scholars who believe that certain passages were abrogated, but there is a verse in the Koran itself, that says there are no abrogations. Many people believe the conflict with Israel, and the Islamic world is about religion. It is not. It is about land, and political power. I believe this truth is downplayed, in western media, for political purposes.

Lastly, I believe in God. However, for me proof of it's existence is not that important. It's really about the rules for living, that benefits individual happiness and the overall advancement of human life. Jesus himself captured the essence of this, in his story about "the good Samaritan". He broke certain religious laws of his land, but his message was about fulfilling the underlying principles, not strict adherence to rules.

[Stavros]

Maybe the question is this: Is God a noun or a verb?

[yodajazz]

God is definitely a a noun. But is is often named as the cause of events, and also 'recommender' of actions, or a way of life. I like the concept of Karma, but it is virtually identical to what others call 'God's Law". The major issue with 'God" is that groups of people begin to believe their path is the only way. For example, they might say God must be called by a specific name. But even in Islam, there are 99 names for Allah. These are his attributes, such as the "The Merciful", etc. But all too often, a religion's path to God is used an excuse for political power. If one believes in the words of the Koran, as just one example, the righteous follows will spend eternity in paradise. So why would one need to go out and punish 'non-believers' when they could possibly be punished by Allah for eternity? In the case of the Koran, at the time it was written, 'non-believers' were the ones attacking them and fighting them for precious resources. So that specific actions of the Prophet were for his battle enemies, at the time, for the 21st Century, against people who are not interfering with Muslims religious practice and lifestyle. Jews lived peacefully for 700 years, in Spain, after it was conquered my Muslims in 711. (Despite Jews being killed under the Prophet's orders, in the Battle of the Trench.) But the Jews were persecuted, and tortured by Christians, as they took power.

[Nikka]

I have read the Koran, it has a completly contrast with the BIBle, at some point it make u think muslims are right , that book made me a conflict with all my family........ it a really powerfull book

[buttslinger]

"Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven" - Hell's Angels

I guess Nikka has two Hells she's destined to go to, now................ha ha

I think everybody carries a sense that there's a debt to be paid in this life, that there's going to be Hell to pay, but let's put it off as long as we can. Especially when the ante for the "Big Game" is about as close to Death as it gets. For Illusion to be Illusion, it's got to be real.

If you were to concentrate on one point on the wall directly in front of you, (meditation) eventually all the stuff you accept as real would cease to exist, and after you were done, the One Thing that doesn't cease to exist would be God.
Pretty Simple in Theory.