The earth is flat, prophet muhammed wasn't a pedophile and Pat Condell talks rubbish. Yeah right. Your subconsciousness does know the truth. That is why your so upset when somebody talks the easy truth.
the assumtion that one can use satirical comments that are intended to mean the opposite and that this is the same as straight translations of the Koran as far as twisting of the meaning goes is absurd. Mohamad was a warlord. and his followers for 1300 years have imposed and maintained Islam by terror and force. They are doing it today, and the film Fitna accurately reflects that. There is going to be increasing conflict with them in the future. They want Jihad, they can get it right back!!
It is perfectly acceptable to me not to like Islam for a variety of reasons. However, not to like Islam on the basis that you do not understand it, or because you have a narrow, uneducated, or bigoted view of it whilst spreading untruths about it is another matter altogether.
I invite you to view my friends list. Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, I am friends with and have dialogue with all manner non-Muslims and can prove it. Condell, however, chooses to ignore me and cannot disprove what I say.
magnusea, why did Condell not post his 'Religion of fear' video into the 'comedy' section then? Why post it into "News and Politics"? Or was that part of the 'joke'?
There are only 2 things that are funny about Condell
1) That he thinks he can take an extremist, ill-educated and bigoted argument and pass it off as 'comedy'.
2) That people take him seriously.
Which is it, comedy or serious comment? He can not have it both ways.
magnusea, why did Condell not post his 'Religion of fear' video into the 'comedy' section then? Why post it into "News and Politics"? Or was that part of the 'joke'?
There are only 2 things that are funny about Condell
1) That he thinks he can take an extremist, ill-educated and bigoted argument and pass it off as 'comedy'.
2) That people take him seriously.
Which is it, comedy or serious comment? He can not have it both ways.
lllnnn333, read the description to this video. That the words are out of context is the whole point, the fact that it offended you that the words are out of context should give you an insight into how I feel about how Condell portrays Islam.
i dont know what happened to my last message ??? ...any way he rights about islam .we dont 7 century islamic dogma ,a dhimmi tax ,shria law ..and of course choudary....what a cunt
I just don't think that we came from nothing. I have been described by others as a 'spiritual' person, and that probably has a ring of truth in that I do think there is a God.
Do I think God is an old dude with a beard? No. I don't think we can understand the nature of God, I don't think God is a physical being as we would understand it.
Maybe one day science will prove that there is no God. Even so, I would still see myself as a Muslim as Islam provides us with a basic framework of life.
So far as I see it, and I've seen Muslims on YT agree with me on this. Islam may 'prohibit' or 'allow' certain things but it is not for a Muslim to judge other people on homosexuality or calling a teddy Muhammad, or whatever.
The ultimate judge is God, and God gave us free will so if a person wants to commit homosexual acts that is up to them and none of my business. My position is that a Muslim can be homosexual and that is their choice and nothing to do with me.
In fact, to go further than that, I don't think that being a homosexual automatically means you go to 'hell' (and again, I don't think we can understand the nature of hell or heaven any more than we can understand the nature of God). People do both 'good' and 'bad' things and the overall intent of your deeds is probably more important.
Within Islam, I can see direct calls for people not to rely upon miracles but to actually help and think for themselves.
I understand the way you view islam, unfortunately, i do not believe that is how the majority of muslims interpret it.You seem like a logical person, that is why i find it so hard to understand why you believe in something for which there is no proof. do you believe that evolution happened?
It is not very difficult for religious ppl to accept evolution. When I used to be religious, whatever contradicted science and morality, I used to take them as metaphors.
Wow, you picked up on a spelling mistake! Well done! If you're going to make videos, you must be open to criticism. It's called free speech. Or have you not heard of that concept?
I don't need to provide evidence. it is public knowledge. stoning? views on homosexuality? just a few examples. Why do i need to produce a video? Quite childish to call me a "fake" because of that.
So you can pick and choose which parts of your holy book you want to live by? I don't care what Jesus said. all religions are as backward as each other. I believe in things which evidence exists to support. unlike any religion, science can give real answers to lifes questions instead of mythology. Where do you own, and what?
This round you Iose, I don't pick and choose, I may not engage in homosexuality, But I wouldn't stop others doing so, is that irrationality? You believe in evidence and rationality? But how have *you* evidenced *your* claims, in actuality? I 0wned you, you should be atoning, I proved an Islamic prophet said no to stoning, This was my evidence and how I support My point against the things you purport Now I have proven your thought process untrue, The next (rational! evidenced!) move is up to you
Yes,it is irrational to say you would turn a blind eye to homosexuality if your religion condemns it,you either follow your religion, or you are choosing which bits to follow! what have you proven untrue?Please stop using childish language like "owned" if you wish to engage in grown up discussion.There is no evidence to support any religious beliefs, if you have any at all I would be happy to change my opinion.but this evidence does not exist. faith is only required when evidence does not exist.
OK. My creative juices have dwindled, no more rhymes.
My religion frowns upon homosexuality, this is true, therefore, as an individual I would not practice it, (I wouldn't need religion to tell me that anyway, men are far less attractive then women in my opinion!) However, this does not mean that I have the right to stop others from homosexual activity if they so desire. Is there anything within Islam that you can provide as evidence to prove that I am wrong in this thought process?
2) Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
3) Therefore, there is a very strong precedent within Islam against stoning.
4) Additionally, you will find that some Muslim majority countries, like Turkey, do not engage in stoning, do you think they are not, therefore Islamic countries?
Former Muslim,Wafa Sultan: "The Prophet of Islam said: I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger. When the Moslems divided the people into Moslems and non-Moslems, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir (excommunication) and fighting the infidels."
You have not directly addressed my points with regards to your original arguments about stoning and homosexuality.
You are making a third point here about Muslims and non-Muslims one which is also a fallacy but which deserves a separate debate.
It is no good quoting what Wafa Sultan has said, to what was she referring? The Qur'an, a hadith? I thought you were rational? Yet you rely on second hand hearsay? Do your own research and quote me a primary source please.
I do not consider stoning people to death to be part of Sharia law, I've given my reasons why, can you prove otherwise?
I do not consider that I need to do anything to stop two consenting same-sex adults from having sex with each other, can you prove that Islam requires me to do so?
You have yet to seriously defend any of your claims, can you not quote from the Qur'an or Hadith any text which requires me to stone a homosexual to death, for instance?
I do not think that what you consider to be Sharia, and what I consider to be Sharia are the same thing.
Yes, stoning to death is backward. But if Jesus, a prophet of Islam did not do it, I don't see why I should. Can you prove otherwise?
Sharia law is not just about punishment. Sharia law regulates - amongst other things - things like prayer times, marriage ceremonies, the giving of my own wealth to charity, not charging interest on money, and how I behave towards others.
Now I would ask you. In a conversation between two strangers, who is the most "backward"? The person who has rationally disproved everything the other has to say, or the one who, despite being disproved, refuses to acknowledge the evidence in front of him and changes the parameters of the debate trying desperately to score in an infantile game of points.
I've asked you a number of time to prove your points. if you cannot do so, then please think about how irrational you are being.
Can you deny that any of the following statements are true?
Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.Islam orders apostates to be killed.Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. I can provide evidence for all of these claims. which ones do you claim to be false?
Ohhh look. I wonder where you got your information from? are you, perhaps, a cut-and-paste answering-islam-org fan???
How tedious for you. First using Wafa Sultan as a primary source and now this biased website. There are so many fallacies at work.
Firstly, I'm a secular Muslim in that I believe in the separation of state law and religion. I don't think that a strict (or outright incorrect) interpretation of the Qur'an or Hadith should be enshrined into state law.
Secondly, Sharia law is applicable only to Muslims anyway. Non-Muslims are exempt from Sharia law.
Thirdly, I've already proven that stoning someone (homosexuals, for instance), is against the sayings of an Islamic prophet, are you sure you can trump that?
Forthly, how do you explain those countries with a Muslim majority which have a secular legal system, such as Turkey?
Fifthly, I can only presume that you also campaign against capital punishment in say China and the US?
Fine, you are a secular muslim, how you choose to interpret your religion is up to you. But, these harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith. I do not care who sharia law is applicable to, if jihad is commanded, surely the goal is to have everyone as a muslim? All you have done by pointing out that stoning is against the sayings of an islamic prophet, is to expose a contradiction in your religion. Regarding Turkey...
There is no contradiction. As you have pointed out, there are different interpretations of religion, and all I can do is follow my own mind (not that of some 'scholars' who clearly twist the words of the Qur'an and Hadith for other means).
I have questioned your understanding of Sharia law, and that questioning has proven true, you have ignored my point about Sharia being more than about state laws. There are many muslims who are fine with secular law - check out bmsd-org-uk.
i understand sharia perfectly. i can see that there are many aspects to it. i am focusing on some areas to prove my point that it is a backward concept.
You understand Sharia perfectly? Wow. You must know more than many Muslim "scholars".
You studied all the Sharia schools of thought? Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii and Jaafari? And you believe that they all accord with the examples in the Qur'an and Hadith? Then you truly understand the massive differences of opinion within the Muslim world about Sharia law.
This must have taken you many years and I'm in awe of this considerable achievement.
Oh. Now you only understand the "concept" of Sharia perfectly, this is an embarrassing reversal.
So now you admit you are commenting upon numerous systems and lumping them together as one and labeling it "Sharia".
Systems which neither of us will ever fully understand in our lifetime and yet which you claim to be able to objectively and independently verify as being both derived from the Qur'an and Hadith and being representative of the spirit and letter of the Qur'an and Hadith?
i'm not embarrassed, as i've said before, you like to nit pick. Just because something is complex, it does not mean that there may be simple points to be found. There are clear "rules" which are contained in sharia which are barbaric and backward. to deny this, is to deny your own religion.
You are asking me to accept *your* interpretation of a narrow set of supposed Sharia rulings which I myself do not accept as valid for various reasons.
What you call nit-picking is actually just pointing out the truth, and many Muslims agree with me... like the entire Turkish nation.
Now I question your understanding of the word 'Jihad'. Have you studied the difference between the greater and the lesser Jihad? And have you studied the context in which the lesser Jihad can be fought? For instance, simply by engaging in public debate with you, I consider myself involved in "Jihad", without trying to convert you, or kill you.
I consider the greatest Jihad, or "struggle" to be to improve myself.
I am a Muslim involved in "Jihad" but this Jihad is totally non-violent.
ok then, what is the purpose of lesser Jihad? Is it not obvious which i am talking about? I am talking about the version which is as barbaric as the penalty for leaving islam!
I see, so there are many versions of Sharia law now? Well, you must have known this from the start as you tell me that you understand Sharia perfectly. So you have picked the version of Sharia which suits your own agenda, is that what you are saying?
But I've told you that I'm a secular Muslim and there are many secular Muslims like me. We are living proof that Islam does not require hacking off of hands even though there are aspects of Sharia law (charity, fasting, etc) which we do adhere to.
You are labeling the entire religion of Islam backwards based upon a narrow analysis of some dubious parts of Sharia law upon which certainly not all Muslims would agree with (the Turks, for instance). What a strange position to be in.
then again i will say that you are picking and choosing which parts of your religion you find acceptable. if laws are to be found in sharia, should you not be following them?
Good grief. There are some "Sharia" laws I do not agree with because I do not agree that they are a correct representation of the Qur'an, or even that Islam allows for many different punishments lenient and harsh one, and that generally within Islam being more forgiving and lenient is better than being harsh. Additionally, I do not think a strict literal interpretation of Hadith is required.
That is why being secular with regards to criminal law is probably for the best.
As I've pointed out, even Muslims do not agree upon the interpretation of Sharia law. To borrow a Jewish saying, if you get 10 Muslims in a room, you will get 11 opinions on Sharia. I can only follow what my mind and heart tell me to be true, you might call it "picking and choosing", I call it a rational analysis.
You have picked those parts of Sharia which *you* disagree with in the knowledge that *not all Muslims agree with that interpretation* and argue that they are infallible facts.
Turkey prides itself on being one of the most modern Muslim majority countries, surely this proves my point that one of the least strict majority muslim nations is one of the least backward in terms of law? Yes, i do believe that capital punishment is a barbaric concept, however, this punishment is not carried out in accordance with any religion.
You call Turkey one of the "least strict" Muslim countries, and yet you still admit that it is a Muslim country and that it is possible within a Muslim majority country to have a secular law not based upon chopping off heads and hands.
Why then are you pointing to the "harsher" implementations of the law? As I've already pointed out, and we agree, secular law can be barbaric or lenient also, if we look at China and US executions, for instance.
No. I called it one of the least strict muslim majority countries. it is not a muslim country. As i've already said. capital punishment in the US and China is not performed in the name of religion. that is the point i am making.
Now you seem to be claiming that a country with a Muslim majority is not abiding by Islamic principles. How can that be? Are you saying that millions of Muslims in Turkey are incorrect because they are not chopping of hands?
I understand your point about capital punishment not being performed in the name of religion, but my point is that a secular non-religious law can still be barbaric, and can be "extreme" or "lenient". Secular law is not infallible. The US is "one nation under God".
Many muslims believe Turkey's moderate, Islamist-leaning leadership is a stooge of the West. I am saying that the less islamic a country is, generally the more civilised it is. It stands to reason then that the more islamic ( sharia law states) a country is, the more barbaric it is (Saudi Arabia), by the way, even non muslims are tried under sharia in this country.
But I've already said that non-Muslims are not bound by Sharia law. How can Saudi Arabia be the most Islamic state if it breaks this basic Sharia concept? Also, within Islam, an un-elected monarchy is haraam, another reason why Saudi Arabia cannot be considered the most Islamic state. Additionally, Saudi has not supported it's Muslim brothers in Gaza and the West Bank, another reason why they cannot be considered the most Islamic state. Is Saudi not a western "stooge"?
The quran is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of the Sharia.Saudi Arabian culture mainly revolves around the religion of Islam. Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, are located in the country. I don't see how you can get a more islamic country.
Ignore the rational facts that I have presented about Saudi Arabia if you like.
There is a country called "The Democratic Republic of Congo". It calls itself "democratic", but a rational analysis proves that it is not. Likewise, Israel contains holy Islamic sites, is Israel an Islamic country on that basis? The US contains no major Christian holy sites, and yet is "one nation under God" and prints "In God we trust" on cash.
A culture does not necessarily reflect purely religious values.
I'm not saying that either Turkey or Saudi Arabia is "more" or "less" influenced by Islam.
There is no country in the world that I would recognise as a perfect example of Islam, just as there are no perfect examples of secularism. It is incorrect to point to any single country as an example of what Islam is or is not.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are contradictions of each other, but neither truly represents Islam as I know it, or as many Muslims practice it.
If we agree that no country is a perfect example of Islam, why are you using Saudi Arabia as if it is?
I can't answer which country is more "influenced" by Islam.
To do so objectively would require is to agree objectively what Islam requires of a state. I don't think we have done that yet, I don't know if anyone has done so. That is my point.
Many countries may have been "influenced" by Islam, that does not mean that they are currently an example of Islamic ideals. Spain comes to mind.
You're missing the point. I am asking which country you believe is most heavily influenced by islam. You are avoiding answering it because you are aware that the answer is clear, and not an answer which sits well with your vision of what islam is. You are saying that a country may not exist which is a good example of an islamic nation. can you not admit that the country with which most people associate islam (as does the nation) is one of the most critisized for human rights abuse in the world?
I'm not missing the point. I read and understand your question.
My point is that the context of your question requires us to objectively decide and prove what Islam requires from a state. We have not done that.
Just because "most people" associate Islam with a particular country, that does not mean that that particular country is in fact the best example of an Islamic influenced country.
As for human rights abuse, surely Israel, China and the US are worse even than Saudi Arabia?
Now, if it has been influenced by it in a positive or negative way is not the question. The whole culture, law, and all aspects of life are influenced by islam. The country is the way it is because of islamic influence, not in spite of it. Surely you can see that ? The other countries you have listed may have human rights violations. But the influence is not religious. there is no need to decide what islam requires of a state, the state has decided what islam requires of it.
"there is no need to decide what islam requires of a state, the state has decided what islam requires of it."
No. One must first decide what Islam requires the state to be structured like, and then build the state to those requirements.
Many separate states with a Muslim majority (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, The Maldives, Malysia, etc) have each come to different conclusions on this and yet you expect me to objectively pick out which is the "most influenced" by Islam?
No, here's where we differ. you have an idealistic view of what an islamic state should be like. the problem is that it doesn't exist. added to that, the closest thing that exists (most heavily influenced) is a disaster. You cannot deny that peoples lives in saudi arabia, are more influenced by islam than most other places in the world. No other religion is allowed to be practised in that country, can you say that about the ones you've mentioned? come on - face facts.
If you are concerned from a Human Rights perspective, why are you not campaigning against all Human Rights abuse? Wherever it occurs, regardless of any religious aspect which you might (rightly or wrongly) perceive?
No Islamic state has the power to abuse human rights on a scale that has been perpetrated recently by the US, China and Israel, which are all secular states. I have a particular distaste for hypocritical western states preaching democracy and justice, but not practicing it.
You are willing to ignore Human Rights abuses on a massive scale by secular states, but wish to draw attention to the relatively smaller scale abuses (which is not to say they are not abhorrent!) by Islamic states?
This may illustrate my point in a clearer fashion: Suicide bombers are more heavily influenced by islam than anything else in their lives. whether they have interpreted their religion correctly or not is beside the point. they are still influenced by it.
now you are joking with me! not being married? come on. they do it because they believe they are doing what islam requires of them. as i said, right or wrong. that is how they interpret their religion.
If a Muslim suicide bomber interprets their religion incorrectly, then they are not expressing their religion correctly, they are not adhering to Islam if suicide is forbidden, which it is.
Yes, i'm quoting:"the greatest of all sorts of Jihad in the Cause of Allah. A martyr operation is carried out by a person who sacrifices himself, deeming his life less value than striving in the Cause of Allah, in the cause of restoring the land and preserving the dignity." Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, sometimes called "the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist"
The opinion of "the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist" is not in accord with the majority of Muslim opinion on this matter.
I note how you sidestep the fact that a suicide bomber may have a legitimate political grievance at the root of their suicide attack, instead you portray that suicide is simply an expression of religion rather than a political statement by desperate people with no other effective means of attack, or defense.
Shinto was the state religion of the Empire of Japan.Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion. So your statement is incorrect.
I am not insinuating that it does. The pilots believed what they were doing was for the good of the emperor and their nation. That it was the highest honor for your family if you were prepared to die for Japan. What point are you attempting to make with this?
Around 926 hadiths in the Bukhari Hadiths and 181 hadiths in Sahih Muslim (that is over 710 pages in English and Arabic) leave no doubt that Jihad is fighting for Allah. Are you saying that quote is taken out of context? Please.
Are we going to tussle again over the meaning of the word Jihad? Did you research it yet?
Mohammed (pbuh) is one of a chain of prophets who preach amongst other things to love thy neigbour. Are you saying that where there is any doubt over the context or meaning of a verse or hadith, one should interpret it to mean as much physical violence as possible despite the fact that this would not be in keeping with the message of other prophets?
I'm sure we have gone over this. I understand the different ways in which the word "Jihad" can be interpreted. One of the ways, and the most prominent to none muslims (since it affects them most) is that of a violent holy war.
If you agree that the word "Jihad" can have multiple meanings, why do you not think that the context of a Hadith which you say talks about violent Jihad is critical to understanding if Muhammad (pbuh) meant "kill all non-believers upon sight" or "use your intellect to explain the meaning of Islam to non-believers"?
The Qur'an itself refers to apostasy several times but does not proscribe a punishment.
Whilst I see that there is a Hadith that says something, that does not necessarily mean that the Hadith is something I should follow literally.
The Hadith you quote is of someone else quoting Muhammad, (pbuh) and yet the Qur'an, and all the other Prophets stands as testimony against the Hadith you quote requiring a literal translation.
The evidence is that either the Hadith is wrong, or out of context.
So if that is the case then why do the four major Sunni Madh'hab and the Twelver Shi'a Jafari madhab agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed? Are they wrong, they know less about islam than you do?
what context is that in! I can play that game too. Look, you seem like a reasonable person, unfortunately, i do not believe that islam is rational. if all muslims are argueing over what each verse means, if it is taken in the correct context or not, whether they should be punishing people for this and that... it is inevitable that as you have, people will follow islam in their own way. therefore, no one can say that the extremists are wrong - they are interpreting the religion as they see it.
But you have not explained *any* of the context of the things you have quoted, so you have not been playing the game, you have been avoiding it.
The surah I quoted from the Qur'an is titled "The Unbelievers". It is fair to assume that it is a surah exclusively talking about unbelievers. It is a chapter of 6 verses, all of which I quoted to you. That is the entire context of my quote and cannot be placed in any other context as it has no other verses in the surah,
There can be no compulsion in religion, and one submits oneself freely to it or not at all.
Using free will one must make one's own decisions about how best to be a Muslim, using not only the example of Muhammad (pbuh), but also the example and teachings of other prophets.
Of course Islam has splits, we have discussed the 5 schools of Sharia and so forth, but I cannot dictate what extremists (your own word which suggests they are in a minority) do.
You seem to think that Islam is absolute and that we should take each Hadith in contextual and historical isolation and not look at it in the scope of the bigger picture and how Islam completes the teachings of previous prophets.
You and I disagree over what Islam is and how it should be practiced, but as you have pointed out yourself, it is hard to say who is "wrong" and who is "right". One can only follow one's own intellect and draw your own conclusions, as I have done in choosing Islam.
Surely you can see that is what is so dangerous about islam? If it was obvious to all that it taught murdering of infidels, stoning etc. no one in their right mind would follow it, it would be banned. The fact that people can interpret this information in itself makes the religion dangerous. Who has a difinative template for how a muslim should live, according to you, it does not exist. Only "follow your own intellect" well, that is what the bombers believe being a good muslim is too.
He seem to have radical views under the guise of moderation.
He says, death is for those who leave Islam and fight against or "harm" Islam. he doesn't say what it means to "harm" Islam. It could mean speaking against Islamic theology.
He doesn't support separation of State and Religion, and supports theocracy.
He says no freedom to Insult which is unacceptable since there is no fine line b/n freedom of speech and insult.
Anyway why are his views authoritative, or representative?
Additionally, Muhammad, (pbuh) had many opportunities to kill non-Muslims but did not do so, and in fact had treaties with non-Muslims - how does this fit into your analysis that Islam requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims as a matter of religious duty?
How do you explain that Saudi Arabia - by your analysis, not mine - is the most "influenced" by Islam and which strangely hasn't been to war for a number of years and yet which has good relations with non-Muslim states?
Sura 4:74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall We give him a reward of great value.
Sura 9:123: Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.
I could go on with this, but i'm sure you get the point.
4:74 is not a call to fight so far as I can see. It is clearly saying that if you are already at war then to die in the cause of Allah is no bad thing.
9:123 Again, I'd say that you would need to explain the context of this verse. Even ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (from where Saudi Arabia gets it's Wahhabism from) did not use this verse to assert a Muslim Jihad against others. If even he didn't, what does that say for your theories about Saudi Arabia?
well, if you are going to be rewarded for something, is that not an incentive to do it?
9:123 wage war against infidels.
as i said, i could go on. you will carry on playing the out of context, or misinterpreted card. i believe you are in denial with regard to the violent nature of the literature.
I am not saying that muslims are stupid - it would be impossible for Saudi arabia to take on the rest of the non-muslim world in an overt war. but a covert one...
The Modern Saudi Arabia was formed in 1932, though the Saudi dynasty began to emerge as far back as 1774. I'm sure you'll agree that the balance of power back then was not as it is know. Why wait till 2009?
I see I'll have to get my tin foil hat out as we are drifting into the realms of conspiracy theory here.
Perhaps accusing Islam of being a barbaric religion helps you to ignore analysing the barbaric acts apparent within the secular legal system - Guantanamo, illegal aggressive wars, encroachment of civil liberties and so on - at both the national and international levels.
I'm quite happy denouncing Human Rights abuse wherever it comes from without prejudice as to the professed religion of those committing those abuses.
again - missing the point. it is that these acts are done in the name of religion, not in spite of them. why are you saying " well, ok, that is bad, but this is worse" we are talking about the effect of islam. not world politics. there are a million things wrong with the way the world is. i am talking about one of them. don't change the subject (unless you have to).
Acts may be done "in the name of religion" by people who do not understand, or who are deliberately distorting the religion. For instance, the Inquisition was committed in the name of religion and the church now recognises that their religion does not support such things and has apologised for it. Religion, then, is not necessarily in itself inherently wrong or barbaric, just that individuals use and twist religion to justify horrible and barbaric acts.
Do you believe that the people who blow themselves up believe they are doing a good thing? What is the last thing a bomber says before blowing himself up? As you interpret your religion in your own way, so can anyone else. if it is possible to interpret it in a violent way ( and believe me, it is very easy to interpret it in that way) you will continue to have suicide bombings, with islam as the CAUSE. They would not be blowing themselves up if they did not believe it was right.
I do believe that suicide bombers think they are doing an ultimately good thing, otherwise, they would not give up their lives. To purport, as you seem to, that they do it to further religion is inaccurate as you are ignoring the political or nationalist motivations of acts of suicide. Religion to them is a means to justify what they do, but is not in itself the motivation for what they do.
what is the last thing that comes out of a bombers mouth before he/she blows themselves up? Are you saying that suicide bombers actions have nothing to do with religion? whether it is the sole motivation or not, it plays a very big part. and without it, i'm sure that most would not perform the act.
With regard to suicide bombers, Thích Quảng Đức, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, burnt himself to death in Saigon in 1963. He was protesting President Ngô Đình Diệm's administration.
Buddhism is explicitly against suicide, therefore, one can only assume that Thích Quảng Đức was driven by political factors which overrode his religious beliefs.
The Lotus Sutra and several other Mahayana works praise the burning of one's own body, a sort of human incense stick, as the "highest offering". You really need to do more research before coming up with these arguments about other religions!
It must be quite a common occurrence then, amongst buddhists to self-immolate to the point of actual death. If, as you have said that "because people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
Could you perhaps quote a passage from the Lotus Sutra which proves your point?
I have no idea whether it is common or not. If you hadn't noticed, it was not done in the name of religion, that was the point you were trying to make. I am not making things up, do your own research if you don't believe me. i know it's not nice to be wrong, but nit picking will not change that. no, i am not going to find a quote for you. Please give up the futile changes of subject.
The subject was suicide in the name of religion, and you said "people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
I said that Buddhism is against causing self-immolation. I was referring to the Middle Way which buddhanet-net tells us that Buddha himself "advocated in the quest for enlightenment avoided the extremes of sensual self-indulgence on the one hand and self-mortification on the other".
You assert that the "Lotus Sutra and several other Mahayana works praise the burning of one's own body, a sort of human incense stick, as the "highest offering".
Here I must draw parallels with your analysis of Islam in that I think you are taking something out of context or perhaps misquoting.
You have made an assertion about Buddhism that you cannot prove, as you have done with Islam. I again invite you to prove me wrong by quoting the Lotus Sutra.
If the practice of self-immolation is not common amongst Buddhists it would imply that self-immolation is not in fact the highest offering possible when we take into account your assertion that "people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
If you are right, Buddhist should be burning themselves to death on a quite regular basis, should they not? In fact, the whole religion should be... burnt out!
"Because of the power of imagination, the power of vision, you get some kind of different ideas: in the morning, something different; and in the evening, something different. There are big differences-contradiction. Sometimes, the contradictions are so big, and if you have no ability to overcome that, then suicide also sometimes happens. So, contradictions, disagreements, are always there.
We need some kind of method or technique to overcome that contradiction."
Clearly, the Dalai Lama thinks that suicide is the result of the human mind being unable to rationally cope with contradictions, and that we need to overcome these contradictions. Why, as the leading figurehead of Buddhist thinking, does he not say that suicide through self-immolation is the "highest offering" one can give?
Why is the religious leader of Buddhism *not* advocating suicide through human incense stick offerings?
If you are wrong on this, what else are you wrong on?
In chapter 23 of the sutra, the Medicine King bodhisattva offered of his own body. He anointed his body with fragrant oil and calling on his transcendental powers, he set fire to his body following this it is recorded that The Buddhas in the worlds simultaneously spoke out in praise, saying: ˜Excellent, excellent, good man! This is true diligence." Now i have shown you where it can be found. Will you admit i am not wrong?
I see no reference to it being the "highest offering" as you explicitly quoted. It seems that your analysis is in contradiction with that of the currently recognised leading member of the Buddhist faith.
Thich Nhat Hanh :"The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others"
In self-sacrifice Thích Quảng Đức was hoping to gain a better life for other people. He was not killing himself for his religion, he making a political protest to draw attention to the plight of others for "the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others".
His political statement against persecution was the driving force behind his self-immolation, not religion. If he was not being persecuted, he would not have self-immolated.
He was protesting against the persicution of buddhists. I do not accept your point, are you saying that the terrorists flew planes into the towers because they were being persicuted? it is totally different. no buddhist is trying to kill others, is there an occasion where a muslim suicide bomber has not been trying to murder others?
So if we agree that secular law can be both barbaric and lenient depending upon which country you use as an example and how that country applies the law, and who administers the law, why do you expect Sharia law to be any different?
One of your arguments is that people advance their political causes using religion. But the result is that later, religion will find its own purpose and advance its cause using politics. That's why 'liberating Chechnya' has changed its nature into 'establishing an Islamic state'. Similarly, Removing Israel rather than establishing 2 states based on 1967 borders is an idea that is propelled by religion.
I do not claim to have any deep knowledge of Chechnya so cannot comment, however, I will say that you are wrong about Israel.
To even discuss the 1967 borders ignores the context of the creation of Israel which was created out of land that was undemocratically taken from the population of that land (Muslims, Christians and Jews), creating millions of homeless refugees.
What propels Palestinian resistance, then, is the illegal occupation and confiscation of their land and property and (cont..)
... the consistent abuse of Palestinian human rights by the state of Israel. Israel is an occupying force and this is recognised by the international community. Is it not at all possible that what drives small children to throw stones at tanks is /not/ religion but instead the barbaric treatment they receive at the hands of an occupying force?
The solution may be 1, 2 or 3 states but what matters is that the solution is reached democratically, not by forced imposition.
I understand the genuine issues, and Israeli terrorism. But If we start running the clock back how much should we run it? I don't see any difference between Ottoman Armenia and Palestine(which is much smaller, btw. both were regions of the Ottoman empire). Are there no pan-Islamists who are taking advantage of Palestinian suferings to further their cause? No theological issues with Jerusalem? No clash of Zionism and pan-Islamism?
A few more things related to your other arguments:
Human Rights:
Human rights abuses by the US govt is equally condemnable as that done by the Islamists. So is barbarism under Sharia or secular law. However, it is natural to be more concerned about those who want to change rewrite Human Rights itself. This is the case of many of the so called 'liberators'.
Though the people who program the suicide bombers have a political aim, the motivations of the bombers themselves are religious. Why would British Muslim converts blow themselves in London? Correct me if I'm wrong on this. But I think Benazir was killed for her secular views. Why did boys who were safe in their country(but were poor of course) do the Mumbai Massacre?
It's always possible to groom bombers using some dogma, collectivism and indoctrination, as in the case of Japanese or Tamil suicide bombers. But they are not done under the umbrella of respect for religion.
It is natural for people to use Religion is used to advance political causes. But using some religions causes the issue to get out of hand, and cause more problems to their cause, genuine or not. US, Pakistan and Afghanistan are now suffering from this. It's not always the people's fault. There is a great difference if a resistance is secular.
I'm not a fan of Nationalism. But Nationalism unites co-habitants and has no hard coded ethics and is mouldable based on reasoning which is a plus when compared to religion.
A perceived (rightly or wrongly) political injustice must come first before any suicide bomber. Please can you point to any suicide bomber who blew themselves up purely for the advancement of religion rather than to make a political point. 9/11 and 7/7 can both be traced back to the foreign policy of the US& UK, that was the motivation for the bombers, though I concede that they took solace from a perception that they would receive a reward in the afterlife, it was above all a political act.
That would be, if it were someone who saw the sufferings of his family or country men, not Mohammad Sidique Khan, a British Citizen and "a teacher respected by pupils and parents" who wouldn't dream of doing it, for reasons other than religion. Sufferings inflicted by infidels upon his co-religionists spoke more to him that any other conflict around the world. I agree that politics was a trigger. But it was not "a political act", as evident from his videotape.
Religion can make people suspend reason, and moral inuitions. I understood this from Christains and Muslims I personally know, and from myself when I used to be religious. It's not always the spiritual stuff. Though only some actually convert their beliefs into action.
you're totally pointless. Sorry, thanks for the effort, we appreciate. Yet, I still think Condell says the truth about many things.
hivahoa121 2 months ago
Taxes are an Atheist's Best Weapon of Fear.
Grrrrrrrr!
Take that! Angry Godless meanie, you
ClockNumerology 3 months ago
The earth is flat, prophet muhammed wasn't a pedophile and Pat Condell talks rubbish. Yeah right. Your subconsciousness does know the truth. That is why your so upset when somebody talks the easy truth.
pafroosaaa 11 months ago
the assumtion that one can use satirical comments that are intended to mean the opposite and that this is the same as straight translations of the Koran as far as twisting of the meaning goes is absurd. Mohamad was a warlord. and his followers for 1300 years have imposed and maintained Islam by terror and force. They are doing it today, and the film Fitna accurately reflects that. There is going to be increasing conflict with them in the future. They want Jihad, they can get it right back!!
johnb66y 1 year ago
Ouchy, you really don't like people who don't like your religion, do you ? MR Sensitive....
bmgm3 2 years ago
It is perfectly acceptable to me not to like Islam for a variety of reasons. However, not to like Islam on the basis that you do not understand it, or because you have a narrow, uneducated, or bigoted view of it whilst spreading untruths about it is another matter altogether.
I invite you to view my friends list. Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, I am friends with and have dialogue with all manner non-Muslims and can prove it. Condell, however, chooses to ignore me and cannot disprove what I say.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Do you have the courage to show in a video the Islam in the full context(war, womens, economy, extremism, education)
i'm courios. You will pull the good Islam out of context or you will show good Islam in the real context?
StatusDefault 2 years ago
PatCondell is a ignorant old man, who preys on the ignorance of western people. A fool talking foolish for more fools.
SPEAKTRUTHALWAYS 2 years ago
Context is everything and the context of this video is...... nothing!
axiomiser 2 years ago
Condell is a comic stand up performer, not a scientist, and you are apparently a loser. Peace!
magnusea 2 years ago 2
magnusea, why did Condell not post his 'Religion of fear' video into the 'comedy' section then? Why post it into "News and Politics"? Or was that part of the 'joke'?
There are only 2 things that are funny about Condell
1) That he thinks he can take an extremist, ill-educated and bigoted argument and pass it off as 'comedy'.
2) That people take him seriously.
Which is it, comedy or serious comment? He can not have it both ways.
Thanks for the input though.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
THIS is the best you people can come up with. lieing and bending the truth.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago 2
Er. Read the description, or perhaps watch the first 38 seconds of the video. Either will do.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
magnusea, why did Condell not post his 'Religion of fear' video into the 'comedy' section then? Why post it into "News and Politics"? Or was that part of the 'joke'?
There are only 2 things that are funny about Condell
1) That he thinks he can take an extremist, ill-educated and bigoted argument and pass it off as 'comedy'.
2) That people take him seriously.
Which is it, comedy or serious comment? He can not have it both ways.
Thanks for the input though.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
aahhh. no I didn' realise that was deliberate. my bad.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
what ...a shit video ..like religion all the words have been take out of their context s and mixed from dif
lllnnn333 2 years ago
lllnnn333, read the description to this video. That the words are out of context is the whole point, the fact that it offended you that the words are out of context should give you an insight into how I feel about how Condell portrays Islam.
Thank you for your time.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
i dont know what happened to my last message ??? ...any way he rights about islam .we dont 7 century islamic dogma ,a dhimmi tax ,shria law ..and of course choudary....what a cunt
lllnnn333 2 years ago
Can i ask you? What makes you believe in Islam?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I just don't think that we came from nothing. I have been described by others as a 'spiritual' person, and that probably has a ring of truth in that I do think there is a God.
Do I think God is an old dude with a beard? No. I don't think we can understand the nature of God, I don't think God is a physical being as we would understand it.
Maybe one day science will prove that there is no God. Even so, I would still see myself as a Muslim as Islam provides us with a basic framework of life.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
So far as I see it, and I've seen Muslims on YT agree with me on this. Islam may 'prohibit' or 'allow' certain things but it is not for a Muslim to judge other people on homosexuality or calling a teddy Muhammad, or whatever.
The ultimate judge is God, and God gave us free will so if a person wants to commit homosexual acts that is up to them and none of my business. My position is that a Muslim can be homosexual and that is their choice and nothing to do with me.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
In fact, to go further than that, I don't think that being a homosexual automatically means you go to 'hell' (and again, I don't think we can understand the nature of hell or heaven any more than we can understand the nature of God). People do both 'good' and 'bad' things and the overall intent of your deeds is probably more important.
Within Islam, I can see direct calls for people not to rely upon miracles but to actually help and think for themselves.
I'm still learning about Islam.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I understand the way you view islam, unfortunately, i do not believe that is how the majority of muslims interpret it.You seem like a logical person, that is why i find it so hard to understand why you believe in something for which there is no proof. do you believe that evolution happened?
thisissick22 2 years ago
there are plenty of evidance.
Its intressting that you claim a thing without knowledge of it.
And the evo. theory did not occur.
AbuIsaSalafi2 2 years ago
very funny.
thisissick22 2 years ago
It is not very difficult for religious ppl to accept evolution. When I used to be religious, whatever contradicted science and morality, I used to take them as metaphors.
burningmars 2 years ago
this is easy to do. unfortunaely for you. no editting is needed to display the stupidity and backwardness of islam.
thisissick22 2 years ago
You think you dropped a bomb on me?
No editing is needed to display the stupidity of spelling editing with more than one t!
Tell you what though, look here see,
Upload some videos of your own and expose yourself to some commentary
Then I may reply, respectfully.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Wow, you picked up on a spelling mistake! Well done! If you're going to make videos, you must be open to criticism. It's called free speech. Or have you not heard of that concept?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Yeah, I picked up your spelling mistake,
But I also called you out as a fake,
Your comment stands, I did not deny your free speech,
But make some videos, I beseech,
You assert Islam is stupid and backward,
But you provide no evidence, how awkward!
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I don't need to provide evidence. it is public knowledge. stoning? views on homosexuality? just a few examples. Why do i need to produce a video? Quite childish to call me a "fake" because of that.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Quit the moaning,
Does every Muslim support public stoning?
Here is where I 0wn
Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
Jesus is a prophet within Islam to,
I knew that, did you?
As for homosexuality, Muslim are not borg
Check out al-fatiha dotorg
I make honest videos to express my view,
I know what I believe in, but do you?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
So you can pick and choose which parts of your holy book you want to live by? I don't care what Jesus said. all religions are as backward as each other. I believe in things which evidence exists to support. unlike any religion, science can give real answers to lifes questions instead of mythology. Where do you own, and what?
thisissick22 2 years ago
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Yes,it is irrational to say you would turn a blind eye to homosexuality if your religion condemns it,you either follow your religion, or you are choosing which bits to follow! what have you proven untrue?Please stop using childish language like "owned" if you wish to engage in grown up discussion.There is no evidence to support any religious beliefs, if you have any at all I would be happy to change my opinion.but this evidence does not exist. faith is only required when evidence does not exist.
thisissick22 2 years ago
OK. My creative juices have dwindled, no more rhymes.
My religion frowns upon homosexuality, this is true, therefore, as an individual I would not practice it, (I wouldn't need religion to tell me that anyway, men are far less attractive then women in my opinion!) However, this does not mean that I have the right to stop others from homosexual activity if they so desire. Is there anything within Islam that you can provide as evidence to prove that I am wrong in this thought process?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Can I take it that you understand that :
1) Jesus (pbuh) is a prophet within Islam
2) Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
3) Therefore, there is a very strong precedent within Islam against stoning.
4) Additionally, you will find that some Muslim majority countries, like Turkey, do not engage in stoning, do you think they are not, therefore Islamic countries?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Former Muslim,Wafa Sultan: "The Prophet of Islam said: I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger. When the Moslems divided the people into Moslems and non-Moslems, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir (excommunication) and fighting the infidels."
thisissick22 2 years ago
You have not directly addressed my points with regards to your original arguments about stoning and homosexuality.
You are making a third point here about Muslims and non-Muslims one which is also a fallacy but which deserves a separate debate.
It is no good quoting what Wafa Sultan has said, to what was she referring? The Qur'an, a hadith? I thought you were rational? Yet you rely on second hand hearsay? Do your own research and quote me a primary source please.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
let me get one thing straight. Do you believe that Sharia is not backward?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I do not consider stoning people to death to be part of Sharia law, I've given my reasons why, can you prove otherwise?
I do not consider that I need to do anything to stop two consenting same-sex adults from having sex with each other, can you prove that Islam requires me to do so?
You have yet to seriously defend any of your claims, can you not quote from the Qur'an or Hadith any text which requires me to stone a homosexual to death, for instance?
Cont...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Cont...
I do not think that what you consider to be Sharia, and what I consider to be Sharia are the same thing.
Yes, stoning to death is backward. But if Jesus, a prophet of Islam did not do it, I don't see why I should. Can you prove otherwise?
Sharia law is not just about punishment. Sharia law regulates - amongst other things - things like prayer times, marriage ceremonies, the giving of my own wealth to charity, not charging interest on money, and how I behave towards others.
Cont...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Cont...
Now I would ask you. In a conversation between two strangers, who is the most "backward"? The person who has rationally disproved everything the other has to say, or the one who, despite being disproved, refuses to acknowledge the evidence in front of him and changes the parameters of the debate trying desperately to score in an infantile game of points.
I've asked you a number of time to prove your points. if you cannot do so, then please think about how irrational you are being.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Can you deny that any of the following statements are true?
Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.Islam orders apostates to be killed.Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. I can provide evidence for all of these claims. which ones do you claim to be false?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Ohhh look. I wonder where you got your information from? are you, perhaps, a cut-and-paste answering-islam-org fan???
How tedious for you. First using Wafa Sultan as a primary source and now this biased website. There are so many fallacies at work.
Firstly, I'm a secular Muslim in that I believe in the separation of state law and religion. I don't think that a strict (or outright incorrect) interpretation of the Qur'an or Hadith should be enshrined into state law.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Secondly, Sharia law is applicable only to Muslims anyway. Non-Muslims are exempt from Sharia law.
Thirdly, I've already proven that stoning someone (homosexuals, for instance), is against the sayings of an Islamic prophet, are you sure you can trump that?
Forthly, how do you explain those countries with a Muslim majority which have a secular legal system, such as Turkey?
Fifthly, I can only presume that you also campaign against capital punishment in say China and the US?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Fine, you are a secular muslim, how you choose to interpret your religion is up to you. But, these harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith. I do not care who sharia law is applicable to, if jihad is commanded, surely the goal is to have everyone as a muslim? All you have done by pointing out that stoning is against the sayings of an islamic prophet, is to expose a contradiction in your religion. Regarding Turkey...
thisissick22 2 years ago
There is no contradiction. As you have pointed out, there are different interpretations of religion, and all I can do is follow my own mind (not that of some 'scholars' who clearly twist the words of the Qur'an and Hadith for other means).
I have questioned your understanding of Sharia law, and that questioning has proven true, you have ignored my point about Sharia being more than about state laws. There are many muslims who are fine with secular law - check out bmsd-org-uk.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
i understand sharia perfectly. i can see that there are many aspects to it. i am focusing on some areas to prove my point that it is a backward concept.
thisissick22 2 years ago
You understand Sharia perfectly? Wow. You must know more than many Muslim "scholars".
You studied all the Sharia schools of thought? Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii and Jaafari? And you believe that they all accord with the examples in the Qur'an and Hadith? Then you truly understand the massive differences of opinion within the Muslim world about Sharia law.
This must have taken you many years and I'm in awe of this considerable achievement.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Nit picking again - it's all you have to go on. I should have said that i understand the concept of sharia perfectly.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Oh. Now you only understand the "concept" of Sharia perfectly, this is an embarrassing reversal.
So now you admit you are commenting upon numerous systems and lumping them together as one and labeling it "Sharia".
Systems which neither of us will ever fully understand in our lifetime and yet which you claim to be able to objectively and independently verify as being both derived from the Qur'an and Hadith and being representative of the spirit and letter of the Qur'an and Hadith?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
i'm not embarrassed, as i've said before, you like to nit pick. Just because something is complex, it does not mean that there may be simple points to be found. There are clear "rules" which are contained in sharia which are barbaric and backward. to deny this, is to deny your own religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
You are asking me to accept *your* interpretation of a narrow set of supposed Sharia rulings which I myself do not accept as valid for various reasons.
What you call nit-picking is actually just pointing out the truth, and many Muslims agree with me... like the entire Turkish nation.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Now I question your understanding of the word 'Jihad'. Have you studied the difference between the greater and the lesser Jihad? And have you studied the context in which the lesser Jihad can be fought? For instance, simply by engaging in public debate with you, I consider myself involved in "Jihad", without trying to convert you, or kill you.
I consider the greatest Jihad, or "struggle" to be to improve myself.
I am a Muslim involved in "Jihad" but this Jihad is totally non-violent.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
ok then, what is the purpose of lesser Jihad? Is it not obvious which i am talking about? I am talking about the version which is as barbaric as the penalty for leaving islam!
thisissick22 2 years ago
I see, so there are many versions of Sharia law now? Well, you must have known this from the start as you tell me that you understand Sharia perfectly. So you have picked the version of Sharia which suits your own agenda, is that what you are saying?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
No, i am saying that i have pointed out parts of sharia which are barbaric, in order to illustrate the backwardness of the religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
But I've told you that I'm a secular Muslim and there are many secular Muslims like me. We are living proof that Islam does not require hacking off of hands even though there are aspects of Sharia law (charity, fasting, etc) which we do adhere to.
You are labeling the entire religion of Islam backwards based upon a narrow analysis of some dubious parts of Sharia law upon which certainly not all Muslims would agree with (the Turks, for instance). What a strange position to be in.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
then again i will say that you are picking and choosing which parts of your religion you find acceptable. if laws are to be found in sharia, should you not be following them?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Good grief. There are some "Sharia" laws I do not agree with because I do not agree that they are a correct representation of the Qur'an, or even that Islam allows for many different punishments lenient and harsh one, and that generally within Islam being more forgiving and lenient is better than being harsh. Additionally, I do not think a strict literal interpretation of Hadith is required.
That is why being secular with regards to criminal law is probably for the best.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
As I've pointed out, even Muslims do not agree upon the interpretation of Sharia law. To borrow a Jewish saying, if you get 10 Muslims in a room, you will get 11 opinions on Sharia. I can only follow what my mind and heart tell me to be true, you might call it "picking and choosing", I call it a rational analysis.
You have picked those parts of Sharia which *you* disagree with in the knowledge that *not all Muslims agree with that interpretation* and argue that they are infallible facts.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Turkey prides itself on being one of the most modern Muslim majority countries, surely this proves my point that one of the least strict majority muslim nations is one of the least backward in terms of law? Yes, i do believe that capital punishment is a barbaric concept, however, this punishment is not carried out in accordance with any religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
You call Turkey one of the "least strict" Muslim countries, and yet you still admit that it is a Muslim country and that it is possible within a Muslim majority country to have a secular law not based upon chopping off heads and hands.
Why then are you pointing to the "harsher" implementations of the law? As I've already pointed out, and we agree, secular law can be barbaric or lenient also, if we look at China and US executions, for instance.
Cont...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
No. I called it one of the least strict muslim majority countries. it is not a muslim country. As i've already said. capital punishment in the US and China is not performed in the name of religion. that is the point i am making.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Now you seem to be claiming that a country with a Muslim majority is not abiding by Islamic principles. How can that be? Are you saying that millions of Muslims in Turkey are incorrect because they are not chopping of hands?
I understand your point about capital punishment not being performed in the name of religion, but my point is that a secular non-religious law can still be barbaric, and can be "extreme" or "lenient". Secular law is not infallible. The US is "one nation under God".
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Many muslims believe Turkey's moderate, Islamist-leaning leadership is a stooge of the West. I am saying that the less islamic a country is, generally the more civilised it is. It stands to reason then that the more islamic ( sharia law states) a country is, the more barbaric it is (Saudi Arabia), by the way, even non muslims are tried under sharia in this country.
thisissick22 2 years ago
But I've already said that non-Muslims are not bound by Sharia law. How can Saudi Arabia be the most Islamic state if it breaks this basic Sharia concept? Also, within Islam, an un-elected monarchy is haraam, another reason why Saudi Arabia cannot be considered the most Islamic state. Additionally, Saudi has not supported it's Muslim brothers in Gaza and the West Bank, another reason why they cannot be considered the most Islamic state. Is Saudi not a western "stooge"?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
The quran is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of the Sharia.Saudi Arabian culture mainly revolves around the religion of Islam. Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, are located in the country. I don't see how you can get a more islamic country.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Ignore the rational facts that I have presented about Saudi Arabia if you like.
There is a country called "The Democratic Republic of Congo". It calls itself "democratic", but a rational analysis proves that it is not. Likewise, Israel contains holy Islamic sites, is Israel an Islamic country on that basis? The US contains no major Christian holy sites, and yet is "one nation under God" and prints "In God we trust" on cash.
A culture does not necessarily reflect purely religious values.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
are you saying that turkey is a more islam influenced county than saudi arabia?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I'm not saying that either Turkey or Saudi Arabia is "more" or "less" influenced by Islam.
There is no country in the world that I would recognise as a perfect example of Islam, just as there are no perfect examples of secularism. It is incorrect to point to any single country as an example of what Islam is or is not.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are contradictions of each other, but neither truly represents Islam as I know it, or as many Muslims practice it.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I understand that no country is a perfect example of islam, but the question was which is more influenced by islam. can you not answer that?
thisissick22 2 years ago
If we agree that no country is a perfect example of Islam, why are you using Saudi Arabia as if it is?
I can't answer which country is more "influenced" by Islam.
To do so objectively would require is to agree objectively what Islam requires of a state. I don't think we have done that yet, I don't know if anyone has done so. That is my point.
Many countries may have been "influenced" by Islam, that does not mean that they are currently an example of Islamic ideals. Spain comes to mind.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
You're missing the point. I am asking which country you believe is most heavily influenced by islam. You are avoiding answering it because you are aware that the answer is clear, and not an answer which sits well with your vision of what islam is. You are saying that a country may not exist which is a good example of an islamic nation. can you not admit that the country with which most people associate islam (as does the nation) is one of the most critisized for human rights abuse in the world?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I'm not missing the point. I read and understand your question.
My point is that the context of your question requires us to objectively decide and prove what Islam requires from a state. We have not done that.
Just because "most people" associate Islam with a particular country, that does not mean that that particular country is in fact the best example of an Islamic influenced country.
As for human rights abuse, surely Israel, China and the US are worse even than Saudi Arabia?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Now, if it has been influenced by it in a positive or negative way is not the question. The whole culture, law, and all aspects of life are influenced by islam. The country is the way it is because of islamic influence, not in spite of it. Surely you can see that ? The other countries you have listed may have human rights violations. But the influence is not religious. there is no need to decide what islam requires of a state, the state has decided what islam requires of it.
thisissick22 2 years ago
"there is no need to decide what islam requires of a state, the state has decided what islam requires of it."
No. One must first decide what Islam requires the state to be structured like, and then build the state to those requirements.
Many separate states with a Muslim majority (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, The Maldives, Malysia, etc) have each come to different conclusions on this and yet you expect me to objectively pick out which is the "most influenced" by Islam?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
No, here's where we differ. you have an idealistic view of what an islamic state should be like. the problem is that it doesn't exist. added to that, the closest thing that exists (most heavily influenced) is a disaster. You cannot deny that peoples lives in saudi arabia, are more influenced by islam than most other places in the world. No other religion is allowed to be practised in that country, can you say that about the ones you've mentioned? come on - face facts.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Cont...
If you are concerned from a Human Rights perspective, why are you not campaigning against all Human Rights abuse? Wherever it occurs, regardless of any religious aspect which you might (rightly or wrongly) perceive?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I am concerned with human rights issues. But i have a particular distaste for violations performed in the name of an imaginary god.
thisissick22 2 years ago
No Islamic state has the power to abuse human rights on a scale that has been perpetrated recently by the US, China and Israel, which are all secular states. I have a particular distaste for hypocritical western states preaching democracy and justice, but not practicing it.
You are willing to ignore Human Rights abuses on a massive scale by secular states, but wish to draw attention to the relatively smaller scale abuses (which is not to say they are not abhorrent!) by Islamic states?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
This may illustrate my point in a clearer fashion: Suicide bombers are more heavily influenced by islam than anything else in their lives. whether they have interpreted their religion correctly or not is beside the point. they are still influenced by it.
thisissick22 2 years ago
With regard to suicide bombers, it is clear that within Islam suicide is forbidden.
Secondly, studies have shown that other factors very likely to influence suicide bombers are political grievances and not being married.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
now you are joking with me! not being married? come on. they do it because they believe they are doing what islam requires of them. as i said, right or wrong. that is how they interpret their religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
If a Muslim suicide bomber interprets their religion incorrectly, then they are not expressing their religion correctly, they are not adhering to Islam if suicide is forbidden, which it is.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
For what purpose are they doing it?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Yes, i'm quoting:"the greatest of all sorts of Jihad in the Cause of Allah. A martyr operation is carried out by a person who sacrifices himself, deeming his life less value than striving in the Cause of Allah, in the cause of restoring the land and preserving the dignity." Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, sometimes called "the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist"
thisissick22 2 years ago
The opinion of "the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist" is not in accord with the majority of Muslim opinion on this matter.
I note how you sidestep the fact that a suicide bomber may have a legitimate political grievance at the root of their suicide attack, instead you portray that suicide is simply an expression of religion rather than a political statement by desperate people with no other effective means of attack, or defense.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Japan is a buddhist state, whose religion requires peace, how, then, would you explain kamikaze pilots?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Shinto was the state religion of the Empire of Japan.Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion. So your statement is incorrect.
thisissick22 2 years ago
And how does Shinto promote kamikaze attacks?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I am not insinuating that it does. The pilots believed what they were doing was for the good of the emperor and their nation. That it was the highest honor for your family if you were prepared to die for Japan. What point are you attempting to make with this?
thisissick22 2 years ago
My point is that people who are in a religion that does not support suicide attacks can still commit suicide attacks because of other factors.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
again you miss the point! Kamikazi pilots did not do it because of their religion - Muslim suicide bombers do it for their religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
The religion of Japan was Shinto.
Shinto does not support suicide attacks.
Adherents to Shinto committed suicide attacks.
The religion of Muslims is Islam.
Islam does not support suicide attacks.
Adherents to Islam committed suicide attacks.
Do you see?
You have not proven that Islam requires a Muslim to commit suicide for any reason. Please quote the Qur'an or Hadith to prove my wrong.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
They did not do it FOR their religion. Muslim martyrs DO it FOR their religion.
Do you see?
Mohammed said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).
thisissick22 2 years ago
Can you tell me the context of that Hadith please?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Around 926 hadiths in the Bukhari Hadiths and 181 hadiths in Sahih Muslim (that is over 710 pages in English and Arabic) leave no doubt that Jihad is fighting for Allah. Are you saying that quote is taken out of context? Please.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Are we going to tussle again over the meaning of the word Jihad? Did you research it yet?
Mohammed (pbuh) is one of a chain of prophets who preach amongst other things to love thy neigbour. Are you saying that where there is any doubt over the context or meaning of a verse or hadith, one should interpret it to mean as much physical violence as possible despite the fact that this would not be in keeping with the message of other prophets?
Perhaps my addressing you is a form of Jihad...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I'm sure we have gone over this. I understand the different ways in which the word "Jihad" can be interpreted. One of the ways, and the most prominent to none muslims (since it affects them most) is that of a violent holy war.
thisissick22 2 years ago
If you agree that the word "Jihad" can have multiple meanings, why do you not think that the context of a Hadith which you say talks about violent Jihad is critical to understanding if Muhammad (pbuh) meant "kill all non-believers upon sight" or "use your intellect to explain the meaning of Islam to non-believers"?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
the violent nature is a natural conclusion from the punishment for muslims who leave islam.
thisissick22 2 years ago
Re: apostasy in Islam... see this video: watch?v=X28J8-xt6hU
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
is this statement out of context?Mohammed said, Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
thisissick22 2 years ago
The Qur'an itself refers to apostasy several times but does not proscribe a punishment.
Whilst I see that there is a Hadith that says something, that does not necessarily mean that the Hadith is something I should follow literally.
The Hadith you quote is of someone else quoting Muhammad, (pbuh) and yet the Qur'an, and all the other Prophets stands as testimony against the Hadith you quote requiring a literal translation.
The evidence is that either the Hadith is wrong, or out of context.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
So if that is the case then why do the four major Sunni Madh'hab and the Twelver Shi'a Jafari madhab agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed? Are they wrong, they know less about islam than you do?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I'm a Muslim. I don't need anyone to direct my thoughts about Islam for me. Islam requires that I think for myself.
Perhaps they should read the Qur'an instead of coming up with their own rulings?
(109:1-109:6)
Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
what context is that in! I can play that game too. Look, you seem like a reasonable person, unfortunately, i do not believe that islam is rational. if all muslims are argueing over what each verse means, if it is taken in the correct context or not, whether they should be punishing people for this and that... it is inevitable that as you have, people will follow islam in their own way. therefore, no one can say that the extremists are wrong - they are interpreting the religion as they see it.
thisissick22 2 years ago
But you have not explained *any* of the context of the things you have quoted, so you have not been playing the game, you have been avoiding it.
The surah I quoted from the Qur'an is titled "The Unbelievers". It is fair to assume that it is a surah exclusively talking about unbelievers. It is a chapter of 6 verses, all of which I quoted to you. That is the entire context of my quote and cannot be placed in any other context as it has no other verses in the surah,
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
A central theme of Islam is free will.
There can be no compulsion in religion, and one submits oneself freely to it or not at all.
Using free will one must make one's own decisions about how best to be a Muslim, using not only the example of Muhammad (pbuh), but also the example and teachings of other prophets.
Of course Islam has splits, we have discussed the 5 schools of Sharia and so forth, but I cannot dictate what extremists (your own word which suggests they are in a minority) do.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
You seem to think that Islam is absolute and that we should take each Hadith in contextual and historical isolation and not look at it in the scope of the bigger picture and how Islam completes the teachings of previous prophets.
You and I disagree over what Islam is and how it should be practiced, but as you have pointed out yourself, it is hard to say who is "wrong" and who is "right". One can only follow one's own intellect and draw your own conclusions, as I have done in choosing Islam.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Surely you can see that is what is so dangerous about islam? If it was obvious to all that it taught murdering of infidels, stoning etc. no one in their right mind would follow it, it would be banned. The fact that people can interpret this information in itself makes the religion dangerous. Who has a difinative template for how a muslim should live, according to you, it does not exist. Only "follow your own intellect" well, that is what the bombers believe being a good muslim is too.
thisissick22 2 years ago
He seem to have radical views under the guise of moderation.
He says, death is for those who leave Islam and fight against or "harm" Islam. he doesn't say what it means to "harm" Islam. It could mean speaking against Islamic theology.
He doesn't support separation of State and Religion, and supports theocracy.
He says no freedom to Insult which is unacceptable since there is no fine line b/n freedom of speech and insult.
Anyway why are his views authoritative, or representative?
burningmars 2 years ago
Additionally, Muhammad, (pbuh) had many opportunities to kill non-Muslims but did not do so, and in fact had treaties with non-Muslims - how does this fit into your analysis that Islam requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims as a matter of religious duty?
How do you explain that Saudi Arabia - by your analysis, not mine - is the most "influenced" by Islam and which strangely hasn't been to war for a number of years and yet which has good relations with non-Muslim states?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Sura 4:74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall We give him a reward of great value.
Sura 9:123: Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.
I could go on with this, but i'm sure you get the point.
thisissick22 2 years ago
4:74 is not a call to fight so far as I can see. It is clearly saying that if you are already at war then to die in the cause of Allah is no bad thing.
9:123 Again, I'd say that you would need to explain the context of this verse. Even ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (from where Saudi Arabia gets it's Wahhabism from) did not use this verse to assert a Muslim Jihad against others. If even he didn't, what does that say for your theories about Saudi Arabia?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
4:27 those who fight for allah will get a reward.
well, if you are going to be rewarded for something, is that not an incentive to do it?
9:123 wage war against infidels.
as i said, i could go on. you will carry on playing the out of context, or misinterpreted card. i believe you are in denial with regard to the violent nature of the literature.
thisissick22 2 years ago
I am not saying that muslims are stupid - it would be impossible for Saudi arabia to take on the rest of the non-muslim world in an overt war. but a covert one...
thisissick22 2 years ago
The Modern Saudi Arabia was formed in 1932, though the Saudi dynasty began to emerge as far back as 1774. I'm sure you'll agree that the balance of power back then was not as it is know. Why wait till 2009?
I see I'll have to get my tin foil hat out as we are drifting into the realms of conspiracy theory here.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
What is the penalty for leaving islam?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Re apostasy in Islam... see this video: watch?v=X28J8-xt6hU
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
read what i said. I have a problem with all human rights issues. where did i say i am willing to ignore any of them?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Perhaps accusing Islam of being a barbaric religion helps you to ignore analysing the barbaric acts apparent within the secular legal system - Guantanamo, illegal aggressive wars, encroachment of civil liberties and so on - at both the national and international levels.
I'm quite happy denouncing Human Rights abuse wherever it comes from without prejudice as to the professed religion of those committing those abuses.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
again - missing the point. it is that these acts are done in the name of religion, not in spite of them. why are you saying " well, ok, that is bad, but this is worse" we are talking about the effect of islam. not world politics. there are a million things wrong with the way the world is. i am talking about one of them. don't change the subject (unless you have to).
thisissick22 2 years ago
Acts may be done "in the name of religion" by people who do not understand, or who are deliberately distorting the religion. For instance, the Inquisition was committed in the name of religion and the church now recognises that their religion does not support such things and has apologised for it. Religion, then, is not necessarily in itself inherently wrong or barbaric, just that individuals use and twist religion to justify horrible and barbaric acts.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Do you believe that the people who blow themselves up believe they are doing a good thing? What is the last thing a bomber says before blowing himself up? As you interpret your religion in your own way, so can anyone else. if it is possible to interpret it in a violent way ( and believe me, it is very easy to interpret it in that way) you will continue to have suicide bombings, with islam as the CAUSE. They would not be blowing themselves up if they did not believe it was right.
thisissick22 2 years ago
I do believe that suicide bombers think they are doing an ultimately good thing, otherwise, they would not give up their lives. To purport, as you seem to, that they do it to further religion is inaccurate as you are ignoring the political or nationalist motivations of acts of suicide. Religion to them is a means to justify what they do, but is not in itself the motivation for what they do.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
what is the last thing that comes out of a bombers mouth before he/she blows themselves up? Are you saying that suicide bombers actions have nothing to do with religion? whether it is the sole motivation or not, it plays a very big part. and without it, i'm sure that most would not perform the act.
thisissick22 2 years ago
With regard to suicide bombers, Thích Quảng Đức, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, burnt himself to death in Saigon in 1963. He was protesting President Ngô Đình Diệm's administration.
Buddhism is explicitly against suicide, therefore, one can only assume that Thích Quảng Đức was driven by political factors which overrode his religious beliefs.
Can the same not happen within Islam and Muslims?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
All religion is dangerous, because people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion.
thisissick22 2 years ago
The Lotus Sutra and several other Mahayana works praise the burning of one's own body, a sort of human incense stick, as the "highest offering". You really need to do more research before coming up with these arguments about other religions!
thisissick22 2 years ago
It must be quite a common occurrence then, amongst buddhists to self-immolate to the point of actual death. If, as you have said that "because people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
Could you perhaps quote a passage from the Lotus Sutra which proves your point?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I have no idea whether it is common or not. If you hadn't noticed, it was not done in the name of religion, that was the point you were trying to make. I am not making things up, do your own research if you don't believe me. i know it's not nice to be wrong, but nit picking will not change that. no, i am not going to find a quote for you. Please give up the futile changes of subject.
thisissick22 2 years ago
The subject was suicide in the name of religion, and you said "people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
I said that Buddhism is against causing self-immolation. I was referring to the Middle Way which buddhanet-net tells us that Buddha himself "advocated in the quest for enlightenment avoided the extremes of sensual self-indulgence on the one hand and self-mortification on the other".
Cont...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Cont...
You assert that the "Lotus Sutra and several other Mahayana works praise the burning of one's own body, a sort of human incense stick, as the "highest offering".
Here I must draw parallels with your analysis of Islam in that I think you are taking something out of context or perhaps misquoting.
You have made an assertion about Buddhism that you cannot prove, as you have done with Islam. I again invite you to prove me wrong by quoting the Lotus Sutra.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
If the practice of self-immolation is not common amongst Buddhists it would imply that self-immolation is not in fact the highest offering possible when we take into account your assertion that "people who believe they are going to heaven, will do anything in the name of their religion."
If you are right, Buddhist should be burning themselves to death on a quite regular basis, should they not? In fact, the whole religion should be... burnt out!
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Interesting that when I ask you to prove something you have asserted, you call it "nit picking".
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
The Dalai Lama has said
"Because of the power of imagination, the power of vision, you get some kind of different ideas: in the morning, something different; and in the evening, something different. There are big differences-contradiction. Sometimes, the contradictions are so big, and if you have no ability to overcome that, then suicide also sometimes happens. So, contradictions, disagreements, are always there.
We need some kind of method or technique to overcome that contradiction."
Cont..
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Cont...
Clearly, the Dalai Lama thinks that suicide is the result of the human mind being unable to rationally cope with contradictions, and that we need to overcome these contradictions. Why, as the leading figurehead of Buddhist thinking, does he not say that suicide through self-immolation is the "highest offering" one can give?
Why is the religious leader of Buddhism *not* advocating suicide through human incense stick offerings?
If you are wrong on this, what else are you wrong on?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
In chapter 23 of the sutra, the Medicine King bodhisattva offered of his own body. He anointed his body with fragrant oil and calling on his transcendental powers, he set fire to his body following this it is recorded that The Buddhas in the worlds simultaneously spoke out in praise, saying: ˜Excellent, excellent, good man! This is true diligence." Now i have shown you where it can be found. Will you admit i am not wrong?
thisissick22 2 years ago
I see no reference to it being the "highest offering" as you explicitly quoted. It seems that your analysis is in contradiction with that of the currently recognised leading member of the Buddhist faith.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Thich Nhat Hanh :"The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others"
thisissick22 2 years ago
In self-sacrifice Thích Quảng Đức was hoping to gain a better life for other people. He was not killing himself for his religion, he making a political protest to draw attention to the plight of others for "the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others".
His political statement against persecution was the driving force behind his self-immolation, not religion. If he was not being persecuted, he would not have self-immolated.
Likewise with Muslim suicide bombers.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
He was protesting against the persicution of buddhists. I do not accept your point, are you saying that the terrorists flew planes into the towers because they were being persicuted? it is totally different. no buddhist is trying to kill others, is there an occasion where a muslim suicide bomber has not been trying to murder others?
thisissick22 2 years ago
Cont...
So if we agree that secular law can be both barbaric and lenient depending upon which country you use as an example and how that country applies the law, and who administers the law, why do you expect Sharia law to be any different?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
whypatisntfun,
One of your arguments is that people advance their political causes using religion. But the result is that later, religion will find its own purpose and advance its cause using politics. That's why 'liberating Chechnya' has changed its nature into 'establishing an Islamic state'. Similarly, Removing Israel rather than establishing 2 states based on 1967 borders is an idea that is propelled by religion.
burningmars 2 years ago
I do not claim to have any deep knowledge of Chechnya so cannot comment, however, I will say that you are wrong about Israel.
To even discuss the 1967 borders ignores the context of the creation of Israel which was created out of land that was undemocratically taken from the population of that land (Muslims, Christians and Jews), creating millions of homeless refugees.
What propels Palestinian resistance, then, is the illegal occupation and confiscation of their land and property and (cont..)
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
(burningmars cont)
... the consistent abuse of Palestinian human rights by the state of Israel. Israel is an occupying force and this is recognised by the international community. Is it not at all possible that what drives small children to throw stones at tanks is /not/ religion but instead the barbaric treatment they receive at the hands of an occupying force?
The solution may be 1, 2 or 3 states but what matters is that the solution is reached democratically, not by forced imposition.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I understand the genuine issues, and Israeli terrorism. But If we start running the clock back how much should we run it? I don't see any difference between Ottoman Armenia and Palestine(which is much smaller, btw. both were regions of the Ottoman empire). Are there no pan-Islamists who are taking advantage of Palestinian suferings to further their cause? No theological issues with Jerusalem? No clash of Zionism and pan-Islamism?
burningmars 2 years ago
A few more things related to your other arguments:
Human Rights:
Human rights abuses by the US govt is equally condemnable as that done by the Islamists. So is barbarism under Sharia or secular law. However, it is natural to be more concerned about those who want to change rewrite Human Rights itself. This is the case of many of the so called 'liberators'.
burningmars 2 years ago
Suicide Bombings:
Though the people who program the suicide bombers have a political aim, the motivations of the bombers themselves are religious. Why would British Muslim converts blow themselves in London? Correct me if I'm wrong on this. But I think Benazir was killed for her secular views. Why did boys who were safe in their country(but were poor of course) do the Mumbai Massacre?
burningmars 2 years ago
It's always possible to groom bombers using some dogma, collectivism and indoctrination, as in the case of Japanese or Tamil suicide bombers. But they are not done under the umbrella of respect for religion.
burningmars 2 years ago
Religion or People:
It is natural for people to use Religion is used to advance political causes. But using some religions causes the issue to get out of hand, and cause more problems to their cause, genuine or not. US, Pakistan and Afghanistan are now suffering from this. It's not always the people's fault. There is a great difference if a resistance is secular.
burningmars 2 years ago
Please point to an example of 'secular' resistance.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
French revolution, Indian Independence movement, Turkish War of Independence
to name a few. The LTTE failed because it became antidemocratic.
burningmars 2 years ago
Japanese and Tamil suicide bombers was done under the umbrella of Nationalism. Anything taken to any extreme can be an umbrella for terrorism.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I'm not a fan of Nationalism. But Nationalism unites co-habitants and has no hard coded ethics and is mouldable based on reasoning which is a plus when compared to religion.
burningmars 2 years ago
A perceived (rightly or wrongly) political injustice must come first before any suicide bomber. Please can you point to any suicide bomber who blew themselves up purely for the advancement of religion rather than to make a political point. 9/11 and 7/7 can both be traced back to the foreign policy of the US& UK, that was the motivation for the bombers, though I concede that they took solace from a perception that they would receive a reward in the afterlife, it was above all a political act.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
That would be, if it were someone who saw the sufferings of his family or country men, not Mohammad Sidique Khan, a British Citizen and "a teacher respected by pupils and parents" who wouldn't dream of doing it, for reasons other than religion. Sufferings inflicted by infidels upon his co-religionists spoke more to him that any other conflict around the world. I agree that politics was a trigger. But it was not "a political act", as evident from his videotape.
burningmars 2 years ago
Other examples:
-The suicide attacks by Taliban on Pakistani Army-mostly after Pak's attempt to recover Swat from Taliban and Sharia imposition.
-One of the motives of the Bali suicide bombings was "Australia's role in the liberation of East Timor" (a catholic country)
-Taliban suicide blasts in Afghanistan is more fuelled by their desire to impose Sharia rather than for the Afghans
-Al Queda blasts in Iraq are to make sure that democracy fails and to impose Islamism.
burningmars 2 years ago
Religion can make people suspend reason, and moral inuitions. I understood this from Christains and Muslims I personally know, and from myself when I used to be religious. It's not always the spiritual stuff. Though only some actually convert their beliefs into action.
burningmars 2 years ago