| Author
|
Thread |
  |
|
GreenPlastic
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 135
|
It seems only to say don't kill your allies rather than making it a defensive stance. As for the Christianity thing you posted, its just a comparison on the violence of 2 religions to justify that religions are violent. That doesn't make it a defense of Islam as you tried to make it. It goes back to the whole if someone jumps off a bridge would u jump too analogy. Also note that if your defense is that shit was a lot more violent back then, that innately Islam as a religion is founded in a mindset of war. It can't be ignored that not only were they not just fighting defensively, Mohammad himself led raids of other people.
This can be accounted for with:
Book 019, Number 4346:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you.
|
Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:56 am |
|
|
|
|
SoCxEcLiPzE
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 1376
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lightbringer-
quote:
Originally posted by GreenPlastic
http://quran.com/4/89
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
Just did a 3 secs search on what you posted.
http://norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/misquoted-violent-verses-in-the-holy-quran/
If you need youtube vids or something explaining the matter, I will look for them.
Did you actually read what you posted? Sure, the context of situational warfare is often left out when people quote single passages but let's look at the very first example. The author chooses to not even address the final part: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 9:1-5)
...Which cancels out his original criticism because in the end, when the treaty terms has passed and have been met, the command is to "slay all idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush" ... unless they "repent and establish worship [of Allah]."
Now... to be clear on where I am coming from in all this... I am certainly not "Anti-Islam" as my best friend since I was a child is a Muslim. However, denying that there are some pretty violent tenets in the Qu'ran (which I've read a few times) is nonsense. Christian/Jewish "scholars" (I use that term very loosely, as there is a difference between an *actual* scholar of religion and just a member of the religious institution that calls himself a scholar) do this too... whining about things being taken out of context but they purposely twist and project verses so that they can mesh with modern sentiments.
Anyway... the moral of the story is.... YES... religions books and doctrine contain a lot of antiquated stuff that does not fit in with modern sentiment. They should be understood in historical context, but also should not be turned into something they are not through blatantly false interpretation.
_________________
I 40-0'd your mother.
Last edited by SoCxEcLiPzE on Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:15 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
Now... to be clear on where I am coming from in all this... I am certainly not "Anti-Islam" as my best friend since I was a child is a Muslim. However, denying that their are some pretty violent tenets in the Qu'ran (which I've read a few times) is nonsense. Christian/Jewish "scholars" (I use that term very loosely, as there is a difference between an *actual* scholar of religion and just a member of the religious institution that calls himself a scholar) do this too... whining about things being taken out of context but they purposely twist and project verses so that they can mesh with modern sentiments.
what you call "taking things out of context" experts on the subject call things like historical context, exegesis, interpretation, etc. this atheist line that every religious person who doesn't subscribe to their own simplistic idea of how the religion should be practiced is "taking things out of context" or "picking and choosing" is an anti-intellectual argument that supports and provides ideological cover to fundamentalism, and also ignores how religion has been practiced and how these texts have been read and used throughout their history
its also really anti-intellectual to act as if theologians or other religious scholars are less legitimate authorities on their religion than outsiders who are not experts in that field. obviously some of them are going to be ideologues but that's no more true of religion than any other subject. if i want to know what islam says about violence i'm going to ask someone who is an expert on islam, not someone like richard dawkins
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:18 am |
|
|
SoCxEcLiPzE
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 1376
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
Now... to be clear on where I am coming from in all this... I am certainly not "Anti-Islam" as my best friend since I was a child is a Muslim. However, denying that their are some pretty violent tenets in the Qu'ran (which I've read a few times) is nonsense. Christian/Jewish "scholars" (I use that term very loosely, as there is a difference between an *actual* scholar of religion and just a member of the religious institution that calls himself a scholar) do this too... whining about things being taken out of context but they purposely twist and project verses so that they can mesh with modern sentiments.
what you call "taking things out of context" experts on the subject call things like historical context, exegesis, interpretation, etc. this atheist line that every religious person who doesn't subscribe to their own simplistic idea of how the religion should be practiced is "taking things out of context" or "picking and choosing" is an anti-intellectual argument that supports and provides ideological cover to fundamentalism, and also ignores how religion has been practiced and how these texts have been read and used throughout their history. its also really anti-intellectual to act as if theologians or other religious scholars are less legitimate authorities on their religion than outsiders who are not experts in that field, this kind of thinking leads to embarassments like richard dawkins and sam harris
But I said all of that? I've studied many religions from a few different perspectives. I'm not a historian of religion, but it is an interest of mine. I've studied religion historically, sociologically, and theologically. As a historian (my main areas of study being the ancient world with an emphasis on Greece), I would have to admit that the historical perspective is my "main lens" of viewing all of this. I'm also NOT an atheist, if you care to know. Anyway... one last point...
I would actually argue that the "theological only" lens is inferior to most other ways of approaching the subject because it's reductionist and forcibly non-inclusive to other approaches.
_________________
I 40-0'd your mother.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:23 am |
|
|
SoCxEcLiPzE
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 1376
|
Maybe you'd be more willing to agree with me if I prefaced my statement by saying that I'm not meaning to say that "belief in the religion" negates objectiveness or value as an expert on it, but that the term "religious scholar" when used to refer to someone who only comes at the study of religion from a single approach (as a formal representative of the institution) uses the word "scholar" pretty loosely and their study should probably be met with an extra layer of skepticism. All information should be met with a varying degree of skepticism.
_________________
I 40-0'd your mother.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:30 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
But I said all of that? I've studied many religions from a few different perspectives. I'm not a historian of religion, but it is an interest of mine. I've studied religion historically, sociologically, and theologically. As a historian (my main areas of study being the ancient world with an emphasis on Greece), I would have to admit that the historical perspective is my "main lens" of viewing all of this. I'm also NOT an atheist, if you care to know. Anyway... one last point...
well maybe i misunderstood. i see that "take things out of context" argument used a lot, usually by anti-religious types, and it grinds my gears for the reasons i stated there. i might have read that phrasing and assumed it carried implications that it didn't really. and rereading your last paragraph puts it into context more, so my bad i guess
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
I would actually argue that the "theological only" lens is inferior to most other ways of approaching the subject because it's reductionist and forcibly non-inclusive to other approaches.
well yeah, i wouldn't argue that theology should be the only or even primary tool used here, just that it can't be ignored completely. again this is another common sentiment of anti-religious types that annoys me, that theologians and religious scholars are tainted by their beliefs, so i probably jumped the gun a bit
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
Maybe you'd be more willing to agree with me if I prefaced my statement by saying that I'm not meaning to say that "belief in the religion" negates objectiveness or value as an expert on it, but that the term "religious scholar" when used to refer to someone who only comes at the study of religion from a single approach (as a formal representative of the institution) uses the word "scholar" pretty loosely and their study should probably be met with an extra layer of skepticism. All information should be met with a varying degree of skepticism.
yeah i don't disagree with that
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:32 am |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
i prefer norsk mythology or greek mythology , much more intriguing and creative story than a goat herder who went into a cave alone and had the voice of god talk to him
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:48 am |
|
|
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
i prefer norsk mythology or greek mythology , much more intriguing and creative story than a goat herder who went into a cave alone and had the voice of god talk to him
You think Greek mythology is more interesting because you love gay men's asses, just as the Greeks did.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:50 am |
|
|
SoCxEcLiPzE
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 1376
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
But I said all of that? I've studied many religions from a few different perspectives. I'm not a historian of religion, but it is an interest of mine. I've studied religion historically, sociologically, and theologically. As a historian (my main areas of study being the ancient world with an emphasis on Greece), I would have to admit that the historical perspective is my "main lens" of viewing all of this. I'm also NOT an atheist, if you care to know. Anyway... one last point...
well maybe i misunderstood. i see that "take things out of context" argument used a lot, usually by anti-religious types, and it grinds my gears for the reasons i stated there. i might have read that phrasing and assumed it carried implications that it didn't really. and rereading your last paragraph puts it into context more, so my bad i guess
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
I would actually argue that the "theological only" lens is inferior to most other ways of approaching the subject because it's reductionist and forcibly non-inclusive to other approaches.
well yeah, i wouldn't argue that theology should be the only or even primary tool used here, just that it can't be ignored completely. again this is another common sentiment of anti-religious types that annoys me, that theologians and religious scholars are tainted by their beliefs, so i probably jumped the gun a bit
quote:
Originally posted by SoCxEcLiPzE
Maybe you'd be more willing to agree with me if I prefaced my statement by saying that I'm not meaning to say that "belief in the religion" negates objectiveness or value as an expert on it, but that the term "religious scholar" when used to refer to someone who only comes at the study of religion from a single approach (as a formal representative of the institution) uses the word "scholar" pretty loosely and their study should probably be met with an extra layer of skepticism. All information should be met with a varying degree of skepticism.
yeah i don't disagree with that
Yeah -- I had a feeling we were probably in agreement, at least mostly.
_________________
I 40-0'd your mother.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:50 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
i prefer norsk mythology or greek mythology , much more intriguing and creative story than a goat herder who went into a cave alone and had the voice of god talk to him
lol, goat herder...god, muslims and arabs are so fucking dumb
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:57 am |
|
|
Fast Luck
Joined: 11 Oct 2001
Posts: 22805
Location: Penis |
.
Ŕ̼̙̻͇̮̭̳͉̗̝̮̗̈́ͬ͛̅̅̄͟͟ơ̡̨̗̞̩͖̱̪̩̙̤̰̊ͩ͑͌̉ͩ̉̓͋̎̎̓̒̀́ͅn͓̙̫̙͕ͪ̌̽̉̓̽̿̾͟͜͝ ̵̝̦͖͚͇̬̭̙ͮͬ͌̏͑͑̋̽ͣ̍̊͊͑͂̀P̶̯̘͚̯̩̣̘̜̺ͫ̔̌ͥ̎ͥͪͨ̈ͨ̒̊̄̎̍̅̇ͩ̓͟a͍͎̫̲̦̹͉̩̘̪̪̹̹̱̱͚͕̓͋ͥ̀ͅṷ̵̧̺̘̖̘͇̮̫̯̲̐͛͒̾̌̽̏͟͠ͅl̵͎̯̞͎͇̲ͫ̒̈ͫ̊ͣ͐͒̇̅ͦ́́͘͟
.
_________________
i zero bagged your mother
quote:
Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend
|
|
Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Warcraft Occult Forum Index
-> General Discussion
