actually its a fair question. As a german with living nazis in their family I can confirm that darwin was heavily used by hitler and it is used to justify racism and eugenics.
I think his point is we aren't scared of biologists because of the actions of a few
nor are we scared of being hit by electric batons everytime you meet an atheist because of communism
we also aren't scare of Christians because of the witch trials and crusades
or buddhists because of violent buddhists in burma or some violent revolutions and theocracies by buddhists
I could go on and on
So why be scared of muslims because some of their group act in a certain way. After all it seems that history can use any religious or even scientific belief or even a lack of belief to justify being crappy to each other because we live in a screwed up world where people use any old excuse to be crappy to each other

I think this is what he is trying to say right?

Edited by grazorblade: 16/10/2014 05:20:50 AM

More often that not you see that it is in quotations as in reference to us as Muslims. Islam does not have or believe in a trinity

Surah 3 the verses before and after 167

Those verses are related to the battle of badr, or battle of the two armies. Its speaking for that time to the people then.

So many things wrong here it's difficult to know where to start but just to clear one clanger up humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Christian creationist wankers usually run the "if humans evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys".

any of you guys reading this come across any passages promoting love peace and tolerance yet????

serious question not taking the piss

hi there

so there definitely seems to be a heavy emphasis about how bad non-believers are. Perhaps half the verses are on this and it has a very severe tone. So it isn't tolerant in the way a pluralist on the political left would describe. Its heavy tone probably makes it the least tolerant I have encountered (by a progressive understanding of tolerance which may or may not be meaningful to you)

however the morals certainly don't seem worse than secular morality. If anything its a fraction better
there is a lot about giving to charity and it says not to lecture the poor or needy when you help them (about changing their lives) but to give freely. There are similar verses in the Bible but you wouldn't know it the way some Christians talk
It allows divorce but has restrictions on it (you have to give 3 warnings)
you can't be violent against someone unless they are violent toward you and you have to stop when they stop
it also says there are no compulsion in religion

so far there seems nothing to contradict these principles

My reading thus far (having read it numerous times before):

- non-believers are fit to be treated as chattel
- Christians/Jews are slightly better if deluded
- charity is encouraged
- God is very vengeful, and remarkably jealous
- Women must in all respects, cede to the authority of her male relatives/husband.
- Slavery is sanctioned. Killing of non-believers (pagans/atheists etc) sanctioned. Killing of Christians/Jews sanctioned subject to certain conditions.
- Infidels (such as myself) will burn for eternity in the deepest pit of hell-fire.
- You are allowed (provided you are a Muslim man) to forcibly have sex with your female slaves.
- You are (provided you are a Muslim man) allowed to beat your wife if she doesn't conduct herself in the right way.
- You are allowed (provided you are a Muslim man) allowed to marry 4 women, subject to some conditions, namely, their agreement and that they are one of Muslim, Christian or Jewish. Muslim women may only marry one Muslim man.
- toleration and temperance is encouraged.
- one is encouraged to have a deep regard for the poor and treat them well.
- much discussion of mercantile relations.


More to come.

What exactly is an infidel?

Is it different from a non-believer?

Do the good things that Muslims do to others, such as give to the poor and being tolerant, count if they do this to infidels/non-believers. Or is it only encouraged to other Muslims?

11 or 12 of those you listed you could get out of the old testament to be fair to the Muslims. (Needs more genocide.)

Try this "God" instead. http://www.venganza.org/

-------------------------------------//--------------------------------------



-------------------------------------//--------------------------------------



-------------------------------------//--------------------------------------

http://www.jesusandmo.net/





Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 20/10/2014 10:15:52 PM

so i read the woman sura. I must admit this chapter disturbed me

a few questions
There is a verse that seems to say you can beat your wife if you first speak to her and withdraw sex from her. Is there a context in which some muslims read this?
There is a verse that seems to say to hunt down renegades where you can find them and slay them. It isn't clear who the renegades are here. What does this one mean?
There is a verse that says that if a woman is guilty of lewdness they should be under house arrest until they die.
Is that everyone including non muslims?
Is there a context to this?
What is lewdness in this context?

Is it time for this yet...

[youtube]uX-Aldx-LM0[/youtube]

^ Thats what I tried to say!

Therefore: how is Charles Darwin any less controversial than the Quran? In terms of the text being misrepresented to the point it takes an extremist's view?



Stop misquoting me for ideas I did not put across! All I am trying to argue is Charles Darwin is misinterpreted by the likes of Nazis and Eugenicists, just like how the Quran is misinterpreted by terrorists extremists.

Edited by condemned666: 22/10/2014 02:45:36 PM

Just clearing up a misconception.

Darwin never said this.

Ignoramuses (ignorami?) think he did.

Besides all that comparing one to the other is fallacious. One is incontrovertible science based on evidence and observation and the other is the poetry, stories, histories and doctrine of desert dwelling medieval arabs.

Hardly comparable.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 22/10/2014 04:01:07 PM

Is it?

Or are your peaceful Moslem types cherry-picking only the good bits? (Ignoring all of the other horrors contained therein.)

The Quran has some pretty clear homicidal and genocidal text that would disagree with your assessment.

You seem like a bit of a know it all that lacks empathy.

Well you are the expert.

Nope, I'm completely full of Bertrandian doubt.

Paramatta.

Just clearing it up a little further, evolutionary biologists are in agreement that we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee. Neither evolved from the other but we do share from 96+% DNA with the chimps.

WELL MY DADDY AIN'T NO MONKEY, AND HIS DADDY AIN'T NO MONKEY. WHO FUCK THE MONKEY?

The key difference is that what Darwin wrote is proven scientific theory, whilst what is in the Bible/Quran is a collection of stories and ideas known to have been written by men who claimed it was the word of (an unproven) God. Thus, whilst scientists can always bring us back to the updated scientific theory, religious teaching will ALWAYS be down to the interpretation of unchanging centuries old doctrine. In other words, idiots can miss-interpret Darwin, but the intelligent can correct them with facts... Whereas idiots miss-interpreting religious texts can never be proven wrong, because right and wrong is in the hands of the interpreter.

Well EXACTLY.

Zimbos is being questioned as if he is a theological scholar when in fact his interpretations are only one of many that could be given for a particular verse or sura.

Anyone more/less radical/fundamental may either agree or violently disagree.

Every single interpretation should start with the line "This is what I/we currently believe it means".

Anyone who takes this sort of thing at face value is a clown.

I am not making up my own theories here. The Quran is the way it is, yes, it has never changed, yes. Benjamin makes a valid point in that it cant be updated, but it doesnt need to be updated.

The Quran was already translated and interpreted in the time of the prophet and the khalifas. The four imams are the only schools in Islam that are recognised. There is no ifs or buts. Neither imam would differentiate on the teachings and practices of the quran.

The Quran does not afford you to make your own assumptions as you may do when you read fictional literature. The quran is as it is. It is not open to your own interpretation. Once you do that, you are forgoing what Islam teaches and forming your own school of thought and that leads you out of the fold.

Does sperm really come from the spine?

Just so we're clear you're saying that there are no different interpretations to any verse in the Quran?

There are different currents and distinctions. Hypocrites (those who profess to be Muslim but are really infidels), liars, and apostates are each treated differently. Naturally, apostates the worst among them.

Toleration is encouraged as a general virtue. How this squares with the much more numerous passages receptive to violence, and threats of damnation is anyone's guess.

In point of fact, Muslims are treated as Muslims, that is to say more or less as equals. (Unless you're a woman.) People of the Book are to be afforded protection provided they pay a tax, and submit to certain conditions regarding their conduct. Infidels, pagans, and apostates are fit only to be treated as chattel. (Quran makes reference to early treaties conducted with Arabian pagans, but then encourages wholesale opposition to them as a matter of principle.)

Based on my reading thus far.

If a text said to come directly from the word of God (that is to say, unaltered, perfect, indefinite), sanctions the taking of slaves, the beating of women, the killing of infidels, and certain Muslims who believe in said text set about taking slaves, beating women, and killing infidels, what I wonder is inappropriate about pointing this out?

Muslim tradition (All mainstream schools within the Sunni/Shia) clearly states that the Quran is the direct word of God revealed to Muhammed by Jibrail. No ambiguity about it, and certainly no textual criticism is accepted.