The Holy Quran

[GeoffP]

But again though, that is up to the individual to choose for themselves. For example, I do not believe some random individual in the Vatican should have a say or control over my uterus or its contents.

Yes and no. It depends on the case under consideration, but generally murder is considered to be immoral.

The populace will fight back if it goes against the popular belief. For example, the fear of those like Mr Hesperado here, about Islam or anyone who is not white and could thus be Muslim, is based purely on hatred. You read his blogs and you see he makes no excuses for his hatred and mistrust of all Muslims.

I've never read his blogs (and probably never will). It does deserve to be said - often and repeatedly - that conservative Islam has a great deal of blood on its hands as a religio-political force, and is completely intractable regarding reasonable tolerance and discussion. For example, I don't recall observant Jews putting anyone to death for worshiping another god, or selling children into slavery, or punishing a son for his father's sins in the last couple thousand years, but perhaps I have merely been on the outs with convention.

But lets look at the basis of that fear. That Muslims will infiltrate the West and destroy it by installing their religious dogma's into Western society. That the chances of that happening is nil is beside the point.

I will say this regarding that: at the turn of the century there were no Sharia courts in the Western world, and no Muslim Brotherhood with the object of weakening Western societies from within until such time as they could be converted. Christians were as common in Constantinople as Muslims. Religious minorities have declined throughout the Islamic world over the long and short term. Is there an Islamic country that does not explicitly employ religious dogma in their treatment of apostacy and general unIslamicism? A Western nation into which such attitudes have not been projected by Islamicists? Those things are bigotry also, and they are not a man with a blog, but a man with a sword. Amerindians saw no threat a few hundred years ago. As it turns out, they were wrong.

 

[Bells]

I see..

Well maybe you should read his blog, Geoff. It appears as though you and he seem to agree on the majority of things. Which is very disheartening.

Whether you agree with him on the intricacies, such as when he stated that ALL Muslims should be screened and anyone with dusky to dark skin should be screened to check their religious ideology and then whites who are suspect also screened, before mass deportation, before the "black solution" which amounted to further screening and education as he was kind enough to state that blacks who aren't Muslims have some redeeming features.. Well that remains to be seen. Do you think all Muslims should be screened Geoff? Do you think anyone with a remotely Muslim name or who look Muslim should be screened? As he saw it, they can be placed in a guarded room and thoroughly checked before they should be allowed on planes. And you think he is a man with a sword?

Because you see Geoff, to those like Hesperado and those who agree with him, Muslim and Islam = unacceptable. In other words, no Muslim can ever be acceptable in Western society. Nor should Western society change to integrate and accept its Muslim populace by respecting their religious beliefs.

For example, I don't recall observant Jews putting anyone to death for worshiping another god, or selling children into slavery, or punishing a son for his father's sins in the last couple thousand years, but perhaps I have merely been on the outs with convention.

Then you obviously have not read the Bible, Torah or read the writings of Conservative Orthodox Jews in Israel, which encouraged killing "goyims" and their children (look at The King's Torah as just one point of reference), as well as releasing books which apparently viewed Arabs to be a cancer, etc.

I recently ran across an article on a Jewish news publication about something called The King’s Torah. It’s a Jewish commentary written by Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur who are located in the settlement of Yitzhar in the West Bank. It is flying off the shelves in Israel. What makes this commentary so shocking is it calls for the murder of the “goyem” (a derogatory term for gentiles), including children. Unbelievably it states that gentiles are “uncompassionate by nature” and attacks on them ‘curb their evil inclination,’ while babies and children of Israel’s enemies may be killed since it is clear that they will grow to harm us.”

This book is not making a distinction between their enemies and the rest of the world’s population who are not out to harm them. In fact, this commentary states “it is permissible to kill the Righteous among non-Jews even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation.” (emphasis added). The justification is “if we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments – because we care about the commandments – there is nothing wrong with the murder.”

Let me first state that I understand the need to finally stand up and protect themselves against all these attacks they endure. A nation or a people can only endure so much before they finally break. Really, I get that. In fact, I have always felt that Israel has not done enough to protect herself and her citizens against her enemies. Were Israel to take the position that these two Rabbis are advocating, they become no better than their enemies. To take the position that children should be murdered just because they will grow up and possibly harm them is no better than the position their enemies take. To murder gentiles who do not pose a threat to them but because they have sinned and then declare that there is nothing wrong with that makes them no better than their enemies. Yet, a large population of Jews are sinning under Jewish law because they do not follow Torah. They are exempt from this punishment. The justification for the murder of gentiles who sin is “because we care about the commandments” but obviously that care of the commandments only applies to gentiles but their fellow Jews who do not keep Torah somehow lessens the “sin” as they are exempt from punishment. Or perhaps it is because the “goyem” “are uncompassionate by nature’ and murdering us is the only way to curb our ‘evil inclination.’

http://fruitoftheword.com/2010/02/05/the-kings-torah-kill-the-goyem/
​

The article then goes on to state that Jews around the world were as disgusted as they should have been at this book. But it sold quite a few copies in Israel itself, and continues to sell even though it is now banned.

What the article does not state is that those who endorsed the book (in the book itself) form a part of the Rabbinical hierarchy in Israel - ie the top Rabbis in the country endorsed it.

 

[GeoffP]

I see..

Well maybe you should read his blog, Geoff. It appears as though you and he seem to agree on the majority of things. Which is very disheartening.

Hmmm, I think rather you want to believe that he and I agree on a lot of things; or that we occupy the same scarecrow in your mind. I don't know where he stands in general, and I don't care. Some of our opinions may well overlap; but then again, I'm certain that some of my opinions overlap with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Hitler. (I do like highways, for instance.) Before you get on to damning me by association, shall I ask what you hold in common with the upper echelons of al Ahzar, or a certain Malaysian Prime Minister? Let us dispense with such damnation, and discuss fact.

Whether you agree with him on the intricacies, such as when he stated that ALL Muslims should be screened and anyone with dusky to dark skin should be screened to check their religious ideology and then whites who are suspect also screened, before mass deportation, before the "black solution" which amounted to further screening and education as he was kind enough to state that blacks who aren't Muslims have some redeeming features.. Well that remains to be seen. Do you think all Muslims should be screened Geoff?

For what? Some questions to provide contrast: do you think none should be screened? Are there situations in which people of any religion ought to be screened? For what will you or will you not screen them?

Because you see Geoff, to those like Hesperado and those who agree with him, Muslim and Islam = unacceptable. In other words, no Muslim can ever be acceptable in Western society. Nor should Western society change to integrate and accept its Muslim populace by respecting their religious beliefs.

Now we get to a meatier matter: what constitutes "integration and acceptance"? You propose that Hesperado thinks "Muslim/Islam = unacceptable", and attribute to him the belief that Western society should not change to do the above. But what is the above? What does it constitute, to you? Do you believe, conversely, that Muslims and/or Islam in the West should also accept Western society, and integrate? What would constitute such acceptance and integration? Or: who will give up what? And if I object to anti-libertarian attitudes in any given religion, does that mean I am "anti-" them? I have a number of problems with Catholicism. Yet I am still a Catholic, I suppose. Am I anti-Catholic? Will this taint all my testimony against them, in your eyes? I imagine not.

Then you obviously have not read the Bible, Torah

- both of which were written some time ago, as I mentioned -

or read the writings of Conservative Orthodox Jews in Israel, which encouraged killing "goyims" and their children (look at The King's Torah as just one point of reference), as well as releasing books which apparently viewed Arabs to be a cancer, etc.

Very good! Now: which modern Jewish or Christian state or nation is currently employing the above lessons in dealing either with apostates or 'non-believers'?

The article then goes on to state that Jews around the world were as disgusted as they should have been at this book. But it sold quite a few copies in Israel itself, and continues to sell even though it is now banned.

What the article does not state is that those who endorsed the book (in the book itself) form a part of the Rabbinical hierarchy in Israel - ie the top Rabbis in the country endorsed it.

Which are the "top Rabbis" and which of them endorsed it? What percentage of their followers agrees with such a message? How many of them are using such philosophies? And so forth. Your argument appears to be that one cannot discuss nor interfere with Islamicists and Islamicism because... there are also conservative Jews, who appear to have done nothing at all.

 

[GeoffP]

Curious, Bells: what web search led you to the "fruit of the word" website in the first place? Sort of a religious phrase, and you didn't strike me as the religious type.

 

[Bells]

Hmmm, I think rather you want to believe that he and I agree on a lot of things; or that we occupy the same scarecrow in your mind. I don't know where he stands in general, and I don't care. Some of our opinions may well overlap; but then again, I'm certain that some of my opinions overlap with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Hitler. (I do like highways, for instance.) Before you get on to damning me by association, shall I ask what you hold in common with the upper echelons of al Ahzar, or a certain Malaysian Prime Minister? Let us dispense with such damnation, and discuss fact.

You do agree on a lot of things. I shall leave that there. Check your pms.

For what? Some questions to provide contrast: do you think none should be screened? Are there situations in which people of any religion ought to be screened? For what will you or will you not screen them?

You missed the point. Hesperado believes that Muslims should be screened because they are Muslim. Anyone of Mediterannean colouring or darker should be screened to check if they are Muslim or not. Whites with Muslim style names (like Najlah) should also face extra scrutiny (which apparently according to Hesperado in the other thread, involves locking them in a guarded room while they are checked at airports) because they may be Muslims.

Now we get to a meatier matter: what constitutes "integration and acceptance"? You propose that Hesperado thinks "Muslim/Islam = unacceptable", and attribute to him the belief that Western society should not change to do the above. But what is the above? What does it constitute, to you? Do you believe, conversely, that Muslims and/or Islam in the West should also accept Western society, and integrate? What would constitute such acceptance and integration? Or: who will give up what? And if I object to anti-libertarian attitudes in any given religion, does that mean I am "anti-" them? I have a number of problems with Catholicism. Yet I am still a Catholic, I suppose. Am I anti-Catholic? Will this taint all my testimony against them, in your eyes? I imagine not.

Oh I don't propose it. Hesperado has stated it clearly enough on this blogs.

What do I think? I think people should be left to live their lives and believe in what they want to believe in freely and without harassment. Regardless of where they happen to live. Integration should amount to people being free to be themselves without fear or pressure to be like everyone else.

I also think specifically targeting them because they are Muslims and because a minute minority of over 1 billion of Muslims hold extremist views against the West is frankly obscene. I also think it would be a fair bet that the greater majority of Muslims who migrated to the West did so to escape regimes that did not allow them to live freely without fear and to suddenly state that their religious beliefs means they are suspect because of the regimes they escaped from is also obscene. There are over 1 billions Muslims in the world Geoff and the paranoia that they are out to get us to convert is inane as it is insane, because if they were, then you would be rolling out your carpet every morning and bowing towards Mecca.

- both of which were written some time ago, as I mentioned -

But still preached about.

Very good! Now: which modern Jewish or Christian state or nation is currently employing the above lessons in dealing either with apostates or 'non-believers'?

None.

Well aside from a few settlements in Israel who try..

Which are the "top Rabbis" and which of them endorsed it? What percentage of their followers agrees with such a message? How many of them are using such philosophies? And so forth. Your argument appears to be that one cannot discuss nor interfere with Islamicists and Islamicism because... there are also conservative Jews, who appear to have done nothing at all.

You really should watch the news cherie! There was quite a bit of brouhaha when thousands attacked police and threatened the judiciary for daring to detain and question (and arrest one who refused to turn himself in) those who endorsed the book.

My argument is that to blame the ills of the world solely on conservative and violent extremist followers of Islam is bunk, because others also project and at times encourage and incite violence.

I see it in the sense that where there is religious extremism, regardless of the religion, there will be death and violence. We see it in the US with conservative extremist Christians murdering family planning clinic staff members and bombing the clinics themselves, as we see it with the likes of Imam's who encourage violence and death against non Muslims and push for martyrs, to those like the ones who wrote, endorsed and supported the likes of The King's Torah, which is an incitement to hate and kill.

 

[Bells]

Curious, Bells: what web search led you to the "fruit of the word" website in the first place? Sort of a religious phrase, and you didn't strike me as the religious type.

I have suddenly discovered my spiritual side and am becoming one with nature and am praying to the gods of the trees. I also offer myself to said trees by running naked through forrests while chanting and beating a drum when it is a new moon...






















































I googled "The King's Torah" and it was one of the first things that came up.

 

[billvon]

A short incomplete list of hate verses in the Koran:

The Bible has a similar list of hate verses, listing reasons to kill people, rape women, kill nonbelievers, sell daughters as slaves, kill one's children etc etc. Best to ignore those parts of both books.

 

[Michael]

As a Science forum the word "Holy" should be removed from the Title and it should have something pointing to the intended topic.

Ex: Superstitions commonly found in the Qur'an; The Qur'an, a modern interpretation; Historical revisionism and the Qur'an; etc....

 

[Michael]

The Bible has a similar list of hate verses, listing reasons to kill people, rape women, kill nonbelievers, sell daughters as slaves, kill one's children etc etc. Best to ignore those parts of both books.

That shouldn't be surprising, the Qur'an IS a Bible.

 

[GeoffP]

You do agree on a lot of things. I shall leave that there. Check your pms.

We may agree on selected things. Having perused Hesperado's blogs at long last, I think that list may be rather short.

You missed the point. Hesperado believes that Muslims should be screened because they are Muslim. Anyone of Mediterannean colouring or darker should be screened to check if they are Muslim or not. Whites with Muslim style names (like Najlah) should also face extra scrutiny (which apparently according to Hesperado in the other thread, involves locking them in a guarded room while they are checked at airports) because they may be Muslims.

Screenings on the basis of race would be racist. What race is Islam? As for screenings on the basis of religion: hell, why not. If Mormons were trying to institute a Mormon state in the US - and frankly, Utah does prop up effortlessly in the mind - then I'd happily screen them also. If I, as an agnostic or whatever it is that I am, were subjected to more screening for the purposes of safety, so be it. I wish nothing better than to be a good citizen of the state, and to help my country. But no such test could detect the believer who suddenly has a change of heart and becomes a radical, or the one who is quietly conservative, voting in like-minded conservatives to rot social protections. This latter is probably the greater threat; watching the "magic 27%" slowly becoming an "irate 30%" and then a "angry 35%" and then a "raging 40%" of the social demography of the United States. Regrettably, social conservatism bordering on fascism is mainstream in the Middle East and elsewhere.

What do I think? I think people should be left to live their lives and believe in what they want to believe in freely and without harassment. Regardless of where they happen to live. Integration should amount to people being free to be themselves without fear or pressure to be like everyone else.

And yet, the ideological enemy of your proposition does not particularly worry themselves over such ethical questions. Being free to be oneself leaves a very large area open for unethical coercion. At which point should we concern ourselves with the rights of our citizens and not with their unprovable mythos? I could paraphrase Tiassa recently: simply chanting Ia! Ia! Cthulu f'taghn is less than meaningless to the non-Cthulu cultist, since the philosophy of unrestrained Cthulism is actually harmful. All religions must bend the knee to socialism and social democracy. Islam has no special place in the pantheon of religion or belief.

I also think specifically targeting them because they are Muslims and because a minute minority of over 1 billion of Muslims hold extremist views against the West is frankly obscene. I also think it would be a fair bet that the greater majority of Muslims who migrated to the West did so to escape regimes that did not allow them to live freely without fear and to suddenly state that their religious beliefs means they are suspect because of the regimes they escaped from is also obscene. There are over 1 billions Muslims in the world Geoff and the paranoia that they are out to get us to convert is inane as it is insane, because if they were, then you would be rolling out your carpet every morning and bowing towards Mecca.

What is problematic is the unrestricted promulgation of reactionary, antisocial ideas within the large and broad percentage of conservative Islam, and the relative valuing of the importance of state and religion within that community, much as it is within every community, relative to the probability of violence. This is a problem. The toleration of same is not a social issue of any importance; rather, it is the religion that must bow its knee to conventionality where the two conflict over fundamental matters of human rights. This is not really negotiable. Would it catch radicals? No. What is worrisome is the growth of radicalism; which unfortunately would not be called radicalism but rather "mainstream" when at home. It's possible to align with one group or another on simple basis of religion, origin or ethicity; the Amerindian sample serves here also.

Now, playing Devil's Advocate and from reading his blogs, what would you say if he struck up a self-dialogue for an Anti Catholicism Movement (ACM, presumably)? Or an Anti Christian Movement - acceptable or not? Would he be within reasonable objection to create, describe and manage a group with such intent? Would this be objectionable, or the natural evolution of the opposition to practices he deemed unjust or irrational? Would you give him license to do so? Does he require specification, or moderation? I think many people would not much decry him if he did so.

I have suddenly discovered my spiritual side and am becoming one with nature and am praying to the gods of the trees. I also offer myself to said trees by running naked through forrests while chanting and beating a drum when it is a new moon...

I wish you well in the pursuit of your novel belief system, assuming the innocent animals of the forest raise no critical objections.

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

The Bible has a similar list of hate verses, listing reasons to kill people, rape women, kill nonbelievers, sell daughters as slaves, kill one's children etc etc. Best to ignore those parts of both books.

The Christians and Jews seem to be doing so. Can everyone else at the table ante up, please?

 

[greenboy]

The Muslim created this political force to force all those not believing the way they do. The worst is how they treat their women, I am a father of girls, and that make me sick just seeing how they deal with their female counterparts, at college, my Muslim friends were drinking beer worst than us and sleeping around like everybody else some of them even tried BI sex ( well known), but then they will cloak themselves with their Muslim cloaks and go to their countries looking holier than an IMAN... What a joke. There is nothing Holy with this people believe me.

 

[juliet2011]

Immediate ban

why this? i guess this one right

 

[chimpkin]

I have suddenly discovered my spiritual side and am becoming one with nature and am praying to the gods of the trees. I also offer myself to said trees by running naked through forrests while chanting and beating a drum when it is a new moon...

I find my chest puppies get really sore when I run naked through the woods beating a drum...
And it's better during a full moon, you can sprain an ankle in the dark, really.

I really recommend shoes, a sports bra, and some deep woods off.

 

[GeoffP]

The Muslim created this political force to force all those not believing the way they do. The worst is how they treat their women, I am a father of girls, and that make me sick just seeing how they deal with their female counterparts, at college, my Muslim friends were drinking beer worst than us and sleeping around like everybody else some of them even tried BI sex ( well known), but then they will cloak themselves with their Muslim cloaks and go to their countries looking holier than an IMAN... What a joke. There is nothing Holy with this people believe me.

"The Muslim"? Easy on the generalizations. Although no one else does. So there.

 

[Hesperado]

What bothers me is the Quran states the equality among men an women

Where in the Koran does it state the equality of men and women?

 

[greenboy]

For the muslims their god have 99 names. none of them is LOVE, I wonder...

 

[Dywyddyr]

For the muslims their god have 99 names. none of them is LOVE, I wonder...

Oops, wrong.
الودود Al-Wadūd The Loving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

 

[greenboy]

equality of women and men in the Koran

"I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)"
They could care less, because they are not following the Quran or they do for whatever they want...but they keep women down and so far is one of the religions more unfriendly to women...The other is the Hindi. But basically the only religion maintaining the equality among sex is Christianity.

Where in the Koran does it state the equality of men and women?

 

[Dywyddyr]

But basically the only religion maintaining the equality among sex is Christianity.

Also wrong:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake." 1 Corinthians: 11-9

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" Ephesians 5:22-24

For example.