Yet another damn terrorist attack

[Sava]

Though, you still personally insulted me despite me considerable expertise in this topic. So for that, I'd like to reiterate my previous: FUCK YOU

[Imran Siddiqui]

I truly think you're fundamentally misunderstanding Elok's intent here. From all of my conversations with him, this just seems like an attempt on his part to learn about a subject in which he is not well versed, but interested. He's curious about how Muslims resolve these doctrinal issues because he's curious about doctrinal issues in general. That's all.

Ehhh... I know folks who are trying to learn about a subject in which one is not versed. This isn't one of them. Referring to Muslims today who are against slavery as "bad" Muslims and accusingly saying well Muhammed did X, how do Muslims deal with that? And then treating folks saying well, what about the Christian example (of which he would be familiar) as some sort of non sequiter seem to indicate to me as sort of "I've already decided my answer" mentality.

[I AM MOBIUS]

Yeah, Elok is basically saying that Muhammed was bloodthirsty crusading slaver - and inferred that Jesus was none of these things. Why am I not surprised that this hasn't gone down too well...

[Lorizael]

Ehhh... I know folks who are trying to learn about a subject in which one is not versed. This isn't one of them. Referring to Muslims today who are against slavery as "bad" Muslims and accusingly saying well Muhammed did X, how do Muslims deal with that? And then treating folks saying well, what about the Christian example (of which he would be familiar) as some sort of non sequiter seem to indicate to me as sort of "I've already decided my answer" mentality.

I've decided I'm not going to have Elok's argument for him, considering he seems to have rather intentionally chosen not to have this argument at all. I disagree with your interpretation of his actions, but I don't see anything productive coming out of continued debate about it.

[I AM MOBIUS]

You're right, nothing ever productive usually comes from stating that the founder of one of the world's major religions is a bloodthirsty crusading slaver - best let this one lie...

[Imran Siddiqui]

As someone who grew up Muslim, I've heard this line of debate before by Christians. They are basically asserting that Christianity is superior because its founder wasn't as bad at Muhammed was (though, one is supposed to be God and the other simply a Prophet, comparing Muhammed to Paul would likely be a better comparison, and I really like Paul - but I also find much to admire about Muhammed). Do I believe that Christianity is superior to Islam? I do, but not because Muhammed was such a horrible person. He likely was far more progressive than other Arabs, especially on things that people tend to ding him for, like women's rights.

[Elok]

Imran, as recently as a month or so ago I was inclined to assume Islam was simply a ****ty religion and the peaceful modern followers were twisting their faith into a pretzel to dodge conflicts with modernity. Then it occurred to me how preposterously unlikely it was that a bozo who'd read a couple of books about Muhammad had found a smoking gun missed by actual Muslims who memorized the bloody Quran. That, and it's only fair to hear their side of the story. I do believe Muhammad's example is morally repugnant--he executed hundreds of people without a trial, then sold their wives and children into slavery, nothing done by any Christian prior to Constantine comes close--but I can see how someone might sincerely believe something like what JM posted, even if I personally find it dubious. This is more or less what I expected to find, given the religion's long history of scholarly argument.

The "Christian version" is quite different for a number of reasons; e.g., AFAIK "bibliolatry," which is a perversion by certain modern Protestants in Xianity, is the original understanding of Islam. That is, Gabriel dictated the verses, and Muhammad repeated them for the faithful, and the resulting Quran, despite possible editing by the Umayyads, is Dictated by Uppermost Management. Even translations, however faithful and precise, aren't really valid. Paul can be "the product of his times" with no problem for anyone who didn't go to Bob Jones. Maybe Muhammad was too, but it makes no difference if he was just a secretary, does it?

Also Christianity and Islam developed under markedly different circumstances, most notably in that there was literally no church-state divide in early Islam. And so on. Not really interested in arguing with atheists or crypto-atheists about my religion anymore, since except for Ken and Gribbler not a one on here is both able and willing to be remotely fair about it.

(really should have Googled "modern Islamic views on slavery" or some such, but I gave up after variations on "why is IS not islamic" were a total bust)

[Elok]

Also, the modern liberal tendency to circle the wagons around Islam (out of sensitivity for their perceived pariah status or what-have-you) is deeply counterproductive for a variety of reasons. First, it doesn't work, since most of the people who want to criticize Islam are persona non grata (personae non gratae?) with liberals anyway. Second, discouraging all criticism retards learning about a subject in general, because everyone's too busy tiptoeing and respecting sacred cows to really dig in. Third, those who are cowed by the censorship are the ones most likely to be moderate and restrained, leaving the field to the more ferocious critics. Fourth, the persistent hair-trigger defensiveness sends the message that Muslims are incapable of standing up under criticism. Over time, this is all but guaranteed to become true, if only because it will leave Muslims out of practice with defining and defending their faith to serious questioners. As in, the sort of people who aren't going to be impressed by "look at all the stuff they did in Cordoba a thousand years ago SPANISH INQUISITION!"

[DaShi]

Christ, what an ass.

[Aeson]

Also, the modern liberal tendency to circle the wagons around Islam (out of sensitivity for their perceived pariah status or what-have-you) is deeply counterproductive for a variety of reasons. First, it doesn't work, since most of the people who want to criticize Islam are persona non grata (personae non gratae?) with liberals anyway. Second, discouraging all criticism retards learning about a subject in general, because everyone's too busy tiptoeing and respecting sacred cows to really dig in. Third, those who are cowed by the censorship are the ones most likely to be moderate and restrained, leaving the field to the more ferocious critics. Fourth, the persistent hair-trigger defensiveness sends the message that Muslims are incapable of standing up under criticism. Over time, this is all but guaranteed to become true, if only because it will leave Muslims out of practice with defining and defending their faith to serious questioners. As in, the sort of people who aren't going to be impressed by "look at all the stuff they did in Cordoba a thousand years ago SPANISH INQUISITION!"

Your point 3 is likely a positive. Divide and conquer. Once the moderate bigots are quieted, the extreme bigots are cut off from the mainstream. From there it's just a matter of time until most of the worst bigots have died off without recruiting enough new ones to carry on. (See: Women, Race, Homosexuals for examples of how this works.)

Point 4 is ridiculous, since the amount of ignorance and hatred spewed at Muslims is so immense and pervasive online that it would be impossible for any of them connected enough to receive any of it to receive less "defending" opportunities than most of us will have in our lives about anything.

[DinoDoc]

Christ, what an ass.

[Elok]

Your point 3 is likely a positive. Divide and conquer. Once the moderate bigots are quieted, the extreme bigots are cut off from the mainstream. From there it's just a matter of time until most of the worst bigots have died off without recruiting enough new ones to carry on. (See: Women, Race, Homosexuals for examples of how this works.)

You are aware that something like twenty percent of Americans still oppose interracial marriage, right? They haven't gone away, they're just being quiet--possibly on polls, too. Also, the tendency to invoke memories of the Deep South anytime anyone expresses an undesired sentiment is starting to wear thin, I think. Especially when it's used on multiple fronts at the drop of a hat. And I don't think it would have worked at all for black people if black nationalists overseas showed up on the news thrice a week decapitating hostages or raping children. Hushing up is not going to work for this kind of PR problem.

Point 4 is ridiculous, since the amount of ignorance and hatred spewed at Muslims is so immense and pervasive online that it would be impossible for any of them connected enough to receive any of it to receive less "defending" opportunities than most of us will have in our lives about anything.

How often do you go browsing through Nation of Islam websites to refute their stuff about your being engineered by a mad scientist, whitey?

DD, DaShi knows perfectly well I don't read a damn thing he says, there's no need to clutter the thread like that. But thanks.

[I AM MOBIUS]

Hey Lori, in case you didn't think Elok had already displayed his true colours, he certainly has now...

Elok, I don't defend Islam, it's an organised religion, ergo it is ****ty!

What I find irritating is your hypocrisy wrt condemning Islam when blinkering yourself to the fact that Christianity has at least equal shades of ****tiness: Evil Bible

Murder; Rape; Slavery; Ritual Sacrifice - it's all there in the Bible!

Take your issue with people accusing Christianity of slavery:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

So, not only does God (and by extension, Jesus) condone slavery, but he's also racist about it...

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Yay, keep the wife and children as hostages!

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Holy ****, Batman! So Jesus thinks it's cool to sell your daughters as sex slaves!? Well that's OK then!

How about beating your slaves to death? It's OK as long as you don't kill them outright and they suffer a day or two before dying...

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

And straight from Jesus' mouth in the New Testament:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Nice one, Elok, falling into the same trap as all religious people - this absurd certainty that theirs is the one true god/religion to the condemnation of all the rest.

Frankly it beats me that there aren't more Scientologists in the world, at least we can prove without equivocation that L Ron Hubbard actually existed...

[Jon Miller]

Murder; Rape; Slavery; Ritual Sacrifice - it's all there in the Bible!

A significant fraction of the Bible is about how not to do things.

It is, I think, a very different book than the Koran.

On that point my view coincides with Elok's.

On the other hand, I think that it is a very advanced a nice religion (similar to Judaism or Christianity or Sikhism).

JM

[Sava]

Ehhh... I know folks who are trying to learn about a subject in which one is not versed. This isn't one of them. Referring to Muslims today who are against slavery as "bad" Muslims and accusingly saying well Muhammed did X, how do Muslims deal with that? And then treating folks saying well, what about the Christian example (of which he would be familiar) as some sort of non sequiter seem to indicate to me as sort of "I've already decided my answer" mentality.

yup