Modern Islam... what can you say?

I criticize the barbaric laws of those muslim countries as well but is it fair to call that Islam, "Modern Islam"?

What exactly people mean by "Modern Islam"? Is it simply "Islam at the Modern Age"? If so, calling it "Modern Islam" is confusing. If not, then what it means to have "Modern Islam" in a country?

Take Afghanistan as an example. From CIA factbook, Afghanistan has 40% unemployment rate, 800$ GDP per capita, pretty much no modern financial sectors, no large-scale industry, 44 years of life expectancy, 43% male literacy rate (12.6% for females) and school life expectancy for males is 11 years and for females is 4 years.

Is Afghanistan a "Modern Country"? Is it fair to call Islam in Afghanistan "Modern Islam"?

I read the first four pages and my brain cant stand to read any more of the rebuttals to the advocates for women's rights. Islamic extremists, or fundamentalists if you prefer to call them that are always speaking of how pampered and sheltered western citizens are, how we are the great satan and one day all our riches will be in the hands of Islam. America is where it is today because we recognize the equality of women, we are an affluent, well-educated culture because of this. If it were untrue that we are well-educated then the elite of Islamic nation's would not possess degrees from American universities. Until muslims everywhere decide to stop the persecution of women and stand up to the disgusting immoral leaders of their nations, then the populations of those nations by and large will continue to live in squalor. It is the choice of the citizens of those nations to either continue to accept the propaganda of their leaders and blame the west for their current situation or make a change and stand up for the single most important step to having a successful nation.

A blessed Ramadan to all Threshold Muslims!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
I criticize the barbaric laws of those muslim countries as well but is it fair to call that Islam, "Modern Islam"?

What exactly people mean by "Modern Islam"? Is it simply "Islam at the Modern Age"? If so, calling it "Modern Islam" is confusing. If not, then what it means to have "Modern Islam" in a country?

Take Afghanistan as an example. From CIA factbook, Afghanistan has 40% unemployment rate, 800$ GDP per capita, pretty much no modern financial sectors, no large-scale industry, 44 years of life expectancy, 43% male literacy rate (12.6% for females) and school life expectancy for males is 11 years and for females is 4 years.

Is Afghanistan a "Modern Country"? Is it fair to call Islam in Afghanistan "Modern Islam"?

---

It definitely is Modern Islam by any means because we are talking about the regime here and not about the country's accomplishments in terms of life expactancy or school expactancy.

The numbers you pasted here are great - they show just how bad of an effect evil regimes have on their citizens. It is our responsibility to call it out loud and hope that a change is made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
It is our responsibility to call it out loud and hope that a change is made.

---

On the other hand, we could always blow them up and shoot them dead.

Oh, that's right. We're already doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
On the other hand, we could always blow them up and shoot them dead.

Oh, that's right. We're already doing that.

---

What do you mean by this "we" and "We're" in the quoted statement? Are you saying that you in fact have been killing Afghans recently? Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Do you really know what our rules of engagement are in regards to Afghan non-uniformed combatants?(which pretty much describes every combatant in Afghanistan not allied with coalition forces) I am sorry Malacasta, but we don't blow 'em up and shoot 'em dead cowboy style. Some of our own fundamentalists here in America might wish we did, but believe it or not we are infinitely more lenient than any of the other past occupying forces, which I hope goes without saying includes the Taliban.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
On the other hand, we could always blow them up and shoot them dead.

Oh, that's right. We're already doing that.

---

I always love it when Malacasta and I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Achtius
but believe it or not we are infinitely more lenient than any of the other past occupying forces, which I hope goes without saying includes the Taliban.

---

Don't forget the Soviets. I imagine that will hit a little closer to home with Malacasta. That's a convenient data point for the overarching thesis of the murderous brutality of communist regimes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Achtius
What do you mean by this "we" and "We're" in the quoted statement? Are you saying that you in fact have been killing Afghans recently?

---

She says "we", because the citizenry in a democratic nation is responsible on some level for the actions of it's government and military. Also, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we've shot and blown up a couple muslims over the last few years.

She didn't say the forces currently occupying Afghanistan/Iraq are worse than the Soviets, the Taliban, the Nazis, or anybody else. She didn't say anything about cowboys. She implied that she doesn't believe that war is going to solve the problem of islamic fundamentalism, and frankly that's a very reasonable belief.

War solves everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Achtius
War solves everything.

---

Only for sufficiently nihilistic definitions of "solve," of course.

Your big words fall on stupid ears.

Kill people and break things FTW.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/...0-knocking.jpg

Reading through everything on here....makes me think again and again on something I say alot. Stereotypes come from somewhere. True, alot of religions don't have the best of reputations, but really and honestly, there's a reason behind the talk. Yes there are cruel people all over the world, yes there are corrupt people in every religion. Is it the religion's fault or is it the people running it? Probably why I've got such a problem with organized religion. Yes, some of the views people have are stereotypical, but stereotypes come from somewhere. If people think that Muslims are woman-hating extremists...well, look at what's being seen. Woman-hating extremists. If the nation of Islam has such a problem with being portrayed this way, maybe they should do something to change it. Not everything's happy butterflies and rainbows. Do you think, for one second, that a Muslim woman would have the right or at least feel she has the right to say anything in her defense?
Now, this is, of course, just my opinion. No facts, just what I think.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, we could always blow them up and shoot them dead.

---

That seems to be your solution for a great many things Anthson!

Achtius, the conversation here was rather civil and interesting. Your trolling sure doesn't progress this conversation anywhere (not only that, it is also completely irrelevant).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
Thankfully, the US is a relatively progressive nation when faced with issues that need change. People complain that there is still racism, sexism, and more recently discrimination against homosexuals, etc., but be honest: The US has done more for civil rights than any other country in history. It's come further in just over 200 years than the entire Middle East (and other countries with ruling Muslim influence) has in over 2000. Islam has been around for the majority of that time. I do not think it's coincidence.

---

:eek

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the United States have not only paved the way for positive change in the modern age, but that their contributions are greater than those of "any other country in history".

Lets examine that for all of ten seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...odern_timeline
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%2...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
Fail.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rilthyn
:eek

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the United States have not only paved the way for positive change in the modern age, but that their contributions are greater than those of "any other country in history".

Lets examine that for all of ten seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...odern_timeline
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%2...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
Fail.

---

Please explain how any of that is "Fail." Are you saying they are "Fail" because other countries began certain civil rights movements before the US did? My claim was obviously partly proportional, as the US began these movements while it was still under 200 years old. Looking at those lists you linked shows countries that had existed for hundreds if not thousands of years longer than the US had before they got around to it.

As for the part that isn't proportional, I still stick to it. Yes, the US has done more to promote civil rights worldwide, and therefore in general, than any other country in history. This is especially true when looking at it proportionally and taking into account its relatively young age. You don't have to "pave the way" the way in a given area (i.e. the US not being the first country to given women suffrage) in order to subsequently do more for it than anyone else. There is a whole lot more to civil rights than simply being the first to pass the laws. The process doesn't end with passing the laws, it begins with it.

Also, the link about Gitmo is irrelevant. Firstly, wartime is different. Secondly, in similar cases where it is not wartime, I never said we were perfect. I simply said the US is ahead of the pack.


Anyway, if you think I'm wrong, name just one country who has done more for civil rights worldwide than the US. So far none of those countries from your links qualify.

You appear to be operating under the assumption that if you are not "First!!!!111!1!11," then you "Fail." Your forum troll logic is no good here. Please clarify.

When it comes to equal rights I wouldn't put US on a pedestal about the world saying they have done more worldwide.

They certainly have attempted to do a lot, there's no denying that. However, in my worldwide travels I have to admit - many European countries do a lot more and are better at it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
My claim was obviously partly proportional, as the US began these movements while it was still under 200 years old.

---

I don't think age of the country really makes a lot of difference. If anything, the US should be held to a higher standard than those countries which have X millenia of historic inertia to overcome. And where does the US stand with regards to racism? Quite poorly, for a country that wants to boast of its civil rights. Yes, there may well have been improvements, but when I visited America in July, I was stunned by how true the stories are - I'd thought it was just stereotyping for the sake of a joke. You can produce statistics till you're blue in the face about how black and white people have the same chances at education, salary, living standards, whatever; but that's actually part of the problem, because you CARE whether someone is black or white. Now, Australia is definitely not perfect either, but if you come to a place like Box Hill Central shopping center (one of the few shopping centers that I frequent - it's also a railway station and bus meeting point), you'll see people of all different walks of life, meeting, doing business (a lot of the shop owners are Asians, for some reason, but customers are of all colors and backgrounds), and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice. THAT is where things need to get to.

edit: Don't misread me here; I'm not saying the US is worse than all these other countries named. I'm just saying that if you're going to boast of racial equality, you need to have it to a greater degree than the US currently have. Good but definitely not achieved perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rilthyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...odern_timeline
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%2...#United_States
Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...#United_States
Fail.

---

If you read the subject of this thread rather than just following the cool crowd and bashing the US, it puts things in a far different light.

The only countries remaining without suffrage are Islamic countries and the Vatican (where only Cardinals have it).

Slavery is outlawed in most countries in the world, except notably in Mauritania and Sudan which are both Islamic.

There is a whole paragraph in the segregation wiki article that talks about the continued segregation of minorities in the Middle East (predominately Islamic).

All in all, the US looks pretty good on those points when compared to modern Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riek
If you read the subject of this thread rather than just following the cool crowd and bashing the US, it puts things in a far different light.

The only countries remaining without suffrage are Islamic countries and the Vatican (where only Cardinals have it).

Slavery is outlawed in most countries in the world, except notably in Mauritania and Sudan which are both Islamic.

There is a whole paragraph in the segregation wiki article that talks about the continued segregation of minorities in the Middle East (predominately Islamic).

All in all, the US looks pretty good on those points when compared to modern Islam.

---

I do not disagree with the basic factual data (that the majority of Islamic countries have fucked up human rights conditions). I disagree with calling that Islam "modern". There is nothing Modern about it; it is the same backward culture of the 1400 years ago with little to no change. The status of women in Saudi Arabia has changed negligibly in more than 1400 years; still almost the exact same rules govern women. You cannot call something "modern" if it has not changed for more than 1400 years.

Despite this, I am very optimistic. The extremely rapid expansion of means of communication has allowed the younger generations of Muslims to catch up faster with the developed world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
I do not disagree with the basic factual data (that the majority of Islamic countries have fucked up human rights conditions). I disagree with calling that Islam "modern". There is nothing Modern about it; it is the same backward culture of the 1400 years ago with little to no change.

---

You are quite right Xywalan. I was simply refuting the off topic attack on the US, and then pointing out that the facts used to attack it actually painted some Islamic countries rather badly.

Xywalan

mod⋅ern
  /ˈmɒdərn/
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.

(the other definitions are not applicable here)

pro⋅gres⋅sive
  /prəˈgrɛsɪv/
–adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

(the other definitions are not applicable here)

I fail to see how present Afghanistan or any other Islamic country does not portray "modern" Islam. I think you are confusing modern with progressive.

Jidoe:

Well, if you want to do dictionary wars, I can pull out Webster:

<i>
* Main Entry: mod·ern
* Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dərn, ÷ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure — more at mete
* Date: 1585

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
<b>2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date</b>
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : modernist</i>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan

<b>2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date</b>

---

This is hardly a dictionary war. However, your quote just strengthens my point. Are you trying to argue these rules in the aforementioned countries are not recent or up-to-date? (by the way, arguing the ideas are not recent is a bad argument because while they are not new, they ARE up-to-date).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
This is hardly a dictionary war. However, your quote just strengthens my point. Are you trying to argue these rules in the aforementioned countries are not recent or up-to-date? (by the way, arguing the ideas are not recent is a bad argument because while they are not new, they ARE up-to-date).

---

This is obviously a rather pointless argument about semantics.

However, going back to the argument of semantics, by your definition everyone has modern thoughts and all the philosophies are modern as long as there is at least one living person who accepts it. To me, that makes it a pointless adjective but it is fine if you go by that definition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
by your definition everyone has modern thoughts and all the philosophies are modern as long as there is at least one living person who accepts it. To me, that makes it a pointless adjective but it is fine if you go by that definition.

---

I think that's about how I see the word. To simplify it - in fields where there is no sound proof for true/false, right/wrong (religion, politics and even psychology and the like to a smaller extent), the word modern doesn't work. The difference in values and viewpoints make it impossible to determine that. However, the word progressive to me is the compass that points where equality and fairness reside (which is why, for example, the term "progressive tax" means a tax that takes more from the rich, in order to achieve greater equality). In exact sciences such as physics or chemistry, modern works just fine because you can actually refute old proofs as wrong (if it's of any interest to you, I recommend reading some of Karl Popper's works).

But we're digressing. Back to the issue at hand - I agree those rules are ludicrous but I am also aware they seem wrong from MY point of view. To the people of those Muslim countries it may seem like a good thing - and that's their country, where they are entitled to do whatever they want. From my recollection (and I'm not backing that up with any facts, just what logic points to), the most famous revolutions came from the people and were most effective, whereas when other countries are trying to forcefully make a change in another country, it is bound to fail. I believe the "world" is only allowed to intervene when one country is being hostile or are endangering the survival of another country.

I see what you mean but I wonder how do you describe the phenomenon of "suicide bombing"?

To me, something qualifies as modern in this context if it significantly differs from all the previous related practices or ideas.

Thus, with my definition treating women as half-men (e.g., counting the testimonies of four women equal to those of two men) is not modern since it has been practiced for centuries. Suicide bombing on the other hand is a modern phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
I see what you mean but I wonder how do you describe the phenomenon of "suicide bombing"?

To me, something qualifies as modern in this context if it significantly differs from all the previous related practices or ideas.

Thus, with my definition treating women as half-men (e.g., counting the testimonies of four women equal to those of two men) is not modern since it has been practiced for centuries. Suicide bombing on the other hand is a modern phenomenon.

---

I wrote it in a previous post - just because it's old doesn't mean it's not modern, if it is still practiced. Worshipping Greek Gods is not modern because pretty much nobody practices that anymore. Worshipping God and Jesus is modern, even though they are quite old.

As for suicide bombing - that definitely stands by the definition of modern, but I don't see the connection to the topic of this thread at all.

I think I have something to add to this discussion, and hopefully get it away from semantics and back on track.

I: MISOGYNY:

A: From the Quran:

(4:34):

Yusuf Ali:
"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

Pickthal:
"...As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Shakir:
"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."



B: From the Hadith (http://www.uga.edu/islam/hadith.html):

"Umar reported the prophet as saying: "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife". (Hadith Of The Sunan Of Abu Dawud, Chapter 709 - On Beating Women, #2142)

"... Umar then came forward, and when he had asked and had been granted permission he found the Prophet sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He told that he decided to say something which would make the Prophet laugh, so he said, "Messenger of God, I wish you had seen the daughter of Kharija when she asked me for extra money and I got up and slapped her on the neck." God's messenger laughed and said, "They are around me as you see asking for extra money." Abu Bakr then got up, went to A'isha and slapped her on the neck, and Umar did the same to Hafsa ... "(Mishkat Al-Masabih, p. 690: Muslim).
NOTE: Check the context if you wish. It doesn't change these excerpts' implied meaning.

Talq b. `Ali reported God's messenger as saying, "When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven." (Mishkat Al-Masabih, p. 691: Tirmidhi)

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The Prophet (p.) said, "if a man invites his wive to sleep with him an she refuses to come to him, then angels send their curses on her till morning." (Bukhari, vol. 7, hadith 121, p. 93)

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: "The Prophet (p.) said, "Isn't the witness of a women equal to half that of a man?" The women said "yes". He said "This is because of the deficiency of the women's mind." (Bukhari, vol. 3, hadith 826, p. 502)


C: Relevance to Modern Islam:

Sermon on the Matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY
Rules on the Matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7qi...eature=related

And just in case you say that these are not "Real Muslims" as so many Islam apologists do...
From the Clerics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wseFg...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Ooe...eature=related

II: PEDOPHILIA:

A: From the Quran:

(33:49)
"O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely."
NOTE: No waiting period for women remarrying if they have NOT consummated.

(65:4)
"Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months,
and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens:
and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy."
NOTE: Waiting period prescribed for wives who have not yet reached puberty. By deduction, if the waiting period is only prescribed for consummated marriages, then pre-pubescent girls having a waiting period confirms pedophilia in Islam.

B: From the Hadith:

Al-Bukhaari (3894) "and Muslim (1422) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

C: Relevance to Modern Islam:

Explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5t9U9r9Kfs
It happens today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCHt...eature=related

And once again, in case they are not REAL muslims...

Former National (American) Muslim Chaplain Yusef Estes on pedophilia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt7vS7kxc50
(He describes the prophets marriage to the six year old as beautiful as Romeo and Juliet.)



Who am I to weigh in?

I am a former muslim, but am now very apostate.
I've lived in Islamic nations as an oil field worker.
I've lived in oppressive nations as a US Soldier.
I've seen the results of Jihad personally... [MODERATOR NOTE: Contains graphic image. Make it clear next time]

Great post, dude. Much better than all this sissy slap-fighting over semantics.

The primary difference I see between Islam and other religions is that more muslims are willing to do the crazy shit their god tells them to do. In the modern world, most religious people basically act like "this holy book is the word of god. except for sections b, m, and q." Most modern cultures deem certain aspects of every religion to be unacceptable, and excuses are made to not follow those aspects. For whatever reason, middle eastern culture is less willing to do this.

I think that the crazy Islamic fundamentalists would be just as bad as they are now if they were following any other religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
I think that the crazy Islamic fundamentalists would be just as bad as they are now if they were following any other religion.

---

I agree with most of what you said in your post. Most of the world (and certainly all of the civilized world) is not as religiously fervent as the Islamic world, and that it's a good thing. However, I disagree with what I've quoted above.

Not all religions are equally violent and each religion's fanatics are not equally dangerous. For example, the ancient religion of Jainism is built on a core belief of non-violence and compassion for all life (both plant and animal). It is simply inconceivable for a fundamentalist Jain to commit a suicide bombing.

The reason why Islam is so dangerous is because of explicit warrants in the religious texts to commit genocide, slavery, murder of nonbelievers, murder of homosexuals, and so on. Christianity and Judaism give these warrats as well, but as you said, most self-describing Christians and Jews don't take those parts seriously anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
However, I disagree with what I've quoted above.

---

That's a fair critcism. "Any" is a bit of a stretch, and would probably be better replaced with "many" or "most".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
I think that the crazy Islamic fundamentalists would be just as bad as they are now if they were following any other religion.

---

Personally, I tend to disagree with that statement, for the reasons Snrrub mentioned. However, it could be interesting to discuss that matter through Richard Dawkins' memes.

Sincere apologies about linking to that image without warning. I forget that mine is not the only perspective at times.


Generally any critical discussion of Islam gets wrangled away from Islam and into the woes of Christianity and the west, and to a lesser extent Judaism. If you can manage to keep the conversation focused on Islam, you will be surprised (or not) by what kind of things muslims will agree to.

No matter how shocked you are that believers are accepting pedophilia, misogyny or this I still would urge everyone to keep the kids' gloves on. It is extremely difficult for one to leave his/her faith. And if you haven't been raised under the inquisitor's brand, then I would dare say that you cannot understand the internal conflict that doubt brings to a believer. It is terrifying when believers contemplate hell, and it is perhaps equally terrifying when believers are ostracized by the Ummah. Stoning, beheading, honor killing is all real.

Taking the kids' gloves off can be necessary though. There hasn't been a Martin Luther in Islam, and the world needs one! Muslim apologists are excellent at destroying any argument which stems from the Bible, which is why every believer steers the discussion in that direction. If they cannot get you to go in depth about the Bible or Western history, then they will set about with the old "Well those are not real Muslims, Islam is about peace." That's when you have to let fly with the evidence.

Once again, leaving a faith one was raised in is a daunting task. However, the reality of misogyny, pedophilia, honor killing etc. is a greater evil than apostasy. It is going on today; and, until I a sweeping majority of believers denouncing such practices, I say that Islam should be held in very low regard.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aevar It is extremely difficult for one to leave his/her faith.[/B]

---

I have no doubt about this. This is why despite the fact I have an extremely low opinion of religion, I don't necessarily have a low opinion of religious people. Most of them have been brainwashed from birth to believe this bullshit. It is incredibly hard to overcome that, and it takes an exceptional person to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
The primary difference I see between Islam and other religions is that more muslims are willing to do the crazy shit their god tells them to do.

---

Wait, WHAT?

After that huge post by Aevar detailing major fundamental problems with Islam, you still see the primary difference is Muslims are just more devout. I should quit reading this thread. All the apologists for Islam are making me sick.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
Wait, WHAT?

After that huge post by Aevar detailing major fundamental problems with Islam, you still see the primary difference is Muslims are just more devout. I should quit reading this thread. All the apologists for Islam are making me sick.

---

Dude, have you ever read OT?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
Dude, have you ever read OT?

---

Does "OT" mean The Old Testament?


What did I say? They will bring up Christianity. That is all the Dawa is capable of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aevar
Does "OT" mean The Old Testament?


What did I say? They will bring up Christianity. That is all the Dawa is capable of.

---

OT: Old Testament, i.e., Judaism.

Yes, the issue of Judaism and Christianity should pop up in any discussion of modern Islam because it is relevant. Because modern reformed Jews and Christians are not really following their books but muslim fundamentalists do. So the big difference between them is that muslim fundamentalists are actually devout where say Jews are not.

Besides, no body here is saying that Quran is a nice book. So quoting the violent parts to prove that it's not nice is preaching to the choir.

Sorry for jumping on you, Xywalan. I'll work on my tact.

Anyway, the brutality in the Old Testament is not relevant or comparable to the brutality of the Quran. Consider the following.

For a person to be punished under Mosaic law, he had to first be warned thrice by three different individuals. Afterwards he was held before the Sanhedrin (Judaic Court). The court would consult the Torah (Law Book) which is filled with a tremendous number of circumstances, degrees of guilt, and degrees of punishment for each offence. The most common punishment was to require that the criminal drink water which has had the Tetragrammaton written in a weak ink and dissolved therein. The belief was that by ingesting the Holiest name of God, the culprit would have any number of bad things come about. It is understood today to have been used as a scare tactic (primarily on adulterers), and amounts to nothing more than a 'hex.'

The Quran, on the other hand, prescribes that committing X is always punished by Y. Where Y will be beheading, stoning, starving, lashing, or beating. And, unfortunately, there are still beheadings, stonings, starvings, lashings and beatings going on today.

I can present quotes and citations if any here feel it is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
All the apologists for Islam are making me sick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
muslims are willing to do the crazy shit their god tells them to do.

---

That doesn't exactly sound like an apology to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aevar
Sorry for jumping on you, Xywalan. I'll work on my tact.

Anyway, the brutality in the Old Testament is not relevant or comparable to the brutality of the Quran. Consider the following.

For a person to be punished under Mosaic law, he had to first be warned thrice by three different individuals. Afterwards he was held before the Sanhedrin (Judaic Court). The court would consult the Torah (Law Book) which is filled with a tremendous number of circumstances, degrees of guilt, and degrees of punishment for each offence. The most common punishment was to require that the criminal drink water which has had the Tetragrammaton written in a weak ink and dissolved therein. The belief was that by ingesting the Holiest name of God, the culprit would have any number of bad things come about. It is understood today to have been used as a scare tactic (primarily on adulterers), and amounts to nothing more than a 'hex.'

The Quran, on the other hand, prescribes that committing X is always punished by Y. Where Y will be beheading, stoning, starving, lashing, or beating. And, unfortunately, there are still beheadings, stonings, starvings, lashings and beatings going on today.

I can present quotes and citations if any here feel it is necessary.

---

They are all the same shit. Take this nice story of at Joshua 6, which is pretty much an order to genocide by God:

<b>When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.</b>

By the way, a minor technicality, but stoning does not appear in the current version of Quran (it used to be in there but at some point it was removed). But it does appear in OT. So, I still stand on my conclusion that the biggest difference between fundi Muslims and Jews is that Jews are no longer following the barbaric instructions of their books while fundie Muslims do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
They are all the same shit. Take this nice story of at Joshua 6, which is pretty much an order to genocide by God:

---

This is an account of war, not a detailing of punishments for crimes and infractions to be enacted in all future cases. If you take this as a description of the Judaic religion, then to be fair you should take the Iraqi war as a description of the national religion of America (which I would have to say is either atheism or agnosticism).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
This is an account of war, not a detailing of punishments for crimes and infractions to be enacted in all future cases. If you take this as a description of the Judaic religion, then to be fair you should take the Iraqi war as a description of the national religion of America (which I would have to say is either atheism or agnosticism).

---

Ros, read the passage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+6&version=NIV

Bible makes it clear that LORD approved of their actions. Besides, there are other instances of genocide in the OT as well. This is not the only one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
Bible makes it clear that LORD approved of their actions. Besides, there are other instances of genocide in the OT as well. This is not the only one.

---

Xywalan is actually correct here. In the OT, God ordered the Israelites, upon entering Canaan, to kill the men, women and children of all the tribes who lived there, which they happily did, except for the tribe of Amalek, from which they "only" killed all the men, and were later punished by God for not killing the women and children (yes, that is correct). If you ask any religious Jew, he will tell you that if he saw an Amalek person on the street today, he would kill him on the spot even if it means going to jail because it is an order from God himself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
So, I still stand on my conclusion that the biggest difference between fundi Muslims and Jews is that Jews are no longer following the barbaric instructions of their books while fundie Muslims do.

---

I think we were talking past each other. I was speaking of Judaism and the Torah, and not the Biblical Old Testament.

Anyway, I still don't think the two religions compare. The Torah goes into great depth with its crime and punishment, and it is still followed to the letter by the Hasidim and other orthodox Jews. However, their strict adherence to the Torah does not lead to executions or flogging. Extremely devout men, but unless they hear a booming voice from on high there won't be any of these in Jewish communities. [WARNING: Graphic image of Stoning in Iran]

And stoning is in Islam:

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : (adulterer stoned)

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 421:
Narrated 'Aisha: (adulterer stoned)

Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: (adulterer stoned)

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195:
Narrated Jabir: (adulterer stoned)


For someone to be found guilty of Zina (adultery) in Islam, four witnesses are required before there is any flogging, stoning, or honor killing...Unfortunately, the husband CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF FOUR WITNESSES.

No court is necessary. Just the testimony of one man (equal to four witnesses) or of eight women (equal to four witnesses).