US Ambassador to Lybia, along with 3 others, killed

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

When in the past 30 years have the hindus burned embassies and murdered people over blasphemy towards them? The Christians? The Jews? the Jaines? The buddhists? the Shintoists? Etc.

Did the earth get reset 30 years ago or something? why is 30 years the imaginary number you came up with?

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Did the earth get reset 30 years ago or something? why is 30 years the imaginary number you came up with?

I am referring to Lost people's living memories. I suggest 30 years to avoid the rebutters temptation to invoke incidents long past such as the crusades, salem witch trials etc.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

<snip>

Before I get to your quotes (and misquotes) of the Qu'ran, let me address the other things:

What are the Five Pillars of Islam? Do you understand what the Five Pillars of Islam is? You claim the tenets of Islam are violent, so tell me what the core tenets of Islam are. You may be pleasantly (or not so much) surprised.

Ad hominen is a type of fallacy. I could sit here using sarcasm all day long and it would not be an ad hominem. Insults and name-calling are not fallacies, either. I would have to try to undermine your entire argument through name-calling and personal attacks in order for it to be so. In my post, I addressed the fact that you, on the one hand, condemn a small number of individuals for their violent acts, and then carry that on to illogically condemn the entire religion. It is an absurd method of thinking, and one that I feel I pointed out fairly enough, and then came to the conclusion of you being an Islamophobe, if with a bit of sarcasm. My apologies if you're the delicate type.

Have you read the Qu'ran or any hadiths? Since you cared to ask me, I think it's fair for me to ask you. What is your source for your quotes of the Qu'ran?

Now, I'm going to copy your Qu'ranic quotes, and then copy the translations by Abdullah Ysuf Ali, one of the most widely utilized English translations of the Qu'ran in the English world, as well as put them in some sort of context within the surrounding passages, when need be. This will be a big post, so I'll try to organize it well.

I will also mention that the translation of the Qu'ran is extremely important when it comes to Islam. A translation is, most often, an interpretation of an original text. That means errors and misunderstandings may naturally creep into it, sometimes due to a lack of knowledge, sometimes from malevolent intent. Along with this, many Muslims consider the Qu'ran in any language besides Arabic to not actually be the Qu'ran, at least not in the true sense. This is because of the importance that is put on it being "revealed" to Muhammad in Arabic, and the importance put on that language. Also, even in Arabic, different Muslims of different schools interpret the text differently. This is the same for adherents of just about any religion.

================

Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7

This is quite clearly re-written at the end. As written in the Qu'ran in front of me by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

2:6-7 6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. 7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

If you try to compose a surah that is better than those in the Quran, and then fail, Allah will burn you forever if you in the fire that he has prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

This is basically accurate, and is speaking of burning in hell. So what? Fire and brimstone passages are basically common in almost every monotheistic religious text. it's certainly not telling you to go kill people.

Allah will shed human blood while angels praise him in heaven. (The angels question why Allah has to kill people; Allah says they'd understand if they knew everything like he does.) 2:30

This is a hilarious interpretation of this passage. I'm assuming you got these quotes from a webpage?

2:30 30. Behold, your Lord said to the angels: "I will create a viceregent on earth." They said: "Will You place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? - while we do celebrate your praises and glorify Your holy (name)?" He said: "I know what you do not know."

This passage is, of course, speaking of Adam. The angels are asking if his creation (Adam) will be mischievous and shed blood on earth. This would be clear if you actually read the Qu'ran and the surrounding passages. The one immediately following (2:31) mentions it being Adam (this is actually close to 2:34, one of the passages where confusion on the nature of Iblis (Satan) is raised. Most Muslims claim the Qu'ran is free of inconsistencies like the Old & New Testaments and this being proof of its revelatory veracity, but it doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to the nature of Iblis).

They who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein." 2:39

Basically accurate, and, again, is a fire and brimstone passage. I should also add, it's referring specifically to those without Faith (atheists, basically, and pagans). 2:43 states: And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).

Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

In this passage, Allah is supposed to be admonishing those of the Book (early Jews and Christians) that failed to act kindly, even while knowing God watched over them. Honestly, if they acted like it describes, then they probably should suffer disgrace.

2:85: After this it is you, the same people, who slay amongst yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancor; and if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then it is only a part of the Book you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - and on the Day of Judgement they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what you do.

I'm glad you mentioned this passage, though, because right above it, at 2:62, the Qu'ran states quite equivaclly that there is no battle, and should not be any battle, between Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

2:62: Those who believe (in the Qu'ran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

"For disbelievers is a painful doom." 2:104

Close, enough, I suppose. Asif translates the ending as: " . . . to those without Faith is a grievous punishment."

If someone murders your slave, then you get to kill one of his. If it was a male that was killed, you kill one of the killer's male slaves. If a female, you kill a female. Murder for murder. Slave for slave. It all works out swell with Allah's wondrous rules. (Oh, and if you don't follow them, you'll have the usual painful doom.) 2:178

2:178: O you who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude. This is a consession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

Exceeding the limits means not practising equality in crimes such as this (kill my brother? I kill your entire family). Considering the times, and the fact that the people of that day were not concerned with stopping crime entirely (like modern Western justice systems), but keeping crime contained and providing compensation, it's not a bad system. But, of course, the problem here isn't the system that was in practice in 600 AD. It's the belief that this sort of system has relevance today.

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

This quote isn't concerning "disbelievers", and to put it into context you need to include the passage JUST prior (that is, of course, conveniently excluded from the webpage you've copied and pasted these from):

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah does not love transgressors.
2:191: And slay them wheever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward for those who suppress faith.
2:192: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people. 2:193a

Is that the quote you're pasting, or your own thoughts on it? Either way, it's wrong.

2:193: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there by no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

Isn't it a Western belief to fight tyranny and oppression? And, before you misunderstand (if you didn't already realize this, you likely already misunderstand the entire Qu'ran), Allah does not = Muslim God. Allah = monotheistic God of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims).

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you do not.

This one is a favourite of the anti-Islam brigade. Unfortunately, you need to put it into historical context, as well as in the context of the rest of the Qu'ran, to understand it. The idea (as I mentioned already in reply to some of the previous verses) was for Muslims to fight against oppression and injustice, as these things were seen as worse than killing. This did not mean wholesale slaughter of people that weren't Muslims for its own sake, and was almost certainly a response to the persecution from Mecca.

Nothing prevents non-muslims from believing in Islam. So it's their own fault when they are sent to their doom. 18:55

This verse is not referring to Islam, but Allah. it makes this clear in the next verse when it refers to "Messengers" being sent. In other words, Unbelievers (pagans and atheists) will be going to hell. This is nothing out of the ordinary for a monotheistic religion (and is actually quite inclusive, compared to Judaism or Christianity).

When Abraham's son, Ishmael, was old enough to walk, Allah told Abraham in a dream to sacrifice Ishmael. So Abraham asked Ishmael if it'd be OK with him, and Ishmael said, "Sure thing, Dad, go ahead and kill me for God. I won't even flinch." 37:102 [All three Abrahamic monotheisms share this disgusting celebration of a father intent on murdering his own child to show the love of his god]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Your original post said this religion -- Islam -- is a threat to humanity. We are still talking about Islam here, aren't we? Unless you're revising what you said and now mean all religion is a threat to humanity and Western civilization?

Smite the necks of the disbelievers whenever you fight against them. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded. 47:4

This is fairly close to the verse, though it doesn't mention any type of reward: "But those who are slain in the way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost."

To understand it, again, one must put it in historical context and in the context of the rest of the Qu'ran. Rules have already been established in earlier Surahs that a Muslim doesn't engage in wars of aggression (well, isn't supposed to), only in defensive wars against tyranny and oppression, and that no transgressions of limits should be committed. These "rules" were formulated, funnily enough, just before the Meccans came looking for Muhammed and his party of Muslims in Medina. Relevant to the time, and actually quite enlightened for that era and place in the world (the Byzantines employed pagan Bedouin in the pre-Islamic era along the Danube because the Goths were terrified of their habit of slitting their enemy's throat and drinking the blood).

=========

To conclude, to fully understand the Qu'ran (and any other revelatory text), you need an understanding of its historical context, and to understand individual verses, you need an understanding of the rest of the verses that compose the text. You can cherry pick verses all night long from the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Torah . . . whatever, and they all look pretty bad. And, in fact, there are nasty bits and pieces in all those books, no doubt about it. Your part about "objectively analysing" the scripture is rich, though. Really, it is.

Anyway, none of what you've quoted shows that Islam is a threat to all of humanity and Western civilization any more than any other monotheistic religion, and it certainly does nothing to show why the actions of a minority (and, yes, even thousands of individuals are a minority in a populace of hundreds of millions) in the Mid-East provide justification for the condemnation of the entire religion.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Watching you wrestle with your inner, latent Canuckophobia is really quite fascinating . . .

I do have Canuckophobia, I think you're right!

[SeeBass]

Well what could possibly go wrong with this cover

[Rerun]

I think its been well proven on here that Islam is a peaceful religion.
Therefore those angry men probably aren't Muslim.

However, from their appearance they definitely appear to be Arab.

Maybe the title should read: ARAB RAGE

[Azure]

Maybe they shouldn't have so much rage then.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Well what could possibly go wrong with this cover

Now this is how us Muslims should be responding

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...tter-joke.html

[Calgaryborn]

CNN has revealed a picture of the film maker along with an interview with an actress who was on set:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...e&VID=23814327

[Ozy_Flame]

Takes off kufi. Tan lines on forehead. #MuslimRage

lol

[Cowperson]

A burning American flag kills a Pakistani protester . . .

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...LBShGc2uKrGyIM

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A burning American flag kills a Pakistani protester . . .

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...LBShGc2uKrGyIM

Cowperson

The best part are the typical American comments at the bottom of the article.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Well what could possibly go wrong with this cover

Great opinion piece behind the cover

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...nal-stand.html

Cowperson

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Great opinion piece behind the cover

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...nal-stand.html

Cowperson

Pretty dumb article when the author fails to realize that Libya already elected a liberal government and the islamists failed to garner significant support.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

This is basically accurate, and is speaking of burning in hell. So what? Fire and brimstone passages are basically common in almost every monotheistic religious text. it's certainly not telling you to go kill people.

Not to derail this topic, but to further this line of thought, weren't most references to fire and brimstone (in most references) in reference to Gehenna? Originally, I think Hell was called "Sheol" (correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just talking off the top of my head), the resting place of the damned (and was more defined as a dark place), but both Gehenna, the fire and brimstone location, and Sheol were translated into Hell by the King James translation.

It makes sense in my mind at least. At Gehenna (an actual location near Jerusalem), you'd be burned instead of being buried for being a heretic, which is pretty consistent with all the descriptions between religions. The difference is that they don't really specify that it's a literal event - Your physical body is literally being burned. The Valley of Hinnom, which is the name of Gehenna now, had a constant fire going at the time, so if you weren't exactly a nice guy towards God, they'd throw your body there, were you'd burn for eternity (or so it seemed)

So if we combine this with the passage quotes, it's basically stating that you'll be thrown into this longstanding fire (which also housed a lot of sulfur. I think this is the origin of "fire and brimstone Hell") by Allah.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Pretty dumb article when the author fails to realize that Libya already elected a liberal government and the islamists failed to garner significant support.

Try reading past the first four paragraphs.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Try reading past the first four paragraphs.

I did, feel free to point out how what I said was wrong.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by kirant

Not to derail this topic, but to further this line of thought, weren't most references to fire and brimstone (in most references) in reference to Gehenna? Originally, I think Hell was called "Sheol" (correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just talking off the top of my head), the resting place of the damned (and was more defined as a dark place), but both Gehenna, the fire and brimstone location, and Sheol were translated into Hell by the King James translation.

It makes sense in my mind at least. At Gehenna (an actual location near Jerusalem), you'd be burned instead of being buried for being a heretic, which is pretty consistent with all the descriptions between religions. The difference is that they don't really specify that it's a literal event - Your physical body is literally being burned. The Valley of Hinnom, which is the name of Gehenna now, had a constant fire going at the time, so if you weren't exactly a nice guy towards God, they'd throw your body there, were you'd burn for eternity (or so it seemed)

So if we combine this with the passage quotes, it's basically stating that you'll be thrown into this longstanding fire (which also housed a lot of sulfur. I think this is the origin of "fire and brimstone Hell") by Allah.

My understanding, which certainly isn't authoritative by any stretch of the imagination, was that "Gehenna" was a place sacred to some people that practised some ancient pagan rituals dedicated to the Levantine god Moloch. People were supposedly burned alive there, and reference to that made its way into the Torah and some other books:

Leviticus 18:21: "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch"

Jeremiah 7:31-32: And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere.

I got those quotes from online, though, so they may not be completely accurate, but there are others, as well.

From there, these references then made their way into the New Testament (as in, the books that now compose the New Testament), taking on a definitively mythological aspect that you can already see forming in Isaiah there, and from there made their way into the Qur'an (Jahannam). Any sort of actual human sacrifices conducted there would have long since ceased by then, and while I've read before that there was a garbage heap burning there, I've also read that there isn't any actual archaeological evidence for it or any early references made of that really being the case. Even so, though, I think the ancient pagan rituals that went on there are still more than enough to explain the origin of the concept. It's interesting reading, though, and seems so plainly obvious I can't understand how some people can still believe in the existence of a Judeo-Christian "hell" after reading the history of the word and concept.

[Calgaryborn]

I wasn't going to post because this is off topic be here goes anyways.

"Sheol" is a Hebrew word meaning the grave or the place of the dead. The Jewish Old Testament doesn't spell out what happens after death. They go to "Sheol". Heaven and hell are doctrines fleshed out in the New Testament. Most of what we know is from what Jesus told us.

The New Testament is written in greek. Once or twice the New Testament quotes an Old Testament verse that has the word "Sheol" in it. When it does it uses the greek word "Hades". Hades of course is the place of the dead in greek mythology. Hades is translated as "hell" in our english bibles with one exception I can think of where it is translated "grave". In Luke 16 Jesus is talking about "hades".

"Gehenna" is the fire pit outside of Jerusalem where the garbage was burnt. It is thought to be a place of child sacrifice in ancient times. At the time of Christ both the Zoroastrians(a religious cult) and some extra-canonical Jewish literature had already used the word "Gehenna" to describe a place of punishment in the afterlife. Jesus borrowed the word like he borrowed the word "hades" to describe 2 different places in the after life. In english "gehenna" is always translated as "hell".

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I did, feel free to point out how what I said was wrong.

No you were right... but there was so much more to the column than just the incorrect part about Libya.