Santa V God

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Pretty much like the rights you allready have anyway... Human right... Which is protected by law and is valid to everyone no matter their religion....


The rights are:

We are all born equal and free.
Don't disciminate.
The right to life.
No slavery.
No torture.
You have your rights WHEREVER you go.
All are equal before the law.
Human rights are protected by law.
No unfair detainment.
The Right to trial.
Innocent until proven other wise.
Right to privacy.
Freedom to move.
The right to asylum.
The right to nationality.
The right to family.
The right to have your own personal things.
The right to freedom of thought.
The right to expression.
The right to public assembly.
The right to democracy.
The right to social secruity
Workers rights.
Rights to play.
The rights to food and shelter.
The right to education.
Copyright.
Free fair world.
Reponsability.
The right that no one can take these rights from you.
And the right to know your rights.....

So basically sharia HAS, HAS to abide by these, so of course your rights are going to be like that, but it isn't from your religion they come.... If you understand what I am trying to say?

I think so. My thought is: love of G-d informs love of fellow human beings. It also informs respect for concepts of justice and compassion that derive from faith.

I think the sense that human rights are G-d-ordained can make a difference in both interpretation and application.

[Devadatta]

Talking of Islam: apology or challenge?

These are just some general remarks regarding the above discussions.

How can we help the moderate forces in the Arab world and other Islamic nations under discussion in their struggle with violent radicalism and with their dream of making Islam a definitively progressive and positive force? Of course, what really needs to happen are substantive changes on the ground, say a comprehensive agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But leaving concrete action aside, all we have are words: words of apology and words of challenge.

And it seems to me that we should always keep the essential aim of encouraging moderate forces in mind, and so we shouldn’t dismiss either apology or challenge out of hand. Both may be of use.

As the discussions above shows, different people will tend to take one or the other side. The question is whether such a discussion can teach us anything, give us a more complete view of the issues. Perhaps.

But one of the problems I see – and of course this is only my view – is that such a discussion doesn’t work well as a wiki-battle, as a tit for tat of cut and paste and sourcing. The issues are I think far too complex. There are too many ambiguities.

For example, one can cite this or that polling data or study on Muslim attitudes as evidence for one side or the other. But I think if you look at a bunch of different indicators, at the range of differences between countries and populations, what you find is a very mixed picture, especially if you go to the more solid sources like Pew Research. In the end, everyone has to think through all this stuff, and make up his or her own mind. There is no magic bullet, in my opinion, that sustains a one-sided view. The concrete realities are complex and in constant flux. It’s better, in my view, that everyone who wants to carry on this kind of discussion do their own serious study, and when they’re ready return with their own evaluations, using their own words.

Similarly, the lifting out of context of some portion of Islamic law because it supports a certain impression, only invites the tit for tat of some other lifting out of context of some other portion that leaves the opposite impression. So while one might paste a text on rights and freedoms, another might paste a text on the laws and penalties of apostasy. Neither will increase anyone’s understanding of Islamic law as such.

Finally, there’s the question of Shariah. Here I think we need to keep in mind that there is no “Shariah law” as such. Shariah refers to God’s Law as an absolute. It’s a core concept akin to “Torah” or “Kingdom of God”, and like these other core concepts, it can take on many senses. And like Torah or Kingdom of God, in its ideal sense one might say that Shariah has never yet been realized, for that would be the state of perfection, when the ummah was universal and the will of human beings conformed absolutely to the Will of God. What you have instead are religious figures who call on the prestige of the Shariah, as guided by the Koran and by what they deem the most authentic hadith, to frame Islamic law as such. This is the work of the recognized legal schools, five for the Sunni and one for the Shia.

So I would reduce the number of Islamic states who have instituted full Shariah to zero. Instead, I would point out that the place of Islamic law in Muslim nations is ever-evolving, that even as far back as the Ottomans, the tendency was for a division of labor between the clerics and whatever ruling regime was in place, so that, for example, the clerics might deal with family and civil law, the prince with criminal and commercial, that the impact of colonialism and modernization in many countries had the effect of further reducing the scope of Islamic law as such. (It’s been a while since I read about this stuff, but I think this is correct in principle if not in every detail.)

So I think one has to look at the place of Islamic law on a country by country basis, and here I think we can say three things: that there’s no simple distinction among Muslim countries between “secular” and “religious” states but that there exists a complex continuum, that every Muslim country to the extent it is Muslim has some provision for Islamic law, makes some gesture toward “Shariah”, that Islam, even when it’s pushed as far as possible to the margins or merely exploited – say under Saddam Hussein in Iraq – remains a powerful force in the shaping of the culture and the world view of individual Muslims. In fact, for the most impoverished Muslims in particular Islam has been the one constant through centuries of continuous regime change at the top. So it’s not surprising that Islam – whatever local form it takes – is the lens through which they view every new phenomenon and the base to which they repeatedly return.

So it isn’t enough to point to the self-proclaimed Sharia states like the Saudis, Iran, the Taliban. We should also notice that even the new governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, the one replacing a secular the other a theocratic state, both recognize the authority of Islam in their constitutions, that Afghanistan still has the death penalty against apostasy on its books, and that in Iraq the various parties of God have committed extraordinary carnage. Now tribalism is a big part of this carnage, but these are tribes formed by Islamic culture. To blame it all on Muslim fanaticism would be simplistic. But to exclude Islam from the analysis hampers our understanding.

Consider as well that Islamist movements are in large part a reaction against modernization and secularization, the move away from the ideal of Shariah and the universalist claims of Islam. And again there’s no clear distinction between “Islamism” on one side and the various forms of Islam on the other. Think of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist movements, which began in Egypt. It helped spawn Said Qutb, the intellectual godfather of al qaida and Osama bin laden. At the same time, its views in general are not as radical as al qaida, and while falling in and out of favor, the Muslim Brotherhood has been a fixture in the Arab world for decades. It’s part of that world of discourse, where its points of view are considered legitimate, however distasteful, or at least alien, many in the West might find them.

Or consider Hamas and Hezboulah. These are Islamist movements that feed directly on the failures of secularism, modernization and whatever moderate voices exist. The US, Canada and don’t know how many other countries call them terrorist organizations, pure and simple. In fact, both organizations have strong social welfare components – everyone noticed that Hezboulah was more efficient in the aftermath of the recent Israeli invasion than the US government was in the aftermath of Katrina – and have the definite positive attribute of empowerment, of bottom-up movements of peoples whom every other institution has failed. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezboulah may go up and down in the polls, but in the Middle East they’re hardly off the charts. They’re part of that world of discourse.

Moderate Arabs or Muslims do pop up from time to time on my side of the pond and what they express is ambivalence and frustration. They recognize that the forces of moderation have been in retreat, and for good reason: because they have failed. They recognize the positive side of empowering ordinary Muslims, of bringing them into more active participation. At the same time, they fear the totalitarian turn among these movements, and the reliance on violence. Gandhis are pretty thin on the ground.

So it’s pretty self-evident that Islam remains an integral component in the politics of the Arab world and in the Islamic nations under discussion. And it’s my view, as I suggested in the beginning, that if we hope to help empower the moderates and steer Islamist movements to their better angels, we need both to support the positive and challenge the negative in their underling Islamic ideologies, and leave it up to Muslims to demonstrate what the true nature of “Islam” actually entails.

[Netti-Netti]

Hello Devadatta,

You appear to morph every criticism of Islam, no matter what it’s form or reasonableness, into a call for its defense and invent claims to refute that were never made in the first place.

Which criticism of Islam was reasonable and by whose standard of reasonableness?

Some of what you’re saying doesn’t seem to me to be the point at all, for example, all this spice trade business seems extraordinarily tangential. The original issue was your claim that the expansion of Islam in general was the result of this kind of process, when plainly that was not the case.

Plainly? Maybe you think the word "plainly" applies. I don't. In fact, the issues are rather controversial. That's why I called attention to the fact that there are different views on the transmission of the religion of Islam. One view is that it happened along international trade routes, which accounts for the fact that Islam got as far as China, where Muslims would eventually take over the import business.

At one point Islamic rulers controlled kingdoms in Persia, Turkey, and India. Based on what we know about the Muslim trade business (for which there are many, many references) the expansion was at least in part a gradual and organic process that did not involve aggressive evangelization spearheaded by warriors types who were pursuing expansionist policies. It appears such policies were to some extent in evidence in the conquest of the Arab Peninsula. However, historical information about how the Arab empire evolved doesn't tell us anything about the spread of Islam to other parts of the world.

The success of Islam appears to be related in part to its ability to adapt to existing cultures. It was possible to introduce the religion with a minimum of disruption. That is, conversion to Islam did not require native peoples to swap out their indigenous beliefs for Islamic doctrine. Even today in Africa we see native tribal religions coexisting with Islam. Muslim medicine men who use sorcery are not unheard of.

Contrary to the notion of hardline theocracy, as late as the 17th century Bengal Muslims were seen participating in Hindu practices. In Saudi Arabia, the palace of Abdul Aziz Al-Saud was used for Christian prayer services even when the Salafists' were having a revival in the 1920s. One could on and on with historical records that attest to Islam's coexistence with other religions, particularly during Islam's Golden Age, which lasted almost 800 years, and which ended with the dominance of a Christian regime that implemented "Convert or Die" policies.

Contemporary Muslim societies confirms that the spread of Islam did not necessarily involve an imposition of a uniform theocratic culture. Indeed, native people's acceptance of Islam was facilitated by the fact that it was a trendy, happening cultural thing that had potential to revive sagging domestic cultures or, in the case of India, because it seemed like a viable alternative to India's oppressive caste system. Survey research has shown that the social and cultural relevance of Islam is a factor in commitment to Islamification. The salience of this factor can be expected to magnify the more Muslims feel threatened by Western cultural hegemony.

I'm not so sure Islam exists in a pure form anywhere. I would go further and say there is no such thing as Islam, just as there is no such thing as Christianity. Further, just because Islam originated in the Arab world, there is no reason to think of it as having an Arabic ethnic identity. Most of the world's Muslims today are in Africa, not in Arab nation states. It is therefore very unclear why anyone intent on understanding Islam would focus only on Arab states. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. Indonesians are not Arabs.

lifting out of context of some portion of Islamic law because it supports a certain impression, only invites the tit for tat of some other lifting out of context of some other portion that leaves the opposite impression.

Are you saying that context makes a difference in the applicability of universal human rights recognized by Muslim law?

So while one might paste a text on rights and freedoms, another might paste a text on the laws and penalties of apostasy. Neither will increase anyone’s understanding of Islamic law as such.

I disagree. Depending on the level of detail, a discussion of both could add to our understanding.

I don't think it would be hard for you to look back to and see that no one was paying much attention to evidence before I started to cite sources of historical information that directly contradicted certain contentions Islam. It seems you are now suggesting we go back to unsubstantiated claims, stereotyping, and sloppy generalities.

This is not the first time that you've indicated your resistance to new information being introduced into the discussion even though it is directly relevant to factual claims. Where will it stop? With the shuttering of the libraries and burning of history books? Obviously I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

Again, this is not the first time you have tried to hobble the discussion. My response is to state the obvious: Just because controversies cannot be settled quickly and with certainty, that's no reason to give up on a good faith exploration of relevant facts. Further, just because there are different views and different sets of facts that don't necessarily converge or describe all situations, that doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned.

If nothing else, conflicting evidence can alert us to the fact that there are controversies and thus raise awareness about possible biases. People may also be motivated to do more in-depth searches on their own. To my way of thinking, all of this can be very valuable in preserving ecology of mind by affirming the importance of an open-ended inquiry.

To blame it all on Muslim fanaticism would be simplistic. But to exclude Islam from the analysis hampers our understanding.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that Islam should be excluded from the analysis. I like the way you gloss over the fact that Islam was specifically singled out without much of a rationale. Was is to avoid getting flack for insulting the spiritual character of Jesus or calling Yahweh a false god? And why would anyone on CR take up for Muhammad when someone invokes his character as an explanation for the contemporary geopolitics?....

Think of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist movements, which began in Egypt.... the Muslim Brotherhood has been a fixture in the Arab world for decades. It’s part of that world of discourse, where its points of view are considered legitimate, however distasteful, or at least alien, many in the West might find them.

I'm curious how you would reconcile your portrayal of the Brotherhood as "distasteful" and "alien" to the description offered by Daniel Williams (Washington Post Foreign Service), who likens the Brotherhood's moral/social platform to "a high school civics book." In a Washington Post article, Williams observes that the Brotherhood promotes freedom of speech and "the independence of unions and professional organizations, transparency of government transactions, a crackdown on corruption and freedom for political prisoners. The Brotherhood is not pressing for Islamic-oriented social changes, such as mandatory use of veils by women or a ban on alcohol."

You want to call that "alien" and "distasteful"? I read the Brothers' manifesto. It sounds like it was dictated by Pat Robertson's speech writers. The Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence many years ago and is committed to intellectual evangelization.

I'm puzzled you continue to post these highly questionable characterizations without having done any fact checks and without any real effort to represent balance. Moreover, the general lack of detail in your arguments suggests a reliance on imagery rather than facts.

[Devadatta]

Alllllrighty then! The problem here, to quote an old movie, is the failure to communicate, and perhaps some personal animus. It’s not a question of this or that argument or fact. It’s a question of having sensible and civil grounds on which to carry on a discussion. The irony for me is that it was never my intention to support any particular point of view but only to call for openness and to warn against extreme views. That was the purport of my last post, though you obviously seized on those portions that seemed to reference you or which offered some opening for attack. Several posts back I suggested that we reboot the discussion, though I did unfortunately feel compelled in the meantime to respond schematically to several your points. That certainly undercut that effort. But I did apologize for my previous over-reactions, tried to honestly explain the problems I have with your modes of presentation and asked for a show of good faith on your part – none of which you have responded to.

But I’m not asking that you to respond to any of that now. And I regret that this discussion has ended in such bad feelings. I’ve had this experience once before in these forums since I first participated several years ago, and it still gives me pain to think of it. And when this happens both sides must share some responsibility. At least I hope that’s one agreement we can have.

In the meantime, let’s drop any further ad hominem and sniping, and affirm that we have conflicting notions on how to carry on this kind of discussion (although these differences are not as simple and clear cut as either of us has suggested).

I wish you well. It seems to me that you show a genuine lust for truth, and that will serve you well in the long run.

(smiley face) (face somehow expressing the absurdities of the human ego)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

The irony for me is that it was never my intention to support any particular point of view but only to call for openness and to warn against extreme views.

To the best of my knowledge I haven't expressed any extreme views.

As for openness: Interspersed between various calls for balance, you include arguments that very clearly show a bias and an intention to support a particular point of view. For that reason, I disagree with how you're positioning yourself.

And I regret that this discussion has ended in such bad feelings.

How many times have you ended this discussion now? Btw, it's not over for me and I hope you're not going to try to make a case for getting my posting priviledges revoked in order to silence me.

both sides must share some responsibility. At least I hope that’s one agreement we can have.

Sorry, I'm totally innocent

Several posts back I suggested that we reboot the discussion, though I did unfortunately feel compelled in the meantime to respond schematically to several your points. That certainly undercut that effort. But I did apologize for my previous over-reactions, tried to honestly explain the problems I have with your modes of presentation and asked for a show of good faith on your part – none of which you have responded to.

I will do so as time permits. Thanks for your patience.

As for my good faith, you have no reason to question it.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I hope you're not going to try to make a case for getting my posting priviledges revoked in order to silence me.

That’s the furthest thing from my mind. I hope you remain a member in good standing. As for me, my pattern here is intense involvement for a time, and then a long absence until some kind of sick addiction draws me back!

So my hidden agenda is that I’ve been trying to bail out of these forums for at least a week, and our little dust-up has just delayed me! I just hate leaving a discussion in such a stupid state of near-total lack of communication. And, frankly, adversarial types of discussions where inevitably substance is lost under a flurry of “gotchyas” just wears on my nerves.

Here’s some more background: several years ago, in light of political events we all know about, I spent some time learning about Islam, re-reading the Koran looking at some of the hadith, peeking into the earliest Muslim biographies of the Muhammad, and reading a few serious books on the subject, while avoiding the merely tendential at either extreme. Partly what I learned is what I tried to set out above: that Islam can be a positive or negative force, and that for the sake of us all we’d better hope that moderate forces win out in the end and that grass roots Islamist movements do indeed find their better angels.

But I also learned that constitutionally I’m the last person to carry on detailed debate on the nature, history, and effects of Islam because I have no instinctive sympathy for the religion even on its good days. For me, Islam summarizes a lot of what I object to in the Abrahamic tradition as a whole – and this is an inference I’m sure you can easily draw from some of my other threads (“cult of obedience,” et al). So again that’s why I merely wanted to suggest some middle ground between you and Tao. That’s the only contribution I wanted to make. And it was more a “pointing” than a point.

So while I’m tempted to get on for another ride on this merry-go-round, I can’t think of a logical reason to do so except out of ego, to nail down my position, show where I’m right and you’re wrong, to get in the last word. In fact, whoever is driven to get in the last word has probably already lost the argument.

But perhaps we can end with a brief discussion of less messy topic, where can respectfully exchange views. See next post.

(face in the clouds)

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I think so. My thought is: love of G-d informs love of fellow human beings. It also informs respect for concepts of justice and compassion that derive from faith.

I think the sense that human rights are G-d-ordained can make a difference in both interpretation and application.

Hi Netti. So again my purpose is simply an exchange of views on the ideas you're raising here.


I guess I would first ask for some clarification. Can you tell me something of this "G-d" and how he/she/it ordains human rights?


I certainly recognize in a pragmatic sense that a certain concept of God and faith in that concept is a way to develop love for other human beings. But can you elaborate a little more on your paticular framework for these ideas?


(friendly face)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I just hate leaving a discussion in such a stupid state of near-total lack of communication.

I thought we were doing ok, just bumpy here and there.

And, frankly, adversarial types of discussions where inevitably substance is lost under a flurry of “gotchyas” just wears on my nerves.

Sorry, Devadatta, I don't see it your way. I don't share your definition of the situation. I think we're doing fine. Maybe you're talking about another thread somewhere.

In fact, whoever is driven to get in the last word has probably already lost the argument.

Well, that wasn't my agenda.

But perhaps we can end with a brief discussion of less messy topic, where can respectfully exchange views.

I don't understand the urgency to get closure and the desire to put an end to the dialogue. What's wrong with going with the flow and seeing where it goes?

Does it make sense to start a new thread with your next post? I think we've been off topic for some time.

Up to you.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I don't understand the urgency to get closure and the desire to put an end to the dialogue. What's wrong with going with the flow and seeing where it goes?

Okay, at least this is sounding fairly civil. But you’re right we do have different senses of the value of these exchanges, which I’ve already made clear. I haven’t responded point by point to your last few posts because they don’t notably depart from territory already covered and so I’d only be repeating my same basic disagreements. And I don’t enjoy being disagreeable. Perhaps I’d be a little more diplomatic, but that would likely not change very much. As for urgency, well, I do have a few other things going on in my life, as I’m sure you do, but it’s not a question of urgency as such. It’s just that you’ve yet to point out any particular sense to this discussion. I’m still a little in the dark as to what precisely you feel we’re achieving here.

So this may be a difference in learning styles. Perhaps you feel you’re learning something? Perhaps this adversarial give and take is the way you advance in understanding? Perhaps you’re simply honing your debating skills? Certainly, one can learn some things from these kinds of discussions. The most valuable thing I’ve learned on these forums is a sense of how people arrive at their viewpoints, especially ones I don’t share.

But when we fall into a broad-ranging discussion of anything so huge as Islam and its cultural effects (you can define this in different terms if you like), it all feels a little bogus, a little absurd. Beyond the few generalities and basic facts I can put out there, I don’t have the time or – as I’ve pointed out - the needed sympathy with the subject to treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

Again, you’re kind of making me repeat myself. I’ve already said I don’t believe wiki-battles of sourcing are all that useful. Nor do I think that out-of-context cut and paste, or the insertion of materials only loosely related to the context or the points in question are necessarily the best ways to advance a discussion. Finally, for me to significantly increase the depth of my knowledge and the comprehensiveness and sophistication of my view would require serious study on my part. These exchanges we’ve been having don’t qualify. Quite the contrary, I think outside observers must find them a little silly.

Now, you’ve made clear your own views on this. You disagree with my assessments, and you’ve directed your own criticisms at my style and ways of proceeding as well. Fair enough. But it seems to me the best way forward is to give this some space, and sometime later when the emotional investment has faded, to have a fresh look at these exchanges. Perhaps then we can both take the other’s criticisms in stride, and there we will have learned something.

So unless you do indeed have a specific point you feel I simply must respond to, again I can only wish you the best.

(face of a rugged country & western star, say Johnnie Cash in his prime)

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

You miss my point ... you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus, you cannot disprove the existence of God.

Thomas

Sorry Thomas but how would you do this? Santa Claus is a myth built on an actual living person, Saint Nicholas 270-280 AD to 343AD, Sainted for his good works to the poor. Known to have gone out at night in a hooded cloak to leave gifts for the poor, particularly children.

Therefore St Nicholas can be proved to have existed, the spirit of his gift giving and selfless attitude lives on in the form of a myth.

Tao I was really sad to read on page one of a thread you started that you are not interested in the history if Santa, as the history is what is important, as it is in religious discussion and it is humans that have taken a story of selfless care of the poor and turned it into a fat guy that brings a 5 year old a mobile phone and ipod.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have been reading about the history and development of cultures, science, philosophy, the arts etc for close to 30 years, I have read 100s of books on these subjects.

What a shame then that you choose to state the Quran, Islamic teachings and Islamic history so out of context and even in some places with apparent total ignorance of the subject.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You have no real knowledge of the subject and you seem far more intent on trying to handicap an honest debate than imparting anything of any use to anyone.

Hey right back at you Tao!! At least Netti has tried to offer context, an example would be the "verse of the sword" which you quoted and made huge inferences about without any historical context or reference to preceding or following verses.

By the way who named it the verse of the sword? Most certainly it wasn't the Quran or the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

Am a little hurt that despite my long posts about the history of this verse you haven't even bothered reading them. No sane Muslim believes that verse is anything other than a single event in history, which Netti has already explained very well. No Muslims, other than jihadists, believe it is meant as an instruction for all Muslims for all time or that it abrogates peaceful verses.

You also state the Prophet killed up to 900 Jews all by himself ..... wow his arm must have been aching.

I have posted at length about this incident (the battle of the trench). If you try to read a broad range of authors and not just jihadist rubbish you would know that this account comes from one book (Ibn Ishaq's Sira) which many historians have relied on since that time and the jurist Imam Malik, a contemporary of the author who by the way wrote his book 145 years after the death of the Prophet, denounced as a liar who only his took his information from the descendents of the tribe (how can you have descenents when every man in the tribe was killed?).

We also know Jews continued to live in Medina after this time, look up Battle of Khaybar ..... how could Jews still live there and work with the Muslims to prepare for this battle if they had all been either banished or killed? (interesting questions like these lead to the logical conclusion that historical accounts hold exaggerations)

Did the Muslims invite the Banu Quraya in for tea and biscuits? No they had broken the treaty and formed an army with Bedouin tribes (Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja'), the Pagans of Mecca and the Jewish tribes of Banu Nadir and Wa'il, in order to once and for all overthrow the Muslims.

The Quran has one small verse mentioning this story, it is literally one line and makes no mention of the numbers killed "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." (33:26) ..... strange considering your assertion that the Quran is a pack of lies by a megolomanic claiming Prophethood in order to grab power and wealth .... one would think that such a bloody and glorious victory over the Jews would be shouted from the rooftops in that case.

We also know the men that were killed were kept prisoner in one womans house ...... 900 of them wow it must have been a big house!!

These men were killed for treason and it was their arbitrator Sa'd ibn Mu'adh of the Aws tribe (allies of the Qurayza, thwe tribe in question) that chose their fate. the Nadir tribe also bought and sold the women and children of the Jewish tribe. So it is all not quite as cut and dried as you attempt to make it sound.

Islamic scholars have many views on this story ranging from "so what if 900 men were killed they were traitors trying to wipe out the Muslims", to "nobody knows how many were killed and it was only the fighters against Muslims" to "this story is at best exaggerated and at worst an utter lie".

In the UK at the time people that committed treason were hung, drawn, quartered and their heads displayed on pikes ..... a much nicer fate than beheading don't you agree?!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

After I have made my post on the Koran you will get no more of me running around after you.

Oh please send me a link to it and can you also include your credentials regarding your ability to speak and read classical Arabic, which Islamic school you studied at and how long you have been studying the Quran .... no doubt I will have questions for you.

Tao to be fair on this thread you have quoted jihadist clap trap and I am deeply offended that you have told me what I believe and am taught ..... I had better start practicing my fibbing and start planning world domination!!

One small example of where your assertions are wildly misplaced is your continued references to the different books (chronology) of the Quran. Even the greatest Islamic scholars do not know the chronology and the Quran does not have different books, it has era's that scholars refer to. It was never a book as such in the life of the Prophet and when it was developed as such nobody knew the exact chronology and so verses that refer to the same subject were placed together. Scholars attempt to place verses in chronological order based on events mentioned at the time but there are many many verses the scholars cannot even place with any certainty in Mecca or Medina. Perhaps you need to get over here and explain it to them?

As for your comments about one verse abrogating 124 others .... go and sit on the naughty step for quoting jihadist rubbish again. Scholars opinions across the centuries range from no quranic verse can abrogate another and it is simply our lack of understand where verses appear to contradict each other, to yes abrogation exists but to what extent (total abrogation, partial, explaination or addition to), to the modern jihadist cr*p saying it abrogates all peaceful verses.

Needless to say the jihadist stuff is in the vast minority and it troubles me that you are choosing to state their view is the real Islamic doctrine and I must therefore be a lying apologist ..... perhaps when you begin to quote serious Islamic scholars I will answer you more fully.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We force our young kids to believe in Santa by our lies and by a multiplicity of cultural reinforcements. Is not belief in God exactly the same thing?

YouTube - Belief in Santa Claus vs belief in God

My kids know "Santa" was St. Nicholas, who was murdered while tending to the children of his town and country side. They know that we kept the spirit of his giving alive by providing for them in special ways at that time of the year, and emulating him (thus stimulating their young imaginations), and keeping his history alive for them to carry on with their children. But we always had a picture somehting like this hanging on the wall near the Christmas tree.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

No sane Muslim believes that verse is anything other than a single event in history, which Netti has already explained very well.

I'm honored. Thank you, Sally.

No Muslims, other than jihadists, believe it is meant as an instruction for all Muslims for all time or that it abrogates peaceful verses.

There is a remarkable passage toward the end of her first book where Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that Muslims as a people see Islam as a peaceable religion and as a source of spiritual guidance. (Presumably they conduct their lives accordingly.) Even though Ms. Ali can attest to what she said from experience (having been raised a Muslim), she has been trying to make a career out of portraying Islam to be something different from the religion that it is for Muslims.

So why does Ms. Ali criticize Islam? Isn't her dispute with the peaceable and pious Muslims of the world who have been foolish enough to look to G-d, who shows them the "ways of peace" and directives for an ethical life??? (See Koran 5:15-16)

Even when it's staring them in the face, the proof of a religion's power is not good enough for some non-Muslims. So they keep bashing away all the while assuming no one will speak up and point out that Islam is being insulted with lies. Shame!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm honored. Thank you, Sally.


There is a remarkable passage toward the end of her first book where Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that Muslims as a people see Islam as a peaceable religion and as a source of spiritual guidance. (Presumably they conduct their lives accordingly.) Even though Ms. Ali can attest to what she said from experience (having been raised a Muslim), she has been trying to make a career out of portraying Islam to be something different from the religion that it is for Muslims.

So why does Ms. Ali criticize Islam? Isn't her dispute with the peaceable and pious Muslims of the world who have been foolish enough to look to G-d, who shows them the "ways of peace" and directives for an ethical life??? (See Koran 5:15-16)

Even when it's staring them in the face, the proof of a religion's power is not good enough for some non-Muslims. So they keep bashing away all the while assuming no one will speak up and point out that Islam is being insulted with lies. Shame!

Afraid to take me and my faith on Netti? Does not seem like you. You asked a question, I answered. Is that enough?

v/r

Q

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Afraid to take me and my faith on Netti? Does not seem like you. You asked a question, I answered. Is that enough?

Can you be a little more un-specific?

And what's this about "taking on" other people's faith?

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.