Why the West does not trust Muslims

[Philosophickle]

Whether or not you think it is fair conclusion to draw, these are sorts of reports that pour in every day:

Pakistan "Taliban" bombs shops in morality bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/lf_nm/pakistan_talibanisation_dc_1)

Four Buddhists killed by militants (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1181656)

Twelve killed, 50 hurt as Hamas blows up Fatah HQ in Gaza-1 (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070613/67152290.html)

Three teachers killed in separate shootings in southern Thailand (http://www.pr-inside.com/three-teachers-killed-in-separate-shootings-r149801.htm)

Al-Qaida Declares Holy War on India (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=98320)

Video of the Day #5: Israeli Soldiers Rescue Palestinian Girl . . . From Palestinians (Who Paralyzed Her) (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/video_of_the_da_2.html)

That's just from the past few days. Now, Islam isn't true or false depending on a body count, just like any other proposition doesn't stand or fall on how many deaths are committed in it's name. But surely this makes the West's (and many Twebbers) rather poisonous attacks against Islam a little more understandable? I can get upset over Calvinism/Arminianism, theism/atheism, heck even Red Sox/Yanks. But at least no one is dying.

[barnasha]

poisonous attacks are only good against evil - when you attack those who are good in the name of those who did evil, you are no different fundamentally than the terrorists who legitimize attacking innocents based on the acts of the evil of a few.

even then, a poisonous attack has the semblance of evil itself, "poisoning" something else, even if it is a 'lesser evil'.

as the Bible (rather, Paul) teaches us:

'Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'

as the Quran teaches:


"Those who act kindly in this world will have kindness". 39.10

Abandon all harm, whether committed openly or in secret. 6:120

'If you efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! God is forgiving and Merciful.' 64.14

'It may be that God will ordain love between you and those whom you hold as enemies. For God has power over all things and God is Oft-forgiving and Most Merciful.' 60.7


'The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he between whom and you there was enmity shall become as though he were a bosom friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast, and none is granted it save a person of great fortune.'40.34-35



Whether or not you think it is fair conclusion to draw, these are sorts of reports that pour in every day:

Pakistan "Taliban" bombs shops in morality bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/lf_nm/pakistan_talibanisation_dc_1)

Four Buddhists killed by militants (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1181656)

Twelve killed, 50 hurt as Hamas blows up Fatah HQ in Gaza-1 (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070613/67152290.html)

Three teachers killed in separate shootings in southern Thailand (http://www.pr-inside.com/three-teachers-killed-in-separate-shootings-r149801.htm)

Al-Qaida Declares Holy War on India (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=98320)

Video of the Day #5: Israeli Soldiers Rescue Palestinian Girl . . . From Palestinians (Who Paralyzed Her) (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/video_of_the_da_2.html)

That's just from the past few days. Now, Islam isn't true or false depending on a body count, just like any other proposition doesn't stand or fall on how many deaths are committed in it's name. But surely this makes the West's (and many Twebbers) rather poisonous attacks against Islam a little more understandable? I can get upset over Calvinism/Arminianism, theism/atheism, heck even Red Sox/Yanks. But at least no one is dying.

[I <3 Paintball]

Does posting in this thread help me overcome evil?

[barnasha]

Does posting in this thread help me overcome evil?

let us know what the answer is

[Lazarus]

I don't think it's fair to say that the West doesn't trust Muslims or that Muslims don't trust the people of western nations. After all, millions of Muslims live in the West and contribute in valuable ways to western society. Of course, I do think we need to find more avenues through which dialog between Muslims and people from the West (and people from other parts of the world as well) can take place, but it would be a mistake to allow today's headlines to guide that dialog. The positive role that many Muslims play in western societies seldom makes the newspapers.

[Amazing Rando]

Whether or not you think it is fair conclusion to draw, these are sorts of reports that pour in every day:

Pakistan "Taliban" bombs shops in morality bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/lf_nm/pakistan_talibanisation_dc_1)

Four Buddhists killed by militants (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1181656)

Twelve killed, 50 hurt as Hamas blows up Fatah HQ in Gaza-1 (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070613/67152290.html)

Three teachers killed in separate shootings in southern Thailand (http://www.pr-inside.com/three-teachers-killed-in-separate-shootings-r149801.htm)

Al-Qaida Declares Holy War on India (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=98320)

Video of the Day #5: Israeli Soldiers Rescue Palestinian Girl . . . From Palestinians (Who Paralyzed Her) (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/video_of_the_da_2.html)

That's just from the past few days. Now, Islam isn't true or false depending on a body count, just like any other proposition doesn't stand or fall on how many deaths are committed in it's name. But surely this makes the West's (and many Twebbers) rather poisonous attacks against Islam a little more understandable? I can get upset over Calvinism/Arminianism, theism/atheism, heck even Red Sox/Yanks. But at least no one is dying.

That's a pretty good run-down of some of the reasons the West has trouble trusting Muslims. Now for an interesting experiment in thought reversal, try to brainstorm some of the reasons many in the Muslim world don't trust the West. :smile: See if you can see things from their perspective.

[Zeluvia]

I don't trust Muslims, and it is because of the culture's reinforcement of the subserviant treatment of women.

If they quit stoning women, and killing them for becoming westernized, and enforcing laws about women have to wear, I might rethink my position. If they prosecute men who abuse, beat and kill their wives, I might rethink my position.

I have talked to and read alot of on line diaries and testimonials from Muslim women, and one thing I notice is Western Muslim women are more inclined to be outspoken in favor of Islam, but that is easy for them, because they are protected to some degree by a secular culture with equal treatment laws.

It is also in the West however where you find the most outspoken women against some of the cultural inhibitions and restrictions of Islam.

As long as this religion supports a culture that can easily dehumanize 1/2 of the population, I do not trust it nor like it, and I have tried to see it from the perspective of Islamic Women.
Many agree with me.

To me this is the core of the Islam/West cultural conflict, the status of women. Giving any ground to Islam for the sake of tolerance or multiculturalism is a huge step backwards in the status of women around the world.

[Philosophickle]

That's interesting Zeluvia. I can honestly say that I would rather not live in a Muslim neighborhood. It isn't that I don't like them (I don't like my neighbors now), but rather that I don't respect much of their culture, which is a shame. I'm sure they have contributed plenty to modern society. But I'm not so sure that much of that contribution has been positive.

For example:

13 Year-Old School Girl Shot Dead (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1929348.ece)

[barnasha]

That's a pretty good run-down of some of the reasons the West has trouble trusting Muslims. Now for an interesting experiment in thought reversal, try to brainstorm some of the reasons many in the Muslim world don't trust the West. :smile: See if you can see things from their perspective.

a few anecdotes (chosen to support a specific conclusion) and the expected whimsical conclusion is hardly a good 'run down'.

I could come up with a list of hundreds of bad things arabs or jews did, alike.


EDIT: I know plenty of "Western" people who don't stereotype or practice bigotry, so I think the premise of this thread is illogical

[gharfish]

Aren't the great majority of Muslims, "arabs" ? Didn't you intend to write "Christians" of the West, and "jews" (from wherever), barnasha ?

[Philosophickle]

a few anecdotes (chosen to support a specific conclusion) and the expected whimsical conclusion is hardly a good 'run down'.

I could come up with a list of hundreds of bad things arabs or jews did, alike.

I think you are just being irrational if you actually think that the West is on par with many of the Muslim nations. Is that what you are trying to say?

Note: I am simply saying there is a difference. I feel pity for the people of those countries that have few rights and even less of a say in how their country is run.


EDIT: I know plenty of "Western" people who don't stereotype or practice bigotry, so I think the premise of this thread is illogical

Uhh, what do you think the premise of this thread is?

[barnasha]

I think you are just being irrational if you actually think that the West is on par with many of the Muslim nations. Is that what you are trying to say?

Note: I am simply saying there is a difference. I feel pity for the people of those countries that have few rights and even less of a say in how their country is run.


"Muslim nations" are political entities and should be considered in a political context, even if they are comprised of members of a particular religion and let a particular religion influence their particular laws and policies.

Let's not be too over-simplistic. I think we should keep in mind how not all "Muslim nations" are the same; and not all Muslims are non-Westerners.



Uhh, what do you think the premise of this thread is?

I would suppose it is something to do with "the West" and "Muslims". perhaps including a generalization (aka stereotype) of how one entity acts towards another...

Why don't you clarify what the premise is?

Apparently it has something to do with searching for any problems which happen in any nation with any relationship to Islam (one of the worlds largest and most widespread religions) in a clear attempt to denigrate it as a culture and/or religion.

Is there any point you are trying to make other than float your opinion on Islam with some anecdotal evidence to try to sell it ?

Correlation is not causality.

[Lazarus]

I don't trust Muslims, and it is because of the culture's reinforcement of the subserviant treatment of women.

If they quit stoning women, and killing them for becoming westernized, and enforcing laws about women have to wear, I might rethink my position. If they prosecute men who abuse, beat and kill their wives, I might rethink my position.

I have talked to and read alot of on line diaries and testimonials from Muslim women, and one thing I notice is Western Muslim women are more inclined to be outspoken in favor of Islam, but that is easy for them, because they are protected to some degree by a secular culture with equal treatment laws.

It is also in the West however where you find the most outspoken women against some of the cultural inhibitions and restrictions of Islam.

As long as this religion supports a culture that can easily dehumanize 1/2 of the population, I do not trust it nor like it, and I have tried to see it from the perspective of Islamic Women.
Many agree with me.

To me this is the core of the Islam/West cultural conflict, the status of women. Giving any ground to Islam for the sake of tolerance or multiculturalism is a huge step backwards in the status of women around the world.

Many cultures other than Islamic cultures also reinforce a subserviant treatment of women (and other groups), so why do you reserve your ire only for the Muslims? The Japanese culture, in which I reside, also has a problem with the way women are treated, and though I may abhor that aspect of the culture, I would not say I don't trust all Japanese or that the good aspects of their culture are not worthy of respect. One does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. In addition, my own culture has its own faults and sins against the dignity of human beings that require reflection and repentence, and yet I can separate those sins from the genuine goodness that exists in the culture as well. It is tragic that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but the fact that he enslaved other human beings does not negate the truth of human dignity that he expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I believe all cultures should be challenged on the ways women and other minorities are often mistreated and abused, but that challenge should be made with respect and a genuine desire to value the goodness that also exists within the culture.

[barnasha]

Many cultures other than Islamic cultures also reinforce a subserviant treatment of women (and other groups), so why do you reserve your ire only for the Muslims? The Japanese culture, in which I reside, also has a problem with the way women are treated, and though I may abhor that aspect of the culture, I would not say I don't trust all Japanese or that the good aspects of their culture are not worthy of respect. One does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. In addition, my own culture has its own faults and sins against the dignity of human beings that require reflection and repentence, and yet I can separate those sins from the genuine goodness that exists in the culture as well. It is tragic that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but the fact that he enslaved other human beings does not negate the truth of human dignity that he expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I believe all cultures should be challenged on the ways women and other minorities are often mistreated and abused, but that challenge should be made with respect and a genuine desire to value the goodness that also exists within the culture.

considering Islam was extremely forward thinking in women's rights at the time of its beginnings in Arabia, one might wonder why they would attack a culture which gave women rights under the law. They are trying to attack Islam because it does not give women enough rights, but they are actually attacking a culture which GAVE women rights, ironically.

we should instead of finding things with which to attack other people, find things by which to help them.

[Philosophickle]

considering Islam was extremely forward thinking in women's rights at the time of its beginnings in Arabia, one might wonder why they would attack a culture which gave women rights under the law. They are trying to attack Islam because it does not give women enough rights, but they are actually attacking a culture which GAVE women rights, ironically.

Do you think they have gone forward enough?

[shunyadragon]

Whether or not you think it is fair conclusion to draw, these are sorts of reports that pour in every day:

Pakistan "Taliban" bombs shops in morality bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/lf_nm/pakistan_talibanisation_dc_1)

Four Buddhists killed by militants (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1181656)

Twelve killed, 50 hurt as Hamas blows up Fatah HQ in Gaza-1 (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070613/67152290.html)

Three teachers killed in separate shootings in southern Thailand (http://www.pr-inside.com/three-teachers-killed-in-separate-shootings-r149801.htm)

Al-Qaida Declares Holy War on India (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=98320)

Video of the Day #5: Israeli Soldiers Rescue Palestinian Girl . . . From Palestinians (Who Paralyzed Her) (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/video_of_the_da_2.html)

That's just from the past few days. Now, Islam isn't true or false depending on a body count, just like any other proposition doesn't stand or fall on how many deaths are committed in it's name. But surely this makes the West's (and many Twebbers) rather poisonous attacks against Islam a little more understandable? I can get upset over Calvinism/Arminianism, theism/atheism, heck even Red Sox/Yanks. But at least no one is dying.

'Throwing up,' a few bias selective articles if Islamic violence toward others that believe differently does not represent the problem of 'Trust' between religions faiths or ethnic minorities. Lists could easily be made of violence against all the relgions by followers and organizations of other religions, spoken, writen and acted out physically, brutally, and horrendously brutally. This includes violence within religions of an unspeakable brutal and cold nature. What's the point? If anything the witness in today's world calls all their claims to question.

First there is a problem with your use of the word 'West'. This word has no meaning in the contect of the question. If by west you may be referring to Europe and the Americas. Many people from these regions are Moslems.

If we take just the perspective of modern history, 'trust', understanding, or any other sign of any compassion or empathetic relationship between the differnt religions is pretty much at an all time low, and deteriorating.

[Narnian]

considering Islam was extremely forward thinking in women's rights

If you call going from zero rights to half rights "extremely forward thinking", I wonder what you call "backward"? When I see the rules changed so that women are equal to men in legal worth, where they can marry 4 husbands, where they can divorce their husbands without their consent, where they have legal rights over their children and where the prophet's example of stoning an ostracised, depressed single mother to death, and his marriage to a little pre-pubescent girl with her dolls is called what it really is, ie criminal and psychopathic behaviour .... then I might reconsider ....

The main problem with Islam is the character and behaviour of its prophet "Muhammad". This historical figure is hailed as the "role model" for all humankind. With a criminal psychopath as a hero-archetype, the entire culture is prone to cultivating Muhammad clones.

The second problem is the set up of the Quran, so that it reads like a collection of verses; some evil and some good. This melange of good and evil is confusing and destructive.

My ex husband was a muslim, and I converted and then apostatized many years ago.

[Philosophickle]

This is crap:

Five years' jail for 'religion' rape (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21911535-29277,00.html)

This is one of the more disturbing stories to come from our turbaned brethren.
At least he gets to go to heaven.

[barnasha]

your ignorant, racist, and somewhat stereotyping (the turban is not a muslim thing at all) comments are rather disheartening. it's attitudes like these that indicate the sad state of affairs that humankind has found itself in.

the ridiculousness and utter frailty of your presumed argument is not even really worth addressing

[Philosophickle]

your ignorant, racist, and somewhat stereotyping (the turban is not a muslim thing at all) comments are rather disheartening. it's attitudes like these that indicate the sad state of affairs that humankind has found itself in.

the ridiculousness and utter frailty of your presumed argument is not even really worth addressing

I am not racist at all, unless there is a specific race that murders and rapes according to some deep racial configuration.

Perhaps if Muslims spent more time correcting their own "extremist" sects and less time going after half-hearted, sardonic quips there would be no such stories to report.

[barnasha]

I am not racist at all, unless there is a specific race that murders and rapes according to some deep racial configuration.

Perhaps if Muslims spent more time correcting their own "extremist" sects and less time going after half-hearted, sardonic quips there would be no such stories to report.

Your blatant bigotry and ignorance is more of a cause to the problem than some news story about some stupid guy who happens to be 'Muslim', and even though he breaks all the codes of his religion, you try to slander his religion and its followers instead of treat his crimes for what they are - crimes perpetrated by a single person?

It might be worth explicitly dismissing your hysterical rantings as somehow carrying any real meaning whatsoever, but I doubt there is anyone other than the people from the mob (like the witch burners in Salem) with which you share views on this matter

The raving lunatics from those types of mob, one type of mob in this instance, are the only ones who would take the insinuation you are trying to make as some sort of legitimate point, since it is merely a re-affirmation of their own collective's religio-political "point of view". And there is another mob formed by so called 'Islamic" extremist who demonize the West even on the parts for which it has NOT done bad, although the West gives them plenty to work with with its escapades in the Middle East, one of the largest Muslim areas in the world (Africa and Southeast Asia being the other major areas)

[Philosophickle]

Your blatant bigotry and ignorance is more of a cause to the problem than some news story about some stupid guy who happens to be 'Muslim', and even though he breaks all the codes of his religion, you try to slander his religion and its followers instead of treat his crimes for what they are - crimes perpetrated by a single person?

Happens to be Muslim? Are you seriously suggesting that this man's Muslim background was merely incidental and not a motivation? What about the thousands of other cases? Mohammedanism is a violent worldview that fosters a violent culture.


It might be worth explicitly dismissing your hysterical rantings as somehow carrying any real meaning whatsoever, but I doubt there is anyone other than the people from the mob (like the witch burners in Salem) with which you share views on this matter

What mob? What hysterical rantings? If by "hysterical" you mean worried about the rapid expansion of one of the most bloodthirsty religions in the history of the world, then by all means I am hysterical.


The raving lunatics from those types of mob, one type of mob in this instance, are the only ones who would take the insinuation you are trying to make as some sort of legitimate point, since it is merely a re-affirmation of their own collective's religio-political "point of view". And there is another mob formed by so called 'Islamic" extremist who demonize the West even on the parts for which it has NOT done bad, although the West gives them plenty to work with with its escapades in the Middle East, one of the largest Muslim areas in the world (Africa and Southeast Asia being the other major areas)

Is it your opinion that the Muslim Middle East would be a peaceful place without US interference? Do you believe that Islamic tradition treats women and non-Muslims fairly?

[barnasha]

Happens to be Muslim? Are you seriously suggesting that this man's Muslim background was merely incidental and not a motivation? What about the thousands of other cases?

Would you also say that Timothy McVeigh's Christian background was the reason why he murdered a bunch of people by blowing up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City?

Your logic is absolutely absurd and clearly fallacious. To suggest that someone's "Muslim background" is the cause of their crimes is a rather vapid thing to say.

The burden of proof/argument is on you, the one who has not made an argument, yet instead insists on arguing value judgments, i.e. his opinions, such as the following sentence, which is a PERFECT example of using opinion and emotion rather than a well-formed, clear argument (or at the very least, any argument whatsoever)


Mohammedanism is a violent worldview that fosters a violent culture.


This is a classic example of 'opinion' (as opposed to 'fact') that we were taught in grammar school when i was around 7 years old.

I am not attempting to attack you, but just pointing out that you must make arguments with facts, not 'feelings' and 'emotions' and definitely not with 'opnions'.



What mob? What hysterical rantings? If by "hysterical" you mean worried about the rapid expansion of one of the most bloodthirsty religions in the history of the world, then by all means I am hysterical.


again with the appeal to emotion, characterizing a religion as 'bloodthirsty' and using that despicable slander to try to somehow validate your opinions which you are airing here in public, in the presence of scholars and people knowledgeable on the subject no less!




Is it your opinion that the Muslim Middle East would be a peaceful place without US interference? Do you believe that Islamic tradition treats women and non-Muslims fairly?

Using Iraq as an example, one could argue US intervention has had a rather negative impact in terms of fostering peace in the region.

Why do you say 'muslim middle east'?

[JSDileo]

I don't think it's fair to say that the West doesn't trust Muslims or that Muslims don't trust the people of western nations.

Name some Muslims who have "contributed" to western nations and compare this what damage they are capable of causing. Not that I think all Muslims are brutal savages, but honestly, jihad has been ingrained in Islam since day one (it seems odd to me that Umar bin al-Kattab, who is considered by 85% of Muslims today to have been guided by Allah, (he's the second of the four 'rightly guided' caliphs) can butcher the citizens of Jerusalem and not have any attention to him payed whatsoever, but if Crusaders do it, then my gosh, that's why the Muslims have a hatred of the west. :ahem:) Seriously, Islamic support in the United States of Ayatollah Khomeini and Sistani is not uncommon; Khomeini was a jihadist nutcase who claims that "Islam says to kill the infidels as they would kill you," (:ahem:), and Sistani was a man who published a "guide" to Islamic ritual purity putting infidels in between animal sweat and dog vomit. The fact that many Muslims in the west support two radicals like this is not comforting to me at all.


After all, millions of Muslims live in the West and contribute in valuable ways to western society.

You mean by simply living alongside other westerners in peace? Of course, that's true in the United States, but in many nations in Europe Islamic minorities in major cities are far more likely to riot than the rest of the population. Also, a recent poll (I read about it on yahoo news a few days ago) shows that roughly 4-6% of Muslims in the US support suicide bombing, which equates to about 200,000 or so people. I don't know, but that seems alarmingly high.


I do think we need to find more avenues through which dialog between Muslims and people from the West (and people from other parts of the world as well) can take place,

You mean organizations like CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) which is currently listed as an unindicted co-conspirator with Hamas by the US government? They're the largest organization in the United States promoting such "dialog" between Islam and western nations. We've tried these dialogs before, but it seems that whenever we try them the Muslims turn out to have been following their Islamic right of taqiyya (lying for the faith) in order to make terrorist inroads into the US. :ahem: Not true of every single one, but it's happened with so many such organizations that it's scary.


but it would be a mistake to allow today's headlines to guide that dialog.

In other words, we shouldn't judge the situation by what's currently happening. Right. :ahem:


The positive role that many Muslims play in western societies seldom makes the newspapers.

Because the negative role they seem to be making is far more significant than their current positive roles (not saying that no Muslims have made positive contributions to the west)

Seriously, the more I read about this topic the more I find my optimism butchered by it. :sigh: Islam is not a religion of peace and should not be considered as such.

JSDileo

[JSDileo]

poisonous attacks are only good against evil - when you attack those who are good in the name of those who did evil, you are no different fundamentally than the terrorists who legitimize attacking innocents based on the acts of the evil of a few.

even then, a poisonous attack has the semblance of evil itself, "poisoning" something else, even if it is a 'lesser evil'.

as the Bible (rather, Paul) teaches us:

'Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'

as the Quran teaches:


"Those who act kindly in this world will have kindness". 39.10

Abandon all harm, whether committed openly or in secret. 6:120

'If you efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! God is forgiving and Merciful.' 64.14

'It may be that God will ordain love between you and those whom you hold as enemies. For God has power over all things and God is Oft-forgiving and Most Merciful.' 60.7


'The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he between whom and you there was enmity shall become as though he were a bosom friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast, and none is granted it save a person of great fortune.'40.34-35

Okay, that's great barnasha.

Now tell me how you explain the ninth sura.

JSDileo

[norwegen]

"He works as a roofer all day long. He comes home tired and then he takes the kids to the park. I don't know when he would have had time to plan this. I believe he was set up," she told The Post. "Everything they are saying is not true."

"He prays. He never did anything violent. He gives money to charity," she said. "They loved to play handball. Wherever there were handball courts, they would play."

link (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05102007/news/regionalnews/plotters_marital_diss_regionalnews_patrick_gallahue______in_cherry_hill__n_j______and_lukas_i__alpert_________in_new_york.htm)

Wow, straight from a family member. Hard-working, family-oriented, non-violent, charitable Muslims plot terrorist activity.

What a surprise.

[JSDileo]

Would you also say that Timothy McVeigh's Christian background was the reason why he murdered a bunch of people by blowing up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City?

Did Timothy McVeigh ever justify his attack by pointing to passages in the Bible? :ahem: Bin Laden quotes the Qur'an on at least a dozen occasions in every videotape that he makes. Can you give me one example of Timothy McVeigh quoting, or even alluding, to Biblical reasons justifying his actions?


Your logic is absolutely absurd and clearly fallacious.

No, barnasha, you're the one butchering logic and throwing reason to the gutter with your tripe. The Islamic suicide bombers justify their actions from the Qur'an and have dozens of verses they can legitimately point to giving them reason and/or divine sanction to murder non-Muslims. The Biblical texts have nothing that can be used without making a mockery of proper exegesis. It is for you to justify yourself, not the person you were responding to.


To suggest that someone's "Muslim background" is the cause of their crimes is a rather vapid thing to say.

Oh really?

Explain to me why these commandments come from the last sura of the Qur'an:

Al Tawba 5/Qur'an 9:5

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

]Al Tawba 14/Qur'an 9:14

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

Al Tawba 29/Qur'an 9:29

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

:ahem:


The burden of proof/argument is on you, the one who has not made an argument, yet instead insists on arguing value judgments, i.e. his opinions, such as the following sentence, which is a PERFECT example of using opinion and emotion rather than a well-formed, clear argument (or at the very least, any argument whatsoever)

No, dimwit, the burden of proof is on you to explain why your scriptures contain these universal, open-ended commandments to violence and imperialistic jihad. Well? What's your explanation?


I am not attempting to attack you, but just pointing out that you must make arguments with facts, not 'feelings' and 'emotions' and definitely not with 'opnions'.

:lmbo:

Barnasha, from everything I have seen, you are a classic example of making arguments with emotions. I suppose the fact that you only look at facts is why you, like so many other Muslims in the west, have expressed belief that the 9/11 attacks were a US government conspiracy and that there were no Muslims involved. :lol:


again with the appeal to emotion, characterizing a religion as 'bloodthirsty' and using that despicable slander to try to somehow validate your opinions which you are airing here in public, in the presence of scholars and people knowledgeable on the subject no less!

So far, you have not presented a single argument derived from anything other than rhetoric in this entire post. Hypocrisy much?


Using Iraq as an example, one could argue US intervention has had a rather negative impact in terms of fostering peace in the region.

And yet, well over 99% of those being killed in Iraq are being killed by Sunni insurgents. Because, you know, they're killing their fellow Muslims (well, I guess not, since they don't consider Shiites to be Muslims) because George W. Bush made them do it. :ahem:


Why do you say 'muslim middle east'?

Because the Middle East is controlled and run by Muslims? :eh:

[JSDileo]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/new_study_political_islam_corr.html

A new study by the US Institute for Peace (USIP) of polling data from fourteen different Muslim countries finds that support for a role for Islam in politics strongly correlates with more likely support for terrorism. This statistical analysis is certain to draw protests from the usual propagandists of radical Islam in the US, even though the USIP can hardly be considered a neo-conservative institution.

Somehow...I'm not surprised.

JSDileo

[barnasha]

If you call going from zero rights to half rights "extremely forward thinking", I wonder what you call "backward"? When I see the rules changed so that women are equal to men in legal worth, where they can marry 4 husbands, where they can divorce their husbands without their consent, where they have legal rights over their children and where the prophet's example of stoning an ostracised, depressed single mother to death, and his marriage to a little pre-pubescent girl with her dolls is called what it really is, ie criminal and psychopathic behaviour .... then I might reconsider ....


actually common practice was they could marry women and they were almost like property, but islam put a limit on that but encouraged monogamy which slowly became the practice

before islam, women had no rights, afterwards, they got to choose who they married, they got protections under the law, etc...

put aside your emotions and do something positive. if you



The main problem with Islam is the character and behaviour of its prophet "Muhammad". This historical figure is hailed as the "role model" for all humankind. With a criminal psychopath as a hero-archetype, the entire culture is prone to cultivating Muhammad clones.

to me, that character is one of modesty and virtue, not the one you and the propagandists try to malign him as.

i think we can both agree that we should be good people and we can leave slandering of religions out of this. we can join forces against criminal behavior and work hand in hand to do something GOOD in this world. and I'm sure you're on my side, there, Narnian.



The second problem is the set up of the Quran, so that it reads like a collection of verses; some evil and some good. This melange of good and evil is confusing and destructive.

I don't see it that way. Isn't that what Rushdie tried to say about the Quran or something?



My ex husband was a muslim, and I converted and then apostatized many years ago.

I am just a lone thinker who uses the facts and knows the truth, rather than joining a group and insuting the other group to try to make myself seem better than the others.

the ways of the world are for the damned, so let's focus our eyes heavenward like Jesus and be a part of the solution. What use is a emblem or a doctrine when you can't live the simple life. Paul taught it well in the "new testament"

[Philosophickle]

actually common practice was they could marry women and they were almost like property, but islam put a limit on that but encouraged monogamy which slowly became the practice

That was nice. How many wives did Mohammad have?


before islam, women had no rights, afterwards, they got to choose who they married, they got protections under the law, etc...

Oh yeah, protection under the law. Sort of like those women stoned by the village or buried alive for fooling around with men? If you're still curious you can watch them on YouTube.


to me, that character is one of modesty and virtue, not the one you and the propagandists try to malign him as.

Why do you think he was modest? He married a six year old, you know.


i think we can both agree that we should be good people and we can leave slandering of religions out of this. we can join forces against criminal behavior and work hand in hand to do something GOOD in this world.

Good, sort of like enforcing Islam on all the "good" folks of the world. I love Sharia Laws.


I don't see it that way. Isn't that what Rushdie tried to say about the Quran or something?

Yep, right before he had to go into hiding for 10 years.


I am just a lone thinker who uses the facts and knows the truth, rather than joining a group and insuting the other group to try to make myself seem better than the others.

I would chalk it up to survival instincts rather than insecurity. But thanks for the free internets psych. exam.

[Narnian]

Just a couple of points to begin with ....

1. Islam or "muslim" has nothing to do with race. You are not born a muslim - it is an ideology that is put into your brain, and has nothing to do with skin or hair colors. Muslims are heterogenous, just as Christians are. In fact, there are more black christians in the world than white.

2. I think the "turban" remark of Gigglz was inappropriate and absurd. Only a tiny minority of muslims wear turbans, while lots of turban wearers are not muslims, but christians or sikhs or buddhists! :ahem:

Just setting the record straight ....


actually common practice was they could marry women and they were almost like property, but islam put a limit on that but encouraged monogamy which slowly became the practice
before islam, women had no rights, afterwards, they got to choose who they married, they got protections under the law, etc...

I repeat the point I made about this:

If you call going from zero rights to half rights "extremely forward thinking", I wonder what you call "backward"? When I see the rules changed so that women are equal to men in legal worth, where they can marry 4 husbands, where they can divorce their husbands without their consent, where they have legal rights over their children and where the prophet's example of stoning an ostracised, depressed single mother to death, and his marriage to a little pre-pubescent girl with her dolls is called what it really is, ie criminal and psychopathic behaviour .... then I might reconsider ....


put aside your emotions and do something positive. if you

:lol: says the pot while calling the kettle black.

I have no emotional attachment to Islam, except for nice memories.


to me, that character is one of modesty and virtue, not the one you and the propagandists try to malign him as.

Hitler did a lot of good as well.


i think we can both agree that we should be good people and we can leave slandering of religions out of this. we can join forces against criminal behavior and work hand in hand to do something GOOD in this world. and I'm sure you're on my side, there, Narnian.

Quoting from Hadithes or criticism of an ideology is "slander"? :ahem:

I hope you do join forces against criminal behavior. For a start Muhammad must be exposed to the world, as the worst role model for humankind.


I don't see it that way. Isn't that what Rushdie tried to say about the Quran or something?

Yes, and he gets death threats, and now, since he was knighted threats of mass genocide from muslims in Pakistan and Iran. This will probably turn into another cartoons fiasco. Fatwas have not stopped criticism of Islam. Time is running out for Islam.

Rushdie honour 'justifies attacks'6:11pm Mon 18 Jun 07
A Pakistan Cabinet minister has said the awarding of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie provided a justification for suicide attacks.
Pakistan condemned the award as an affront to Muslim sentiments.
"This is an occasion for the (world's) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, said in parliament.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/national_news/index.var.91491.0.rushdie_honour_justifies_attacks.php

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070618/070618_rushdie_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg
http://www.paktribune.com/images/newsimages/2007/06/activists-burn-uk-flag.jpg :ahem:


I am just a lone thinker who uses the facts and knows the truth, rather than joining a group and insuting the other group to try to make myself seem better than the others.

I'm glad to hear it - there is great hope for you ..... to leave Islam eventually. Islam does not encourage individualism. It is about submission - ie the putting aside of one's 'lone thinking'.


the ways of the world are for the damned, so let's focus our eyes heavenward like Jesus and be a part of the solution. What use is a emblem or a doctrine when you can't live the simple life. Paul taught it well in the "new testament"

If you are talking about submission, sorry - Christianity does not entail submission, nor does the Father God require it. He does not need you to submit, because he has given you independent thinking faculties and many other amazing gifts. He needs you as a son - a grown son - not a slave and not submitted.

[JSDileo]

Barnasha, you say that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. Why is it that the Mother of all Believers disagrees with you on this point?

Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow." (Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715.)

Notice, also, that Muhammad makes no remark about AbdurRahman beating his wife to the point of making her skin more colorful than her clothing.

JSDileo

[barnasha]

Barnasha, you say that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. Why is it that the Mother of all Believers disagrees with you on this point?

Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow." (Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715.)

]

How so? Seems like you'd have to deliberately take her words out of context to assert that.

Anyway, how would you argue your proposition?



Notice, also, that Muhammad makes no remark about AbdurRahman beating his wife to the point of making her skin more colorful than her clothing.

JSDileo

What if he didn't beat her?

When will you stop your deliberate malignment of the prophet Muhammad, does it make you sleep better at night to try to make other people look bad? Don't listen to the people who try to make the muslims look bad - don't listen to muslims who don't follow their own prophets' teachings.

The prophet Muhammad taught his people to treat women well, and if you look at the relations of how he treated his wife, he was one the most chivalrous men I have ever read about.

Given all the scholarly history (not blogs or anti Islamic web sites), how would you justify your implied claim that the prophet Muhammad would actually condone physical abuse?

No stealing of "research" from rabid propagandists.

[JSDileo]

]

How so? Seems like you'd have to deliberately take her words out of context to assert that.

Barnasha, you're being ridiculous. The hadith refers to how Rifa divorced her wife, who then married AbdurRahman. She accused him of being infertile, which caused him to beat her in his anger. She then went to complain to Aisha, (and the hadith specifically said that she showed Aisha a green spot caused by AbdurRahman beating her), and then Aisha went to complain to Muhammad. Aisha complains to Muhammad, saying "I have not seen any women suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" That's the context. The rest of the hadith has to do with divorce law. Aisha connected her statement about the suffering of the "believing women" with the green spot on the unnamed wife's skin to emphasize that the believing women were [b]wrongly suffering, most likely because of the beatings they were receiving from their husbands. That is plain and obvious from the passage. If you can say that I'm "taking it out of context" again, then there's nothing I can say. Nothing will convince you. That is an authentic hadith from an authentic hadith collection setting a precedence for Islamic law (specifically, divorce law) that is still in effect today in many countries in the Middle East.

Barnasha, I'm not going to be as rude as I was earlier, but your defense of this passage is borders on the asinine. That's not me insulting you; that is an honest report of the validity of your apologetic.

What evidence would you take to say that Muhammad didn't improve the lives of women in Arabia?


What if he didn't beat her?

The passage says that he did. Aisha brought up the beating issue to Muhammad, who did not investigate it at all. He either ignored Aisha's testimony for unknown reasons or didn't investigate it because he already knew it was true. The second is what is implied from the passage.


When will you stop your deliberate malignment of the prophet Muhammad, does it make you sleep better at night to try to make other people look bad?

I can't quote authentic hadiths to prove my point? Well, while you're asking me not to do that, jihadists are doing it to their advantage among Muslims every single day. They're not going to ignore it if we do.


Don't listen to the people who try to make the muslims look bad - don't listen to muslims who don't follow their own prophets' teachings.

Don't listen to authentic Islamic hadiths and scriptures to make an assessment of Islam? Why do you want me to ignore the ones that cast a dubious moral light on the Islamic faith and on Muhammad?


The prophet Muhammad taught his people to treat women well, and if you look at the relations of how he treated his wife, he was one the most chivalrous men I have ever read about.

Muhammad was a mixed bag, IMO. Sometimes he was a moral exemplar, and other times he was morally backward in his actions and thinking. The hadith I quoted is an example of the latter.


Given all the scholarly history (not blogs or anti Islamic web sites), how would you justify your implied claim that the prophet Muhammad would actually condone physical abuse?

Because Al-Nisa 34 says so.


No stealing of "research" from rabid propagandists.

Well, obviously since you know so much, if I brought this "research" up, you could easily refute it, right? Then wouldn't it make Islam look better for you to deliver a powerful refutation and send those arguments down the river?

Why is it that you have failed to address the "rabid propagandists?" (Even more importantly, barnasha, why do I see you condemning non-Muslims who use these arguments more than the jihadists who are using the same arguments to far more destructive ends?)

JSDileo

[barnasha]

Barnasha, you're being ridiculous. The hadith refers to how Rifa divorced her wife, who then married AbdurRahman. She accused him of being infertile, which caused him to beat her in his anger. She then went to complain to Aisha, (and the hadith specifically said that she showed Aisha a green spot caused by AbdurRahman beating her), and then Aisha went to complain to Muhammad. Aisha complains to Muhammad, saying "I have not seen any women suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" That's the context. The rest of the hadith has to do with divorce law.

"which caused him to beat her in his anger", is what Rifa'a was arguing, but was she telling the truth? How is your inference valid? if he did beat her in anger, what does that prove? surely doesn't mean its right - i don't see anyone approving of such treatment in this hadeeth or any others.





Aisha connected her statement about the suffering of the "believing women" with the green spot on the unnamed wife's skin to emphasize that the believing women were [b]wrongly suffering, most likely because of the beatings they were receiving from their husbands. That is plain and obvious from the passage.

Has anyone who looked at the actual hadeeth (in Arabic) came to that conclusion that Aisha said that believing women suffered simply because they believed? Is that really what Aisha was saying, that this faith is what caused their downfall?

That would be a really hard argument to back up, seeing as Aisha is herself probably the most famous female scholar/student of Islam, an educated and very sharp and keen woman, who did a great service to her community.

The disparaging remarks against these people seems like really thinly veiled insults with no real justification, but I'm sure you are not attempting to do that.




If you can say that I'm "taking it out of context" again, then there's nothing I can say. Nothing will convince you.

until you can show how you're not, besides saying "it's obvious", there is no reason for me to assume you are correct based on your opinion, especially when it is not obvious to me.

I guess it may seem obvious if you read it with a pre-conceived conclusion, i.e. reading something so as to support your desired conclusions.



That is an authentic hadith from an authentic hadith collection setting a precedence for Islamic law (specifically, divorce law) that is still in effect today in many countries in the Middle East.


sure, could you cite one of those laws?



Barnasha, I'm not going to be as rude as I was earlier, but your defense of this passage is borders on the asinine. That's not me insulting you; that is an honest report of the validity of your apologetic.


What exactly was I defending? Pointing out gaping holes in your logic (or rather a lack of substance in which a hole could be found) is not defending what you're attacking. I'm attacking your argument, not "defending" your idea of its interpretation and of its applications in legal rulings.



What evidence would you take to say that Muhammad didn't improve the lives of women in Arabia?


What do you mean? What 'evidence' are you referring to, and how does it relate to any of the arguments in this thread?




The passage says that he did.

from what I've read, you've inferred that he did, I do not see in the text where it says this. could you explain in detail how exactly you have came to this conclusion?

how much did you study this text, out of curiosity? what are your references? did you look into the original text? do you know who translated it into English? do you have any supporting references to any of the conclusions you've came to?



Aisha brought up the beating issue to Muhammad, who did not investigate it at all.

so if you go for a walk in the park, and you see a man dying, and save his life, then you see a poor man and say hello, and give him money, and centuries later, a story comes out that you "saved a man's life in a park, and gave a poor man money", does that mean you never actually said "hello" to the poor man?

that's what it seems like you're trying to say: because a particular account of someone DOESN'T mention a certain action by a certain person, they obviously supported some supposed criminal action?

this isn't asinine, just illogical


He either ignored Aisha's testimony for unknown reasons or didn't investigate it because he already knew it was true. The second is what is implied from the passage.



I can't quote authentic hadiths to prove my point? Well, while you're asking me not to do that, jihadists are doing it to their advantage among Muslims every single day. They're not going to ignore it if we do.


you can quote them all you want, but your point has no arguments, could you explain in detail how you arrived at your conclusions, instead of stating them for the record and expecting people to nod their heads and believe whatever you say because they 'trust you' ?



Don't listen to authentic Islamic hadiths and scriptures to make an assessment of Islam? Why do you want me to ignore the ones that cast a dubious moral light on the Islamic faith and on Muhammad?


first of all, know what Islam is (according to authentic scriptures), it is a practice which originated millennia before Muhammad.

second of all, I would argue that you do less ignoring - cite more references instead of cherrypicking something and then trying to infer some unjustified conclusion out of it with zero supporting references, and zero substantial arguments to back it up!




Muhammad was a mixed bag, IMO. Sometimes he was a moral exemplar, and other times he was morally backward in his actions and thinking. The hadith I quoted is an example of the latter.


sharing your opinion is a bit unnecessary here, it's already quite clear you have quite a bit of hate and contempt for this person. better to let go and become peaceful and loving than to harbor such animosity. at least you need to use it in a constructive way rather than letting it burn into anger or to make you unwittingly become slanderous and vile.


Because Al-Nisa 34 says so.

I am glad you have resorted to quoting this, because now I can easily show how you are wrong, like I have to others on this board. and I will be glad to do so.

so please, show me how that verse "says so". if you are relying solely on the presupposition that the use of the verb 'daraba' means that we should "beat" our wives (in the modern day, English language sense of the word, "beat"), could you please explain how you come to that conclusion? could you address the interpretations of the famous jurists like Shaf`i in regards to the interpretation of this verse?

Could you cite any authoritative scholars and jurists and explain how your understanding of the Quran and the prophet Muhammad's way of life and teachings is more clear than theirs? Or in what way it is similar?




Well, obviously since you know so much, if I brought this "research" up, you could easily refute it, right? Then wouldn't it make Islam look better for you to deliver a powerful refutation and send those arguments down the river?

Why is it that you have failed to address the "rabid propagandists?" (Even more importantly, barnasha, why do I see you condemning non-Muslims who use these arguments more than the jihadists who are using the same arguments to far more destructive ends?)



If I say you're ugly and stupid, it's better not to address me, it's better to avoid me and become a better person, to surround yourself with positive influences, and to stay away from such contemptible behavior.

Why don't I see you condemning Genghis Khan? What country are you from? If you're from the USA, why aren't you condemning USA-sponsored terrorism, such as the incursions in Southeast Asia and Central America over the past half century or two? Or tell me what country you're from so I can blame you for not condemning something bad they did, so you can see that this is a phony attack.

Ask me to condemn criminal actions, and if i refuse, THEN you can accuse me of supporting it. but to say "when did you condemn these things" as if you saw me pass up the opportunity is rather silly, if not an underhanded jab at me.

Anyway, stick to your argument, leave the personal stuff out of it. You'd have to resort to attacking ME or the PROPHET MUHAMMAD or ISLAM or REPUBLICANS or CIRCUS CLOWNS or whatever else, if your argument collapses.

so stick to the point so we can be sure it hasn't.

[JSDileo]

How is that the context? Could you cite your sources?

Or does your "reading between the lines" require no justification? I cannot blindly believe what you tell me, as you should not blindly believe what others tell you.




How is that plain and obvious from the passage?

Has anyone who looked at the actual hadeeth (in Arabic) came to that conclusion?



until you can show how you're not, besides saying "it's obvious", there is no reason for me to assume you are correct based on your opinion, especially when it is not obvious to me.

I guess it may seem obvious if you read it with a pre-conceived conclusion, i.e. reading something so as to support your desired conclusions.



sure, could you cite one of those laws?



What exactly was I defending? Pointing out gaping holes in your logic (or rather a lack of substance in which a hole could be found) is not defending what you're attacking. I'm attacking your argument, not "defending" your idea of its interpretation and of its applications in legal rulings.



What do you mean? What 'evidence' are you referring to, and how does it relate to any of the arguments in this thread?




from what I've read, you've inferred that he did, I do not see in the text where it says this. could you explain in detail how exactly you have came to this conclusion?

how much did you study this text, out of curiosity? what are your references? did you look into the original text? do you know who translated it into English? do you have any supporting references to any of the conclusions you've came to?



so if you go for a walk in the park, and you see a man dying, and save his life, then you see a poor man and say hello, and give him money, and centuries later, a story comes out that you "saved a man's life in a park, and gave a poor man money", does that mean you never actually said "hello" to the poor man?

that's what it seems like you're trying to say: because a particular account of someone DOESN'T mention a certain action by a certain person, they obviously supported some supposed criminal action?

this isn't asinine, just illogical

I have literally no idea how to answer this. You ignored just about everything I said. Well, I'm done arguing barnasha. I can't see what will convince you of anything. I showed you the hadith, showed you everything that it says about this particular situation, gave the circumstances involving Aisha's quote, and then you still say I'm quoting "out of context". Furthermore, what tradition do you have to supplement the idea that Muhammad conducted an investigation of the beating? You have none. The passage even implies that he didn't. I quoted an authentic hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari (specifically (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715) and you then ask me for a citation.

Furthermore, the hadith itself agrees that the woman had been beaten:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (‘Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating).

Notice the wording is not "that she claimed was caused by beating." The wording is "that was caused by beating." The hadith itself says that this woman was beaten by her husband. Then Aisha mentions how the believing women are suffering so much and connects her statement with a green spot caused by beating on this woman's skin. Logic says that Aisha did this because she felt that women in Islam were suffering more than women in jahilliyah because of how they were treated. That is plain and obvious from the passage, Barnasha. I seriously don't understand why you keep arguing otherwise.


you can quote them all you want, but your point has no arguments, could you explain in detail how you arrived at your conclusions, instead of stating them for the record and expecting people to nod their heads and believe whatever you say because they 'trust you' ?

When in the world did I ask you to "trust me"? I gave you an authentic hadith, explained in detail how it infers that women were treated worse because of Islam, and then you ask for more. What more do you want? I'm getting sick of this barnasha. You're dodging all my points by asking for more instead of actually addressing them. It's a lame rhetorical tactic and it's annoying.


First of all, know what Islam is (according to authentic scriptures), it is a practice which originated millennia before Muhammad.

And this is relevant because? I know this, but I'm referring to the specific set of rules, concepts, regulations, etc that was introduced by Muhammad, which is how the rest of the world defines Islam.


second of all, I would argue that you do less ignoring - cite more references instead of cherrypicking something and then trying to infer some unjustified conclusion out of it with zero supporting references, and zero substantial arguments to back it up!

:ahem:

JSDileo

I'll address the rest of your post later that you added in by editing later. It's storming here and I have to get off.

[barnasha]

I have literally no idea how to answer this. You ignored just about everything I said. Well, I'm done arguing barnasha. I can't see what will convince you of anything. I showed you the hadith, showed you everything that it says about this particular situation, gave the circumstances involving Aisha's quote, and then you still say I'm quoting "out of context". Furthermore, what tradition do you have to supplement the idea that Muhammad conducted an investigation of the beating? You have none. The passage even implies that he didn't. I quoted an authentic hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari (specifically (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715) and you then ask me for a citation.


Don't attempt to construe your refusal to back up your unjustified conclusions as my ignorance. This is your argument, not mine.



Furthermore, the hadith itself agrees that the woman had been beaten:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (‘Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating).


I don't think you mean to say the "hadeeth agrees", but I won't be pedantic...

Anyway, I don't see how this says "this woman really was beaten, since she claimed she was!"

and even if so, so if it was true, she was beaten, does that mean that it was justified or 'correct'?

not to me




Notice the wording is not "that she claimed was caused by beating." The wording is "that was caused by beating." The hadith itself says that this woman was beaten by her husband. Then Aisha mentions how the believing women are suffering so much and connects her statement with a green spot caused by beating on this woman's skin. Logic says that Aisha did this because she felt that women in Islam were suffering more than women in jahilliyah because of how they were treated. That is plain and obvious from the passage, Barnasha. I seriously don't understand why you keep arguing otherwise.


even if she was, what would that prove? that in this story, someone got beaten, therefore, it's ok to beat women? could you explain?

how about this:
one day, I go to the police station with a cut on my arm, and say that you stabbed me with a knife.

so according to your logic, you MUST have cut me, since I claimed you did.



When in the world did I ask you to "trust me"? I gave you an authentic hadith, explained in detail how it infers that women were treated worse because of Islam, and then you ask for more. What more do you want? I'm getting sick of this barnasha. You're dodging all my points by asking for more instead of actually addressing them. It's a lame rhetorical tactic and it's annoying.


a simple explanation of how you arrived at any of the conclusions you state for the record with no clear justification.

even a hint of the research you've done to come to these conclusions?

or does that 'research' comprise of simply reading some blog or anti-Islamic website? (not that I accuse you of that....)



And this is relevant because? I know this, but I'm referring to the specific set of rules, concepts, regulations, etc that was introduced by Muhammad, which is how the rest of the world defines Islam.



:ahem:

JSDileo



Why don't you name one of these rules, or address any of the many questions I have already asked?

I ask you for clarification, and you accuse me of ignoring what you said. Would you rather we just shout our opinions back and forth instead of actually have an argument about how we came to our differing conclusions?

Actually I have no conclusion here, I am just asking you to justify yours, and seeking knowledge is the opposite of willful ignorance.




I'll address the rest of your post later that you added in by editing later. It's storming here and I have to get off.

[!Fluffy!]

Does posting in this thread help me overcome evil?


only if you are a follower of Muhammed. Otherwise,


you are no different fundamentally than the terrorists

[watsup]

Whether or not you think it is fair conclusion to draw, these are sorts of reports that pour in every day:

Pakistan "Taliban" bombs shops in morality bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070613/lf_nm/pakistan_talibanisation_dc_1)

Four Buddhists killed by militants (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1181656)

Twelve killed, 50 hurt as Hamas blows up Fatah HQ in Gaza-1 (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070613/67152290.html)

Three teachers killed in separate shootings in southern Thailand (http://www.pr-inside.com/three-teachers-killed-in-separate-shootings-r149801.htm)

Al-Qaida Declares Holy War on India (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=98320)

Video of the Day #5: Israeli Soldiers Rescue Palestinian Girl . . . From Palestinians (Who Paralyzed Her) (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/video_of_the_da_2.html)

That's just from the past few days. Now, Islam isn't true or false depending on a body count, just like any other proposition doesn't stand or fall on how many deaths are committed in it's name. But surely this makes the West's (and many Twebbers) rather poisonous attacks against Islam a little more understandable? I can get upset over Calvinism/Arminianism, theism/atheism, heck even Red Sox/Yanks. But at least no one is dying.

This thread would have been much more helpful and closer to the truth under this new caption of "Why the non-Muslim world must not trust Muslims".

With the answer being: "Not because Muslims per se must not be trusted; but, because of the doctrine of Al-Taqiyya from Muslims' Islam's allah, who was and still is Satan himself.

Click into the below to know more about this Al-Taqiyya doctrine (of lying from Islam's allah aka Satan):

http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=Al%3DTaqiyya&meta=

Islam's allah aka Satan - the master-creator and master-practitoner of Al-Taqiyya, starting with his lying that he was and is also the God of Abraham, when he clearly was and is Satan.

The reason why the world has to, with deep regret, be ever watchful of Muslims who claim, present and conduct themselves as moderate Muslims - that every true Muslim however moderate he or she may appear to be, is a truly Satan-controlled and Satan-deployed Muslim, waiting for Satan's activation when the time is right.