Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on September 17, 2006, 08:19:44 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/wFXD_GUY6y8
I don't know if this is new or old news to anyone here, but somebody emailed this to me. I really just can't believe how some people can actually believe what this radio host says; he is right to some extent, but most of what he's saying is terribly, terribly wrong.
Thoughts?
-
I gave up on it when he brought up the possibility of genocide.
I don't often link the two words 'skull' and 'punt', but that radio-host brought those two words to mind quite readily. Honestly, holding an entire people accountable for the actions of a vast minority is exactly akin to some retard saying all Americans should pay for the actions of their leaders [to use a contemporary example]. To suggest collective punishment is most certainly the hallmark of the uneducated, the uncivilised, and downright mentally defective.
-
Which is worse. That he talks like that on air. Or that he even is on the air?
If any of you ****ing americans try to come to my country, I'll ****ing kill you. :snipe:
:p
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
When it comes to the question of can Islam adapt itself to the modern world, the answer is appearently no.
EDIT: Although I thought that he could have been a bit more diplomatic with his points......
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
Sorta like Christianity in America then?
-
Yep.
-
the host is american, thats enough in my opinnion, next time i find some retarded idiotic idiot then ill just call em american cuz instead of the vast MINORITY of muslems, the vast MAJORITY of americans are idiots.
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
When it comes to the question of can Islam adapt itself to the modern world, the answer is appearently no.
EDIT: Although I thought that he could have been a bit more diplomatic with his points......
And since when is it an intrinsically good and correct thing for Islam, or any culture for that matter, to adapt itself to circumstances it had no hand in crafting? There is a diiference, in my mind, between what Muslims do to others and what they do to themselves. I'm of the opinion that each group, be it religious, cultural, nation, ethnic, whatever, should be left to itself so long as it doesn't harm others. When Muslims fly planes into buildings, that's unacceptable. When they torch an embassy or riot in Paris, that's unacceptable. But if they apply Sharia law in their own countries, if they choose such-and-such a system of education, if they elect people who we may dislike or disagree with, that's perfectly OK by me, as long as they do it only to themselves.
Same thing with America. Building a global empire of military garrisons, attacking other nations and dictating to them on matters of policy is a terrible thing. But what America chooses to do to itself, it's domestic policy - well, I may disagree with it, but it's none of my business. If they want to raise a big statue of Jesus over the White House, fine by me.
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
When it comes to the question of can Islam adapt itself to the modern world, the answer is appearently no.
EDIT: Although I thought that he could have been a bit more diplomatic with his points......
They rail against it time after time after time, and every single time it is instantly forgotten and then someone says "lol they should apologize lol". Christians don't always rise up on barricades because some sect does stuff in Christendom's name, why should average muslims do?
-
Wow that host is a ***** and should die. Those people he was talking about are terrorists, who are using Islam as an excuse to be angry and kill everbody. (I think :nervous: ) I am not Muslim, but I know some people who are, and they don't try and kill me at all or anything.
EDIT: maby I should listen to the whole thing and read all of the posts here before I speak.
I also find it funny how you people are angry at how minority Muslims are causing all of Muslims to be ridiculed by a few (from what I've seen, this is the 2nd or 3rd guy like this) Amercians, and then you go saying how all Americans are all idiots and retarded, when most of us are very definatly not. Like that person who stood up to the host, I am saying that most Americans do not share the host's opinion, or the opinion of the Kansas Baptists, or the opinion of President Bush and his cabinet (whats his approval rating, 30% or something? And from what I've seen, only idiots and their kids approve of him).
-
Religion, resources, honour, pride... they're all just excuses we make up to give in to our basic instincts.
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
Well, to be fair, the Arab world doesn't have much of a choice as to what it wants to protest. There's outrage over the cartoons because it's an attack on Islam, and because religion is what keeps the radical leaders in power, they allow the people to take it to the streets. When it comes to what a government in the Middle East does to its citizens, all of a sudden there's no outcry because the people simply aren't free to protest these actions without being imprisoned or shot.
A lack of outcry in the US and other Western countries from their Muslim populations is much less acceptable, though; they have the freedom to protest atrocities, and they very well should.
Janos has a point as well; it's not as if those doing evil in the name of Islam have only recently started. Muslim communities may very well have been condemning the governments back in the 40s or 50s, but it's just gotten so old that protesting is just becoming pointless in shaping that area of the world. Christians don't apologize for everything the KKK or WBC does, so why should the people of Dearborn apologize for everything the radicals do?
-
I also find it funny how you people are angry at how minority Muslims are causing all of Muslims to be ridiculed by a few (from what I've seen, this is the 2nd or 3rd guy like this) Amercians, and then you go saying how all Americans are all idiots and retarded, when most of us are very definatly not. Like that person who stood up to the host, I am saying that most Americans do not share the host's opinion, or the opinion of the Kansas Baptists, or the opinion of President Bush and his cabinet (whats his approval rating, 30% or something? And from what I've seen, only idiots and their kids approve of him).
Nuclear1 touched briefly on the reason in a roundabout way.
While Bush may have a very low approval rating you do have to remember he was voted in by a majority of Americans not just once but twice. Furthermore he is still in power rather than facing large daily protests that he resign.
Americans have the freedom needed to push Bush out of power and choose not to (mainly cause of apathy). That's why they're viewed poorly by the rest of the world. They can do something but are collectively too stupid to do so.
Not that I'm any position to feel too smug about that. It's not like Tony Blair is out of a job either.
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
Sorta like Christianity in America then?
Janos' reply works for both the Islam and the Christian side. And because Christianity is mostly a blanket over all the varieties of its sects, it really isn't fair to say that a "Christian" should be apologizing for the molestation of a Catholic altar boy. What's more is that those specific idiotic Christians who are being ridiculed by other Christians for their actions are the ones who get all the media attention.
Really, that applies to whole idea. Those stupid minorities are getting all the attention, and whoever is fighting against it from the inside really doesn't get the chance to broadcast their rejection of such stupid acts.
Anyway, I don't think that was really sizzler's point, Kara. Bush was more of an example than anything, but I'm pretty sure that the main point is that it's hypocritical to collectively call Americans stupid simply because a radio host has the power to express his "retarded" beliefs, while at the same time condemning those who collectively call Muslims blood-thirsty murderers based on the actions of a few terrorists.
And if you really want to argue about Bush's election, you have to realize that the last two elections have been so ridiculously close that you can't possibly call the American "collective" idiots, unless of course you consider one person in a couple (that is, a group of two) to be the "collective."
-
The problem is, the Government of both the US and the UK are working as hard as they can to become synonymous with the country itself. If you complain about the Government too loudly or disagree with the war too vehemently, people start applying words like 'Radical' or 'Unpatriotic'.
People need to re-learn that disagreeing with the government can actually be an act of affection for your country, not hatred.
-
It's not like Tony Blair is out of a job either.
a yes, but come 2008, and Bush WILL be (due to term limits, even if his 30% popularity somehow could have got him elected), while (i don't think) the job of Prime Minister has any term limits.
-
Americans have the freedom needed to push Bush out of power and choose not to (mainly cause of apathy). That's why they're viewed poorly by the rest of the world. They can do something but are collectively too stupid to do so.
The only reason Bush is still President is because everyone liked the oppising candidates even less. Personally, I didn't really like Kerry, but I think he would have done a better job than Bush this term so far.
And I can't vote yet, so none of it is my fault :D
-
And I can't vote yet, so none of it is my fault :D
ditto. but I'll be voting next year, and every year after that!
-
While Bush may have a very low approval rating you do have to remember he was voted in by a majority of Americans not just once but twice. Furthermore he is still in power rather than facing large daily protests that he resign.
While you're right, Aqueous is still more right. The 2000 and 2004 elections were won by very small percentages, proving that the American population was split 50-50 between those who disliked Bush/liked Kerry and those who disliked Kerry/liked Bush. That's really the problem with a two-party system--you can try to get a 3rd Party candidate nominated, but theres very little chance that he will actually be elected. At best, he'll draw votes away from one of the two parties' candidates and bring the other into office. If it were possible to get them in office, there are people that I would vote for outside of the Republican and Democrat parties, but instead I'm forced to vote for the Republican or Democrat who I most agree with if my vote is to truly make a difference.
And I can't vote yet, so none of it is my fault :D
ditto. but I'll be voting next year, and every year after that!
I'll miss the midterm elections by about three weeks; my birthday's in later November, and I'm only 17. Can't wait for '08 though.
-
And since when is it an intrinsically good and correct thing for Islam, or any culture for that matter, to adapt itself to circumstances it had no hand in crafting?
A culure has to adapt to a changing world. If they don't, then at best they will be left behind or at worst they will simply die.
The two best examples I can think of are the late Qing dynasty and the Ottoman Empire. Both of them failed to adapt to a changed world, and now both have bit the dust.
While you're right, Aqueous is still more right. The 2000 and 2004 elections were won by very small percentages, proving that the American population was split 50-50 between those who disliked Bush/liked Kerry and those who disliked Kerry/liked Bush.
There also were major allegations of vote fraud in both elections that cannot be overlooked.
-
I considered that and one fact that neither you, nuclear1 nor AqueousShadow mentioned.
There were a lot of people who didn't vote. Roll them in with the idiots and you do have a majority. See? :D
Oh and while we're at it Bush did win by 5 million votes overall. Even though that isn't relevent to the way your political process works it is relevent when foreigners try to decide if the population of the USA are mostly idiots.
-
Wow. If the USA had one majority race, I'd call it racisim. But we don't, so I won't. But I am getting a tad pissed of at people calling the general populace of America idiots, even if it's true.
* * *
Huh, well there's blind patriotisim for you. Maybe some hypocriticality (is that even a word?) on my part, too.
-
I might click that link, I might not... Regardless I have very ill will toward the Muslim communities (especially overseas). Why you may ask?
Because they are just as hypocritical as us! They say the Koran is their law and sacred and all that jazz but then turn around and let liars, murderers and traitors hide their crimes behind it like a f-ing shield?
Well guess what, as a GAMER I can put myself in the average Muslim's shoes and say anyone bringing shame or disrespect to my religion will get their balls cut off (all praise Allah!) However for the most part, the vast majority of Muslims don't give a CRAP so if Islam has gotten a bad rap due to terrorism too F-ing bad! THEY allowed it to happen and continued allowing it for decades. (if not centuries)
When extremist groups in the US like KKK, 7th Days, or even polygimists (Gee I want to be one someday so pike off Uncle Sam) ;) The Government DOES something about it and clearly sends a message loud and clear that their activites are negative, unsanctioned, and most of all A CRIME!
It seems to me the real problem is every Muslim priest with an axe to grind is preaching LIES as I remember the basics of what the Koran says from school. These hate mongers need to be defrocked (or whatever) by their religious superiors and Islam taken back to the source. Otherwise I see no alternative than eventually a war against Islam... As a Military veteran the ONLY thing I approve with Mr bush on is his tough statement to Iran that enough is enough (for example)... Syria (and to a lesser extent Jordan) is backstabbing us also by sponsoring Hezbolah so they need to be sanctioned and other means as well. They are not going to take us seriously about seperating tehmselves from terrorism until something explodes or foriegn troops march in their streets!
Cultures that only exist upon hate and death are a cancer we as humanity need to exercise from the gene pool of this planet. Call it Genecide I don't care. Or rather look at it this way, I care too much.
Example, the Pope says a quote (from the middle ages) about Islam, and not long after a Italian NUN her bodyguard and the doctor in the same room are murdered by islamic extremists... Someone must pay for that callous and MONSTROUS disregard for Humanlife.
MOHAMMAD decrees murder is a sin! Yet they commit it on a daily basis in his name against non-Muslims and Muslims alike...
Plus look at Lebanon... Hezbolah treats that country like a giant gang turf, the "government" is powerless.... As long as extremist are allowed by anyone to do as they please, violence on a mass scale will never end.
That's part of Human nature and why I dislike the Human race very much. It is a rare thing to find a Human of any real worth in the cosmic scheme of things...
I eagerly await the day our alien overlords come and purge this world of petty evils and self-delusioned religious fools. :D
All hail the old ones!!! (If Cuthullu ever gets on the ballot IT gets MY vote!!!) :lol:
-
And since when is it an intrinsically good and correct thing for Islam, or any culture for that matter, to adapt itself to circumstances it had no hand in crafting?
Since you don't seem to have one, here's a clue.
Reality is a lot bigger and meaner then you, or anybody else. Adapt or it will try very hard to kill you.
-
And since when is it an intrinsically good and correct thing for Islam, or any culture for that matter, to adapt itself to circumstances it had no hand in crafting?
Since you don't seem to have one, here's a clue.
Reality is a lot bigger and meaner then you, or anybody else. Adapt or it will try very hard to kill you.
See, this is why people think you're stupid.
It's because of **** like this.
-
Americans have the freedom needed to push Bush out of power and choose not to (mainly cause of apathy). That's why they're viewed poorly by the rest of the world. They can do something but are collectively too stupid to do so.
The only reason Bush is still President is because everyone liked the oppising candidates even less. Personally, I didn't really like Kerry, but I think he would have done a better job than Bush this term so far.
And I can't vote yet, so none of it is my fault :D
Be sure that you do vote. Far too few people in western democracies (US included) have voter apathy. More percentage of people in Iraq risked being shot, blown up, and otherwise maimed to vote, than people in the US voted despite not facing any of those prospects.
Every single election that has occured since I was able to vote I have voted in. I've even worked for the democratic process once for a few extra dollars.
-
It seems to me the real problem is every Muslim priest with an axe to grind is preaching LIES as I remember the basics of what the Koran says from school. These hate mongers need to be defrocked (or whatever) by their religious superiors and Islam taken back to the source. Otherwise I see no alternative than eventually a war against Islam.
Do you see Pat Robertson being defrocked? Do you see the Christian extremists who do the same thing having the American government rise up against them in the same way you are demanding from others?
See the problem is that while you spend all your time shouting for the muslim world to reform while the christian world is allowed to become more tightly controlled by extremists you basically give ammunition to the muslim extremists. Cause for them what they basically see is a christian government telling them what to do.
-
Dear god, I feel a little more stupid after listening to that.
-
He does have a point about Islam being hijacked, and no one is railing against it in the islamic world. Also he has a point about no Islamic outrage when they do terrible things.
When it comes to the question of can Islam adapt itself to the modern world, the answer is appearently no.
EDIT: Although I thought that he could have been a bit more diplomatic with his points......
Have any of you read the Koran?
I have; and the book definitely encourages violence against any who don't worship Allah.
It even goes so far as to tell muslims that if they have a chance to "go forth" and don't, they get no second chances. They go to hell.
-
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10
You were saying?
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/pooh_owned.jpg)
-
:lol:
Where do you get this stuff?
-
There were a lot of people who didn't vote. Roll them in with the idiots and you do have a majority. See? :D
But that would still be generalizing, wouldn't it? :wtf:
You can't just "roll them in" with the idiots because you have no idea what the specific reason is for any non-voter not to vote. And at this point, big numbers like 5 million mean nothing. Why? Electoral votes. Period.
How can anyone say that Kerry would have done any better than Bush? Really the debate is whether it was a good idea to have all that bloodshed in Iraq, but by that election it had already started. Kerry couldn't even present a plan with which to end the war. Iraq was like getting bitten by a moray; the election afterward was a choice between trying to choke the eel and ripping the flesh to your knuckle, or pulling out your finger and ripping the flesh down the tip.
Hah, but anyway. I am eligible to vote in the next election. We'll see where we go with that.
And :lol: I'm a Catholic, but that was hilarious
-
But that would still be generalizing, wouldn't it? :wtf:
You can't just "roll them in" with the idiots because you have no idea what the specific reason is for any non-voter not to vote. And at this point, big numbers like 5 million mean nothing. Why? Electoral votes. Period.
I believe I made that last point myself. But to further clarify
1) You didn't only have a choice between Kerry and Bush. You could have voted for a third party.
2) The only reason Kerry was there was because the American public picked him. They could have picked someone else. They chose Kerry through the primaries. If they didn't want to vote Kerry but did want to vote democrat they could have picked another candidate.
3) Anyone who doesn't vote is an idiot by default. Either they're too stupid to understand the issues and choose to abstain. Or they are too stupid to understand that a protest vote does have value even if you give it to a third party or deliberately spoil your ballot.
-
But that would still be generalizing, wouldn't it? :wtf:
You can't just "roll them in" with the idiots because you have no idea what the specific reason is for any non-voter not to vote. And at this point, big numbers like 5 million mean nothing. Why? Electoral votes. Period.
I believe I made that last point myself. But to further clarify
1) You didn't only have a choice between Kerry and Bush. You could have voted for a third party.
2) The only reason Kerry was there was because the American public picked him. They could have picked someone else. They chose Kerry through the primaries. If they didn't want to vote Kerry but did want to vote democrat they could have picked another candidate.
3) Anyone who doesn't vote is an idiot by default. Either they're too stupid to understand the issues and choose to abstain. Or they are too stupid to understand that a protest vote does have value even if you give it to a third party or deliberately spoil your ballot.
:lol: :lol:
Are you serious?
Do you seriously think any sane person would seriously honestly want someone like RALPH NADER as president? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Trust me, Kerry and Bush are the cream of the crop compared to all the other fools.
But I agree with you on number 3 :) :yes2:
-
Whilst I'll agree that Ralph Nader is probably not up to the job, always bear in mind that the Republicans and Democrats spend millions each year bolstering their image and defending against smear campaigns from the opposition. Ralph Nader doesn't really have those kinds of funds to call upon, so it's very very easy to outbid him in the image war. Be careful to make sure how much you are being told of third parties isn't merely anti-propaganda ;)
-
Do you seriously think any sane person would seriously honestly want someone like RALPH NADER as president? :lol: :lol: :lol:
And George Bush is a sane choice?
Besides who said you had to vote Nader? Vote for whoever the hell you like.
-
I meant relativly. If you had a choice between drinking you're own semen or eating poisen and dying, what would you choose?
And notice the "someone like" I put before Ralph Nader ( "like" being a worse choice than either Bush or Kerry).
Thats pretty much all there was. Bush, Kerry, and a whole bunch of nutcases (to a worse degree than Bush and Kerry combined [well, maybe not combined, but you get the picture ;) ]).
-
Which is worse. That he talks like that on air. Or that he even is on the air?
If any of you ****ing americans try to come to my country, I'll ****ing kill you. :snipe:
:p
How european of you.
Do you seriously think any sane person would seriously honestly want someone like RALPH NADER as president? :lol: :lol: :lol:
And George Bush is a sane choice?
Besides who said you had to vote Nader? Vote for whoever the hell you like.
I`ll never trust a democrat. ever! I`ll admit it. Bush has made things more flaky but, I don`t think what he is doing is bad. What the medias are not telling us is what our soldiers are doing good in Iraq. Instead they broadcast the horrible and terrible things like for example this. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,40575.0.html) We went over there to free people from a mad man dictator. Not just looking for weopons. Now the Iraqians can vote and make choices in their government and you say that this is a bad thing?
During Suddams reign he gased his own people muliple times. I`m quite happy he is gone.
-
Do you seriously think any sane person would seriously honestly want someone like RALPH NADER as president? :lol: :lol: :lol:
And George Bush is a sane choice?
Besides who said you had to vote Nader? Vote for whoever the hell you like.
I`ll never trust a democrat. ever! I`ll admit it. Bush has made things more flaky but, I don`t think what he is doing is bad. What the medias are not telling us is what our soldiers are doing good in Iraq. Instead they broadcast the horrible and terrible things like for example this. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,40575.0.html) We went over there to free people from a mad man dictator. Not just looking for weopons. Now the Iraqians can vote and make choices in their government and you say that this is a bad thing?
During Suddams reign he gased his own people muliple times. I`m quite happy he is gone.
Really? All I saw pre-war was U.N. inspectors looking for nukes and weapons of mass destruction, but finding nothing. Then Bosch Bush didn't belive the inspectors and went to war anyway.
-
I`ll never trust a democrat. ever! I`ll admit it. Bush has made things more flaky but, I don`t think what he is doing is bad. What the medias are not telling us is what our soldiers are doing good in Iraq. Instead they broadcast the horrible and terrible things like for example this. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,40575.0.html) We went over there to free people from a mad man dictator. Not just looking for weopons. Now the Iraqians can vote and make choices in their government and you say that this is a bad thing?
During Suddams reign he gased his own people muliple times. I`m quite happy he is gone.
Has the though crossed your mind that there isn't a giant media smear-campaign to destroy the government, and perhaps what they are reporting is what's really happening. There's no doubt that some good has come out of it, but saying 'we done good!' doesn't white-wash away the fact that it's also done a hell of a lot of damage. The media ain't making this stuff up, and I don't understand your mindset of 'well, bad things have happened, but also good things have happened, so everything's okay!'. Further, the US "went over there" looking for weapons. That's what they said they were doing, that's how they justified it, and that's the cold, hard fact of history. The fact that they changed their official motivation to 'freeing the people' when no weapons were found shows how the invasion was a little 'off'. It's that simple.
Also, I suggest you don't go into comparisons of what Iraq was like before the war/after during the war. It doesn't take a genius to realise that things have gotten worse. Seriously, if you think Iraq is a more stable and a safer place to live post-invasion, you've got some serious problems.
Wait a minute, how the hell did we get on this topic?!
-
I don't know. I think we took a wrong turn back at the "Iraqians".
-
Well, it appears that Bush and Iraq are always linked these days.....
-
Well, it appears that Bush and Iraq are always linked these days.....
As it damn well should. It should follow the **** for the rest of his days.
-
I'm sorry joyjorma, but your case is irrelevant. We are not discussing Judaism here, but Islam.
The Koran says in Sura 9:81-95 (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392):
[9.81] Those who were left behind were glad on account of their sitting behind Allah's Apostle and they were averse from striving m Allah's way with their property and their persons, and said: Do not go forth in the heat. Say: The fire of hell is much severe in heat. Would that they understood (it).
[9.82] Therefore they shall laugh little and weep much as a recompense for what they earned.
[9.83] Therefore if Allah brings you back to a party of them and then they ask your permission to go forth, say: By no means shall you ever go forth with me and by no means shall you fight an enemy with me; surely you chose to sit the first time, therefore sit (now) with those who remain behind.
[9.84] And never offer prayer for any one of them who dies and do not stand by his grave; surely they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle and they shall die in transgression.
[9.85] And let not their property and their children excite your admlration; Allah only wishes to chastise them with these in this world and (that) their souls may depart while they are unbelievers
[9.86] And whenever a chapter is revealed, saying: Believe in Allah and strive hard along with His Apostle, those having ampleness of means ask permission of you and say: Leave us (behind), that we may be with those who sit.
[9.87] They preferred to be with those who remained behind, and a seal is set on their hearts so they do not understand.
[9.88] But the Apostle and those who believe with him strive hard with their property and their persons; and these it is who shall have the good things and these it is who shall be successful.
[9.89] Allah has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them; that is the great achievement. And the defaulters from among the dwellers of the desert came that permission may be given to them and they sat (at home) who lied to Allah and His Apostle; a painful chastisement shall afflict those of them who disbelieved.
[9.91] It shall be no crime in the weak, nor in the sick, nor in those who do not find what they should spend (to stay behind), so long as they are sincere to Allah and His Apostle; there is no way (to blame) against the doers of good; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;
[9.92] Nor in those who when they came to you that you might carry them, you said: I cannot find that on which to carry you; they went back while their eyes overflowed with tears on account of grief for not finding that which they should spend.
[9.93] The way (to blame) is only against those who ask permission of you though they are rich; they have chosen to be with those who remained behind, and Allah has set a seal upon their hearts so they do not know.
[9.94] They will excuse themselves to you when you go back to them. Say: Urge no excuse, by no means will we believe you; indeed Allah has informed us of matters relating to you; and now Allah and His Apostle will see your doings, then you shall be brought back to the Knower of the unseen and the seen, then He will inform you of what you did.
[9.95] They will swear to you by Allah when you return to them so that you may turn aside from them; so do turn aside from them; surely they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they earned.
There's a lot more, but I'm not going to post it now. Hopefully you will understand.
:sigh: as if :sigh:
-m
-
You obviously missed his point entirely, as you always do. I gotta ask, given how often it happens - Do you do it deliberately? The point quite clearly was something along the line that using an exerpt from a book to mark a religion as violent is ridiculous, as you can find the same things for most mainstream religions, Christianity most definitely included (indeed, Christianity overall has a far more violent history than Islam).
So if you mark one religion as violent due to what a millenia-old and probably poorly translated text says, you effectively mark all of them violent. You'd probably be right to do that, too, but it cannot be used as ammunition for one religion against another, only against religion in general.
-
I'm not disagreeing with that. All I'm saying is that you can't say Islam has been hijacked when all they are doing is following what the book says, poorly translated or otherwise. Heck, I wouldn't follow the Koran anyway; it's full of contradictions. As the Koran itself says in Sura 4:82 (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839),
[4.82] Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
If you want examples of the conflictions, I'd be happy to give them to you. And if you are going to say that the Bible is full of contradictions too, I'd be happy to debate that too. Read my signature for why I do this. :lol:
-m
-
All I'm saying is that you can't say Islam has been hijacked when all they are doing is following what the book says, poorly translated or otherwise.
And so Christianity has been hijacked by Christian moderates?
holy **** call the president
-
I'm sorry joyjorma,
If you're reduced to making stupid petty "jokes" (and I use the term very losely) based around my username you really must have no argument whatsoever to bring to the table. Either act like an adult or don't bother even replying.
We are not discussing Judaism here, but Islam.
You claimed that the muslim holy book encouraged violence towards non-muslims. I pointed out that the Bible/Torah does the exact same thing. I never said that the Koran doesn't contain such material. Simply that you shouldn't get on your high horse about the matter because your own holy book is just as bad on the matter.
-
And if you are going to say that the Bible is full of contradictions too, I'd be happy to debate that too
As much as I'd love to (and I mean that, no sarcasm or irony there), it's been done to death, and religion always loses to logic. So there's no point. Basically, believe what you will, just don't expect others to believe the same :)