Senior U.S. general says Muslims worship 'idol'

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: I once dated a Muslim girl who had reconciled many aspects. I do as I said, know what I'm talking about, and if you cared to purschase a copy of the Qu'ran and read it as I have done, you may find you see things as I've described.

I have no need to buy a copy of the Qu'ran - I am fortunate to have been given two copies, one in english and one in arabic (although I must admit that I have persused the arabic copy much less as my arabic is far from adequate to study the book in that language).
Throughout my time in the middle-east I have had many late night, coffee-filled evenings of talk on the subject of Islam with some very authoritive speakers. It became almost a ritual as, at some point in the evening, I was always asked the same tired old question of Why do westerners, hate/fear/loathe/look down upon us? A heavy debate on the merits and failings of Islam always seemed to follow - as much of western prejudice is incorrectly linked to Islam - when the reality of the 'failings' has far more to do with historical social and political issues than the religion itself.

Jihad is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE - not a physical one. If you can not accept this basic precept, and transpose the meaning to its direct opposite, you will *of course* see Islam in a bad light.

It's akin to transposing the word 'love' in Jesus's sermons for the word 'murder'. I could then say that Jesus never promulgated 'love thy neighbour' but instead asked people to 'murder thy neighbour'. A 'small' misinterpretation along those lines has a dramatic effect upon the meaning and easily casts an innocent phrase into one with an ominous tone.

Likewise, quoting excerpts from the Qu'ran out of context can also lead to misassumptions on the relgion. I could say, for example that in the bible it states: [/i]"You may hear that the residents in one of the cities which the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 have been led away from the LORD your God by worthless people. You may hear that these people have been saying, "Let's worship other gods." 14 Then make a thorough investigation. If it is true, and you can prove that this disgusting thing has been done among you, 15 you must kill the residents of that city with swords and destroy that city and everyone in it, including the animals, because they are claimed by God. 16 Gather their goods into the middle of the city square. Then burn their city and all their goods as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. It must remain a mound of ruins and never be rebuilt." (Deuteronomy chapter 13)
Aha! So in the bible it states that anyone who doesn't worship 'our' god should be put to the sword - so Christians want to kill all people who worship other religions because their god tells them to!


You see how ridiculous it gets when you take passages out of context and 'misinterpret' important words?

Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this.
Let's agree to differ.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Ok, I'm gonna get a little out of line here and do the dreaded mini-Mod routine. I sincerely ask BOTH of you to let this issue drop with your last posts rather than filling up a page with off-topic arguments of semantics and misinterpretations. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Yorick - I love you like a brother, my friend, but sometimes you get entirely too hung up on semantics. I understand that word definitions are more of a concrete item than theological interpretations, but you sometimes get so carried away in insisting the other party accept the definition you have provided in a given situation, even after it's clearly obvious this isn't going to happen. Let it go, my friend, and concentrate on the larger picture.

Skunk - We've had our differences of opinion in the past and I'm sure we'll continue to do so, but that has nothing to do with my comments here. Please forgive me for being blunt, but your accusation that Yorick basically keep his mouth shut until he has actually studied the Muslim religion was simply an ignorant statement to make. Not ignorant as in stupid, rather it was ignorant as in showing a lack of knowledge. You've been around the board more than long enough to read Yorick's comments in other "religious threads" and in threads dealing with Islamic religion. It wouldn't have taken long to realize that he has studied the Islamic faith in great detail. Just because he hasn't reached the same interpretations or conclusions as you does not mean he hasn't done his research on the subject. If that were true, I could claim you haven't adequately researched Christianity, since haven't reached the "correct" interpretations from my point of view. Or I could (and do) simply accept the fact that you don't view it the same way I do. Again, I apologize for being so frank, but I really don't want to see this thread get derailed for two pages by a personal argument.

I agree with your final statement completely. Just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I once dated a Muslim girl who had reconciled many aspects. I do as I said, know what I'm talking about, and if you cared to purschase a copy of the Qu'ran and read it as I have done, you may find you see things as I've described.

I have no need to buy a copy of the Qu'ran - I am fortunate to have been given two copies, one in english and one in arabic (although I must admit that I have persused the arabic copy much less as my arabic is far from adequate to study the book in that language).
Throughout my time in the middle-east I have had many late night, coffee-filled evenings of talk on the subject of Islam with some very authoritive speakers. It became almost a ritual as, at some point in the evening, I was always asked the same tired old question of Why do westerners, hate/fear/loathe/look down upon us? A heavy debate on the merits and failings of Islam always seemed to follow - as much of western prejudice is incorrectly linked to Islam - when the reality of the 'failings' has far more to do with historical social and political issues than the religion itself.

Jihad is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE - not a physical one. If you can not accept this basic precept, and transpose the meaning to its direct opposite, you will *of course* see Islam in a bad light.

It's akin to transposing the word 'love' in Jesus's sermons for the word 'murder'. I could then say that Jesus never promulgated 'love thy neighbour' but instead asked people to 'murder thy neighbour'. A 'small' misinterpretation along those lines has a dramatic effect upon the meaning and easily casts an innocent phrase into one with an ominous tone.

Likewise, quoting excerpts from the Qu'ran out of context can also lead to misassumptions on the relgion. I could say, for example that in the bible it states: [/i]"You may hear that the residents in one of the cities which the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 have been led away from the LORD your God by worthless people. You may hear that these people have been saying, "Let's worship other gods." 14 Then make a thorough investigation. If it is true, and you can prove that this disgusting thing has been done among you, 15 you must kill the residents of that city with swords and destroy that city and everyone in it, including the animals, because they are claimed by God. 16 Gather their goods into the middle of the city square. Then burn their city and all their goods as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. It must remain a mound of ruins and never be rebuilt." (Deuteronomy chapter 13)
Aha! So in the bible it states that anyone who doesn't worship 'our' god should be put to the sword - so Christians want to kill all people who worship other religions because their god tells them to!


You see how ridiculous it gets when you take passages out of context and 'misinterpret' important words?

Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this.
Let's agree to differ. [/QUOTE]I don't agree to disagree. You are incorrect in your accusation that I knew nothing of Islam and that I had made a grievious error about Muhammad.

One of the Hadiths I quoted mentions Muhammad speaking after he led a conquest of Mecca. My very point, long ago in this thread, that you took issue with, was that Muhammad had waged war. Physical war, and destroyed cities and the lives of children. A point which you contested by saying I knew nothing about Islam and that Muhammad and Jesus were both prophets of the same God.

Despite our conversation, you are yet to apologise for this unwarranted attack.

Regarding this post. Please. Don't give me the "out of context" bullshit. If you had even read the Quran, or the Hadiths in your alleged possession, you would understand the Poetic way in which the Quran is written is very different to the narrative style of many of the Bibles books. The Hadiths as well, are posted COMPLETE. Mini stories and sayings. There is no more context to provide. In actual fact THE CONTEXT of what I posted points precisely to Jihad being Holy War. DID YOU EVEN READ MY QUOTES? Or did you blithely dismiss them with a cursory glance. THEY ARE IRREFUTABLE. In the context, the Jihad is physical battles. Islam itself was born in a time and place of regular violent struggle. Many Hadiths are records of saying of Muhammad after one battle or another.

Going back to the poetry of the Qu';ran, it was the poetry, the form of the Qu'ran, in Arabic, poetry of the highest quality, which Muhammad and others used as proof it was divinely inspired.

As such, comparing it to the arguments and threads of thinking in the Bibles books is totally innacurate and incorrect. I posted IN CONTEXT. As I said, read for yourself before regurgitating opinions. Even if they are opinions of wonderfully wise Islamic gentlemen in the Middle East. Bear in mind in their eyes you are still "only a woman."

An intersting paradox is that Muhammad asked a woman - his wife - as to whether the initial vision he had was from God or from the Devil. He was unsure. It was she, who told him it was from God.

Anyway that's all beside the point. The point initially was, that Jesus did not take up arms against the Roman oppressors despite people longing for him to lead Israel to freedom. Muahmmad by contrast DID take up arms and conquer, pillage and kill. Physically. His anecdotes were physical. He gives strict instructions as to physical matters of waging war, making peace, treating enemies.

"Jihad" can be viewed in the same light as the Christian use of "Grace". Grace has a meaning. In Christian theology the word has far greater significance than, "charitable generosity". Similarly, Jihad literally means strive or struggle, but as I wrote implies physical fight, and contextually regularly means "Holy War". The translator of the last Hadith - which I presume you did not read - translates Jihad in the context of the Hadith as "Holy War". Which was the context I was initially speaking about when you chose to take issue with me.

I stand by my initial points. There is nothing you have posted - no proof, no quotes, no counter commentaries on the specific passages I quoted - nothing that in any way indicates I am incorrect or unreasonable in making the statments I did. Especially considering comparing the teachings to the actions of the professed followers finds harmony.

One must always compare the source work with the actions of those who claim to follow the source work.

A quick glance of the New testament, find the crusades totally at odds with following Jesus, so we can ascertain religion was used by politicians in that instance. A comprehensive study of Hadths and the Qu'ran, finds the actions of certain militant Muslims resonating with what is written, not conflicting.

I repeat, I am delighted Islam brings peace and harmony to peoples lives. I have no problem with Muslims. I dated a Muslim girl, as I mentioned. My point remains though, that if you follow the life of Islams exemplar to the letter, you would wage war, kill and destroy. If you followed the Christian exemplar, you would die instead of those you love and love your enemies, forgiving them even as they killed you. If you followed Jesus you would, in love, die for the very people that kill you.

[ 10-19-2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: "You may hear that the residents in one of the cities which the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 have been led away from the LORD your God by worthless people. You may hear that these people have been saying, "Let's worship other gods." 14 Then make a thorough investigation. If it is true, and you can prove that this disgusting thing has been done among you, 15 you must kill the residents of that city with swords and destroy that city and everyone in it, including the animals, because they are claimed by God. 16 Gather their goods into the middle of the city square. Then burn their city and all their goods as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. It must remain a mound of ruins and never be rebuilt." (Deuteronomy chapter 13) Aha! So in the bible it states that anyone who doesn't worship 'our' god should be put to the sword - so Christians want to kill all people who worship other religions because their god tells them to! You see how ridiculous it gets when you take passages out of context and 'misinterpret' important words?

Context or not, this passage you have posted is from the OLD TESTAMENT, and only serves to show that you could, by taking the narrative style of the bible (as opposed to the poetic style of the qu'ran) out of context, justify war in Judaism.

We all know Judaism allows retaliatation. Israelis are open about that.

The New Testament does not. Christianity does not. (from a legalistic literal interpretative point of view)

I addressed the fact that the Hadiths are complete entities in my previous post, and that the context actually supports what I am saying.

[ 10-19-2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ok, I'm gonna get a little out of line here and do the dreaded mini-Mod routine. I sincerely ask BOTH of you to let this issue drop with your last posts rather than filling up a page with off-topic arguments of semantics and misinterpretations. .

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. The issue of what Jihad means is fiercly debated by Muslim clerics. Usually western ones emphasising the spiritual aspect, while historically the physical element has been emphasised. (See the violent expansion and conquests of Muslims INCLUDING Muhammads own armies as proof of this)

Semantics in this case can mean life or death for some Muslims. Martyrdom means something altogether different with a different twist. Were Skunk correct, 9/11 would not have happened. I sincerely wish she was correct.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: *snip and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. *snip

If you read the first post you will see this thread is actually about about extremism in Christianity. Which has been somewhat explained, somewhat clarified, somewhat glossed over, and somewhat deflected from to discuss extremism in Islam instead.

edit- not that I mind off-topic discussion, as long as it is respectful of course. There is room here for most everyones opinions and perspectives. We can be straight to the point and respectful. I have seen it happen. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-19-2003, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ok, I'm gonna get a little out of line here and do the dreaded mini-Mod routine. I sincerely ask BOTH of you to let this issue drop with your last posts rather than filling up a page with off-topic arguments of semantics and misinterpretations.

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. [/QUOTE]The obvious answer would be to PM's, but if you feel your point is worthy of a continued discussion in an open forum so others can weigh in with their opinions too, then a separate thread would be the best answer. I'm not asking you or Skunk either one to compromise your beliefs. Just suggesting that this current argument could well become a complete thread on it's own and then it wouldn't be taking this one off-topic. I'm not asking you to keep quiet or not stand up for your beliefs....just saying that a new thread might be in order to continue this particular discussion.

And of course, just butting my nose in where it probably doesn't belong...but you especially know there are times when I don't let a little thing like that stop me.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: *snip and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. *snip

If you read the first post you will see this thread is actually about about extremism in Christianity. Which has been somewhat explained, somewhat clarified, somewhat glossed over, and somewhat deflected from to discuss extremism in Islam instead.

edit- not that I mind off-topic discussion, as long as it is respectful of course. There is room here for most everyones opinions and perspectives. We can be straight to the point and respectful. I have seen it happen. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]This is why I brought up Islam. You keep speaking about extreme Christianity, or extremist Christianity, but totallt ignore the necessity of defining it by using the respective teachings.

A murderer killing in the name of Jesus is an oxymoron. False. Not a Christian extremist, but someone using Jesus name to justify something incorrectly. There is nothing in Jesus life or teachings that would indicate murdering in his name is following Christ IN EXTREME MEASURES.

It would actually NOT be following Christ. Were he present, he would tell the person to lay down their weapon.

I used Islam as a COMPARISON, to highlight that Muhammad would be fighting alongside the Muslim extremist who resorts to violence. Muhammad was a warrior himself.

Extremism is relevent to the beliefs.

A Vegetarian extremist is one that pursues vegetarian eating to the letter, not lax at all. A Pacifist extremist is one that is pacifistic TO THE EXTREME, and so under all circumstances would be nonviolent.

Why can't you see this. The topic offshooted into Islam, because for me to make my point, my example, it seems I needed to prove that what I was speaking about Islam holds - which it does.


EXTREMIST ACTIONS DIFFER DEPENDING ON THE STATED BELIEFS.

Surely this is obvious?

A Monk is a Christian extremist. A nun, also. Mother Theresa is a Christian extremist. Taking Christian beliefs to the extreme application.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ok, I'm gonna get a little out of line here and do the dreaded mini-Mod routine. I sincerely ask BOTH of you to let this issue drop with your last posts rather than filling up a page with off-topic arguments of semantics and misinterpretations.

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. [/QUOTE]The obvious answer would be to PM's, but if you feel your point is worthy of a continued discussion in an open forum so others can weigh in with their opinions too, then a separate thread would be the best answer. I'm not asking you or Skunk either one to compromise your beliefs. Just suggesting that this current argument could well become a complete thread on it's own and then it wouldn't be taking this one off-topic. I'm not asking you to keep quiet or not stand up for your beliefs....just saying that a new thread might be in order to continue this particular discussion.

And of course, just butting my nose in where it probably doesn't belong...but you especially know there are times when I don't let a little thing like that stop me. [/QUOTE]As I stated, for point A to hold, point B was elaborated on. Putting it another thread defeats the purpose of discussing it. It is like working out what the ingredients are before you cook them in a recipe.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorik: I don't agree to disagree. You are incorrect in your accusation that I knew nothing of Islam and that I had made a grievious error about Muhammad.

You know, in Northern Ireland as a young officer, I saw how two Christian factions were so embittered upon 'misinterpretations' that they used passages from the bible (both Old and New Testament) as justification to blow off the arms and legs of women and children.

After apprehending a protestant paramilitary who had shot off the knee caps of a 15 year old 'alleged' car thief - we asked him what on earth gave him the idea that it was the right thing to do. He replied that the bible passage John 2:15 gave him ample justification:
“Making a whip of cords, he [Jesus] drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.”
That animal went to prison - no doubt he reconciled that with various passages in the bible that related to jesus's persectution.

I'm pretty sure that most Christians would disagree with his interpretation of the New Testament. The interpretation of a minority should not be used to paint Christian faith as bad, should it? I think that the same goes for Islam.

You know, both of us hold opinions which can not be substantiated as 'fact'. Islamic (and Christian) scholars have been wrestling with these issues for centuries without resolution. Given that, it seems futile to continue the debate (as interesting as it is) as we are unlikely to agree. You have made your point - I have read it - and can not agree. What more is left than to respect each other's point of view and move on?

By the way - I'm a man not a woman - seems we have both made an error of judgement in our assement of each other.


Well, perhaps there is one last thing to say before moving on. There is something that I owe you (as Cerek gently pointed out):
Yorik, I apologise if my assement of the depth of your study was lacking in accuracy - all the more so if it gave rise to offence (as it seems to have done).

Now can we agree to differ? [img]smile.gif[/img]