₦airaland Forum

ElRazur:
Allahu Akbar.

stop with the mockery. it is in bad taste.

Some of the things I have pointed out, only that these explains it more in details.

Funny how you backed out once these[i] proofS[/i] seem fortcoming. Oh wait, silly me. How can I forget that you wont accept them as proofs.  **slams palm into fore-head** doh! Seems to me like someone can't handle the proofs.  

I guess we can move on from this point.

I explained why I didn't to want to discuss the quotes you posted given that they are not yours.

You posted an argument from someone else, who aims his argument at Islamic apologists, and narrates both sides of the divide, speaking on behalf of both the muslim and himself. He claims, for example, that there are more verses inciting violence in the quran than those speaking of peace, but does not provide the number of occurrence of either or both, or examples of said verses.

Anyone can make allegations, but it is of no merit if there is no evidence in support of it (unless you feel you can provide said evidence).

ElRazur:
Biina. Here is your approach so far.

Ad homen.

Ad hominem is to attack the man and not the argument. You made a declarative statement (not an argument) and I questioned your authority to make such i.e. provide the argument. How is that an ad hominem attack. You never made an argument, that I attacked you for, simply that you backup your declarative statement.

Dismiss every proof provided and then lay claim that nothing have been proved.

what proof have you provided?
Quoting an hadith that the contents contradicts your assertions, or quoting half verses from the quran to misrepresent the facts.
If violence is the bedrock of Islam as you claim, there should be ample evidence in the quran for you to inundate me with.
Simply provide the authority for your statement

Move Goal post, and in some case make the goal post disappear. 

Then when turn around and accuse me of shifting goal post. Or trying to evade not answering or countering your argument.

The movement of goal post is a figment of your imagination, and the closest practical occurence was you trying to turn the debate into something about the general character of muhammed.

With all your shifting of goal post claims, you are yet to state what the new goal post is and how it differed from the old.

I repeat again, substantiate your declarative statement. Shikena. If that is not the goal post, please tell me what is.

Now it I realise that not matter how much verses I throw at you, you would come up with some excuse as to why the glove do not fit. So in the light of recent event, is it worth carrying on debating with you? In some ways yes, it give an insight into how your logic is and your method. In most ways it is not worth the time and day.

provide the verses please, that is all I have requested and I believe it fair enough, as opposed to the half cut verses you tried to use to misrepresent the facts.

Every post or proof that puts you in a corner, you manoeuvre to bring in the Christians into it. Even though I have mentioned numerous time my focus is on Islam from onset.

Me maneuvering in a corner, coming from a guy who is try to excuse himself from his error.

The only time I have brought Christianity into the discussion on your claim of violence, is when you try to use certain issues as conclusive evidence unfairly, and to simply put a fair view on things. Or would you prefer that since you are focused on Islam, fairness should be thrown out of the window.

Does violence forms the bedrock of islam? Yeah. I have no doubt about this. Would you accept my point? Erm seeing that you can even make attempts to defend someone who had sex with a minor it is obvious what the writings are on the wall.

Again with the unsubstantiated claim which was the issue of content. You are yet to provide any evidence to support your viewi being anything but that of bias against Islam.

You tried baiting me with the extraneous issue of his marriage and subsequent sex with a minor, and only told you why it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want my opinion on the specific issue, feel free to open a thread on it, but do not tally against me the fact that I didn't take your bait and thus derail from the original issue.

After reading your post, it is suffice to say you play what is called "The Muslim game". What game I hear you say? Well it is explained as "Given Islam's violent history and the unfavourable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age.  Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith."

You have made false claims as per crusades etc This quote makes an interesting read.

Here is another game you have played "Muhammed never killed anyone".

All lies innit bro? Awesome.

What have I done than to ask you to substantiate your claims. I am not defending Islam as the religion of choice, but simply have issues with people stating their baseless and biased opinion like the gospel truth.

I never said muhammed didn't kill anyone (the guy was known to have fought wars), nor did I say the crusade occurred before the Jihad. I said there is enough violence and war perpetrated by christian, that you can then not use the jihad against the muslims if you refuse to amply same to Christianity.

All you have done is crawl the web looking for the opinion of others to bail you out from the quagmire you find yourself. It would be pointless debating the opinion of another with you as you seem to lack the credentials to do it justice.

We can go on and on. But it sucks going round in circles you see. Muhammed was violent. Islam is violent. My view and I am sticking to it.

I wasn't trying to change your view of muhammed and/or Islam, but only to put your declarative statement in proper context by people knowing the background (or lack of) of such a statement.

The fact that you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claims, has shown that your statements are those of one who is ignorant of the issue at hand and thus should be duly ignored.

For the record, I am an atheist.

For the record, I am a christian, and pray you find Christ soon

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=285847.msg4076567#msg4076567 date=1245777467]Same people will come here to whine anytime they get similar treatment from the force. No mind them o jare.[/quote]Anyone that gets whipped for obstructing law enforcement got what they deserved. Its far from everyone that ever get whipped by the police deserve it.

@lastpage
Developed countries have moved on from the cheap horsewhips to the more expensive, and effective 120,000 volts tasers. I can categorically tell you that the pain from a horsewhip is no where comparable to the nervous trauma of being shocked by ample current at 120,000 volts.

Agains you make reference to using horsdewhips on traders who didn't do environmental sanitation, and that is NOT the case.
(from the article) The horsewhips were used on people who tried to stop the policemen from closing the market.

I am quite fine with policemen using horsewhips on people who essentially break the law by trying to stop the police from enforcing the law.

BTW: I find interesting your partial emphasis of my earlier quote, excluding the part where I said 'you deem fit'. You brought up your knowledge of gutter language, and I simply said its use was at your discretion.

Me I dont like monopolies. There should be two providers for every region. One for the key matches, and another for the [i]dugbe [/i]ones.
Competition keeps everyone on their toes. The concept of good, better or worse, are only valid when you have something to compare to.

mikeansy:
the drama has changed gear

diplomats are now being expelled

thanks for bringing back the real issue jare

ElRazur:
So you indirectly agree that the God of Islam, the one that Muhammed subscribe to and bow down to incites violence in one form or the other . . . but his so called last servant cannot be held accountable?

How has the muslim God incited violence. A God saying what he will do to those who disobeys him, is far from saying that his followers should carry out violence.
Are similar statements not in the bible? and I am sure you will not say that Jehovah incited violence. Wasn't it said that sinners would be cast into a lake of burning sulphur, should that then be termed as inciting violence?

Provide a Koranic verse in which muslims were instructed to act violently and then we would have something to debate ( please dont come with verses that say self defense is permitted)

As for the hadith, it is funny how muslims scholars holds on to them, yet you are quick to dimiss them. Hahah. Nice. Is it a coincidence that any thing that shows up Islam for what it is, is quickly dismissed as unsubstantiated?
If you think you are fooling anyone, or make a convincing case. Think again.

The debate is to the bedrock of Islam. There are many muslim sects that do not recognize the hadith, and even within those that do, there are debates over its authenticity and interpretation. That which is not universally acceptable or common to all groups, cannot be termed as the bedrock of the religion

Hadith is a collection used as a supplement to interpret the Quran, and various parts or volumes in the hadith are disputed by various muslim groups. The Quran is the only authoritative reference for Islam that all muslims subscribe to, and thus evidence of its bedrock would have to come from there.

Yet the hadith you quoted, does not support your argument, and you are yet to provide a new quote.

Even if it is embroiled in controversies, it do not mean that Muhammed is a saint like those from your school of thought would want us believe. Not to digress, a man who sleeps with a child is not someone I would subscribe to.

Did I ever say Muhammed was my idea of a model citizen?
I am not debating the virtues or vices of muhammed with you, but simply a query of your earlier declaration that violence is the bedrock of Islam.
The fact that Muhammed married what we view as an underage girl today is a different issue and I dont see the relevance of it to your earlier post, unless you have evidence that he raped her.
He slept with his wife, not raped a minor. Should he have married her at that age? thats a debate into the sexual values, customs and practices and irrelevant to the issue of violence.
You trying to bring the sexual history of muhammed into a debate about violence and Islam is what is called shifting goal posts. 

Strangely enough Islam have been the most violent religion than any other.  The last ten years or so with events all around the world detailing Violence and atrocities associated with Islam, or carried out in the name of Islam would support this. I guess viewing it with your rose tinted glasses, it must be all lies and those doing so in the name of Islam are really not Muslims right?

Trying to explain things over and over to you is like trying to describe the colour of the rainbow to a man blind from birth. He just won't see it. Period.

The history of Islam is no worse than the history of Christianity, as I cant remember Muslims killing people for saying the world was flat.
The war fought under the guise of propagating Islam are no worse than the crusade under the guise of propagating christianity.
Even in recent times, one of the worst genocides was the serbs killing muslims (and not the other way round).
There will always be conflicts, and most times they are politically motivated and not religious. They are simply carried out under the guise of religion.

PS
No one would have pointed out your goal-shifting tactics if you never did. It is right there for all to see.

The goal post has only shifted by your imagination.
I have repeatedly strictly ask you to substantiate on which authority you made your declaration that 'violence is the bedrock of islam'. You are yet to do so, but have only tried to employ disingenuous means to avoid the issue.

mikeansy:
25 Billion capitalization was not for the sake of it, its some kind of insurance measure. Any bank that goes bust will be doing so the the bank's own risk. However panic is capable of creating a crisis of its own.

Capitalization only gives you more funds to play with, and is more of a buffer than an insurance policy. It even becomes less of a buffer when you start to play with bigger marbles. If your are cooking your books means you are very likely not doing well and are trying to hide it. Increased capitalization will not change that.

ElRazur:
Last night it was getting tiresome arguing with you. It appears you are an expert on moving the goal post. Thank heaven their is an english quran availabe within my reach.

Here is how you have been moving the post. You wanted something to back up my statement right? I provided one. Only that you asked for something else. No surprise there at all. You said I quoted an Hadith. Please explain to me as to why it isnt good enough for you? Below is a definition of Hadith:

"Hadith are oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith collections are regarded by all traditional schools of jurisprudence as important tools for determining the Muslim way of life"

It also goes further to say "In Islamic terminology, the term hadith refers to reports about the statements or actions of Muhammad, or about his tacit approval of something said or done in his presence"


Or in your ever-moving goal post logic, do you disagree with the explanation above? If Islamic scholars can agree to above I think I would side with them for one minute on this one. So, tell me. How can you now turn around and tell me that my original "hadith" I quoted is not proof enough to support my statement? I am starting to think you have little or no clue of what you are talking about. Or at least, starting to lose the plot.

Someone moviong goal posts is your perenniala excuse for failing to respond.
This is what you quoted "“Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.  Do not be deceitful with the spoils; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate nor kill children" and I said it did not support your assertion that muhammed killed children.
You later asserted that you had quoted a quran verse that supported your argument, and I disputed that.
As to the relevance of hadiths to support islam, you should read up on said hadiths, their origins and the controversy associated with it, including the questions of accuracy and political motivation. Muhammed himself did not approve of the hadiths and most controversial issues about islam are usually based on the hadith.

You then move the Goal post again by asking me for Quranic verses! Oh cool I got some for you alright - Here: "Quran 3v56 - "As to those who reject faith, [b]I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."[/b] See Binna the Quran do not teach violence.

You quote a verse out of context and try to use to justify your position
Q3:54-56
(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.  As for those who disbelieve[b] I[/b] shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers. And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.

It was supposed to be God talking about what he will do, and not a command to muslims to act in a way as you portray.

Ever wonder why muslims like chopping head off? I have a feeling it is from here "Quran 8v12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"  How very nice.

Yet agains it was supposed to be God talking to the angels.(its Q8:11 not 12)
Q8:11
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Oh if you ever wonder why Islam do not mix or not tolerant of other religion and some race, here is a potential reasons: "
Quran 9v30 - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Allahu flipping akbar.

so they believe that those that are not muslims will be destroyed by God. How has that become intolerance. Do not christian believe that non christians will be destroyed at the second coming of Christ?

Binna. I wonder how you would move the goal post this time around. I believe we have all your moves blocked. But then you can always try. And trust me, I would be waiting. To claim islam do not support, incite and uses violence is just plain silly.


It appears you keep missing and mixing up word usage when it comes to my statement of "Violence forms the bed rock of Islam" like I told you before, I am talking about the whole concept of Islam, you cant just neat pick your way to where you feel there wasnt violence. You need to see the over all picture am afraid. Muhammed was the founder of Islam and as such his actions on what he did, what he preached, how he spread islam etc would have been/is and forms part and parcel of  the basis of Islam and Islam as we know it today

The basis of Islam I am talking about, is the not same as the five pillars of Islam, mind you.  You can not look at a bunch of principles [pillars] and not look at the history surrounding what brings Islam to that point upon and beyond in/on which the principles are founded. Surely this is not rocket science.


If at this point you still keep coming back that I haven't backed up my claim then you really do not know what your are talking about and you have lost the plot. In a nut shell, I have made a statement backed up by Hadith and quranic verses. It would be interesting to see your next move, but am guessing already it would be another goal post moving. How awesome.

PS
It is a common misconception that he fought war to protect his people. Nope he fought war to kill, intimidate, cause fear and spread his agenda. [Reference back to the war events I posted already]
Do you even have an english quran?  Or may be you can read and understand arabic, and not just relying on what some mullah was telling you.

Muhammed's action when he is alive help forms and shape islam as to what it is today, you cannot seperate his life as a political leader from a religion creator. It is like talking about the life and times of Obasanjo and then you ignoring that he was a military leader once. Where is the logic? You are good.

Unfortunately you are yet to substantiate your claims. The fact that you simply quoted short verses out of context show that you are not objective in your approach but simply looking for evidence to support your preconceived notion.

Muhammed was a man and a leaders of his people. He was the head of a state and acted accordingly to preserve his people.
In the early days, the Muslims were persecuted and were driven from their homeland to medina.
He had allies that were not muslims, so where do you have your evidence that 'he fought war to kill, intimidate, cause fear and spread his agenda.'
Read the various accounts of his life before jumping to conclusions.
Muhammed's actions should be judged in the context of his position, as I doubt you criticize a christian that joined the army as being violent, because the bible said thou shall not kill.
As to your analogy, the fair one would be to analyze obasanjo not as a christian, nor as a leader, but as a single man, and use that to evaluate what a christian should be.

I am not interested in convincing you about Islam or the life of muhammed but simply wanting you to refrain from making declarative statements (based on your biased preconception) about a religion that its obvious you know nothing about.

Feel free to accuse me of shifting the goal post again.

dayokanu:
Jurgen Klinsman went to Bayern in 1995 the same year he was second in ballon D'or and third in FIFA player of the year.

The popularity of a club amongst non soccer playing nation is analogous to a black rapper from America who is unknown in Brooklyn, Queens, Compton and Bronx but hailed and has a large fan base in Warsaw, Vladivostoc, Pyongyang and Leningrad

and so in which relevant countries are Bayern more popular than ManU?

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4072649#msg4072649 date=1245721279]@biina,
Whatever your opinion or theirs is don't really matter to me. I just take an exception to your trying to compare Christianity to Islam. Christianity as practiced by the founder/founders does not believe that the end justifies the means.  Islam on the other hand, as practiced by the founder/Disciples believe that killing others to propagate the faith can be justified.

So please as far as violence is concerned, you can never and should never attempt to paint both faiths with a single brush![/quote]Muhammed did not kill to propagate Islam but to preserve his followers. The war based expansion were done after his death. Muhammed scope was limited to mecca and medina.
The battles fought were not on the basis of religion but for survival of the state. Islam as far as I know does not preach violence, and I do not see the action of muhammed as Islam preaching violence.

Christianity has also had its share of violence as evidence in the OT (unless those were not men of God, but then you will hide in the cracks of the NT) but more evidently later on like during the crusade.

If you are bothered about my comparison, I can simply making the same statement in isolation. That would not change the conclusion. The analogy was so that peoiple see what it looks like from the other side.

If you don't like my judgment of Christianity, then please refrain from judging Islam or defending anyone that does so.

I judge an individulas actions, not him or his religion.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4072636#msg4072636 date=1245721035]@biina,
I am beginning to suspect you don't even understand what you are arguing about.

Both parties are motivated by faith. Faith in a creator, okay. In the case of Mohammed, allah is a passive participant in his actions. It was not allah that came down with swords killing people, it was Mohammed. That makes allah a passive participant and Mo the active participant.

For Peter, the Angel (God's Agent), made the guards to fall asleep, burst open the prison gate and led Peter away even though Peter was not in full control of his senses at the time. Now the Angel (God) is the active participant while Peter is the passive one. Do you see the difference now.

This is the principal difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity like Islam believes God will judge people in the natural. However, Christianity believes people must be passive in the judgment and let God mete it out. Islam believes allah should be passive and they are the onew to wield the sword. Please stop trying to make the two look the same. Itdoes not pass the intellectual/logic test.[/quote]I have not said that Islam is same as christianity.
I dont see why you feel that things have to be the same to follow the same logic. A is to B, as 1 is to 2, does that mean that alphabets and numbers are the same?

According to Elrzur (to which you seem to agree) Muhammed fought wars (why or how he fought the wars is irrelevant to the analogy as the focus is on the act of fighting war) and so war(or violence) is the bedrock of Islam.
Following same logic, Peter escaped from prison (why or how he escaped from prison is irrelevant, same as we did not debate it with Muhammed) and so escaping from prison (or crime) is the bedrock of Christianity.

The only reason the analogy would be invalid is if Peter did not escape from prison and only the angel did (though the angel was never imprisoned). Afterall when he regained his senses, he did not return to the prison but carried on as a free man. Now if you want we can go into the debate of if Muhammed was doing the wish of God and if an angel truly broke peter out of jail, which is where your splitting here will land us.

I do not believe in the quran, else I would be a muslim, but as a christian I dislike people make judgmental remarks on another religion, particularly if they have ittle knowledge of it. Elrzur has shown no evidence that he knows anything about the bedrock of Islam and thus his earlier statement, like tudor's, can be deemed as being simply mean spirited.

ESPN, the sports television channel controlled by Walt Disney, last night broke into the lucrative market to show live English Premier League football.

In a move that will pitch it against Rupert Murdoch's British Sky Broadcasting, ESPN was awarded the rights to show football matches previously held by Setanta, the Irish pay-TV broadcaster on the brink of administration.

ESPN has gained the rights to broadcast 46 live games in the coming season, and 23 matches in each of the three years to 2012-13.

Full story http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/656e1c98-5f8d-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html

@papabrowne
I disagree with your position of cooked up figures vs low public confidence. Low public confidence would only be temporary as accurate books would lead to improved public confidence. Cooked up figures on the other hand is a recipe for disaster as it would come to hurt the depositors sooner or later, and would result in low public confidence.

While I agree with mikeansy that the CBN needs to be careful in making statements that could panic depositors, one does not need the audit to know that the sector has cooked up books (even you just made the same claim). Like he sanusi described, if the total loss in the sector is NGN1 billion, you would expect the sum of the losses of the banks to equate to it, else someone is cooking their books. He didnt point to a specific bank(s) as that is the real purpose of the audit.

As to the crude agenda on foreign investment, I partially agree with him, in that the current laws are inconsistent, but I would rather they move to disclosure on the shareholder side, than to throw open the entire capital sources. I think the resident banks of the oil companies like HSBC are more eager to move into the sector than any arab is to invest in a Nigerian bank.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4072383#msg4072383 date=1245713563]@biina,
No you can't and I'll explain. Mohammed of his own will and accord waged wars and killed people. Peter on the other hand, was not even aware of what was happening. He was not in full control of his senses when the Angel took him out of jail.

In Mohammed's case, allah was the passive participant while Mohammed was the active participant. In Peter's case, the Angel (God) was the active participant while Peter was passive. Your logic don't hold water.
The logic is faulty. No wonder the conclusion is.[/quote]but muhammed's actions were said to have been instructed by God, same as the actions of peter were said to have been guided by an angel. Either account can be disputed, but then that is a different issue. Muhammed fought wars, peter escaped from prison, the analogy is simple and valid.

I have an issue with Tudor's post and Mikeansy's defence of it. Do not dish out what you would not accept.

I have an issue with Elrzur claims of violence being the bedrock of Islam.  I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

You are free to agree with Tudor and/or Elrzur, or take a different position entirely. Each to his own.

ElRazur:
You can ignore it if you want, I wasn't the one moving the goal post.

All of it. The birth, the concept, the whole quran is what I am talking about.

It is right here in this thread.

I think you should read my post again and make your own conclusion. My points have been clear enough for some to see.

It is tiring. No offence, but am watching Panorama on BBC Iplayer.


Post by Biina
Reply to Binna's post.
I rest my case.  It is good to see how very simple points are misconstrued, even after several explanations was made. Instead we see more and more moving of goal post. I really do not know how people keep it up. My job here is done.


@Binna only you would claim I am yet to back up my claim. Please give me a break. What about the text from the quran? What about the war I mentioned? Look my case here is done.

which text from the quran. You quoted an hadith. There is a difference.
The birth of islam was violent? you have no idea what you are talking about. The first armed conflicts diud not occur until muhammed was in medina, being driven from mecca by the resident tribes, who had issues with his teachings on slavery.
Your claim was not that muhammed fought a war, but that violence is the bedrock of Islam.
Muhammed actions as a political leader in medina are now the bedrock of a religion that existed before he became a political leader in medina?
The fact that muhammed fought wars for the safety of his people, does not mean that violence is the bedrock of Islam as you claim.
Read the up on Islam and the life and actions of muhammed before making statements that you cannot back up.
You have not substantiated your claims, and have only given excuses to why you shouldn't.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4072239#msg4072239 date=1245711398]@biina,
Again, you continue your attempt to force-fit two irreconcilable differences. I have said to understand Islam, look at the founder and to understand Christianity, look at the founder. Your failed attempt to divert attention from the obvious differences is showing in your desperate analogies.  Mohammad, along with his closest Disciples were violent people. Jesus, along with His Disciples were not.[/quote]There is no desperate analogy. I repeat that the issue was not if Islam was same as Christianity, nor did I say Muhammed was same as Jesus. Simply that the logic applied to Islam would be deemed unacceptable applied to christianity.
But then to be naughty, Jesus did exhibit violence once (though it didnt cost life) when he beat the traders out of the temple.

In other words, Peter was not violent. He was never involved in an armed resistance or struglle, just as his peers and his Master Jesus.  Same cannot be said of Mohammed and his Disciples.  Looks like the truth is beginning to sink in.

at what point did I say muhammed was not violent or did not fight wars?

Gbam! So why take up issues with ElRzur when you have virtually confirmed what he said. Mohammed was a violent person and every violent muslim, including AlQuaeda network could claim they are only emulating Muhammed's violence.  Finally, you've seen the light.

Elrzur made an unqualified declarative statement. I challenged his authority to make such and he is yet to substantiate it.

Just for the sake of aargument, I'll agree with you that it was criminal. 419 is a criminal offence, but is it violent? No. Peter was not violent, neither was Paul, Barnabbas, Timothy and their Master - Jesus. End of story!

Since you agree with Elrzur conclusions based on the acts of muhammed, can I then following similar logic say that since peter committed a criminal act (specifically escaping out of jail), I can say that crime (more specifically escaping from prison) is a bedrock of christianity?

Its about the logic not the conclusion

ElRazur:

My point is this and I am still making it. Islam and violence goes hand in hand. Violence was used in spreading islam during it early days. Hence Violence forms the basis of what makes Islam what it is today. Also Quran and mohammed advocates violence [ go get an english quran and read the text I quoted you] And nope. I am not talking about the five pillars. If after this you do not understand. Then sorry man, you wont understand anything I say any more.

So I take it this is your point and we can ignore all earlier references?

If the above is true, I would like to have some clarifications

1. When you say during its early days, do you refer to during the life of Muhammed or after?
2. Please repost the quranic verses you refer to (and not the hadith)
3. That you are asserting that if violence is used to spread a religion, then said violence forms the basis of that religion?

Again please note, that your concluding statement makes no reference to it being in your humble opinion, and thus can be interpreted as stating something as a fact, as there is no provision to accommodate the alternative.

Krayola:
Is Messi a frog?

YES!!! a Cule Frog

Fhemmmy:
Nice piece of rap.
I will like to see him act, all Nigros could talk.
Besides, how come no one ask him anything about the forex?

I think it was addressed in the full version.

ElRazur:
Let me get this straight, you question my authority over a post I made based on what I read and what I have observed?  Ideally, you would only question someone's authority if they are presenting a statement as fact.
Knowing how sensitive debate about religion can be at time, I presented my view and later supported with text from the quran/writing from the quran. What more do you want?

you made an unqualified declarative statement (see below), i.e. stating it as fact, and I questioned your authority to do so

ElRazur:
Besides, violence forms the bedrock of Islam founding values. Period.

The life of Muhammed forms the basis of what Islam is today, the text in the quran forms the basis of what Islam is. To focus on the five pillar of Islam is a bit short-sighted and missing the point. Besides, the basis of Islam and 5 pillars are two different things from where I stand. If the life and time of Muhammed/the text in the quran do not form the basis of Islam as we know it today, then I do not know what it is.

The pillars are what supports a structure, hence without the pillars the structure would collapse.
If Islam is based on the life of muhammed, how did it exist when Muhammed himself was alive. Muhammed was the first muslim, how then was his new religion based on his life?
SO please explain how are the pillars of Islam not the bedrock, but rather the life of muhammed is your chosen foundation.
Can you be a muslim without believing and practicing the five pillars of Islam? No
Can you be a muslim without knowing about the entire life of Muhammed? Yes.

Strangely enough, the thread title have little or nothing to do with Islam and conduct of Islam, or Islam and violence. I guess you are trying to restrict what people can say, or cannot say since you are running out of steam now right? First you "attacked the man" and now you seem to be telling me what I should or should not post in a thread.
May be you should stick to your own logic and realise that my post all along have been specifically about Islam, but hey! keep moving the goal post.

The thread is not the same as the thread title. There was an ongoing exchange in which you joined by making a declarative statement, that is yet to be substantiated. Attacking the man is to discredit an argument by discrediting the person, it is different from questioning the authority of someone to make a declarative statement. You didnot present an argument, you made a statement.

[b]My focus is on Islam. My point was on Islam. All I have said so far surrounds Islam. [/b]That is my point, that is my focus and that is what I am still talking about.

You have accepted my point [refer back to your reply]. What exactly is your problem?

If I have compared Islam with Christianity, then your point would stand. But I haven't, I posted on Islam alone. This is something that appears you just do not get.

so where/when did I accept that violence is the bedrock of Islam?

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4071565#msg4071565 date=1245701280]@biina,
Even the logic you applied isn't anyway comparable. Personally, I do not pray for God to kill anybody, but I do believe that God can do just that as He wills. And while I am not excusing the ignorant prayers of those Christians, never have I sen any church go ona mad rampage after their services destroying properties and killing people like we see in Islam. Maybe they believe that God will do it at His will while the Moslems believe they are God's agents to kill people. these are two diferent schools of thought.[/quote]what is wrong with the logic? People of a particluar faith made a comment and it was generalized to the religion. Same was also applied in the second case. where is the disparity. Some muslims speak on behalf of Islam, while some christians cant be said to speak on behalf of christianity?

Don't give yourself the liberty to add to what I have said. I never advocated for violence or breaking out of jail. Let's be honest in this discussion.
Peter never brke out of jail And if you care to read and understand, he actually felt he was dreaming throught the whole episode. Whwere was the violence.

So was peter released by the legal system? He walked out of jail of his own will and was not released. I never said he broke out by force, but he did break out of prison. If you prefer the phrase that he escaped from prison, then suit yourself.

You have not applied same logic here at all. I did not extrapolate violence into Mohammed's life. He practiced it. You are the one extrapolating here which is an evidence that you have lost the battle of logic.

Where is the extrapolation. Muhammed fought wars and could be termed as acts of violence. Peter broke out of jail, and could be termed a criminal act.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4071351#msg4071351 date=1245698478]I never said that. Someone was here talking about Islam, and you took the liberty to draw comparisons btwn Christianity and Islam. I have only limited myself to the issue of Islam and Christianity which sems to be the center of your argument.[/quote]I didnt say Christianity and Islam had the same values. Please read the thread.
Someone concluded from the statements of Khameni, that Islam was a blood thirsty and savage religion.
I made an analogy that since some christians pray for the death of their enemies that it makes christianity a blood thirsty and savage religion.
It was about applying the same logic to the two religions but some in trying to justify the earlier assertion were trying to find evidence of support of violence by Islam, and I only retorted in kind with evidence of God approved violence in the bible.

If God breaks open the jail, I'll walk out. Doesmy walking out of an open jail advocate violence? At this point, it is better to admit you were wrong rather than trying to look for issues that have no bearing to the discussion.

Your walking out of incaceration against the will of the judiciary of the nation, advocates breaking out of prison if the opportunity arises.

If you feel you can use the violent actions of muhammed to conclude that Islam supports violence, I can, by same logic, conclude that since Peter broke out of jail, Christianity supports jail breaks.

It is all relevant to the issue at hand, which is simply to use equal measure. Don't criticize Islam based on the logic that you would not want applied to christianity. People shouldnt dish out what they cannot accept.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4071127#msg4071127 date=1245695374]@biina,
There is nothing unfair about the comparisons. To know the intent of the religion, look at its founder. Jesus and Mohammed therefore become the subject.[/quote]Jesus did not found christianity. It was used to describe early believers after his death. Your equivalence would be the apostles.

Jesus may have been God on the inside, but He never lived like God on earth but like a human being. And besides, He assumed the office of a Prophet. The Bible calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.  He is our role model not the other people you mentioned. Mohammed on the other hand is the role model for moslems. Infact, in the confession fo their faith, Allah and Mohammed are used in the same sentence. So what is your point?
If you can claim that one of these people is a Christian, then you win the argument. Over to you!
What you failed to realise is that Jesus rebuked him for the action which he never repeated when he became a Christian. This same Peter was crucified upside down and burnt at the stake. Who amongst Mohammed's followers did he rebuke for attacking another person? Didn't he promise that whoever kills an unbliever will never share hell with the unbeliever he kills?[


Everyone is prone to violence. The question is does the religion promote violence or not. The answer can be found by looking at the founders' examples. That's very fair, innit?

So those actions referenced were not the actions of people of God or the words of moses were not the word of God?
If it makes you happy, the apostles broke out of jail, so Christianity supports prison break?

ElRazur:
Dude it sucks when people keep missing the point. I was making a point and a point solely on Islam. A point which you denied, then came back to acknowledge as a correct one later. I never raised any point about Christianity. In case you are missing the point, I am repeating it again. My point is focused on Islam and that is precisely what am doing.

the diuscussion is about using equal measure for both religions. One sided statements will be interpreted in context.

Seeing that you are more or less trying to "attack the man" instead of the message at hand, it speaks a lot about you isn't?

At what point have I attacked the person. I only ask that you clarify your authority on the issue, so that I can decided on the appopriate response.

Islam do not promote violence, yet the Battle of Badr as recorded in the quran looks nothing more than violence to me.  Quran never preached violence yet Muhammed gave a mandate of "Kill any jews that falls into your power" Now as I understand it, the  Quran is the ultimate book of how muslims should live their life etc.  Yeah you are so right, it never preached violence.

This is why I asked for your knowledge of the issue you are discussing. There is a difference between the hadith and the Quran. The hadith is the word of Muhammed, while the Quran is believed to be the word of God. The reference to killing jews was in the hadith (unless you have a Quarnic verse).

The battle of Badr was politically motivated (like the taking of Canaan) and I dont see how its account means Islam preaches violence. It was not the first conflict between the two groups. The muslims took the defensive position and were outnumbered. So I dont see what you are driving at.

If you feel the narration of a battle preaches violence, then the bible also preaches violence.

In Ibn Ishaq 992, he killed children. Yet this in your eyes is not violence? In fact, here is what muhammed says "“Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.  Do not be deceitful with the spoils; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate nor kill children"  Yeah what a peaceful loving son of a woman he is. Allahu akbar.

you shouldn't copy and paste without due diligence. The bolded does not support your conclusions.

Dude I can go on and on. But Next time, let us stick to the point at hand. Islam promotes violence and damn well preaches it. That is my point and you have already accepted that. What is your problem?

Then sticking to the topic, you wouldnt mind my saying that christianity promotes violence.

mikeansy:
I do not put the sins of any individual on any religion, I just condemn a religion's refusal to condemn violence within its midst

If you do not put the sins of any individual on any religion, then do not defend those that do so. Else you are being hypocritical, and can be termed an accomplice after the act.

ElRazur:
Binna. You are weird. Let me keep it simple.

1. I read the thread.

2. I made a point based on something I know and see - I am talking entirely about Islam.

3.YOu disputed, but later accepted.

You made a declaration, I questioned your authority on the issue. How is that a dispute of the statement made. Yet you have not proven thatyour statement that violence is a bed rock of Islam  i.e. foundations on which Islam was built. The bedrock of Islam are the 5 pillars of Islam. Please state which ones support your claims.

You posted in a thread and your post should be interpreted in the context of the thread. Don't try to cop out and want your post processed in isolation.

If by muhammed fighting wars, that you conclude that violence is the bedrock of Islam, then I can conclude that by Abraham, Moses and co fighting and/or killing others, that same violence is a bedrock of Christianity.

Equal measure should be applied to both religions.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=286267.msg4070482#msg4070482 date=1245688236]Frankly, I think it is very disingenous of people to make this kind of comparison between Christianity and Islam. As you rightly pointed out previously, perhaps it is some of the followers that are not practicing each of the faith the way it was meant to be practiced. So in order to know what each faith stands for and how it handles opposition, we need to look at the founder and the early disciples of each.

I'm sure no one can accuse Jesus or any of His early disciples of promoting or practicing violence in any way, shape or form.  They were infact on the receiving end of violence but never struck back.  That is the model of Christianity.  Every thing else is an aberration.


Qustion is can same be said of Mohammed and his early Disciples? Absolutely not. Mohammed killed for the cause of his religion and his early disciples killed each other to succeed him. The Shia and Sunni sects of Islam are products of the armed conflict that arose immediately after Mohammed's death.

We know of Peter and Paul having conflicts and are aware of the conflict betwen Paul and Barnabbas. Did any of this lead to the shedding of blood? No.  But you can't say the same for the early Disciples of Islam. What more proof do you need that both faiths approach violence differently?[/quote]Disingenious is you making unfair comparisms.

Jesus was God on earth. Mohammed never claimed to be God, only a prophet, and thus cannot be subjected to the same standard. For a fair comparism, pick another prophet of God like Elijah or Elisha, or does christianity not recognizer those as prophets of God?

Elisha killed children and Elijah killed the prophets of baal. Joshua and other judges led the Isrealites on several offensive military campaigns. Deborah drove a peg into a man's head. Are these people not recognized to have acted out the wishes of God by christians. Did Abraham not fight wars or is he not called the father of faith?

and before you give the OT vs NT excuse, I guess when peter took off the ear of the soldier trying to arrest jesus, no blood was spilled?   (Have you ever wondered what he might have swung at that resulted in the loss of ear. I would wager he swung at the soldiers head and the guy ducked but not quickly enough).

Propensity to violence is a character trait not a religious ideal.

ElRazur:
Dude it crack me up every time you use this simley -->   I always have this image of you in my head with a bendy neck.

Look you are admitting Islam was spread by war. In fact it was spread via war, fear, intimidation etc All of these fall under the umbrella of violence. That is my point and what I am talking about.

I never made mention of Christianity, thanks for moving the goal post though. Oh wait allow me to bend my neck like I imagine you do yours ---> lmao.

This is what happens when you jump into a discussion midway without reading up on the history.

Tudor made a sweeping statement about Islam based on the utterance of Khameni, I applied a similar logic to Christianity and mikeansy came to his defense. The point had always been why apply a measure to Islam that you wouldn't want applied to Christianity.

As to spreading Islam through violence, what do you think the crusade by richard was? a peaceful sermon?
Constantine marched on Rome in the name of God, while pursuing his personal ambitions.

People have always acted out their selfish interests under the name of God. Even Hitler claimed to be inspired by God.

Religion is the opium of the masses and selfish people don't refrain from abusing it.

ElRazur:
Do I have to be an authority to give my opinions based on what I have read and seen over the years?

Quran condemns the jews and homosexuals. I suppose this I made up as well?

I am not trying to get in to a lengthy debate here, but to claim Islam do not condone violence is just lies.

and the bible too condemned judaism and homosexuality. So what is your point?

You are free to give your opinion on issues, but knowing your level of knowledge of the matter lets one know either to take your opinions serios or treat as comments from someone who is ignorant of the issue being discussed. If you do not know anything concrete about Islam, then your opinion should simply be ignored.

There is no lengthy debate to be had.
Does Islam preach violence? No. Can I find verses in the Quran to support violent acts? Yes.
Same applies to Christianity.

ElRazur:
If anyone here can give me conclusive evidence that Islam wasnt spread via war etc then I would listen. Anyone?

Was Islam ever spread by war? Yes, but then so was Christianity.
Were all muslims converted by force? No, but then same applies to christians.

So the point of your question was?

ElRazur:
Mikeansy,

I was driving about 3months ago listening to a radio program - lbc 97.3 to be specific. One of the Muslim scholar here in the UK was interviewed and when asked to condemn violence, he refused point blank.  If a respect scholars [respected among the muslim scholars here] can come out and refuse to condemn the use of violence by Muslims, then it is clear to deduce that they do encourage violence in one way or the other.

Besides, violence forms the bedrock of Islam founding values. Period.

and what do you know about the bedrock of Islam, about its history or the religion in general, that makes you an authority?