Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

From that prism, I wouldn't understand my argument, either. :wink:

Aggressor: a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

Hostile: opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism; characterized by antagonism.

Actions have consequences.


Agree. And i guessing we would also agree it would go both ways? His preaching was vocal, but certainly not 'in your face'.




Historically misleading. Europe went through some pretty dark times during the Islamic invasions, which retarded growth in every measurable form. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own to). That is when European sciences began to flower. By then, Islamic scientific and social advancement had stagnated.

Overall, actually isn't much to debate here per say....... Yes and no.
Yeah it would be dishonest to say that conflicts didn't cause retardation, though i highly doubt that was the sole reason for the Dark ages, and blame can't solely be put on the east. Alot of knowledge from islamic empires WAS used positivly by europe, during this flowering they certainly were influenced by texts from islamic nations, discoveries etc made well after building upon foundations from the byzantine,persians. And,I was too general in the last discussion we had, i should not have said that the concept of universities was inspired by madrassas, rather it had a profound influence on universities instead, but not created by them. Overstatement. They borrowed structurally many concepts seen in the arab maddrassas, how they run the schools and the like.
And i think your underestimating the muslim influence by saying the knowledge that europe took back was simply knowledge looted from conquest. Lots of discoveries occured well after conquest. Of course, alot of science is based of teh previous work of others. I think it's only practical to borrow whats useful from one cultural discipline and use it in another, or another scientist, or as a docter, im sure if you saw some useful new technique/research created by a japanese docter that you find great for yoru discipline, im sure you would use it. The islamic empires certainly didn't forbid scientific discovery or incresing knowledge.
Im sure, for the most part most theologians had no problems with scientific advancement in europe. I know thomas aquines was greatly influenced by both Aristotle and Al-ghazzali(yay bad spelling :( ) It would be ignorant to say previous work of conquered territories had nothing to do with it. It did. I only wish to point out that, they simply didn't recycle old knowledge. They added to it.

Unfortunatly, it didn't go both ways. While the europians integrated and benefitted from knowledge/discoveries by muslim empires, the muslims failed to advance more so(other than maybe the Turks and persians. Large chunks and influential, but still not the core) thats not to say advancement didn't occur, just as you said, stagnation began. And the fact the sultans and kings were more interested in fighting eachother and keeping themselves in power and closing themselves off from the rest of of the world, isn't going to foster intellectual flowering. They screwed up.
So i guess we agree...kind of.


See? Big difference between Deuteronomy chapter 7 and Numbers Chapter 31. Much better. But is this supposed to prove that Moses was a bigger villain than Mohammed? Or a lame attempt at defending your religion by pointing your finger at someone else's?

Actually no, i don't think that is relevent. Just bringing up how christs actions really varied, as he commanded moses. Also wanted to point out that christ and the other prophets were really totally different charecters. Also, there is alot recorded about mohammed, probably both false and true about his public AND personal life. While other figures thats just not the case.


So what you're saying is, that even though Jesus (who was a prophet, remember?) said Do unto others what you would have them do unto you... God turned around and told Mohammed to go back to 'Eye for an Eye.' And you explain this by the mush that an eternal being cannot be comprehended?

Ill admit, i actually have to study this more, and it's place in islam. But what was taught to me as a kid, though i forgot about as an adult until i remembered it, was that mohammed wasn't really trying to create a new revelation, simply go back to the old ways. View is older scriptures were corrupted, and that is another debate all together. There is a huge place for forgiveness in islamic text and thought though, both pre and post hijra.

The dissonance, man, the dissonance. Ouch.

Always. I have always kept room for doubt. Imam Ghazzali(yes spelling, but i say it right) talks about the place of doubt as being vital to spirituality.
Also medication(no joke)



I appreciate it. I hate erroneous claims. :)

No problems.



You may not believe, but you do care, otherwise you would not have jumped on me for what I said. It would be really odd for someone to claim Jesus was a monster (a madman, well, that's plausible). But to me, the shoes fit Mohammed and Joseph Smith. I think these two charlatans have done great harm with their shenanigans.

Or great good. Perspective.



That's not Agnostic. That's Sophist, or Cynic.

Im still not sure though.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

And i beleive that.

Truth, and fact, are distinguishable from fiction, and falsehood. To say that truth is relative is a cop-out.

To a degree yes, but I believe it. Especially considering the validity of ancient texts, and how they developed. Especially with alot of new info im getting.



[quote)gree. Perceptions can be tested, theories formulated, conclusions drawn. Was Einstein a slave to his perceptions? Is Stephen Hawking limited to taste, smell, touch, sight and sound? I think not.[/quote]
Good example. But surely you admit that our senses can only percieve so much?



Define natural. As for disproportionate attacks, define disproportionate. I don't see, given the circumstances, how it's been disproportionate. Unfair, perhaps (but not IMO), but that just means Islam has finally joined the club.

Agree that muslims need thicker skins, they are not used to it. Or were not. I think you'll notice as time goes on, they are getting less and less reactionary toward blasphemy. Theya re simply getting used to it. But i do think disproportionate, considering so much that goes on in the world, especially when a place like Greece just had a terrorist attack, but didn't get much press. Or when i posted the europols of the proportion of domestic leftist terrorist attack attempts compared to muslim ones. Alot of the issues that are harped on by muslims can be applied to many other people aroudn the world, including coptics(most ive met are really cool) just reading about how, just as ex-muslim egyption converts often get oppressed or life threatened, apparently it's very common among ex-coptics who convert to islam. Threats and attacks on life.
CHINA has female infanticide even now, and other issues. But no one brings it up. And these are huge, real issues.
India and nepal, christian oppression(i won't even bother mentioning gughrat) and hindu extremist groups(remember the train bombing? Everyone thought it was pakistanis, but it was actually a hindu extremist group.)
I talked to my old antrhopology proff. And she told me that there is a disturbing world wide trend she and many other researchers have noticed, radicalization of nearly every religion and ideology. It's as if the whole world is becoming more and more polarized than before. I wish i had more to go on than a conversation. Id love to post a discussion on that, seems very interesting.
What do you think of Oklahoma passing (by 70%!!!) an amendment banning International (and by extension, Sharia) law? News of Sharia courts operating in England had a lot to do with this one.

Only informally, and on domestic issues for britian, no actual 'sharia' law. I don't believe in the implimentation of sharia, i think the secular state historically has done a way better job than theocracies.
And oklahoma really wasted it's time, as the muslim population in the states seems disinterested in this concept. Even in canada, when we had the possibility of faith based arbitration for domestic issues(legally) the government rightly denied it, but also extended it to any faith based arbitration other than that of natives.
No muslims gathered and rioted, no one got shot. There isn't even a push to repeal it. In north america particularly, this isn't really a threat.

Critique america for many things. But one thing we cannot critique america for is how it handled muslim immigration compared to europe. The immigrants tend to be more educated, and more INTEGRATED than in europe. In europe it seems they shipped a bunch of labourers(and yes educated folk in) put them in a 'ghetto'(i use this term loosely) where they fail to mix and interact with the rest of europe. Alot of it is their own fault, but also the fault of short sighted europian leaders.
I read, i don't remember where, but the more laizze faire system(haha spelling again) of the united states(and yes canada, were more left than you folk, but more right than europe) makes the folk mix and integrate more.

For all the attempted attacks in north america, the community tends to be alot less retarded than in europe. I include canada in this as well, were actually more hawkish on immigration than people think. Europe has some real problems with it's immigration. Forced marriage is a problem in britain, including sikh and hindu families in britain.
People blame the multicultural model when looking at britains muslim(and to a lesser degree immigration problem with other folks) and look at the superiority of the melting pot. But hell Canada has a multicultural model, and we still haven't had the same problems as Europe. Is it that Canada and america are simply bigger land masses? Or is it taht because these are continents filled with immigrants, that historically the culture is better at dealing with immigration? Afterall, if you think about it, your typical dutchman/swede probably never seen an arab/or south asian individual until probably the sixties. And in some cases even eighties i guess.
And then suddenly there was a huge, huge, wave of people coming in suddenly.
While north america? I how many times in our combined histories did we have waves of immigrants coming in? Chinese, Blacks, Irish. Alberta seems to have lots of ukrainians.

I think i may be on the way to answer my own question.

EDIT: Added more to some points.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:01 am, edited 4 times in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

I guess kind of relevent to the thread.

Interesting how this is all working out though, in how they are taking down these cells.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02347.html

Guys like mubin shaik and muhammed robert heft and others who fight terrorism deserve more recognition, more credit. The men i named are NOT ex-gitmo folks. They just did what they thought was right.

But i do think that, depending on their motives, some of these ex-gitmo guys should be given credit for fighting against terrorism.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... 96f244%2C0
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Ahmed, 65 links instead of simple answers is not necessarily better.

"In many ways, christ emphasized it more. So it really is relevent. I can post a ##### load of examples of christian extremests trying to put together some form of biblical law, difference is, your governemnt is just better at keeping it down, and a more educated population makes sure less people are religious zealots. But you know as well as i do, many want biblical law."

Um no. Sure, there are a few wackos who want to institute Biblical law. There may even be "many." But the HUGE majority doesn't want that. Overseas, didn't most Iraqis expect an Islamic republic? Show me a nation on EARTH using "Christian Sharia" and I'll eat my words.

I don't care about your friend's claim that (basically) someone he met in a Taco Bell knew a guy who passed on a train who met a Jew in Wisconsin who thought the Holocaust was cool. I had a black patient once who was a severe anti-black racist. So what? I will agree with you there are plenty of Jewish zealots making trouble in Israel right now. And you're a fan of the....

"Social justice(yes i said it glenn beck), giving to the poor, respecting other religions(you guys will argue with me on this, but this is always pushed by every Islamic scholar i have met) and most of all HUMILITY and respect."

Gosh, I wonder why this hasn't caught on more in Islamic societies :roll: In any case, I hardly see these things as muslim or Islamic. You can find them (or not) in any religion, or in the absence of one. Plus, I'm not impressed with the practice of letting people live their lives provided they accept Muslim rule and pay a tax. You call that humility and respect, I'll call it worse than western custom by far.

"The pragmatic view of violence and aggression, and rules of war."

Oh, brother. Well, I guess Mohamed was pretty pragmatic in his approach to war.

"Instead of reading Ibn Warraq, why not read Bernard lewis or daniel pipes? I swear to you, both are athiests, both are critical of islam. Lewis and popes have mainly been critiqued for viewing islam as monolithic rather than mistakes looking at theology."

Ok, lol, fine, sure, I'll go read more critiques of Islam, as if I could believe it was a crazy system dreamed up by a lone charismatic kook in the desert any more than I already do. :) But it's like telling me I need another book to convince me Jesus didn't hang out in the midwest and toss convenient revelations to Joseph Smith whenever the Prophet needed a new mate. Or that there are refutations of the idea there are elephant gods with 12 arms running around.

"I take it my really really long and multiple posts went unread throughout this thread.* I posted stuff off of google way back in the thread. That, and the deaths of alot of mohammeds children can give me perspective as well."

Re: marrying at the moment of puberty being necessary to prevent population fall--that we would currently be underpopulated without it: still waiting for evidence. I find it really hard to believe that waiting 2 years is going to really make the difference for a nation. In fact they may be better off with adults bearing children not children. There are child birth risks when your pelvis is tiny, you know? In any case, God must sure have had it in for Muhammed and friends if he was letting all their babies die so often their only chance at survival was bedding kids. Probably the successes were a sign of His blessings, and all the bad stuff was flukes and tests?

* Not unread, but I'm certainly not going to follow every link you throw up after wading through a post that's 5 times as long as mine.
--Ian
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

IJ wrote:Ahmed, 65 links instead of simple answers is not necessarily better.
I atleast try to make sure if i have an opinion or statement, it has some factual evidence. I thought people should base views on some form of information right? That my statements have fact?

We are talking about issues that are not simple, have many dimensions. THe only reason i jumped into this debate is to add a perspective not seen. I am one man, so i want this perspective well represented...atleast the best I can.


Um no. Sure, there are a few wackos who want to institute Biblical law. There may even be "many." But the HUGE majority doesn't want that. Overseas, didn't most Iraqis expect an Islamic republic?
And you assuming the HUGE majority of muslims don't? The so called sharia states arn't sharia states, other than Iran(which had a SECULAR government in power before the west falsely branded it communist, and overthrew it to put the shah in power. His extreme anti-islamic policies created an islamic backlash)
Concept of 'Islamic republic': Kind of like how your government is based on judeo-christian laws, but is relativly secular. Thats basically how many muslims picture an islamic democracy. Think of malaysia and turkey(turkey may be a bit more crazy these days, but still fairly stable)

Now to quote tariq ali on governments in the arab world:

"Most Muslim countries are Republics. The only monarchies are Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf States. In every case they are creatures of Washington......Democracy in Islamic states is not a problem any more than it is in the West. Nigeria,Pakistan, Bangladesh have regularly held elections. The problem here is that in this epoch of neo-liberal economics and IMF rules, democratic regimes are unable to deliver anything."

In pakistan, the religious parties have never been popular.
Saudi arabia came into existence with british hands.

Everytime there was any kind of uprising(i think twice in history) against the house of saud, guess what countries came in to help them stay in power?


Show me a nation on EARTH using "Christian Sharia" and I'll eat my words.
Im pretty sure the holy roman empire was based around religious law. What government spawned the spanish inquisition?

I am well aware a christian theocracy doesn't exist....right now atleast. But you think it lends to your arguement? So they arn't in power. Doesn't mean they are any less crazy than the muslims? Isn't it possible that the reason you guys act more civilized is because your 'blessed'(i know your an athiest, so i use the word with caution) to be born in a highly educated, egalitarian culture where everyone has a full belly?

Militia to create a christian government in africa and america. One has already killed people for it. Link is only there to show my statements are soarced, you don't have to read it if you don't want to.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101016/wl ... ricanunion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1361

You have POLITICIANS that want to create christian sharia. One of many. Only posted the link to show a soarce to my statement. Don't have to read it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... sibil.html

Only reason you don't hear about them, is because america isn't the focus of their anger.

The fact your countries were able to modernize doesn't change the fact christian theocracies are a real threat to you guys.These guys are as bad as the taliban.

Tariq ali, an ex-muslim ATHIEST who dislikes islam, has this to say about the existence of muslim theocracies:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_1.2.pdf

"For most of the 20th century the West did not back the Enlightenment in the Muslim world. They backed its opposite. Now they complain that this world is derelict of values. This is nonsense. The West has played a part in creating the vacuum. Wars make things worse not better."

I don't care about your friend's claim that (basically) someone he met in a Taco Bell knew a guy who passed on a train who met a Jew in Wisconsin who thought the Holocaust was cool. I had a black patient once who was a severe anti-black racist. So what?
So what? That you place the pinnacle of all problems in the middle east SOLEY on fanatism, muslim fanatics. Ignoring the other players, ignoring the political histories and realities.
He's an academic. He was interviewing people to help him get direction to start working toward a Phd.
But your right, so ill give you soarces. They exist.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jewish ... ?id=191782

Allowing the use of human sheilds as religiously okay.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.320311

I will agree with you there are plenty of Jewish zealots making trouble in Israel right now. And you're a fan of the....
None. Not my point. Im argueing against the notion taht this is soley due to fanatics, without the political dimensions to it. Without other faith/political/nationalistic ideologies present. I will not deny the obvious religious presence. But i find it strange educated men downplay or ignore it. Thats my point. Thats what im a fan of, to show this for more than what it seems.
Gosh, I wonder why this hasn't caught on more in Islamic societies :roll:
It has. Ever go into the house of a jordinian or palistinian family? Will fill you up with food until you pop. The machismo seen by men is mostly an arab thing, while I find Malaysians tend to be super extremly polite.
In any case, I hardly see these things as muslim or Islamic. You can find them (or not) in any religion, or in the absence of one.
Fair enough. the presence or absence of a belief in god doesn't do much to affect the moral center of some people.
Plus, I'm not impressed with the practice of letting people live their lives provided they accept Muslim rule and pay a tax. You call that humility and respect, I'll call it worse than western custom by far.
Not about that. Though Jizya is a non-muslim tax, muslims must pay jizya. You and me both have to pay taxes to the government.
And it isn't 'pay or die' if you read that verse, you realize it's talking about those that tried to retake mecca after they marched to fight the byzantines(turned out the byzantines had no intention of invading, so they turned back instead of persueing) That same verse states that those who are innocent, who never tried to attack, are to be spared, protected, and left alone. And that is WITHOUT context. With context, it's even more limited.


Oh, brother. Well, I guess Mohamed was pretty pragmatic in his approach to war.
No secret that it allows people to fight back, just as long as you do not murder woman, children, priests.


Ok, lol, fine, sure, I'll go read more critiques of Islam, as if I could believe it was a crazy system dreamed up by a lone charismatic kook in the desert any more than I already do. :) But it's like telling me I need another book to convince me Jesus didn't hang out in the midwest and toss convenient revelations to Joseph Smith whenever the Prophet needed a new mate. Or that there are refutations of the idea there are elephant gods with 12 arms running around.
Basically, if your going to be a critic, be a good critic, use good educated soarces. Unlike Warraq or Spencer, Bernard lewis(less so pipes, but he's still up there) doesn't see everything that moves in the religion as evil. He doesn't believe in it, he's critical of many movements in it. He's certainly very pro-colonial, very much a secular humanist. But for example, he would correct you on your statement 'pay jizya and you can live' clarify it, give it more dimension. LIke i said, his own students do not like how he shows islam as monolothic(something ive been argueing with you for years) but unlike fake scholars like spencer or warraq. If your goint to be a critic, be a FAIR critic.

Re: marrying at the moment of puberty being necessary to prevent population fall--that we would currently be underpopulated without it: still waiting for evidence. I find it really hard to believe that waiting 2 years is going to really make the difference for a nation. In fact they may be better off with adults bearing children not children. There are child birth risks when your pelvis is tiny, you know? In any case, God must sure have had it in for Muhammed and friends if he was letting all their babies die so often their only chance at survival was bedding kids. Probably the successes were a sign of His blessings, and all the bad stuff was flukes and tests?[/quotes]

Id like to respond to these in seperate segments, but each question is well mixed, so this may turn into one of my incoherent chunks.






Then we go into a debate i had a long time ago, about if there is a god, why we have death and suffering. The post ended up really long, though i had a good arguement. We will go into taht another time. If mohammed solved death and sickness and suffering, if children were immortal until they reach the age of 21, we as parents/caretakers would never learn to nurture them. Just let them run wild! They are invincible until they become 21. Would they learn to be careful then? I bet lots of 21 year olds would be hit by cars. I doubt most parents would try to raise them, they would blunder along, learn. No need for any real sense of protectiveness then. And then we would complain why everyone isn't immortal and cannot feel pain. If there is a god, he would make sure we can't feel pain or die. So lets say now we all cannot feel pain, can't die. Frusterations from tasks and failure will be our standard of suffering. And because we don't know the pain fo a broken bone or real fear, that may seem horrible to us(frusteration, failure) so people will say 'if there is a god, why doesn't he take away failure and frusteration' so now, you cannot die, you cannot feel real pain, you cannot fail. Life is boring. Competition either won't exist or will be very artificial. So now, people will say 'if there is a god, he would let me have fun, let me compete' and then that is removed. And people still won't be happy.
Following me? Whats your point? You wanted mohammed to change existence? Change the nature of humanity?
Do you want jesus to do that? Or god? I hav never understood that arguement.


Face it, if he suddenly healed everyone with super miracles(and islamic tradition is filled with that sort of stuff) you still wouldn't believe it. Why bring it up? Your acting like im trying to convert you.

And yes, in traditions they say he did heal much of the sick, and did great thigns. But that contridicts the statement his only miracle is the quran, you can quickly see where alot of hadith compilation got alot of myths mixed up. It's like Yamugachi(spelling) the cat gogen and him killing the tiger with a shoken, or was that the other goju-ryu guy?)
I frankly, don't buy into miracles too much.(pulling rabbits out of hats, etc)
Also, if he suddenly solved all of humanities problems, it makes no sense. For all we know, ancient prophets were Aliens using sophisticated technology to create miracles. Healing the sick or parting water. We can do things in teh past would be viewed as miraculious with our current technology.
And what if it was supernatural, but done by the devil? Or a demon? I mean what constitutes as divine or something else?
* Not unread, but I'm certainly not going to follow every link you throw up after wading through a post that's 5 times as long as mine.
I TRY to be detailed, try to provide lots of info, beyong my own views and opinions. I try to be as careful as I can.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Because this was too much for 1 post...


Im rushing like I always do, so i hope this is coherent enough.

On aisha and puberty:


As i stated before, i only argued the point of her being 9 to be intellectually honest by many who believe she was this young when he married her(i do believe in the high infant morality rate and unpridicable lifespans) I don't believe this. Go argue this with someone that believes she was 9.
The time line, along with the temporal issues with hadith show she probably was in her late teens. I could settle with just writing that, but i want to show WHY i believe this, and that im not just 'rationalizing'

But first another issue, did mohammed like young girls?

With exception of Aisha, all his wives were older woman, previously married. He could have married young virgins but did not, and provided for these childless widows(he benefitted because each woman helped cement political ties with the tribes they belonged to) He was also monogamous and celibate for 25 years with khadija, who was 20 years his senior. Seems he has no real attachment to youth in woman.

However, that doesn't prove aisha was older, so i will go on to that:

The arabs had great verbal memories, but their perception of time sucked. This is expectd of a largely illliterate people who posseessed no calender or timepieces, kept no birth or death records, did not commemorate birthdays or personal annniversaries, and seldom engated in long range planning. For instance, some say mohammed died at the age of sixty three, others say sixty five. Some say he recieved revelation at 43 or 40. Divergent reports on what was the prophets rirst revelation, on teh night in ramadan he recieved it.
But how is this evidence AAAhmed? Your not proving anything? Well hold on.
They say the pact to marry her began at six, but wanted to have her mature and so they waited, until she was 9. However, there are mistakes in how long mohammed waited before marrying her after khadijahs death. Was it 4 months or 2 years? And once that was done, how long was the wait for puberty and joining the house? Thought to be 3 years, still may be variation.
Still your thinking: AAAhmed, this doesn't prove anything, just raises more questions/confusion. So okay, ill go further.
The prophets daughter Fatimah, was five years older than aisha, and that the former was born during the reconstruction of the kabah, which occurred approximatly five years prior to the prophets call. This would place aisha's birth at around the time of the prophets call and her joining the prophets household at roughly 14 or 15 yers of age. Now there are 'sahih' hadith saying she was 9. But clearly these ignored the range of the dates, did not consider the time line. Other reports say that Aisha was a little girl playing about the time when surah al qamar was revealed, in the fourth year of the call. This would put her birth close to the time of the call and make her a teenager at the time of her marriages to the prophet in medina. Once again, this is but another reason im critical of hadith, how it brings doubt to 'authentic' 'sahih' hadith. It's confusing. One hand she is described with childlike behavior, and another description as very adult, and mature. That said, i still think hadith has it's place. As I said above, the main problem was because of how the narrators/collecters of hadith collect time(though politics also rears it's head, ill cover that below)
The hadith states she is 9. But they also show huge logical mistakes errors in time. How can hadith collectors/narrators or dare I say creators state an age so conflicting with the timeline?

Why then does it say she is 9?

Most medieval Islamic history books were written 200-300 years after the advent of Islam and it is true that all of them state emphatically that Aisha was only nine when she became Muhammad's bride. However, all of them rely on, and quote, one single individual as the source of this information. His name was Hishām ibn Urwah, a prominent narrator of sayings of the Prophet (the Hadith), who died in the year 756AD. He was Aisha's great-grand nephew, who first suggested that his great-grand aunt was only nine-years old on the day of her wedding, 125 years after the said event.

Prior to his utterance, a century after the fact, there is no mention or reference to the age of Aisha. Hisham bin Urwah lived and taught in Medina for 70 years, yet no one else—not even his famous pupil Malik ibn Anas---reported Aisha’s age. It is no coincidence that the growth of harems of the Abbasid caliphs mushroomed to hundreds of wives and concubines--many young girls-- at the time the sharia law based on bin Urwah's report, legalized child marriage. The same time this narration of a 9 year old aisha showed up was when a powerful men had tastes for young girls.

Onward to more arguements of an adult aisha:

The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad's bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.


Other calculations based on historical events place Aisha as old as 20 when she was became a bride. Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar (the second caliph). This means she must have been at least a young girl in the year 610. Assuming she was five years old when Abu Bakr and his family converted to islam, the information puts the age of Aisha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad was consummated in 624AD.


Furthermore, most Islamic historians agree that Asma, the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than her. It is also reported that Asma died in 683AD at the ripe age of 100. If this is true, then Asma would have been 31 years old at the time of Aisha's wedding with Muhammad in 624 and the bride would have been 21. Aisha was on the battle field when only fifteen year olds were allowed.


Of course, these facts do not suit either the Islam-haters or the rulers who wanted harems full of young girls.


The consensus, even among those who hold my opinion of aisha being older by many scholars(muslim and non-muslim) that the wait between bethrothal and the wedding was because they wanted her to become more mature, or in case of those who think she was 9, hit puberty. Before meeting mohammed, she was bethrothed to another man, but still they felt she was not mature enough for marriage and labours of childbirth, so they waited three years.

I have heard of rare cases of girls hitting puberty at 9.
However:unpridicable life expectancy or not, i think hitting puberty at 9 is rare, and unlikely. And as you stated above, pretty risky for childbirth. Hence the term 'she has great child bearing hips, marry her'. I think even ancient times, people were well aware of a more graceful birthing experience with a more developed woman. Nothing about any inherent wisdom, but probably 'trial and error'



I don't think she was 9.

Based on the above considerations, I believe she was in her mid to late teens.


Reason I didn't post this before is....well look how long it is. And, i was argueing eight different arguements at the same time, so i never got to flesh this out properly. I also didn't have this fresh in my mind. I read it before, but re-reading it from books and then paraphrasing and copying pasting takes time and research.

I don't blame you guys for getting pissed off at the size of this post, and the one above. It can be tedious.

But if we REALLY want to know the truth, if were really open to other ideas, we would understand the need for careful details, often meaning lots of text.

And i am a man of many words. You should meet me in real life. :)
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Promised myself i would not make huge posts, but guess i screwed up again. Just didn't see how i could make that smaller and still do the issue justice.


Here is something worth watching though. Im sure you guys saw this, but it's awesome.

Satan and his followers are wathing close.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc

A real issue at airports....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCU2PqSq1co

Wish real life was like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfGWFtPks-Q
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Posts that get to the point without being overlong are more useful. If a link is worthwhile it'll probably not need to be validated by 20 more. Long posts and multiple links are less likely to be read and serve their purpose. And it's "source" not "soarce." See how quick that was?

"Kind of like how your government is based on judeo-christian laws, but is relativly secular. Thats basically how many muslims picture an islamic democracy."

Our government is viewed as Christian largely because Christianity was semi-universal at the time of the founding. But note all the key differences between our state and all the other Christian states at the time (and since). And correct me if I'm wrong here, but is our Constitution maybe a little clearer about church and state separation and no religious tests for officials and freedom of religion than those "relatively secular" Islamic republics?

"Im pretty sure the holy roman empire was based around religious law. What government spawned the spanish inquisition?"

Here you have confused "using" with "used hundreds or thousands of years ago." Also keep in mind that I'm not trying to play "better than" with Islamic and Christian wackadoos. They're both wackadoo to me. I think the extremist Muslims are generally a bit more violent, but I'm somewhat more disappointed in the Christian ones, if only for the reason they were born lucky, as you state, able to read any number of scientific texts, and still they're convinced dinos were mentioned in the Bible, and they walked around with men a few thousand years ago. It's breathtakingly stupid to be taking any holy book I know of literally (these days, anyway).

Interesting post on those LRA and Hutaree peeps. I wonder what evangelicals would say about them. A really convincing religious text, to me, would not be able to be used by murderous groups. The Sharon Angle post says she believes Thomas Jeffersons quotes on periodic revolution. I missed the part on Christian Sharia. I also missed the part where America wasn't her target. Seems it was the ONLY point of the article! And I agree they're a threat but they're hardly as bad as the taliban. Are you even serious??

Let's agree though, that western influence with colonies and weird boundaries and backing nut jobs has certainly produced some unfortunate outcomes. You're focused on that, which is fine, but I'm not a fan of that either--and whether it happened or not, it doesn't make me excited about the fanatics. As for the Islamic issues with nonislamics and their taxes and whatnot, I got it from wiki, and it's not awful awful, but it certainly isn't a model of civility and straightup tolerance. And by "live their lives" I didn't mean, spare from execution, just ... live their lives.

As for evidence of designers in the painful lives we lead--I think you're working backwards. Well, we have pain and suffering and our babies die so there must be a good reason. An omniscient, omnipotent being who can't create an interesting and rewarding world where people don't suffer needlessly all the time. OH, come on. Let's use your imagination a bit. You seriously can't think of a world where we compete just as we do right now, but 5 year olds don't starve or get brain cancer for no reason?

As for me not believing a series of "super miracles," why wouldn't I believe it? I have starting believing some crazy stuff recently. I learned there's liquid water and possibly life on europa and one of Saturn's moons. I was reminded that no matter how fast you go, light always passes you at the... well, speed of light. And that black holes evaporate. I learned that the laws of nature vary slightly in other parts of the Universe. That a gravity sling shot launched a star out of the center of the milky way at millions of miles an hour. Why wouldn't I be excited to see very designer evident miracles unfold so I could hope for all the cool stuff that would mean (like eternal life!)? I've changed my views on nutrition and guns and other important topics too. Recently, you've convinced me that there are ten commandments terrorist groups, buddhist killers, christian anti-art threatmakers, and reminded me that a lot of terrorism isn't just fanaticism but political. You have NO reason, really, to assume that I wouldn't start believing in God, or at least finding God more likely, when faced with varying quality evidence. Throw none at me and that's where my "god confidence" remains: nil.

And that's where the ramble about cat gogens and rabbits in hats and aliens left me. Huh? Let's make sense here. For one, if you're going to believe in God, start by imagining how a designed world would appear, rather than trying to come up with contorted justifications for all the imperfections and injustices.
--Ian
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAmed,

Actions have consequences.
Agree. And i guessing we would also agree it would go both ways? His preaching was vocal, but certainly not 'in your face'.
This is the third time I’ve written my response, since the forum ate the first half twice. Now, from Microsoft Word…

But when he attacked the Kaaba worship as idolatry, they rose to the protection of their income, and would have done him injury…”

What part of that is not sinking in? He was vocal, he did attack the official religion of Mecca, and threatening someone’s income, no matter how idiotic the source, is about as in your face as you can get.

Imagine, if you will, living in a world without 911. Someone comes along and starts taking your livestock away. Do you sit in the mud and cry, or do you go find that tool you used to dig trenches, and plant a new hole in the offender’s skull?

Now, who started it, Mohammed, or the silly (but powerful) dudes worshipping the rock?
Yeah it would be dishonest to say that conflicts didn't cause retardation, though i highly doubt that was the sole reason for the Dark ages, and blame can't solely be put on the east.
No, it wasn’t the sole reason. Previously, advances in farm implements and food production had caused a population explosion, and the formation of towns. Droughts, floods, and a few iterations of the Plague hit Europe like a ton of bricks. Add the insatiable Muslim hordes coming in at all points south, southeast, and east, and you have some idea of how slim Western Civilization’s thread was at that point. The flame of progress had not guttered so low since Greece’s desperate battles against Persia.
And i think your underestimating the muslim influence by saying the knowledge that europe took back was simply knowledge looted from conquest… I only wish to point out that, they simply didn't recycle old knowledge. They added to it.
I think you missed this part of my previous statement:

It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own too).
And, I was too general in the last discussion we had, i should not have said that the concept of universities was inspired by madrassas, rather it had a profound influence on universities instead, but not created by them. Overstatement. They borrowed structurally many concepts seen in the arab maddrassas, how they run the schools and the like.
I had no idea Western Civilization needed crib notes on how to run a university… since I’m sure Islam didn’t learn anything from the university at Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great… It’s fascinating, really, this notion that the universities of London and Paris owe something to madrassas.
Actually no, i don't think that is relevent. Just bringing up how christs actions really varied, as he commanded moses. Also wanted to point out that christ and the other prophets were really totally different charecters. Also, there is alot recorded about mohammed, probably both false and true about his public AND personal life. While other figures thats just not the case.
That’s particularly clever, taking the Trinity doctrine and transposing Jesus as the cosmic executioner found in the Septuagint. Where was that when I was a rather offensive #### of an atheist?

This is fascinating. Let me get this straight… you believe that Mohammed is subject to truths and falsehoods, mistakes, lies, and half-truths surrounding his words and deeds… but for other religious figures, that’s just not the case.

Dissonance. Painful dissonance.
Ill admit, i actually have to study this more, and it's place in islam. But what was taught to me as a kid, though i forgot about as an adult until i remembered it, was that mohammed wasn't really trying to create a new revelation, simply go back to the old ways.
So he was trying to intentionally regress society? He didn’t actually believe he was a Prophet of God? He made it all up, because he got all teary-eyed thinking about eye-for-an-eye? This doesn’t exactly help your case for the non-##### figure of Mohammed.
Or great good. Perspective.
But you’ve failed to justify your perspective. :wink:


JR - That's not Agnostic. That's Sophist, or Cynic.
Im still not sure though.
:lol: You are a funny man, Ahmed.

JR - I disagree. Perceptions can be tested, theories formulated, conclusions drawn. Was Einstein a slave to his perceptions? Is Stephen Hawking limited to taste, smell, touch, sight and sound? I think not.
Ahmed - Good example. But surely you admit that our senses can only perceive so much?
Admit? No, I don’t admit. We’re still discovering the limits of our senses, not to mention our capacity for reason. So no, there’s nothing to admit. Your stated view that man is limited by his senses is flawed. If it were true, we could be fooled by very simple illusions, and while some people can be, others can point the illusion out, and reason can therefore be used by those initially fooled by the illusion as well. Thus defeating sensory perception. Man is not a slave to his senses. He has a choice. Truth can be found (please, let no one be offended, I use man/he/his in place of man/woman, he/she his/her for the sake of brevity).
Agree that muslims need thicker skins, they are not used to it. Or were not. I think you'll notice as time goes on, they are getting less and less reactionary toward blasphemy.
No, actually I thought they went certifiably bonkers over that Florida pastor getting attention in the press for planning to burn Korans. Do we need to re-visit Draw Mohammed Day?
CHINA has female infanticide even now, and other issues. But no one brings it up. And these are huge, real issues.
China doesn’t export their infanticide to NYC. Too, it’s kind of hard to bring it to light when reporters get arrested for walking beyond the Olympic façade, and people who speak against the Chinese govt within their borders tend to spend decades in jail. We all know China is corrupt, evil, ya-da-yada… It’s not news. The day China takes over yet another unprotected island, it’ll be news… from afar. But yeah, expect that the next time a Muslim fanatic blows up a school bus full of women and children (how’s that for forgiveness?), the press will jump on it like a pack of hyenas, because it won’t be in China. :wink: They have zero tolerance for extremists of any color, and it doesn’t seem to be a huge target for Muslims looking for a place to hang their hats and explosive vests.
I talked to my old antrhopology proff. And she told me that there is a disturbing world wide trend she and many other researchers have noticed, radicalization of nearly every religion and ideology. It's as if the whole world is becoming more and more polarized than before. I wish i had more to go on than a conversation. Id love to post a discussion on that, seems very interesting.
Sounds fascinating, but kind of off-topic. However, with how this thread’s gone, I’m not sure that’s possible.

And oklahoma really wasted it's time, as the muslim population in the states seems disinterested in this concept… No muslims gathered and rioted, no one got shot. There isn't even a push to repeal it.
There is a push to repeal it. The very next day Oklahoma’s leading Muslim group filed a lawsuit in federal court to nix that particular part of the amendment, because, they say, “it targets Muslims.” Which, of course, is ridiculous. Unless Muslims in Oklahoma identify with Sharia law. In which case, maybe it should target them.
Critique america for many things. But one thing we cannot critique america for is how it handled muslim immigration compared to europe. The immigrants tend to be more educated, and more INTEGRATED than in europe. In europe it seems they shipped a bunch of labourers(and yes educated folk in) put them in a 'ghetto'(i use this term loosely) where they fail to mix and interact with the rest of europe. Alot of it is their own fault, but also the fault of short sighted europian leaders.
I read, i don't remember where, but the more laizze faire system(haha spelling again) of the united states(and yes canada, were more left than you folk, but more right than europe) makes the folk mix and integrate more.
We agree on something. I think somewhere a tiny voice just cried out. Either that, or I don’t believe in fairies. There! Got one! :lol:
For all the attempted attacks in north america, the community tends to be alot less retarded than in Europe.
You’re a brave soul. I think that particular r-word has been ripped from the lexicon of every English-speaking writer for the last three decades.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Our government is viewed as Christian largely because Christianity was semi-universal at the time of the founding. But note all the key differences between our state and all the other Christian states at the time (and since).
True. I must say though, founding fathers were surprisingly far sighted.
And correct me if I'm wrong here, but is our Constitution maybe a little clearer about church and state separation and no religious tests for officials and freedom of religion than those "relatively secular" Islamic republics?
You guys actually HAVE a constitution, which has been updated with the times. Muslim governments are just a mess. Even if you take out how they use religion, they are just corrupt, greedy, horrible messes.
Here you have confused "using" with "used hundreds or thousands of years ago." Also keep in mind that I'm not trying to play "better than" with Islamic and Christian wackadoos. They're both wackadoo to me. I think the extremist Muslims are generally a bit more violent, but I'm somewhat more disappointed in the Christian ones, if only for the reason they were born lucky, as you state, able to read any number of scientific texts, and still they're convinced dinos were mentioned in the Bible, and they walked around with men a few thousand years ago. It's breathtakingly stupid to be taking any holy book I know of literally (these days, anyway).
Not much dispute here.
Interesting post on those LRA and Hutaree peeps. I wonder what evangelicals would say about them. A really convincing religious text, to me, would not be able to be used by murderous groups. The Sharon Angle post says she believes Thomas Jeffersons quotes on periodic revolution. I missed the part on Christian Sharia. I also missed the part where America wasn't her target. Seems it was the ONLY point of the article!
Thats one of many articles. She is one of many. The link where i got this is broke. So if all i have is a statement, take it for what it's worth, either wholly or with a grain of salt. She has previously talked about bringing biblical law to america.
And I agree they're a threat but they're hardly as bad as the taliban. Are you even serious??
Only beause taliban has been in power in modern times. I honestly do not want america to become a theocracy, nor anywhere else. Also to point out, pre-taliban afganistan and the northern alliancepretty much had the same things done throughout the country as well.
[quotes]
Let's agree though, that western influence with colonies and weird boundaries and backing nut jobs has certainly produced some unfortunate outcomes. You're focused on that, which is fine, but I'm not a fan of that either--and whether it happened or not, it doesn't make me excited about the fanatics. As for the Islamic issues with nonislamics and their taxes and whatnot, I got it from wiki, and it's not awful awful, but it certainly isn't a model of civility and straightup tolerance. And by "live their lives" I didn't mean, spare from execution, just ... live their lives. [/quote]
Benefits too. THey don't have to serve in the army and are exempt from follwing islamic laws(within reason, no raping and killing etc)
And thats mainly my gripe. I feel the previos and yes CONTINUED backing of potentially unstable forces(religious or otherwise) in the middle east and other places has backfired, and may continue to backfire.
As for evidence of designers in the painful lives we lead--I think you're working backwards. Well, we have pain and suffering and our babies die so there must be a good reason. An omniscient, omnipotent being who can't create an interesting and rewarding world where people don't suffer needlessly all the time. OH, come on. Let's use your imagination a bit.
I think i let my imagination get the better of me sometimes.....
You seriously can't think of a world where we compete just as we do right now, but 5 year olds don't starve or get brain cancer for no reason?
A different perspective, but im sure you have seen where a crisis, particularly involving fragile young lives, brings families closer, and suddenly makes the parents/those who love the child see frivilous, unimportant parts of their lives as actually frevilous and unimportant. Think of how much more we value ourselves and children because they are potentially, able to die/break/lose them. It's like taking your health/ youth for granted until it begins to fade/fail you. Or a man who loses an arm realizes how much he took it for granted.
As for me not believing a series of "super miracles," why wouldn't I believe it? I have starting believing some crazy stuff recently. I learned there's liquid water and possibly life on europa and one of Saturn's moons. I was reminded that no matter how fast you go, light always passes you at the... well, speed of light. And that black holes evaporate. I learned that the laws of nature vary slightly in other parts of the Universe. That a gravity sling shot launched a star out of the center of the milky way at millions of miles an hour. Why wouldn't I be excited to see very designer evident miracles unfold so I could hope for all the cool stuff that would mean (like eternal life!)?
Amazing isn't it? I think all of that is amazing. You have also peaked my curiosity(can you send me links on natural laws varying in other parts of the universe? Very neat!
And, we may disagree on how we view the text, but this seems to be pushed by the quran, atleast when it isn't taking a legalistic direction, that miracles are in the very fabric of reality. It constantly tells he reader to look at the rocks the sky, the trees, and marvel at it's beauty, complexity, nature. To see miracles in the mundane.
Even the story of moses in the quran focuses on how, many of moses's followers constatnly wanted their faith re-affirmed by fantastic miracles. And he gave it to them, but few were satisfied, their faith was based soley on emotionalism, but not the message, or any real interpretive thought on philosophy or appreciation of creation.

Thas what i see in the quran as well, why i appreciate it. But hey, it really could be just the thoughts of a dessert bedouin. Don't think i don't consider that a real possibility.
I've changed my views on nutrition and guns and other important topics too. Recently, you've convinced me that there are ten commandments terrorist groups, buddhist killers, christian anti-art threatmakers, and reminded me that a lot of terrorism isn't just fanaticism but political.
What is our dispute then? I have no real disagreement with you. Nor am i really interested in converting anyone to islam. I have my own reasons for respecting and having attachement to the texts and overall islamic world, but i certainly have no real certainty in it's validity. And this goes with judaism and christianity as well. That was really just all i was trying to say all along.
I guess we will still disagree on some of the social issues being exaggerated, but i think we will agree they certainly do exist.
You have NO reason, really, to assume that I wouldn't start believing in God, or at least finding God more likely, when faced with varying quality evidence. Throw none at me and that's where my "god confidence" remains: nil.
And that's where the ramble about cat gogens and rabbits in hats and aliens left me. Huh? Let's make sense here. For one, if you're going to believe in God, start by imagining how a designed world would appear, rather than trying to come up with contorted justifications for all the imperfections and injustices.
That ancient texts talking about men doing miracles should be suspected, as we have no idea what exaggerations or mythological innovations took place.
Ramble about cats and gogens was to point out how we make our karate heroes have nigh supernatural abilities by rumours spread about them. When i heard about mas oyama breaking bull horns it was told to me in a way where it's some insanely powerful huge bull charging at him, and he smashes them with a mighty fist, and it goes down. Reality is less spectacular(I am by no means calling Oyama a pansy. Anyone here seriously think we could beat him in his prime)
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

But when he attacked the Kaaba worship as idolatry, they rose to the protection of their income, and would have done him injury…”

What part of that is not sinking in? He was vocal, he did attack the official religion of Mecca, and threatening someone’s income, no matter how idiotic the source, is about as in your face as you can get.

Imagine, if you will, living in a world without 911. Someone comes along and starts taking your livestock away. Do you sit in the mud and cry, or do you go find that tool you used to dig trenches, and plant a new hole in the offender’s skull?

Now, who started it, Mohammed, or the silly (but powerful) dudes worshipping the rock?
I know you view the man with different motives than mine, but here is how it has always been taught to me.

The ones who benefitted income from this, were the rich, powerful, of the pagan arabs. Often, poor folks would eitehr give nearly everything they own as payment or take out loans. If they could nto pay it back, it gets compounded by interest and they are well...stuck in a rut.
Mohammed was very much disturbed by this. I believe some of the classic orientalists(watt and a few others i think) believed mohammed was a fraud, who was angered at how poor families with unremarkable bloolines or poor birth were exploited. Christians and pretty much everyone else,were not known to be politicaly correct about other religions in 1748. Yet george sale, who believed mohammed 'a wicked imposter', had this to say about his charecter: 'agreeable behavior, showing liberality to the poor, courtesy toward everyone...'
As I recall, christ's gripe with alot of those in power at the time, was how they abused power. And of course, that earned him their wrath.
Yeah it would be dishonest to say that conflicts didn't cause retardation, though i highly doubt that was the sole reason for the Dark ages, and blame can't solely be put on the east.
No, it wasn’t the sole reason. Previously, advances in farm implements and food production had caused a population explosion, and the formation of towns. Droughts, floods, and a few iterations of the Plague hit Europe like a ton of bricks. Add the insatiable Muslim hordes coming in at all points south, southeast, and east, and you have some idea of how slim Western Civilization’s thread was at that point. The flame of progress had not guttered so low since Greece’s desperate battles against Persia.
Don't forget the vikings!(for a while atleast) And yes, as i recall, the term 'barbarian' can be rooted back to beberr or burburr or whatever the hell the spelling of his name is.

I think you missed this part of my previous statement:

It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own too).
sorry about that.


I had no idea Western Civilization needed crib notes on how to run a university… since I’m sure Islam didn’t learn anything from the university at Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great… It’s fascinating, really, this notion that the universities of London and Paris owe something to madrassas.
No idea what the details were. Gotta dig it up. Were mentioned offhandely by H.G. wells book and some required reading for history 110 and 111.
Not surprised if the great university of Alexandria, no doubt it influenced them. Greek philosopehrs influencing muslim thought is no secret.


That’s particularly clever, taking the Trinity doctrine and transposing Jesus as the cosmic executioner found in the Septuagint. Where was that when I was a rather offensive #### of an atheist?
That was bleeped out.
This is fascinating. Let me get this straight… you believe that Mohammed is subject to truths and falsehoods, mistakes, lies, and half-truths surrounding his words and deeds… but for other religious figures, that’s just not the case.
As faulty as they were, there were real attempts by the early sunni tradition to try and get as many details as possible about his personal and private life, everything he said about every topic(kind like the analatecs...BLAH spelling) But only the public life of other figures is known, and even that is limited. We simply KNOW more about mohammed(though like i said before, does not mean the hadith isn't corrupted) I also do not believe he did any huge evil or huge major lie. I do think he has human fallacies as a human being. I did not say other religious figures are not subject to mistakes or errors. I most certainly do believe this, and I don't think we should fault them for it.
Me and a friend both agreed that socrates seems to fit what we think a messenger of god would be like.


So he was trying to intentionally regress society? He didn’t actually believe he was a Prophet of God? He made it all up, because he got all teary-eyed thinking about eye-for-an-eye? This doesn’t exactly help your case for the non-##### figure of Mohammed.
Muslims believe that jesus was not trying to bring a new revelation either, he was simply sent to revive the old laws being corrupted and ignored by those around him. The bible teaches to turn the other cheek, but also to defend one self. I know enough of the NT that this is in there. Forgiveness is different from a legal system. But i will get back to you on that point, gotta get incite on this.
But you’ve failed to justify your perspective. :wink:
Guess i can't convince. You. Either I am wrong, your better at debating, or simply it's agree to disagree here.



:lol: You are a funny man, Ahmed.
Half joke, half serious. I have a fuzzy view of 'truth', but i do think the reality of existence is vast, what we know is just scratching the surface of it.



Admit? No, I don’t admit. We’re still discovering the limits of our senses, not to mention our capacity for reason. So no, there’s nothing to admit. Your stated view that man is limited by his senses is flawed. If it were true, we could be fooled by very simple illusions, and while some people can be, others can point the illusion out, and reason can therefore be used by those initially fooled by the illusion as well. Thus defeating sensory perception. Man is not a slave to his senses. He has a choice. Truth can be found (please, let no one be offended, I use man/he/his in place of man/woman, he/she his/her for the sake of brevity).
Didn't mean it that way. I know decartes went nuts thinking about some of this stuff, whether reality is an illusion, or if we are really walkign in a dream, if we are really seeing things as they really are etc.
We created infared(yes speling) cameras to see heat, but as i recall, theoretically there are 36 dimensions, and we see 4 of them(or is it 3?) We have machines that can hear as well as dogs, but even that has limits. Our reason certainly has limites. Maybe the nature of what it can or cannot do is not known, but in the university, one of teh biology proffs once told me that, micro biolologists can devote their entier discipline to studying just cytoplasm, and only so much is known about the cytoplasm. And then we have stuff like bio-physicsts and bio-chemists. They devout their entire lives to study one discipline, and then usually end up specializing in a single aspect of that discipline. Historians are experts usually in a single century of a single country/empire.
How much do we really know about the world? How much can we know?
No, actually I thought they went certifiably bonkers over that Florida pastor getting attention in the press for planning to burn Korans. Do we need to re-visit Draw Mohammed Day?
Actually no. I found the points brought up by most muslims sitting in social settings seemed to be 'why is this even an issue? this happens all the tiem in youtube' things happen worse in youtube. Some afgans getting pissed really shouldn't be indicative, that place isn't exactly stable right now. I would say, compared to the danish cartoons, muslims reacted better, and this issue was more manufactured than the danish cartoons were. As for everybody draw moahmmed day, she was threatened by a terror group that really got her, a month after everybody draw mohammed day, she visited a talk on the life of mohammed and visited mosques.

China doesn’t export their infanticide to NYC. Too, it’s kind of hard to bring it to light when reporters get arrested for walking beyond the Olympic façade, and people who speak against the Chinese govt within their borders tend to spend decades in jail. We all know China is corrupt, evil, ya-da-yada… It’s not news. The day China takes over yet another unprotected island, it’ll be news… from afar.
Certainly it isn't news worthy, but china is a big threat to the west. Im not talking killing, but economically, and yes...even socially. It just doesn't catch peoples attention when the news talks about how china is trying to grab everyoen by the balls by calling in debts and buying docks/etc.
But yeah, expect that the next time a Muslim fanatic blows up a school bus full of women and children (how’s that for forgiveness?), the press will jump on it like a pack of hyenas, because it won’t be in China. :wink: They have zero tolerance for extremists of any color, and it doesn’t seem to be a huge target for Muslims looking for a place to hang their hats and explosive vests.
It's a more flashy story, but not really less serious, or really threatening. They will also fail to talk about government support of jerks like the saudi royal family or (when he was in power) musharaff, how faisal shazad ranted about drone attacks instead of saying 'allah ackbar'.
Sounds fascinating, but kind of off-topic. However, with how this thread’s gone, I’m not sure that’s possible.
Yeah it was, disturbingly interesting. Was a brief conversation, but she talked about male genital mutilation in yemen and africa (taking bladed whips and whipping the penis) and how bride burning, female isolation of widows has risen in india. hindu Anti-christian/muslim groups movements gaining political momentum in nepal. Old, african tribal conflicts flaring up again, animist extremism. The popularity of stalin in russia gaining more momentum, the increasing popularity of communism in japan(huh?) Re-militerization of russia and a new wave of russian nationalism. Fascist ideas, and fascist inspired groups/politics rearing it's head in europe, ideas of racial purity surfacing in europe. Increase in fundamentalist, evangelical christianity in the u.s., the advent of militant athiesm and neo-colonialism, yahzdi kurds stoning woman to death. And of course, the rise of islamic fundamentalism. People are taking ideologies, and latching to them dogmatically, unquestioningly, and extremely.
There is a push to repeal it. The very next day Oklahoma’s leading Muslim group filed a lawsuit in federal court to nix that particular part of the amendment, because, they say, “it targets Muslims.” Which, of course, is ridiculous. Unless Muslims in Oklahoma identify with Sharia law. In which case, maybe it should target them.
I am personally alarmed by the tone right now in the U.S. They are just upset by peoples opinions/fears. If they are trying to repeal it, they are stupid to do so. It sends the wrong message to america, makes people think the enforcement of sharia law has support. You will be surprised how many muslims appreciate the seperation of religion from politics. I did not know they are trying to repeal it, but it's stupid if they are. Like i said, it does the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. I don't blame them for acting defensivly, even before 9/11, the modern day has given muslims a great sense of insecurity. Hence the think skins toward cartoons.
But the push to repeal it is just stupid.


We agree on something. I think somewhere a tiny voice just cried out. Either that, or I don’t believe in fairies. There! Got one! :lol:
It's true though. I doubt many would dispute this.
You’re a brave soul. I think that particular r-word has been ripped from the lexicon of every English-speaking writer for the last three decades.
There are conservatives far more capable and intellegent than sarah palin. David Frum would make a better face for the tea party than sarah palin. Atleast to those who know how to read. Infact, though he is respected, im surprised he isn't more well known or read(David Frum)

There are conservative woman with more brains than sarah palin. Ann coulter(blah spelling) may be a provateur(and again), but she has shown more brains in her satire than Sarah palin does in her serious political speech.

I bet this is politically motivated, but this guy agrees with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/0 ... 79742.html
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Guy mubin i talk to on facebook, helped take down terrorists. Here he deals with accusations of entrapment and basically also an article talking about his work.

I think guys liket his should be given 'hero' status. They save lives.
Guy mubin i talk to on facebook, helped take down terrorists. Here he deals with accusations of entrapment and basically also an article talking about his work.

I think guys liket his should be given 'hero' status. They save lives.


http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/?p=71

EXCERPT: "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood urged the state to protect Christian places of worship after the threat against Egypt's Coptic church was issued by al-Qaeda.

"The Muslim Brot...herhood is stressing to all, and primarily Muslims, that the protection of holy places of all monotheistic religions is the mission of the majority of Muslims," the group said in a statement on its website late on Tuesday.
I think the brotherhood has been a negative force for most of it's history. HOWEVER, the below shows a great rejection for the antics of terrorists.

Was this reported on mainstream news in English? Part of the problem is that events are taking place in a language we don't know, and the guys that get translated are well....the nutters, the guys who threaten cartoonists.

<http://www.muslimsdebate.com/search_res ... ws_id=5164>


Oh and this can be applied to europe and for muslim countries as well :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAhmed46 wrote: There are conservatives far more capable and intellegent than sarah palin. David Frum would make a better face for the tea party than sarah palin. Atleast to those who know how to read. Infact, though he is respected, im surprised he isn't more well known or read(David Frum)

There are conservative woman with more brains than sarah palin. Ann coulter(blah spelling) may be a provateur(and again), but she has shown more brains in her satire than Sarah palin does in her serious political speech.

I bet this is politically motivated, but this guy agrees with me.
I'm really not sure how you got on this tangent... but more intelligent or capable than what? I don't know if you've noticed, but Sarah Palin seems to have a great deal of skill at selling her image. Is she an idealogue? Absolutely. A moron? Hardly.

Ann Coulter vs Sarah Palin: Ann Coulter has a law degree from the University of Michigan. Sarah Palin has a Journalism degree from I-forgot-where. Ann Coulter has been in the public sphere for at least a decade now (maybe 15 years?), and has alot of practice ripping into people. Sarah Palin has been a mayor and a governor. Two entirely different knowledge and skill sets. But Ann Coulter isn't stupid enough to run for office.

That's one thing I'm pretty sure I'll never do: run for office. Who needs their lives torn to shreds, and a guarantee that at least half your neighbors will hate your guts because of a stupid letter after your name?
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"Think of how much more we value ourselves and children because they are potentially, able to die/break/lose them. It's like taking your health/ youth for granted until it begins to fade/fail you. Or a man who loses an arm realizes how much he took it for granted."

Here we see what we might call the "SAW 3D" version of God. The one who wants you to love life so much he'll have you root around behind your eyeball to the key for releasing the head-munching contraption he put you in. What a nice guy!

The article on the variation in physical constants was in The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/16930866

"What is our dispute then? I have no real disagreement with you."

Well, I think Islam is terrible, for one. Also totally false. And there are no excuses to be made for the terrorists, or the Taiban's manners, regardless of the political stress they've been under. That'd be the big stuff. As for the world getting more radicalized, we hear stories like this every generation. There's always an increasing amount of conflict and natural disasters and whatever paving the way for the second coming or WW3 or some other conflagration. I'm unconvinced. And I really, really am not concerned about the rise of "militant atheism" which as far as I can tell is just dispensing with the customary polite neglect shown to goofy ideas when they are religious in origin (oh, I need to summon the elevator for you because it's Sabbath? Of course. Here you go.) but educate me if there are training camps springing up.

Jason, I won't begrudge Palin her success, but she was markedly unprepared for a vice presidency position, and she says really, really stupid things, all the time. Concerningly stupid things, like that the press critiquing Republicans violates freedom of the press, and several concerning tweets, and I don't mean just illiterate ones, but ones that show she doesn't understand how the country works.* She's got an image (a gratingly annoying superior tone she reserves for the "elites," as part of it) and not much substance. Check out the complete Palinisms (and remember, they have a complete Bidenisms too!).

*"I think it's appalling and a violation of our freedom of the press."
—Speaking about the negative media coverage of Republican congressional candidate Vaughn Ward, Boise, Idaho, May 21, 2010

"Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"
"Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")"

—Tweets in support of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, after Schlessinger decided to leave radio following an on-air tirade about the "n-word," Aug. 18, 2010.
--Ian
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

IJ wrote:
Jason, I won't begrudge Palin her success, but she was markedly unprepared for a vice presidency position, and she says really, really stupid things, all the time. Concerningly stupid things, like that the press critiquing Republicans violates freedom of the press, and several concerning tweets, and I don't mean just illiterate ones, but ones that show she doesn't understand how the country works.* She's got an image (a gratingly annoying superior tone she reserves for the "elites," as part of it) and not much substance. Check out the complete Palinisms (and remember, they have a complete Bidenisms too!).
Ian, I won't argue your point that she was unprepared for VP. She's steadily gaining on Biden for # of stupid things said. However, we have alot of politicians who say stupid things, and I really think the danger of Palin for Prez has passed. It's too bad Ann Coulter wouldn't consider running for VP, actually. :twisted: Talk about winding up the bases of each party.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”