This is particularly shoddy journalism. It appears to be an attempt to make a problem go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

The bit they got right is quoting verse 4:34 from the Koran:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Not sure where the "lightly" bit comes from.

Pretty much everything else in the article is incorrect. For example:

The verse should not be read literally, they say, but in context with other Koranic verses, as well as the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who — as has been well-established in hadiths, which document his words and actions — never hit his wives, and encouraged men to treat women with respect.

The truth is that Muhamamd beat his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission. There is also an account of a wife whose skin was green with bruising complaining to Muhammad, to no avail, and Muhammad laughing as women were beaten in front of him.

Also, referring to 4:34:

However, in recent decades a growing number of scholars have argued such interpretations contradict major Islamic teachings of non-violence and gender equality.

The Koran specifically teaches that men and women are not equal. On non-violence this claim is particularly ludicrous. There are entire chapters of the Koran dedicated to promoting violence - kill, fight, slay and be slain, capture the women, terrorise the infidel, the superior Muslims are the ones who kill and die in the name of Islam etc.

Even more alarming, the article leaves out the bit about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old girl, and Islamic injunctions again making illegal what Islam permits. By far the worst aspect of Islam for women is the sanctioning of sex slavery. Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs used the trade in sex slaves as a key tool to motivate jihadists, build their Islamic State and to impose Islam on people. There is no greater barrier to anyone's rights than state-backed institutionalised slavery and it took centuries of military and diplomatic intervention by Europe and America to bring the Arab slave trade under control. Thanks to Islam, this task is still far from complete, with sex slavery on the rise again in the Islamic State, and sex slavery still operating under the sanction of Islam in countries that have only recently banned it.

The article manages to make a giant leap from this reality to Islam promoting non-violence and equality. It is a ludicrous white-washing of the problem Islam poses for the world, easily dismissed by Muslims who are capable of reading the Islamic literature for themselves. It serves only to reinforce the misrepresentations of Islam that facilitate oppression and exploitation by hiding the real cause.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

Pretty much everything else in the article is incorrect. For example: The verse should not be read literally, they say, but in context with other Koranic verses, as well as the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who — as has been well-established in hadiths, which document his words and actions — never hit his wives, and encouraged men to treat women with respect.

They are citing what muslim scholars say, how can it be "incorrect" to simply relay this information?

Don't shoot the messenger FD.

And here's the paper the ABC article referenced:


Quote:

The 󰁦􀁩rst context to be considered is the Quranic language. As mentioned before, the verb daraba has many di󐁦ferent meanings. It is perhaps one of the most variously used words in the Arabic language. This is primarily because it is often used symbolically as an expression to mean something di󐁦ferent than the literal meaning of the word. According to Muhammad (2011), it is estimated that about a hundred meanings in all have been given to this  word in its various forms in classical Arabic dictionaries. It is also recorded in these sources that speci󰁦􀁩c meanings are associated with certain prepositions or subjects and while there are no rigid rules, these can be seen as patterns of common usage. The Quran itself uses this word in di󐁦ferent ways. After identifying di󐁦ferent meanings of the word daraba in the Quran, Muhammad explains that there is not even one occurrence in the Quran where the word means “beat” (2011: 22). According to most of the mentioned scholars in the egalitarian camp, daraba means “go away” or “leave”. However, according to this interpretation, it is not clear who needs to leave. A closer look at the next verse, 4:35, clari󰁦􀁩es the issue when it asks for a publicising of the problem and a quest for others’ help to reconcile the couple or help them to separate if the problem continues

Muslim scholars agree that Muhammad beat his favourite child bride.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2017 at 12:29pm: Pretty much everything else in the article is incorrect. For example: The verse should not be read literally, they say, but in context with other Koranic verses, as well as the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who — as has been well-established in hadiths, which document his words and actions — never hit his wives, and encouraged men to treat women with respect. They are citing what muslim scholars say, how can it be "incorrect" to simply relay this information? Don't shoot the messenger FD.

Who are those Muslim scholars? They must be in hiding. Can you point to a few of them for us, please?

Muslims just need to realize that the Medinan verses, like the on about wife-beating should be completely ignored.

Someone should just get a Quran and edited out all the violent parts with correction tape, like the Jefferson Bible, publish it, and then hand them out to illiterate people in the Middle East.

Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level.
It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true.

Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass.

Frank wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass.

You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones.

I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it.

Auggie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 10:02pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it.

augcaesarustus,

Why your concerns for the Mohammedan ?

The Mohammedan is simply a deeply dishonest person, and he/she a person with a deeply flawed psyche [imo].


ISLAM and its followers can have no credibility, to anyone who has seen through the doublespeak, the duplicity, the sophistry and the deceit which they [Mohammedan's] just 'happen' to propagate, wherever they go !

ISLAM is a deeply, deeply, evil philosophy, imo.





Frank,

Good post, #6.

'Just the facts'.

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:40pm:

augcaesarustus, Why your concerns for the Mohammedan ?

Do you feel an abiding sympathy for the 'mis-steps' of the Mohammedan ?



I feel an abiding sympathy for all of their victims.

The victims of their deceit, the victims of their callous and utterly ruthless violence.

Auggie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 10:02pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it.

It would be easier to get them to abandon their religion. There is so much promotion of violence in the Koran that you would end up with confetti if you tried to edit it all out. Muslims will always have a motivation to go back to the real, original version, no matter how successful you are at reforming.

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:40pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 10:02pm: Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it. augcaesarustus, Why your concerns for the Mohammedan ? The Mohammedan is simply a deeply dishonest person, and he/she a person with a deeply flawed psyche [imo]. ISLAM and its followers can have no credibility, to anyone who has seen through the doublespeak, the duplicity, the sophistry and the deceit which they [Mohammedan's] just 'happen' to propagate, wherever they go ! ISLAM is a deeply, deeply, evil philosophy, imo. Frank, Good post, #6. 'Just the facts'.

The thing is, Yadda, the earliest verses of the Quran are filled with calls to feed the poor and to condemn those who 'pileth up wealth'. I don't about you but feeding the poor is a good thing.

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:40pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 10:02pm: Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it. augcaesarustus, Why your concerns for the Mohammedan ? The Mohammedan is simply a deeply dishonest person, and he/she a person with a deeply flawed psyche [imo]. ISLAM and its followers can have no credibility, to anyone who has seen through the doublespeak, the duplicity, the sophistry and the deceit which they [Mohammedan's] just 'happen' to propagate, wherever they go ! ISLAM is a deeply, deeply, evil philosophy, imo. Frank, Good post, #6. 'Just the facts'.

You know Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of violent and belligerent verses, much worse than the Quran. 

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

Auggie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 10:02pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it.

that is true we did rewrite the Bible.... or bring the old meanings up to date... but a lot of folks wont have a bar of it....

I was told by a minister that the word "fear" in the bible really means in AWE of...well in my mind thats what they need to say....when you talk of fearing god...it puts a monsters head on him/her  ::)

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

well fd you are concentrating on those violent bits...didnt god instruct Abraham to kill his son to prove his love of god.. ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

Well, you'd be wrong.

The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk".

Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?

Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it.

A clear cut time frame


Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The ancient Judaic law is finished, man for the last two thousand and seventeen years is justified by faith alone.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk". Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?

Freediver: "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does."

Are you seriously suggesting that the OT is not a religious text?

I'm curious.

Nothing even comes close to the Talmud, but those wily jews always get a free pass. 

... wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

Nothing even comes close to the Talmud, but those wily jews always get a free pass.

So, apart from Judaic and Christian texts, none encourage violence to the extent that Islam does.

Maybe that's what freediver meant to say.

... wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

Nothing even comes close to the Talmud, but those wily jews always get a free pass.

Well yes, but the question is, if the dastardly Muselman is compelled to rape and kill based on his evil book, then why not the Jew, who's book is far more sinister?

Thoughts?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

"An analysis into whether the Quran is more violent than the Bible found killing and destruction occur more frequently in the Christian texts than the Islamic."

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk". Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)".

Dear o dear.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 10:02pm: Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Meccan verses, Medina verses, use of this word in the Koran and that, this context and that, strike them doesn't mean strike them, kill them doesn't mean kill them - Islam is the compendium of dishonesty, double speak and sneaky lies. Islam has elevated the art of lying and deception to a religious level. It is simply not possible to know when a Saracen is honest and when he is deceptive. It all sounds exactly the same. They have covered everything and the opposite of everything as god's honest truth. They are imply unable to be honest and true. Islam and its followers are un-believable. You must, simply, not believe anything they say because they have said the opposite of it and every other point on the compass. You're not gonna convince Muslims to reform by proposing that they abandon their religion. They just need to do away with the bad verses, and follow the good ones. I don't believe in context - that's bullshit. The verses are wrong; that's it. It would be easier to get them to abandon their religion. There is so much promotion of violence in the Koran that you would end up with confetti if you tried to edit it all out. Muslims will always have a motivation to go back to the real, original version, no matter how successful you are at reforming.

OK, so can you stop pretending you think its important for muslims to reform then?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

Yes, because FD knows the Quran so well.

Would you be willing to put money on their being more encouragement of violence in the Quran than in the Old Testament? Keeping in mind, of course, that you have read neither.

greggerypeccary wrote Reply #23 - Today at 12:38pm


Quote:

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear.

Can you show where the teachings of Christ in the N.T. unequivocally urge his followers to slay and be slain, to borrow a colloquialism from islam?

In the same light can you show where Christ assured his followers rape was O.K. if the urge prevailed, as in islam?

can you show where Christ told his followers thieving was O.K. as muhammad taught?

Can you show where Christ taught lying was o.K. again as in islam and muhammad?

Can you show where Christ taught that any of his followers who actually did kill or were killed are a grade higher than those who don't, again as in islam?

Can you show where Christ taught that it is a Christian duty to torture and kill other Christians you think are corrupters and hypocrites, again as in islam?

Can you show where Christ deliberately lied in order to justify Christians deliberately slaughtering non believers, as muhammad and islam does?

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Reply #23 - Today at 12:38pm Quote: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear. Can you show where the teachings of Christ in the N.T. unequivocally urge his followers to slay and be slain, to borrow a colloquialism from islam? In the same light can you show where Christ assured his followers rape was O.K. if the urge prevailed, as in islam? can you show where Christ told his followers thieving was O.K. as muhammad taught? Can you show where Christ taught lying was o.K. again as in islam and muhammad? Can you show where Christ taught that any of his followers who actually did kill or were killed are a grade higher than those who don't, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ taught that it is a Christian duty to torture and kill other Christians you think are corrupters and hypocrites, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ deliberately lied in order to justify Christians deliberately slaughtering non believers, as muhammad and islam does?

Why do you want me to show you these things - are you planning something?

had A Quick look at New Testament site from reply 23 of greggerypeccary

How did they come up with their stats?

from their site:

By categorising words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

They also state:

I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive

From the dictionary:

superficial adjective: Of little substance or significance

One of their links giving the results says:

eight primary human emotion categories: Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust.

The analysis determined that of the three texts, the Old Testament was the “angriest,” which obviously does not appear to support an argument that the Quran is an especially violent text relative to the others.

Angriest?

What a load of crap.

They studiously avoided words / emotions depicting kill slay crucify torture etc., which the qur'an is full of and come up with their bullshit anti Christian stats.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 2:51pm:

had A Quick look at New Testament site from reply 23 of greggerypeccary How did they come up with their stats? from their site: By categorising words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran. They also state: I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive From the dictionary: superficial adjective: Of little substance or significance One of their links giving the results says: eight primary human emotion categories: Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust. The analysis determined that of the three texts, the Old Testament was the “angriest,” which obviously does not appear to support an argument that the Quran is an especially violent text relative to the others. Angriest? What a load of crap. They studiously avoided words / emotions depicting kill slay crucify torture etc., which the qur'an is full of and come up with their bullshit anti Christian stats.

Well, there you go.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 12:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Yes, because FD knows the Quran so well. Would you be willing to put money on their being more encouragement of violence in the Quran than in the Old Testament? Keeping in mind, of course, that you have read neither.

Is the Quran the only religious book that Muslims use? Im sure there are others, lets include them in the bet.

rhino wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 12:55pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Yes, because FD knows the Quran so well. Would you be willing to put money on their being more encouragement of violence in the Quran than in the Old Testament? Keeping in mind, of course, that you have read neither. Is the Quran the only religious book that Muslims use? Im sure there are others, lets include them in the bet.

Sure.

And we're also including the Old Testament, I assume.

greggerypeccary  Reply #27 - Today at 2:46pm


Quote:

Why do you want me to show you these things - are you planning something?

So you can't back up your words that The N.T. has more killing and destruction than the qur'an?

Don't worry I knew you wouldn't be able to.

Your backup site is a worthless piece of crap, gee they were really brave researching who was the angriest, weren't they?

Wonder why they didn't do some analysis of the present day atrocities being carried out by muslims who obey the qur'an to the letter?

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Reply #23 - Today at 12:38pm Quote: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear. Can you show where the teachings of Christ in the N.T. unequivocally urge his followers to slay and be slain, to borrow a colloquialism from islam? In the same light can you show where Christ assured his followers rape was O.K. if the urge prevailed, as in islam? can you show where Christ told his followers thieving was O.K. as muhammad taught? Can you show where Christ taught lying was o.K. again as in islam and muhammad? Can you show where Christ taught that any of his followers who actually did kill or were killed are a grade higher than those who don't, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ taught that it is a Christian duty to torture and kill other Christians you think are corrupters and hypocrites, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ deliberately lied in order to justify Christians deliberately slaughtering non believers, as muhammad and islam does?

Sure. Matthew  5: 17.


Quote:

I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

greggerypeccary  Reply #27 - Today at 2:46pm Quote: Why do you want me to show you these things - are you planning something? So you can't back up your words that The N.T. has more killing and destruction than the qur'an? Don't worry I knew you wouldn't be able to. Your backup site is a worthless piece of crap, gee they were really brave researching who was the angriest, weren't they? Wonder why they didn't do some analysis of the present day atrocities being carried out by muslims who obey the qur'an to the letter?

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)".

Oh dear.

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 1:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote Reply #23 - Today at 12:38pm Quote: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear. Can you show where the teachings of Christ in the N.T. unequivocally urge his followers to slay and be slain, to borrow a colloquialism from islam? In the same light can you show where Christ assured his followers rape was O.K. if the urge prevailed, as in islam? can you show where Christ told his followers thieving was O.K. as muhammad taught? Can you show where Christ taught lying was o.K. again as in islam and muhammad? Can you show where Christ taught that any of his followers who actually did kill or were killed are a grade higher than those who don't, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ taught that it is a Christian duty to torture and kill other Christians you think are corrupters and hypocrites, again as in islam? Can you show where Christ deliberately lied in order to justify Christians deliberately slaughtering non believers, as muhammad and islam does? Sure. Matthew  5: 17. [quote]I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

[/quote]

Oh dear.

Moses is copping it from all sides.

Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm


Quote:

Sure. Matthew  5: 17.

Not according to english vocabulary

Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion.

O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm Quote: Sure. Matthew  5: 17. Not according to english vocabulary Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion. O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian.

You need to concentrate, moses.

Is the OT a "religious text"?

Yes, of course it is.

freediver was wrong.  So very, very wrong.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm Quote: Sure. Matthew  5: 17. Not according to english vocabulary Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion. O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian.

You're not meaning to suggest that these translations of ancient books into English aren't to be interpreted literally, are you Moses?

greggerypeccary wrote


Quote:

You need to concentrate, moses. Is the OT a "religious text"? Yes, of course it is.

What's that got to do with your inability to show where the n.t. advocates killing more than the qur'an?

What's it got to do with anything at all actually?

mothra wrote

Quote:

You're not meaning to suggest that these translations of ancient books into English aren't to be interpreted literally, are you Moses? That they can only be interpreted literally?

What does the verse in question say?

Take it as a spiritual or literal meaning, they both end up the same: The law is finished.

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:37pm:

mothra wrote Quote: You're not meaning to suggest that these translations of ancient books into English aren't to be interpreted literally, are you Moses? That they can only be interpreted literally? What does the verse in question say? Take it as a spiritual or literal meaning, they both end up the same: The law is finished.

fulfil
fʊlˈfɪl/Submit
verb
verb: fulfill
1.
achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).
"he wouldn't be able to fulfil his ambition to visit Naples"
synonyms:      succeed in, attain, realize, consummate, satisfy, manage, bring off, bring about, carry off, carry out, carry through, bring to fruition, deliver; More
2.
carry out (a duty or role) as required, promised, or expected.
"some officials were dismissed because they could not fulfil their duties"

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:37pm:

mothra wrote Quote: You're not meaning to suggest that these translations of ancient books into English aren't to be interpreted literally, are you Moses? That they can only be interpreted literally? What does the verse in question say? Take it as a spiritual or literal meaning, they both end up the same: The law is finished.

"any religious text" - that's what freediver said.

And, the OT most certainly falls into the category of "any religious text".

You're flogging a dead horse, moses.

Don't you have something better to flog?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/diu/cruel.jpg

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Quote: You need to concentrate, moses. Is the OT a "religious text"? Yes, of course it is. What's that got to do with your inability to show where the n.t. advocates killing more than the qur'an? What's it got to do with anything at all actually?

So does the n.t. condemn all the slaughtering in the o.t.?

Would you say this is an accurate depiction of both testaments?:

- o.t. - slaughter, rape, pillage, conquer, stone your women
- n.t. - nah, just kidding!

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote Quote: You need to concentrate, moses. Is the OT a "religious text"? Yes, of course it is. What's that got to do with your inability to show where the n.t. advocates killing more than the qur'an? What's it got to do with anything at all actually? So does the n.t. condemn all the slaughtering in the o.t.? Would you say this is an accurate depiction of both testaments?: - o.t. - slaughter, rape, pillage, conquer, stone your women - n.t. - nah, just kidding!

Thou Jesteth!

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm Quote: Sure. Matthew  5: 17. Not according to english vocabulary Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion. O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian. You need to concentrate, moses. Is the OT a "religious text"? Yes, of course it is. freediver was wrong.  So very, very wrong.

Yes it is a religious book... it is a Jewish religious history and speaks of the times before Christ...
Christianity come from the teachings of Christ which do not follow all the laws and teachings in the Old Testament.  IT IS A NEW TESTAMENT...

Christ came to fulfill the prophecy in the Old Testament, he is not accepted by the Jews as the Messiah though. The Muslims do not accept him as the Son of God.

He does not preach war and killing or even retaliation.  You cant say the same for the Quoran...
The same can be said of many moralistic ideas. :D :D :D :D :D
Good luck with your complete religious ignorance Gweggy.  You and the rest of the LW Progressive atheists preaching of that which they know not of. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:26pm: moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm Quote: Sure. Matthew  5: 17. Not according to english vocabulary Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion. O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian. You need to concentrate, moses. Is the OT a "religious text"? Yes, of course it is. freediver was wrong.  So very, very wrong. Yes it is a religious book... it is a Jewish religious history and speaks of the times before Christ... Christianity come from the teachings of Christ which do not follow all the laws and teachings in the Old Testament.  IT IS A NEW TESTAMENT... Christ came to fulfill the prophecy in the Old Testament, he is not accepted by the Jews as the Messiah though. The Muslims do not accept him as the Son of God. He does not preach war and killing or even retaliation.  You cant say the same for the Quoran... The same can be said of many moralistic ideas. :D :D :D :D :D Good luck with your complete religious ignorance Gweggy.  You and the rest of the LW Progressive atheists preaching of that which they know not of. :D :D :D :D :D

You need to concentrate a little harder.

Freediver said: "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does."

He was wrong, and that has been proven.

Which part of that don't you understand?

mothra wrote


Quote:

fulfil fʊlˈfɪl/Submit verb verb: fulfill 1. achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted). "he wouldn't be able to fulfil his ambition to visit Naples" synonyms:      succeed in, attain, realize, consummate, satisfy, manage, bring off, bring about, carry off, carry out, carry through, bring to fruition, deliver; More 2. carry out (a duty or role) as required, promised, or expected. "some officials were dismissed because they could not fulfil their duties"

The Christian doctrine is that Christ fulfilled the law, brought it to a successful conclusion.

This is verified in the verses which state various precepts of: the law was until John, no man is justified by the law etc.

Also the last words Christ spoke as he died on the cross were "It is finished".

You will never be able to tell a Christian that he / she is bound by the law.

They are not and they have moved on with the times.

I know why muslims and their apologists always try this line of attack on Christianity.

muslims are stuck with the stupidity of: the qur'an is infallible and unchangeable, so they are bound to the slaughter and destruction forever, unable to reject it or islam dies.

So instead of acknowledging that Judaism and Christianity have progressed, the ant- Christian brigade always use the fallacious tactic of promoting Judaism and Christianity as being no better than islam.

A patent lie on their part.

gandalf wrote


Quote:

So does the n.t. condemn all the slaughtering in the o.t.? Would you say this is an accurate depiction of both testaments?: - o.t. - slaughter, rape, pillage, conquer, stone your women - n.t. - nah, just kidding!

The O.T. is many things: Ancient man's depiction of how things began, Mosaic law, Covenant between God and the Hebrews, various chronicles of ancient Jewish life etc. It is a book authored in ancient barbaric times by men, as such it portrays punishments in terms that were acceptable in those days. (thankfully most Jews today do not feel bound by the barbarity of ancient law they have moved on with the times)

The N.T. is a a collection of gospels depicting the teachings of Christ. It clearly states the mosaic law was completed and man is now justified by faith not the law.

This is where they have it over islam, you are bound by the ridiculous words of muhammad that the qur'an is perfect and can never be changed.

You are stuck with the slaughter and destruction, you can not reject it or islam collapses.

That is the reason muslims and their apologists desperately try to bond Judaism and Christianity to barbaric inhumanities.

This is plainly  untrue, they both have moved on.    

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 4:44pm:

mothra wrote Quote: fulfil fʊlˈfɪl/Submit verb verb: fulfill 1. achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted). "he wouldn't be able to fulfil his ambition to visit Naples" synonyms:      succeed in, attain, realize, consummate, satisfy, manage, bring off, bring about, carry off, carry out, carry through, bring to fruition, deliver; More 2. carry out (a duty or role) as required, promised, or expected. "some officials were dismissed because they could not fulfil their duties" The Christian doctrine is that Christ fulfilled the law, brought it to a successful conclusion. This is verified in the verses which state various precepts of: the law was until John, no man is justified by the law etc. Also the last words Christ spoke as he died on the cross were "It is finished". You will never be able to tell a Christian that he / she is bound by the law. They are not and they have moved on with the times. I know why muslims and their apologists always try this line of attack on Christianity. muslims are stuck with the stupidity of: the qur'an is infallible and unchangeable, so they are bound to the slaughter and destruction forever, unable to reject it or islam dies. So instead of acknowledging that Judaism and Christianity have progressed, the ant- Christian brigade always use the fallacious tactic of promoting Judaism and Christianity as being no better than islam. A patent lie on their part.

So, not taking the wording literally then.

Thanks for the confirmation.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran.

Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here.

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran. Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here.

Post some of it so we can make Effendi defend it, please, Caesar Augustus.

Aussie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 5:42pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran. Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here. Post some of it so we can make Effendi defend it, please, Caesar Augustus.

Bear with me for a moment, Aussie, I'm trying to find it. I do specifically remember there being calls to kill people. For now, here is one about the 'greatest of the prophets: Moses'.

Numbers 31:13 - 18: "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - i.e. 'women-children as sex slaves.'

Leviticus 24:15 “Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death."

Deuteronomy 13:6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you."

"Samuel 1:17-19 "So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”

Thank goodness no one was stupid enough to push it as infallible and never to be changed.

Aussie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 5:42pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran. Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here. Post some of it so we can make Effendi defend it, please, Caesar Augustus.

If he doesn't defend it, he'll at least answer all our questions.

He's good like that.

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

Leviticus 24:15 “Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death." Deuteronomy 13:6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you." "Samuel 1:17-19 "So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”

Soooo...... when was the last stoning by Jews for contravening these verses???

So, it's not the Quran, then is it? As both Yadda and Effendi claim, but rather the fact that people hold those beliefs.

This shows us that Islam can reform.

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

So, it's not the Quran, then is it? As both Yadda and Effendi claim, but rather the fact that people hold those beliefs. This shows us that Islam can reform.

And that indeed, the vast majority of Muslims interpret the Quran peacefully.

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:

So, it's not the Quran, then is it? As both Yadda and Effendi claim, but rather the fact that people hold those beliefs. This shows us that Islam can reform.

Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god.
They kill people because they DO believe the Koran.

Soooo... when was the last Jewish stoning?  How and when did the Jews, even the most orthodox, stop following the literal words of the Torah?  You asserted the Torah is worse, yet there are no Jews toning anyone.

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:13pm: So, it's not the Quran, then is it? As both Yadda and Effendi claim, but rather the fact that people hold those beliefs. This shows us that Islam can reform. Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran. Soooo... when was the last Jewish stoning?  How and when did the Jews, even the most orthodox, stop following the literal words of the Torah?  You asserted the Torah is worse, yet there are no Jews toning anyone.

Another apologist.

cods wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:15am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. well fd you are concentrating on those violent bits...didnt god instruct Abraham to kill his son to prove his love of god.. ::) ::)

He instructed Abraham to kill his son. He instructed Muslims to terrorise the infidel.


greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:20am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Well, you'd be wrong. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

Did you read what I actually said? The Koran is full of calls to Muslims to commit violence. Islam compares badly even to the old testament.


greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am: To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk". Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ? "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear.

Crap. The New Testament is pretty much the opposite of the Koran on this.


Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran. Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here.

I have read it, and part of the Koran. The Torah documents violence. To Koran calls for it. The are entire chapters of the Koran devoted to commanding Muslims to slay and be slain.


Quote:

And that indeed, the vast majority of Muslims interpret the Quran peacefully.

It is hard to put a peaceful interpretation on an explicit call for violence.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

cods wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:15am: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. well fd you are concentrating on those violent bits...didnt god instruct Abraham to kill his son to prove his love of god.. ::) ::) He instructed Abraham to kill his son. He instructed Muslims to terrorise the infidel. greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:20am: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Well, you'd be wrong. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. Did you read what I actually said? The Koran is full of call to Muslims to commit violence. Islam compares badly even to the old testament. greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 12:38pm: moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am: To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk". Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ? "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear. Crap. The New Testament is pretty much the opposite of the Koran on this. greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 12:38pm: moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am: To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk". Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ? "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)". Dear o dear. Crap. But at least you quoted what I actually said. Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 5:42pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. Read the Torah; some parts of it are worse than the Quran. Most monotheistic religions have some degree of violence/hatred in them. We're not dealing with perfect beings here. I have read it, part of the Koran. The Torah documents violence. To Koran calls for it. The are entire chapters of the Koran devoted to commanding Muslims to slay and be slain. Quote: And that indeed, the vast majority of Muslims interpret the Quran peacefully. It is hard to put a peaceful interpretation on an explicit call for violence.

I've proven you wrong, FD.

So very, very wrong.

Be a man, accept it, and move on.

Listen to this interview on Australian radio today

http://www.2gb.com/podcast/tommy-robinson-interview/

You haven't proven anything Greg.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

You haven't proven anything Greg.

I, and others, have proven you wrong.

So very, very wrong.

Suck it up, Princess   ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:02pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:56pm: You haven't proven anything Greg. I, and others, have proven you wrong. So very, very wrong. Suck it up, Princess   ;)

You pood in your cot once again, Turd, and trying to blame others as usual.

You couldn't prove anyone wrong to save your life. You are simply too thick and too turdy.

Now float away.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

These are the facts.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts.

Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran?

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts. Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran?

I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong.

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does."

Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on".

Over to you, old boy ...

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran

The reason why they haven't is because those societies haven't gone through the same development that we have. You think the amount of blood the West has shed compared to any other place on earth. We learnt our lesson, but it took hundreds of millions of people to die in order for us to learn it.

Given enough time, peoples in those societies will shed enough blood that they'll get there. That's why our interfering isn't doing anything. Let them evolve organically.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts.

So is a Tarantino movie, but no-one believes a Tarantino movie is a personal instruction from God to them to terrorise the infidel.

Are you trying to disagree with me, or are you just having trouble understanding what I say?

I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.

Get it now?

Consider, for example, all these direct and explicit calls to violence in chapter 9 alone:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:39pm:

Consider, for example, all these direct and explicit calls to violence in chapter 9 alone: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313

I don't even need to open that link, FD. Something tells me it's all your own words.

Does anyone want to try it?

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Karnal wrote reply #33 - Today at 3:05pm Quote: Sure. Matthew  5: 17. Not according to english vocabulary Mathew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Fulfill means:  (1)to bring to a conclusion or completion. O.T. Law has been successfully brought to a conclusion, it is finished, not applicable to today's Christian.

What abou today's Jew?

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:28pm: Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran The reason why they haven't is because those societies haven't gone through the same development that we have. You think the amount of blood the West has shed compared to any other place on earth. We learnt our lesson, but it took hundreds of millions of people to die in order for us to learn it. Given enough time, peoples in those societies will shed enough blood that they'll get there. That's why our interfering isn't doing anything. Let them evolve organically.

Don't be ridiculous.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts. Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran? I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong. "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does." Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on". Over to you, old boy ...

Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent.

And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close.

Auggie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:28pm: Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran The reason why they haven't is because those societies haven't gone through the same development that we have. You think the amount of blood the West has shed compared to any other place on earth. We learnt our lesson, but it took hundreds of millions of people to die in order for us to learn it. Given enough time, peoples in those societies will shed enough blood that they'll get there. That's why our interfering isn't doing anything. Let them evolve organically.

Crap. These are the oldest civilisations on earth. Islam conquered nearly all of western civilisation. Since then, the areas secured for Islam under the original Caliphate have been stagnant for 1400 years. The only place that did not stagnate is the place that shook off the shackles of Islam before it was too late.

There is no such thing as "enough blood" under Islam.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts. Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran? I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong. "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does." Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on". Over to you, old boy ... Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent. And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close.

You really should concentrate harder.

Here it is again, for all the slow learners at the back of the class:

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does" (nothing about "acts on").

And, he's wrong.

Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer.

This has been proven several times in this thread.

However, as an Islamophobe, you refuse to accept these facts.

It's alright, though - I understand.

Islamophobia rots the brain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:25am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts. Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran? I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong. "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does." Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on". Over to you, old boy ... Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent. And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close. You really should concentrate harder. Here it is again, for all the slow learners at the back of the class: "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does" (nothing about "acts on"). And, he's wrong. Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. However, as an Islamophobe, you refuse to accept these facts. It's alright, though - I understand. Islamophobia rots the brain.

This should be interesting. Can you give an example of a "catholic text" that promotes violence more than chapter 9 of the Koran?

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:21am:

Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:28pm: Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran The reason why they haven't is because those societies haven't gone through the same development that we have. You think the amount of blood the West has shed compared to any other place on earth. We learnt our lesson, but it took hundreds of millions of people to die in order for us to learn it. Given enough time, peoples in those societies will shed enough blood that they'll get there. That's why our interfering isn't doing anything. Let them evolve organically. Don't be ridiculous.

'Don't be ridiculous' isn't an argument.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

I have read it, and part of the Koran. The Torah documents violence. To Koran calls for it. The are entire chapters of the Koran devoted to commanding Muslims to slay and be slain.

FD would you describe this as a command from God to perform genocide?


Quote:

16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction,1 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:29am:

Crap. These are the oldest civilisations on earth

Ah, no, you're wrong there. Islamic civilizations ARE NOT the oldest in the world. Islam was founded in the 7th Century AD. That's quite late in historical terms. Western civilization is much older.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:29am:

Islam conquered nearly all of western civilisation.

They didn't even come close.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:29am:

Since then, the areas secured for Islam under the original Caliphate have been stagnant for 1400 years.

Incorrect, again. The Ottomans were 'this' close to reforming themselves, but found themselves on the wrong side of a World War. Look at Turkey after its inception - it was one of the most secular and democratic states in the world - hardly stagnant. Iran was also a successful society until the British and Americans overthrew a democratically-elected Prime Minister because he nationalized the Anglo-Dutch Oil Company. Afghanistan was progressive up to the 1970s but again, some stupid fool initiates a coup.

There are many examples of successful Islamic societies in the past.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:48pm: I have read it, and part of the Koran. The Torah documents violence. To Koran calls for it. The are entire chapters of the Koran devoted to commanding Muslims to slay and be slain. FD would you describe this as a command from God to perform genocide? Quote: 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction,1 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

Not at all, G, it's just self-help.

Plenty of Christians referenced verses like this during the invasion of Iraq, which they called Babylon. Taking out Iraqis had a holy significance; a religious duty. They invoked Sodom, Gomorrah, pillars of salt and fire and brimstone galore, like they often do in times of war.

Christians don't go for terrorism because they lead the empire. Instead, they go for good, old testament military supremacy - with God's help, of course.

Auggie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Crap. These are the oldest civilisations on earth Ah, no, you're wrong there. Islamic civilizations ARE NOT the oldest in the world. Islam was founded in the 7th Century AD. That's quite late in historical terms. Western civilization is much older. freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Islam conquered nearly all of western civilisation. They didn't even come close. freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Since then, the areas secured for Islam under the original Caliphate have been stagnant for 1400 years. Incorrect, again. The Ottomans were 'this' close to reforming themselves, but found themselves on the wrong side of a World War. Look at Turkey after its inception - it was one of the most secular and democratic states in the world - hardly stagnant. Iran was also a successful society until the British and Americans overthrew a democratically-elected Prime Minister because he nationalized the Anglo-Dutch Oil Company. Afghanistan was progressive up to the 1970s but again, some stupid fool initiates a coup. There are many examples of successful Islamic societies in the past.

Watch out, Caestarustus. You're dangerously close to being accused of Muslim victimhood here. FD might be forced to make up something you've said and put you in Spineless Apologetics.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread.

It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy.

Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background.

That's merely your assertion.

You have no proof that I'm wrong.

Sorry   :P

Auggie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:21am: Auggie wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 8:28pm: Why doesn't it then?  Because apostasy is deadly, that's why. And it's deadly because the Koran says so. ANd because millions of Muslims around the world do believe that the Koran is the final, unalterable and eternal word of god. They kill people because they DO believe the Koran The reason why they haven't is because those societies haven't gone through the same development that we have. You think the amount of blood the West has shed compared to any other place on earth. We learnt our lesson, but it took hundreds of millions of people to die in order for us to learn it. Given enough time, peoples in those societies will shed enough blood that they'll get there. That's why our interfering isn't doing anything. Let them evolve organically. Don't be ridiculous. 'Don't be ridiculous' isn't an argument.

It's 2017, pal.

You shouldn't NEED to be slaughtered wholesale to see the error of your ways. We have had an Enlightenment, you know, and discovered the power of reason some 300-odd years ago.

For you to say that the Muslim must die in even greater number than they are now, mostly at each other's hands, IS ridiculous.

They are resistant to reason which they discredit as some white man's magic. Islam needs to catch up with the Enlightenment, not the Reformation.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P

Well, I haven't seen any of the proofs you insist on being presented. Until I see the proofs your assertion about them are just that.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P Well, I haven't seen any of the proofs you insist on being presented. Until I see the proofs your assertion about them are just that.

Again, you're merely making an assertion and that doesn't prove that you haven't seen my proof.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:30am:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:25am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm: I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does. The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran. These are the facts. Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran? I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong. "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does." Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on". Over to you, old boy ... Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent. And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close. You really should concentrate harder. Here it is again, for all the slow learners at the back of the class: "I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does" (nothing about "acts on"). And, he's wrong. Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. However, as an Islamophobe, you refuse to accept these facts. It's alright, though - I understand. Islamophobia rots the brain.

Hasn't been proven anywhere...
Stop lying Gweggy...  :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P

You are a confirmed LIAR, and you are a person who has no credibility in this online forum.


PROOF......



Quote:

Trump wins, I leave this forum forever.

- greggery

Auggie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

freediver wrote Today at 7:29am: Islam conquered nearly all of western civilisation. They didn't even come close.

FD's using Ian Morris's definition of the west - which is pretty much everything west of India and China (until you hit the Atlantic Ocean of course). So in that sense, Islam itself was born in the west

Yadda wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P You are a confirmed LIAR, and you are a person who has no credibility in this online forum. PROOF...... Quote: Trump wins, I leave this forum forever. - greggery

That's merely your assertion.

And, an assertion is not proof.

Sorry.

I defy any muslim or apologist to show where:

The teachings of Christ in the N.T. unequivocally urge his followers to slay and be slain, to borrow a colloquialism from islam?

Christ assured his followers rape was O.K. if the urge prevailed, as in islam?

Christ told his followers thieving was O.K. as muhammad taught?

Christ taught lying was o.K. again as in islam and muhammad?

Christ taught that any of his followers who actually did kill or were killed are a grade higher than those who don't, again as in islam?

Christ taught that it is a Christian duty to torture and kill other Christians you think are corrupters and hypocrites, again as in islam?

Christ deliberately lied in order to justify Christians deliberately slaughtering non believers, as muhammad and islam does?

We all know they are lying in order to equate Christianity and Judaism as being equally as evil as islam.

Why?

Well islam is rooted in all of the above evilness, the above is the cause and motivation for all islamic atrocities, it is touted as the final infallible never to be changed commands of allah.

muslims can never give up the above atrocities as this would destroy islam, so knowing islam cannot give up the depravity, they and their apologists desperately lie, seeking to degrade Judaeo / Christian doctrine and fruits to the degenerate level of the cesspool of islam.

oh well the world is turning on them, ducky ducky tsk tsk.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:25pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P Well, I haven't seen any of the proofs you insist on being presented. Until I see the proofs your assertion about them are just that. Again, you're merely making an assertion and that doesn't prove that you haven't seen my proof.

You are disappearing up yer own arse, Turdy.
Again.

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Listen to this interview on Australian radio today http://www.2gb.com/podcast/tommy-robinson-interview/

Listen to this.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:25pm: Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am: Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer. This has been proven several times in this thread. It has been asserted several times.   Not proved once, Turdy. Asserting is not proving.  You are an old fart but this simple truth still needs to be spelled out to you. Must be your union background. That's merely your assertion. You have no proof that I'm wrong. Sorry   :P Well, I haven't seen any of the proofs you insist on being presented. Until I see the proofs your assertion about them are just that. Again, you're merely making an assertion and that doesn't prove that you haven't seen my proof. You are disappearing up yer own arse, Turdy. Again.

Why is it I keep bumping into you there?

Quote:

It's 2017, pal.

It's 2017 for US, not for them. 


Quote:

You shouldn't NEED to be slaughtered wholesale to see the error of your ways. We have had an Enlightenment, you know, and discovered the power of reason some 300-odd years ago.

WE had the enlightenment, THEY didn't.


Quote:

For you to say that the Muslim must die in even greater number than they are now, mostly at each other's hands, IS ridiculous.

As ridiculous as 2 Word Wars?


Quote:

They are resistant to reason which they discredit as some white man's magic. Islam needs to catch up with the Enlightenment, not the Reformation.

My point exactly. The road to modernity is paved with blood. Get used to it.

Totally regressive islamic doctrine, is infallible never to be changed, hallowed dogma.

The road to modernity simply doesn't exist for muslims.

Auggie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Crap. These are the oldest civilisations on earth Ah, no, you're wrong there. Islamic civilizations ARE NOT the oldest in the world. Islam was founded in the 7th Century AD. That's quite late in historical terms. Western civilization is much older. freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Islam conquered nearly all of western civilisation. They didn't even come close. freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:29am: Since then, the areas secured for Islam under the original Caliphate have been stagnant for 1400 years. Incorrect, again. The Ottomans were 'this' close to reforming themselves, but found themselves on the wrong side of a World War. Look at Turkey after its inception - it was one of the most secular and democratic states in the world - hardly stagnant. Iran was also a successful society until the British and Americans overthrew a democratically-elected Prime Minister because he nationalized the Anglo-Dutch Oil Company. Afghanistan was progressive up to the 1970s but again, some stupid fool initiates a coup. There are many examples of successful Islamic societies in the past.

The best examples from Islam pale in comparison to what non-Muslim societies from earlier periods, or the same periods but elsewhere, achieved.

As Gandalf pointed out, I use the term "the west" very broadly. There is about 10000 years of agricultural history behind western civilisation, and it started in modern day Iraq. "Islamic" civilisation did not just appear out of thin air. It took over the oldest and most advanced civilisation on earth. Then it strangled it. The west as we often refer to it today was the fringe of that civilisation. It was while Islam dominated the west that Chinese civilisation leaped ahead for the first time, reaching a similar standard of living to the Romans.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 6:36pm:

It took over the oldest and most advanced civilisation on earth. Then it strangled it.

Hillarious saying this just after mentioning Iraq. If we take that region of Iraq alone, it was decimated by the wars between the Byzantines and Sassinids and was a shadow of its former glory by the time the muslim conquerers came. And yet as soon as the muslims took over, they built from scratch what came to be the intellectual centre of the world, and possibly the largest city in the world at close to a million. The only other contender was that other great muslim intellectual centre - Cordoba. Not even a rabidly Islamophobic revisionist version of history could claim the muslim occupation of Iraq resulted in anything other than intellectual and cultural advancement - let alone "strangling" it.

Rome also had over a million inhabitants, about 1000 years earlier. Pick any measure you want, except for area conquered, and the Islamic empire comes up short compared to what existed previously and/or what existed at the same time elsewhere.

Islam had the greatest opportunity, in the form of the largest land empire that had ever existed, covering nearly all of the oldest and wealthiest civilisation on earth. It achieved nothing with it, except cementing Islam as the state and the religion. All else was sacrificed to this goal. It was the only time in history that eastern civilisation pulled ahead of western.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:36pm: It took over the oldest and most advanced civilisation on earth. Then it strangled it. Hillarious saying this just after mentioning Iraq. If we take that region of Iraq alone, it was decimated by the wars between the Byzantines and Sassinids and was a shadow of its former glory by the time the muslim conquerers came. And yet as soon as the muslims took over, they built from scratch what came to be the intellectual centre of the world, and possibly the largest city in the world at close to a million. The only other contender was that other great muslim intellectual centre - Cordoba. Not even a rabidly Islamophobic revisionist version of history could claim the muslim occupation of Iraq resulted in anything other than intellectual and cultural advancement - let alone "strangling" it.

Islam was not backward 800 years ago.

That is no endorsement of Islam now.  We live NOW. Islam is a toxic menace NOW. It is no use to us NOW that it was not a toxic menace in Iraq 800 years ago.

NOW it's a f Vcking cancer on the world.   And you are its agent in so far as you are a Muslim. Do you spread the cancer or do you stop cure it??  It is up to you Muslims.  I can't cure you of Islam.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 7:25pm:

Pick any measure you want, except for area conquered, and the Islamic empire comes up short compared to what existed previously

The measure I just gave you proves you wrong. Iraq went from wasteland to the intellectual centre of the world with possibly the largest city in the world - built from scratch by the muslims.

I could also use the 'measure' of Andalus.

Could you explain to me the process of Islam "strangling" Iraq and Andalus FD?

Quote:

The measure I just gave you proves you wrong. Iraq went from wasteland to the intellectual centre of the world with possibly the largest city in the world - built from scratch by the muslims.

Islam achieved the same thing that the Romans did nearly a millenia earlier Gandalf. The best it could do was imitate the greatness of earlier civilisations or contemporary non-Muslim civilisations. Islam only compares well if you leave out the history of non-Muslim society.

Why did you bother responding but not addressing that point Gandalf? Are you going to keep pretending I didn't say it?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 7:06pm:

Quote: The measure I just gave you proves you wrong. Iraq went from wasteland to the intellectual centre of the world with possibly the largest city in the world - built from scratch by the muslims. Islam achieved the same thing that the Romans did nearly a millenia earlier Gandalf. The best it could do was imitate the greatness of earlier civilisations or contemporary non-Muslim civilisations. Islam only compares well if you leave out the history of non-Muslim society. Why did you bother responding but not addressing that point Gandalf? Are you going to keep pretending I didn't say it?

Did they have a republic, FD, or an empire?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 7:06pm:

Quote: The measure I just gave you proves you wrong. Iraq went from wasteland to the intellectual centre of the world with possibly the largest city in the world - built from scratch by the muslims. Islam achieved the same thing that the Romans did nearly a millenia earlier Gandalf. The best it could do was imitate the greatness of earlier civilisations or contemporary non-Muslim civilisations. Islam only compares well if you leave out the history of non-Muslim society. Why did you bother responding but not addressing that point Gandalf? Are you going to keep pretending I didn't say it?

I addressed your BS claim that everything Islam took it 'strangled'. By definition, this means taking places that were in one state, and making them into a worse state. Its a simple statement of fact that this is not the case for Baghdad - or Cordoba, or Cairo - all three cities which were built from scratch, and became the greatest centres of learning of its time. All three were the very opposite to being "strangled" under Islam. Simple statement of fact FD. You can't dispute this, and are not even trying. Instead you make some irrelevant argument about the Islamic lands not being as good as it was when another empire controlled it hundreds of years earlier - and conveniently ignoring what happened to these places in the years between Rome's decline and Islam's takeover.

Quote:

I addressed your BS claim that everything Islam took it 'strangled'. By definition, this means taking places that were in one state, and making them into a worse state.

No you didn't. It was a metaphor Gandalf.


Quote:

Its a simple statement of fact that this is not the case for Baghdad - or Cordoba, or Cairo - all three cities which were built from scratch, and became the greatest centres of learning of its time.

So this is the example you chose - creating new cities? Do you think this had never been done before?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 7:54pm:

Quote: I addressed your BS claim that everything Islam took it 'strangled'. By definition, this means taking places that were in one state, and making them into a worse state. No you didn't. It was a metaphor Gandalf. [quote]Its a simple statement of fact that this is not the case for Baghdad - or Cordoba, or Cairo - all three cities which were built from scratch, and became the greatest centres of learning of its time.

So this is the example you chose - creating new cities? Do you think this had never been done before?[/quote]

A telling point, FD, and one that undermines your entire thesis.

Back to the drawing board, FD.

Karnal wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

A telling point, FD, and one that undermines your entire thesis.

Indeed. I'd ask FD to explain how creating, from scratch, 3 separate cities that became the intellectual and cultural epicentres of the western world equates to being "strangled"... but I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 7:54pm:

So this is the example you chose - creating new cities? Do you think this had never been done before?

No FD, building cities that became great cultural and intellectual centres of its time certainly has been done before. The difference is, no one, not even you, would ever describe any of those examples with the use of the word "strangled".

polite_gandalf wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 9:20pm:

Karnal wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 11:20am: A telling point, FD, and one that undermines your entire thesis. Indeed. I'd ask FD to explain how creating, from scratch, 3 separate cities that became the intellectual and cultural epicentres of the western world equates to being "strangled"... but I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time.

They were the epicentres of the western world because the Caliphate captured almost all of the western world. Wherever they decided to put the capital, that was where the capital was. It's like someone saying Australia is a great empire because we built Canberra from scratch and put the best museums (in Australia) there. It has all been done before.


Quote:

No FD, building cities that became great cultural and intellectual centres of its time certainly has been done before. The difference is, no one, not even you, would ever describe any of those examples with the use of the word "strangled".

Even if you are strangling the entirety of civilisation, you still need a capital to do it from. You started out by citing their ability to build the city from scratch and it's population - about the same as Rome before it, was something special. Again, it had all been done before. Doing it again is not evidence of anything. The Islamic Empire comes up short compared to what preceded it in the west and what happened in China at around the same time.

The shithole that is the middle east and north africa is the inevitable consequence of Islam. This was once the most advanced civilisation on earth. Not just once, but for all the history of civilisation until Islam came along. Islam strangled it.

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 9:58pm:

It's like someone saying Australia is a great empire because we built Canberra from scratch and put the best museums (in Australia) there.

No, it would be like saying the entire western world, including Australia descended into a dark age, and then another civilization overran Australia, and then Australia became, under this conquering civilization, the greatest cultural and knowledge centre of the entire western world, and indeed the only place where western scientific pursuit took place - in leaps and bounds.

You would rightly mock describing such a scenario as a "strangling" of the western world... except, of course if you were talking about Islam.

The west has gone through many cycles of building great empires and then descending into a dark age. Islam was not one of those great empires. It was the dark age. It still is in the middle east and north africa, and seems to be heading that way in east asia.

Again, Islam was only the greatest in the western world because it was almost the entirety of the western world and it's influence was even more destructive outside of it's borders. But it fell short of what came before it in the west and what came at the same time in China - in both cases it fell short by a very wide margin. It could not even come close despite already being shown how.

The analogy is entirely apt. Having the greatest whatever within your own borders does not prove a thing. It's like someone saying Australia is a great empire because we built Canberra from scratch and put the best museums (in Australia) there.

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 8:06am:

But it fell short of what came before it in the west and what came at the same time in China - in both cases it fell short by a very wide margin. It could not even come close despite already being shown how.

That is not "strangling" FD.

When you take over a place that is in a dilapidated state (as was the case in most of the territory conquered by the muslims), then build it up to be, on any measure, more prosperous than what it was when you took over - that is the very opposite to "strangling" that place.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 8:06am: But it fell short of what came before it in the west and what came at the same time in China - in both cases it fell short by a very wide margin. It could not even come close despite already being shown how. That is not "strangling" FD. When you take over a place that is in a dilapidated state (as was the case in most of the territory conquered by the muslims), then build it up to be, on any measure, more prosperous than what it was when you took over - that is the very opposite to "strangling" that place.

And where did this happen?

Not in Africa, where the Muslims slave trade was a lot worse than the Atlantic slave trade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM0yb0O0PFY

Frank wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 8:34pm:

And where did

Spain, obviously. Also Mesopotamia and Egypt:


Quote:

Growth of trade One of the most far-reaching changes in Fāṭimid times was the growth of Egyptian commerce, especially in Al-Fusṭāṭ, which had become the port city for Cairo, the Fāṭimid capital. Theretofore, Iraq in the east and Tunisia in the west had been flourishing centres for trade conducted both within the Muslim world and between the Muslim and the Christian empires of the West. A number of factors contributed to alter this situation in favour of Egypt. As centralized power declined in Iraq, Mesopotamia, and Syria during the 9th and 10th centuries, traffic on the trade routes across these areas also declined. In Egypt, however, the establishment of a strong government, which soon controlled the Red Sea and maintained a strong navy in the eastern Mediterranean, offered an attractive alternative for the international transit trade between the Eastern and Western worlds. In addition to having the political stability essential for trade, the Fāṭimids encouraged commerce by their low tariff policy and their noninterference in the affairs of merchants who did business in Egypt. These factors, along with increased European mercantile activity in the Italian cities, helped restore Egypt as a great international entrepôt.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/From-the-Islamic-conquest-to-1250

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:

Frank wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 8:34pm: And where did Spain, obviously. Also Mesopotamia and Egypt: Quote: Growth of trade One of the most far-reaching changes in Fāṭimid times was the growth of Egyptian commerce, especially in Al-Fusṭāṭ, which had become the port city for Cairo, the Fāṭimid capital. Theretofore, Iraq in the east and Tunisia in the west had been flourishing centres for trade conducted both within the Muslim world and between the Muslim and the Christian empires of the West. A number of factors contributed to alter this situation in favour of Egypt. As centralized power declined in Iraq, Mesopotamia, and Syria during the 9th and 10th centuries, traffic on the trade routes across these areas also declined. In Egypt, however, the establishment of a strong government, which soon controlled the Red Sea and maintained a strong navy in the eastern Mediterranean, offered an attractive alternative for the international transit trade between the Eastern and Western worlds. In addition to having the political stability essential for trade, the Fāṭimids encouraged commerce by their low tariff policy and their noninterference in the affairs of merchants who did business in Egypt. These factors, along with increased European mercantile activity in the Italian cities, helped restore Egypt as a great international entrepôt. https://www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/From-the-Islamic-conquest-to-1250

So they screwed up Iraq and Tunisia so Cairo filled the void - they were ALL under Muslim contol, remember.

You asked where - rather mockingly I might add. Are you disputing my answers? Frank, you're quite a learned guy, are you going to attempt to whitewash the undeniable prosperity and cultural flowering in Spain under the muslims? FD prefers not to talk about it.


Quote:

The period of the Caliphate is seen as the golden age of al-Andalus. Crops produced using irrigation, along with food imported from the Middle East, provided the area around Córdoba and some other Andalusī cities with an agricultural economic sector that was the most advanced in Europe by far. Among European cities, Córdoba under the Caliphate, with a population of perhaps 500,000, eventually overtook Constantinople as the largest and most prosperous city in Europe.[15] Within the Islamic world, Córdoba was one of the leading cultural centres. The work of its most important philosophers and scientists (notably Abulcasis and Averroes) had a major influence on the intellectual life of medieval Europe. Muslims and non-Muslims often came from abroad to study in the famous libraries and universities of al-Andalus after the reconquest of Toledo in 1085. The most noted of these was Michael Scot (c. 1175 to c. 1235), who took the works of Ibn Rushd ("Averroes") and Ibn Sina ("Avicenna") to Italy. This transmission significantly affected the formation of the European Renaissance.[/quote] ... [quote]The historian Said al-Andalusi wrote that Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III had collected libraries of books and granted patronage to scholars of medicine and "ancient sciences". Later, al-Mustansir (Al-Hakam II) went yet further, building a university and libraries in Córdoba. Córdoba became one of the world's leading centres of medicine and philosophical debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus

FD calls this sort of rule by muslims "strangling"

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 9:53am:

Frank, you're quite a learned guy,

University of Balogney, innit.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 9:53am:

You asked where - rather mockingly I might add. Are you disputing my answers? Frank, you're quite a learned guy, are you going to attempt to whitewash the undeniable prosperity and cultural flowering in Spain under the muslims? FD prefers not to talk about it. Quote: The period of the Caliphate is seen as the golden age of al-Andalus. Crops produced using irrigation, along with food imported from the Middle East, provided the area around Córdoba and some other Andalusī cities with an agricultural economic sector that was the most advanced in Europe by far. Among European cities, Córdoba under the Caliphate, with a population of perhaps 500,000, eventually overtook Constantinople as the largest and most prosperous city in Europe.[15] Within the Islamic world, Córdoba was one of the leading cultural centres. The work of its most important philosophers and scientists (notably Abulcasis and Averroes) had a major influence on the intellectual life of medieval Europe. Muslims and non-Muslims often came from abroad to study in the famous libraries and universities of al-Andalus after the reconquest of Toledo in 1085. The most noted of these was Michael Scot (c. 1175 to c. 1235), who took the works of Ibn Rushd ("Averroes") and Ibn Sina ("Avicenna") to Italy. This transmission significantly affected the formation of the European Renaissance.[/quote] ... [quote]The historian Said al-Andalusi wrote that Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III had collected libraries of books and granted patronage to scholars of medicine and "ancient sciences". Later, al-Mustansir (Al-Hakam II) went yet further, building a university and libraries in Córdoba. Córdoba became one of the world's leading centres of medicine and philosophical debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus FD calls this sort of rule by muslims "strangling"

I absolutely dispute and deny that Spain flourished under Muslim rule because it was a Muslim rule. Absolutely deny it.

It was very, very atypical Muslim rule, mostly because it was stable and therefore atypical. It was stable because the dhimmis were not fractious but wanted stability. The Muslims obliged them by being easy touch about the Islamic shite.

The inhabitants were mostly non-Muslims, with their own culture, ethos, ethics, etc.  The same in most conquered lands for centuries: Muslims remained the minority rulers, the majority population were dhimmi Jews and Christians, with their non-Muslims ethos and attitudes to work, learning, cultivation of land and self. They remained thoroughly non-Muslims throughout the Arab occupation of Spain.


The 'Muslim Golden Ages' were places and times where/when Muslims provided stable government without imposing the heavy, zealous Islamic shite that they invariable tend to end up with.

Less Islam, more Golden Age. More Islam, more shite.

You absolutely dispute and deny, old chap. In the words of our old friend Sore End, always absolutely never ever.

The art, architecture and culture of Muslim Spain was absolutely Muslim, right down to its geometric design and its coffee.

Muslim Cordoba was the height of civilized culture at the time due to its tolerant Muslim rulers, as every schoolboy knows. You can absolutely deny this, and of course you always will.

Never ever.

Actually Frank is also wrong about the 'prosperity through stability' thesis.

Anyone who actually knows anything about the history of Cordoba knows that the height of the cultural and intellectual flowering came when the caliphate broke up into a collection of competing emirates. It was the political instability that (seemingly pardoxically) ushered in the best years for Cordoba. Perhaps because of the competition, as well as the decentralised rule.

Karnal wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 11:53am:

You absolutely dispute and deny, old chap. In the words of our old friend Sore End, always absolutely never ever. The art, architecture and culture of Muslim Spain was absolutely Muslim, right down to its geometric design and its coffee. Muslim Cordoba was the height of civilized culture at the time due to its tolerant Muslim rulers, as every schoolboy knows. You can absolutely deny this, and of course you always will. Never ever.

They were tolerant despite being Muslim, despite Islam. The history of Islam is the testimony to that.  Why have Muslims not repeated the Andalusian experience and practice everywhere if it was such a wonderful thing? There is an experience they always hold up as proof of their enlightenment -  but one they have never once repeated.

The Golden Age and the Andalusian Muslim Enlightenment is the same sort of laughable, comical  bollocks as "Abbas ibn Firnas invented human flight" by falling off a bloody cliff.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Actually Frank is also wrong about the 'prosperity through stability' thesis. Anyone who actually knows anything about the history of Cordoba knows that the height of the cultural and intellectual flowering came when the caliphate broke up into a collection of competing emirates. It was the political instability that (seemingly pardoxically) ushered in the best years for Cordoba. Perhaps because of the competition, as well as the decentralised rule.

;D ;D ;D

Intellectual competition within Islam.

Why has it been suppressed ever since if it was the best years of Islam? 

Because it was un-Islamic. That is the long and the short of it, Gandalf. Intellectual enlightenment and the contest of ideas is simply Un-Islamic. No wonder, Islam is Submission, not Let the Best Argument Win.

You cannot have an open contestation of ideas in a culture that stones you for straying from orthodoxy.

What is Arabic for 'lipstick on a pig'?  Because that's what your efforts - and Karnal's, Mothra's Brian's, Arsie's, etc - add up to.


Why don't YOU start a thread on criticism of Islam. Lead the way.  Don't always be a reactionary. Lead the way to enlightenment. Show us how Islam is to be reclaimed.

Don't worry, your co-religionists will not find out ho you really are.i

Frank wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 8:45pm:

Karnal wrote on May 18th, 2017 at 11:53am: You absolutely dispute and deny, old chap. In the words of our old friend Sore End, always absolutely never ever. The art, architecture and culture of Muslim Spain was absolutely Muslim, right down to its geometric design and its coffee. Muslim Cordoba was the height of civilized culture at the time due to its tolerant Muslim rulers, as every schoolboy knows. You can absolutely deny this, and of course you always will. Never ever. They were tolerant despite being Muslim,

Ah.

Frank wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 18th, 2017 at 4:56pm: Actually Frank is also wrong about the 'prosperity through stability' thesis. Anyone who actually knows anything about the history of Cordoba knows that the height of the cultural and intellectual flowering came when the caliphate broke up into a collection of competing emirates. It was the political instability that (seemingly pardoxically) ushered in the best years for Cordoba. Perhaps because of the competition, as well as the decentralised rule. ;D ;D ;D Intellectual competition within Islam. Why has it been suppressed ever since if it was the best years of Islam?  Because it was un-Islamic. That is the long and the short of it, Gandalf. Intellectual enlightenment and the contest of ideas is simply Un-Islamic. No wonder, Islam is Submission, not Let the Best Argument Win. You cannot have an open contestation of ideas in a culture that stones you for straying from orthodoxy. What is Arabic for 'lipstick on a pig'?  Because that's what your efforts - and Karnal's, Mothra's Brian's, Arsie's, etc - add up to. Why don't YOU start a thread on criticism of Islam. Lead the way.  Don't always be a reactionary. Lead the way to enlightenment. Show us how Islam is to be reclaimed. Don't worry, your co-religionists will not find out ho you really are.

Frank, why are you laughing? You basically just conceded every point I made that contradicts your original claims. Now your argument that "yeah, but it was unIslamic" completes the about-face.


Frank wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 8:45pm:

They were tolerant despite being Muslim, despite Islam.

Soren/Frank once quoted a source cleverly thinking it supported his contention that the Islamic Golden Age happened despite Islam, not because of it. Unfortunately he missed the paragraph that argued that the commands in the Quran to seek knowledge were a major contributing factor.

Always absolutely never ever.

On stilts, no?

Karnal wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

Frank wrote on May 18th, 2017 at 8:45pm: Karnal wrote on May 18th, 2017 at 11:53am: You absolutely dispute and deny, old chap. In the words of our old friend Sore End, always absolutely never ever. The art, architecture and culture of Muslim Spain was absolutely Muslim, right down to its geometric design and its coffee. Muslim Cordoba was the height of civilized culture at the time due to its tolerant Muslim rulers, as every schoolboy knows. You can absolutely deny this, and of course you always will. Never ever. They were tolerant despite being Muslim, despite Islam.the history of Islam is the testimony to that.  Why have Muslims not repeated the Andalusian experience and practice everywhere if it was such a wonderful thing? There is an experience they always hold up as proof of their enlightenment -  but one they have never once repeated. The Golden Age and the Andalusian Muslim Enlightenment is the same sort of laughable, comical  bollocks as "Abbas ibn Firnas invented human flight" by falling off a bloody cliff. Ah.

Good to see you finally get it.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Frank wrote on May 18th, 2017 at 8:54pm: [quote author=Frank link=1493000961/124#124 date=1495104351]They were tolerant despite being Muslim, despite Islam. Soren/Frank once quoted a source cleverly thinking it supported his contention that the Islamic Golden Age happened despite Islam, not because of it. Unfortunately he missed the paragraph that argued that the commands in the Quran to seek knowledge were a major contributing factor.

We,, why have they stopped heeding those commands?  Because they are buried under commands you Muslims have been far, far keener to obey and shout about before and since - that's why the 'Golden Age' was so atypical a Muslim era.

In the 'Golden Age' the Muslims were still a minority in many of the 'Muslim lands' and they simply got swayed by the dhimmi culture of enquiry, curiosity, quest for knowledge, art, etc. When Muslims become a majority they go mad, ie they become fundamentalist dogmatic, sharia-compliant zombies. So good-bye curiosity, enquiry, speculative exploration and hello cats' meat, Muslim Brotherhood, wahhabism, silly beards and the missus in a bag.

Frank wrote on May 19^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:

We,, why have they stopped heeding those commands?  Because they are buried under commands you Muslims have been far, far keener to obey and shout about before and since - that's why the 'Golden Age' was so atypical a Muslim era.

whoa Frank, are you acknowledging that such commands exist, and that indeed those commands did contribute to the cultural flowering that happened in the Golden Age?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 10:36am:

Frank wrote on May 19th, 2017 at 9:34pm: We,, why have they stopped heeding those commands?  Because they are buried under commands you Muslims have been far, far keener to obey and shout about before and since - that's why the 'Golden Age' was so atypical a Muslim era. whoa Frank, are you acknowledging that such commands exist, and that indeed those commands did contribute to the cultural flowering that happened in the Golden Age?

No. Read the WHOLE post, don't be selective (like you are always trying with Islam, the Koran, Mohammed etc).

In the 'Golden Age' the Muslims were still a minority in many of the 'Muslim lands' and they simply got swayed by the dhimmi culture of enquiry, curiosity, quest for knowledge, art, etc. When Muslims become a majority they go mad, ie they become fundamentalist dogmatic, sharia-compliant zombies. So good-bye curiosity, enquiry, speculative exploration and hello cats' meat, Muslim Brotherhood, wahhabism, silly beards and the missus in a bag.

Karnal wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 11:53am:

You absolutely dispute and deny, old chap. In the words of our old friend Sore End, always absolutely never ever. The art, architecture and culture of Muslim Spain was absolutely Muslim, right down to its geometric design and its coffee. Muslim Cordoba was the height of civilized culture at the time due to its tolerant Muslim rulers, as every schoolboy knows. You can absolutely deny this, and of course you always will. Never ever.

Quote:

Islamic Spain in Middle Ages no paradise for Christians, Jews, women     Paul Monk     The Australian     12:00AM July 9, 2016 The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews Under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain, by Dario Fernandez-Morera (ISI Books, 336pp, $59.95 hardback) There is a widely held belief that in Spain, during the European Middle Ages, Islam, Christianity and Judaism co-existed peacefully and fruitfully under a tolerant and enlightened Islamic hegemony. Dario Fernandez-Morera, associate professor of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University in the US, with a PhD from Harvard, has written a stunning book that upends this myth. The myth itself has been a comforting and even inspiring story that has underpinned the so-called Toledo Principles regarding religious tolerance in our time. It has buttressed the belief that Islam was a higher civilisation than that of medieval Europe in the eighth to 12th centuries and that the destruction of this enlightened and sophisticated Andalusia should be lamented. The great Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca, a century ago, saw it that way. US President Barack Obama and The Economist magazine have both very recently cited Muslim Andalusia as evidence that Islam has been a religion of peace and tolerance. In short, the myth of Andalusia has been a beacon of hope for working with Islam in today’s world with a common commitment to civilised norms. This vision was spelled out in Maria Rosa Menocal’s The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (2002) and reinforced by David Levering Lewis’s God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 (2008). But it has deep roots. Edward Gibbon, in his famous 18th-century history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, wrote in glowing terms of the 10th-century Umayyad caliphate in Spain as a beacon of enlightenment, learning and urban living, at a time when Europe was plunged in bigotry, ignorance and poverty. As someone who has long taken this vision for granted, it came as a considerable shock to me to discover that the conventional wisdom is quite unfounded. In The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, Fernandez-Morera systematically refutes the beguiling fable. The picture he draws is starkly different from the conventional one, troubling in what it reveals and compelling in its arguments. If we are to satisfactorily resolve current disputes about Islamophobia and the future of Islam as a world religion, this book is required reading. International reviewers have greeted it as a desperately needed corrective to delusion and propaganda. That will invite pushback from those who either remain committed to the myth or believe it is too important a beacon to allow it to be extinguished. However, Fernandez-Morera argues trenchantly that we must shake off the sense of the superiority of Islam to medieval European culture. He makes the point, for example, that, given Islam’s antipathy to graphic art and music, had Europe been Islamised in the 8th century, we would never have had Gregorian chant, orchestral music or opera. No Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Verdi. No Caravaggio, Michelangelo or Titian. Ponder that, at least as a thought experiment. He shows that the Muslim invaders of Spain in the 8th century did not arrive as a higher civilisation conquering Visigothic barbarians. They arrived as barbarians intruding on a strongly Romanised, Catholic and materially sophisticated culture. As other scholarship has shown, the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries were barbarian invaders every bit as much as the Germans or Bulgars in Europe. They plundered, enslaved and sacked from the Middle East across North Africa and eastwards to Central Asia and India. As the great Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun would put it in the 14th century, war in the name of religion was integral to Islam. Secondly, Fernandez-Morera argues that Islam was not the vehicle through which classical Greek learning was preserved, as is so often claimed. It was chiefly Constantinople that archived and protected the patrimony of Greek antiquity, philosophical, medical and mathematical. The Arabs acquired all this through Greek Christian scholars translating the classics for them. Greeks from the east and Christians in the west later revived such learning for themselves. Meanwhile, the rise of Islam had disrupted the flow of trade and ideas between the Greek east and the Latin west, thus harming rather than fertilising European civilisation.

pt 1

pt 2....


Quote:

Even these background theses will strike many readers as controversial, but they are only the beginning. The real thrust of Fernandez-Morera’s critique of the myth of Andalusia is that Islam in Spain, far from setting a high bar of tolerance, was characterised by plunder, domination, the harsh application of sharia law, the persecution of Christians or Jews who openly avowed their non-Muslim beliefs, and the violent suppression of ‘‘heresies’’ and apostasy within the Muslim community. He also points out that the Christian and Jewish communities tended towards dogmatism, enclosure against the other religions and the fierce persecution of both heretics and apostates. Andalusia has been extolled as a convivencia, he remarks, but in reality it was what he dubs a precaria co-existencia between the three monotheistic religions that eventually dis­integrated. Chapter four, The Myth of Umayyad Tolerance: Inquisitions, Beheadings, Impalings and Crucifixions, and chapter five, Women in Islamic Spain: Female Circumcision, Stoning, Veils and Sexual Slavery, reveal what has been airbrushed from history. The Moroccan Muslim feminist Fatema Mernissi and others have laboured to argue that the sexual slaves in Andalusian harems were somehow ‘‘free’’ women. Fernandez-Morera draws attention to the considerably greater freedom of women in Christian Spain, by contrast, in terms of everyday outdoor work and access to political power. The myth of Andalusia has been based on neglect of primary sources and selective adulation of worldly Muslim rulers, as if they were representative of the clerical ulema and Muslim masses. In fact, as Fernandez-Morera shows, both mullahs and masses tended to bigotry and anti-Semitism. There were anti-Semitic pogroms every bit as violent and irrational as those in Christian Europe. And many Christians were expelled from Muslim Spain. Among the many shocks to my settled beliefs in reading this book was learning of the atrocities committed, publicly and privately, by Muslim rulers I had long seen as models of enlightened despotism, notably Abd al-Rahman I (731-788) and his descendant two centuries later Abd al-Rahman III. Both committed abhorrent deeds of torture and murder. Far more shocking is Fernandez-Morera’s documentation of the harsh sharia law in Spain under the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, something endorsed even by the celebrated 12th-century philosopher from Cordoba, Averroes (Ibn Rushd). It was neither pluralist nor ‘‘secular’’. It offers no model at all for what we might want or do now in civil society. I learned things reading this book that I wish were not true, but the documentation is voluminous and compelling. There are occasional errors of fact and some surprising omissions — no discussion, for example, of the great library of Cordoba or of its other public amenities in the 10 century — but the overall impact is profound. His book will surely run into hostility, but Fernandez-Morera is a formidable scholar. The classic works of Patricia Crone or John Wansbrough on the origins of Islam are the best comparison with what Fernandez-Morera has achieved. They demonstrated that the Koran as a canonical text dates from long after the traditional death of Mohammed and the hadiths (sayings attributed to Mohammed) were overwhelmingly just made up by storytellers long after he was gone. In Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Crone argued that the traditional story of Mecca as a great spice-trading centre where Mohammed founded Islam from whole cloth (‘‘revelations’’) does not stand up to scrutiny. The actual history of early Islam and the traditional religious ­account of it diverge radically. Yet this extraordinary finding has never sunk in. It is, understandably, resisted strenuously by Muslim believers and an academic establishment that makes a living out of writing about that traditional story. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam and books like it are vital works. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise is one of these books. Rather than accepting conventional or politically correct views about either Islamic Spain or the rise of Islam ‘‘in the full light of history’’, read these probing works of historical scholarship. We do need the ‘‘cultural secularism’’ that Menocal and others think they can point to in Muslim Andalusia. We do need to find a way for those who still adhere to the old religions to live in reasonable harmony. We should want a tolerant, cosmopolitan order here and abroad. What we cannot do any longer is take Muslim rule in Spain as our model for accomplishing that laudable goal. We need to invent something new. There is no Andalusian golden age to emulate.

Nice...  innit ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Inexplicably, it shut them up.

;D

As always, there's two sides to every story...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/moorish-dreams/article/2002568

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 11:52am:

As always, there's two sides to every story... http://www.weeklystandard.com/moorish-dreams/article/2002568

What side is this? I do not see any refutation of Fernández-Morera's arguments.

Schwartz is like Brian, tut-tutting about 'tone' and approach, not any of the facts One of his gripes is that he had never heard these arguments before ("the novelty of others [arguments]- as if his own ignorance was an argument.

That the Visigoths  - or anyone else - were not perfect simply doesn't excuse or justify the fantastically huge claims Muslims like you make for Islam, whether in Spain or in the Golden Age or indeed today ("religion of peace").

yep, didn't notice any refutation either.

Well, THAT shut them up.

;D


Islam IS violent when it its creed is challenged. And it is violent because Mohammed was violent when he was challenged.

Muslims are trapped by Mohammed. Or rather, they accept Mohammed's entrapment of their minds.